Khaled ibn al Waleed ra - the greatest commander in the history of the world who led over 100 battles and list none of them, definitely studied the tactics & strategies of the world's 2nd best commander of all time - Hannibal of the Barca clan because anytime 1 of KBW's divisions was in a dire state and about to be over run, he would send a mounted unit that always seemingly came out of nowhere and was always in the perfect place at the perfect time to cut them down from behind or from the wing just like Hannibal did!! The same Hannibal that fought that same evil, cruel Roman empire! The biggest difference is that the Muslim Arabs eventually brought down the majority of the empire, taking away all its power & influence with the Muslim Turks pounding in the final nails of the coffin with the conquering and liberation of Constantinople!! The zio/west/greek history books leave out the part where the people of the former lands of the byzantines welcomed the Muslim Arabs and Turks as liberators and not as invaders since life was much better for them under the Muslims even though they were orthodox Christians!
@@OmaroftheOrientthe Arabs where not poor they where regional powers under Roman and sassanid vassalship the Arabs where always an regional or mercenary power in the middle east region from. Time immemorial
You want a beautiful story, the story of the leader of the Muslim army of Granada, “Ibrahim Al-Attar,” who fought with only 100 knights to defend the city of Locha, an army to fight a large army numbered in the thousands, and he fought for half a day until he was martyred while defending his city. His statue in Andalusia was made by the Spanish as a testimony to his heroism.
Subhaana'Allah brother what a beautiful episode, it tasted like honey to my heart and it had made my soul uplift like a bird being uplifted by the wind with it's wings wide spread for flight. How much I desire to be part of the future conquests that will come in the future. I ask Allah to grant me Shahadah for His sake so I desire to come back to be martyred again for His sake.
Read up on how the Turks were treated under Vlad the Impaler of Transilvania and you’ll get a good picture of how Europeans will treat Muslim invaders. You wouldn’t want that to happen now would you?
Mashaallah brother. Thank you for so much interesting islamic content , it teaches the modern ummah about all the fights we fought for this religion . And educates us and fills us wirh pride. And teaches us about the history of the islamic empires ❤. Jazakallah. Your explanations are very clear and concise .
it wasnt a fight about religion..what are u talking about ..ottoman empire was just turkish fighting for money,land and power...this is opposite of Islam..what are u talking about....May Allah guide u
Astaghfirullah saying that it was a fight for Allah or religion,..Nationalism and countries has nothing to do with Islam..we are muslims and we dont care about nations...we are slaves of Allah and Islam has no connection with no country...Astaghfirullah!!!!especially ottomans and turkish people that was always extremely racists and nationalists....
Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) prediction: "Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will he be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!"
@@potassium3550 What are you talking about? Mehmed II conquered Constantinopole in 1453. So, the prophecy is fulfilled as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stated.
@@DesiRockMetal There are some particular conditions to the prophecy other than just conquering Constantinople; if you read the full Hadith, you'll see what I mean. بارك الله فيكم
@@DesiRockMetal The Hadith prophecising the conquest of Constantinople mentions it in the context of the end of times, the dajjal is to emerge shortly after, and even the conquest itself is miraculous as they will conquer it without weapons, but only by saying لا الله الا الله والله اكبر
There is a book I strongly recommend for everyone to read. It's named "Khalid Ibn Al Walid" the sword of Allah. Its author is a former general of Pakistani army named Agha Ali Akram. It is obligatory for a Pakistani soldier to read this book due to it containing strategy and tactics Khalid used against Byzantines , Sassanian Persians and Arab Apostates. It reflects the great Conquest of Arab Muslims with you utmost Praise of it. Using mostly Classical Islamic sources but at the same time allot of modern sources as well!😊
@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 Nope, it doesnt speak about Khalid betraying Muslims, or doing Zina to a women. But it does speak that in one of the battles, there were Muslim tradesmen who were with the Persian army were killed but it was by accident done by Khalid and his army.
@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 As for Malik ibn Nuwayrah, he was not a muslim due to him not recognizing Prophet Muhammed as a prophet. Even Abu Bakr said that Khalid did the right thing As for his killing of the captive warriors of Banu Jazima, this was Khalids mistake, consider the fact that he converted only months ago and was pretty much still had some Jahiliyyah with him. He did it out of emotions because the same tribe killed his Uncle! But the Prophet pardoned Khalid in the end, And Khalid realized his mistake (Which you did not explain it)
Alright guys we shouldn't defend this act of khalid bin walid even prophet himself condemned him....even though prophet later forgave him dose not mean what he did wasn't wrong....Yes it was mistake but wrong is wrong and forgiveness doesn't make wrong right
@@mhmadbedrddeen3414 I don't know if it's happened or either prophet forgave him but I do know he was active for a long time but was forced to retire I think
Video I have been waiting for thanks for making these types of videos I have request Can you please make video history of cheraman masjid in india the first masjid
@@OmaroftheOrient inshallah, I’m looking forward to it. If you have any English language resources on the matter I would greatly appreciate if you posted them with the video in the future. Jazakallah
Your numbers for Yarmouk are wrong. Modern historians believe that there were at least 60k romans vs 40k or less arabs. 150k in the 600s is literally impossible, the Eastern Roman Empire under Maurice ( in 600 ) had a total of 150k in the whole empire, Italy, the balkans, Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, from Egypt to Morocco and south of Spain to the defend, it's literally impossible that they had 150k in one battle, they were also getting invaded in the balkans. But it's a good video. Just don't fall for the bias of Muslim chronicles because they often exaggerate numbers in order to glorify their side.
Khalid ibn al walid one of the greatest warrior and army commander of the time even today his strategies are read.... That's why he was given the title of " Sword of Allah SWT " Allah hu Akbar
8:24 yeah don't include us Amazigh man. We fought against the Ummayads when they invaded North Africa and later revolted against them during the great Berber revolt. Many didn't the join the Ummayads out of free will but were given to the Ummayads as a source of Jiyza(Tariq ibn Ziyad included). In 739 all Berbers already had defected from the Ummayads.
Zdrastvujte -Serbian DNA is 49% Turkish, 25% Slavik and the rest Gypsie, They took Bosnian language and started to call it Serbski language. From south Slavic nations the oldest book vocabulary is Vocabulary of Bosnian language written in 1600. The oldest saved document in south Slavic people is written by Bosnian king/ban Kulin on 1189 and now that document is in Saint Petersburg, Russia , in Russian hands !. Dobra sreca rodu from Bosnjak/Bosnian !
Brother, thanks for the great video. However, the term conquest isn't the right one to describe what the muslims did. Islam liberated, it didn't conquer these lands. The Christians living in those lands were facing heavy oppression because of "hereticism".
Correction . Empires. Don't forget the Romans and then bazantine . And they let everyone practice their own religion and they prosperd for those people. Not subjugation and colonialism and suck the place dry and leave them in famine..........❤
Byzantines left before Arab Conquests because they had treated Christian Semitic Nestorians, Ebionites, and other semitic nazrethean monotheist sects in lower manners, so they were urged to leave because cultural differences between semites and hellenites. Even Copts supported Arab Conquests to end Roman Oppression and Marginalization to them. Arabs agreed with Byzantines to not confront each other and coexist because they recognized Anatolia as Byzantine Territory. After Turkish Arrival, it became complicated and the Abbassid Revolt.
The best book on Islamic history is got to be "lost Islamic history" by firas al khatib. As it is up to date with modern archaeological findings and the classical books like Tarik ibn kasir is not.
And when Hazrat Umar conquered Jerusalem the Christians wanted the Jewish people do not live or visit their Holy sites but Hazrat Umar said they cannot live here or settle in this land but are allowed to visit their Holy sites the Christians were the ones to write this in the contract that the Jewish people not allowed to live or settle in this land and Hazrat Umar agreed to it and then said that the Jewish people are allowed to visit the holy site that is why Sultan Abdul Hamid kept the promise of Hazrat Umar and whoever goes against the contract of Hazrat Umar and let's the Jewish people live here and accepts two state solution is going against the prophet and that means you are going against Allah and let's assume if he is if that doesn't make him a nonbeliever that makes him a big sinner so when Inshallah Jerusalem and sham already taken and Muslim habit the Jewish people are not allowed to live or settle in this land but are allowed to visit the holy sites as for the contract of Hazrat Umar V Muslims can only accept one state solution
i dont know why u mix things my friend..u are doing a serious ,mistake here...turkish conquered the byzantine empire..not muslims..it just happens turkish to be muslims...it was turkish people that actually oppose islam bcz they were making wars for power,money and land...thats not Islam..u are doing a serious mistake here...and i am muslim ...
Turks are muslims, so therefore Muslims conquered the byzantines. what you wrote makes no sense. Islam does not allow for nationalism to takle place. we are all muslims first then our ethnicity.
