Military conquests of Umar's era

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Part of a series on:

Umar

–The Sunni Rashidun Caliph

Views:

This box: view • talk • edit

Umar was the second Sunni Caliph and reigned during 634 to 644. This article details the military conquests of Umar's era.

Contents

[edit] History

During Umar's reign, the Islamic empire grew at an unprecedented rate, taking Mesopotamia and parts of Persia from the Sāsānids (effectively ending that empire), and taking Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa and Armenia from the Byzantines. Many of these conquests followed watershed battles on both the western and eastern fronts. The Battle of Yarmūk, fought near Damascus in 636, saw a Muslim army of 40,000 defeat a Byzantine force estimated to number 160,000, permanently ending Byzantine rule south of Asia Minor. Another small Muslim army achieved victory over a larger force in the much-mythologized Battle of al-Qādisiyyah of circa 636 CE, near the banks of the Euphrates River. During the course of the battle, Muslim general Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās routed the Sāsānian army and achieved the death of the famed Persian general Rostam Farrokhzād[citation needed].

In 637, after a prolonged siege of Jerusalem, the Muslims took the city. `Umar was given the key to the city by the Greek Orthodox patriarch, Sophronius, and invited to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar chose to pray some distance from the Church, so as not to endanger its status as a Christian temple. Fifty-five years later, the Mosque of `Umar was constructed on the site where he prayed[citation needed].

For one version of `Umar's speech to the people after the surrender of Jerusalem, see [2].

Umar's caliphate is notable for its many conquests. His generals conquered Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kirman, Seistan, Khurasan, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Egypt, and incorporated them into the empire of the Muslims. All of these were permanent conquests. The Romans lost Syria, Palestine and Egypt for ever; and in Persia, the Sassani empire ceased to exist [1]..

[edit] 634

Umar assumed power through the covenant of Abu Bakr in the sixth Islamic month (Jumada al-thani) of the year 13 AH (634–635) [2]. He was appointed on the day that Abu Bakr died which was Tuesday eight days before the end of the month. He undertook the command most fully [3].

The Muslim armies were fighting against the Persians in Iraq and the Romans in Syria when Umar took charge. Khalid ibn al-Walid, the favorite general of Abu Bakr, commanded the armies in Syria. Umar's first act as Caliph was to dismiss him from all his commands, and to appoint Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah as the supreme commander of those forces [1].

[edit] 635

In the year 14 A.H., Damascus was conquered partly both by treaty and force, and Homs (ancient Emessa) and Baalbek by treaty, and Basrah and Ubullah by force [2].

'In that year 'Umar united people in one jama'ah in salat at-tarawih (the optional prayers said at night in Ramadan),' said al-'Askari in Al-Awa'il (Firsts) [2].

[edit] 636

In the year 15 A.H., all of Jordan was conquered by force except for Tiberias which was by treaty. In this year were the battles of Yarmuk and Qadisiyyah. Ibn Jarir said: In it Sa'd founded Kufa, and 'Umar instituted regular wages (for the fighting men), registers, and gave allowances according to priority.[2]

[edit] 637

In the year 16 A.H., Ahwaz and Mada'in were conquered, and in the latter Sa'd established the jumu'ah in the great hall of Khosrau, and this was the first jumu'ah to be held in Iraq. That was in the month of Safar. In it, was the battle of Jalula in which Yezdajird the son of Khosrau was defeated and he retreated back to Rai. In it, Takrit was taken, 'Umar travelled and took Al-Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and gave his famous khutbah in al-Jabiyyah. Kinnasrin, Aleppo, and Antioch were taken by force, Manbij by treaty, and Saruj by force. In that year, Qirqisiya' was taken by treaty. In Rabi' al-Awwal, dating was begun from the Hijrah on the advice of 'Ali.[2]

[edit] 638

In the year 17 AH, 'Umar increased the size of the Prophet's Mosque. In it there was drought and famine in the Hijaz and it was called the Year of Destruction, and 'Umar prayed for rain for people by means of al-'Abbas [2].

[edit] 639

In the year 18 A.H., Jundaysabur was taken by treaty, and Hulwan by force. In it, was the plague of Emaus; Urfa (Edessa) and Sumaysat were taken by force; Harran, Nasibin and a part of Mesopotamia by force, and it has been said, by treaty; and Mosul and its environs by force.[2]

[edit] 640

In the year 19 A.H., Cæsarea was taken by force [2].

[edit] 641

In the year 20 A.H., Egypt was conquered by force. It is also said that all of Egypt was taken by treaty except for Alexandria which was taken by force. 'Ali ibn Rabah said, 'The whole of the Maghrib (north-western Africa) was taken by force.' In that year Tustar was taken, Caesar (Heraclius), the great man of the Byzantines, died. In it also, 'Umar expelled the Jews from Khaybar and Najran, and he apportioned Khaybar and Wadi'l-Qurra' (between those who had been present there at the original battles of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace).[2]

[edit] 642

In the year 21 A.H., Alexandria was taken by force, and Nahawand, after which the Persians could not muster an army, and Barqah and other places. [2]

[edit] 643

In the year 22 A.H., Azerbaijan was taken by force, and it has been said, by treaty, and Dinaur by force, Masabdhan and Hamadan by force, and Tripoli of North Africa, Rai, 'Askar and Qumas. [2]

[edit] 644

In the end of23 AH was Umar assassinated after his return from the Hajj [2]

[edit] Views

[edit] Sunni view

Please help improve this article by expanding this section.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. Please remove this message once the section has been expanded.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.

[edit] Shi'a view

Husain Mohammad Jafri, a 20th century Shi'a Islamic scholar writes:

“ Ali's serious disagreements with the policies of 'Umar in both political and religious matters will be discussed below in connection with the selection of 'Uthman. Here it may be pointed out in passing that during the most active and eventful ten years of 'Umar's caliphate, in which the most spectacular conquests of Persian and Byzantine provinces took place and in which all the prominent Companions of the Prophet took active part, 'Ali remained uninvolved. Nor did 'Ali hold any office under 'Umar, as had been the case under Abu Bakr and would continue later under 'Uthman. The only exception was his being in charge of Medina during 'Umar's journey to Palestine, when he took with him all the other leading Companions of the Prophet and military commanders to approve regulations of the conquest and the Diwan. 'Ali alone was absent from the historic surrender of Jerusalem and Syria. 'Umar is reported to have strictly prevented the Banu Hashim from going out of Medina [4]. ”

Ali Asgher Razwy, a 20th century Shi'a Twelver Islamic scholar states:

“ Shibli says that Umar had, for a long time, nursed a secret hatred of Khalid because of the latter's excesses. Umar had indeed dismissed Khalid because of his excesses but it appears that personal rancor was also at work. He was jealous of Khalid's fame and popularity. If he disliked Khalid's transgressions, he ought to have formally indicted him, and should have ordered full investigation of his crimes in murdering Malik ibn Nuweira and in appropriating his widow. If Khalid had been proven guilty, then Umar ought to have passed sentence on him according to the Islamic law. But there was no indictment and no investigation. Khalid was summarily dismissed and he died in poverty and obscurity in 21 AH [1]. ”
“ It is true that religion was the factor that propelled the Muslims out of Arabia; but once it had done so, it did not play any significant role in the conquests that followed. Its role was catalytic in the eruption of the Arabs. If religion and piety were the cause of the success of the Muslims in their campaigns, then how would one explain the success of the nations which were not Muslim? Some of those nations were the enemies of Islam yet they were, at one time, triumphant on a scale that matched, and sometimes surpassed, the conquests of the Muslims.

The conquests of the Arabs were astounding in their vastness but they were not, by any means, unique [1].

 ”

Ali Asgher Razwy spents a large section on analyzing other empires, and pointing out they were in some times not religious, and some times had an anti-Islamic religion:

Date in CE Empire Comment
3rd century BC Alexander the Great of Greece Macedonia conquered, within ten years, all the lands from the Balkan peninsula to the frontiers of China, and from Libya to the Punjab in India... polytheist... His conquests were not inspired by any religion ... If he had not died at 32, he would have conquered the rest of the world.
Roman and Byzantine Empire built one of the greatest and most powerful empires of history, and one that lasted longer than any other empire before or since...worshippers of idols, though the Eastern Roman Empire was converted to Christianity in early fifth century A.D
13th century Genghiz Khan of the Mongols shook the whole earth... most dangerous enemies that Islam ever met...Asia was at their feet...within an ace of blotting out Islam ... conquests were more rapid and on an even grander scale than the conquests of the Arabs. Within fifty years, they had conquered all of China, all of Russia, all of Central and Western Asia, and had penetrated into Europe as far as Hungary. While the Muslims in their career of conquest, were defeated at Tours in the West, and at Constantinople in the East, the Mongols were consistently victorious everywhere. They retreated from Central Europe only because of the death, in distant Karakorum, of their Great Khan...not have any religion at all... Certainly not religious zeal and piety.
16th century Spanish Conquistadores A mere handful...conquered the whole new world... laid two continents at the feet of the king of Spain. It is true that they were inspired by religious zeal even though they did not have much piety – but it was Catholic zeal. Their zeal was not so much unIslamic as it was anti-Islamic. Just before discovering and conquering the Americas, they had defeated the Muslims of Granada in 1492, had expelled them from Spain, and had obliterated every vestige of Islamic culture from the Iberian peninsula.
17th century Dutch ...expelled the Spaniards from the Netherlands... girdled the earth, conquering, colonizing and building...good merchants...factories in India, and they founded colonies in North and South America, and in South Afric...one of the most successful in the history of settlement and colonization in the whole world...empire-builders too...conquered the East Indies...held it for 350 years...the Dutch were so few in number...remarkable record of achievement for such a small nation. Centuries before the dawn of their greatness, the Dutch had been devout Christians but it was only in the 17th century that their dizzying and dazzling rise began.
19th century British Empire ...an empire...over which the sun never set...in North America...half of the continent; in Africa...Alexandria in the north to Cape Town in the south; and in South Asia, they conquered from Kabul to Rangoon. They colonized Australia and New Zealand...Pax Britannia ...one-fourth of the earth..In the 18th century...35,000 men in arms, and 7,500 out of them ... pacifying Ireland...commercial empire...no nation on earth could challenge them on land or on sea...cultural hegemony...English language over most of the world...not because of their piety and religious zeal...tepidly interested in religion..not conquer an inch ..for ...Christ or the Bible...only for ...the British Empire...Britain, France and the Netherlands held the world in an iron grip for nearly two centuries. Muslim states everywhere were at the feet of these powers.
20th century Zionist State of Israel ...birth of...Israel...following day...five Arab states invaded Israel..intention of "pushing Israel into the sea."..could not...Israel defeated them all...had to retreat...1956...1967...Israel defeated the Arabs...captured much territory...including Old Jerusalem...Masjid-ul-Aqsa...caught fire...arson. All Muslims ...inflamed at this outrage. The shock waves ...remotest corners of the Muslim world, the two ends of which are 10,000 miles apart...Muslim nations held a conference...all they did, was pass resolutions...insolent Israel dared and defied the vast...Muslim world...lacked the grit and the gumption to take up the challenge...1973...Egypt attacked Israel on Yom Kippur...Jews were caught off-guard...immediately struck back...surrounded the whole Egyptian Third Army!...American pressure on Israel that saved the Egypt...Egypt claimed ..."victory"...United Nations and the United States...had rescued them from disaster....1982...Lebanon...Arab world sat gazing in silent despair – a truly helpless giant if ever there was any...Arabs...economic power...outnumbered Israelis by more than 50 to 1...the paradox of the combination of wealth and powerlessness; material abundance and moral bankruptcy; strategic importance and humiliation...Jordan....enjoying their "independence" only by the "courtesy" of Israel.

}

“ Thus it appears that religion, any religion, pagan, animistic, Christian or Islamic, had little, if anything, to do with the military conquests of a nation.

A recurring phenomenon in world history is that at any given time, any one nation, is supreme, militarily, politically, and in many cases, also intellectually. At that moment or in that epoch, it is irresistible and invincible.

The hundred years from 632 to 732 were the century of the Arabs. They were supreme, they were triumphant, they were irresistible and they were invincible – in that century. Islam united them and gave them a sense of direction, purpose and propulsive power. Without Islam, their future would have been just as irrelevant and barren as their past had been. But there is no correlation between their conquests on the one hand, and piety and religious enthusiasm on the other.[1].

 ”

[edit] Non-Muslim view

Joel Carmichael, a 21st century Non-Muslim Islamic scholar

“ The predominant incentives that drove the Bedouin out of the peninsula were bodily hunger and greed, natural consequences of the straitened circumstances there and of the endless opportunities for enrichment offered by the cultivated societies they overran. Thus, though there were doubtless also men who "killed for the sake of the hereafter," the masses of tribesmen surely "killed for earthly lust."

The otherworldly aspects of Mohammed's preaching were completely eclipsed during the conquests by the incredible booty that could be won: thus a Qurayshite notable, who was considered so pious that he was one of the ten men to whom Mohammed could give his personal word during their lifetime that they would get into paradise because of their zeal for Islam, left behind an estate whose net worth seems to have been between 35 and 52 million dirhems; he had eleven houses in Medina alone, as well as others in Basra, Kufa, Fustat and Alexandria. Another of these ten pious men personally promised paradise by Mohammed owned real property in the amount of 30 million dirhems; on his death his steward had over two million dirhems in cash.

Once this process is seen in perspective, it becomes clear how remarkably obtuse is the old, traditional conception of the Arab expansion as being a pietist movement aroused by Mohammed's personal religious zeal.

...there seems to be no doubt that the last thing the Muslim Arabs were thinking of was converting anyone. More particularly, the pietism that was to become the hallmark of later Islam, at least in certain of its manifestations, was utterly alien to the initial Arab conquerors.

It has been pointed out, the driving force behind the Muslim Arab conquests was not religious in the least, but a migratory impulse rooted in the millennial condition of the Arabian peninsula. Men like Khalid and Amr (bin Aas), for instance, were obviously no pietists or mystics; their interests were thoroughly practical.

The switching over of the Meccan aristocracy to the side of the Muslims is a telling illustration of the swift and irresistible injection of purely secular elements into the earliest enterprises of the Umma, which though formulated on the basis of religion, was articulated on the basis of politics. [5].

 ”

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d e A Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims on Al-Islam.org [1]
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l History of the Caliphs by Suyuti
  3. ^ History of the Caliphs by Suyuti, quoting Az-Zuhri
  4. ^ The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam p.58-079, referencing cf. Vaglieri, E12 article "`Ali"
  5. ^ History of the Caliphs by Suyuti, quoting The Shaping of the Arabs, New York, 1967
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Military_conquests_of_Umar%27s_era_2d59.html"