Talk:Muslim conquest of the Levant

hello

I added the fact that prior to the Battle of Yarmuk, the Arabs abandoned Jerusalem and Damascus. It was only after Yarmuk, that they occupied it for the last time until 1099 when the crusaders took it.

let's remove the Zionism

the name "Palestine" predates 70 AD. Can someone remove the Zionist propaganda that "Romans named the area Palestine in a spasm of antisemitism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:3603:4408:7453:359D:1D85:27EE (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Christian views on the invasions?

This article seems to rely quite heavily on Islamicist views and Arab sources, I'd like to include a section regarding Christian views of the invasion from Syriac sources to balance it out —Preceding--Mondo Libero (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article is written entirely from the Muslim perspective, and using Muslim sources.

There are a series of Byzantine and Armenian sources available however : these should be used, but it constitutes a very important effort.

Also, they would stand out in what is, right now, a coherent rendition of the classical Muslim historiography (Baladhuri, Wakidi, Tabari etc) which has only one problem: being written about 150 years after the event, and being rich in details which are, most likely, imaginary.Giordaano (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

if any one can add stuff from armenian and byzantine source then its great ...

i my self have read some of the pieces from an armenian source written during 634, and amazingly it mentioned the same date for battle of yarmouk as mentioned by other tabari who compiled his work 159 years later ! even the sive of byzantine army was same.

Any ways, i would like to add some thing which is, that most of the historians and readers around the world actually do a common mistake when doing assesment of muslim sources, they apparaently think that they were written after 150 years of the actual events (like that of mecedonian sources for alexander the great). Actually they were compiled after 150 years of the events. They were present in the form of written narrations in the official and military manuals of governments and educational institutes. Arabs had two ways for remembering their history even from pre islamic times, the oral and written. actually the oral way of transmitting the narration was based on the written documents.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that Alexander's military expedition has swaths of archeological evidence that supports (or disapproves) the historical accounts. The problem lies with the volumes and volumes of extremely detailed writings that appeared in last quarter of the 8th century after the Abbasid rebellion, all from Central Asia. You can make a strong argument that most of what we have in terms of sources is Abbasid revisionist literature/propaganda. 2601:249:8200:71A0:7971:DF16:16D8:3D4F (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That is totally not true. There is not archaeological evidence to support alexanders campaigns (not saying that they are untrue). But to this day, we cannot even pinpoint the exact location of any of his battles with remains of battles. So i dont know what "swathes" of archaeologival evidence you are talking abaout. There is obviously coinage, busts of alexander and a few inscriptions, most of which were made after his death. So you end up with the exact same situation as in the arab-islamic conquest of the levant - we can only rely on historical, written sources as you cannot prove with the little archeological evidence there is the narrative as presented by Arrian, diodorus Siculus and the likes.

You can point to archeological evidence of a greek colony founded in afghanistan in the 3rd century bc. You can also point to numerous arab-islamic colonies founded in the 7th centuries in the middle east, north africa, south asia etc. that has nothing to do with the veracity of the historical accounts. All surviving sources for alexander the great were written more than a century after his death, and they are extremely detailed aswell, so you can use the exact same arguments for the reliability for that as you can for the abbassid era historians who wrote about the islamic conquests 80.208.69.76 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Has any effort been made towards showing the Christian POV of this invasion ? The only info we have now is from the Muslim pov [ick, as far as non bias goes]. 107.222.205.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

New article

i am adding a new article which have more facts then the present one, it certainly gonna need check for grammer and spelling etc etc. Mohammad Adil (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Errors

I have corrected this false sentence:

• Persians under Khosrau II had succeeded in occupying Syria, Palestine and Egypt for over a decade before being forced by the victories of Heraclius by recapturing Jerusalem in 614 and winning at Chalcedon in 617 to conclude the peace of 628.

The encyclopedia brittanica, cited as source for this sentence, claims:

In 623 the Byzantine emperor Heraclius reversed Persian successes over Roman arms — namely, by capturing Jerusalem in 614 and winning at Chalcedon in 617.

According to me, Brittanica claims that Persians captured Jerusalem in 614 and won at Chalcedon in 617. The author of wikipedia article has mistaken the sense of the sentence, writing that Heraclius reconquered Syria in 614 and won the Persians at Chalcedon.

Gibbon confirms what I say:

His conquest of Syria, A.D. 611. he passed the Euphrates, occupied the Syrian cities, Hierapolis, Chalcis, and Berrhaea or Aleppo, and soon encompassed the walls of Antioch with his irresistible arms. The rapid tide of success discloses the decay of the empire, the incapacity of Phocas, and the disaffection of his subjects; and Chosroes provided a decent apology for their submission or revolt, by an impostor, who attended his camp as the son of Maurice (58) and the lawful heir of the monarchy.

of Palestine, A.D. 614..

The first intelligence from the East which Heraclius received, (59) was that of the loss of Antioch; but the aged metropolis, so often overturned by earthquakes, and pillaged by the enemy, could supply but a small and languid stream of treasure and blood. The Persians were equally successful, and more fortunate, in the sack of Caesarea, the capital of Cappadocia; and as they advanced beyond the ramparts of the frontier, the boundary of ancient war, they found a less obstinate resistance and a more plentiful harvest. The pleasant vale of Damascus has been adorned in every age with a royal city: her obscure felicity has hitherto escaped the historian of the Roman empire: but Chosroes reposed his troops in the paradise of Damascus before he ascended the hills of Libanus, or invaded the cities of the Phoenician coast. The conquest of Jerusalem, (60) which had been meditated by Nushirvan, was achieved by the zeal and avarice of his grandson; the ruin of the proudest monument of Christianity was vehemently urged by the intolerant spirit of the Magi; and he could enlist for this holy warfare with an army of six-and- twenty thousand Jews, whose furious bigotry might compensate, in some degree, for the want of valour and discipline. After the reduction of Galilee, and the region beyond the Jordan, whose resistance appears to have delayed the fate of the capital, Jerusalem itself was taken by assault. The sepulchre of Christ, and the stately churches of Helena and Constantine, were consumed, or at least damaged, by the flames; the devout offerings of three hundred years were rifled in one sacrilegious day; the Patriarch Zachariah, and the true cross, were transported into Persia; and the massacre of ninety thousand Christians is imputed to the Jews and Arabs, who swelled the disorder of the Persian march. The fugitives of Palestine were entertained at Alexandria by the charity of John the Archbishop, who is distinguished among a crowd of saints by the epithet of almsgiver: (61) and the revenues of the church, with a treasure of three hundred thousand pounds, were restored to the true proprietors, the poor of every country and every denomination. of Egypt, A.D. 616.But Egypt itself, the only province which had been exempt, since the time of Diocletian, from foreign and domestic war, was again subdued by the successors of Cyrus. Pelusium, the key of that impervious country, was surprised by the cavalry of the Persians: they passed, with impunity, the innumerable channels of the Delta, and explored the long valley of the Nile, from the pyramids of Memphis to the confines of Aethiopia. Alexandria might have been relieved by a naval force, but the archbishop and the praefect embarked for Cyprus; and Chosroes entered the second city of the empire, which still preserved a wealthy remnant of industry and commerce. His western trophy was erected, not on the walls of Carthage, (62) but in the neighbourhood of Tripoli; the Greek colonies of Cyrene were finally extirpated; and the conqueror, treading in the footsteps of Alexander, returned in triumph through the sands of the Libyan desert. of Asia Minor, A.D. 616 etc. In the same campaign, another army advanced from the Euphrates to the Thracian Bosphorus; Chalcedon surrendered after a long siege, and a Persian camp was maintained above ten years in the presence of Constantinople. The sea-coast of Pontus, the city of Ancyra, and the Isle of Rhodes, are enumerated among the last conquests of the great king; and if Chosroes had possessed any maritime power, his boundless ambition would have spread slavery and desolation over the provinces of Europe.

Source: [1]

An italian user--89.97.102.196 (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edited the entire article

I have copy-edited the entire article. There are bound to be more mistakes hidden in the text. So, feel free to copy-edit. Wereldburger758 (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus against — æk^Talk 06:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

---

{{movereq}}

Muslim conquest of Syria → Rashidun conquest of Syria — It was not "muslim conquests", they were conquests under the Rashidun caliphate. Recently, consensus has agreed to this term, see the recent change from Muslim conquest of Persia to Rashidun conquest of Persia. warrior4321 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Arab conquest of Armenia → Rashidun conquest of Armenia
• Muslim conquest of Egypt → Rashidun conquest of Egypt

• Very strongly oppose Rashidun is not idiomatic, and is tendentious; our article titles are not intended to ratify anyone's view of the contending sides, but to be what English calls the subject of the article. While we're about it, move back to Muslim conquest of Persia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in moving it to rashidun conquest, as muslim may refer to any muslim empire and at first thought reader may think which muslims ???? the answer must be clear i.e Rashidun Caliphate.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Septenrionalis on both counts. ÷seresin 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I oppose for the reason that Rashidun doesn't mean a thing to most readers while Muslim on the other hand does ring a bell. That is important for non-muslim readers. Wereldburger758 (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Rashidun is likely more academically correct, in that it adds an appropriate time dimension to the name, but common usage (WP:COMMONNAME) is the current format. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Byzantine" Syria

The section "Byzantine Syria" seems contradictory. History buffs know that it is discussing Roman Syria, but the article does not make this clear.

I would suggest renaming the section "Roman/Byzantine Syria" to properly reflect that at the start of the period discussed, no one refers to the rulers as "Byzantine" (and indeed, they never called themselves that even at the end). Famartin (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Personally, I find the idea of a "Roman/Byzantine Syria" title a bit ugly, so I would simply call it "Roman Syria"; after all, many Byzantinists consider the Arab and Sassanian invasions the key moment to distinguish "Roman" and "Byzantine". Thus I've worked around to try to avoid confusion.Aldux (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Muslim conquest of the Levant/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This page is poorly written and contains factual errors. It requires considerable work.

Substituted at 02:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Muslim conquest of the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514104544/http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-29907 to http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-29907
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410125136/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/index2.html to https://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/index2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410125136/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/index2.html to https://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/index2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050721060321/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove quote

I believe we should remove this quote because it has poor support outside of a single book. "His parting words which he repeated to each of the corps commanders, were as follows: In your march be not hard on yourself or your army. Be not harsh with your men or your officers, whom you should consult in all matters. Be just and abjure evil and tyranny, for no nation which is unjust prospers or achieves victory over its enemies. When you meet the enemy turn not your back on him; for whoever turns his back, except to manoeuvre for battle or to regroup, earns the wrath of Allah. His abode shall be hell, and what a terrible place it is! And when you have won a victory over your enemies, don't kill women or children or the aged and do not slaughter beasts except for eating. And break not the pacts which you make. You will come upon a people who live like hermits in monasteries, believing that they have given up all for God. Let them be and destroy not their monasteries. And you will meet other people who are partisans of Satan and worshippers of the Cross, who shave the centre of their heads so that you can see the scalp. Assail them with your swords until they submit to Islam or pay the Jizya. I entrust you to the care of Allah." 2601:602:9B00:6770:B0A6:9DD0:B92A:B918 (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Palaestina Prima

So, the province of Byzantium in question was known as Palaestina Prima. It was not known as Palestine, nor Israel. If you read an article about the ancient Roman Empire, it refers to Gaul, not France and Germanica, not Germany. It is crucial to use the correct historical nomenclature.199.119.233.221 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Source your information or it will continue to get reverted. akidfrombethany!(_talk|^contribs) 02:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Read the source carefully. Think with your brain before reverting. https://dbpedia.org/page/Palaestina_Prima199.119.233.221 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack me. In the revisions, [2], you did not link this article anywhere and I wanted to direct you towards the correct path. I apologize if my comments came off as insensitive, maybe you could add a blurb about how it wasn't called Palestine yet. akidfrombethany!(_talk|^contribs) 02:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)