Circumstances and Reasons for the Campaigns led by Hazrat Umar (ra)
Allama Shibli Nomani was a biographer who has written on the life and character of Hazrat Umar (ra). Whilst mentioning the circumstances and reasons for the campaigns led by Hazrat Umar (ra), he writes:
“Any historian would wonder how a handful of desert dwellers managed to overthrow the Persian and Byzantine empires. Was this an exceptional event in the history of the world? And what were the circumstances surrounding it? Can these events be likened to the conquests of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan? How much influence did the guidance of Khilafat have in what was accomplished?
“I wish to answer these questions at this time, but prior to this, it is necessary to summarise the magnitude and breadth of the Farooqi conquests [conquests of Hazrat Umar Farooq (ra)].
“The total area of the land conquered by Hazrat Umar (ra) amounted to 2,251,030 square miles; extending 1,036 miles to the north of Mecca, 1,087 miles to the east and 483 miles to the south. These are the results of the conquests of Hazrat Umar (ra) alone, which span a period of just over 10 years. This brief historical background just mentioned is necessary to understand these conquests.
“Nonetheless, I will mention the thoughts of European historians about these conquests. For the answer to the first question, European historians say that both the Persian and Byzantine empires had already begun to decline and were past the pinnacle of what they had already achieved. As the law of nature dictates, they were bound to fall.”
Allama Shibli Nomani further states:
“After the rule of Khosrow II, the system of governance in Persia fell apart because there was no one competent enough to lead. High ranking officials and members of the government began to conspire, due to which there was a continuous change in leadership. In a span of three to four years, the throne changed hands between six to seven different rulers.
“Another reason [for the success of Hazrat Umar (ra)], as presented by European historians, is that before the rule of King Nausherwan, the Mazdakite sect, which was inclined towards atheism and disbelief, was exerting great influence. Their ideology was that all hearts should be purged of selfishness and other animosities and all possessions, in which they included women, should be considered as mutual property – all for the sake of purifying religion.” In other words, there was no respect and regard given to women.
“This was the viewpoint of this faction. And for some, this was a collective scheme aimed at reforming and purifying the Zoroastrian faith. King Nausherwan did manage to suppress this rising faction by the use of the sword but was unable to eliminate it.
“When the Muslims came to conquer Persia, this sect considered the Muslims as their supporters because the Muslims did not interfere with any religion.” This is the viewpoint of European historians.
He further writes:
“Among the Christians [Byzantines], there was the Nestorian sect which had trouble finding refuge under any other ruling government. They too took refuge under Muslim rule from the cruelty of their opposition. As a result, the Muslims effortlessly gained the cooperation and understanding of two large sects. Byzantine rule was already withering and there were many internal disputes among the Christians in those days. Because their system of governance was heavily influenced by religion, those internal disputes did not only affect religious ideology, but also weakened the empire.”
Refuting these views held by the European historians, Allama Shibli Nomani writes:
“Although the answers offered by European historians are not completely devoid of truth, it is an attempt to paper over the cracks – which is a distinct trait of the European writers.
“Undoubtedly, the Persian and Byzantine empires had fallen from the peak of their power, but that simply meant that they would not be able to withstand the opposition of a powerful and forceful nation. It did not at all mean that they would crumble against the unorganised and ill-equipped Arabs.
“The Byzantines and Persians were experts in the art of war. Many books written on the art of war in Greece, which are still present today, were under practice for a long time among the Byzantines. Their provisions were abundant, their equipment was superfluous, their weapons for war had great variety, the sheer size of their army would not lessen in number – and most of all – they did not have to cross any borders to fight, but had to stay in their homeland, in their own forts and trenches and defend their nation.
“Just prior to the Muslim occupation and during the rule of Khosrow Parvez [Khosrow II], Iran was at the zenith of its glory. At that time, Caesar attacked and conquered swathes of land with every attack, ultimately penetrating all the way to Isfahan (Ispahan). The regions of Syria conquered by the Persians were taken back and governance was given new order and organisation.
“It is commonly acknowledged that the Persian Empire held great power until the reign of Khosrow Parvez. There are only three to four years that separate the death of Khosrow Parvez and the Muslim invasion. How is it possible for such an old and powerful nation to become so weak in such a short amount of time?
“Naturally, there would be some disruption in organisation due to the frequent change in leadership; however, because there was no decrease in the treasury, military and revenue sectors, when Yazdegerd came into power, he was able to restore the empire to its former glory along with the help of those officials who desired reform. The Mazdakite sect was present in Iran at that time, but there is no historical record of any aid received from them at all”, i.e. the Muslims did not receive any help from them.
“Likewise, there was no help received from the Nestorian sect either. The Nestorian sect of Christianity believed that Jesus (as) embodied both human and divine nature separately. European historians themselves have not indicated the impact that religious differences in Christianity had on any occurrences [related to this].
“Now, examine the condition of the Arabs in contrast to this. The Muslim forces that were fighting in Egypt, Iran and in the wars against the Byzantines never totalled 100,000. They were so unfamiliar with the art of war that Yarmouk was the first battlefield where the Arabs lined their forces using the tabi‘a formation. Tabi‘a was a battle formation in which the commander-in-chief or king leading the army would be in the centre of all of his forces. This is known as the tabi‘a formation. The essential equipment necessary for each Persian soldier to wear in combat included a helmet, chainmail, chilta (iron or steel garments), Joshan or plated armour (a type of armour), baktar (set of four iron or steel plates worn on the chest, back and thighs), steel gauntlets, a metal visor (a face covering or visor made out of metal rings, attached to the helmet) and footwear.
“In comparison, the Arabs only dressed in armour, most of which was made out of leather. The opposition had all their protective equipment made from metal, while whatever little the Arabs did possess was made of leather. Even their saddle stirrups were made of wood as opposed to metal.
“From among the weapons used in warfare, the Arabs were completely unaware of a ‘gurz’ or ‘kamand’.”
Gurz is the name of a weapon which is round from the top and has a handle at the bottom. It is used to strike the heads of the enemy. Kamand is a lasso or a net or a noose.
“The Arabs used arrows, but they were so small and inferior that during the Battle of Qadisiyyah, when the Iranians saw the arrows of the Arabs for the first time, they thought they were a large needle or a spindle.”
Then explaining the actual reasons, the Allama Sahib [Shibli Nomani] writes:
“In my view, the real answer to this question is that in those days, owing to the blessings of the Holy Prophet (sa) the Muslims had developed a sense of passion, resolve, determination, spirit and courage, which Hazrat Umar (ra) further strengthened and sharpened. It reached such a level that even at the peak of their power, the Byzantine and Persian empires could not contend with them.
“However, there are additional factors which did not aid in the conquests, but assisted in establishing the government. The primary factor is the truthfulness and honesty of the Muslims. Whichever place was conquered by the Muslims, the people were so impressed by the honesty and truthfulness of the Muslims that despite the difference in religion, they did not want the Muslim rule to end. Prior to the Battle of Yarmouk, when the Muslims retreated from the provinces of Syria, the Christian population cried out, ‘May God bring you back to these lands’. The Jews grabbed hold of the Torah and stated, ‘Whilst we are alive, the Caesar can never rule here.’
“The Byzantine rule in the Levant and Egypt was oppressive. For this reason, when the Byzantine faced the Muslims, they did so on the basis of the strength of their army and state, their subjects were not with them. When the Muslims crushed the power of the state, the road ahead was clear and there was nothing stopping them”, i.e. there was no opposition from the Byzantine subjects.
“The condition of Persia was somewhat different, however. Beneath the King, there were powerful governors who ruled over large regions and provinces. They did not fight for their empire; rather, they would fight for their own rule. This was the reason that despite defeating the throne of the empire, the Muslims faced obstacles at each step in Persia. But the general population there also became greatly influenced by the Muslims and after conquering the lands, they would assist greatly in establishing the government.
“Another great factor was that the Muslims first invaded Syria and Iraq, and both regions contained a large population of Arabs. In Syria, the governor of Damascus was the Ghassanids, they were loosely under the rule of Caesar. In actuality, the ruling family in Iraq were the Lakhmi tribe, but they would pay land tax to the Chosroes. Although these Arabs had become Christians and initially opposed the Muslims, the bond of being the same nation is something that cannot be ignored. The prominent chiefs of Iraq quickly became Muslim and after accepting Islam, they became the support and aid of the Muslims. In Syria, the Arabs eventually accepted Islam and freed themselves of Byzantine occupation.