Talk:Arab conquest of Egypt/Archive 1

Egyptian attitudes to conquest
I have given a more balanced treatment of Egyptian attitudes to the Islamic conquest, referencing this to Bishop John of Nikiu's chronicle. Eagleswings 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Monophysitism
The description of monophysitism in the introduction is wrong. Someone should change it. --Kupirijo 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias
This article accuses the Copts of being Monophysite, which they refuse. It states many other contention points as facts. Major re-write is due.(Mike Morgan 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC))-

Requested move
Muslim conquest of Egypt → Arab conquest of Egypt-This is a more accurate description, since all other articles about invasions or conquests employ the ethnic background of the invader rather than their religion (see for instance French Invasion of Egypt (1798)) --Bomba999 (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Posted from WP:RM


 * Oppose The armies that conquered Egypt weren't defined by their Arab-ness, they were defined by their common religion; it was for the purpose of extending Islam, not acquiring more land for the Arabs. Moreover, it was an Islamic state that was doing the conquering, not an Arab state. It's entirely correct to have the current title. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree Many of the people who accompanied the Arab armies were not Muslims, such as Senotius (known in Egyptian as Shenouda) who commanded the Arab fleet that invaded Lybia and Pentapolis (the 5 Western Cities). He was a practicing Christian, according to John of Nikiu. --Bomba999 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It was muslims (including Arabs, Romans, Persians and etc) who invaded Egypt, and not only Arabs. --Wayiran (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any sources saying that Muslim Romans and Persians also invaded Egypt! What are you basing your claim on? --Bomba999 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Islamic invasion of Persia was between 633 to 656. But Islamic invasion of Egypt was between 641 to 654. From 633, those Persians who turned to Islam, became a part of Islamic world, and surely contributed in the future Islamic invasions. As I am Iranian, I knew only about the Persians, but I guess the same kind of the thing is valid for Romance too. Besides this, even before the Islamic invasion of Iran/Persia, all Muslims weren't Arab. Those Jews who turned to Islam and some Persians, like "Salman, the Persian", all were non-Arabs. Prophet Muhammad (puh) once has said: "Arabs are from me, but I'm not from Arabs." ! --Wayiran (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose These were Muslim conquests not Arab conquests. The Arabs themselves had been conquered by the Muslims (e.g. the Ridda wars). HD86 (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per all those who opposed, especially HD86. These were Muslim conquests not Arab ones. A prime example would be the Muslim conquest of Syria. In those battles, the Christian Ghassanid Arabs fought along the Byzantines against the Muslims, while in some cities like Gaza or Hims, the hefty Arab populations there aided in the capitulation of the cities. Also, the Rashidun army was filled with black African former slaves. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The new article
i have composed a new and more comprehensive article of the Muslim conquest of Egypt. please help this new article with your kind edits, it must need help in spelling, grammar and style etc .... regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

the new article and edits....
some serious changes have been made the new article with out discussing them here...... some of the changes are as follow.

first of all there has been a dispute about whether calling the invading armies as Muslim armies or Arab Muslim armies, i suggest a more appropriate term the Rashidun army. As it was the army of Rashidun Caliphate, it was ethnically mixed, had Muslim Persian soldiers, Muslim Greek soldiers, Muslim black African etc etc.. but with official language Arabic. Any ways the next point is why the following sentences have been removed ....????

This should not be deleted, as this was the only sole reason of Caliph Umar's visit to Syria in 639.
 * which was severely effected by the death of several note able governors and military commander, most importantly the supreme governor of Syria Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah


 * Invading Egypt, an easy target due to religious unrest and Byzantines inability to concentrate sizeable troops after loosing bulk of its trained manpower at Yarmouk and northern Syria, more over Byzantines had already lost their resourceful province of Levant and their hub for man power, Armenia, so their was less chances of any relentless resistance and massive troop movements by Byzantines.

This paragraph is important actually very important, as it tells why Umar, though having strong non-offensive policy, agreed to sent troops to Egypt to capture it, when he already had rejected Amr's argument of claiming Egypt to be the Richest land on earth by simply saying "life of my soldiers is dearer to me then a million Dinar".

i am adding back above two paragraphs. more over there is some confused headings..... like ..


 * Requisition of Pelusium and the fall of the fortress of Bilbeis

, historically the conquest of Pelusium and Bilbeis wasn't so important to be mentioned in "heading" in any article. They were just the border town with no or very few Byzantine troops and were naturally an easy hunt for Invading Muslims. As they were very first cities to fell, on the fringes of Roman Egypt, with almost no strategic importance ( as main Byzantine defense line started from Babylon and Memphis region ) so i had mentioned then under the heading Muslim invasion of Egypt. I am putting it back under that heading because of above mentioned reasons. moreover, the details of the operation against these cities are out of the scope of this article, as it deals with Muslim conquest of Egypt, their details should be mention in new article namely Siege of Bilbeis and Siege of Pelusium.

well, was it really a invasion ? or it was a conquest ? hmm... let me define invasion and conquest separately. Invasion invasion is an attempt to conquer Conquest whereas conquest is the process of taking control of a place or people by force of arms.
 * Invasion of Alexandria

as Alexandria, was captured by Muslims, and byzantines were kick off the city, the heading should be... Conquest of Alexandria. because though, initially it was obviously an attempt to conquer, but it was conquer after all.

so thats all from my side, comments and suggestions on it are welcome and anticipated. Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have introduced some new headings. hope it will be fine with them. Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New article?
I have been spending a lot of time translating books from Arabic, Coptic and Greek about chronicles of the Arab invasion of Egypt. All my statements are referenced. I will be glad to discuss anything here on the talk page, and I am open to reaching any compromise if needed. But I will not tolerate mass deletions from the article. Thanks. --Lanternix (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mass deletion ? by the way i had added the useful knowledge that you provided about battle of heliopolis and raids on fayom to the article but i found it "reverted" !

any ways explain your point of view regarding the above points that i have given. It not all about giving a reference but what actually means, is that a "military" article should sound like a military article not a chronicle.i appreciate your efforts but still cant understand that with out discussing how can you revert pre-existing article ? and morte importantly the map ! Here you can check my experience in writing military articles and creating maps etc. waiting for your reply. regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, here is what I suggest: let's take the objections point by point and try to resolve them. My first objection is that this is not a military article. It's part of Wikipedia's series on the history of Egypt, which makes it a historical article. In this case, chronicles and dates are important. Also, I'm not sure which map you're referring to, and in which context. Thanks. --Lanternix (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1st of All it is very well a military article, as it is included in Muslim conquest, Rashidun Caliphate, Caliph Umar, Rashidun army and have following catagories ...Category:Islamic conquests and Category:Wars involving Arab Egypt. Yes it is also a part of Egyptian history but let make it more clear ...its military history.


 * secondly I am not against the details regarding dates, its essential, but what makes me upset is the unnecessary details regarding any perticlar battle, like i mention above that a new article by the name Siege of Bilbeis and Siege of Pelusium should be made to put those details in it. The details regarding the capturing heliopolis are already mentioned in the article of the battle of heliopolis.

there is much more to discuss but First i need to get your views over the above mentioned 3 points. regrads. Mohammad Adil (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More over there is a dispute, or i would say a BIG dispute over the headings. They should be more "comprehensive", its better to give a more "deep" heading that may cover a vast material then giving small heading like e.g first raid on fayoum. It just look like an answer sheet of history exam with several heading .... !


 * Ok, let me try to address your above objections:
 * 1. I agree it's military history for the most part. There are also important sections about religious and ethnic disputes, which do not exactly fall under "military". I think we both agree that dates and chronicles are important then.
 * 2. The details you believe is unnecessary I find to be very crucial. It's important to address how the country was invaded, as it sheds lots of details on the country's history at that point in time. If there's a topic that needs extensive addressing, such as the invasion of Alexandria for instance, I agree with you that we can have a separate article for it. But we still need to somehow address it in this article with a paragraph of two, then just add a link to the more comprehensive page.
 * 3. I find the separate headings to be better because it makes the article more organized. But I am willing to see what you suggest. This is a purely technical matter, and if we end up disagreeing, we can ask for other people's opinions.
 * Best regards. --Lanternix (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Things are getting mess up, i will work in my sandbox to present my version of the article that will include the info that you have contributed to the article. This will include the headings the way i suggest, then we can discuss and edit it with out messing up the current article. As for headings, then i totally disagree with you, seperate headings are good but they must be comprehensive.... check these feature articles for further guide, you seem to be new in writing military articles, these will surely help you a lot


 * Muslim conquest of Persia
 * Muslim conquest of Syria
 * Umayyad conquest of North Africa
 * Umayyad invasion of Hispania
 * Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent

More over there is also a bit confusion about reinforcement sent by caliph and dates of the events. You apprantly following the Butler's muslim invasion of egypt, sorry to say but its quit out dated, though it was first ever book written on Muslim invasion of egypt but cant fulfill wikipedi's relaible source stature. I have followed A.I.Akram's Muslim Conquest of Egypt and North Africa, ISBN 978-0195977127 This is the well known book written on the muslim conquest, the author not only searched well but also personally visited the battle fields, he was a lieutenant General of Pakistan army and a military instructor in command and staff college, a well known military college in asia. He have described the invasion in a much more "military" manner with various colorful details. regarding the matter of following which source for the article, we can also have a third opinion from a moderator if you want to. Any ways tomorrow inshallah i will compose my revised version in my sandbox, and will give you a link. Also i will let you know the dates over which butler and Akram contradicts, i hope we can find a way out of this dispute. take care. Mohammad Adil (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this is not a military article. This is a historical article, which at the best contains military history. I am certainly not new to writing historical texts.
 * I will wait to read about the dates disagreements you mentioned.
 * Butler's Arab invasion of Egypt is certainly not outdated. It continues to be taught in American, German and Egyptian history departments as one of the most comprehensive books about the 7th century Arab invasion of Egypt. Where did you read that it's outdated? In addition to Butler's, I'm also reading John of Nikiu (first hand witness of the events), Al-Maqrizi, and other Egyptian historians, as well as manuscripts written in Greek and Coptic. As for A.I. Akram, I never heard about him before. I will certainly reject any of his accounts if they disagree with the accredited sources mentioned above. The fact that he's a military commander in Pakistan, or that he visited Egypt, does not bestow any credits to his work if it is in opposition with the sources mentioned above.
 * In any case, I will wait for your version and we can discuss further later on. Best regards. --Lanternix (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go, thats what i suggest


 * In this article the disputed section was the section after Rise of Caliphate

i hope you will understand it.
 * Here the bold letters indicate your stuff, mean thats you contributed to the article, while the italic letters indicate what i contributed. the normal letters in the heading Rashidun army crossing the Egyptian border indicate what was common between both of us versions.


 * I have made Muslim arab as Rashidun army for more detail read my explaination in the above heading of this discussion fourm.


 * More over there were some sentenses that you deleted, also check the expalination about significance of those sentenses in the above heading.


 * i have made the heading requisition of peluisim and requisition of beblies'' a single heading by the name 'Fall of Pelusium and Belbeis, its better to cover these non significant events in a single heading then giving them seperate headings, as these were just a border town and were far away from byzantine defense lines and no resistance were offered by romans in these towns so strategically these were non important towns.


 * there is a new heading Siege of Babylon, you version didn't even touched the story of babylon, the town that showed a fierce resistance to muslims and only seconded by alexanderia. In sub heading of siege of baylon i have made the heading Reinforcement from madinah as it was during this siege that reinforcement arrived so in chronological order its more appropriate to put the reinforcement section under the heading siege of babylon.


 * Battle of haliopolis was fought after reinforcement arrived, so i have put this heading under the heading of reinforcement from madinah.


 * Occupation of Fayoum and Babylon  now thats the final heading, going with chronological order fayoum surrender after battle of haliopolis, and babylon was captured after it so i have made it a single heading describing an event thats was interrelated.

to confirm this you can also check other articles of wikipedia.
 * and keep in mind to make an article look like an encyclopediac article, heading ought to be comprehensive, or it may look like an essay or any thing written by an amateur or like an answer sheet of history exam !


 * I think this version should be accepted, because it includes the contribution of mine and your's. More over for the future contributions in the wikipedia you should keep in mind that the rules of editing are thats you should not delete the contribution of the previous user and should show some respect to the hard work of other users.


 * Any ways apart from all what we discussed above, i now expect a bit flexible attitude from your side, stubborn cant go with wikipedia, sooner or later they are usually blocked, i personally have blocked various users who mess up all thing, and i will never want a useful user like you who cant contribute a a great deal of knowledge to get in any problem or issues. you may know it if you have read the policies of wkipedia from the link thats i gave to you.

Regards, and once again an appreciation from my side for the material that you have contributed. and yes one more thing, make sure you dont have copied it from butler's book directly or it will have copy right issues, (like my article of Battle of Qadisiyyah had to face in past) if you have copied it then modify it in your own words. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm sorry for my absence lately. I had an emergency for the last couple of days. I took a quick glance at your changes and I think they look good. I will take a closer look as soon as I can, and I will let you know when I make further changes. Thanks again. --Lanternix (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Muslim conquest of Syria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've made some changes, mainly in usage, punctuation, and additional links, to the first third or so of the article (up to the Rashidun Army's entering Egypt and taking that first town). My goal is as little information loss as possible, since I'm not knowledgeable of the area. I am, however, tweaking what I can't help but think of as "epic war vocabulary" so as to remove unnecessary mythologizing. If anything seems amiss, point it out. Vaaarr (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words, bias and unencyclopedic
Just a few things i noticed while briefly reading over this page XantheTerra (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "held in fee" mean on line one under the heading Byzantine Egypt?
 * Why is there content under the prologue heading
 * What are the usual terms mentioned in the last line of the section Rashidun army crossing the Egyptian border?
 * Please quote what you are talking about. The article has changed substantially. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)