Talk:Battle of al-Qadisiyyah

comments
Amir85 copied the text from. It is going to have to be completely rewritten. Amir, please STOP your copyvios. You are making extra work for everyone else. Zora 12:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

i have rewritten the whole page, actually including more information in the process. it is under the 'temporary' link. dgl


 * Good work! I wonder ... can we just replace the copyvio text with it NOW, or do we have to wait and give other editors a chance to comment? Zora 17:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * oh ... i thought you were the one who put the violation notice there. cant you remove it? i dont know about how any regulations work ... dgl


 * I just wondering if Amir85 is going to show up to defend his text. Yes, I put the copyvio up. I'll see about taking it down and replacing the text. If I can figure out how . Zora 20:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, the notice says I have to leave it up for a week and then an admin will move the temp page to the regular page. Fair enough. Gives Amir85 time to react. Heck, if I'd known that you'd be so quick off the mark, I wouldn't have put up the copyvio tag. Sorry. Zora 21:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK. well i went ahead and actually continued to add material -- the modern section.


 * by the way, zora, you may want to check out this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Iran the summary of al-Qadisiyyah is identical to the one that you just flagged. in other words, it's another copyright violation. you may want to make note of it. dgl

additions to qādisiyyah page
besides the summary of the traditional account, i have added a lot of information on the modern uses of the Battle ... al-Qādisiyyah is a topic on which i have done (and certainly continue to do) a lot of research and i always welcome new information. if you have other examples that you've found, please share them! i greatly appreciate your help. 18:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The fabricated story of Gadesiyyeh
The enemies also want to count Gadesiyyeh as a place of defeat for the Iranians and hit several targets with the same arrow; first of all say that Iranians are several different nations and very weak and vulnerable and secondly claim that they easy turn against each other, are treasonous and beatable etc and thirdly say that Islam entered Iran not through culture but by force, wars and blood and many such claims. About Gadesiyyeh it is said that "Rustam came forward.....and resided between Hira and Silhein for four months without taking any action against the Muslims.....Moshrekan (the Iranians) numbered around one hundred and twenty thousand and had thirty big elephants and flags.....the Muslims numbered between nine to ten thousand...." (Blazi- Futuh Al Baladan). Therefore the Iranian army was much better equipped than that of the Arabs and it also outnumbered them. Considering the possibilities of the time, the weapons could not have been but swords, spears and bows and arrows. Two armies that fight against each other with such weapons must stand close to each other, one cannot fight from a distance using swords and spears. The only available weapon which could be used from a distance remains as the bow and arrow. The best archer with the best bow and arrow of the time could have thrown the arrow no longer a distance than 40 or 50 meters and if the enemy's body is to be pierced this distance needs to be reduced. Before this war they prepare the ground and say that the situation of religion and morality in Iran was weak at the time and the Sassanid were also weak. I refrain from repeating such lies as they are easily accessible to anyone.

One example of such lies; Abu Rajah Farsi quoting his father who in turn quoted his father as saying "I took part in the battle of Gadesiyyeh and at the time I was a fire worshipper. As the Arabs threw arrows at us we would say arrows! arrows! Those arrows would continue to land on us and we were finished off. Sometimes one of the men would throw an arrow from his bow and it would land on someone's clothes and do nothing but sometimes one of their arrows would pierce the heavy double layered shield of our men (Blazi- Futuh Al Baladan). In this story the unreal account of events is evident; one should not take such nonsense as history, think and analyse then investigate. How is it possible for an army of ten thousand men or an unreal figure like that destroy an army of one hundred and twenty thousand? Let us assume that the ten thousand men or a similar number of the nomads mentioned or in any case ten thousand Arab fighters line up on a straight horizontal line and each man occupies half a meter on ground, this line would have a length of between 5 to10, 000 meters. The Iranian army on the other hand with 120,000 men whichever way they line up against the enemy, would be impossible to beat using arrows and bows knowing the effective distance for an arrow. Even if the Iranian army arrange themselves in 10 lines of 12,000 men with a distance of one meter between two rows, the distance created would make it impossible for the Arab army to be victorious. Whatever other line up would have the same consequence. It is simply impossible for the Arabs to have resisted for long against Rustam's men. If we suppose that after a period of throwing arrows the two sides eventually enter a fight against each other man against man, the only possible weapons would be swords, clubs, axes or spears and the battle is inevitably man against man, who could imagine that each Arab beating 12 better equipped Iranians?! Please think a little, you can and you must throw away the enemy's lies.

Armies and Wars throughout history

According to research done by fake scientists, one of the reasons for the victory of the Arabs over the Iranians was their lightweight and rapid speed of action. This justification is radically wrong. Even if we accept this hypothesis, an Arab runner must overcome 12 men of the Iranian army who are standing against him, considering the human abilities even if this Arab runner were a champion runner he would be exhausted before reaching the last line. What has left over as history cannot be but an amalgam of stories full of bragging and a justification of divine destiny in the mind of its editor. One should doubt the truth in such stories and try and decipher the real history from such tales by scientific and analytical investigations, something that has not yet attracted anyone's attention. Anush Raavid invites you to be vigilant and review history and social history and uncover the lies of the enemies.

The liars say that Rustam Farahzad was not interested in fighting! Why? Why did Rustam camped against the Arabs for three months and refused to fight? Camping for three to four months in the desert necessitates being in constant touch with the capital. An army of 120,000 men must be constantly provided for, food, water and psychologically. Therefore a sane mind tells us that the sooner the war starts the better and Rustam can't not have known this. However, the stories tell us that he hesitates to start the war and has no hope for victory, why? Lies, lies and more lies. The reason for such act does not become apparent to us unless we doubt the figures and the tales told. In the stories of this war and for Ctesiphon like in the fabrication of Alexander of Macedonia where they called Persia a treasure in order to glorify their lies, they fabricated lies too.

The lies they have written about the war: on the first day the Arab horses escaped from the elephants that were keeping them leash. It appeared that the victory was to be of the Iranians but later when a group of archers attacked the elephants, the mounted men from the Arab army escaped danger and set back the Iranians. They write simply and for simple people who lived prior to the 21st century, not knowing that the people of this century analyses events and do not simply accept whatever they are told. On the second day the auxiliary army of Syria entered the scene. A man to man battle pursued between the heroes of the two armies. On the third day again the elephants entered the battle but the head of the auxiliary forces that had come from Damascus blinded the eye of a huge white elephant with spear. Another man did the same with a second elephant. Eventually the elephants returned causing mayhem in the Iranian army. The moral of the Arab army was raised when more forces arrived from Syria and overnight they had better moral than the Iranians. Dear friends, the stage designing of the battle is very simplistic and comical and was written for the people of the past centuries. There is no real explanation and description of events and it is all too clear that reality lays elsewhere. Two commanders of the Muslim army separately attacked the Iranians at night and the battle continued throughout the night. They call this night "Lile Al Harir" because as they have written there were sounds like howling of foxes and dogs filling the air from the injured. On the fourth day, i.e. on the last day of war the Arab army rattled the heart of the Iranian army. At this point a strong wind began to blow and threw a lot of sand over the head and eyes of the Iranians but the Arabs whose backs were to the direction of the wind escaped untouched. Rustam Farahzad was standing next to Derafsh Kaviani and was leading the Iranian army. In this mayhem one of the Arabs threw Rustam's baggage over him and injured the commander. He threw himself into a small stream in order to save himself but an Arab went after him in the water and killed him. This event frightened the Iranian men so much that they threw themselves into the water by the thousands and were drowned. The victory achieved by the Arabs in this battle severely dented the morale in the Iranians. The lying storytellers, in order to finish their tale seek assistance in the wind. The writer is not aware that at that time of the month there were no winds and there is no wind due to the position of the moon so they appeal to the hidden hand and tell their lies in whatever way they can in order to finish the result their way. They want to conclude that Islam was forced onto the Iranians who were weak and cowards and the Arabs are blood thirsty enemies of the Iranians.

If we assume that Iran had internal problems and was in a chaotic situation and that the Sassanid court did not take the Arabs seriously, it seems improbable that in a situation like this a gathering of a 120,000 man army by Rustam would have been deemed necessary. In any case there would have been no need to fight rebellious Arabs with such a force. It is all too clear that the Iranians never used to take the Arabs seriously but it has been written that Yazegerd insisted that Rustam went into war and Rustam's biggest worry was the chaotic situation of the Madain and that the Arabs were of little concern of Rustams.

This story cannot be true because prior to the lie of Gadesiyyeh the Iranians according to the same lying historians lost a hundred thousand men on another fictitious war?!(the battle of Buyeb).

The continuation of the lies that the liars have copied from one another: after Khosrow Parviz the Sassanid court becomes gripped with mayhem and the kings do no last long. In the cities rivalry worsens the chaos to a point where there is war between the army of Rustam and that of the Firuzan. In the meantime the Arabs have invaded the border areas of Savad (today's Iraq) and taken the people to the capital Madain also known as Ctesiphon. In Ctesiphon no one takes the Arabs seriously. The Sassanid capital does not even have a king. The elders warn Rustam, "the Persians tell Rustam and the Firuzan who were the chief of the people of Fars said: what are you doing? Your differences have weakened the Persians and the enemy has its eye on them. Your respect is not so that the Persians accept the status quo for long, you are destroying the Persians, after Bagdad, Sabat and Tekrit it will be Madain's turn, unite yourself before the enemy.....( quoted from the book Tabari History, before I have written about the lies of this book)

In their lies they have written; the Sassanid government was rotten, corrupt, all the Iranians were against each other, Madain was close to the Arabs, and the king was no good, and hundreds of such stupid reasons for their lies without the slightest of reasoning or analysis and without presenting single evidence, whereas at the time the socio-cultural evolution of the Greater Iranian society was taking its natural course. We should analyse events scientifically and with the possibilities that the 21st century provides us.

If we accept the rottenness of the society as some believe it to be true, then the quote from Tabari must be a lie because a rotten and corrupt society cannot be corrected rapidly and solely by the coming to power of one person. In this quote from Tabari, there is a very important point and that is" the tribal head were competing against each other in obeying and assisting him", this shows that rivalry that existed to the point of animosity before has continued and now shows itself to be close to the "young king". In these circumstances, gathering of 120,000 men does not look likely and if it were it would be difficult to keep them in a desert for four months and after all neither Rustam nor other commanders took the Arabs that seriously.

If we add up the number of the fallen, according to Tabari or others, from the invasion of the Arabs until the complete conquest of Iran, I am certain that we would come to an astronomical figure which considering the smallness of the population at the time seems unrealistic. Before the battle of Gadesiyyeh there were other skirmishes one of which was called the battle of Buyeb between the army of Mehran the Iranian commander and Masni Ibn Harse, the Arab commander. "Those who have seen it estimate that there were the skeletons of one hundred thousand men" (the lying Tabari). In these histories, figures given are in my opinion none right; they simply quote from written or oral history that they receive without editing any.

The same exaggerated figures are given about Heraclius and the Roman army in the" Syrian war" and every few months Heraclius would loose one, two or three hundred thousand men in the fight against the Arabs. In many cases astronomic figures are seen, figures such as "one thousand, thousand, thousand" (a billion) or larger figures which are all exaggerated especially when we consider that these stories are narrated by the Arabs and they could not count larger than a thousand especially in multiples of 10 or 100, amongst them there were few who could read and write. In which day and month did the lie of Gadesiyyeh take place and how was the weather at the time?

There is much to be said and more are the limitations, decide for yourself like an intelligent person and do not believe whatever you read or hear, analyse thoughtfully and scientifically not like Saddam Hussein who took Gadesiyyeh seriously and was destroyed.

Due to the sensitivity of Gadesiyyeh in history, much can be written but I shall tell you one and you deduct the rest for yourself.

In order to gather one thousand men in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the Lawrence of Arabia had a hard time and it was deemed impossible because all the Arab tribes had animosity against each other and all they knew was to kill each other for no reason. For their unity there was no hidden hand involved and it was not due to their awareness either, it happened only by the agents of the British at the beginning of the 20th century, by creating an atmosphere and mentality that was necessary for colonization. additions to qādisiyyah page — Preceding unsigned comment added by SassanidCataphract (talk • contribs) 04:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

numbers
Who was stupid enough to think someone would believe those numbers? [remarked on 21:28, 13 February 2007 by 84.68.113.198 (Talk) ]

those who keep changing and playing with the numbers miss entirely the point of the article which is to say that such details are widely disputed and have been largely exaggerated over time. there is NO scholarly agreement on the size of the forces or the date of the battle! 89.138.185.159 08:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alleged "Traditional Muslim View"
Suppose the section was the "Traditional" Muslim view, why isn't one Muslim source even referenced? This leads one to infer that those who advocate leaving this particular section desire to do so only to obfuscate historic matters. Secondly, the so called "Traditional" Muslim view have been corroborated by western historians who have documented generally similar sentiment about the battle. Therefore, the title of the heading should be changed to the "Battle" and not to "Traditional" Muslim view.Scythian1 05:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Troops deployment
This is a ridiculous phrase put by an equally ridiculous contributor: "These sources are highly exaggerated and are unreliable as far as the size of Sassanid Persian army is concern." Besides the improper English (it should be "concerned" instead of "concern"), any objective article worth reading should never use such biased language. This paragraph should display the numbers as approximated by the other side (Persian, Western) instead of referencing Muslim sources disparagingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apocalogy (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Two Western Sources, continously deleted by Behmod
Behmod, please stop deleting the sources which specify the number of troops involved in the battle. Thank You. Scythian1 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor informative atricle
I have just read this first paragraph of this article which says
 * Already in the last years of the life of Muhammad, organized raids began attacking the Sassanid and the Byzantine frontiers (because of their constant threat to attack Arabs in Medina). Although these expeditions slowed during the consolidation of the Arabian peninsula under the first Caliph Abū Bakr (the Riddah wars), the latter's successor `Umar ibn al-Khattāb turned his attention northwards, initiating the Arab Muslim conquests. After a number of small successes and setbacks, `Umar decided to send the very capable general Khālid ibn al-Walīd to the campaign in Syria, and replace him with the famed Companion, Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās, an important member of the Quraysh tribe, and under his command Umar sent a large Arab force into Iraq, then part of the Sassanid Empire.

i dont know how much other mistakes the article may have i am thinking to replace it's parts which deal with the actual war by new article Mohammad Adil 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * what the hell full of error !, Which muslim army raided sassanid persian land during Prophet Mohammad(pbuh)'s era ???
 * No expeditions were sent before ridda wars to invade syria or iraq, it was after ridda war that Abu Bakr 1st sent expedition to Iraq then to Syria, yes the small force of Usama ibn Zaid was sent but it was to take revenge of his father's death i.e adopted son of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).
 * it says Umar gave attention to the expnsion ??why this unjustice ??? it was Abu Bakr who sent the forces to invade Iraq and Syria and Abu Bake sent Khalid ibn Walid not Umar !, it was abu kabr who transfored khalid to syrian front and his successor was Misna ibn Haria not Saad ibn abi waqas as the article says ! and Before saad an other general Abu Ubaid saqfi was there as a commander in chief.

unknowledgeable edits
i think it's very sad that an article, which once conformed to a high standard of academic quality has been reduced to a page of mythology, which contradicts scholarship of the battle dating back to the 7th century itself! anyone who thinks that they know the details of the battle down to the number of archers on the persian side should examine the early arabic accounts of the battle, as well as historiography of early conquest narratives... the journey of this article is indicative of the problems that wikipedia faces and the reason that fewer and fewer educated individuals contribute. cheers. 89.138.178.1 (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mass deletion of references is not a suitable way to note your displeasure! This could be construed as a "lazy" solution, and the deletion rendered some of the inline citations meaningless.  If there are inaccuracies, please dig into the article and repair them!  Kindest regards,  AlphaEta  15:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree with what you say, AlphaEta, there are only four sources listed on the page currently. From what, exactly, is the account of the meeting between Yazdegerd and the Arab delegation being referenced? At the moment the article paints the Arabs as peaceful proponents of Islam, and the Persians as violent and uncouth. (Given the intricacy of Sassanid courtly ritual, I highly doubt that Yazdegerd said any of the things the account claims he did.) al-Qadisiyyah has been a long-standing tool in Arab propaganda against Iran, and it's seen a recent resurgence with the rise of Arab nationalism in the latter half of the 20th century. I'd be very curious to see how many scholarly sources corroborate the stories given here, and if any of those are based on Greek or Persian accounts of the battle, as opposed to Arab. In any case, this article desperately needs to cite its sources. Spectheintro (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)spectheintro

Its of military history and right now it looks like an article from a story book ! it have no military style and is quit confusing in various places, it never mentioned about persians counter attack ! i have just got free from updating the article of Battle of Yarmouk and now i am preparing a new "military type" article of this battle, including the battle chats and maps. so wait for that....
 * Actually the article is written directly from the primary source or from a religious source painting the article more religiously and in the manner of arab nationalism against the persians.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This article still seems to have a number of very grave problems even at a brief glance. I will highlight just two examples which I think demonstrate systematic errors and problems. First: the inclusion of the Quran quotation in the Prelude section, for example, has a variety of problems. Likewise, statements such as the one about Yarmuk "ending the power of the Roman Emperor for good" are unclear (are we referring to Heraclius or the institution itself?), phrased improperly, and untrue (depending on the implication). I would urge a complete rewrite. 71.146.141.107 (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New article
Asalamualikum, i have composed a new article which explains battle in more military style. The battle maps will be uploaded soon for this article. any issues ? if there is any discuss it here before making any change. Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

discuss before making any changes to article.
i have revertedthe edits make by unknown user, changing the figures for the strength of armies in info box.

kindly discuss any issues first here in info box then make changes there.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of the title
By the way, why was the title of this article changed to 'Qaddasiyah'? There is no shaddah on the 'D', and there is a kisra following it. in addition, there is an alif following the qaf -- all that means that the name is Qādisiyyah (قادسيّة). 'Qaddasiyah' does not reflect Arabic pronunciation at all -- it breaks rules of Arabic grammar. (Nor does it reflect the Persian form -- Qādesiyyeh.) Finally, Wikipedia has transliteration standards -- and 'Qādisiyyah' adheres to them. Qadisiyyah (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
Investigation of the copyright concerns, tagged on January 13 but removed from the article out of process, seems to confirm infringement first on December 13, 2007 with this edit, which introduced text copied verbatim from this source, and then on June 15, 2008 with this edit, which introduced text copied verbatim from this source. Barring verification of permission to use this text, the article will most likely have to be restored to a previous version, such as this one, before infringement was introduced. Alternatively, permission to use this material can be verified through one of the procedures described on the front of the page. The material can also be completely rewritten in the linked temporary space, to be merged into the article. Since the removal of the copyright template has unfortunately cut down the chance contributors to this article may have had to be aware of this problem and devise a strategy for moving forward, I've put a note at Copyright problems/2009 January 13 requesting a few extra days before closure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article was composed personally by me, and i cant figure out where it have copy right stuff. please identify those paragraphs and i will edit them.

←Please do not remove the "copyright tag". If you wish to revise, please do so in accordance with the instructions on your talk page and on the template on this page. Revision would need to be thorough, since one of those sources is only visible in "snippet" view and we cannot know how much more of the material introduced here infringes further. This link demonstrates infringement of "She attempted to bring stability to the empire. This stability was brought about by a peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire." With respect to your edit, consider the following from page 152 of the source: The third day of the battle of Qadissya proved to be the hardest day of the war. There were heavy casualties on both sides, and the battle-field came to be strewn with dead bodies of fallen warriors, both Muslims and non-Muslims. Now compare this to the text you placed in the article in that diff provided above: The third day of the battle proved to be the hardest day of the war. There were heavy casualties on both sides, and the battle-field came to be strewn with dead bodies of fallen warriors. This is identical, with the exception of a few omitted words. Jump several paragraphs in that book, and see: On the third day of the battle even at night there was no break in fighting. It was a moon-lit night, and in spite of fatigue after three days' strenuous battle, the armies continued to fight. That text was entirely copied from the book into our article. The paragraph that follows also copies sentences from the book. There may be more. Given that substantial run of pasting, the material needs to be thoroughly investigated for additional infringement from this and possibly other sources and revised or cleaned as necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that this article also seems to have material copied from at least one other Wikipedia article: Shahrbaraz (for one example: "Following the Persian surrender, Shahrbaraz was heavily involved in the intrigues of the Sassanian court.") That is easily enough fixed: we just have to note the copying in order to meet the licensing requirements of GFDL. Material copied from external sites is the main problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * there is some humour to be found in the cyclical nature of things. if you look at the very first subject heading on this page, you will notice that i created the entry on Qadisiyyah from scratch to replace a copyright-violating entry back in 2005. it remained for nearly two years with small changes and additions, until some individuals began to inject ahistorical and unscholarly legends, largely copied from elsewhere. rather than fight a futile battle, i abandoned any attempt to preserve the article.
 * rather, i saved and continued to add to it here. since Moonriddengirl above suggests reverting the corrupted article back to my version from 2007, i suggest copying the scholarly article above instead. regardless of the decision, i will continue to maintain it at the location above, where it will remain an academic alternative to the mythologising version that seems to emerge here in cycles. ... dgl (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in. Do you have any objection to my merging the version in your userspace with the clean of 2007? (I have not compared, but I'm presuming that your userspace version was based on earlier edits and hence may include some earlier text contributed by others. Please let me know if I'm wrong.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this needed resolution, I've taken the liberty of doing just that, after verifying that the earliest version in your userspace was based on the previous version of this article. Thank you for supply a quick solution to these concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My source for composing this article was this website Battle of Qadisiyya. As it was open there so i assumed there is no copy right policy of the website.

Any ways i am going to rewrite this article shortly, with new battle maps, as i was busy in Battle of Yarmouk's article. i will fix it up.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not open there. Unless a source is explicitly public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL, it's not usable. That particular source is clearly marked "Copyright © 2002 WPONLINE.ORG". You cannot copy material from anywhere else onto Wikipedia unless it is verifiably usable per our copyright policy. (See also "Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?" in our copyright faq.) Of course, even if they released, it doesn't help that they are also infringing copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been deleted and stored at Battle of al-Qādisiyyah/deleted revisions 2009-01-26. This material must not be replaced unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * that was very fast! i have no objection to what you did and thank you for your efforts. however, just in case things cycle back yet again, i will continue to maintain the independent version. in any event, i hope that this article can now serve as the foundation for more academic discussion of this topic. dgl (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By practice, copyright problems are generally settled after seven days. Having a clean version at hand simplifies that considerably. :) I am not familiar with this subject in the least, outside of what little reading I've done in investigating this concern, but I will ask if you feel that if this article starts focusing unduly on representations deviating from mainstream view that you might want to request feedback from the fringe theories noticeboard. I have never had any involvement there, so I don't know how responsive or effective they may be, but it could help invite wider input if contributors here can't agree on how to maintain balance. (Not that I'm saying you can't maintain a separate version; this is not really recommended per user page guideline and it might wind up at WP:MfD, but it's already proven a useful case of WP:IAR in my observation. But I would think that for the sake of our readership, it would be far more beneficial to try to assist with the version in article space.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources & possible original research - WP:OR
There are a couple of serious problems about the sources used.

First, when using books you generally have to cite the page number. That hasn't been done for Shadows in the Desert. I'll probably tag these for the moment, but they need page numbers or will be removed.

Secondly, there is the use of The Battle of Al-Qadisiyyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine A.D. 635-637/A.H. 14-15 By Tabari. That is definitely not a reliable source, as the introduction makes clear. It says "As far as the historicity of Tabari's description is concerne( the material presently available is unlikely to yield results bcyon those attained by Veccia Vaglieri, Donner, Noth,* and other scholar: It therefore seems advisable to refer the reader to their work and t use this introduction in order to highlight other aspects of Tabari fascinating text." and "Tabari's account oi the battle and of the events surrounding it contains several episodes of a symbolic nature. These are introduced at various stages in order to assure the listener or the reader that the outcome of the war will be favorable to the Muslims. In several cases these indications gain increased credibility by being associated with Persian dignitaries." p. XIV and XVI. I shall probably remove these and add fact tags.

I also note 10 uses of the word 'decisive' four uses of 'probably' two of 'genius', most or all of which I suspect are the opinion of an editor rather than stated in the source (where there is one). Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, i never noticed that fact before, i will work shortly to site page number for the mentioned sources. also this book Encyclopaedia of Islam By M. Mukarram Ahmed, Muzaffar Husain Syed, that i used for the writing of the battle events need to be sited. Actually this book, sited Tabari as a reference, and the author reconstructed the battle on the basis of account mostly of Tabari (also of Waqadi, and bulazuri). I took those primary reference instead, and have sited them in the article. I will edit the references, n will not give direct reference from primary source (tabari) but of from this secondary source.[]

Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * and yes, the word probably has been used to give the article a neutral touch, as this battle is often subjected to Arab va Persians issue !
 * the word genius is not new to Wikipedia ! when some thing is genius we ought to call it genius.
 * The word decisive is used 10 times .... So you suggest an other word to describe a decisive event !

regards... Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response. Unless someone else calls it genius, the word is original research, ditto decisive (have you seen some of the edit wars over 'decisive' vs 'pyrhic')? Of course, if a good source says decisive, great. Thinking about it, it must be pretty hard to know what battle is decisive and what is just final. A minor battle in a series of battles, if lost might have changed the course of a war - wouldn't that be a decisive battle? We shouldn't make editorial comments. I see why you use the word probably, but it's better just to cite sources with say two different viewpoints,as again 'probably' is editorial comment. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

check the list here Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The battle is considered to be decisive in Islamic history as well in the history of middle east, early muslim historians calls it a key to Iraq
 * I'm happy about the infobox, but surely it doesn't need to be in the lead twice, then it says the battle of Nineveh was decisive, then Khalid wins 4 decisive victories, then the decisive battle of Ullais, then (and this looks like original research) there's a would be decisive plan (I really think that should go, most plans would be decisive if everything went right), then the decisive Yarmouk battle, 2 more at Walaja and Ullais, and a comment that he didn't want to risk a decisive battle. That reads badly and doesn't seem to make sense, as it describes so many battles as decisive. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

so will u edit it or should i edit them ? Mohammad Adil (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm thats right. Decisive should be with Yarmouk, Nineveh and Battle of Walaja and Battle of Ullaisas these were decisive in its true meanings.
 * I don't have a lot of time right now, so if you could, it would be great. Take one of the decisives out of the lead also I think. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Badly needs editing
This article needs serious editing for grammar and legibility. I tried a little, but got tired, because of lack of expertise in the subject matter. SiltedTea (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Saad vs Sa'ad
Can the article standardize to either "Saad" or "Sa'ad" or "Sa'd"? SiltedTea (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sa`d

Qaqa vs Qa'qa
Can the article standardize to either "Qaqa" or "Qa'qa"? SiltedTea (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * its should be treated as Qa'qa for the proper pronounciation of his name. in arabic its written "القعقاع" with the ع or 'Ain in the middle which was function as a stoppage of ' inbetween of Qa(ق) and Qā(قا)

Sources needed
He triggered the trajectory that would in few decades form the largest empire the world had ever seen

Is that a joke ? What about China ? 212.198.148.24 (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The least of things would be to give the figures, rather to state something as a fact just because somebody (somebody not specially known) just wrote it in a book. Opinions should be attributed to their owners instead of being stated as facts, until proven as such. 212.198.148.24 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * any personal opinion without backup citation from experts or chronicle should be deleted. and if any should be given notes about the scope of perspective from the owner of citations

Dubious numbers being cited
The numbers of the Persian army are severely understated in this article. It mentions "medieval estimates 30,000-50,000" - Most of the sources listed (including medieval ones) start from 70,000 and range up to 200,000 (this is possibly an exaggerated figure, but it is a medieval figure given by Al-Tabari, and it does not make sense to use Al-Tabari's account for the numbers of the Arabs but not for the Persians). There is a note denoting that the numbers of the Persians are probably exaggerated, although the given figure (30,000-50,000) is one of the smallest figures given for the size of the Sassanian army and as far as I know are unacedemic, with most sources estimating a vastly larger Persian army.

The article also makes very little mention of the Sassanian elephants, the strengths section also doesn't mention them. I have edited to include these things and various (sourced) estimates of the numbers of the Persian armies to include *actual* medieval estimates, but a wiki user named "historyofiran" has reverted those edits and returned the Persian figure to a vastly smaller one, apparently citing a website named "Iranicaonline". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.167.200.229 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) You assigned WP:UNDUE weight to primary sources (e.g. Tabari, Sebeos) and didn't add page numbers either
 * 2) You didn't add a page number for the second Cambridge History of Iran reference
 * 3) You removed two WP:RS sources without reason (Touraj Daryaee and D. Gershon Lewental / Encyclopedia Iranica)


 * So your edit was problematic straight off the bat.


 * "Regarding size, it is unlikely that more than twelve thousand Arab Muslims and thirty thousand Iranians fought each other; one can safely assert only that the Persians outnumbered the invaders." -- D. Gershon Lewental (2014). "QĀDESIYA, BATTLE OF". Encyclopædia Iranica.


 * "Islamic texts usually report the number of the Persian soldiers to have been in the hundreds or tens of thousands and several times larger than the Arab armies. This is pure fiction and it is boastful literature which aims to aggrandize Arab Muslim achievement, which may be compared to the Greek accounts of the Greco-Persian wars." -- Daryaee, Touraj (2014). Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B.Tauris p. 37


 * "The authorities differ regarding the numbers of each force. The Arabs have been enumerated at from six to thirty-eight thousand; the Iranians from twenty to thirty, and by some, from sixty to over a hundred thousand men. It is unlikely that Arab manpower problems and the necessity for garrisoning the Syrian frontier would permit the Muslim army reaching such proportions, while internal troubles in Iran and the extensive frontiers which the Sasanian rulers had always to watch would equally make the larger numbers given for the Persian army considerably more than actually could have been present. An Armenian historian, Sebeos, has given the Iranian force as eighty thousand and the Arabs as nine or ten thousand with the addition of six thousand men who came to their aid from Syria, but arrived only towards the end of the battle. Though these figures are not free from exaggeration, there can be no doubt dat the numbers of the Persians were appreciable greater." -- Zarrinkub, Abd al-Husain (1975). "The Arab conquest of Iran and its aftermath". The Cambridge History of Iran (Vol. 4: From the Arab invasion to the Saljuqs). Cambridge University Press. p. 10


 * - LouisAragon (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello.

1) I will add the page numbers, soon. 2) duly noted, will be done soon 3) I am not aware that I removed two sources. I am aware I removed a dubious note that seems to be a commonplace cornerstone of history (historians are biased). However this note has no basis here since the presented figure is not exaggerated or enlarged by any mean and the only Medieval (not listed) Arab account puts the Persians at 200,000 strong. While most other Medieval historians, including Sebeos, put the Persians between 60,000 and 100,000. Most modern historians, bar "iranicaonline", which at first glance seems to be a heavily revisionist wiki agree the Persians were at minimum 40,000 and the mean average is 50-60,000. Adding these numbers is for the sake of historical transparancy. Wikipedia is not a blog for historians to state their opinions. It is a collective telling of history as it is with all information provided.

Please accept my kind regards, and the scathing tone is not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.167.200.229 (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "(...) bar "iranicaonline", which at first glance seems to be a heavily revisionist wiki"
 * Encyclopedia Iranica is a peer-reviewed source, written by specialists. The al-Qādisiyyah article in particular is written by D. Gershon Lewental, who has a PhD in Middle Eastern history, and specializes in Iranian history, early Islamic history and historiography, amongst others. Thus, completely WP:RS.
 * "However this note has no basis (..)"
 * Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. Your opinion (or any other editors for that matter, including mines) is completely irrelevant per Wiki's guidelines. Touraj Daryaee is a renowned Professor of History and thus, his comment/note is very much relevant to this article.


 * In short: if you want to dispute any of this RS material, you need to bring reliable sources. We're not going to give WP:UNDUE weight to outdated primary sources. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

hello

dont see how you responded to my points by defending a certain source

Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, yes. This is not the case for this article as it claims to use "medieval sources" without using them. There is a definitive bias in source selection as well as Tabari's figure is given for the Rashidun forces but is left out for the Sassanian Persians. There is also no basis on calling primary sources "outdated" as they are the chief source for modern historians. Tabari, while he did exaggerate the numbers of the Sassanids, has written the most extensive account on the Rashidun victory against the Persians in Qadisiyya. As per wiki rules, all sources from significant points of view should be included. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.167.200.229 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Battle of al-Qādisiyyah → Battle of al-Qadisiyyah – No need for macrons, we don't tend to use that (WP:USEENGLISH). --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:USEENGLISH as it's not commonly used in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support to conform with EnWiki. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reliability of sources
Hi, why are you including Youtube as a source in the article while it's not considered to be reliable ? And why are you refusing to come here and dsicuss the matter instead of edit-warring ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * let me give my reason, the source which complained by HistoryofIran was non RS

firstly he had title from legit academy: 1 tun abdul razak 2 Medina university

proof: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Basalamah secondly he had official crew which operated in youtube and has renewable backup source for his media which can be accounted for proof: https://play.google.com/store/?utm_source=apac_Med&utm_medium=hasem&utm_content=Jan0220&utm_campaign=Evergreen&pcampaignid=MKT-DR-apac-id-1003227-Med-hasem-py-Evergreen-Jan0220-Text_Search_BKWS-BKWS%7cONSEM_kwid_43700012165119803_creativeid_382795658080_device_c_kwd_kwd-25374944786_geoid_9072592_network_g&gclid=CjwKCAiAg9rxBRADEiwAxKDTunwNhRYgTiOW6ZZ9YuFkHCqZi3xt7HNBY--s4kTdrRF_Ivod-W_9thoC22MQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

thirdly, he had backup from his lectures from legitimate Islamic academic organization that has been legally operate under the law of Indonesia/Government. the organization is Hidayatullah proof: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidayatullah_(organisasi)

the youtube link itself are not self promotional in accordance with wikipedia rules, as i have also included the link to Dr. Khalid Basalamah whose official crews compiled in form of google apps https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.khbofficial.mobile&hl=en i also include it in the reference links which repeatedly revertedAhendra (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Al muthanna
How can al muthanna be among the commanders of al qadissiya while he was already dead by then? He died to his wounds after the battle of the bridge 85.148.119.134 (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing copy editing template
Someone added the copyedit template in January of 2022. I worked on the article a bit, and I think it looks good now and I would propose removing the template. Before I do, does anyone have any comments or suggestions about further improvements? Chagropango (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Muslim casualties
I am not seeing any figures for Muslim casualties sustained in this battle. From Encyclopaedia Iranica,


 * "In 15/636 ʿOmar sent Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ to Iraq with an army of between 6,000 and 10,000 men. Al-Moṯannā died shortly after his arrival, and Saʿd took command of all the forces on the Euphrates front. He was met by a major Persian force with thirty elephants under Rostam, who advanced across the Euphrates and camped at Qādesīya behind the defensive line of the Nahr al-ʿAtīqa. The Muslim forces in the Sawād fell back and regrouped under Saʿd at the fortress of ʿOḏayb and the nearby village of Qādes to await reinforcements from Syria. After the two armies had faced each other for four months, the Persians were defeated in a fierce three-day battle, with heavy casualties on both sides, probably in Jomādā I, 16/June, 637. The battle of Qādesīya, which was decided by the arrival of the Syrian reinforcements and the death of Rostam, was a decisive victory for the Muslims and a military disaster for the Persians. The Persians were totally routed, and fugitive Persian soldiers were pursued and killed in the villages, reed thickets, and river banks. Some 4,000 Iranian soldiers (the Ḥamrāʾ) joined the Muslim army at Qādesīya, shared equally in the booty, and participated in the subsequent campaign; the fate of the Sawād was settled."

IF this is the correct battle, then casualties for both armies are mentioned as "heavy casualties".

I am thinking all the source and figures in the infobox need to be verified. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I also found no casualty figures in this source Qadesiya. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Commanders

 * you just copy-pasted the citation from Malik ibn Awf, another article that is poorly-sourced, and I doubt that you checked the source yourself to see if it verifies this. In any case, the citation itself ("al'aelam lilzirkili, part 5 (in Arabic). p. 264.") is barely comprehensible and does not contain enough information for anyone to reasonably identify the publication and determine its reliability. Please find a clearer reliable source or find the full bibliographical details for the current source (see Citing sources for more guidelines). Please R Prazeres (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)