1:24:00 importance of treaty and ways of helping - unconditional du'a, spreading the plights vs. physical and financial help. Similarly importance of not breaking of oath/covenant without announcing/informing even in times of war(scroll to 10-15 minutes before this time stamp)
Assalamualaikum brothers and sisters ! Can some please tell me what was the name of the battle between the Roman and the Persians on the the day of badr?
Heraclius deposed Phocas in 610 after sailing to Constantinople from Carthage. Around the same time, the Persians completed their conquest of Mesopotamia and the Caucasus, and in 611 they overran Syria and entered Anatolia, occupying Caesares. Having expelled the Persians from Anatolia in 612, Heraclius launched a major counter-offensive in Syria in 613. He was decisively defeated outside Antioch by Shahrbaraz and Shahin, and the Roman position collapsed.Over the following decade the Persians were able to conquer Palestine, Egypt, Rhodes and several other islands in the eastern Aegean, as well as to devastate Anatolia.Meanwhile, the Avars and Slavs took advantage of the situation to overrun the Balkans, bringing the Roman Empire to the brink of destruction. During these years, Heraclius strove to rebuild his army, slashing non-military expenditures, devaluing the currency and melting down Church plate, with the backing of Patriarch Sergius, to raise the necessary funds to continue the war. In 622, Heraclius left Constantinople, entrusting the city to Sergius and general Bonus as regents of his son. He assembled his forces in Asia Minor and, after conducting exercises to revive their morale, he launched a new counter-offensive, which took on the character of a holy war. In the Caucasus he inflicted a defeat on an army led by a Persian-allied Arab chief and then won a victory over the Persians under Shahrbaraz. Following a lull in 623, while he negotiated a truce with the Avars, Heraclius resumed his campaigns in the East in 624 and routed an army led by Khosrau at Ganzak in Atropatene. In 625 he defeated the generals Shahrbaraz, Shahin and Shahraplakan in Armenia, and in a surprise attack that winter he stormed Shahrbaraz's headquarters and attacked his troops in their winter billets. Supported by a Persian army commanded by Shahrbaraz, together with the Avars and Slavs, the three unsuccessfully besieged Constantinople in 626, while a second Persian army under Shahin suffered another crushing defeat at the hands of Heraclius' brother Theodore
During these years, Heraclius strove to rebuild his army, slashing non-military expenditures, devaluing the currency and melting down Church plate, with the backing of Patriarch Sergius, to raise the necessary funds to continue the war.[95] In 622, Heraclius left Constantinople, entrusting the city to Sergius and general Bonus as regents of his son. He assembled his forces in Asia Minor and, after conducting exercises to revive their morale, he launched a new counter-offensive, which took on the character of a holy war.[96] In the Caucasus he inflicted a defeat on an army led by a Persian-allied Arab chief and then won a victory over the Persians under Shahrbaraz.[97]Following a lull in 623, while he negotiated a truce with the Avars, Heraclius resumed his campaigns in the East in 624 and routed an army led by Khosrau at Ganzak in Atropatene.[98] In 625 he defeated the generals Shahrbaraz, Shahin and Shahraplakan in Armenia, and in a surprise attack that winter he stormed Shahrbaraz's headquarters and attacked his troops in their winter billets.[99] Supported by a Persian army commanded by Shahrbaraz, together with the Avars and Slavs, the three unsuccessfully besieged Constantinople in 626,[100] while a second Persian army under Shahin suffered another crushing defeat at the hands of Heraclius' brother Theodore
I have never seen such nonsense, if abu sufyan's caravan was near to mecca when he sent out messengers to call the meccan army back and if the meccans ignored this and went on for another few days to badr, where they were defeated, then how could the survivors get back to mecca before abu sufyan and recount the details of the defeat before his arrival? then for some explicit reason abu sufyan seems to know more about the battle even though he was not there, abu sufyan then clams that angels were ther and describes them better than any other of the alleged witnesses, also abu laheb was hit over the head with a tent pole and this caused his death, the obvious embellishments in the whole story show that there is little honesty in it, as for the persian/roman war, that started a long time before muhammads revelation and if anyone knew the history of the region would know that these battles always ebbed and flowed and nearly always ended up with the same border again, most of Romes strength was in its depths, therefore it was inevitable that they would return, so how is that a prophecy? allah does not even give an exact time scale, all knowing allah gives a vague time of a "few years", however because islam is so false that the logical conclusion is that this verse was added in at the time of caliphe uthman, whom we all know re-edited the quran
No one said Abu Sufyan was near Makkah, all he knows is that he was in a safe position due to the position of the Quraysh army, the group of quraysh that fled would've fled as fast as they could in a straight line to Makkah whereas Abu Sufyan obviously had to take a longer more leisurely route, and you would assume the messengers Abu Sufyan sent were to travel as fast as possible. Details of the battle would be told to Abu Sufiyan by the Quraysh and obviously, he would narrate them after he became Muslim. if it was inevitable that the Romans would return, why was Heraclius Agreeing to stand down and let byzantine to become under Persian rule, And to be in discussion about who should be emperor and considering Relocating the government all the way back in Africa? So you see it as inevitable while Heraclius doesn't? And why on earth would the prophet have knowledge of the ongoing roman/Persian war? And have enough knowledge that Rome had 'strength in its depths' and would no doubt would back? As if the prophet is studying the roman/Persian war. By consensus from clear narrations, 'a few years' means 3-9 years, the hadiths mention 2 companions stating that the word used for 'few' meant less than 10, and we know 'few' is 3+. Additionally, when the verse came down the Quraysh said to Abu Bakr, 'your companion claims that the Persians will be defeat by the Romans in 3-9 years so shall we make a bet?'. They made a bet and the Quraysh said shall we meet in the middle? i.e. 6 years, and Abu Bakr agreed. 6 years went by and the Romans hadn't defeated the Persians and the Quraysh took what they won off of the bet and Muslim's rebuked Abu Bakr for making the bet. Then in the 7th year, the Sassanids were defeated and the Muslim's rejoiced, the only reason they would care is if was a prophecy 'the logical conclusion is that the verse was added?' The verse is discussed in Makkah, therefore pre 622, the verse was around not added in a mass Arabian peninsula conspiracy 20+ years later during Umar's caliphate, and then you seriously suggest they convinced the memorizers of the Quran went away far into places like Africa and told them all 'btw guys we forgot to tell you some verses', Muslims firmly believed it was the speech of god so no one would dare bring up the idea of adding an extra verse to Muslim's and think the Muslim's wouldn't riot.
Can you upload the slides that were used? Or even better that you can reupload the video with a picture-in-picture with the synchronized slides?
1:24:00 importance of treaty and ways of helping - unconditional du'a, spreading the plights vs. physical and financial help. Similarly importance of not breaking of oath/covenant without announcing/informing even in times of war(scroll to 10-15 minutes before this time stamp)
JazakAllah khair
Cannot see the slides ;(
Why dont public shows map while explaining it.....jazakallah...first time iam hearing badr in this much detail
May allah reward sheikh Yaser Qadi for these lessons. I tried to find the next lesson on youtube but i coudn't. Can anyone help?
ua-cam.com/play/PLC89682017B43845D.html
MashaAllah.
the audio is not working. Please fix this
Cannot see the slide show ☹️
Our elite sahaba😎
it would be more interesting if u could upload with presentation.... any way Jazakalla Hair for free upload on this channel.
Assalamualaikum brothers and sisters ! Can some please tell me what was the name of the battle between the Roman and the Persians on the the day of badr?
Heraclius deposed Phocas in 610 after sailing to Constantinople from Carthage. Around the same time, the Persians completed their conquest of Mesopotamia and the Caucasus, and in 611 they overran Syria and entered Anatolia, occupying Caesares. Having expelled the Persians from Anatolia in 612, Heraclius launched a major counter-offensive in Syria in 613. He was decisively defeated outside Antioch by Shahrbaraz and Shahin, and the Roman position collapsed.Over the following decade the Persians were able to conquer Palestine, Egypt, Rhodes and several other islands in the eastern Aegean, as well as to devastate Anatolia.Meanwhile, the Avars and Slavs took advantage of the situation to overrun the Balkans, bringing the Roman Empire to the brink of destruction.
During these years, Heraclius strove to rebuild his army, slashing non-military expenditures, devaluing the currency and melting down Church plate, with the backing of Patriarch Sergius, to raise the necessary funds to continue the war. In 622, Heraclius left Constantinople, entrusting the city to Sergius and general Bonus as regents of his son. He assembled his forces in Asia Minor and, after conducting exercises to revive their morale, he launched a new counter-offensive, which took on the character of a holy war. In the Caucasus he inflicted a defeat on an army led by a Persian-allied Arab chief and then won a victory over the Persians under Shahrbaraz. Following a lull in 623, while he negotiated a truce with the Avars, Heraclius resumed his campaigns in the East in 624 and routed an army led by Khosrau at Ganzak in Atropatene. In 625 he defeated the generals Shahrbaraz, Shahin and Shahraplakan in Armenia, and in a surprise attack that winter he stormed Shahrbaraz's headquarters and attacked his troops in their winter billets. Supported by a Persian army commanded by Shahrbaraz, together with the Avars and Slavs, the three unsuccessfully besieged Constantinople in 626, while a second Persian army under Shahin suffered another crushing defeat at the hands of Heraclius' brother Theodore
During these years, Heraclius strove to rebuild his army, slashing non-military expenditures, devaluing the currency and melting down Church plate, with the backing of Patriarch Sergius, to raise the necessary funds to continue the war.[95] In 622, Heraclius left Constantinople, entrusting the city to Sergius and general Bonus as regents of his son. He assembled his forces in Asia Minor and, after conducting exercises to revive their morale, he launched a new counter-offensive, which took on the character of a holy war.[96] In the Caucasus he inflicted a defeat on an army led by a Persian-allied Arab chief and then won a victory over the Persians under Shahrbaraz.[97]Following a lull in 623, while he negotiated a truce with the Avars, Heraclius resumed his campaigns in the East in 624 and routed an army led by Khosrau at Ganzak in Atropatene.[98] In 625 he defeated the generals Shahrbaraz, Shahin and Shahraplakan in Armenia, and in a surprise attack that winter he stormed Shahrbaraz's headquarters and attacked his troops in their winter billets.[99] Supported by a Persian army commanded by Shahrbaraz, together with the Avars and Slavs, the three unsuccessfully besieged Constantinople in 626,[100] while a second Persian army under Shahin suffered another crushing defeat at the hands of Heraclius' brother Theodore
She shah suri
Why does he say Ubay ibn khalaf was killed in badr? I thought he was killed in uhud
I think he misspoke, I think he meant umaya
I have never seen such nonsense, if abu sufyan's caravan was near to mecca when he sent out messengers to call the meccan army back and if the meccans ignored this and went on for another few days to badr, where they were defeated, then how could the survivors get back to mecca before abu sufyan and recount the details of the defeat before his arrival? then for some explicit reason abu sufyan seems to know more about the battle even though he was not there, abu sufyan then clams that angels were ther and describes them better than any other of the alleged witnesses, also abu laheb was hit over the head with a tent pole and this caused his death, the obvious embellishments in the whole story show that there is little honesty in it, as for the persian/roman war, that started a long time before muhammads revelation and if anyone knew the history of the region would know that these battles always ebbed and flowed and nearly always ended up with the same border again, most of Romes strength was in its depths, therefore it was inevitable that they would return, so how is that a prophecy? allah does not even give an exact time scale, all knowing allah gives a vague time of a "few years", however because islam is so false that the logical conclusion is that this verse was added in at the time of caliphe uthman, whom we all know re-edited the quran
No one said Abu Sufyan was near Makkah, all he knows is that he was in a safe position due to the position of the Quraysh army, the group of quraysh that fled would've fled as fast as they could in a straight line to Makkah whereas Abu Sufyan obviously had to take a longer more leisurely route, and you would assume the messengers Abu Sufyan sent were to travel as fast as possible.
Details of the battle would be told to Abu Sufiyan by the Quraysh and obviously, he would narrate them after he became Muslim. if it was inevitable that the Romans would return, why was Heraclius Agreeing to stand down and let byzantine to become under Persian rule, And to be in discussion about who should be emperor and considering Relocating the government all the way back in Africa? So you see it as inevitable while Heraclius doesn't? And why on earth would the prophet have knowledge of the ongoing roman/Persian war? And have enough knowledge that Rome had 'strength in its depths' and would no doubt would back? As if the prophet is studying the roman/Persian war.
By consensus from clear narrations, 'a few years' means 3-9 years, the hadiths mention 2 companions stating that the word used for 'few' meant less than 10, and we know 'few' is 3+. Additionally, when the verse came down the Quraysh said to Abu Bakr, 'your companion claims that the Persians will be defeat by the Romans in 3-9 years so shall we make a bet?'. They made a bet and the Quraysh said shall we meet in the middle? i.e. 6 years, and Abu Bakr agreed. 6 years went by and the Romans hadn't defeated the Persians and the Quraysh took what they won off of the bet and Muslim's rebuked Abu Bakr for making the bet. Then in the 7th year, the Sassanids were defeated and the Muslim's rejoiced, the only reason they would care is if was a prophecy
'the logical conclusion is that the verse was added?' The verse is discussed in Makkah, therefore pre 622, the verse was around not added in a mass Arabian peninsula conspiracy 20+ years later during Umar's caliphate, and then you seriously suggest they convinced the memorizers of the Quran went away far into places like Africa and told them all 'btw guys we forgot to tell you some verses', Muslims firmly believed it was the speech of god so no one would dare bring up the idea of adding an extra verse to Muslim's and think the Muslim's wouldn't riot.