Who do you think was the greatest general in history? Why?

[Ocelot]

Did I dismiss him ?
No, I just do not see him on the level of genius as Napoleon.
I am still waiting for how he did a more amazing feat than defeating 22,000 soldiers and 70 ships with a few 100 men, when he was not even in charge as a junior officer.

Well comparing Toulon to a full-blown pitched battle is like comparing apple and oranges. Napoleon was the greater general, but I doubt Khalid would be lackluster enough at Borodino to throw frontal charges at entrenched positions.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Well comparing Toulon to a full-blown pitched battle is like comparing apple and oranges. Napoleon was the greater general, but I doubt Khalid would be lackluster enough at Borodino to throw frontal charges at entrenched positions.

• The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ...
• Sun Tze

This is what Napoleon accomplished at Toulon and even more so at Ulm.

 

[Well.wisher]

Khalid ibn waleed - sword of Allah ., his wisdom is exemplary .. and Alexander the great .

 

[Ocelot]

• The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ...
• Sun Tze

This is what Napoleon accomplished at Toulon and even more so at Ulm.

And even more so on his return from Elba, if you consider Louis XVIII as an enemy. Very few men could have pulled that feat.

 

[Cuirassier]

Nader Shah Afshar

 

[Jackdaws]

Why isn't the Desert Fox Rommel on the list?

 

[Nilgiri]

Why isn't the Desert Fox Rommel on the list?

Agree, you beat me to it!

@The Sandman @Desert Fox

He earned major respect from some other legends :

 

[The Sandman]

Agree, you beat me to it!

@The Sandman @Desert Fox

He earned major respect from some other legends :

I'm surprised that both Desert Fox and Guderian are missing.

 

[Nilgiri]

I'm surprised that both Desert Fox and Guderian are missing.

An underlooked one is also General Stilwell, esp in the chindit campaign in Burma. Guy had to think on his feet very flexibly at moments notice in the jungle warfare....an average general would have failed/perished much earlier.

 

[krash]

Are you a Muslim no doubt in this that Last Prophet Hazrat Muhammad（P.B.U.H）is best in all aspects of life and all leaders and generals cannot be equal to the dust of His shoes.All world is made by ALLAH ALMIGHTY for Prophet Hazrat Muhammad（P.B.U.H）

So because I'm a Muslim I'm supposed to fabricate things? Go against what the Prophet (S.A.W) warned us not to do? Do what the religion prohibits? Should I start deifying him like you?

Was he also the best carpenter? Stone mason? Calligrapher? Smith?

All world is made by ALLAH ALMIGHTY for Prophet Hazrat Muhammad（P.B.U.H）

This is exactly what happens when this goes on unchecked. When false professors of love betray that which they claim to love. Just like what the other nations did to their Prophets. Exactly how Eesa (A.S) became what he is in Catholicism.

"
Praise be to Alaah

Many false and fabricated ahadeeth (narrations) have been narrated that say similar things. For example:

“Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe.”

This was quoted by al-Shawkani in al-Fawaid al-Majmoo’ah fi’l-Ahadeeth al-Mawdoo’ah (p. 326). He said:

Al-San’ani said: (it is) mawdoo’ (fabricated).

Al-Albani said in al-Silsilah al-Da’eefah (282): (it is) mawdoo’.

Another example is the hadeeth narrated by al-Hakim according to which Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

“Allah revealed to ‘Eesa (Jesus, peace be upon him): ‘O ‘Eesa, believe in Muhammad, and tell whoever you meet of your ummah (followers) to believe in him. For were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Adam, and were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise and Hell. I created the Throne over the water and it would not settle until I wrote on it, La ilaha ill-Allah Muhammad Rasool Allah (There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah).”

Al-Hakim said: its isnad (chain of narration) is saheeh! But al-Thahabi commented on this and said: I believe it is fabricated and falsely attributed to Sa’eed.

Meaning, Sa’eed ibn Abu ‘Aroobah (one of the narrators of this hadeeth). This hadeeth was narrated from him by ‘Amr ibn Aws al-Ansari, who is the one who is accused of fabricating it. Al-Thahabi mentioned him in al-Meezan where he said: “He produced a munkar (rejected) report,” then he quoted this hadeeth, and said, “I believe that it is mawdoo’ (fabricated).” Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar agreed with him, as it says in al-Lisan.

Al-Albani said in al-Silsilah al-Da’eefah (280): There is no basis for it.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked:

Is the hadeeth which some people quote – “Were it not for you, Allah would not have created the Throne or the Kursiy (lit. Footstool) or the earth or the heavens or the sun or the moon or anything else” saheeh or not?

He replied:

Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the leader of the sons of Adam (peace be upon him), and the best and noblest of creation, hence some people say that Allah created the universe because of him, or that were it not for him, Allah would not have created the Throne or the Kursiy or the earth or the heavens or the sun or the moon.

But this hadeeth that is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is neither saheeh (sound) nor da’eef (weak), and it was not narrated by any scholar in a hadeeth from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Neither was it known from the Sahabah/Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). Rather it is the words of one who is unknown.

Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, 11/86-96.

The Standing Committee was asked:

Can it be said that Allah created the heavens and the earth for the purpose of creating the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? What is the meaning of the hadeeth, “Were it not for you the universe would not have been created,” and does this hadeeth have any basis?

They replied:

The heavens and the earth were not created for the sake of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), rather they were created for the purpose which Allah mentions (interpretation of the meaning):

“It is Allah Who has created seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof (i.e. seven). His Command descends between them (heavens and earth), that you may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah surrounds all things in (His) Knowledge.” [65:12]

As for the hadeeth mentioned, it is falsely attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and has no sound basis.

Fatawa al-Lajnah al-Daimah, 1/312

Shaykh Ibn Baz was asked about this hadeeth and he said:

The answer is that this was transmitted from the words of some of the common people who have no understanding. Some people say that the world was created for the sake of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and were it not for Muhammad the world would not have been created and mankind would not have been created. This is false and has no basis, and these are corrupt words. Allah created the world so that He would be known and worshipped. He created the world and He created mankind so that His names and attributes, His power and knowledge, would be known and so that He alone would be worshipped with no partner or associate, and so that He would be obeyed – not for the sake of Muhammad or for the sake of Nooh or Moosa or ‘Eesa or any other Prophet (peace be upon them all). Rather Allah created the universe so that He alone would be worshipped, with no partner or associate.

Fatawa Noor ‘ala al-Darb, 46.

And Allah knows best."

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/23290/were-it-not-for-you-i-would-not-have-created-the-universe

How not so?

He (S.A.W) was guided on the battle field by Allah (S.W.T). The plans which he implemented were divine decrees not his. But not always. There were other times when the plans were the Prophet's (S.A.W). This was later realised by the sahabah. Then when the Prophet (S.A.W) advised a strategy the sahabah would ask him (S.A.W) if it was revealed to him or if it was his own. If it was a revelation nothing further would be said, however if it was not a revelation then the sahabah would volunteer their advice and a collaborated strategy would be formed. Ghazwa-e-Khandaq is a very notable example of this.

Because it's blasphemy.

How is it blasphemy for one who does not follow the faith? Could you please provide me the ruling on blasphemy in Islam by the Prophet (S.A.W) or the Quran?

And "their companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the Salaf, and all other pious figures from the Quran and Hadees."? So are you claiming divine rights for the Sahabah and the Salaf?

Better than you lol

Obviously. A pretty silly post. Not in fifth grade anymore.

 

[Nein]

Prophet Muhammed was a military commander too but no he was a Prophet of Allah his message was to spread the message of Tawheed not fight in wars.

Prophet Muhammed was also a merchant. But we dont remember him for being a merchant.

Prophet Muhammed life was preaching the 1 true God.

 

[El Sidd]

He (S.A.W) was guided on the battle field by Allah (S.W.T). The plans which he implemented were divine decrees not his. But not always. There were other times when the plans were the Prophet's (S.A.W). This was later realised by the sahabah. Then when the Prophet (S.A.W) advised a strategy the sahabah would ask him (S.A.W) if it was revealed to him or if it was his own. If it was a revelation nothing further would be said, however if it was not a revelation then the sahabah would volunteer their advice and a collaborated strategy would be formed. Ghazwa-e-Khandaq is a very notable example of this.

Conjecture.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Yarmok certainly had major impact on the history of the Middle East, and undoubtely he was a good general, but it is not apparant that the victory at Yarmok was due to brilliant generalship.
His disadvantage is of course that the remaining sources are few and far between.

Compare that with the Battle of Hastings, where the Normans could not break the shield wall of the Saxons, but feigned retreat to cause the Saxon to pursue, only to be cut down.
That is generalship. The Normans have ruled the U.K. ever since.

Yarmok hardly compares to the genius shown by Napoleon at the Siege of Toulon, where he defeated the Superpower that was Royal Navy in an unconventional way, and had to fight his superiors even more than the British.

It hardly compares to the idea of the Army Corp used to defeat Austria at Ulm, without even having to do battle. The Austrians just realized that their position was hopeless.

At Austerlitz, Napoleon decided how the battle should be fought and made sure that the enemy commanders followed the plan. Very few generals in the history have done that.

Actually IMO it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges to try and compare these generals who lived through different eras, circumstances, challenges, geographies, armies(weapons, tactics, etc. of the time). So it really makes no sense to declare one better than the other(from the list provided above).

With that said, I would pick Hannibal Barca as the earliest general(from this list) to have achieved marvelous feats. His army was made up of mercenaries and various different groups from vassal states of the Phoenicians. In comparison the Romans had a much better uniformly trained and bigger military at their disposal...and yet they suffered losses after losses. Hannibal even managed to encircle a bigger army(the first known occurrence of this) and delivered a crushing defeat. He was so successful that it took a Roman general(Scipio Africanus) to carefully study and use Hannibal's own tactics to defeat him.

I know that Alexander the Great precedes Hannibal(from this list of generals). However Alexander inherited a well trained military from his father Phillip. Also other than the Persian empire, there was no other empire significant enough to challenge Alexander. Once the Persian empire fell, it meant mostly smooth sailing onwards. Darius III was incompetent and was too confident in his superior numbers. This isn't to belittle Alexander's brilliance, it's just that he faced less uphill battles than Hannibal did. He also had a more professional army to command compared to what Hannibal had under his command.

So while I still think it's not valid to compare these generals bcuz it involves a whole lot of different variables...but if I was to pick one I think it should be based on the earliest general who faced the most uphill battles and came out on top...
Based on that criteria I pick Hannibal Barca as the earliest(from this list) to invent tactics brilliant enough to win uphill battles.
It's kind of like how a few ppl independently invented calculus and they are all indeed brilliant for having the ability to do so...but the credit still goes to the one who was able to do it first.

 

[Arsalan 345]

Alexander the great,adolf hitler,khalid bin waleed,achilles(not a general but a good warrior) also hector of troy,suleyman the magnificent,salahaddin ayyubi(R.A) richard the lion heart.

 

[Hamza913]

How is it blasphemy for one who does not follow the faith? Could you please provide me the ruling on blasphemy in Islam by the Prophet (S.A.W) or the Quran?

If you blaspheme in a place ruled by Muslims, then make no mistake, the punishment will be inflicted. You and I know very well what that is.

And "their companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the Salaf, and all other pious figures from the Quran and Hadees."? So are you claiming divine rights for the Sahabah and the Salaf?

The Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) are considered to be some of the best of the Ummah, along with the Salaf and other figures mentioned in the Quran and Hadees. The very source you used against another member confirms this:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/45563/ruling-on-hating-the-sahaabah

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadi...nd-the-righteous-predecessors-salaf-as-salih/