| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
This article is simply pro-Islam propaganda written by an amateur and not useful for Wikipedia.Wiki1609 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I would really like to know how this is pro islamic propaganda, i'm not the author, but to me it doesnt promote islam in any way, I'd like to see your reasoning behind that statement, all i can see is the description of a battle, that oxidentalists or orientalists, muslims and non-muslims alike might like to research, and as far as I can see this is a new topic so how do you know if its useful to wikipedia or not?
isnt everyone who writes on wikipedia an amatuer, no-one get paid to write on here.....
Describing the Byzantine forces as the "enemy" gives the article a strong point of view.
Contents |
"byzantines was Thrashed". 50,000 men? Followed by 70,000 more men? The casualties are inflated
"Muslims troops"..."Muslim columns" "The enemy". Blood hell, there were thousands of christian rebels on the side of the arabs.
Its glorifying the conquest "the greatest city in Syria, blah blah" Tourskin 04:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The quality of this article that i wrote last year is not of a type that an encyclopedis article must have, realizing this i am gonna replace it with the new article, hopefully it will be comprehensive and of comparatively good qualityMohammad Adil 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
At that time, islam was the most powerful empire. They have many great, strong soldier. A large group of trained infantry and experienced cavalry. Elite warriors with high level of strength. They have good strategist and a brave leader too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.116.2 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
How come only Muslim sources are used. Their POV is likely not to be neutral(maybe propaganda giving courage to modern day Muslim martyrs). Isidoros47 (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No comments have been added.