We have read in our childhood that Alexander the great became the king at the age of 20. At the age of 23, he conquered Greece, then he entered Turkey, then he defeated Iranian leader and reached Syria. He
then marched towards Jerusalem and Babul and entered Egypt. Then came to India and fought with king Porus. On the memory of his beloved horse, he built a city called “ Phalia” and started returning through the city of “Makran”. On his way back journey he fell ill due to Typhoid fever and died at the age of 33 in the castle of Bakht – e-Nasar in 323 BC.
It is told to the world that he was the greatest military General, conqueror and king world has ever seen. History calls him the Alexander the great because of his achievements. We call him Sikandere-Azam (Meaning king of the kings) . But today in 21st century I am putting a question to the historians that Is Alexander deserved to be called “The great” in comparison to Hazrat umer (The second caliph of
Islam)?
I am challenging all the historians of the world to compare the successes of conquering and achievements of Hazrat Umer Farooq with Alexander. Let’s think Alexander was the son of a king, he was taught horse riding by the best teachers of that time, his teacher was Plato (The great Philosopher) and when he was 20 years old he was presented the throne of king. In comparison Umer Farooq has no kingship in his previous 7 generations, he grew up herding camels and sheep in Arabian Peninsula and he did not learn swordsmanship or Archery from any academy.
