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.
