We can tackle the subject from a purely technical and scientific point of view. At the outset, we would not be incorrect in assuming that armies and empires of this material world usually overpower other armies and empires due to one of three reasons :

• Large numbers,
• Sophisticated weapons and technology,
• Superiority in military procedure and strategic warfare

a. Large Numbers

With regards to numerical superiority it is well known that the Muslim armies were usually far less in number than their counterparts :

• From the very beginning days of Islam the Muslims were outnumbered. At the Battle of Badr, the Muslims were 313 and ill-equipped while the Qureish of Makkah were a thousand strong.

• The Romans and Persians were manifold greater in number than the Muslims in most of the battles. In the battle of Yarmouk the Romans were at the very least 120 000. Some narrations say they were 240 000. The number of Muslims, at the most, were 24 000.

• Tariq ibn Ziyad, during the conquest of Spain, at the head of only 12 000 men defeated the disciplined and well-equipped army of King Roderick which was 100 000 strong. (1)

b. Sophisticated weapons and technology

With regards to weapons and technology the Muslims were very ill-equipped compared to their enemies. They had no organized troops that were called up and given arms by the state and then dispatched well equipped and perfectly trained. The Muslim fighters were volunteers who equipped themselves and went out searching for martyrdom in the path of Allah. Some never had conveyances and sought help from others. If they were unsuccessful they sat down in sorrow regretting a lost opportunity for participating in jihad. Allah revealed a verse of the Quran regarding these people :

"Neither is their any blame upon those who come to you so that you should mount them when you said : 'I do not have any conveyance to mount you'. They turned away with eyes flowing with tears of grief as they could not find anything to spend (in the path of Allah)." (Surah Tawbah, verse 92)

The super powers of their age testified to the weakness of the Muslims. The Romans and Persians looked with contempt at the Muslims who had come to fight them. They mocked and laughed at their weapons, their arrows and their clothing.

Abu Waail, one of the Muslims who was martyred at the Battle of Qadsia, says : "The Persians said to the Muslims : 'You have no power, no strength and no ammunition. With what have you come? Return home!'

Abu Waail continues : "We said to them : 'We will not return home.' They laughed at our spears, comparing them to spindles." (2)

Sa'd ibn Abi Waqaas, a Muslim army commander, sent a group of his companions to Caesar calling him to accept the message of Allah, before the commencement of the battle. They sought permission to appear before Caesar, which he gave. The inhabitants of the city came out of their homes to look at the outward appearance of the Muslims, the garments on their shoulders, the whips in their hands, the shoes on their feet, their feeble horses and the lines left on the ground by their feet. They were utterly dumbfounded. How could the likes of such people overpower armies of superior numbers and weapons? (3)

Furthermore, the Arabs were often thousands of miles away from home. Help and reinforcements reached them only after great difficulties and many months. For obvious reasons, they could not carry large provisions of food. They lived from hand to mouth sufficing upon that which they captured from the hands of their enemies.

c. Superiority in military procedure

From amongst the reasons given for the victory of the Muslims, despite their small numbers and the defeat of the Romans and Persians despite their large numbers, is that the Arabs enjoyed superiority in military procedure. It is claimed that their troops were militarily better structured, organized and trained and that they were more loyal to their leaders and commanders as compared to the Persian and Roman armies. Another reason often given for their success is the might and savagery of the early Muslims in the face of war, their desire to fight and plunder and their purely hostile upbringing during their days of ignorance. This appears to be a valid argument. However, a researcher or historian who critically analyses the issue, will realize this to be a distortion used by the European writers as an excuse to cover up the actual cause of Arab success.

It has been established from the history of the Middle Ages that the Romans and the Persians were quite advanced in military warfare. The Byzantine Empire at the beginning of the seventh century had reached the pinnacle of splendour and military conquest. During this time the Romans had defeated the Persians and forced them to retreat. Heraclius had crossed the Kurdish Mountains and the river Tigris fighting and conquering. These battles were fought approximately fifteen years before the Muslim conquest of Syria. The encounters benefited both the Romans and the Persians greatly, militarily. The two parties became acquainted with the latest forms of combat and gained valuable experience and skills in the art of warfare. Each learnt from the other. The Romans and Persians were, therefore, vastly experienced in the art of warfare since they had been at war for a long time.

The historian, Edward Gibbon, has acknowledged that the military strength and skill of the Arabs by virtue of their continuous tribal wars could never have enabled them to defeat the two major empires of Rome and Persia. Prior to the Arab conquests, the Abysinians and the Persians in the South of Arabia had humbled them. They had to retreat in the face of the armies of Abraha during his attack on Makkah. Divine intervention protected the Ka'bah on this occasion, not the Arabs!

As far as organizational skills are concerned we cannot deny the excellence of the planning of the Arabs, the spirit of co-operation and mutual assistance which was present in their ranks, the obedience and loyalty to the commanders of their armies and their self-sacrifice in the path of Allah. An expert in the field, however, will know that a successful military operation is not merely based upon mechanical skills and procedure.

If we, for a moment, assume that the military procedure of the Arabs had been superior to that of their enemies then a question begs to be asked : why did the Arabs not have the courage to venture forth from their land to fight and conquer cities during the long period of time which they spent isolated in a state of complete decline and deterioration? Why did they not mount an attack on Rome and Persia as they did after the commencement of the prophethood?

Hence, we conclude that because the early Muslim armies were inferior to their counterparts in number, ammunition and military training there were other factors that lead them to such great successes in such short a time : divine assistance and prophetic guidance coupled with outstanding character.