There are two articles that talk about the conquest of Alexandria by Amr Ebn El Ass. The first one is " The History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria". First, this article was very weak and unclear. The writing skills of the author of this article are very ineffective. He lacks one of the major opponents of the writing skills about history, which is the analysis. He jumps from point to another and he didn't analyze the events he is talking about. He didn't use any evidences. Therefore, nobody can understand his article except if he has a background and knows all the events the author is talking about. The author didn't illustrate clearly the historical events about the conquest of Alexandria. In order to write about history, he has to be very accurate, precise, and clear and define what he is talking about; but, unfortunately he didn't do anything of these. Second, one of the things that the author should be blamed for, is his lack of respect in his way of writing. For example, in the first paragraph, he said;" A man of the Arabs", he means Mohamed and then he added;" A place which they called the Kaabah". These two sentences didn't fulfill all the respect for the holy religion, which is Islam. Moreover, in the second page, the first paragraph, he called Mohamed " The chief of the Arabs" and Mohamed wasn't called the chief of the Arabs, he is a prophet sent by God; therefore, this sentence also shows the lack of respect of the author to the Islam. Third, the author wasn't accurate and clear in stating the events. In the first paragraph, he didn't mention that the Arabs were making conquests to spread Islam. He just mentioned that they opened Syria, Damascus and Jordan without mentioning the reason of these conquests. In the second paragraph, the two last lines; " And this went on until Heraclius had paid to the Muslims the greater part of his money; and many people died through the troubles which they had endured", first, the author didn't mention the troubles the people faced.
