Talk:Khalid ibn al-Walid/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Name & article title
I would like to know why the name of Khalid is rendered as "Khalid bin Walid?" Should it not be "Khalid ibn al-Waleed" to be closer to the Arabic and consistent with other names like "Umar ibn al-Khattab" for example? And if so, how does one go about changing an article's titlle?A.Khalil 14:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Allah or God
I have changed the article to use the term "Allah" instead of "God" because it's far more accurate. Whilst the term God is used in English to refer to the Creator, it is also used to refer to several other things, thus it is ambiguous (not that I'm implying it's confusing). The term Allah is used to specifically refer to the One Almighty Creator, it is an exclusive term, and is one of the names of the Creator.
Khalid bin al-Walid was known as the Sword of Allah. A google search quickly brings up several references to him (almost exclusively) under this search. Sword of God brings up search results relating to music. It's clearly not the same.
Lastly, God is not english for Allah. The term "God" does exist in Arabic, it is "Ilah". This can be translated into english as God, but Allah cannot. Therefore, when Khalid was asking the Prophet (pbuh) to pray for him, he would have asked him to pray to Allah, not God (Ilah). The same applies to the shahada. When a Muslim says "Lā 'ilāha 'illā llāha", they are saying "There is no god but Allah". To say "There is no god but God" is silly and is a limitation of the english language as the english language does not provide a unique name for the Creator. Two different terms are used, Ilah and Allah, they should not be mixed together to refer to the same thing.
Thus, the correct term to use when refering to God in an Islamic context is Allah. Otherwise Islamic figures are being misrepresented and accuracy is lost.
- unfortunately, you are not correct. Illah translates to 'god' (note the lower-case G) -- whereas, Allah (the One God) translates to 'God' (capital G). writing Allah in english leads to confusion, particularly implying to people who know little about Islam, that Muslims worship a 'separate' or 'different' God. if you browse any academic text, you will never see 'Allah' written, unless it's a transliteration or a direct quote. if you want to write, 'Sayf-Allah' as the transliteration of 'Sword of God', that's fine. but writing 'Sword of Allah' is incorrect.
OK, so what about Hindu gods? Do they all translate to God again, or are their names preserved? I also don't agree with the comment that "Allah is Arabic, God is English". Allah is a name. By that logic, Jason should be converted to Judas or Javed for other languages. That's clearly not right.
Incidentally, depending on the author, I'd expect to see "Allah" in academic text. I don't think any non-Muslim would have the respect for the name Allah to keep it as so, but I'd expect every Muslim to do so. The term Allah is used instead of Ilah for a reason.
- hindu gods are different -- because these are names for various representations of God. similarly, scholars would write 'Yahweh' or 'Jehovah' but they wouldnt write 'Elohim' or 'Adonay'. in the context of pre-Islamic jahiliyyah, scholars would write Allah -- because it was the name of one from a pantheon of gods. ... as far as authors -- look at any academic text (i am not talking about polemics), written by any scholar (religion doesnt matter: muslim, christian, jewish) -- they will never write Allah in place for God unless its a discussion about the term itself (for that matter, nor would a reputable encyclopaedia).
You are all incorrect :D "Ilah" (Arabic: إله) means "one worthy of worship". "Al" (Arabic: ال) is the Arabic definate article, thus "Al" means "The". "Al" + "Ilah" = "Allah", literally "The One Worthy of [All] Worship". Notice how it is neutral gender-wise.
Because English is so much less developed than Arabic, it would be a mouthful to translate "Allah" for "The One Worthy of [All] Worship", not to mention that it may be grammatically incorrect in some cases. This is why it is most widely translated as "God". even though the word "god" is the male version of a deity, which isn't even close to an accurate translation of "Allah". This is why its best to leave "Allah" untranslated, but rather transliterated (which would make it say "Allah"). Armyrifle 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there is simply too much emphasis on the word rather than the meaning. This saddens me. If you want to write an article in English, write it, in English. If you cannot, then write it in it's native language, especially on the topic of religion (A somewhat unrealistic demand, but warranted). When you leave Allah untranslated this gives the notion that 'Allah' is a strange unknown deity to many less knowledgeable readers. This then unfortunately puts a false idea in such readers' minds that Islam teaches worship of a strange deity, rather than the reader immediately knowing 'Allah' simply IS the one monotheistic 'God'. This is unfortunately used as a tool by many propagandist media to instill this notion of 'an unknown deity' in the less knowledgeable reader/viewer's mind. It is just a language barrier that has done more harm than good, the word itself is not holy, it's meaning is. The meaning is the most important thing I believe, not the phonetic replication of it in said language(s) because that accomplishes nothing. It's almost like trying to solve an equation and substituting a variable with another unknown variable. It does nothing but change the letter. Anyways, excellent article.
Subjective statements removed
I admire Bin Walid as much as the anyone, but I still went ahead and removed some of the overtly-subjective things in the article (comparisons with Alexander the Great; out-numbered, etc...).
MYLO 03:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the mention about his undefeated record was good enough. Though a comparison with history's greatest generals is not entirely out of line, considering his overwhelming victories against both the Byzantines and Persians.
Mu'Tah. He lost it. He's not undefeated
POV tag
Generally, this reads like a hagiography. Al-Walid is seen as a butcher by Shia, and while I’m not Shia, I’m open to the notion that they might have a point.
Some notably POV passages (there are more):
“This was a heinous crime among the Arabs, for diplomatic envoys held traditional immunity from attack no matter how hostile a power they represented. The news of this outrage inflamed Madinah.”
“He was impressed by the steadfastness and fearlessness of the Muslims, something he had seen first hand.”
“Khalid also vowed to raise his sword in the path of Islam, rather than fighting against it.”
And, why is Musaylimah called “the Liar”? And the "imposter-prophet"? NPOV? *Please*!
Please join this discussion before further reverts. It's not for you to say whether neutrality is disputed.
Timothy Usher 05:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You cannot refer to Muhammad as "the Prophet" or "prophet Muhammad" Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).
And, if you are going to get into someone's head ("he was impressed by...") you especially need to provide a source.
Feedback on edits?
Timothy Usher 06:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
So basically you are trying to say that prophet mohammed SAW is not a Prophet!!!!!!!!!!!!!Salman01
- Salman, I understand why this may upset you, I really do. But we are not allowed to present Islamic dogma as fact, anymore than we are Christian dogma, or Hindu Dogma, or Sikh Dogma. Much of the scripture from these religions contradicts each other, so really the best thing we can do is state their *beliefs* not as fact but as the equivalent of opinion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Salman, please sign your comments. No, I am not saying that, anymore than I'm saying that Musaylimah is not a prophet. Please read WP:NPOV as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). These will bring you up to speed on the rules for contribution. Thanks for contributing.Timothy Usher 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Subjective
Mylo..what is subjective about 'out-numbered'..seems like a rather quantifiable idea to me...
It's POV becasue it can't actually be confirmed, becasue all the sources that state this are non-neutral.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This article seems biased since it only shows that he was a great warrior and does not show the viewpoint of some muslims who say he accepted islam only because of political reasons. Dshad0w 16:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
recent reverts
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#Names. --Striver 15:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
transliteration
hi there, as in many other articles, a standardised transliteration system should be used. the 'standard' is the IJMES/MESA system, which is a modified version of the Encyclopaedia of Islam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by dgl (talk • contribs)
- This is not the view that has received consensual acceptance on Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Shia view
needs to be fixed. While Iranians may hold negative viewpoints many non Iranian Shias hold Khalid in high regard. Pakistan's milirary even named a submarine after him.
Not true. Many more Shias don't like the man, not just Iranians. Also, Pakistan is a Sunni country. Armyrifle 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- No its not. Pakistan is a Sunni majority country. It was founded by a Shia, many of its leaders (Bhutto, Yayha Khan) and militray commanders (General Musa Khan) have been Shias.
New Article
i have made a completely new article about khalid bin waleed.which is a summary of his life.it includes all the names of his battles including the date and year they were fought.All this knowledge has been collected from a research book writen by late Lieutenant-General(R) Agha Ibrahim Akram in october 1969 A.C. the refference of all that stuff that i have wrote there in my article is www.swordofallah.com
the article consist of following heading.
Early life( deals with short discription of his early life)
PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PBUH)'S ERA.(deals with campaiges and battles of khalid in mohammad (pubh)'s time )
Abu Bakr's era( deals with khalid's battles names,dates and location that he fought for crushing revolt in ridda wars)
The last threat( deals with collaspe of revolt and defeat of musailima )
Further Conquests( abu bakr's intentions to invade persian empire and begining of invasion of persian empire)
Invasion of Iraq ( dates ,names and locations of khalid's battles in iraq)
Invasion of Byzantine Empire ( transfar of khalid to syria for invasion of byzantine empire)
Dismissal of Khalid From Command( reason of his dismissal)
further Conquest( further conquest under abu ubaida's command)
Dismissal of khalid from Army( reason of his dismissal from army )
Death and legacy.
what do you people think about this article, it will gonna contribute al lot for wikipedia and for those who want to know about khalid ibn al-walid. making this article unbiased and neutral will be my responsibility. adilrais.
- Its a good effort, keep it up :) --Striver 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- One more thing: Be very thourough with references, add a reference tag at the end of every single section. And when Shi'a do not agree, explain that in the text, or move the text to the Sunni view. Welcome to wikipedia. --Striver 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
POV+Fact
I dont get it, where does this come from? Is there any actual source for it, or does people just like to cover up for Khalid's crimes? Show me how it is not OR. --Striver 08:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
khalid's act against malik bin nawera and laila.
khalid killed malik because of malik's previous criminal records he was guilty for his acts against the state of Madinah.after the death of prophet Mohammad (pbuh) he broke in to revolt against madinah, he from the time of prophet mohammad (pbuh) was apointed as a tax collector for the tribe of banu tamim.but as he heard of the death of prophet mohammad(pbuh) he gave back all the tax to his tribe saying that now you are the owner of your wealth. (refference=al-Balazuri: book no:1,page no:107.)
more over he was to be charged because of his signing of pact with a false female prophit Sajjah which says that first they will deal with there enemy tribes together and then finally against the state of madinah. ( refference=al-Tabari: Vol. 2, page no: 496.)
Malik when heard about khalid's victories against powerful arab tribes he then said to his people that we have done a wrong thing by disobying our rulers.and ordered his tribe men not to engaged with battle with khalid ( who was on his to his tribe ) and make peace with them, stay at home.
(refference= Tabari: Vol. 2, Page no: 501-502.)
he also as to prove him self loyal to state of madinah ( the future islamic empire) collected the tax and sent it to madinah.his riders were stoped by khalid's army at the town of battah.
khalid asked them about the signing of pact with sajjah they said ti was just because we wanted to take revenge from our trible enemies.
(refference= Tabari: Vol. 2, Pp. 501-2.)
malik when arrested was asked by khalid about his crimes he was saying "your master said this your master said that ".( he was pointing to prophet mohammad) over this khalid got it completely and ordered the killing of malik. (refference=Tabari: Vol. 2, Page no: 504.)
the excuses of some muslim scholars that killing of malik was because of some wrong interpretation of khalid's orders are just excuses base on no facts.khalid ordered malik's killing just because he knew that malik is a criminal for islamic state of madinah.
as far as matter of laila is concern then some one have edit it there on behafe of shia source that khalid after raping her killed her ! thats funny, if she was killed there then who was the lady that was there in khalid's camp when muslims retreated in the first phase of the battle of yamama. (refference=al-Tabari: Vol. 2, page no: 511.)
this shows that it is conferm that laila was not killed by khalid and was alive and sunni muslim's claim that khalid married her is correct.
there is contradiction too in the claims of shia scholars, as it is seems that they have decided to some how make khalid a war criminal !
some shia sources says that khalid killed malik to get laila, while the other says khalid killed laila !
so what is it, ? if khalid killed malik to marry laila then why he killed laila ? was he mad ? if he was mad then why was he a guines militery general. ok leave it, if khalid killed laila after raping her ( as shia claims ) then was there laila's ghost in khalid's camp at the battle of yamama. ? shia's funny claims makes one confuse completely.
Does it matter? Islamic Law forbids a man to marry the widow of the man he murdered the day he murdered him. This makes it rape, since he then had sex with her against her will. Isn't that the definition of rape?
I believe that he killed her later on. It chronogically happened according to us Shias, not all at once. Armyrifle 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
adilrais , october 29th 2006 A.C
- It is possible that she was not killed, i have only seen that in one source, and that source could be misstaken. But my problem is not with her being alive or not, it is with her being married or not. She can not married according to Sharia and Qur'an, she had not observed the iddah period. Who or what is the source of their union being a legal Nikah? --Striver 11:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- khalid married her according to sunnah of Prophet Mohammad(pbuh).in the Battle of khaiber, after the conquest when there was distribution of slaves a 17 years old girl named Safya was given to campanion of prophet (pbuh) Wahiya kalbi. a man came to prophet(pbuh) and told him about her that she is a daughter of the tribel leader of the tribe of bai-nuzair( against this tribe that battle was ), prophet(pbuh) went to that campanion and take her by giving him 6 slaves, and married her on his way back to madinah.
the same did the khalid.prophet(pbuh) didn't let her have iddah period, though Safya The Mother of Beliver was married and her husband was killed in the battle, this was her 2nd husband her 1st husband had a natural death a year before. actually what i have derived from this is that iddah period is not compelserry over the women came in booty as slaves. thats it, may it will clear you mis-conception about khalid's act. adilrais.. november 2nd 2006.
No. You need to read Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:34:437:
A hadith attributed to Anas ibn Malik reports:[citation needed]
Either you are accusing them of both of being fasiq since they openly rejected the Quranic consept of iddah, or you need to acknowledge that she was raped. In either case, Abu Bakr aproved of it. --Striver 23:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
you need to read the hadith again! anas bin malik said ...Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha' where her menses were over and he married her.
he didnt used the world iddah.you must know the menses is it is according to encarta dictionary "the blood and other matter discharged from the womb during menstruation" . while according to islamic laws iddah period is for 3 menses periods. not for one my dear ! and more over in islam as you may know that personal relasionshps are not allowed during the menses period of women. and as i said prophet(pbuh) married her in his way to madinah, and you may know that madinah is not far away from khyber so it takes a women 4 mounths to complete her iddah and it takes muslims 4 mounths to reach madinah from khyber ! and it is mention in encyclopedia of islam writen by molvi Mehboob ealm (1863-1933) pubished bu al-Fasal publishers urdu bazar lahore. he says that khalid married laila as prophet(pbuh) married Safiya(may Allah be pleased with her), with out completing iddah period. therefore i said in my last post that from all that i derived that iddah is not over the slave women came in booty. see and read about menses in the wikipedia's related acticle. while get information of iddah from here ..
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/iddah.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iddah
adilrais 8:30 4th november 2006.
Spelling and grammar
The quality of English used in certain parts of this article is terrible. I fixed up the 'Dismissal from Army' part yesterday and am going to try to fix up the rest of the article as well. Shoaib Meenai 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
yes surely i am not master of english you are most wel comed to edit it's spellings and grammer. thanks for that favour. adilrais 4th novermber 2006. 7:53
The spelling and grammar in some parts of the article (further Conquests) are terrible. I would like to start going over the entire article and fixing the grammar, if no one objects.Unflavoured 11:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thats the primary reason its up for clean-up. Please go ahead.--Tigeroo 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I will, but I hope someone watches over my edit, since I am new, and I fear I might screw up the page by accident Unflavoured 14:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I fixed the grammar from beginning and up to and including Battle of Mu'tah. I will leave it for a couple of days, then fix the rest. Slowly.Unflavoured 15:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Template
"allegiance= Rashidun Caliphate" ? Was he on Ali's side during his caliphat? --Striver 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- He was not even on Caliph Usman's side during his caliphat.
do you know why ? because he was dead in those days. he died in 21st hijry i.e 642 A.D his son Muhajir bin Khalid fought from the side of caliph Ali during the battle of Sifyain and was killed in this battle, while his an other son Abdulrehman bin khalid fought from the side of mawvya in the same battle.he was one of his most powerful general and his possible successor but as mavwya wanted to apoint his son yazid as his successor therefore in 46 hijry on the orders of mavwya a jews physician gave Abdulrehman bin khalid poison mixed with honey and killed him. adilrais 11:01 7th november 2006.
- I think all it implies is he fought as a general under Abu Bakr and Umar until he was sidelineds--Tigeroo 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Sight
Alright, the Shi'a view is AGAIN vandalized. I have kept myself out of this article due to respect of my Sunni brothers that want to improve it. I have strong objections of the points that are presented as truth on the article as it is now, but i have not done anything against it. But now the Shi'a view is removed yet again, and my patients is getting all the thiner... --Striver 14:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Who removed the Shia point of view and why? Shoaib Meenai 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I dont care "who" or "why", i want it back. I don't want to start to being engaged in this article, it would result in conflicts that i am not prepared to take part in at the moment. --Striver 15:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Under the subtitle "Banu Jadhimah 630"
I have a concern about this statement that you made in the article. When you said and I quote directly from the article "According to a narration, when prophet Mohammad shaved his head, Khalid took some of his hairs. When asked by prophet Mohammad the reason for this, he replied, "I will keep these hairs with me forever as a relic so that they will help me be victorious in battles." Later he sewed those hairs in his cap, which he always wore under his turban." Please excuse my language, but this is extremely inaccurate. The Prophet Muhammad (صلی١لله عليه و سلم) would never allow this because it is near superstition. In Islam you cannot have something with you and say that this is going to protect me from envy and all these superstitious ideas. The Prophet Muhammad (صلی١لله عليه و سلم) always encouraged his followers to trust in Allah (تعالی) and in nothing else. InshaAllah my advice was useful to you.
--Ahmadomar 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
............................................................
Surely it will amaze you and every one beliving this.But it was tradition of muslims of time of prophet Mohammad(صلی١لله عليه و سلم) to keep his thing with them, you must know about Imam Jaffer saddiq ( if i am correct) who had hairs of prophet(صلی١لله عليه و سلم) with him, even all the hairs of prophet (صلی١لله عليه و سلم) present now are i guess of those when he shaved his head of hajj. more over this narration of khalid's keeping hairs of prophet(صلی١لله عليه و سلم) is present in one of the most authuntic book of islamic history it is also one of the most ancient of all, it is mention in Al-Waqidi: page No: 151.
may this will work to remove your doubts, i have also heard that some historians are against it !
adilrais 17:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There should be these changes !
I have been noticing that some one here is keep on changing the shia views, he is totaly deleting them, and the argue of striver is totally correct, wather shia views have any refference or not they should be added the reader will himself decide what is the truth ! And a person who is doing this is advised to be cool what is the truth will it's self reveal over the reader, more over these are just views no one is going to make them "facts".
the heading Battle of Mu'tah should not be this it should be as Battle of Mu'tah and Sword of Allah. because this battle was it's self was not any type of a glorious victory but it was a "draw" type battle the importance of this battle in the live of khalid bin waleed is just that he faced the horrible conditions there and controled them with his genius abilities and got the title "Sword of Allah". therefore the heading should be as above mentioned.
in the box at left of the begining of page it is writen Nickname it should not be nick name it should be Title.
3rdly instead of Sword of God there should of writen as Sword of Allah, as God is not the english translation of the arabic word Allah.
adilrais 17:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The God vs. Allah naming issue is disputed ... there is a discussion above. Your other edits seem sensible though - if you feel something is wrong, go ahead and make a change. Shoaib Meenai 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What is this ?
This "article" is not a discussion fourm ! there is a person who is editing the article ,like it is any discussion fourm. i am writing there shia views about khalid bin waleed and also rewriting malik bin nawera'a section which will include shia views as well as sunni views. the person who is editing the article in a crazy manner is requested to be cool and calm. Mohammad Adil 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Second-level headings
It seems that whenever someone adds a heading, they make it second level. New topics should always go under first-level headings (=heading=) instead of second-level headings (==heading==)Shoaib Meenai 10:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of headings, I have made several changes. Omar's Era was previously included in Abu Bakr's, and the 'further conquest' section was one enormous paragraph. IS this ok, or having 3rd level headings is too much ?! Unflavoured 09:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of headings the heading "Conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire" is mis-leading and should be made more accurate. (SSJPabs 03:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
comparing khalid to alexander
khalid ibn al-walid is the greatest general in history comparing him to alexander khalid 412 points, alexander 330 points
Alexander took on the world's greatest empire at full power and won. Khalid could only take on Persia and Byzantium after decades of weakening themselves. Wow....shockingly impressive
There's no need for bias in the discussion. Both were great Generals who accomplished a great deal in their lifetime. To the above poster, Khalid fought what was in front of him and won; whether the Persia & Byzantium were declining is irrelevant as they were still the greatest powers of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.112.146 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Legacy
The final part on the legacy states that 'Much of Khalid's strategical and tactical genius lies in the use of extreme violence in his methods. To him a battle was not just a neat maneuver leading to a military victory, but an action of total violence ending in the total annihilation of the enemy'. While this may be true and I dont object to it, the statement overlooks the very solid fact that Khalid fought a rapid series of battles spanning over three years and inorder to limit his numerical inferiority for successive major battles, he had to be ensure that few enemy combatants escape the field alive. Otherwise, his victorious battles would amount to nothing - he would just be building stronger armies to fight him later. The conditions of his wars with the two powerful empires of his time dictated such a strategy and any other great general from history would have followed a similar strategy of attrition in Khalids place.tqaisrani
User:Suhrawardi
the edits by this user is some what strange, if there is authuntic narrations from early historians then there seems no requirment to add the narrations that are "weak" from the un-popular writers, it will harm the quality of article as it did. Feel free to edit shia views if you want to, but for sunni views the stuff that is already writen there is enough and reliable, there seems no need of further addition of narrations in it, as it was the "correct" reasion ( as claimed by tabari) used by Khalid bin Walid to kill Malik. Mohammad Adil 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I really dont mind moving my arguement to Shia view but may I ask you to clarify a few points a) if the account that you reverted to is the Sunni point view could pleas state that in the headline, I had myself tried to do so but some guy came and removed that b) You mentioned that you use al-Waqdi ( I assume its Kitab al-Maghazi), that is fine with me but I could only find one single reference to that in the whole article, and surely not in the section about Malik b. Nuwayra the references in the above-metioned section are drawn from the history of Al Tabari. By the by, Al Tabari did not state that one of the account he provided in history was accurate and the other one was not. d) all the references of my contribution was provided at the very bottom of the article and they are History of Tabari, II p 503, History of Ibn Al Athir, III p 149, Usd Al Ghabah, IIII 295, History of Ibn Asakir, V p 105, 112, Khaza’in Al Adab, I p 237, History of Ibn Al Katheer VI, p 321, History of Khamis II p 233 Cheers--Suhrawardi 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
but actually the problem is that most of the modern and early muslim historians seem to reject this version of killing of malik, in which it says about some mis-interpretation of words of khalid by soldiers etc etc ... leutinent general Agha ibrahim akram wrote in his book sword of Allah
This matter of Malik and Laila has been the subject of much dispute in Muslim history. Some, quoting sources like Abu Qatadah, have said that the household of Malik had called the Adhan and that Malik had returned to the faith before he was taken captive. Others have said that Khalid never ordered the killing of Malik, that the weather was chilly and Khalid had said, "Warm your prisoners", that in certain dialects the same word is used to denote 'warming', and 'killing', thus Dhiraar misunderstood Khalid's order and went and killed Malik.
These versions of the story are, in all probability, not true. They have been offered by factions-one to explain away Umar's hostility towards Khalid and the other to clear Khalid of the possible guilt of murdering a Muslim.
There is no doubt about the apostasy and sedition of Malik bin Nuwaira, his distribution of the tax money, his pact with Sajjah, and the participation of his warriors, on his orders, in the depredations of Sajjah. All historians have, without exception, reported these incidents as facts. There is also no doubt, in the mind of this writer that Khalid ordered the killing of Malik and did so with the honest and sincere conviction that Malik was an apostate and a traitor. But suspicion continued to lurk in the minds of some Arabs, certainly in the mind of Umar, that this was a crime de passion. Umar was further encouraged in this belief by the brother of Malik, who came to see him and told him what a wonderful man Malik was and how tragic it was that he had fallen a victim to Khalid's lust!
the above mentioned writer supported what i have writen in the article, and yes thats from tabari etc ..not from waqdi sorry for wrong refference bro.. the writer of the book Umar Farooq-i-Azam:, Mohammad Hussain Haikal as well supports that early version mentioned in bulazuri and tabari, i am not confirm what waqdi wrote about it ! Mohammad Adil 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Good evening Mohammmad, there are a few questions that I need to raise here;
a) you said that “most of the modern and early Muslim historians seem to reject this version of killing of Malik, in which it says about some mis-interpretation of words of Khalid by soldiers etc etc” I'm with you that this account that the execution of Mailk was due to some misunderstanding is not authentic for reason related to its chain of narrators. Another story by Sayf b. Umar as well. But what I found Ibrahim Akram thesis problematic that is “Khalid ordered the killing of Malik and did so with the honest and sincere conviction that Malik was an apostate and a traitor” then how could he explain that among those who validated that Mailk was a Muslim, were these three distinguished companions of the prophet namely : Abu Khatadah, Umar b. Khatab and Abu Bakr Al Sidik and these great scholars of Islam: Al Wakidi, Ibn Abd Al Rab, Ibn Katheer, al Quoushaji, and Ibn Al Athir, the latter for instance comments that:
ويدل على أنه لم يرتد، قول عمر لخالد: قتلت امرأ مسلما، وأبو قتادة يشهد انهم اذنوا وصلوا، وأبو بكر يرد السبي ويعطي دية مالك من بيت المال، فهذا جميعه يدل على أنه مسلم!! فرحمه الله تعالى " (أسد الغابة: 4 / 295 - 296، موسوعة عظماء حول الرسول (صلى الله عليه وسلم): عبد الرحمن الكعك، 3 / 1709.)
b) if Khalid was as honest and sincere in the conviction that Malik was an apostate and a traitor as Arkram claims, then how on earth he kills a Muslim person without imprisoning him for three days to give him the chance to repent before carrying out the execution as the Islamic law states, illustrated in the conduct of the holy prophet and Al Faruk Umar see for instance these two incidents:
" بلغ النبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ارتداد امرأة تدعى أم رومان، فأمر أن تستتاب وإلا قتلت " وروي " أن رجلا أتى عمر من قبل أبي موسى، فقال له: هل من مغربة خبر؟ فقال نعم، رجل ارتد عن الإسلام فقتلناه. فقال له: هل حبستموه في بيت ثلاثة أيام واطعمتموه كل يوم رغيفا، استتبتموه لعله يتوب؟ ثم قال: اللهم إني لم أحضر ولم آمر ولم أرض إذ بلغني " (شرح فتح القدير: 4 / 386. كشاف القناع: 6 / 174 حاشية الدسوقي: 4 / 304.)
c) Al Faruk justly denounce Khalid of being
“the enemy of Allah attacked a Muslim man and murdered him and then raped his wife” “عدو الله عدا على امرئ مسلم فقتلته ثم نزا على امرأته” ( تأريخ الطبري 2 ص 503، تأريخ ابن الأثير 3 ص 149، أسد الغابة 4: 295، تأريخ ابن عساكر 5 ص 105، 112، خزانة الأدب 1: 237، تأريخ ابن كثير 6 ص 321، تاريخ الخميس، 2: 233، الإصابة ج 1 ص 414 و ج ص 357.)
which seems to go in "prefect harmony with" Arkram assesrtion of Khalid's honest belief of Malik's apostasy.
d)still for the sake of argeument if said that Umar was wrong in his accusation against Khalid(as Arkram seems to suggest) , then Al Faruk should have been subject of Khazif punishment(for Khazif punishment, see Al Imam Al Shafi’i’s Al Umm, VI, p 148).
e) as you know both in the study of history and the hadith, there is a great emphasis on the chain of narrators or the Isnad for a given report, didn’t this Arkram read what the great traditionalists like Sham Al Din al-Thahabi wrote about the narrator of the account that “most of the historians report” as Arkram claim, namely Sayf b. Umar is being
“dismissed, liar, a fabricator of hadith and was accused of blasphemy” "متروك كذاب، يضع الحديث متهم بالزندقة" ميزان الاعتدال 2/255 رقم 3637
The issue my friend, is that Al Tabari gives more than one report about the same event, using different chain of narrators, and our job as history buffs is to search in the orginal references comparing, evaluating and contrasting each and every report, studying the Isnad of each of these reports before jumping in and claiming that there is one true authentic account just because two guys accept it while many others give through a strong chain of isnad another virsion of the story. Check History of Tabari, II p 503, History of Ibn Al Athir, III p 149, Usd Al Ghabah, IIII 295, History of Ibn Asakir, V p 105, 112, Khaza’in Al Adab, I p 237, History of Ibn Al Katheer VI, p 321, History of Khamis II p 233 to name but a few to see the different account of the event, relying on a strong chain of narrators.
Having said that let me share this suggestion with you, I would suggest that you call your account of the event Account A and mine will be Account B By the by, do you have a copy of Al Tabari and the rest of folks, and what editons are you using, as this will make the cross referenc much easier for you and me. Cheers --Suhrawardi 11:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok i am here sorry of being late.
you fist argue was then how could he explain that among those who validated that Mailk was a Muslim, were these three distinguished companions of the prophet namely : Abu Khatadah, Umar b. Khatab and Abu Bakr Al Sidik
then, its a matter of fact that NO ONE amoung them were present at the time when Zirrar ibn azwar's corp arrested malik.(Tabari: Vol. 2, Page. 504.), yes it was zirrar that arrested malik not khalid not umar not abu bakr and not even abu qatadah !
apparently khalid belived what zirrar's corp told him about malik.
so you cant argue that why umar,abu qatada and abu bakr belived so and so, i wrote some explaination in the article of layla bin al minhal i am pasting it here too as it seems to satisfy your this argue too, here it is ......
Yes umar said that, but the point to be noted here is that Umar was not present at the time when the incident happned, therefore what ever he said was baised upon the narrations he got from malik's brother and abu qatadah (accodring to Tabari: Vol. 2, pp. 501-2.)
When abu bakr called khalid back to madinah, umar met khalid in the prophet's mosque and said ..."You killed a Muslim and snatched his wife, You ought to be stoned to death." , khalid ignored him so that may matter will not become more seriour as umar had a great influence in front of abu bakr, he went straight to abu bakr.
When abu bakr decleared khalid inocent from the claims over him khalid went to umar in the prophet's mosque and said to him "come to me O' left handed-one' ", umar simply went to his home with out replying khalid(Tabari: Vol. 2, p. 504.), this clearly shows that umar was embarrassed over his behaviour with khalid.
as far as Abu qatadah is concern then after khalid was decleared inocent he fought under khalid in battle of yammah and in the iraq campaigns.
in the light of above mentioned narrations it is clear that umar and abu qatadah were satisfied with abu bakr in declearig khalid inocent from the claims of murdering a muslim.
The most important and strange thing is that layla didn't said any thing rearding khalid's behaviour to wards her husband, all that was done by abu qatada and malik's brother, i think its enough to support the argument that layla was satisfied being khalid's wife.
your 2nd argue was, if Khalid was as honest and sincere in the conviction that Malik was an apostate and a traitor as Arkram claims, then how on earth he kills a Muslim person without imprisoning him for three days
he was apostate, but Rebel as well, and according to the orders of Quran, those who create mischief in the land must be KILLED, remmember at the conquest of mecca even hinda was forgiven by prophet(pbuh) but a few ppl who created mischief in the land were ordered to killed where ever seen(i think 3 of them were later forgiven as well).
you there mis-quoted umar you said that umar said “the enemy of Allah attacked a Muslim man and murdered him and then raped his wife”
but check again he said But this enemy of Allah has killed a Muslim and taken his wife!" (tabari Vol. 2, page. 503-504 and Balazuri: page no: 107.) this he said to abu bakr and to khalid he said "You killed a Muslim and snatched his wife", Umar shouted. "You ought to be stoned to death." (Tabari: Vol. 2, p. 504.), no where he used the word RAPED. there is great difference in marrying and raping, rest of this is explained in what i pasted here from the layla's discussion.
your 3rd argue was if said that Umar was wrong in his accusation against Khalid(as Arkram seems to suggest) , then Al Faruk should have been subject of Khazif punishment
well, umar didn't claim that "khalid did so and so" we all know it that he was at madinah when all this happned, so he was "supporting" just a harsh view against regarding layla's matter. i am still unable to see any narration in which umar have a claim on khalid that he did so and so. what ever umar said to khalid was as a rival says to his opponent...."like a police man says to a man that you have killed your wife", in this case police man will not be subjected to kazaf punishment lolzzz, and what umar said to abu bakr, it was as abu bakr's advisor not as an "ordinary man", if two judges are discussing a matter and one says that this guy have kiled his wife other says no he didn't ... then in case if the "guy" proves to be inocent of the claim over him, the 2nd judge will not recive a kazaf punishemnt lolzzz its totally illogical.
i am not sure which version i am using( i will check it tomarrow in library where i go) i am in pakistan and i think that in pakistan this version will be ever where , where are you from ???
i support the more sensable version of tabari which is also supported by other historical narrations present in tabari and bulazuri.
waiting for your reply.
Mohammad Adil 17:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Good evening pal, Before I reply to the points you made, may I ask you whether you can speak Arabic as I compliment my answers with the original Arabic texts.
1-The Conduct and the example set by the prophet
Let us start with the supposed notion of Malik being a traitor that Khalid justified his killing upon (as Akram claimed). Take this example from the life of the prophet, on the eve of the conquest of Mecca, the prophet prepared a secret expedition to take Mecca by surprise. Unfortunately, a certain Hateb, a companion of the prophet, whose family had remained behind in Mecca, wrote a letter to the pagans revealing the intended enterprise, and gave it in charge of a singing woman, who undertook to carry it to Mecca. She was already on the road when Mohammed was appraised of the treachery. Ali and five others, were sent in pursuit of the messenger. They soon overtook her, but searched her person in vain. Most of them would have given up the search and turned back but Ali was confident that the Prophet of God could not be mistaken nor misinformed. Drawing his scimitar, he swore to kill the messenger unless the letter was produced. The threat was effectual. She drew forth the letter from among her hair.
Hateb, on being taxed with his perfidy, acknowledged it; but pleaded anxiety to secure favor for his destitute family. So what did the noble prophet do? Did he kill him because not only he attend to contact the pagan enemy and reveal the secret plan that would consequently put the lives of thousands of Muslim at risk? No, on the contrary, he forgave him. So if this was the conduct of the prophet against a traitor who tried to be a spy for the pagans of Mecca. Why the example set by the holy prophet was not heeded in the conduct of Khalid. While those who the holy prophet order their execution upon the conquest of Mecca were: the foster brother of Uthman who was a former scribe of the Quran who distorted the verses of the Quran, or a person who had killed his Muslim servant and renounced Islam and defamed the prophet, a couple of pagans who hurt the prophet himself. And another person who killed a Muslim man. The prophet does not order killing at will, or just for some alleged excuses without proper investigation in his part, his ordering of the execution of these fugitives was based on the groundings of murder, distortion of the verses of Quran and the physical assault of the holy prophet. Where did Malik ever killed any one or distorted the verses of the Quran, or physically attacked the prophet. You might say, well what about the narration that he backed Sajah? See the section below to find out.
Thus lied Say b. Umar
2- The second issue is the narrator of the version of the event in which Malik allegedly endorsed prophetess Sajah, namely Sayf b. Umar Al Tamimi, The eminent historian, Wilferd Madelung (whose work is a standard reference of the succession to the prophet both in Wikipedia and the academia) repudiates the claim of Sayf stating that:
The account of the fiction writer Sayf b. Umar, according to which Malik backed the prophetess Sajah, can be discounted in spite of Caetani acceptance of it (Annali, II/1, 654). Umar and other Muslims would hardly have protested against Khalid’s treatment of someone ‘who had become a true apostate (Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad, p 50 footnote, 1997)
While the prominent traditionalists like Ibn Hajar Al Askalani, Ibn Adi, Imam al Hakim, Ibn Nomair, Al Barakani, Al Dar Khotni, Ibn Jawzi, Ibn Adb Rab, Al Albani, and al-Thahabi, to name but a few of those renowned scholars who denounced the narrations of Sayf b Umar on the grounds of being “a liar, a fabricator of hadith and was accused of blasphemy” Is he the kind of narrators that one would rely upon to present “historical facts” ? How can we believe the fictional account one of a liar while a significant number of great scholars like Al Wakidi, Ibn Abd Al Rab, Ibn Katheer, al Quoushaji, and Ibn Al Athir validate that Malik was a Muslim based on the fact that Abu Bakr released the prisoners of Malik’s tribe( these would be booty of war if they were apostates) paid composition Dayha to Malik’s brother from the treasure of Muslim(why he would do so to a brother of an apostate if he was happy with what Khalid told him) all these were clear indications for the above-mentioned scholars and me that Malik was a Muslim. In addition to the endorsement of Abu Khatadah and Umar of Malik’s being a Muslim, which they didnt withdraw. Umar’s silence or as you put it “embarrassment” could be also contributed to the fact that Abu Bakr did not sanction his accusation against Khalid, not because he was presented with a clear evidance to clear the side of Khalid.
Let us not forget that the same narrator of the Malik fictional backing for Sajah, Sayf b. Umar, provides another contradictory account in page 502 of Al Tabari in which Malik proclaimed he was a Muslim but he execution was due to some misunderstanding in the part of Khalid’s soldiers because of the alleged dialectal differences. So why do you accept one narration of of the fabricator of the Hadith, Sayf b. Umar while rejecting the second one in which he demolishes all the alleged apostasy of Malik and blame the dialectal differences? If you say that it is because the scholars dismiss him and his fictional narrations, I would join with you in agreement. And in this case we need to dimiss his contradictory accounts of the same event altogether, having doing that(as most scholars of Islamic history have already done stated above) it would be feasible then to endorse the narration on the authority of Abd Rahman b. Abu Bakr
Abu Bakr the Judge
3-It was ironic that the “judge” Abu Bakr, as you called him, cleared the side Khalid of the murder crime, just by listening what the perpetrator had to say while at least two well respected companions witnesses his crime and they were supported by Umar himself don’t you agree with me that this was one of the weirdest kind of court proceedings to say the least. and if you say that this was not a court conduct, than I’m not sure how do you understand the word “I’m going to stone you to death” if Umar did not believe the account of Abu Khatadah and abd Allah b Umar? . I’m not sure what kind of incompetent “policeman” as you put it would not only say you killed your wife but I’m going stone you to death as a punishment(surely that would be the kind of policeman who faces no accountability in front of law) if that is the case of an ordinary policeman. Are you trying to tell me that there was no Islamic law that would hold Umar accountable for his blunt accusation. What about Al Khazif punishment my friend? Is Umar above the law? Or were the Islamic laws have selective implementation.
Rebel or Victim?
4-You wrote that “he was apostate, but Rebel as well”. For the nearest notion of “rebellion” in the holy Quran it is revealed: if two groups of believers fight, conciliate between them, but if one of them transgresses upon the other fight the one which transgresses until it turns to the order of Allah. Then if it turns, conciliate between them with justice and act fairly” and according to renowned scholars like Abd Allah Bin Qudamah: It is not legitimate to fight the transgressors until they are being sent a person who inquire from them and explain to them the truth, and answer their grieves and argument, if then it they remain unmoved then their fighting is permissible(Al Mughanah, X, p 53), did that take place with Malik? No, the man was an unarmed man, and did not wish to fight Khalid, so the very thesis that latter scholars wrote about what constitute an transgressor (or rebel in your words) is not applicable here. Even if he was, did Khalid go on explain to him the truth, and answer Malik’s grieves as speculated by the scholars, NO. And as I said before if Malik was an apostate, then how on earth Khalid kills a Muslim person who became apostate without imprisoning him for three days to give him the chance to repent before carrying out the execution as the Islamic law states, illustrated in the conduct of the holy prophet and Al Faruk Umar. And that is why I find it very hard to accept your thesis here.
Disentangle the bewilderment
5-You wrote that “was zirrar that arrested malik not khalid not umar not abu bakr and not even abu qatadah”. Firstly, it seems that you misread the history of al Tabari totally my friend, there with various narrations in the Chapter of Al Bat’ha’a , Zirar b. Al Azwar was identified as the person who beheaded Malik(there is one reference to Abd b Alzwar al Assadi as the executor though), not the one who arrested him as you wrote pal.
As to the present of Abu Khatada, it is well confirmed by himself on one occasion according the report of the narrator that you endorsed namely Sayf b. Umar. That is why I asked you which copy of Al Tabari are you using in order to disentangle the bewilderment and confusion . As for the present of witnesses, in the history of Abu Fida’a, I, p 158, it is reported that: Abd Allah b Umar and Abu Khatadah were present and they spoke with Khalid about Malik, but Khalid despised their talk, Malik plead to Khalid “ Send us to Abu Bakr and he shall judge our fate” but Khalid said that “God will not pardon me if I pardon you” and according to Al Ibn Abi Shahna as well as the history of Abu Fida’a in same page “ Malik turned to his wife, and said: "You are the one to bring death upon me." But Khalid said "No. You have become an apostate, and your apostasy is responsible for your death." Though Malik protested “I am a Muslim” Khalid shouted “ Zirrar behead him”
See the Arabic texts of the above as well as piece of poetry condemning the act of Khalid by Ibn Al Noumair al Saidi :
كان عبد الله بن عمرو أبو قتادة الأنصاري حاضرين فكلما خالدا في أمره فكره كلامهما. فقال مالك: يا خالد ابعثنا إلى أبي بكر فيكون هو الذي يحكم فينا. فقال خالد: لا أقالني الله إن أقلتك
أمر خالد ضرارا بضرب عنق مالك فالتفت مالك إلى زوجته وقال لخالد: هذه التي قتلتني. وكانت في غاية الجمال، فقال خالد: بل قتلك رجوعك عن الاسلام فقال مالك: أنا مسلم. فقال خالد: يا ضرار! إضرب عنقه فضرب عنقه وفي ذلك يقول أبو نمير السعدي: ألا قل لحي أوطؤا بالسنابك * تطاول هذا الليل من بعد مالك قضى خالد بغيا عليه بعرسه * وكان له فيها هوى قبل ذلك فأمضى هواه خالد غير عاطف * عنان الهوى عنها ولا متمالك وأصبح ذا أهل وأصبح مالك * إلى غير أهل هالكا في الهوالك
And also see the last word of Malik to his wife: Malik turned to his wife, and said: You are the one to bring death upon me, meaning for the sake of protecting you, your beauty brought my death: In these Arabic references:
قال الزمخشري وابن الأثير وأبو الفدا والزبيدي: إن مالك بن نويرة رضي الله عنه قال لامرأته يوم قتله خالد بن وليد: أقتلتني. أي عرضتني بحسن وجهك للقتل لوجوب الدفع عنك، والمحاماة عليك
(الفائق 2 ص 154، النهاية 3 ص 257، تاريخ أبي الفدا ج 1 ص 158، تاج العروس 8 ص 75.)
Arguments v Counterarguments
6- Having said, there are a couple of counterarguments that you made my friend and I feel I should answer them: the first one is of Umar usage of the word rape as I put it or take as you put it, well the word Al Faruk employed was Nza : for the usage and connotation of the word go to Al Tabari, Volume I, p 207 and will see that is being used to describe the offensive sexual intercourse among the homosexual of Lut people. And this was report was provided by Tabari in his commentary of Quran on the verse of XXIX, verse 29: And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you.
And the activity of this lewdness was described as Nza in the commentary. And as you know this offense is being condemned by Islam see the Arabic text:
حدثنـي مـحمد بن خالد بن خداش ويعقوب بن إبراهيـم، قالا: ثنا إسماعيـل بن علـية، عن ابن أبـي نـجيح، عن عمرو بن دينار، فـي قوله إنَّكُم لَتَأْتُونَ الفَـاحِشَةَ ما سَبَقَكُمْ بِهَا مِنْ أحَدٍ مِنَ العالَـمِينَ قال: ما نَزَا ذَكَرٌ علـى ذَكَر حتـى كان قوم لوط.
And in the Fiqh references the word Nza(نزا) is also being used described the activity of lewdness of having sexual intercourse between humans and animals which is also being condemned by the Islamic law.
So whether you call that adultery, rape or sexual offense , Khalid did not embark upon a legitimate marital act in the eyes of Umar, but rather a crime that Umar found as serious as the murder of the Muslim man according to which Khalid were to be stoned to death as punishment for them.
The King History?
7-To conclude, I would say that we both have different interpretations for the study of history as I remember Carr once said “History is nothing, interpretation is everything” and that is the case here my friend, obviously you are comforted by stories of great heroes, Roman style statesmen and tough unbeaten soldiers. While I have always felt that history was a constant conflict for power, wealth, land and desires. I felt that the golden-glow approach to figures in the Islamic history and depicting them as combination of saint and heroes was unreal both to the history and human nature. That is why I feel that this event as well as any other event needs and deserves to be presented from more than one angle. We can expand the article and call it Ben Nwayrah Affair and we both can go on and present our interpretations of the event armed with the arguments and counterarguments that we have. I will conclude with what Wilferd Madelung has to say about the subject in question :
“Quraysh pursued the war against the ‘apostates’ with enthusiasm. The spirit with which it was waged is clearly reflected in the cold-blooded execution of Malik b. Nuwayra and others of the Banu Yarbu after their surrender and confession of Islam and in the appropriation of his wife by Khalid b. al-Walid”
( The Succession to Muhammad, pp 49-50, 1997)
Looking forward to hear from you pal.
Cheers, --Suhrawardi 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
User: Mohammad Adil
Where are you pal? you asked me to discuss the article first before going on and editing it and that is what I'm doing now... --Suhrawardi 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Some thing is missing !!!!!
I am now a days out of town, busy in my studies therefore dont have much time to see wikipedia and therefore i am on a short leave from here, i just saw this article writen by me ... and in its protion Conquest of eastern roman empire i noticed a large part missing dont know from how many other places it has been corrupted by any "brilliant" User ! I will inshallah go home in mid-march and will fix this article's missing stuff which have make it crap for a new reader.. and also some shia sunni controversy is going on here .. a some one have titled the heading "Malik bin naweirah and his tribe" to "Shia views on malik bin nawerah" though what i wrote there previously was a general view oo historians and a sub heading with purely shia views was added, which now has been removed.
Article need a review .. strongly ! Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
draw battle?
how can a battle end with draw, if all the soldiers die it is defenders win, if attackers gain what they want and then flee its attackers win, but draw for a battle :) sounds like favouring this guy :) he sure was defeated by Byzantines... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.210.126 (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- draw is actually that the battle had no result, byzznitne's target was to encircle and kill whole of the muslims army, where as muslims were there with a small army for raid. Khalid was not in the command of the army, he latter assumed the command and as due to the mistakes of the previous commander ( 4 commander killed one by one in that battle) the situation was quit tense and the only glory lies in a successful escape from there, and khalid guided the muslims to arabia. thats it, he never fought in that as a commander nor assumed command to fight against byzantines.
hope you will understabnd. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The current article.
The current article is badly in need of a review. Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)