Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

The Sword of Allah was the title bestowed to one of Islam's greatest generals and closest companions to the prophet and the 'rightly' guided caliphs by none other than prophet Muhammad himself, Khalid ibn Walid.

In honor of his new title and taking a leaf from Muhammad's playbook, Khalid unsurprisingly managed to live up to his militant moniker during his short career as a Muslim general.

While the list of massacres carried out by the armies of Muhammad and the 'rightly' guided caliphs is long, one of the most savage and brutal is retold in Tabari's history of the invasion of Iraq in which Khalid, following the example of Muhammad to execute prisoners of war, makes a covenant with Allah to defeat Khalid's enemies and behead their entire army as an offering to Allah.

http://books.google.com/books?id=47P...0blood&f=false

The Muslims raged against them. Khalid said, "Oh God, if you deliver their shoulders to us, I will obligate myself to You not to leave anyone of them whom we can overcome until I make their canal run with their blood." Then God defeated them for the Muslims and gave their shoulders to them. Khalid then commanded his herald to proclaim to the men, "Capture! Capture! Do not kill any except he who continues to resist." As a result, the cavalry brought prisoners in droves, driving them along. Khalid had detailed certain men to cut off their head in the canal. He did that to them for a day and a night. They pursued them the next day and the day after, until they reached al-Nahrayn and the like of that distance in every direction from Ullays. And Khalid cut off their heads.

Al-Qa'qa and others like him said to Khalid, "Even if you were to kill all the population of the earth, their blood would still not run....Therefore, send water over it, so that you may fulfill your oath." Khalid had blocked the water from the canal. Now Khalid brought the water back, so that it flowed with spilled blood. Owing to this, it has been called Blood Canal to this day.

Not surprisingly, many Muslims today continue to venerate Khalid ibn Walid as a good Muslim and see his example of mass beheading, along with the passages in the Koran calling for beheading and the precedent set by the prophet in beheading his enemies, as actions to follow to this day.

Devout Muslim nations, such as Saudi Arabia, in following sharia law also continue to employ beheading (as well as crucifixion) as a public form of execution. While grizzly decapitations are carried out officially by Muslim nation-states, Muslim individuals have sought to increase their deen and take it upon themselves to emulate Islam's greatest general and last prophet.

Such individuals include late mujahideen (jihad warrior) Abu Musab Zarqawi, who made it known that he was influenced to behead captured civilian Nick Berg with a knife based on the example set by prophet Muhammad in executing an entire Jewish tribe and two prisoners of war after the battle of Badr by beheading.

And as always, some peaceful Koranic verses to accompany this thread:

8:12: When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, 'I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers' hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!'

9:5: Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms (become Muslim), then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

Thanks for starting a thread on one of the most brilliant and successful military men in history.

It is for others to compare the Orientalist spin with actual historical accounts by credible historians, rather than the selective quoting and spinning seen above.

But just to bring you up on a small nugget you posted - can you define why you think Khalid's military career was 'short'?:

Khalid unsurprisingly managed to live up to his militant moniker during his short career as a Muslim general.

Are we talking about the same person here? How long was his career as a Muslim general? (BTW - your link doesn't work)

Or are you just in awe of his military conquests as a Muslim general?


Note that the Shia literature on Khalid is hardly flattering, but Khalid's actions are covered in a book that eh has claimed to have read - Kennedy's 'Great Arab Conquests'. In that book Kennedy shows that massacres were not the norm in the early Muslim conquests - in contrast with the later Christian invasions of the Holy Land which were characterised by the slaughters of Jews at home and then Arab/Eastern Christians and Muslim civilians in the Mid East.

The fact that Kennedy disagrees with eh-oh's 'fact' that Muslims carried out massacres in the early conquests speaks volumes. But hey, why let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good Orientalist spin eh?

(For more info on Khalid bin Walid - a good place to start is the wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid )


Cheers,
Shafique

I was under the impression that Khalid was put out to pasture by Umar and Khalid subsequently drank himself to death (perhaps because of his guilt over the thousands of prisoners of war he beheaded?).

But anywho, perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.

in contrast with the later Christian invasions of the Holy Land which were characterised by the slaughters of Jews at home and then Arab/Eastern Christians and Muslim civilians in the Mid East.

The offer to compare the number of civilians and pows murdered by the Crusaders during the first crusades with those by early Muslims is still standing. I see that you have wisely decided not to take me up on this challenge.

Well, the Wikipedia article says that Khalid was a general under the Muslims from 632 to 638 - a total, if shafique is any good at basic arithmetic, of 6 years. Certainly a short time for one of history's greatest generals.

Edit: new linky -

http://books.google.com/books?oe=utf-8& ... arch+Books

You didn't answer the question.

How long do you think his military career was under Islam, and why did you characterise it as 'short'?

If you didn't know this simple fact (quite unsurprising) - why should we trust the rest of your 'analysis'?

Cheers,
Shafique

Ah, I posted the above +before+ you looked up the info on wiki.

So you didn't know the answer before looking it up - interesting that.

Even then, we see an apparent lack of comprehension - you say:

Well, the Wikipedia article says that Khalid was a general under the Muslims from 632 to 638 - a total, if shafique is any good at basic arithmetic, of 6 years. Certainly a short time for one of history's greatest generals.

Leaving aside the sarcasm, the article actually says Khalid converted in 628 and was a commander in the Battle of Mu'tah in 629.

9 years as a general and his list of military achievements is not what I would call 'short' - but hey, you have an interesting way of viewing stats as we've seen in other threads.


Cheers,
Shafique

So you didn't know the answer before looking it up - interesting that.

Nope - I don't google factoids. You seem to be obsessing over dates, hey, I can understand that when you can't address the OP, this is really your only other option.

Be that as it may, that doesn't change my previous claim - Khalid's career as a general for Islam *was* prematurely cut short. Anyone who has read up on this (as you will after reading wikipedia for a few more minutes) will see that he was decommissioned by Caliph Umar even though Khalid was just as, if not more so, successful during his last years as a general for Islam as when he was under Abu Bakr.

(Oh, and I also think that this is ironic coming from someone who has shown what little he knows about the New Testament (and Talmud) but nevertheless is still content on writing long, fact less, and often times arriving at incorrect conclusions about both of these topics - such as repeatedly asserting that Jesus was the speaker in the epistle of James, Paul persuaded Peter in Peter's dream in Acts 10, claiming that James was against converting Gentiles, etc.,...)

A general serves for 9 years and is responsible for a string of brilliant conquests.

You call this 'short' - as I said, it was just that your statement struck me as ill-informed and your confirmation that you didn't know how long he served clarified that your initial statement was not based on actual knowledge of the facts, but rather on what you believed.

Nothing new there then.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yep - and Caliph Umar's forcing Khalid into early retirement in spite of his brilliant conquests - many of which involve massacres (and crucifixions based on the teachings of the Koran), including against the southern Christian Arab tribes, underscores my point that Khalid's career as a general was short.

I understand your embarassment about the lack of foundation for your views - blindly believing Khalids generalship was short without checking the facts and compounding the error by mis-calculating his tenure by 50% can't be a pleasant experience.

To compound this uneasiness, I also reminded you that military historians such as Kennedy in his book 'Great Arab Conquests' - (which you say you've read and have quoted from), disagree with your 'allegation' that early Muslim conquests were characterised by massacres.

But hey, I'm not disputing your selective quote - just your analysis that seems to be based more on an Orientalist fantasy of Islamic teachings/history rather than facts.

Anyway - let's look on the bright side, your calculation of Khalid's tenure was only 50% off - which makes a change from being 100% wrong!

Cheers,
Shafique

I understand your embarassment about the lack of foundation for your views - blindly believing Khalids generalship was short without checking the facts and compounding the error by mis-calculating his tenure by 50% can't be a pleasant experience.

Yes, I am sure that is really embarrassing that I characterized Khalid's stint as a general as 'short' when he was dismissed prematurely by Caliph Umar at the prime of his career.

Not as embarrassing as actually lacking a basic knowledge and understanding of the New Testament or pontificating on the Talmud and Rabbinic Judaism but, apparently (not really), embarrassing none the less.

I've also seen that you have not addressed the OP or allegations that Khalid had carried out similar massacres as he was a commander under Muhammad and general under the Kalifa.

Disappointed but not surprised.

Good - nice to see that you have some sense of shame and are embarrassed when found wanting.

As I said in my first post - you have been shown to know little about the subject and yet drew conclusions and an analysis based on a selective quote. It is not surprising that your conclusions are so off the mark when it now is clear you really don't know what you are talking about.

Repetition of your false belief that early Muslim conquests were characterised by massacres won't change the fact that Kennedy disagrees with you - but I'm glad you are not denying this. We'll chalk this down to another unsubstantiated 'quaint' belief and await your next selective quote referenced from an Islamophobic website.

You said Khalid had a short military career as a Muslim commander, and were shown to be wrong on this point. What is surprising is that you are still repeating the Orientalist notion that the list of massacres committed by the early Muslim armies is 'long' - when the book you've quoted from before (Hugh Kennedy's 'Great Arab Conquests') concludes quite the opposite - that some massacres are reported in the histories, but they weren't the norm.

I understand you want to ignore the conclusions of military historians and stick to the Orientalist lines - but I would expected you to at least have read up on some of the facts before embarassing yourself with a litany of errors in the opening post of a thread.

Better luck next time.

(I understand that you are feeling jaded that the statistics of modern day Muslim converts killing civilians is so short - less than 10 - when compared to modern day Christian convert terrorists - standing at over 200, but you can do better if you put your mind to it)

Cheers,
Shafique

As I said in my first post - you have been shown to know little about the subject and yet drew conclusions and an analysis based on a selective quote. It is not surprising that your conclusions are so off the mark when it now is clear you really don't know what you are talking about.

I'm sure I know more about Khalid ibn Walid than you know about the Talmud - as displayed by your total ignorance on the other thread. In fact, I'm sure I've studied Khalid Walid's campaigns and life more than you have - you seem to run to wikipedia and present your newly acquired information as ground breaking analysis that only serious historians (which I'm sure you count yourself as one) know about.

But hey, I can understand your hang up over an accurate description of Khalid's position as a general - if you can't address the main point in the OP (that Khalid and the early Muslims were butchers) focus on a very trivial point instead.

You said Khalid had a short military career as a Muslim commander

Are you still unaware that Khalid was prematurely decommissioned as a general by Caliph Umar? Wow, please read your own wikipedia link.

What is surprising is that you are still repeating the Orientalist notion that the list of massacres committed by the early Muslim armies is 'long'

Well, I suppose that massacres carried out at Ullays, Alexandria, Istakhr, Dvin, Nikiu, Casearea, Palestine and a few other cities/battlefields is a long list to me. Perhaps this simply boils down to a matter of opinion, though. I consider at least half a dozen large scale and unpunished massacres as long.

I understand that you, however, seem to feel that murdering and enslaving over one hundred thousand civilians and pows is not long (if the massacres are carried out by Muslims). Again, this boils down to personal opinion - I choose to condemn the early Muslims for these massacres and see no excuse or justification for them.

On the other hand, you believe that under the Crusades, massacres were the 'norm' even though highly respected Crusader historians have shown that civilians killed by the crusaders were around even with civilians murdered by the Muslims.

All that just to say you don't agree with me and Military historians who you like to quote!

As I said, you're entitled to continue to believe in the Orientalist view of early Islamic history - I'll happily quote the conclusions of experts who have written on the subject.

I wonder why you feel the need to go back to Orientalist histories when I ask you to condemn modern day Jewish Terrorists or ask what you latest count is for Muslim convert terrorists?? It appears you want to live in a past world where everyone 'knew' that Islam was a violent religion.

Cheers,
Shafique

Everyone knew Islam 'was' a violent religion - including Muslims themselves:

The Muslims raged against them. Khalid said, "Oh God, if you deliver their shoulders to us, I will obligate myself to You not to leave anyone of them whom we can overcome until I make their canal run with their blood." Then God defeated them for the Muslims and gave their shoulders to them. Khalid then commanded his herald to proclaim to the men, "Capture! Capture! Do not kill any except he who continues to resist." As a result, the cavalry brought prisoners in droves, driving them along. Khalid had detailed certain men to cut off their head in the canal. He did that to them for a day and a night. They pursued them the next day and the day after, until they reached al-Nahrayn and the like of that distance in every direction from Ullays. And Khalid cut off their heads.

Al-Qa'qa and others like him said to Khalid, "Even if you were to kill all the population of the earth, their blood would still not run....Therefore, send water over it, so that you may fulfill your oath." Khalid had blocked the water from the canal. Now Khalid brought the water back, so that it flowed with spilled blood. Owing to this, it has been called Blood Canal to this day.

At least this time you didn't supply your interpretations of the selective quote - perhaps you're learning (given that the first time round you put your foot in your mouth by stating facts that exposed your ignorance on the subject).

As I keep repeating - your whole line of argument that Islam's early military conquests were characterised by massacres has been discredited by Hugh Kennedy in his book 'Great Arab Conquests' which you have and have quoted from.

The massacres that he says occured were not the norm, he concludes.

What is eminently instructive is that despite his conclusions, you insist on selecting the passages that detail these alleged massacres and present them as evidence that this was Islam's M.O. - therefore deliberately distorting the conclusions of actual military historians.

The fact you do this knowingly shows to me that your agenda is not to uncover the truth, but to justify your Islamophobia.

You even chose to selectively quote Kennedy when he describes the accounts of massacres, but choose to ignore his conclusions.

That, in itself, speaks volumes.

Cheers,
Shafique