![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
BATTLE OF HUNAYN(630) IS CITED BEFORE TREATY OF HUDAYBIYA(628) --asa 06:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Mzsabusayeed
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's OK to refer to him that way once, but repeatedly is unacademic/unprofessional. It's unfit to be in an encyclopedia. Kanjo Kotr ( talk) 22:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Khalid is greatest general of all time, arguably. Alexander is the second greatest general. For example, compare battle of Nihawand to Guagamela. Archaemenids recovered, Sassanids never recovered. In Yarmouk, Khalid outnumbered 10 to 1 but still victorious! He did not inherit an army, like Alexander's macedonian army from King Philip. He vanquished Persia and devastated Byzantium in 6 years! Plus he was many times outnumbered. None of these factors apply to Napoleon or Hannibal or Alexander. Acknowledge facts and logical truth. Dont become biased because Khalid was a muslim. Recognise his military genius and supremacy as the greatest general, Just as you recognise Shakespeare as arguably best writer in English langauge and Beethoven as arguably best composer. Acknowledge this truth impartially and accept my edit: "Khalid was arguably the greatest military commander in history."
PS stop referring to me as a vandaliser. I am speaking the stark truth. I respect wikipedia and want to mantain its status as the most comprehensive, voluminous, and reputable, informational resource on the internet.
Cordially,
-- Don Zaloog ( talk) 02:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Don Zaloog
I added a request for cleanup, foremostly because of the use of low-quality sources. A lot of elements of this person's life are presented as factually known in this article while this is highly doubtful. It should be rewritten in a more source-neutral style.
And sentences like these:
"He is also one of the two military commanders, the other being Hannibal, who have successfully executed the pincer movement against a numerically superior opponent." and "This is a tactic that has been used repeatedly since, notably in the World War II North African campaign."
They are indications of a high amount of fanboyism and personal fantasy on this page. It should be removed, but since I lack the time I put up a template for others.
Wiki1609 ( talk) 20:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
BUT KHAILD FOUGHT OUTNUMBERED, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE WITH HANNIBAL.
Yasin2005 ( talk) 00:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The article may be wrong to repeatedly refer to Walid as undefeated. The result of ThebBattle of Mu'tah is disputed, with some contemporary historical sources from the time of the battle claiming it to have been a loss.
68.10.90.26 ( talk) 06:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
NO ONE WON IN THE BATTLE Yasin2005 ( talk) 00:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The source added for this does not work, or it is not accessible. If you are going to add "rape", please find a reliable, verifiable source for it. Unflavoured ( talk) 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
My answer would be that it doesn't sound like a legit marriage. However, it is Hazrat Umar's (R.A) reaction to the *initial* news he got. After getting the news Hazrat Umar under that assumption of the news he had sought for Khalid to be punished. Khalid defended himself by stating that he killed an apostate and married her. Had he not married her, it was the an oppurtune time for her to get justice, instead she decided not to seek any punishment toward Khalid and stayed his wife. It was 1,400 years ago with an absolutely crazy mindset for the modern world. Caliph Abu Bakr did not have any basis of punishing Khalid for rape since she never testified despite being able to (she had Hazrat Umar (R.A)'s back if it was the case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaybs ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I would further like to note that Muhammad bin Jarir Al Tabari (who is quoting Hazrat Umar (R.A)) is not a reliable source on Hazrat Umar (R.A). He has attributed many things to Hazrat Umar which are not true such as a pact which out rightly discriminates against non-muslims/dhimmis was contracted upon the conquest of Jerusalem, it is a historical fallacy and no such incident took place. His views on Hazrat Umar (R.A) were aligned with the Shias, so much so that his very life was threatened by Sunnis (even though he was one too). He also claimed that Hazrat Umar caused the miscarriage of Hazrati Fatimah's baby when not a single Sunni source had any such documentation. While there are Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim which may be anti-Umar, it is because they would collect hadith from all sorts of sources including Shia. Now the claim that Hazrat Umar kicked Hazrati Fatima in the stomach and caused a miscarriage first appeared in a book by a well-known Shia Sulaim bin Qays, it was in his collection of 'hadith' this claim was first made and it is worthy to note his book was not released until AFTER his death. Anyhow, Al-Tabari and also adhered to this view when none of the Sunni scholars accepted Sulaim bin Qays' work as legtitimate. So it is noteworthy to check the source of Al-Tabari AND the belief of Al-Tabari's source as Al-Tabari was heavily influenced by Shia views with regards to Hazrat Umar (R.A) before saying it is a "Sunni" view.
Sulaym bin Qays' book does not having a single complete survived manuscript and the claim it was published in the 7th century is not true since the oldest copy dates back to the 17th century, which means the time-span difference is of 10 centuries, all other Shia hadith collection date back to the 10th or later and most of the book's author's work are posthumous just as with Sualym bin Qays and I'm not talking about their manuscripts. Whereas Sahih Bukhari was written 3rd century AH and its manuscripts are available in the 7th century AH and other commentary work on Bukhari manuscripts by others are available in 5th century AH. Big difference. All of this must be noted. The readers do not have all of this background knowledge while reading something on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.80.87 ( talk) 16:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I allowed myself to delete the following section from this article due to factual inaccuracy: "He is one of three military generals in history to remain undefeated in battle."
How do we know that only three military generals remain undefeated in battle? The claim seems highly dubious and largely irrelevant to the article, even if one acquiesces his unblemished record. How about Jan Zizka, Alexander Suvorov, Alexander III of Macedon, Scipio Africanus, Maurice de Saxe or Sulla? And that's merely in Europe. 93.167.158.129 ( talk) 20:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The Quran mentions that in the battle, virtually everyone ran away. Evidence indicates that only 8 were left and one of them was not Khalid. So though the battle was won and it was led by Khalid, it was no thanks to Khalid. He also did not win in most of the fights against the Muslims. So "undefeated?" Hardly. This distinction belongs to Ali (AS). Even in Uhud, where the Muslims lost, Ali was one of the 5 who remained defending the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) against the enemy hordes. UmarAlFarooq ( talk) 12:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Sulaiman(Khalid's eldest son), was not killed during the Muslim conquest of Egypt.He died during the Siege of Diyarbakir.His tomb in there.After the Conquest of Diyarbakir, his family settled in this city.Many family like Halidi family ,claim their descendant from Khalid ibn al-Walid. Rashed156258133 ( talk) 12:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the lead, we hear that "In 2013, the Syrian army destroyed Khalid ibn al Walid's grave during their bombardment and siege of the rebel city of Homs.[3]". First of all, that source is not reliable (blog). Secondly, the real source is an article on The New York Times, which says that the Khalid ibn al-Walid Mosque has been perforated, not destroyed. Thirdly, nowhere in the article does it explicitly say that the mosque was destroyed by the Syrian army, but rather "He described a tough fight. Rebels, he said, are using churches and mosques, including the revered Waleed mosque, as bases, “so we have the right to attack them inside.". So, nothing explicit. I will remove that sentence from the lead. If anyone has a better source (that mentions the grave, instead of the mosque), we could add something about it (but not in the lead). Best, -- Spivorg ( talk) 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a debate about whether Khalid's title should be translated as the 'Sword of God' or the 'Sword of Allah'. I firmly believe that it should be 'Sword of God' because 'Allah' is not the word for the Islamic God, it's the Arabic word for God. For instance, the Christian God and Jewish God would also be referred to as Allah in Arabic, and they're, in fact, all the same God (all three religions acknowledge this).
I previously made an edit to the article changing it from 'Sword of Allah' to 'Sword of God' with the simple explanation,
Some asshole broke Wikipedia's rules by reverting my change without giving a reason other than, "Sorry, but I disagree with you. It should be left as the sword of Allah." Rather than edit warring him, as he's made a number of edits to this page and I'm sure he would change it back immediately, I am making this discussion. What do you fellows think that the title should be translated to? If you strongly believe that it should be translated as 'Sword of Allah', please give a good reason why, instead of just expressing your opinion.-- DeaTh-ShiNoBi ( talk) 00:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khalid ibn al-Walid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khalid ibn al-Walid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.scribd.com/doc/34864705/The-Book-of-IdolsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
BATTLE OF HUNAYN(630) IS CITED BEFORE TREATY OF HUDAYBIYA(628) --asa 06:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Mzsabusayeed
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's OK to refer to him that way once, but repeatedly is unacademic/unprofessional. It's unfit to be in an encyclopedia. Kanjo Kotr ( talk) 22:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Khalid is greatest general of all time, arguably. Alexander is the second greatest general. For example, compare battle of Nihawand to Guagamela. Archaemenids recovered, Sassanids never recovered. In Yarmouk, Khalid outnumbered 10 to 1 but still victorious! He did not inherit an army, like Alexander's macedonian army from King Philip. He vanquished Persia and devastated Byzantium in 6 years! Plus he was many times outnumbered. None of these factors apply to Napoleon or Hannibal or Alexander. Acknowledge facts and logical truth. Dont become biased because Khalid was a muslim. Recognise his military genius and supremacy as the greatest general, Just as you recognise Shakespeare as arguably best writer in English langauge and Beethoven as arguably best composer. Acknowledge this truth impartially and accept my edit: "Khalid was arguably the greatest military commander in history."
PS stop referring to me as a vandaliser. I am speaking the stark truth. I respect wikipedia and want to mantain its status as the most comprehensive, voluminous, and reputable, informational resource on the internet.
Cordially,
-- Don Zaloog ( talk) 02:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Don Zaloog
I added a request for cleanup, foremostly because of the use of low-quality sources. A lot of elements of this person's life are presented as factually known in this article while this is highly doubtful. It should be rewritten in a more source-neutral style.
And sentences like these:
"He is also one of the two military commanders, the other being Hannibal, who have successfully executed the pincer movement against a numerically superior opponent." and "This is a tactic that has been used repeatedly since, notably in the World War II North African campaign."
They are indications of a high amount of fanboyism and personal fantasy on this page. It should be removed, but since I lack the time I put up a template for others.
Wiki1609 ( talk) 20:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
BUT KHAILD FOUGHT OUTNUMBERED, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE WITH HANNIBAL.
Yasin2005 ( talk) 00:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The article may be wrong to repeatedly refer to Walid as undefeated. The result of ThebBattle of Mu'tah is disputed, with some contemporary historical sources from the time of the battle claiming it to have been a loss.
68.10.90.26 ( talk) 06:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
NO ONE WON IN THE BATTLE Yasin2005 ( talk) 00:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The source added for this does not work, or it is not accessible. If you are going to add "rape", please find a reliable, verifiable source for it. Unflavoured ( talk) 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
My answer would be that it doesn't sound like a legit marriage. However, it is Hazrat Umar's (R.A) reaction to the *initial* news he got. After getting the news Hazrat Umar under that assumption of the news he had sought for Khalid to be punished. Khalid defended himself by stating that he killed an apostate and married her. Had he not married her, it was the an oppurtune time for her to get justice, instead she decided not to seek any punishment toward Khalid and stayed his wife. It was 1,400 years ago with an absolutely crazy mindset for the modern world. Caliph Abu Bakr did not have any basis of punishing Khalid for rape since she never testified despite being able to (she had Hazrat Umar (R.A)'s back if it was the case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaybs ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I would further like to note that Muhammad bin Jarir Al Tabari (who is quoting Hazrat Umar (R.A)) is not a reliable source on Hazrat Umar (R.A). He has attributed many things to Hazrat Umar which are not true such as a pact which out rightly discriminates against non-muslims/dhimmis was contracted upon the conquest of Jerusalem, it is a historical fallacy and no such incident took place. His views on Hazrat Umar (R.A) were aligned with the Shias, so much so that his very life was threatened by Sunnis (even though he was one too). He also claimed that Hazrat Umar caused the miscarriage of Hazrati Fatimah's baby when not a single Sunni source had any such documentation. While there are Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim which may be anti-Umar, it is because they would collect hadith from all sorts of sources including Shia. Now the claim that Hazrat Umar kicked Hazrati Fatima in the stomach and caused a miscarriage first appeared in a book by a well-known Shia Sulaim bin Qays, it was in his collection of 'hadith' this claim was first made and it is worthy to note his book was not released until AFTER his death. Anyhow, Al-Tabari and also adhered to this view when none of the Sunni scholars accepted Sulaim bin Qays' work as legtitimate. So it is noteworthy to check the source of Al-Tabari AND the belief of Al-Tabari's source as Al-Tabari was heavily influenced by Shia views with regards to Hazrat Umar (R.A) before saying it is a "Sunni" view.
Sulaym bin Qays' book does not having a single complete survived manuscript and the claim it was published in the 7th century is not true since the oldest copy dates back to the 17th century, which means the time-span difference is of 10 centuries, all other Shia hadith collection date back to the 10th or later and most of the book's author's work are posthumous just as with Sualym bin Qays and I'm not talking about their manuscripts. Whereas Sahih Bukhari was written 3rd century AH and its manuscripts are available in the 7th century AH and other commentary work on Bukhari manuscripts by others are available in 5th century AH. Big difference. All of this must be noted. The readers do not have all of this background knowledge while reading something on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.80.87 ( talk) 16:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I allowed myself to delete the following section from this article due to factual inaccuracy: "He is one of three military generals in history to remain undefeated in battle."
How do we know that only three military generals remain undefeated in battle? The claim seems highly dubious and largely irrelevant to the article, even if one acquiesces his unblemished record. How about Jan Zizka, Alexander Suvorov, Alexander III of Macedon, Scipio Africanus, Maurice de Saxe or Sulla? And that's merely in Europe. 93.167.158.129 ( talk) 20:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The Quran mentions that in the battle, virtually everyone ran away. Evidence indicates that only 8 were left and one of them was not Khalid. So though the battle was won and it was led by Khalid, it was no thanks to Khalid. He also did not win in most of the fights against the Muslims. So "undefeated?" Hardly. This distinction belongs to Ali (AS). Even in Uhud, where the Muslims lost, Ali was one of the 5 who remained defending the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) against the enemy hordes. UmarAlFarooq ( talk) 12:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Sulaiman(Khalid's eldest son), was not killed during the Muslim conquest of Egypt.He died during the Siege of Diyarbakir.His tomb in there.After the Conquest of Diyarbakir, his family settled in this city.Many family like Halidi family ,claim their descendant from Khalid ibn al-Walid. Rashed156258133 ( talk) 12:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the lead, we hear that "In 2013, the Syrian army destroyed Khalid ibn al Walid's grave during their bombardment and siege of the rebel city of Homs.[3]". First of all, that source is not reliable (blog). Secondly, the real source is an article on The New York Times, which says that the Khalid ibn al-Walid Mosque has been perforated, not destroyed. Thirdly, nowhere in the article does it explicitly say that the mosque was destroyed by the Syrian army, but rather "He described a tough fight. Rebels, he said, are using churches and mosques, including the revered Waleed mosque, as bases, “so we have the right to attack them inside.". So, nothing explicit. I will remove that sentence from the lead. If anyone has a better source (that mentions the grave, instead of the mosque), we could add something about it (but not in the lead). Best, -- Spivorg ( talk) 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a debate about whether Khalid's title should be translated as the 'Sword of God' or the 'Sword of Allah'. I firmly believe that it should be 'Sword of God' because 'Allah' is not the word for the Islamic God, it's the Arabic word for God. For instance, the Christian God and Jewish God would also be referred to as Allah in Arabic, and they're, in fact, all the same God (all three religions acknowledge this).
I previously made an edit to the article changing it from 'Sword of Allah' to 'Sword of God' with the simple explanation,
Some asshole broke Wikipedia's rules by reverting my change without giving a reason other than, "Sorry, but I disagree with you. It should be left as the sword of Allah." Rather than edit warring him, as he's made a number of edits to this page and I'm sure he would change it back immediately, I am making this discussion. What do you fellows think that the title should be translated to? If you strongly believe that it should be translated as 'Sword of Allah', please give a good reason why, instead of just expressing your opinion.-- DeaTh-ShiNoBi ( talk) 00:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khalid ibn al-Walid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khalid ibn al-Walid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.scribd.com/doc/34864705/The-Book-of-IdolsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)