Fought over 100 battles

why do people pursue this skopje meme when modern macedonian nation is completely different ethnic and linguistic group and also geographically different to ancient macedon.

The scholars have said something beautiful about this fact. Remember that Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, RA, was called the Saif Allah(Sword of God).

"only Allah may sheathe the sword that He himself has unsheathed."

Didn't he cuck a dude of someone by stealing his wife and then proceeding to kill the man when he complained?

You say the entire thing in one flow.
Khalidib-nal-waleed

No, he killed a man in battle who was the commander of the opposing army and then married his wife after her mourning period was over. This kind of marriage would often serve to unite two opposing tribes.
Since he was very new to Islam at the time, some of his subordinates thought it might have been dubious or in bad taste, but since he waited the mourning period and did not force the woman into marriage, it was judged to be all halal.

It wasn't halal or normal at all, the Caliph even dismissed Khalid from the army after that controversy:

>Khalid declared Malik a rebel apostate and ordered his execution.
>Abu Qatada Ansari, a companion of Muhammad, who accompanied Khalid from Medina was so shocked at Malik's murder by Khalid that he immediately returned to Medina, and told Abu Bakr that he refused to serve under a commander who had killed a Muslim.The death of Malik and Khalid's taking of his wife Layla created controversy. Some officers of his army—including Abu Qatadah—believed that Khalid killed Malik to take his wife.
>After the pressure exerted by Umar—Khalid's cousin and one of Caliph Abu Bakr's main advisors—Abu Bakr called Khalid back to Medina to explain himself. Although Khalid had declared Malik an apostate, in Medina, ‘Umar told Khâlid: “You enemy of Allâh! You killed a Muslim man and then leap upon his wife. By Allâh, I will stone you". Some have argued that Umar later dismissed him from army service over this.

>some had argued
This little greentext skips about a half a decade of faithful service of Khalid ibn al Waleed where he fought tons of battles under both Abu Bakr as Sadeeq, RA, and Umar ibn al Khattab, RA. This event happened in Khalids(RA) early career as a muslim general. Umar had already expressed concerns about the fact that people had started to turn from faith in Allah to faith in Khalid ibn al Waleed and that's why he took him from his service. Even Abu Bakr(RA) had questioned Umar about why he had always had such a strong dislike of Al Waleed(RA), before and after this specific incident.

You're essentially implying that Khalid got fired 20 years into his

PLEASE, SOMEONE SUGGEST SOME BOOKS ON THIS GUY.

I too would like to hear suggestions.
All my sources just skim over him as part of 'Early Islam'.

>Wut?

People were idolizing him (unbeatable general and all), so he was fired from his job. He thought the people who fired him, and thus ensured he dies in his bed and not on a battlefield, were cowards.

Pretty sure they dismissed him after he accepted a huge gift, which people thought can be considered a bribe.
Then the caliph said that people are giving him respect and worship that is only due to God, and not to his general, so he released him.

Basically a warlord getting too popular with the people, so the tzar gets scared and sacks him. Also look at Roman and Byzantine examples.

I found a book but it is nowhere online and is very expensive both new and secondhand.

goodreads.com/book/show/1746031.Khalid_Bin_Al_Waleed

This period was only written about a hundred years after it occurred, when some jewish academics were captured and they helped reform desert folklore into islam.
The guy himself is thus more of a religious figure, and only mentioned in religious texts, and we don't have hard facts other than the battles he fought, and approximation of the forces involved and the result.

factual sources and not just folktales pls?

How do you think the byzantines lost all of their holdings in the middle east and the sassanids dissapeared?

By having a massively depleted military and social structure in the east thanks to years of intense and exhausting warfare between the two biggest superpowers of the day. Then being invaded by an army of fanatical barbarians who were highly aggressive and motivated.

That doesn't necessarily entail the magical hero Alibuwalibu the sword of islam BTFOing armies 3 times his size thanks to the divine grace of god.

One of the dumbest things you could possibly do as a historian is trust an early Islamic source.

He did lose a battle, but I don't think he was the main commander. A very early (Greek-Arab) unimportant battle.

Sulla never lost a battle. He never even had an unsatisfying victory, which Alexander did.

proud jordanian here it is pronounced halid ibben al waleed the h at the start is pronounced with flem like the stereotypical way

That's metal as fuck, even heard of this guy before

Napoleon

Zizka
Suvarov

I will freely admit that early Islamic battles is not a topic I am that expert on.

I'm not asserting anything one way or another but I would be fascinated to know how strong the historical sources are for his military career.

Have we got good sources, or is Veeky Forums just for shitposters?

The Mongols probably burned all the sources

many sources are from islamic scholars which tells his exploit in more detail (look for ibn ishak instead of the early sources as the numbers are more reasonable) but we do have byzantine source of his most important battle (yarmouk)

>"In this year the Saracens—an enormous multitude of them—(setting out from) Arabia, made an expedition to the region of Damascus. When Baanes had learnt of this, he sent a message to the imperial sakellarios, asking the latter to come with his army to his help, seeing that the Arabs were very numerous. So the sakellarios joined Baanes 338 and, setting forth from Emesa, they met the Arabs. Battle was given and, on the first day, which was a Tuesday, the 23rd of the month Loos, the men of the sakellarios were defeated. Now the soldiers of Baanes rebelled and proclaimed Baanes emperor, while they abjured Herakleios. Then the men of the sakellarios withdrew, and the Saracens, seizing this opportunity, joined battle. And as a south wind was blowing in the direction of the Romans, they could not face the enemy on account of the dust and were defeated. Casting themselves into the narrows of the river Hiermouchthas (yarmouk), they all perished, the army of both generals numbering 40,000. Having won this brilliant victory, the Saracens came to Damascus and captured it, as well as the country of Phoenicia, and they settled there and made an expedition against Egypt."

Source: Chronicle of Theophanes the confessor (Oxford University Press: 1997), 469-470.

we know how khalids manouvered his armies in both battles from al-tabari

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Qādisiyyah#The_battle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk#Battle

Khalid's battles have been confirmed not only by Arabic sources, but also by Byzantine sources, most notably the chronicles of Theophanes. He mentions a number of Khalid's battles, including the key Battle of Yarmuk where Theophanes confirms that Heraclius raised a huge army at Yarmuk and the figures he gives for the size of his army is pretty much in agreement with the early Arabic sources. In fact, Theophanes gives an even larger figure for the Byzantine army at Yarmuk (80,000 Byzantines and 60,000 allied Christian Arabs) than some of the early Arabic sources (Ibn Ishaq gives a figure of 80,000 Byzantine troops).

As for the oral narrations, the early Muslim historians developed a sophisticated and rigorous historical method of determining which ones are reliable and which ones are not, which they called the science of hadith. The only ones that were deemed reliable were the ones that were passed down through an unbroken chain of narration connecting directly to Muhammad's companions and through multiple independent chains of narration. In contrast, such a rigorous historical method was non-existent in antiquity. In addition, Ibn Ishaq's earliest surviving biography of Muhammad recorded many of Khalid's battles. Ibn Ishaq was himself a student of Muhammad's nephew Urwah ibn Zubayr and thus had a direct connection to the events.

With all this in mind, I would say the historical accounts regarding Khalid's battles are more reliable than any of the accounts concerning the early Greek battles, like the Greco-Persian Wars (no contemporary accounts have survived, but we are dependent on later Greek historians who themselves depended on oral traditions, though their historical methods were nowhere near as rigorous as the science of hadith) and the battles of Alexander (hardly any contemporary accounts of his battles have survived, but we are mainly dependent on sources centuries after his battles).

Wikipedia is NOT a source, Jamal.

it sure is hard being illiterate isnt it

>You're essentially implying that Khalid got fired 20 years into his

where's my Rahimahullah?

Don't listen to this shia faggot Khalid and Umar had a very genial relationship, even after the latter fired Khalid.

What he really meant was the "cowards," like byzantines and persians, should never stop keeping a lookout for the forces of Islam because they would be relentless.

And the Muslims were engaged in intense and exhausting warfare since their inception? Why is that an excuse?

also the fact that one literally lives on a fucking desert while the other two lived on the richest part of the world at the time. the nile delta, anatolia and the euphrates

What movie is this from?

A show called called Umar. It's on youtube with subtitles probably.

Cheers

Given that a huge part of his record is based solely on Muslims blatantly lying to glorify islam?

yes.

We have sources, they're just consistently shit.

Christ you're retarded.

Muslims in South East Asian literally just use bin so it's not wrong.

Most of Byzantine and Persian loses are from their sources, not Arab ones.

>Don't listen to this shia faggot

This should be made into an internet standard tag, like or .
It can be defined as the beginning tag for buttmad religious rhetoric.

The guy was fired, and he was upset about it, and spoke to his wife that he is unhappy with the people who fired him. Her response is that its better that way, and the bitter general probably didn't agree.

Is it good?