Talk:Khalid ibn al-Walid

Article rewrite with improved sources

I'll be taking a stab at rewriting this article with the goal of bringing it back to GA-status and higher. See work in progress here. The current article seems to be largely sourced to Pakistan Lt. General Agha Ibrahim Akram's 1968 The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin al-Waleed – His Life and Campaigns along with several other sources of dubious or non-encyclopedic reliability such as many direct references to primary sources or generic sources Dictionary of Battles and Sieges and Prophets and Princes: Saudi Arabia from Muhammad to the Present. None of these sources are necessarily unreliable, and there are other sources used whose reliability and neutrality should not be questioned, but the standards should be raised overall. I don't plan on using many of the current sources in my proposed rewrite. There are many other more critical, peer-reviewed academic and encyclopedic sources available, including Fred Donner's seminal The Early Muslim Conquests, Hugh Kennedy's The Great Arab Conquests and various EI2 entries, including the source-critical article "Khalid b. al-Walid" by Patricia Crone, among others, which should form the basis of this article. Where these sources leave gaps in Khalid's biography, I intend to supplement with Akram and others. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The rewrite has been implemented. Didn't need to use Akram, and don't recommend that this book be used at all, except perhaps for the author's own opinion about Khalid in the Legacy section where I mentioned the assessment of various notable and relevant historians. There's no mention of Khalid's birth year or age in any of the sources so I'm curious where we got 585 from—so I removed this. Akram was used for this reference, but I didn't find that anywhere in his book, of which I possess a digital copy. There's a bit of supplementary use of primary sources, namely al-Tabari, but the overwhelming majority of info in the article is from modern, scholarly sources. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Popular references section

I'm not sure if this section is needed at all. Currently, it's a sample list of films and shows with characters depicting Khalid or military battalions and vehicles, city streets, etc. named for Khalid. It's mostly unsourced. If no sources can be provided, the section should definitely be removed. Of equal concern is that this list could potentially grow immensely if we are to list everything in the world that's been named in Khalid's honor. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You did improve the article in many cases Al Ameer, but why did you remove those essential info found in the beginning? He was a Sahaba, and then the occupation as a military leader comes, since he prior to the battle of mutuah he was a sahaba like others. Thank you--79.75.61.27 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is he a sahaba "and then the occupation as a military leader comes"? He was best known as a commander before, during and after his companionship with Muhammad. His companionship with the prophet was concurrent with his military service. The Battle of Mu'ta was in 629. He most likely (according to the secondary sources) converted to Islam in 629, i.e. after Hudaybiyya, though some state he and Amr b. al-As converted in 627. So it is not as if he was a companion for an extensive period prior to his service with the Muslims—he became militarily active with the Muslims almost immediately after his conversion.

Also, it is undue to have a quote with a citation lauding him for his military prowess in the lead when we already mention in the lead that historians generally consider him one of early Islam's best generals. Perhaps this could be rearranged to the first sentence of the fourth passage as opposed to the third sentence. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Name calligraphy

Hi 1210saad. I removed the name calligraphy because it is merely decoration and, I would argue, a distraction. It goes against the guidelines set by WP:MoS/Images:

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.

We already provide Khalid's name in the Arabic script and the transliteration. The calligraphy art simply does not add any value to the article other than being a decorative spelling of the subject's name, and in fact it decreases the credibility of the article. Also, as the MoS mentions:

Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.

In a case like Khalid's, like that of most the early Muslim personalities where we do not have images of coins, medieval paintings, manuscripts, signatures, etc., it's best to just leave out any image from the infobox. The rest of the article is well-illustrated, though there's certainly room for improvement. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings,

The Calligraphy is present on hundreds of names of Muslim personalities , including the companions of prophet. The article becomes artistically relevant and adds to its imagery. The presence of a an image box and previous use of such images on articles e.g Abu Bakr, Umar, Hassan, Hussain . The norm demands the use of calligraphy must be allowed.

In case of any improvements , there is plenty of places to improve the article in the phrase department. Removing the calligraphy does not improve the article quality either. SPQR10 (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You are referring to this clause below

Avoid using images to convey text MOS:TEXTASIMAGES Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image. True text can be colored and adjusted with CSS tags and templates, but text in images cannot be. Images are not searchable, are slower to download, and are unlikely to be read as text by devices for the visually impaired. Any important textual information in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text.

The calligraphy does not have the motive of conveying text in image.

Secondly carefully reading the passage just the use of word" Avoid" means its not banned to use such objects and exemptions must be allowed. and Thirdly

Any important textual information in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text. This Gudieline will be followed as has been in page [1].

I hope enough such reasons., allow the same

There is a calligraphy of this name on 36 Different wiki pages of different languages with no objections made by any editors which was used before on this page

Also this article had an image since 2013 , with no objections made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPQR10 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sword

Details of Hazrat Khalid bin Waleed (Sword). Weight? Height? Sword name (type)?

Please answer. 2409:4041:2E03:AC97:C855:B057:4BDC:DCC4 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Battles list

I don’t understand the reason behind removing a large amount of Khalid’s battles from the list. These are not skirmishes that are rejected by western academia but verified battles that all have Wikipedia pages. It would be appreciated if an explanation would be given.

The following battles were omitted after I added them: Battle of Zafar (632) Battle of Dawmat al-Jandal (633) Battle of Muzayyah (633) Battle of Saniyy (633) Battle of Zumail (633) Battle of al-Qaryatayn (634) Battle of Yaqusa (634) Battle of Marj al-Saffar (634) (634) Battle of Sanita-al-Uqab (634) Battle of Maraj-al-Debaj (634) Siege of Jerusalem (636–637) (636-637) Battle of the Iron Bridge (637) Siege of Germanicia (638)

2A02:C7E:1118:EB00:7470:76D8:F7D0:3CE9 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023

Hello there, Iam just giving a request about changing few lines about Khalid, there is a paragraph which hasn't been added. I dont know if it is written but there was a story in the Campaign of Anbar where Khalid selected old and weak camels of the army and slaughtered then to lay them on a moat. So when the carcasses rose up, the army passed over it to the fort. If this info has already been written, you can ignore this request. THANKS. MA 1.1 Type 4 (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

Could we just add the generic calligraphy picture from wikimedia in "image" please? Would look a lot more respectable. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khalid_ibn_al-Walid_Masjid_an-Nabawi_Calligraphy.png 2A01:C22:9090:A500:648E:E813:E700:9520 (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: holding off while this discussion is open. small jars tc 10:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

In the Early life section, please add that he was estimated to have been born around 584 and 592 AD. https://books.google.com/books?id=4z49BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=khalid+ibn+al+walid+born&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq2sCnzpL-AhV6m2oFHR0KALc4ChDoAXoECAYQAw

https://books.google.com/books?id=h5_tSnygvbIC&pg=PA403&dq=khalid+ibn+al+walid+born&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj578GZzpL-AhXFm2oFHQcODCIQ6AF6BAgCEAM 2600:100C:A21A:B5A1:7529:90E9:67ED:E132 (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Unfortunately, I couldn't check the first source (not much to it, apart from a name and date), I therefore used the second to add the date to the infobox. Feel free to reopen the request if you want it to be added elsewhere (just make sure you leave the exact sentence/paragraph in the request). M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

The battle of uhud ended a draw, so Khalid ibn Walid was unbeaten but he never defeated the muslims. 143.177.240.89 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AnnaMankad (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Khalid ibn al-Walid → Khalid ibn al-Waleed – the word Walid has a completely different meaning, it means father, the correct spelling is al-Waleed or al-Walīd Quirk1 (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic: "al-Walid" is fully in line with the 'basic transcription' used throughout Wikipedia for Arabic article titles. What we call 'full transliteration' (which would be "al-Walīd" according to Wikipedia's standards, never "al-Waleed") is usually only reserved for the first mention in the lead. The origins of this accepted practice may be found in that Wikipedians generally dislike special characters in article titles (cf. WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS), and so decided to dispense in article titles not only with stuff like ʿ for ʿayn but with all special formatting found in 'full transliteration'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Apaugasma. Srnec (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Historicity Section?

I'm a little surprised that there's not a section discussing his historicity? I mean, there's not a single source that mentions him until 150 years after he died. Isn't that worth mentioning somewhere in the article? 68.112.18.142 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We go by RS. Few, if any, RS dispute his existence, so such a section is not needed. On the other hand, if you mean problematizing the primary sources and discussing their reliability and discussing variant views, such info is scattered throughout the article. A dedicated section with thorough discussion cannot be added to every article on every person from that period (it would be too much and repetitive). Historiography section is useful when there are serious problems with sources regarding the article subject and the subject is of very high importance (like Muhammad, Qur'an etc.) --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I really think you should stop writing about things you havent researched properly. He is mentioned in the Khuzistan Chronicle written around 660 around 20 years after his death, aswell as in the maronite chronicle indirectly, as his son Abdul Rahman Ibn Khalid is mentioned there. So yes, he is documenting by contemporary sources, but you obviously didnt feel the need to read and instead just parroted outdated revisionist theories. 80.208.71.152 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2024

Just want to add the line; ", also known as the undefeated soldier of history and Islam and the sword of Allah" after the name. 89.211.152.1 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Khalid bin Walid

Islamic tradition acknowledges both the military successes and controversies surrounding Khalid ibn al-Walid. Incidents such as those involving the Banu Jadhima and Malik ibn Nuwayra are indeed discussed in Islamic historical sources, but they are narrated with varying interpretations depending on the source. While some accounts emphasize Khalid's misjudgment, others attribute his actions to the complexities of war or misunderstandings. Similarly, claims of moral and fiscal misconduct during Khalid's campaigns in the Levant are part of historical debates. Although some critiques are recorded—often linked to his conflicts with Umar ibn al-Khattab—they are not universally accepted as definitive. Instead, they reflect the diverse narratives within early Islamic history and require careful contextual analysis.

With this in mind, I am concerned that the emphasis placed on Khalid’s controversial incidents on his "lead section" of the page could reflect a bias, especially given the sensitivity of these events within Islamic tradition. For instance, the matter of Banu Jadhima was resolved during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and does not constitute a lasting issue. Highlighting such incidents prominently, particularly in the introduction, can create a disproportionate focus that undermines a neutral and fair representation of Khalid’s overall contributions.

When discussing the actions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) Companions, it is crucial to exercise caution and balance. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself said: "Do not revile my Companions. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, if one of you were to spend gold equal to Mount Uhud in charity, it would not amount to even a handful or half a handful (of what they did)." (Bukhari and Muslim).

Overemphasizing their mistakes without acknowledging their immense sacrifices and achievements risks creating a distorted narrative that contradicts the principles of fairness and neutrality.

II kindly urge you to reconsider how Khalid ibn al-Walid’s legacy is presented in the "Lead Section," ensuring that it adheres to Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines while respecting the sensitivities of Islamic history. A balanced approach will foster a more accurate and respectful representation that aligns with both the historical context and diverse perspectives. I hope you understand. Thank you. Selenne (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yujoong: I have no issue debating the weight we devote to one aspect or another of Khalid's career and legacy. The intro is meant to be a balanced and concise summary of the article body. Some of your edits are improvements (or attempted improvements) of the prose but several are clear attempts to play up the more favorable aspects of Khalid's career, while suppressing or softening the more negative aspects. Before we continue, it needs to be clear: Wikipedia does not show deference or a special sensitivity to any religion, prophet or prophets' companions. It is immaterial here. With historical subjects especially, we rely on quality, preferably modern, scholarship (as a guide, look for reputable publishers and journals, and/or peer-reviewed historians who are cited in other reliable sources). For editing historical subjects on Wikipedia, leave it to these scholars to interpret the old sources. Primary historical sources should be used sparingly and only with great care and attribution and for supplementary purposes. And of course, our own opinions and interpretations are not relevant here.

The Islamic tradition harps on the killing of Malik ibn Nuwayra for one reason or another, including bias against Khalid (according to Watt) and they also dwell on his apparent personal revenge killings against the Jadhima tribesmen, out of line with the prophet Muhammad's orders. The secondary sources note this and also note that while the Islamic tradition (which is a wide spectrum of the medieval Muslim sources) credits Khalid for his military talents and wartime leadership, it also criticizes him for these illicit killings and other misconduct. The article body simply attempts to reflect all this in an objective and concise manner. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand the importance of citing modern historians and reputable scholarly sources in historical articles, as you’ve mentioned. However, I believe there is an issue when modern historians, particularly those from Western backgrounds, rely on secondary sources without properly considering the credibility of the original sources they are citing. In the case of Islamic history, many of these sources are Muslim scholars, and while their reliability can certainly be debated, dismissing them outright simply because they are from a particular tradition or viewpoint may not be fair.

One example is the criticism from Sunni scholars against Shia sources, which often highlight the perceived biases of certain early Islamic historians. While I understand that modern historians might reference these sources, it seems unjust to accept their interpretations without critically evaluating the potential bias of the original works. The issue here is that these sources may reflect personal or sectarian biases rather than objective historical analysis, especially if the author harbored animosity toward figures like Ahlul Bayt or certain companions of the Prophet Muhammad. The issue between Sunni scholars and Shia scholars is further discussed here on this website : https://mahajjah.com

Additionally, I find it concerning that Wikipedia doesn't treat Hadiths, especially those of the Prophet Muhammad, with the same level of credibility. Hadiths are the second most preserved texts in Islamic history after the Qur'an and are vital to understanding the life and teachings of the Prophet. While I agree that Wikipedia aims for neutrality, I think it’s important to give proper weight to sources that are central to Islamic tradition when discussing Islamic figures and events, rather than only relying on modern historians who might overlook or dismiss these sources.

I believe a balanced and fair approach to historical articles on Islamic topics should involve careful consideration of the primary sources, including Hadith, and an acknowledgment of the potential biases of secondary sources. This would ensure that the article reflects a fuller and more nuanced picture. I hope you understand what I'm trying to convey here. Thank you! Selenne (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)