A dedication, Khalid Ibn walid One of the greatest Warriors who ever lived.

I have already explained the sourcing issue as it may pertain to the
specific name "Khalid" I am satisfied with the explanation, and I have
nothing material to add.

I do wish to emphasize that although I was speaking of non-Muslim
sources, there is no reason to discount naming identification in the
Muslim sources, since they should have been aware of who their own
rulers and generals were, and since nobody doubts that these rulers
and generals conquered territory about the size of the modern USA
in the 150-200 years after Mohammed's death.

This site probably has as much as an English speaker could hope for
on the internet;

Islamic history sources

I do not know what term they used, but there were certainly people
who identified themselves as followers of the religion founded by
Mohammed, namely Islam.

Yes there was, and Khalid was active under the leadership of the first
two successors of Mohammed, namely Abu Bekr and Omar (spelling may
vary according to translitration system).

Feast your eyes on all the records in the link provided:

Islamic history sources

And note that there is one for the Muslim conquest of Egypt written
by Copts.

Here it is again, take a look:

Islamic history sources

Addressed.

The events are uncontroversial, and your speculation about them
is absurd.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Look, I'm going to make this easy. Cite a peer reviewed publication that has the contemporary reports.

You popped in here claiming to have some information and all you have provided is a link. Go into your link and get the information and post it.

As it stands there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad "Islamic" or otherwise. That's a simple Historical fact. Writing about Zeus and Hercules 150 years after the historical events is not contemporary evidence that Zeus or Hercules existed. Even if there were contemporary written evidence, Zeus and Hercules may not have existed. But, at least we'd have contemporary evidence. In the case of Mohammad, the contemporary evidence is exactly zero. The best we have is a Greek complaining about a heretical Christian making mischief in the lands around Syria. Who could, quite frankly, be anyone.

Now, as for Khalid, I should suspect there is some evidence of someone, some people or something going on. Not of a "Companion". There is no evidence of a companion because there's no contemporary evidence of a Prophet named Mohammad. There is a coin with the word Mohammad, used as a title for Jesus. Which is probably where the story of Mohammad was initiated from - a illiterate interpretation of common coined propaganda.



So, you popped into the thread claiming to have an expertise of the topic, and have not posted a single primary source. Offering up a link as your source material would just about get you laughed out of any serious academic debate.

Which is why we should do everyone a favor and close the thread. Sure, it'd be great to learn about the real history as we now understand it. But we're not interested in wasting more time reading Islamic fiction. There's much much better contemporary stories of war - - if we wanted to read fantasy.

I suggest the thread is on page 3 without a single citation and should, unfortunately, be closed on grounds of spamming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Neat theory, except that Buddhism is older than Christianity and we do find Muslims destroying libraries/books/authors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wars not make one great. :itold:

 

I don't see how a religion whose foundation myth includes destroying other people's religious icons and property (known derogatorily as 'Idols') in Mecca can be thought of as inclusive. It's going to take some bending over on the word "Inclusive". I don't think there is any evidence Mecca even existed at that time period, but, that's the foundation myth as nonetheless.

 

... and to this very day uses state power to prevent anyone of the "wrong" faith from so much as setting foot in that formerly-inclusive space. But, foundation myth or not, pretty much any religion that operates on the principle of "we possess absolute truth and if you don't go along you'll be destroyed and punished for ever" is going to demand a stilted definition of "inclusive."

Fortunately, we are blessed with imminent experts in the field of bending concepts over a barrel and ass-raping them into incomprehensibility, particularly when they come to bear on the prospect of any negative connotation of any kind being attached to Islam.

 

Which is why Buddhism was such a forward thinking religion. A philosophy that Indians could really be proud of.

 

Citation does not get any better than what I have already provided,
namely a combination of sources going back to the earliest available,
vetted by modern scholars employing modern methods. The information
I claim was imparted to me by a lifetime of reading, going back to
AP HS and College, which made use of such sources.

Besides that, the history described in the threadstart is so clear-cut
and so uncontroversial that it should be up to skeptics to provide
contradicting evidence.

All you asked for was a link. I was hoping you might use it to provide
yourself with some much-needed self-education. Make that desperately
needed self-education.

I will make it this easy, but just this once. Here is a passage from a
Christian source demolishing your ridiculous notion that the conquerors
of the ME 634ff might not have been Muslim:

The History of The Patriarchs of Alexandria

(from link, emphasis added):

I include the second paragraph in the interest of transparency,
since it names a CC general other than Khalid. I hope you won’t
get too hyped up about that since the Arabs also had active
fronts in Mesopotamia, Asia minor and Iran, and Khalid could not
be in more than one place at a time.

It is a simple historic fact that there is copious contemporary evidence,
but all of it is Arab.

However, that does not matter because other evidence is conclusive.
Arab, language, religion and art were permanently implanted in territory
whose extent I have informed you of earlier.

It occurs to me you need to be reminded that there is no independent
corroboration of such events as Caesar’s conquest of Gaul either. Yet
there is no more reason to doubt that conquest took place, and for the
same reasons there is no doubt the later Arab Muslim conquests took place:
implantaion of Roman language, religion, art, and other aspects of culture.

I have no idea where you are going by interjecting Zeus and Hercules
into the discussion.

Addressed.

Oh? who is this mysterious Greek of yours?

It so happens I did some looking of my own for original Greek sources,
and according to this link there were none for the events 634ff who
have survived:

Byzantine Historians

The closest Greek contemporary was Theophylakt of Simokatta whose
work ends with events of 628, before the start of the Arab wars.

Following his career there is a gap of 170 years before the next known
Byzantine historian, Nikephoros (fl. 806-815)

Addressed.

Addressed.

I could use a good laugh. How about you providing some of
your sources for this “real history as we now understand it”.

What a little jerkweasel this Michael guy is. He provides no sources
at all for his own ridiculous alternate history, he refuses to consult
sources provided by his betters, and then he accuses his betters
of spamming. The fact is he commands the mental equivalent of a
one-inch penis, and I wonder if real lack of natural endowment hasn't
provided psychiatric impetus for his intellectual malformation.

 

Be careful McFly, err NcDane, some people around here will see you banned for attacking a member. Fortunately, I'm not so thin skinned

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your quote is from Severus ibn al-Muqaffa and written in the 10th century. Either your penis is less than an inch or you're intellectually more malformed than your parents had hoped beyond hope .... or, as I am guessing, probably both.


I asked for a contemporary citation and you puke up 10th century religious propaganda. Thanks for the wasted band width. As it stands there is no contemporary evidence for Mohammad and not a single cited primary source for Khalid. While I already know Mohammad is fictional, I was hoping to at least read something interesting about Khalid.


Seeing as in you know so much, with your 1/2 inch wrangler and all, why don't you do us all the favor of letting us know the date the Qur'an was completed: Day, Month, Year.


Pffffff.....

Day, Month and Year, think you can do that McFly?... LOL

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another seemingly interesting thread spammed to death by religious propaganda. Great to know nothing changes around here.

 

?

The truth is defense against allegation of libel.

I guess that’s the result of a lifetime of getting your ass kicked
on forums such as this.

Addressed.

For you to suggest that would prove anything confirms the atrophied state
of your critical facilities.

 

This is exactly why I suggested the thread be closed for spam.


History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria was written in the late 10th century - obviously not contemporary. A link to a list of Byzantium Historians is a link to a website, not a primary source, not a review of the primary source, nothing.

As it stands no one has provided any contemporary evidence of a historical Khalid having existed. While, it seems reasonable someone or something happened around that time period, and it would be very interesting to find out what, for now we have no idea. I'm wondering if Khalid wasn't a Persian general who was later Arabized into the Islamic 'Arab' mythology. Which is very interesting. I think it's as, if not more, interesting than how 'Islam' evolved from Gnostic Christianity. Perhaps Sethians as they were fluent in 'Arabic' and share most of the basic myths with modern Muslim (such as Jesus not being crucified). Khalid's role, if he even existed and if he was a Persian general, in promoting Sethianism would be interesting, if true. Lot's of Ifs. Which is why I thought this was going to be an interesting thread. Unfortunately it turned into your typical religious spam feast.

Maybe we need a rule that if you open a thread in the religious subsection it must accompany a reputable link to a proper citation and within 3 pages should have links to peer reviewed books and journals.


As for Mohammad, there is no contemporary evidence of such a person ever having lived. None. This one is simple. Post the information from a peer reviewed source if you have it. Not a link to more religious propagandists. I'm more than interested - go for it.


Of course, it's possible these people may have lived. Hercules may have lived. FSM may exist.

That's not the point. The point is there is no contemporary evidence. Which tells you something was more than likely made up. Anyone thinking even a tiny bit about it would understand that not knowing the data the Qur'an was completed suggests the enter Islamic foundation is pure mythology. It's pretty simple really. No one here thinks Zeus really existed and most people understand Greek foundation myth is just that - myth. Mohammad fits perfectly into this category along with all the other thousands of Last Prophets of that time period. (Mohammad flew a winged fairy creature up into the heavens ... I mean, come on. How dense are people? Don't tell me you believe in that silly nonsense?!? Mohammad and the Magic Carpet Ride... hahahahah LOL

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... too funny)




Did Khalid exist?
THAT is the real question of this thread.
As it stands Khalid is more myth than man. Not a single contemporary source has been posted up. I now wonder: Will Khalid go the way of Mohammad? More Muslim mythology?

 

Even if this general really did exist, and really did win a series of bloodthirsty barbaric conquests to spread Islam, how can he be regarded as such an amazing warrior? All he effectively did was set up a bunch of gas stations for Rommel's Afrika Corps when they were ready to roll through 1300 years later. Plenty of great generals out there who did far more with far less- I hear the Muslims did a spectacular job holding off Genghis Khan (golf clap)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I have reached the point where I agree the thread should be
closed, but I think the reason it should be closed is spamming
by the member quoted above, and throw in trolling for good measure.

Although his objections have been met he persists in ignoring
fact and logic and he persists in spamming his bizarre alternate
view without offering a scintilla of support, other than his own voice.

It should not be difficult for anyone in possession of normal critical
facility to notice that if his standards were to be universally applied
then the existence of numerous historical figures and events must
be doubted, when there is actually no reason to doubt them.

Earlier I mentioned Caesar's Gallic conquest; now let me introduce
Alexander the Great: A little googling will reveal that Alexander died
in 323BCE, and the first surviving source is that of Diodorus fl. 1st century
BCE- about 200 years later. Those of us in the know are aware of the
fact that Diadoch Ptolemy did write a contemporary biography of Alexander.
Alas, it did not survive, and even if it had our Mr. Michael teenyweeny
would not accept it, because of its cultural bias.

Why, King (formerly General) Ptolemy could have just made up a fictional
character named Alexander, and foisted him on the teeming gullible masses!
And for that matter, how do we even know that Ptolemy existed?
Contemporary citation, if you please!

Did Alexander?

 

Because all a general needs to do to be a great general is win battles.

And to be fair to the Muslims of that era I do not think they were as
guilty of massacre as others of their time.

I guess this is some kind of joke.

Genghis and Khalid were both undefeated. A match between them
would have been interesting.

Ghnegis successors were also undefeated- until 1260 when, as a
matter of fact, they suffered their first defeat in pitched battle
at the hands of the Muslim Mameluk dynasty of Egypt in the battle
of Ain Jalut. In 1281 the Mameluks did it again, at the battle of Homs.
Subsequently the regional Mongol Khan became a Muslim.

 

RE: Contemporary Evidence of Julius Caesar.

You know, this is actually a good idea.

Coins are common, durable, minted by all leaders DURING their lifetimes (as propaganda) and so would make the best starting piece of good evidence.

We have contemporary coins minted on order of Caesar. They have been (and are) found all over the Mediterranean. There are many many different types of contemporary coins minted during Caesars' lifetime. Whole books are dedicated to the study of roman coins.

For example: A special military coinage was produced by Caesar during his final campaign against the Pompeian forces ending in the battle of Munda, 17 March 45 B.C.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, let's see a contemporary coin minted on order of Khalid Ibn walid. I'm sure there must be many, as he conquered so many cities (or is purported to have).

 

Interesting premise. Is there non-western evidence of Caesar or Ptolemy or Alexander? Clearly retrospective analysis of western "history" shows lots of devotion to fictional characters as though they existed. But is there any evidence of those characters which are deemed as factual from other non-western contemporaneous sources?

I do believe we could wipe out a significant portion of western history by using the simple criteria that only those characters which receive contemporaneous recognition from unbiased external sources can be deemed as real

Cesar is a common name. Like Mikael. Its not evidence of anything except some dude named Cesar. Its like having Jesus on a coin.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or Michael

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well SAM, it may be that Julius Caesar did not exist. However, we have a great number of contemporary coins, minted in the lifetime of Caesar, with the name Caesar on said coins - which can be found all over the ancient Roman Empire. As one would expect to find, if there did exist a Julius Caesar.

Also, where are you pulling this "Non-Western" from? Did I say non Persian? Non Arab? No. I don't think so. I said secular and contemporary. I also said one good place to look would be all of the major cities who would have lost massive investments in Syria and Egypt - namely Italian City States, Greek City States, Persian Cities and Constantinople. Plenty of investment in Syria and Egypt and more than enough literary scribes writing pretty much every single small event that happened. Hell, Egyptians recorded every single cult/religion in Alexandria - very detailed information. Surely someone somewhere would have mentioned something about such a Great General as Khalid Ibn walid IF he existed.

Oh, I didn't get the date on the coins you posted? Jesus who? Michael who? Are you referring to Jesus the Messiah of the Christians? Was the coin minted in this so-called Jesus's lifetime? Was Michael the Arch Angle - when was he purported to exist, just before the creation of Earth I think it was???



So, let's start at the start. Coins. We have a great number of coins minted during the lifetime of Julius Caesar, do we have coins for Khalid Ibn walid? One would expect these coins to exist all over the "Arab Empire" so it should be pretty simple to find one to post up here in this thread.



Then we'll move on to other contemporary lines of evidence. I suggest we stick with the durable - contemporary stone carvings.


This is pretty simple stuff. History 101 I think it's called? Oh, and no SAM, when you post up the coins minted by Khalid Ibn walid they do not have to be "Non Arab". They can be Persian or Arab or whatever. ALL great leaders since about 5000 years ago minted coins.

 

Of course Alexander III minted many coins during his lifetime (which if he existed was supposedly brief). The first coin was possibly used as propaganda to recruit an army in preparation for the invasion of the Persian Empire.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I suppose if we're going to round off the other great Emperor's.

Coin: Great Mongol Empire, copper (billon) fals struck during the reign of Chingiz Kahn [Genghis Khan] (1206-1227). Mint: Bokhara.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The first Emperor of China Qin Shi Huangdi. Known as Banliang coins, these circulated as money in the powerful state of Qin during the violent Warring States period (475-221 BC). In 221 BC the Qin state emerged victorious and founded the new Qin Empire. Qin Shi Huangdi, the first emperor of unified China, also unified the currency, announcing that banliang coins would be standard throughout the Qin Empire.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!