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

Discussion in 'History' started by EmptyForceOfChi, Apr 10, 2011.

  1. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    How does that mean im insulting other generals because im saying he was the best?.

    Ok so if 10 brilliant singers enter a competition and you find one of them that you favour and think is slightly better and you make this opinion known, are you saying you are insulting all other 9 singers.

    Should we be PC to the extream super max and say "everyone is just as good as everyone else at everything"


    Mashallah i have just become the best mathematician ever thanks!, I am also now on par with the prophets in wisdom, Mashallah i have suddenly become the best pilot in the world also on par with the top guns, woo yay for me/

    do you understand?

    peace be with you
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    Messages:
    527
    I don't see how promoting a mass murderer is honourable.

    The only people who glorify war is those who haven't endured it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    Didn;t you just glorify alexander?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    "Flawless Victory"
     
  8. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    God set you up on that one didn't he, he covered your eyes and didn't let you realize you were being a hypocrite until you pressed "Post reply"

    I am a friend of god's like Hazrat Khalid, when you fight against us you fight against god.
     
  9. Pinwheel Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,424
    What was it, power? Ego?
     
  10. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    No he was fighting for Islam, for god, he saw prophet mohammed pbuh for what he was, and he followed his cause and dedicated his entire life to the battlefield for the sake of justice.

    He was "the Sword of Allah"

    peace.
     
  11. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    They say that there is 2 men who could call for the title of greatest general in history on a purely aggressive and dominant front. Ghengis Khan and Khalid ibn walid.

    The difference between these 2 men is this, on one hand you have a savage who said in his own words, " I love raping the enemy women, I love causing pain and inflicting terror upon my enemy"

    On the other hand you have the other who said "I fight for god and I fight to bring justice and islam to the world" He took no wealth of spoils for himself he gave his plunder and spoils of war tot he widows and orphans of the land.

    peace
     
  12. Pinwheel Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,424
    He killed men then gave the 'spoils of war' to the widows and orphans left behind? Why kill the men in the first place?
     
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I would still like to read some contemporary source material about Khalid Ibn walid. Any one have a peer review of the primary literature? Surely a person who fought in so many battles would have made a huge impression upon the contemporary Persians, Syrians, Egyptians and Byzantine? This should be fairly easy to find records of in the 6th century.

    As for 'Muslim' - when did people first use the word Muslim? I'm fairly certain that it was decades or a century after the time period we're discussing. Anyone have an archeological review on the use of the word Muslim?
     
  14. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848

    Because those men were the romans who were trashing the middle east and going on crusades in the name of god, killing all the jews and arabs and oppressing everyone int he name of the bible.

    So inshallah soldiers were sent and they did what they came to do.

    There is a report given from the roman spies who infiltrated Khalids army, the spies lived amonst them they were an arab or "araab" tribe who the romans had living in their controlled region at the time so they were easy to put in as agents as they spoke arabic naturally. do you know what these spies reported back to the romans?

    "We have studied the muslim army and they are pious monks by night and warriors inthe day, they pray all the time and seem to summon great strength from the lord, these men are not like us they are much stronger than we are, they are fearless warrior monks, they don't drink booze and get intoxicated like our troops do, they don't rape anyone and they are alle quals they have no rank system which excuses them like we do. even if the son of their kind steals they will chop off their hands without care of his rank or position. These men surely are stronger than we and they have set up a system which truley has justice they are not divided and they only fear the Lord"


    peace.
     
  15. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848

    Is the britanica encyclopedia not good enough? if not what is?. What exactly are you looking for the white mans stamp of approval? l, I don't mean to sound rude but it sounds like you poo poo all of these reliable sources and your just looking for some white western mans stamp of approval.

    These are what the historians and scholars have to say about him, bunk info does not just get put into the britanica encyclopedia it isnt wikipedia it is all reviewed and reliable.

    peace
     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The encyclopedia Britannica is not a primary source as in I asked for a review of the contemporary primary literature. Britannica is an encyclopedia of information. It may link the primary source, although I doubt it. It may link a review which links a primary review which would cite the contemporary source. This is the sort of document we would want.

    I would assume if these exploits were as all encompassing as you suggest, that there's of course be a lot of writings from the people whose lands were being invaded and conquered. Were talking about the 6th century. Plenty of literate people around.

    And no, the author needn't have a white skin color. If you have no interest in providing research to YOUR thread I'd suggest we simply close the thread. I mean, if the person who opened the thread doesn't care enough to bother then what's the point?
     
  17. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    I do have an interest and I am currently studying this man myself, I have not known about him for very long So I have not had much preperation sorry.

    I am seeking these type of things myself michael you might even know some things about him that I do not, you could also help contribute by searching for these things and posting what you find, Look i will say this honestly, you are most likely smarter than me and I can tell you are more articulate than I am even though I don't pretend to put any effort into using the full extent of my vocabulary ont hese forums, but it is evident you have certain quality's that I lack and you seem to be a good little inspector and investigator. What have you found out about him that is peer reviewed and confirmed from multiple sources?

    I have actualy been trying very hard to gather old Persian, Byzantine and Roman accounts of this man, but see when you come across one report sometimes it is the only report of it's kind and an opoposing faction didn't encounter this exact thing to even report it. I have found reports of this man from many many sources by linking them all up is a big job especially for such a man with so many reports and legends stacked up to the roof all over the place.


    For example I have been listening to youtube lectures given by muslim imams and scholars, some of these talks are over 1.30 mins long each and there are tons of them it's taking up alot of my time, i have done nothign but sit at my computer all day and night studying this man and posting on sciforums I dedicated today for learning soley about these things.


    I have added lots of bits here and there already but i have been carefull not to just make the same mistake id di before and randomly shove any link on here without reviewing it myself so this is a slow process so far.

    Could you atleast give me a hand please and try to contribute to the thigns you are requesting, This is my thread i do take overall responsibility for it but I would like your assistance and the help of any other willing person for that matter.


    Peace.
     
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I really will not have the time for a few weeks to look into any history. BUT, I will say this, of ALL of so-called "Islamic" History, this period would probably be the most interesting.
     
  19. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    I agree im enjoying this study alot.

    Peace.
     
  20. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,844
    Source for this quote? It sounds like the typical propaganda you'd expect to hear from a colonialist conquistador, inventing fake praise from their enemies. I don't ask for a source just because I think you're citing propaganda, though... I'm also suspicious that you left out any talk about how superior the Muslim army's reproductive organs were compared to the undersized protrusions common amongst their enemies.
     
  21. NCDane Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    155
    Iran, Syria and Egypt were all conquered by Muslim armies
    in the few decades after Muhammed died. The Muslim leadership
    of the era, the Caliphate, remained in centralized political
    control for over 100 years, and Muslim rule has of course
    turned out to be permanent. Therefore Iranian, Syrian and
    Egyptian sources would not be independent.

    That leaves the Byzantines as the most likely corroborating
    non-Muslim source. Unforunately there may be no surviving
    Byzantine chronicles, and even if there were they might not
    deign to identify an infidel general by name, even one of the
    stature of Khalid.

    So anyone who insists on sourcing may have to live with
    Muslim ones. There is no reason the Muslims would just make
    up a fictional general, and there is no doubt about the results
    of the campaigns in question, whoverer the generals were.
     
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Actually there were many battles from China to Egypt were we have the conqueror and conquered's writen records, going back 7000 years in some cases. Surely there would be some contemporary evidence from 1400 years ago?

    Oh, and there is no contemporary evidence anyone identifying themselves as Muslim at that time. Unless you have some evidence suggesting otherwise. Do you? It simply was not the case historically.

    Again, there was no "Muslim leadership".

    If people were conquered there would be records. Records from the people themselves as well as from those doing the conquering. I'm simply asking for those contemporary records. Secondly, cities heavily invested in Syria and Egypt would have surely mentioned something? Plenty of literate people in Constantinople, Rome, Venice, Athens, Sicily , Rhodes, etc... etc... etc...

    It shouldn't be too hard to find a large number or historical reviews with the primary sources. So, lets get those citations.


    Actually there were no people identified as "Muslim" at that time.

    No Muslims then.

    There certainly is a lot of doubt in the veracity of those initial campaigns. Who's to say the so called Arab general wasn't actually a Christian Syrian. Or a Zoroastrian Persian Satrap in rebellion. Or a Christian Persian for that matter? Or that there was a general. Or that it was overly exaggerated? Propaganda was the norm back then.

    I'm sure there was someone or something going on at the time. Now all we need is some historical evidence of the time.
     
  23. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    Messages:
    527
    Didn't say he was honourable though.

    He was the greatest commander. He mass murdered whenever it was necessary.

    He ordered the death of women and children.

    He didn't fight for some delusional religion though. He fought for something more real. Glory. Ambition.

    Real human emotions, instead of that religion crap.
     

Share This Page