NOTES ON SECTARIANISM CONTINUED
KHALID ibn al-WALEED (r.a.) obeyed ALLAH'S COMMANDS IN BEING RUTHLESS
"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace
you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of believers and still the
indignation of their hearts..." [The Qur'an 9:14-15]
Even at Tabuk, the command had come down to deal severely with the
Once the battle begins, the Muslims must not be kind and gentle:
" O Prophet! Fight the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm
against them. Their abode is Hell, - an evil refuge indeed." [9:73]
Thus when Khalid (r.a.) was harsh with the false claimants to prophethood
and the tribals trying to destroy the nascent Islamic community, he was
only fulfilling the clear commands of Allah in the Qur'an.
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) honored Khalid (r.a.) with the title of
Sword of Allah and the Caliph, Abu Bakr (r.a.) and the Muslim community
"Abu Bakr, r.a., gave the banner (of jihad) against the renegades to Khalid
ibn al-Waleed, r.a., and said: I heard the messenger of Allah, peace
and blessings of Allah be on him, say that Khalid ibn al-Waleed is a good
of Allah and a good brother (of the believers), and a sword of Allah
His swords whom Allah Almighty has sent against the unbelievers and the
hypocrites." (Musnad of Ahmed ibn Hanbal)
However, the sectarians hiding under the banner of Ali (r.a.) keep on
abusing and insulting Khalid r.a. One of them (Zaidi) now fabricates
and attributes words to me which I never wrote
smazaidi (Masood Zaidi) wrote:
"According to Ksidd, Khalid bin Waleed continued to disobey the prophet
the prophet (pbuh) continued to send him on these missions where Khalid
killed thousands of innocent people. Each time it was reported to the
prophet he promptly forgave Khalid."
Zaidi has fabricated these words. I never wrote any such thing.
It's a shame that Ali Hasan Jarchavi [the MODERATOR of the SECTARIAN
distributes these lies about the sahaba of the Prophet (pbuh). When I
back he wants me to quote Qur'an and Hadith and holds back my answer.
even had one of these sectarian idiots comparing hazrat ‘Umar (r.a.) to
Hitler and Ali Hasan Jarchavi had no problem distributing the abuse.
Ignorant people like Zaidi don't know their basic Islamic knowledge and
get into serious issues. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
for instance, claims that I am using references from "historians like
Al-Baladhuri and al-Zarqutni." Poor fellow does not know that
al-Zarqutni was a compiler of Hadith not a historian.
Even Shia scholars would blush at Zaidi's claim that the historian
"Masudi is a more trusted and authentic source than Bukhari." Again
Fool does not know that Bukhari was not a historian and by any standard
as the weak Shia hagiography we find in Usul al-Kafi) Bukhari is far
superior as a researcher to anything Shiaism has produced.
Zaidi completely ignored my main point that the Prophet (pbuh) himself
put Khalid ibn al-Waleed (r.a.) Saifullah in charge of military
(even the most important attack on Makka) and the Prophet (pbuh)
trusted Khalid (r.a.).
Mr. Zaidi, you can't run away from these points. Your Islam (if you
consider yourself a Muslim) depends on your accepting the one whom the
Prophet (pbuh) loved and trusted. Don't behave like Falwell by calling
(r.a.) and the one who appointed him (pbuh) a "terrorist." Falwell has
today (Oct. 13) decided to apologize. When will Zaidi and the sectarians
to the ummah for their insults and abuse aimed at the people whom
Muhammad (pbuh) cherished and honored?
Zaidi is definitely not a Shia of Ali (r.a.). He ignored the following:
1. ALI (r.a) NEVER SPOKE AGAINST KHALID (r.a.) OR OBJECTED TO ANY OF
KHALID's POLICIES or ACTIONS. (Zaidi objects and hence cannot be considered
a Shia of Ali.)
2. Ali (r.a.) considered Khalid's (r.a.) campaigns HALAL and entirely
the realm of Islam. Hence Ali (r.a.) married a woman captured by Khalid
(r.a.) in his campaign against the Banu Hanifa. Ali's (r.a.) son
Muhammad al-Hanfia was born of this woman.
3. Ali (r.a.) did the ba'iat of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and Usman (Allah be
with them). He prayed behind them for all those years of the golden era of
Islam. He and his blessed sons defended ‘Usman (r.a.) with their swords.
4. As Imam Baqir and Imam Jafar (may Allah fill their graves with light)
have pointed out, in sahih narrations I quoted from al-Zarqutni, they had
nothing but respect for the khulafa-e-rashidoon and were against anyone
who would disrespect them.
I have rsearched ‘Umar's (r.a.) comments on Khalid (r.a.) in the
incident of Malik ibn Nuwaira.
1. ‘Umar (r.a.) was not on the battlefield. Nor was he in command of
the army. Hence he does not count as a witness against Khalid (r.a.)
2. Ibn Nuwaira was killed by another companion of the Prophet (r.a.),
Khalid (r.a.). There is no evidence (only unsubstantiated rumor) that
Ibn Nuwaira had become a Muslim.
3. ‘Umar's (r.a.) anger against Khalid (r.a.) is reported only by ONE
historian and could be a Shi'i interpolation. ‘Umar (r.a.) himself did
press any charges against Khalid (r.a.) on Ibn Nuwaira's case when he
4. Abu Bakr (r.a.), the army in the battlefield (with the exception of
Qatada, r.a.), and the entire Muslim community (including Ali, r.a.)
agree with ‘Umar (r.a.) or blame Khalid for the death of Ibn Nuwaira.
[If anyone can find any evidence contrary to these points, kindly let
SECTARIANS SHOULD BE the LAST PEOPLE TO USE REPORTS OF UMAR's (r.a)
AGAINST KHALID (r.a.) because these same sectarians have consistently
and ad nauseum insisted that whatever ‘Umar (r.a.) did and said was not
One NAQUVI on Ali Hasan's list has taken great pains to discredit ‘Umar
(r.a.) [a foolish and wasteful endeavor because 'Umar, r.a., is too
great to be discredited by any fool].
SECTARIANS go the extent of saying that MUTA' (temporary marriage) is
permitted because it was only forbidden by ‘Umar (r.a.). They want to
helpless women but misuse ‘Umar's name to give credit to their own
So just to be consistent, sectarians should realize that they are making
themselves look foolish by citing ‘Umar's (r.a.) comments against
Khalid (r.a.) when ‘Umar (r.a.) was NOT a witness to the Ibn Nuwaira
any SECTARIAN actually believes that ‘Umar, r.a., witnessed the killing
of Ibn Nuwaira, do let me know so that I may disabuse him. No historian
that ‘Umar (r.a.) witnessed the incident. He was in Medina, not on the
I urge the Sectarians to cease and desist from abusing the companions of
the Prophet (pbuh) otherwise they will be exposed before the whole
2002-10-20 Sun 17:56ct