"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them, help 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 enemies of Islam. 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 honored him:

"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 servant of Allah and a good brother (of the believers), and a sword of Allah among 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 but 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 LIST] distributes these lies about the sahaba of the Prophet (pbuh). When I write back he wants me to quote Qur'an and Hadith and holds back my answer. We have 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." Zaidi, 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 Zaidi the Fool does not know that Bukhari was not a historian and by any standard (such 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 operations (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 Khalid (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 apologize 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 within 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 pleased 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.), not by 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 not press any charges against Khalid (r.a.) on Ibn Nuwaira's case when he became Caliph.
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.) did not 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 me know.]

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 reliable. 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 exploit helpless women but misuse ‘Umar's name to give credit to their own naked desires.

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 incident. [If 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 claims that ‘Umar (r.a.) witnessed the incident. He was in Medina, not on the battlefield.]

I urge the Sectarians to cease and desist from abusing the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) otherwise they will be exposed before the whole world.

2002-10-20 Sun 17:56ct