Refuting the 'virtues' of Khalid b. al-Walid
- Anonymous
- Apr 20, 2024
- 5 min read
Updated: Jun 11
Other Parts:
The Excuse of Ijtihad
A mujtihad requires a level of knowledge that would allow him to make difficult decisions that is not clearly identified by nass (scriptural evidence). Khalid was famously known as a warrior, not a jurist. He had no level of knowledge that would permit him to excerise any ijtihad. This was a testimony made himself as Ibn Asakir records in Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Vol 16 pg. 250:
أخبرنا أبو غالب بن أبي علي أنا محمد بن أحمد أنا أبو إسحاق إبراهيم بن محمد نا محمد بن سليمان نا سعيد قال سمعت ابن المبارك عن يونس بن أبي إسحاق عن العيزار بن حريث قال قال خالد بن الوليد ما أدري من أي يومي أفر يوم أراد الله عز وجل أن يهدي لي فيه شهادة أو من يوم أراد الله أن يهدي لي فيه كرامة أخبرنا أبو بكر محمد بن عبد الباقي أنا الحسن بن علي أنا أبو عمر محمد بن العباس أنا أحمد بن معروف نا الحسين بن الفهم نا محمد بن سعد أنا الفضل بن دكين نا الوليد بن عبد الله بن جميع حدثني رجل أثق به أن خالد بن الوليد أم الناس بالحيرة فقرأ من سور شتى ثم التفت إلى الناس حين انصرف فقال شغلني عن تعليم القرآن الجهاد
... From al-Walid b. Abdullah b. Jami' who said: A man whom I trust told me that Khalid b. al-Walid led the prayer in Hira (city), hence he read verses from different chapters, then he looked at the people and said: ‘Jihad kept me busy from learning Quran.'
The reality of his 'Jihad' was that he was too busy raping and killing women, slaughtering innocent muslims and committing cruel acts that led to him actively disobeying the Prophet (saw). Nonetheless, this shows that Khalid himself did not see himself as a jurist, for knowing the Qur'an is one of the basic necessities of a jurist who wishes to practice ijtihad.
Shaykh Hassan b. Farhan al-Maliki in his book Da'ya wa laysa nabiya, pg. 71 said:
ولا يعد خالد من المجتهدين ، انما هو صاحب سيف وترس وليس صاحب علم وفقه رضي الله عنه وسامحه
“Khalid is not among the jurists, but he is a carrier of sword and armor, he has no knowledge may Allah be pleased with him and forgive him.”
Was Khalid the Sword of God?
It is unreasonable to believe the Prophet (saw) provides an honorific title for someone unworthy of it. Khalid’s so-called services for Islam includes (refer to our other articles for the sources):
Murder of Malik b. Nuwayrah and ‘marrying’ his widow
The mutilation of his dead body
Legitimizing rape and killing innocent women
Slaughtering the tribe of Jadhima
Baring hatred against Ali (as) and other sahaba
It is not fit to argue that Khalid would given this title by the Prophet (saw) after knowing the numerous crimes he committed. Khalid's illegitimate birth, murdering innocents and disobedience of the Prophet renders him unfit to bear this title.
Did the Prophet punish Khalid?
A recent defence that we have witnessed rotating over the internet, is that Rasulullah (s) never punished Khalid following his slaughtering the tribe of Jadhima and in fact sent him on another expedition Damatul Jandal that seems to suggest a rather odd inference that Khalid was in affect immune from criticism, having commanded an army after his conduct during the conquest of Mecca, he could as he please, he had the blessing of Rasulullah (s), that thus entitled Abu Bakr to do likewise.
In response, we quote the hadith in Sahih Bukhari 4339 of Rasulullah (s)'s reaction upon the news of Khalid’s crime:
“O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done.”
These words are damning, they certainly don’t suggest Rasulullah (s) was pleased with the manner in which Khalid had conducted himself, on the contrary he was disassociating himself from this atrocious act. Secondly, Khalid was duly punished as per shari'ah, and blood money was paid to the legal heirs. Khalid’s act of killing innocent ones was not overlooked or condoned as the adherents of that thug would like us to believe, rather a proper Islamic approach was pursued according to which Diya (blood money) was paid to the legal heirs of victims.
Imam Sarkhasi records in his authoritative work al-Mabsut, Vol. 20, pg. 143:
واعتمادنا ما فيه ما روي أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لما بعث خالدا إلى بني جذيمة داعيا لا مقاتلا وبلغه ما صنع خالد أعطى عليا رضي الله عنه مالا وقال أئت هؤلاء القوم واجعل امر الجاهلية تحت قدميك وأدهم كل نفس ذا مال فأتاهم علي رضي الله عنه ووداهم
We rely on what has been narrated from the Prophet (pbuh) that when he sent Khalid to Bani Jadhima for missionary not for a combat, then when he (pbuh) was informed about what Khalid did, he gave money to Ali (ra) and said to him: “Go to these people and pay compensation to them and keep the rulings of Jahlyia under your feet”. Thus Ali (ra) went to them and paid them Diya.
We should remind our readers that Diya is itself counted among the different categories of punishment prescribed in Sharia and it’s not just a formal compensation to dispense with the punishment. Dr. Waleed Saeed Abdul Khaliq records in his article al-Diya wa al-Taweedh:
لم يختلف أحد من الفقهاء على أن الدية عقوبة
“There is no disagreement among the jurists about Diya being a punishment”
Shawkani records in Nayl al-Awtar, Vol. 13, pg. 152:
فمن قتل مؤمنا كذلك وقامت عليه البينة بالقتل وجب عليه القود إلا أن يرضى أولياء المقتول بالدية أو يقع منهم العفو
If someone murders a believer and it’s proved by solid evidence that he committed the murder, then he must be sentenced to death, unless the victim’s relatives accept the diya or they extend a pardon.
Khalid spread Islam?
Another famous argument in favour of Khalid is his alleged 'spreading' of Islam. Without going into detail of the innaccuracy of this statement, let us even say for argument's sake that he did 'spread' Islam and that he did more good than harm to it. In the famous hadith of Rasululah (saw), as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari 6606 he says:
يَا بِلاَلُ قُمْ فَأَذِّنْ، لاَ يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ إِلاَّ مُؤْمِنٌ، وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَيُؤَيِّدُ هَذَا الدِّينَ بِالرَّجُلِ الْفَاجِرِ
O Bilal! Get up and announce in public: None will enter Paradise but a believer, and Allah may support this religion (Islam) with a wicked man
Allah (swt) may choose to spread to spread Islam through a faajir if he wishes to, it does not proof iman of Khalid nor becomes virtue for him if he is proven to be a dhalim (oppressor) in which it is.
Other Parts:
Comentários