Khalid ibn al-Walid is widely considered to have been one of the greatest generals in history. He never lost a battle in his long military career, and defeated two of the greatest empires of his day. For his great success, he earned the title Saif-ullah (The Sword of Allah).

But while he's most famous for his campaigns under the banner of Islam, he started as an enemy of the Muslims. Of course, he later converted to Islam.

But what if he hadn't? How would things be different if Khalid never became a Muslim?
 
It should be noted, that by many Muslims today and historically, Khalid ibn Walid is considered an enemy of Islam, hence why many Shi'a refer to him as 'the crippled sword of Allah' or the 'sword of the tyrant (Caliph Umar)'. To these people and to many historians who are at least at times charitable to this reading of history, we are not believing that Khalid ibn Walid was the deciding factor in the victory of Islam in Arabia. It diminishes the actions of Ali ibn Abi Talib and other companions. In regards to the Ridda wars and the subsequent conflicts, this depends on many circumstances, but his performance in the wars outward, cannot be shamed.
 
If the tactical commanders stay in place would anything about the conquests really be different? Of course his reputation among Muslims would have no "redemption arc" as it were but beyond that how much of a difference would it make? I don't think he alone could have stemmed the tide of Islam. In the west he probably just ends up as a footnote.
 
Well its not like Khalid ibn Walid was the only skilled commander who led the Arabs. The role he played could just as easily have been played by Abu Sufyan (the most prominent tribal leader opposing Muhammad, until he submitted when Muhammad peacefully entered Mecca) or his sons Yazid (who was also at Yarmouk) or Muawiya (future commander of the Syrian army and Umayyad Caliph).

Really all this comes down to the fact that both the Roman and Persian states were completely exhausted from the war they had been fighting for like 30 years. A Roman/Persian victory due to the absence of Khalid bin Walid may bring a temporary reprieve , but unless either state can find sufficient resources to field the kind of defences that had made the Arab tribes leery of invading, and/or re-establish the foedorati system that had kept a large number of the tribes compliant clients until recently, its only a matter of time until the Muslims succeed in taking the Levant and Mesopotamia at least. This is because both these areas have functionally no natural frontier to an enemy that can easily traverse the Syrian desert.
 
Last edited:
If the tactical commanders stay in place would anything about the conquests really be different? Of course his reputation among Muslims would have no "redemption arc" as it were but beyond that how much of a difference would it make? I don't think he alone could have stemmed the tide of Islam. In the west he probably just ends up as a footnote.

No, certainly not. It is also worthy of note, that Khalid ibn al-Walid commanded the cavalry at several battles against the Muslims before he converted. He distinguished himself in only one of these battles, that being his claim to fame at Uhud. The other engagements that he was aprt of, were failures. At Badr, his cavalry wing was routed and he was captured in battle and given back to the Quraysh as part of the peace process. Later, among the Muslims, his cavalry force among the Muslim, were routed by the Quraysh at the battle of the Trench and the armies of Muhammad won the battle, not the converts. Later, at Mu'ta, Khalid ibn Walid was defeated by the Byzantines and Ghassanids, later Muslim sources state he fought a stalemate, however, there are contradictions to this in our records, that state that he lost this battle; in al-Kafi, the narrations state that Muhammad castigated him for his failure and called him 'the crippled sword of Allah' for his loss of sword 9 times in battle. Mind you, he was supposed to be a high noble and skilled warrior, failure or stalemate were not an option for someone of his calibre.

Later, Muhammad also castigated this general for his actions for his brutality and bloodlust. When Muhammad sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to engage the Banku Nakhta group outside Makkah and acquire from them loyalty and gather their idols to be destroyed. Khalid ibn al-Walid arrived and the tribe surrendered voluntarily and converted and destroyed the idols. Despite this, Khalid ibn al-Walid had the prominent members of the tribe beheaded and burned. Afterwards, he returned to Muhammad with the heads and Muhammad is said to have wept and become agitated at such a hasty act. Ali ibn Abi Talib thus went to the Banu Nakhta and paid them from the Muslim treasury to repay for their losses and so as to nullify oaths of vendetta. Most scholars of the matter agree, Khalid ibn al-Walid did this act out of his wish to make vengeance upon those who had done his noble clan wrong in the prior decade, in other words, he was following vendetta, despite oaths that he would not continue vendetta as a Muslim. In this same period, he fought a few more battles as commander wherein he won both.

Khalid ibn Walid during the Ridda wars, was also interesting. Here, he is noted as defeating and shaming Musaylama, the pagan who reverted from Islam and declared rebellion. In said battle, Khalid decimated the opposing force and made them routed in short order. However, despite victories, Abu Bakr and he had political divisions, Abu Bakr most likely felt his general to be ambitious and not truly as strong as he claimed, for Abu Bakr surely remembered his early defeats against Muhammad. This rivalry festered further, when Khalid ibn Walid captured al-Hira, and was ordered to cross the Euphrates and conquer more lands; instead Khalid captured al-Hira and then returned to Makkah, either for the Hajj or undisclosed reasons, earning him the extreme ire of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr is noted as believing that Khalid ibn Walid was sabotaging his rule and legacy out of Arab tribal customs and dislike for Abu Bakr's clan.

Under Umar ibn Khattab, his military skill was shown at Yarmouk and against the Sassanids. These conquests however, while seen as fantastic, it is said he acquired massive wealth from loot that he did not share with his troops. As such, Umar made him an enemy and maneuvered against him. This allowed Umar to both relieve Khalid of his government position and confiscate his resources and then isolating him in his home near Makkah.
 
I mean even in the first fitna with a quite competent emperor in the person of Constans II the Byzantines were unable to make any serious gains. Their military system under Heraclius was stitched together from whatever scraps were left after the Persians seized Egypt, Palestine, and Syria and even then final victory against the Sassanids relied on the Gokturk Khaganate invading in the east and the Caucasus.
 
I mean even in the first fitna with a quite competent emperor in the person of Constans II the Byzantines were unable to make any serious gains. Their military system under Heraclius was stitched together from whatever scraps were left after the Persians seized Egypt, Palestine, and Syria and even then final victory against the Sassanids relied on the Gokturk Khaganate invading in the east and the Caucasus.

That being said, it is not as if every warrior in the Middle East was called to the civil war... Rather, troops remained on the frontier and both feuding rulers supported defending the border. The Byzantines cannot take into account a civil war in their planning, and further, the defensive armies were already in place. Also, for varied reasons, early Byzantine counter attacks against Islam were naval and the idea was to invade by sea Egypt and take this area, before proceeding northward. Much of this was the mindset that the Muslims were most powerful along this eastern Anatolian theatre and were on the constant offensive. Byzantine forces, thus should attack where the Muslims are brittle and force them to divide their frontier armies.
 
Top