Jump to content

Talk:Khalid ibn al-Walid/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

HUDAYBIYA AND HUNAYN

BATTLE OF HUNAYN(630) IS CITED BEFORE TREATY OF HUDAYBIYA(628) --asa 06:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Mzsabusayeed


No i checked it its fine, its mentioned after treaty of hudybia

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Prophet Muhammad"

Maybe it's OK to refer to him that way once, but repeatedly is unacademic/unprofessional. It's unfit to be in an encyclopedia. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Khalid Greatest Military Commander Argument

Khalid is greatest general of all time, arguably. Alexander is the second greatest general. For example, compare battle of Nihawand to Guagamela. Archaemenids recovered, Sassanids never recovered. In Yarmouk, Khalid outnumbered 10 to 1 but still victorious! He did not inherit an army, like Alexander's macedonian army from King Philip. He vanquished Persia and devastated Byzantium in 6 years! Plus he was many times outnumbered. None of these factors apply to Napoleon or Hannibal or Alexander. Acknowledge facts and logical truth. Dont become biased because Khalid was a muslim. Recognise his military genius and supremacy as the greatest general, Just as you recognise Shakespeare as arguably best writer in English langauge and Beethoven as arguably best composer. Acknowledge this truth impartially and accept my edit: "Khalid was arguably the greatest military commander in history."

PS stop referring to me as a vandaliser. I am speaking the stark truth. I respect wikipedia and want to mantain its status as the most comprehensive, voluminous, and reputable, informational resource on the internet.

Cordially,

--Don Zaloog (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Don Zaloog

Please provide a source for the claim. Nothing you listed above does that. A source has been added by another editor to show one of the greatest tacticians. Just adding "arguably" to the front of the claim does not relieve you of the requirement to source such claims. If it is arguable - who is arguing it? noq (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
while it may be true (maybe not) it's original research at least. find a publication arguing that he was the greatest then consider adding it. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
There are so many issues going on with this statement, Don Zaloog. As others have said, where are your sources for such a claim? Your assumption that the Sassanids never recovered was due to Khalid is a bit over the top. Furthermore, where does this claim for such forces at Yarmouk and Khalid's involvement come from? al-Tabari? al-Waqidi? al-Baladhuri? Because those last two don't even have him commanding the battle, while Tabari uses a date for the battle that no one agrees with. This issue certainly isn't that Khalid is a Muslim, just that arguing that he - or Napoleon, or Hannabil, or any "great general" is the greatest by some arbitrary assessment.Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Low quality article

I added a request for cleanup, foremostly because of the use of low-quality sources. A lot of elements of this person's life are presented as factually known in this article while this is highly doubtful. It should be rewritten in a more source-neutral style.

And sentences like these:

"He is also one of the two military commanders, the other being Hannibal, who have successfully executed the pincer movement against a numerically superior opponent." and "This is a tactic that has been used repeatedly since, notably in the World War II North African campaign."

They are indications of a high amount of fanboyism and personal fantasy on this page. It should be removed, but since I lack the time I put up a template for others.

Wiki1609 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BUT KHAILD FOUGHT OUTNUMBERED, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE WITH HANNIBAL. 

Yasin2005 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Undefeated?

The article may be wrong to repeatedly refer to Walid as undefeated. The result of ThebBattle of Mu'tah is disputed, with some contemporary historical sources from the time of the battle claiming it to have been a loss.

68.10.90.26 (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

NO ONE WON IN THE BATTLE Yasin2005 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Rape claim

This has been settled. The word used is not "took" but "leap" upon his wife, alternatively "leaping upon his wife". In Medina, ‘Umar told Khâlid: “You enemy of Allâh! You killed a Muslim man and then leap upon his wife. By Allâh, I will stone you".Tabari, Al (1993), The conquest of Arabia, State University of New York Press, p. 104, ISBN 978-0791410714 Al-Zaidi (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The source added for this does not work, or it is not accessible. If you are going to add "rape", please find a reliable, verifiable source for it. Unflavoured (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference used to back up the "rape" claim goes like so: "Khalid bin Walid killed Malik ibn Nuwayra, raped his wife, and murdered all the men, women and children of his tribe in one single night and burned their bodies to cook food for his army." I do not think this is very reliable. Unflavoured (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
One user repeatedly re-inserts the rape claim over and over. Please understand that unless you provide reliable, verifiable sources that state that rape occurred, this will be removed. Unflavoured (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Khalid is "liable for rape" according to this published source: Shattered: The Sectarian Divide and Start of the Feminist Revolution in Islam By Syed Abbas Rizvi, S. Khasim T. Rizvi, p. 51Al-Zaidi (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If you are going to use a three-year-old book or Shiite POV sources, then make it clear. Unflavoured (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Last I checked Umar ibn al-Khattab was not a Shiite but the 2nd Sunni Caliph. If Khalid did not kill a muslim man and rape his wife then why would Umar declare (to his cousin): "Khâlid: “You enemy of Allâh! You killed a Muslim man and thereafter took his wife. By Allâh, I will stone you." (Tabari: Vol. 2, Page no: 274)? Last I checked, Al-Tabari was not a few years old. What we have from Umar via al-Tabari is clear. Three clear points from Umar's statement:
1. Any "marriage" during the iddah period is not an Islamic marriage.
2.Layla was married to a Muslim and not to an apostate thus one cannot argue that she was a slave by virtue of war booty (whereby a marriage to a non-Muslim is considered null and void).
3. It was not concensual because Umar places the blame on Khalid, therefore forced penetration is considered rape.
Essentially, you are arguing that Khalid did nothing wrong. If so then why would Umar be willing to stone him to death?This is not a sunni v. shia debate because Umar and al-Tabari were Sunnis.Al-Zaidi (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Last I checked, Umar did not mention rape, nor did he stone Khalid. Last I checked, Al-Tabari did not mention rape either. What we have from Umar via Al-Tabari is clear: Umar was angry, and nothing more. The three points you mention:
1- Has no bearing on the rape claim whatsoever. It may or may not be an Islamic marriage, since Malik may or may not be considered a Muslim. Regardless: This has no bearing on the rape claim at all. If it was an Islamic marriage, that does not clarify if rape did or did not take place. If it was NOT an Islamic marriage, it does not clarify if rape did or did not take place. If you have no verifiable, reliable sources that state that rape took place, you cannot add it. "Islamic marriage" argument is not a verifiable, reliable source for your rape claim.
2- Khalid declared Malik to be an apostate. Thus one can very easily argue that she was a slave/war booty. Once again: This does not have any effect whatsoever on the rape claim. One again: If you have no verifiable, reliable sources that state that rape took place, you cannot add it. "Apostate husband" vs "Muslim husband" argument is not a verifiable, reliable source for your rape claim.
3- Umar did not stone Khalid. If you want to interpret Umar's words one way or another, that is your personal choice. Do not put it in Wikipedia, since that is your own personal original research. For the third time: If you have no verifiable, reliable sources that state that rape took place, you cannot add it. "Umar was angry" argument is not a verifiable, reliable source for your rape claim.
Essentially, you are not providing a reliable, verifiable source for your rape claim. This is a Sunni vs Shiite debate, since so far, the only sources that mention "rape" are pro-Shiite sources, and the ones mentioned so far are not reliable. I have conceded by letting the Shiite POV remain, but I will make it very clear that that IS the Shiite POV, and not a historical fact backed by reliable, verifiable sources. Please understand that this is Wikipedia, and you cannot simply use a source that is so unreliable that it states "Khalid burned their bodies to cook food for his army" and expect it to remain. Unflavoured (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
1. My source is the Rashidun Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA).
2. Abu Bakr called off Umar's call to stone Khalid to death.
3. Umar states Khalid "took", shiites state "raped", and some Sunnis claim "married", either way she was penetrated by Khalid. Some Sunnis claim that it was concensual. Umar and the Shiites claim it was forced.
4. I stand by my points mentioned above and in my previous statement. However, due to the complexity of the situation, I edited the article to reflect this complexity.Al-Zaidi (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
1. Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA) cannot be used as a source since he has not published anything. You have your wording confused.
2. Where does it say that Caliph Abu Bakr (RA) called this off ?!
3. Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA) does not claim it was forced. Only Shiites do so.
4. You have not answered any of my points at all. I will clarify this in the article. Unflavoured (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
1. My source is the Rashidun Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA) via al-Tabari.
2. Umar called for the stoning. It did not happen because Abu Bakr sent off Khalid.
3. If it wasn't forced then why would Umar want to stone Khalid? Why didn't Umar say "marry"? You know as well as I do the meaning of "to take a woman" in a war setting.Al-Zaidi (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
1. Once again: Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA) does not mention rape.
2. Wikipedia is NOT the place for your original research. You cannot say: "Umar did not say marry, so that means it must be rape." You know why ?! Because I can counter: "Layla did not complain so it cannot be rape." Both these statements are original research. Please read the Wikipedia guideline on original research, and please understand that you cannot insert your own opinion or original research into an article. If you do, it will be reverted.
So far, only a minority of non-reliable and obviously recent pro-Shiite sources have said anything about rape. I personally would rather not have this in the article at all, as the sources cited all do not meet Wikipedia's criteria. But if you want to include it, then include it as a Shiite POV, and not as a historical fact, because it is not. Unflavoured (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no original research here. Tabari states that Umar said "took his wife". Your counter is not from al-Tabari. In the article I state "took" and was thus liable for rape and Umar called for khalid's stoning, again according to al-Tabari. If you don't like what al-Tabari has to say...
I understand your reservations. Although the 12er Shiites make some outrageous claims as you mentioned above (and I agree with you about their folly), Umar's stance on the subject is most likely where the truth lies. On this point I say only two things 1. Umar stated "took" in a war setting, and 2. called for khalid's stoning. Nothing more, nothing less. Al-Zaidi (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW Khalid was a brilliant tactician.Al-Zaidi (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid there seems to be a misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with Khalid being a brilliant tactician or not. Please read Wikipedia:Original_research. Umar does not mention rape. Al-Tabari does not mention rape. You state: "After murdering Malik", but this is POV. You also state: "according to Umar ibn al-Khattab, Khalid deserved to be stoned to death", which is OR, as Umar does not say anything about "deserving" or not. Umar may or may not have been referring to the execution of Malik. And you are ignoring a few simple facts: Abu Bakr, who held higher authority than Umar, did not stone Khalid. When Umar later became Caliph, he did not stone Khalid either. I cannot use these facts to prove that Khalid was 100% correct, because if I were to do so, then that would be original research on my part. Similarly, you cannot simply say that Umar's angry words are proof that rape occurred. That would be original research on your part. You cannot attribute meanings and intentions on your own: Only a verifiable, reliable source can do so.
I thank you for your patience and your replies. But please understand that there is a rule: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources," and saying that one of the most notable and revered Sahaba is a rapist will require some exceptional sources on your part. I will let it stand as a Shiite POV, because that is what it is, and nothing more. Unflavoured (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
No exceptional claims here. I state in the article that Khalid "took" (umar via al-Tabari) and according to a published book (no original research) was liable for rape. Umar wanted Khalid stoned for the twin crimes against malik and layla. (umar via al-tabari, no original research again).Al-Zaidi (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The article has been restructured to adhere to all WIKI policies. The authors have been named and it would not be responsible of you to refer/dismiss them as "shiites". They are authors of a published work and are cited as such. If you refer to Rizvi & Rizvi as "Shiites" then we will have to go through EVERY wiki article and change all the authors' names to their respective religious affiliations, e.g. Al-Tabari will therefore be referred to as Muslim-Sunni instead of being cited by name.Al-Zaidi (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This has been settled. The word used is not "took" but "leap" upon his wife, alternatively "leaping upon his wife". In Medina, ‘Umar told Khâlid: “You enemy of Allâh! You killed a Muslim man and then leap upon his wife. By Allâh, I will stone you".Tabari, Al (1993), The conquest of Arabia, State University of New York Press, p. 104, ISBN 978-0791410714 Does leaping upon a women after you have killed her husband sound like a marriage proposal?Al-Zaidi (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My answer would be that it doesn't sound like a legit marriage. However, it is Hazrat Umar's (R.A) reaction to the *initial* news he got. After getting the news Hazrat Umar under that assumption of the news he had sought for Khalid to be punished. Khalid defended himself by stating that he killed an apostate and married her. Had he not married her, it was the an oppurtune time for her to get justice, instead she decided not to seek any punishment toward Khalid and stayed his wife. It was 1,400 years ago with an absolutely crazy mindset for the modern world. Caliph Abu Bakr did not have any basis of punishing Khalid for rape since she never testified despite being able to (she had Hazrat Umar (R.A)'s back if it was the case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaybs (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I would further like to note that Muhammad bin Jarir Al Tabari (who is quoting Hazrat Umar (R.A)) is not a reliable source on Hazrat Umar (R.A). He has attributed many things to Hazrat Umar which are not true such as a pact which out rightly discriminates against non-muslims/dhimmis was contracted upon the conquest of Jerusalem, it is a historical fallacy and no such incident took place. His views on Hazrat Umar (R.A) were aligned with the Shias, so much so that his very life was threatened by Sunnis (even though he was one too). He also claimed that Hazrat Umar caused the miscarriage of Hazrati Fatimah's baby when not a single Sunni source had any such documentation. While there are Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim which may be anti-Umar, it is because they would collect hadith from all sorts of sources including Shia. Now the claim that Hazrat Umar kicked Hazrati Fatima in the stomach and caused a miscarriage first appeared in a book by a well-known Shia Sulaim bin Qays, it was in his collection of 'hadith' this claim was first made and it is worthy to note his book was not released until AFTER his death. Anyhow, Al-Tabari and also adhered to this view when none of the Sunni scholars accepted Sulaim bin Qays' work as legtitimate. So it is noteworthy to check the source of Al-Tabari AND the belief of Al-Tabari's source as Al-Tabari was heavily influenced by Shia views with regards to Hazrat Umar (R.A) before saying it is a "Sunni" view.

Sulaym bin Qays' book does not having a single complete survived manuscript and the claim it was published in the 7th century is not true since the oldest copy dates back to the 17th century, which means the time-span difference is of 10 centuries, all other Shia hadith collection date back to the 10th or later and most of the book's author's work are posthumous just as with Sualym bin Qays and I'm not talking about their manuscripts. Whereas Sahih Bukhari was written 3rd century AH and its manuscripts are available in the 7th century AH and other commentary work on Bukhari manuscripts by others are available in 5th century AH. Big difference. All of this must be noted. The readers do not have all of this background knowledge while reading something on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.80.87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

One of three generals to remain undefeated in battle?

I allowed myself to delete the following section from this article due to factual inaccuracy: "He is one of three military generals in history to remain undefeated in battle."

How do we know that only three military generals remain undefeated in battle? The claim seems highly dubious and largely irrelevant to the article, even if one acquiesces his unblemished record. How about Jan Zizka, Alexander Suvorov, Alexander III of Macedon, Scipio Africanus, Maurice de Saxe or Sulla? And that's merely in Europe.93.167.158.129 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It distinguishes him, and is frequently referred to in his biographies. You could have changed it to "few" instead of "three." Unflavoured (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The change is indeed much better, thank you. You are very right, it does distinguish him as a general. "Few" still seems somewhat vague, but admittedly it's a major improvement all the same. 93.167.158.129 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Quran mentions that in the battle, virtually everyone ran away. Evidence indicates that only 8 were left and one of them was not Khalid. So though the battle was won and it was led by Khalid, it was no thanks to Khalid. He also did not win in most of the fights against the Muslims. So "undefeated?" Hardly. This distinction belongs to Ali (AS). Even in Uhud, where the Muslims lost, Ali was one of the 5 who remained defending the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) against the enemy hordes. UmarAlFarooq (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

BUT HE NEVER LOST ANY BATTLE, HE NEVER FOUGHT BADR AND IN TRRNCH THEY HAD TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF WEATHER REASONS, SO NO ONE REALLY WON, AND ALI LOST THE BATTLE OF SIFFIN. Yasin2005 (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Descent from Khalid ibn al-Walid

Sulaiman(Khalid's eldest son), was not killed during the Muslim conquest of Egypt.He died during the Siege of Diyarbakir.His tomb in there.After the Conquest of Diyarbakir, his family settled in this city.Many family like Halidi family ,claim their descendant from Khalid ibn al-Walid. Rashed156258133 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you provide reliable sources that support any of these claim? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It is hard to prove it.Great historians like Tabari, Masudi, Ibn Ishaq, Hamdani didn't mention about Conquest of Diyarbakir in detail.But Sabuki, Abdulgafur, Samani, Bukai these historians have written about this event.There is also Suleiman Mosque in Diyarbakir.This mosque was built between 1155-1169.Suleiman ibn Khalid and 27 sahaba's tombs in this mosque.http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyarbak%C4%B1r_(il)#Kale_Camii_.28Hz._S.C3.BCleyman.E2.80.93Naz.C4.B1riye_Camii.29 http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55066&start=0 Moreover,there are families with shajara's can be demonstrated.I know those who live in Turkey.This family also from Jerusalem.http://www.khalidilibrary.org/rymondarticle.htmlRashed156258133 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The first two links you provided would not count as reliable sources. (See WP:RS.) Also, you cannot use yourself as a source. (See WP:OR.) The third link seems ok, but still questionable. If you have any reliable sources quoting Sabuki, Samani, Bukhari or Abdulgafur that would be great. I found one source (International Dictionary of Historic Places) which states that the mosque was built in 1155 for Sulaiman and "24 Moslem martyrs who first breached the city's wall" when the Muslims under Khaled ibn al-Walid first conquered it. In any case, the best thing we could do is state that "However, blank source(s) claim(s) that Sulaiman was killed during the conquest of Diyar Bakir." --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes,it would be better.In addition,I found one more source.http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=fpk3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR11&dq=Sulayman+ibn+Khalid&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=HSYcT9OKHIT4sgb4lNVI&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Sulayman%20ibn%20Khalid&f=false Rashed156258133 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The state of his grave

At the end of the lead, we hear that "In 2013, the Syrian army destroyed Khalid ibn al Walid's grave during their bombardment and siege of the rebel city of Homs.[3]". First of all, that source is not reliable (blog). Secondly, the real source is an article on The New York Times, which says that the Khalid ibn al-Walid Mosque has been perforated, not destroyed. Thirdly, nowhere in the article does it explicitly say that the mosque was destroyed by the Syrian army, but rather "He described a tough fight. Rebels, he said, are using churches and mosques, including the revered Waleed mosque, as bases, “so we have the right to attack them inside.". So, nothing explicit. I will remove that sentence from the lead. If anyone has a better source (that mentions the grave, instead of the mosque), we could add something about it (but not in the lead). Best, --Spivorg (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sword of God or Sword of Allah?

This is a debate about whether Khalid's title should be translated as the 'Sword of God' or the 'Sword of Allah'. I firmly believe that it should be 'Sword of God' because 'Allah' is not the word for the Islamic God, it's the Arabic word for God. For instance, the Christian God and Jewish God would also be referred to as Allah in Arabic, and they're, in fact, all the same God (all three religions acknowledge this).

I previously made an edit to the article changing it from 'Sword of Allah' to 'Sword of God' with the simple explanation,

Allah directly translates to God in Arabic. Leaving it as Allah perpetuates the ever-so-common but wrong belief that the God of Islam is named Allah and that he is different from the Jewish or Christian God.

Some asshole broke Wikipedia's rules by reverting my change without giving a reason other than, "Sorry, but I disagree with you. It should be left as the sword of Allah." Rather than edit warring him, as he's made a number of edits to this page and I'm sure he would change it back immediately, I am making this discussion. What do you fellows think that the title should be translated to? If you strongly believe that it should be translated as 'Sword of Allah', please give a good reason why, instead of just expressing your opinion.--DeaTh-ShiNoBi (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be Sword of Allah, because that's his nickname in Arabic "سيف (الله) المسلول Saif (Allah) AlMaslool" and that's the nickname Muhammad (PBUH) gave him. You're saying "because 'Allah' is not the word for the Islamic God, it's the Arabic word for God", but that's actually not true because "Allah" is the name of God of Islam, thus it's not the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word God in Arabic is "Ilah إله". --AbYaSSer6 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Please cite your source for where Muhammad (SAW) called Khalid "Sword of Allah?" UmarAlFarooq (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Sword of God would be more appropriate as it is the english wikipedia. Misdemenor (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
ALLAH IS NOT THE ARBIC WORD FOR GOD, ALLAH MEANS THE ONE TO BE WORSHIPED Yasin2005 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
ALSO THE PROPHET CALLED HIM THAT, CAN'T ARGUE. Yasin2005 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khalid ibn al-Walid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khalid ibn al-Walid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khalid_ibn_al-Walid/Archive_2&oldid=1072272471"