Allah’s Sword of Terror

Khalid-ib-WalidThe first time I heard about Khalid bin al-Walid—the 7th century Muslim jihadi affectionately known in Islamic history as “The Sword of Allah”—was when I was in college researching for my MA thesis on the Battle of Yarmuk, when the Muslims, under Khalid’s generalship, defeated the Byzantines in 636, opening the way for the historic Islamic conquests.

Nearly a decade and a half later, Khalid, that jihadi par excellence, has come to personify a dichotomy for me—how the jihad is understood in the West and how it really is: officially, Western academia, media, and politicians portray it as defensive war to protect Muslim honor and territory; in reality, however, jihad is all too often little more than a byword to justify the most primitive and barbaric passions of its potential recruits and practitioners.

Based on the English language sources I perused in college, Khalid was a heroic, no-nonsense kind of jihadi—fierce but fair, stern but just.  He was the champion of the Apostasy Wars, when he slaughtered countless Arabs for trying to leave Islam after the death of Muhammad.

Modern day Muslims writing about Khalid—see for example Pakistani army lieutenant-general A.I Akram’s The Sword of Allah—had naught but praise for him, the scourge of infidels and apostates.

But as years went by, I came across more arcane and Arabic sources telling of the “darker side” of The Sword—a depraved and sadistic side.

For example, only recently I came across a video of a modern-day Egyptian Salafi explaining how Khalid raped Layla, the wife of Malik bin Nuwayra—but only after he severed her husband’s head, lit it on fire, and cooked his dinner on it.

Khalid was recalled and questioned by the caliph—not because he killed and dined on an apostate’s head and “married” his wife, but because some believed that Malik was still Muslim, not an apostate to be treated so, and that Khalid killed him on the accusation of apostasy only as a pretext to take possession of his wife, whose beauty was renowned.

In the words of Ibn Kathir’s authoritative historical tome, The Beginning and the End (al-bidaya we al-nihaya), “And he [Khalid] ordered his [Malik’s] head and he combined it with two stones and cooked a pot over them.  And Khalid ate from it that night to terrify the apostate Arab tribes and others.  And it was said that Malik’s hair created such a blaze that the meat was so thoroughly cooked.”

More eye-opening is the way the videotaped Egyptian cleric recounts this whole narrative with awe and admiration—boasting, for example, how that when Khalid entered the caliph’s tent for questioning he was “wearing armor all soaked and rusted from blood [of his enemies], with arrows sticking out of his turban.”

As for the near-cannibalistic meal that the Sword of Allah ate, the cleric complained that “People wonder how our lord Khalid could have eaten from such meat?  Oh yes—he ate from it! Our lord Khalid had a very strong character, a great appetite, and everything!  All to terrorize the desert Arabs [apostates].  The matter requires determination; these matters require strength—terrorism.”

Of course, all this accords with the Koran’s many commands to “strike terror” into the hearts of disbelievers, be they born infidels or apostates (see Koran 3:151, 8:12, 8:60).

Now, let us fast-forward to the modern era’s “Arab Spring” and U.S. support for “freedom-fighters” trying to “liberate” Syria (the official, Western narrative of the jihad), and let us reflect on its true nature—from a jihadi (ironically named “Khalid”) biting into the heart of a soldier (and thus striking terror into the hearts of Assad’s “apostate” regime) to Islamic clerics justifying rape and prostitution to gratify the many swords of Allah.

And at last, let us understand that the heartbeat of the jihad—sex, violence, and rapine—has scarcely changed in nearly fourteen centuries.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Make sure to Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • truebearing

    Yet self-appointed experts, who assiduously ignore the clearly stated commands of the Koran, will tell you that Islam is no different than any other religion, rifling through ancient history to find behavior equivalent to modern day Muslims. Blinded equally by their need to display erudition and the need to obscure any truth that challenges liberal orthodoxy, they pretend that Muslims don’t really believe in Islam rather than admit the truth.

    Usually, these Islam obscurantists include a story or two about their pleasant travels in some Muslim country, of indeterminate time period, where they were treated wonderfully and everyone was happy. If you bring up the 10,000 Christians murdered by Muslims last year, the pull out their Crusades blade and flash it at you, usually inaccurately.

    • TheOrdinaryMan

      Just tell your favorite self-appointed expert to watch “The Wind and the Lion,” about Mohammed el-Raisuli, one of the nicer Jihadists.(He didn’t cut anyone’s heart out, like the animal in the video) Raisuli only went in for kidnapping and checkers.

      • kikorikid

        “Penny Hardesty alive, OR Raisuli Dead”, Teddy R.
        I don’t really remember her name, close?
        GREAT line!

  • e.toohey

    iSSlam is NO religion but a political system based on some archaic believes. muslims despise the weak and therefore despise obama but hate Vladimir Putin. !

    • kevinstroup

      It is a totalitarian ideology. But religions and political beliefs are ideologies, too. Why can’t Islam be both a religion and a political system of beliefs? Why are religion and politics mutually exclusive?

      • kikorikid

        K, You are a Taqiyya scat spewing Islamist.
        Yours is the deceptive argument in favor
        of the imposition of Shariah Law.
        Stand up an try!

      • liz

        Why are religion and politics mutually exclusive?
        Because joined together they create a theocracy.
        Theocracies are inherently totalitarian, which is why our founders separated church and state.

        • Western Canadian

          Your founders did not ‘seperate’ church and state, the first amendement PROTECTS churches from the state…. which is a problem only with a mockery of a church like islam (RTC). Kindly supply numerous examples of theocracies beinting inherently totalitarian, a term which is most commonly the result of ATHEIST belief systems.

  • herb benty

    Where else but Islam, can a pedophile, murderer, sadist, torturer, women and child killer, sociopath, psychopath be considered a perfect role model. PS. And why do the left adore and assist this evil? Just wondering.

  • Larry Larkin

    Makes you wonder what the meat was? As far as I know their is no proscription on long pig, only normal pig.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    He was the champion of the Apostasy Wars, when he slaughtered countless Arabs for trying to leave Islam after the death of Muhammad.

    Did other religions also have “Apostasy Wars” to slaughter countless apostates for trying to leave the religion the same way that Islam did? And if you can’t leave Islam without being killed, doesn’t that mean that Islam is a cult as opposed to a religion, and are cults somehow protected under the first amendment?

    • Joe The Gentile

      “Did other religions also have “Apostasy Wars” to slaughter countless apostates for trying to leave the religion the same way that Islam did?”

      No, not really. Apostasy wars are unique to Islam I believe. In Christian history there were behaviors similar to Jihad, but these were never really ‘part of the religion’ in Christianity, though they were carried out by Christians. Islam is the only religion that has Jihad ‘built in’. A real counterpart in Christianity to what Jihad is in Islam would only have been possible if Jesus led Jihad.

      There is a good case for excluding any so-called religion from being considered a religion (under the constitution in the US) if it teaches coercive means or violence for obtaining followers or retaining them. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMEMDMENT might be needed to secure that definition, if the courts don’t buy it without it.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Why are you going to such great lengths to try to morally equate what is an actual religion, i.e., Christianity, with what is a very totalitarian cult, i.e., Islam? Not only that but your analogies are all utterly absurd, which is what usually happens when one foolishly tries to morally equate Islam with Christianity or any other religion for that matter.

        There is a good case for excluding any so-called religion from being considered a religion (under the constitution in the US) if it teaches coercive means or violence for obtaining followers or retaining them.

        Again, Islam isn’t a religion and therefore isn’t protected under the first amendment or any other amendment

        • Joe The Gentile

          That could be sound reasoning, but so far the courts in the US aren’t agreeing with you. So probably the only way to force them to agree is through a constitutional amendment.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Oh so according to you someone challenged the validity of Islam as a religion? Cite the case please.

          • Joe the Gentile

            Let me turn it around: show me some evidence that the courts are agreeing with you: that first amendment rights do not apply to Islam.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Let me turn it around: show me some evidence that the courts are agreeing with you: that first amendment rights do not apply to Islam.

            Okay, since you want to play games. How? Until someone actually challenges the validity of Islam in the courts, there will be no such evidence.

            Nevertheless, is a religion you can’t leave without being killed a religion or a cult? Is a religion that executes all adherents that talk bad about it or who do not obey its holy tenets and obligations a religion or a cult? Is a religion that has as its sole fundamental purpose the subjugation of the non-Islamic world into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world a religion or a cult? Does a religion that requires as its first and foremost prerequisite the total, complete, and unconditional submission of all Muslims to the “will of Allah”, which in essence is Sharia, i.e., Islamic totalitarian law, under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy a religion or a cult? Is a religion that makes it a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims to wage jihad in one form or another in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world a religion or a cult?

            If somehow by chance Islam is indeed found by the powers that be to be a religion, then it should also become the first religion to ever be outlawed and banned. Especially when you consider the fact that as long as Islam continues to exist on the world stage as a force, jihad (holy war) will forever continue to be waged against infidels perpetually.

          • Joe The Gentile

            OYM, it’s a shame to be arguing with you because I personally agree with most of your arguments.

            Regarding the state of the law in the courts, there is an ongoing Litigation Jihad which is generally as I understand it, relying on the constitutional ‘freedom of religion’. If a court struck down the notion that Islamic (and Islamic Jihad in particular) was not supported by ‘freedom of religion’, I think we’d hear about it. For that reason, I don’t think the courts are supporting your reasoning, at least not pro-actively.

            I don’t know if your arguments were ever put before the courts. I concede that, in these circumstances, my saying ‘the courts are not agreeing with you’ is possibly too strong a statement, and possibly misleading, depending on how it is interpreted. It’s probably right that the courts are not proactively agreeing with you, but probably wrong that they have explicitly disagreed with you. However, if you or someone argue that position in the courts, I’m all for it. I fear, however, that in the current climate, you would fail, regardless of merits. If that were to happen, a constitutional amendment would take care of it.

    • Hass

      Yes, same as a Cult. But a political Ideology is best described.

    • popseal

      In Islam, Adam was a Muslim and everyone born since then is a Muslim. Anyone becoming something else is candidate for the sword. That’s the way it is inside the dangerous superstition founded by a known killer 1400 years ago.

      • Arab

        Actually NO, It’s not true. The truth in Islam is: Everyone born to the manner born, but his/her parents lead him/her to their religion. And Adam was a Muslim does not mean he was Muslim as you think, It means he was calling for Allah, only one god. and to understand the meaning of Islam, Islam means peace and pray and give up for god, do what god wants from us on the earth. Christianity and Judaism call for the same purpose.

        You have to understand the words and their dimensions, then you can speak. Islam calls to cease the terror, and if some terrorist made by others to distort the Image of Islam does not mean Islam is bad.

        You can review all Islamic History, then if you can find one terrorist action you can talk as you want.

        More than 1400 years and No terror, why the terror appeared in the last 10 years. Do you compare 1400 years to 10 years!!!!!!!!

        Really needs to think more!

    • kikorikid

      The 1st Amendment says nothing about defending
      Totalitarian-Supremacist ideologies. Read again please.
      eg: If a Christian jumps up and says,”I’ve had it with Christianity!”
      The Christian next to him WILL say, “I will pray for you.”
      If a Jihadi jumps up and says,” Mo was a buttf…”,
      they WILL cut off his head.
      I have to say, Yes, It was a CULT while Mohammed lived,
      a belief system, ideology after his demise. I’m also pretty
      sure that there are many Jihadist who hold “cultish” affection
      towards Mohammed. Its been said before but our
      job is to help Mo and his buddies meet together in
      HELL! OH Yes, There is a Hell in the Quran.

  • ratonis

    But we need to be nice and get along and walk “Shoulder to Shoulder.” (American Baptist Churches USA, United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Chuches USA, etc. etc. Onward to “Chrislam.”)

    • kikorikid

      Well meaning but maximum delusional.
      The Quran is explicit, all interfaith Bridges
      are for the advancement of Islam, ONLY.

  • tagalog

    Thanks to Mr. Ibrahim for the commentary. I have been reading some of the history of the Middle East and Near East lately, and I find that the rhetoric of mainstream Islam has hardly changed at all in the past 14 centuries. Frankly, except for an anomalous half-century in the 20th Century, its actions haven’t either. We in the West need to look at the number of times the Christian West (including the Byzantine Empire) has gone to war with Islam in the past, and reconsider the current Western attitude that jihadists do not reflect mainstream Islamic thought. In fact they do, and have since the very beginning of Islam’s existence.

    And “jihad” means “war”. War of the blowing things up and killing people variety. Let’s not kid ourselves.

    • kevinstroup

      But if we admit we have a problem, then the next step is to do something about it. Better to just keep quiet and hope for the best. This was the kind of thinking that gave us WW2.

      • Joe The Gentile

        That kind of thinking should also give us a Nuclear Iran pretty soon, before giving us WW3.

        • Terry Johnson

          Read Ezekiel 36-39 to see what is coming in the Middle East.

  • Joe The Gentile

    Why do the left adore and assist this evil?

    The Western Leftist’s outlook divides the world into three groups; 1. he seems himself and his movement as a ‘good shepherd’ , 2. the so-styled oppressed as sheep, and 3. everyone the leftist sees as ‘in power’ (except other acting leftists) are wolves, oppressors, trying to destroy the sheep. (Hat-tip to John Steele Gordon.)

    In the leftist mind, those ‘wolves’ in power include: the rich; corporations; western countries; and especially Jews and Israel. The rules is, the wolves can gain no power legitimately, no matter how honorably they obtain it in practice. The rule is, whatever the wolves have, they stole from the sheep. There is of course a curious exception: the power leftists themselves have, or the power of other leftists they identify with (Carter, Obama, Castro, Chavez etc.) is considered the power of shepherds and exempted from being considered the power of wolves, no matter how evilly that power is acquired and maintained.

    To the Western liberal mind, non-western countries and ethnicities and religions are by definition sheep. (Is this condescending and even racist? Of course it is. Leftists are typically extreme *racists of condescension*.) Sheep can do no wrong in and of themselves. All the good things they do are their own. All the bad things they do is because the Wolves did something to make them behave badly.

    Put a turban on it, and its a sheep. That’s the unspoken rule. (Except for special cases such as a Saudi Sheikh collaborating with the US. That’s a sheep collaborating with a wolf, so it’s a sort of wolf-sheep. )

    Islam has a turban on it, so it’s a sheep. So it’s taboo for the Liberal mind to recognize that any bad things that come from it could be its own.

    When you point out to a Leftist the violation of human rights of innocent people inherent in traditional Islam, it drives them crazy because it busts their paradigms: they no longer get have their ‘shepherd’ role if Islam is not a sheep and if the Western World/Israel is not a wolf. Those whose human rights are violated by Islam are not important in this: the Western Leftist’s assumed moral posture as a good shepherd is more important to him than anyone else’s life and happiness. Because the Western Leftist is a moral fraud, a moral exhibitionist.

    So it drives them crazy, busts their paradigms, and they have no proper moral answers to you so they call you names: Islamophobe; xenophobe; racist etc.

    The Liberal’s hate of what they style ‘the wolves’, their own will to power and prestige and moral posturing as shepherds, and hypocritically their own personal comfort is ALL they care about. The actual suffering of other people never mattered, the charade that it did was *always* only posturing. The suffering and deaths of millions under communism never mattered a dime to the Western Leftist, so we should not expect the suffering and deaths of millions under Islam to matter a dime to them either.

    • herb benty

      Nice analogy Joe, and accurate. The Western Progressives think all the world people’s are like them, with just a little nudging. Death is a good thing to evolutionary naturalism. Their hypocrisy doesn’t bother them a bit, but it is condemned by our God- they are in for a real letdown, and not far away now,

  • Crassus

    One man who knew how to deal with Islamists was the legendary Vlad the Impaler. When a group of Muslim dignitaries disrespected him in his home kingdom he had their turbans nailed to their heads.

  • popseal

    Vlad the Impaler had it right.

  • CosmotKat

    Genghis Kahn was far more admirable than any Islamic Jihadist. Genghis Kahn allowed his people to decide for themselves whether to embrace Islam or Christianity. He only asked that they be loyal.

  • Muhammad O’Mecca

    Muslims make Satan look like a saint.

  • az

    Well I think the description (the dark side) given above rather matches the ‘kind’ gestures of USA and other Western countries. They drink blood of innocent people (mostly Muslims) so that they can draw precious oil from their lands. They are more barbaric that the most barbaric. Brutal and highly self obsessed. West brought destruction to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, central Africa and still you people have got cheeks to criticize someone in history about whom you know nothing. See in the present…You all are murderers….indifferent and cold blooded who knows no respect for human blood. Your pathetic description speaks of your highly incomplete knowledge of history and specially Islamic ideology…Look inwards…See your own attitude before pointing fingures towards someone else…

    • Hass

      Hogwash Hajji, Westerners can look at the way Muslimes behave today to make an easy conclusion that nothing has changed since Islam’s inception. After all, everything known about Islam is from Islamic sources.

      As for that Khalid bin al-Walid, if it weren’t for his savagery against his own people, Islam would’ve been nothing but history. Unfortunately, nothing has changed since then because Muslimes are still killing Apostates.

  • Lanna

    Good Article….There is always evil waiting to destroy….. those who are complacent and don’t understand the power of evil had better wake up, and get accustomed to events that are changing our world by dictatorships and nuclear weapons.

  • Kamran Khan

    The fucked ups are moaning on their forefathers’ defeat by Hazarat Khalid Bin Waleed.

  • Muslim

    Everyone knows how many people Christians have slaughtered, anyone who left Christianity was crucified. you haters only know how to hate and bark. your armies use drones coz they can never fight us. all your defense and attack fails at our strategy and nuclear power weapons. your slave minds can never compete with our intelligence. your steroid stuffed mutilated bodies can never compete with our hard working people. all you do is get fake histories from your puppet masters slave material society. Hate till death comes over you. GOD will always help us and we will always bow only to HIM!!!!

    • john gault

      The sand pits of despair that your Muslims came from are of your own making. You embrace a belief that walks on the bodies and blood of your own subjects. You treat your females like cattle or slaves. The slaves that came here were supplied by your people. You cry that we are cowards that use drones against your terrorist factions? Why should a man worry about what shoe he wears to step on a scorpion?

  • Husam

    1st and 2nd World wars for more than 80 million killed…45 millions red indians killed..180 millions Africans were under slavery….7 millions origin Australian were smashed….Spain Empire Campaigns in South and North America….more than 400 millions were killed in the name of Christianity…so please shut ur fucking mouth because u r the biggest terrorist in the worlds history.

  • Damon Ramirez

    Jihad is a license given under the guise of a religious commandment to a
    degenerate, demented rabble of sexual, sadistic perverts, vicious
    bloodthirsty maniacs to embark on an orgy of murder, rape and pillage.
    THERE IS ALL THERE IS TO IT! There is NO religious spiritual, redemptive
    dimension whatsoever to Jihad, this is not an “internal struggle” as
    those filthy liars try to convince us.

  • Mistergilgamesh

    I think there is going to be a serious voter turnout in 2016.