Talk:Battle of Firaz

Army size

I dont think that army size was or should be that large in battle of firaz ! it was a border town and when whole of eastern central and westren iraq was being conquered by Khalid bin Walid, then there remian no reasion for persians to stay at firaz motion less, i mean after battle of muzayyah, sanni, and zumail... no persian army appeared in iraq to challenge the muslim authority there, the best reasion that can be given for it is that: it took time to concentrate new army from different garrisons through out the empire, if there was 150,000 soldiers at Firaz ( which is near modern days abu kamal in Syria) then why didn't persian emperor simply ordered them to attack and destory the muslim forces in iraq, he could very well do it soon after or during when Khalid's army was busy in destorying persian forces in muzzayh, zumail and sanni. From this i suppose that the persian army there must not be more then 10,000 along with its arab allies. The byzantine army on the other hand, at the garrison may be 12,000 ( as it use to be in different byzantine garrions in those days). The combine force must not be more then 20,000-30,000.

Mohammad Adil 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate to see such coalition force figures. Although there is not much one can do, when the heavily depended on souce for this article is "The Sword of Allah." LOL - seems more like propaganda to me, but anyway that isn't important. When Khosrau II was fighting Heraclius (at a time when Persia was far wealthier and stronger) it usually summoned crack forces of up to 30,000-40,000 max. So these figures would have shrunk by the time of Yazdgerd III, and Byzantium would have probably been able to raise a comparable force. I can't see why the joint Roman/Persian force alongside Christian allies could have exceeded 40,000.--Arsenous Commodore 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Dude why "lolz" for sowrd of Allah ... ???? have you ever read it ??? read it it will provide you a nice military tactics and strategies knowledge. Well, the author of the sowrd of Allah also argues and disagrees with the early souresc that the allied forces were so large and even he did'nt consider it to be a major or decisive battle, as it was only the "last" battle of the swift conquest of persians mesopotamia.

Mohammad Adil 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

6 hundred thousand? thats a joke right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.188 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering it was one of the last confrontations between the Persian Empire and the Rashidun Caliphate, I think it's reasonable to assume the Persians far outnumbered the Muslims in the battle. However, it would be helpful if an alternative source could be found to corroborate or discount any figures. In relation to Arvand's comment, the title is perhaps not the most scholarly of ones but it seems that the author went to a great deal to authenticate his sources {even though many were of the Muslim viewpoint} and even visited the battle grounds so I think the book does have some scholarly weighting.

POV

This article looks like Muslim propaganda to me. Two greatest powers in the Middle east reinforced by Christian Arabs defeated by much smaller force of Muslim nomads? The size of both Muslim and non-Muslim armies was probably far more closer to equal than stated in the article.

Isidoros47 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Get over the fact that a smaller Rashidun Army defeated the greater Byzantine/Persian armies through good leadership and religious fervor on the part of the Muslim combatants. Victory does not always lie in the strength of numbers.

The Byzantine and Persian were quite religious as well you know. They also have better technology and heavier troops. I too think the number are false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.3.236 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I must also agree that whoever wrote this article has looked at a Islamic propagandist book. Ironically it is the only one cited. Furthermore it is IMPOSSIBLE to field such a large army during this period when taking into consideration the sheer logistics of such an operation. A zero should be removed from that absolutely dubious number. Moreover this is not the way to write a scholarly article. USE MORE SOURCES THAT ARE MINIMALLY CREDIBLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.254 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any Byzantine (Roman) cronicle or otherwise source that mentions this battle? I find a difficulty accepting the Roman/Persian numbers given that, in this period, both empires had difficulty raising armies of this size, yet, here, the article seems to suggest that these huge forces were available to local Roman and Persian harrisons. Goliath74 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The article needs a major overhaul. Misdemenor (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why I changed the 2 references to Morony and the "100k casualties"

In case someone doesn't look at the page history for my brief explanation, I'll give a slightly longer one here.

The references to Morony were, in my eyes, problematic when it comes to the claim of 100,000 dead Byzantines and Persians. On the page cited, Morony use the wording "Muslims are said [my emphasis] to have inflicted one hundred thousand casualties". Morony thus indicated that this is a rumour and the citation for this claim refers to al-Tabari. I have thus changed the 2 references to Morony which deal with the 100k Persian/Byzantine casualties to instead refer to Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings which is the actual source. I have likewise changed the wording in the article's body text to reflect that this (to me clearly inflated) claim is not the product of modern historiography, but of an Arab chronicle.

Mojowiha (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

u could take it as pinch of salt if you like, but unless there are another source that contradict it then this article cannot dismiss At Tabari report about 100k casualties of Sassanid in this battleAhendra (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We are still SERIOUSLY in need of better sources

As far as I can see, this article is still far too beholden to inflated claims from dubious sources. It seems that at least two large sections are copy/pasted from the pioneer Campaigns in Western Iraq source, or to put it more accurately: Witness Pioneer's entry titled Campaigns in Western Iraq. This is problematic as not only does Witness Pioneer entitle itself "A Virtual Islamic Organization" (http://witness-pioneer.net/), but its entry on Campaigns in Western Iraq contains no references and several clear POV statements, such as "The battle of Firaz added further luster to the Muslim arms." It was this latter claim that alerted me to the copy/paste. Here's a comparison between the current version of the section in this wiki article entitled "The battle" (I've bolded the matching sections):

Khalid gave the enemy the option to cross the Euphrates. As soon as the enemy had crossed the Euphrates, Khalid commanded the Muslim force to go into action. The united forces of the Persians and the Byzantines had the river at their back, and the position was similar to that at the battle of Mazar. At Firaz, Khalid adopted the same tactics as he had adopted at Mazar. As the front ranks of both the forces committed themselves in the fighting, Khalid fixed his enemy on either flank with the help of his rear wings. Making a swift lightning movement, the Muslims dashed for the bridge on the river, and succeeded in occupying it. The enemy was thus held in a pincer movement. The Muslims intensified the attack and closed the noose round the neck of the enemy. In the mortal conflict that ensued, the enemy soon lost the ground. The withdrawing forces of the Persians and the Byzantines jumped into the river in a state of horror or confusion whilst the Muslim forces would shoot arrows at the retreating soldiers. It was a bloody battle, with an Arab source claiming one hundred thousand Byzantine, Persian and Christian fallen.[3] The battle was soon over and Firaz, the last stronghold of Persian Mesopotamia, fell to the Muslims. The battle of Firaz added further luster to the Muslim arms. [6]

And the corresponding text from Witness Pioneer:

The battle of Firaz. Khalid gave the enemy the option to cross the Euphrates. As soon as the enemy had crossed the Euphrates, Khalid commanded the Muslim force to go into action. The united forces of the Persians and the Byzantines had the river at their back, and the position was similar to that at the battle of Mazar. At Firaz, Khalid adopted the same tactics as he had adopted at Mazar. As the front ranks of both the forces committed themselves in the fighting, Khalid fixed his enemy on either flank with the help of his rear wings. Making a swift lighting movement, the Muslims dashed for the bridge on the river, and succeeded in occupying it. The enemy was thus held in a pincer movement. The Muslims intensified the attack and closed the noose round the neck of the enemy. In the mortal conflict that ensued, the enemy soon lost the ground. The withdrawing forces of the Persians and the Byzantines either jumped into the river in a state of horror or confusion or allowed themselves to be squeezed to death. It was a bloody battle, and over fifty thousand men of the enemy fell on the battleground. The battle was soon over and Firaz, the last stronghold of the Persians, fell to the Muslims. The battle of Firaz added further luster to the Muslim arms.

(http://www.witness-pioneer.net/vil/Articles/companion/13_abu_bakr.htm)

Likewise, compare the wiki-section Khalid's oath:

In the beginning of the battle of Firaz when the odds appeared to be against the Muslims, Khalid undertook an oath that if he was victorious, he would undertake pilgrimage to Mecca, the House of God. After the victory of Firaz, Khalid stayed at Firaz for some days and made the necessary arrangements for the administration of the territory. In January 634, while a garrison was kept at Firaz, orders were issued to the main Muslim army to return to Al-Hirah. Khalid stayed behind with the rear of the army. As the army moved forward on the road to Al Hirah, Khalid separated himself from the army, and took an unfrequented route to Mecca with a small escort. Khalid reached Mecca in time to perform the 'Hajj'. After performing the pilgrimage secretly and fulfilling his vow, Khalid and his party rode back to Al Hirah. Before the last contingent of the main army from Firaz had entered Hirah, Khalid was also there, as if he had been all the time with the rear guard. Although Khalid had taken pains to ensure that he was not recognized at Mecca, news was nevertheless carried to Abu Bakr that leaving his charge in Iraq, Khalid had visited Mecca incognito. When Khalid reached Al Hirah, he got a letter from Abu Bakr asking him not to indulge in such adventure again. [6]

with Witness Pioneer:

Khalid's pilgrimage to Makkah. In the beginning of the battle of Firaz when the odds appeared to be against the Muslims, Khalid undertook an oath that if he was victorious, he would undertake pilgrimage to Makkah, the House of God. After the victory of Firaz, Khalid stayed at Firaz for some days and made the necessary arrangements for the administration of the territory. In January 634 C.E., while a garrison was kept at Firaz, orders were issued to the main Muslim army to return to Al Hirah. Khalid stayed behind with the rear of the army. As the army moved forward on the road to Al Hirah, Khalid separated himself from the army, and took an unfrequented route to Makkah with a small escort. Khalid reached Makkah in time to perform the 'Hajj'. After performing the pilgrimage secretly and fulfilling his vow, Khalid and his party rode back to Al Hirah. Before the last contingent of the main army from Firaz had entered Hirah, Khalid was also there, as if he had been ail the time with the rear guard. Although Khalid had taken pains to ensure that he was not recognized at Makkah,news was nevertheless carried to Abu Bakr that leaving his charge in Iraq, Khalid had visited Makkah incognito. When Khalid reached Al Hirah, he got a letter from Abu Bakr asking him not to indulge in such adventure again.

I'm sorry but this is just not good enough. Unfortunately, I'm not a medievalist or Islam specialist, not by a long shot, but I raise the issue of POV and reliable sources again in the hope that someone will improve this article.

Mojowiha (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The offending pages in the Battle section have been removed. As to Khalid's oath, I mentioned that it is a legend. Does that solve the issue? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Questionable source

Despite The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin Al-Waleed: His Life and Campaigns, A.I. Akram, being a questionable source, I find on page 209:

• "But it was not in Khalid's nature to sit back and take his ease. It was in his nature to be discontented with past achievements, ever seeking fresh glory and striving towards distant horizons. The Persian capital seemed reluctant to slake his thirst for battle by sending more armies against him so it was a pleasure for Khalid to be reminded that a strong Persian garrison still existed on the Euphrates at Firaz (near present day Abu Kamal-see Map at endpaper), which marked the frontier between the empires of Persia and Eastern Rome. This was the only Persian garrison left west of Ctesiphon; and since he had been instructed by the Caliph to "fight the Persians", Khalid decided to eliminate this force also. He marched to Firaz. On arrival here in the first week of December 633 (end of Ramadhan, 12 Hijri), Khalid found two garrisons- a Persian and a Roman. These garrisons, representing empires which in the preceding two decades had fought each other in a long and costly war, now united to battle the Muslims, and were joined in this purpose by many local Christian Arab clans.For more than six weeks nothing happened. The two armies stood and glared at each other across the Euphrates, the Muslims on the south bank and the Romans and Persians on the north bank, neither side willing to cross the river. Then, on January 21, 634 (the 15th of Dhul Qad, 12 Hijri) Khalid was able to entice the allies across the Euphrates onto his side; and their crossing was hardly complete when he attacked them with his usual speed and violence. Thousands of them were slain before the rest found safety in flight.This was neither a great nor a decisive battle; nor was the enemy force a very large one, as some early historians have stated. (No Persian strategist in his senses would leave a powerful garrison in a peaceful frontier town like Firaz while Central and Western Iraq was being lost and Ctesiphon itself was threatened.) Its importance lies only in the fact that it was the last battle in a brilliant campaign."
  

No where do I see 15,000 Muslims, or the statement that Khalid faced a force "ten times larger than Khalid's army. Therefore, since the presented information is original research and the source is questionable, I will be removing said source and information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Firaz. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041210000537/http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm to http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm

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) 01:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

SUGGESTION TO FIX NAME

there's misspelling in the english name of the battle it should be 'Battle of Firadh' not 'Battle of Firaz' since the end of the arabic name, "ض " should be spelled 'dh' not 'z' all who can read arabic will agree with this Ahendra (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2929 (UTC)

They altered the outcome of the battle, agreed upon in all original sources, because of some non-academic historians or researchers who, due to their biases, believe their unsubstantiated and unsourced speculations to be true. Do you think they will spell the battle's name correctly? ~2026-32722-59 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I made adjustments

I don't know why you deleted what I edited and added Even with sources This is a historical article and not to please Iranians return my edit now: soucre=

1001 Battles That Changed the Course of History,R. G. Grant - Page 108

• January 634 j The Battle of Firaz was a decisive encounter in the Arab conquest of Mesopotamia. It was fought between the forces of the Muslim Arab commander Khalid ibn al-Walid and a much larger army...* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.231.131 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Author has no expertise in the subject and his work (which seems to be a very basic, general work) does not seem to be cited by any reliable, academic source. I don't have the time to find the primary source right now, but it looks like the author simply directly quoted the very numbers mentioned in Islamic text(s). Which are not to be trusted, because of WP:PSTS and other things; "Islamic texts usually report the number of the Persian soldiers to have been in the hundreds or tens of thousands and several times larger than the Arab armies. This is pure fiction and it is boastful literature which aims to aggrandize Arab Muslim achievement, which may be compared to the Greek accounts of the Greco-Persian wars." - Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire, Daryaee, page 37. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Battle - disputed

This battle is disputed as even happening in numerous sources:

• The Battle of Firāḍ: The Day on Which Khālid b. al-Walīd Did [Not] Defeat Both Byzantines and Persians, Konstantinos Takirtakoglou,"Journal of Medieval Military History", Volume XIX, ed. John France, Kelly DeVries, Clifford J. Rogers, pages 1-20. Specifically pages 16-17; "Caetani, after a critical assessment of the Arabic sources, arrived at the conclusion that all the references in Sayf regarding Khālid’s campaign after the capitulation of Ḥīrah are in fact an “imaginary” [fantastica] military campaign. Noth believes that the reference to this battle merely hides “one of the usual raids of the early period.” Donner, in his study, despite mentioning the existence of references to Khālid’s campaign to Circesium (Qarqīsuyā’), not once refers to the tradition regarding the battle at Firāḍ. No reference to the battle of Firāḍ is to be found in Kaegi either, though in his work on Heraclius he says:“Muslim accounts of their conquest of Iraq refer to the presence of Byzantine troops and commanders among the opposing forces.” The same is true for Kennedy, Hoyland, and Zarrinkub. Crone, also, in her entry on Khālid in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, expresses a general skepticism as to whether Khālid was in fact the leader of the expedition against Iraq, and therefore does not address the battles which this operation comprised. Fück considers the account of the battle “dubious."
• The War of the Three Gods: Romans, Persians, and the Rise of Islam, Peter Crawford, page 107, "Perhaps the least reliable of Khalid's record moves..[..]..Moving further up the Euphrates, he struck at what was considered the last remaining Sasanid garrison along the Euphrates at Firaz.."

• Konstantino Takirtakoglou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of History
  
• Walter Kaegi, historian and scholar of Byzantine history, professor of history at the University of Chicago
  
• Fred McGraw Donner is a scholar of Islam and Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Near Eastern History at the University of Chicago
  
• Albrecht Noth, historian of Islam
  
• Lawrence Irvin Conrad is an historian and scholar of Oriental studies, specializing in Near Eastern studies
  
• Leone Caetani, historian of the Middle East
  
• Peter Crawford, PhD in Ancient History from Queen's University Belfast.

Compared to the listing of references used to cite a Rashidun victory:

• Percy Sykes, English civil servant with no academic specialization in this field. Clearly not a reliable source
  
• Eric G. L. Pinzelli, appears to specialize in 17th - 18th centuries military history, in particular naval and siege warfare and the epic conflicts opposing the Ottoman Empire against Venice, Austria, the Papacy, Poland and Russia. No specialization in this field.
  
• Zaheer Ali is Mumbai-based academic, freelance journalist and social activist. The book doesn't concern itself with the time period in question. If this is the person on Linked In, they don't have any specialization in this particular field.
  
• William J. Bennett, this person is not an academic and they have no specialization in this field. They have a Ph.D. in political philosophy. Not a reliable source.
• R.G. Grant, is a generalized book publisher. No specialization in this field. Not a reliable source.

I think the result should be changed to disputed, the unreliable sources tossed and the article re-written. --Kansas Bear 22:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer, when we have sources that contradict each others, the result should fairly represent both views with due weight.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash Rxsxuis (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, after much thinking, and waiting until the 2025 NFL draft finished, I believe there at least two options.

• 1. Delete the entire article. Any indications of said battle in other articles should reflect it's unlikely nature.
• 2. Remove the infobox, re-write the article acknowledging that numerous academics doubt this battle occurred. Include in this re-written version the academics that do indicate the existance of this battle.

Thoughts? Concerns? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe the best option might be number 1, I have not been able to find any convincing information about this event/battle in WP:RS. If the community consensus is to keep this article, then at least we should perform your second option. Thanks for the proposal.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that the first variant would be the best, because really, there is not a single WP:RS that would somehow convincingly describe this battle, except for the article by the Takirtakoglu, in which he also questions the battle Rxsxuis (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This battle page is pretty controversial and as you said, it's quite disputed and should be re-written. But deleting it might be best too, there's more reliable sources questioning it than supporting it. Reaper1945 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Here are the sources that I found stating that the rashiduns won and that the battle should be returned back into Rashidun victory:

• The Abdriged History of the Arabs before Islam (in Arabic) by Jawad Ali Volume 2 /page 651: "Then Khālid headed toward al-Farāḍ. Al-Farāḍ lies on the border between al-Shām (Greater Syria/Levant), al-ʿIrāq, and al-Jazīrah. The Byzantines grew enraged and incensed, and they sought the help of nearby Persian frontier forces, who themselves were angered and inflamed. They also called upon Taghlib, Iyad, and al-Namir for reinforcements — and they supported them. Then they crossed the Euphrates to the other side, where Khalid's army was stationed. They were defeated, and the Muslims emerged victorious." *The Sword of Allah, Khalid Bin Al-Waleed: His Life and Campaigns Agha Ibrahim Akram, chapter 25, page 4 (page 187 digitally): "Then, on January 21, 634 (the 15th of Dhul Qad, 12 Hijri) Khalid was able to entice the allies across the Euphrates onto his side; and their crossing was hardly complete when he attacked them with his usual speed and violence. Thousands of them were slain before the rest found safety in flight."

• The Important Events in the History of the Nations (in Arabic) by Majid Hamid Ahmad al-Alusi, an assistant professor who has got MA in the history of Islam, page 27 in his book states: "The Battle of al-Firaz was the last major battle during the reign of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. It took place in the month of Dhul-Qi'dah and was fought by the Muslim army, led by Khalid ibn al-Walid, against the combined armies of the Persians and the Romans. The Muslims were victorious in this battle, with approximately 100,000 men killed from the Persian and Roman armies."

• Iraq after the muslim Conquest by Michael G. Morony, page 225: "as Khalid approached Firad on the Byzantine border. Hilal seems to have rallied both Byzantine and Persian frontier forces together with thirty thousand Arabs of the tribes of lyad, Namir, and Taghlib. These combined forces were defeated by Khalid in a battle fought at Firad on the ides of Dhu |-Qa‘da, 633, in which the Muslims are said to have inflicted one hundred thousand casualties."

• The Muslim Conquests: A Contemporary View (in Arabic) by Khaled Fahmy, pages 12 to 15 : Fahmy describes the Battle of Firad as taking place at the borders where Syria, Iraq, and Jazirah meet, representing the frontier between Persian and Byzantine civilizations. He characterizes it as involving a 'hateful triple alliance' between Arabs, Christian Byzantines, and Persian Zoroastrians against the Muslims under Khalid ibn al-Walid's leadership. The battle extended from Ramadan until early Dhul-Qa'dah of the same year. Citing Yaqut al-Hamawi, he reports that 100,000 enemy casualties were inflicted in this 'great battle.' Fahmy presents this as a decisive Muslim victory and uses al-Tabari's account where enemies acknowledged Khalid as 'a man who fights for religion and has intelligence and knowledge.

• My comment: Regarding Takirtakoglu, it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE if we all rely on one source that stated the opposite result (Rashdiuns defeat) in the battle.. Thoughts? (Tagging the users who were involved in discussion, @Kansas Bear, @Skitash, @Rxsxuis, @Reaper1945,@Wikaviani) R3YBOl (🌲) 13:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

It's just not Takirtakoglu though, he is citing several prominent scholars to demonstrate his point. I don't see how Majid Hamid Ahmad al-Alusi is even nearly on par with these scholars (WP:SOURCETYPES). Agha Ibrahim Akram is not even a historian. While Jawad Ali's work seems to be very prominent, it was published in the 1950s (?), surely some topics have been re-evaluated/expanded upon since, including this very topic? HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you not read any of this?

• ""Caetani, after a critical assessment of the Arabic sources, arrived at the conclusion that all the references in Sayf regarding Khālid’s campaign after the capitulation of Ḥīrah are in fact an “imaginary” [fantastica] military campaign. Noth believes that the reference to this battle merely hides “one of the usual raids of the early period.” Donner, in his study, despite mentioning the existence of references to Khālid’s campaign to Circesium (Qarqīsuyā’), not once refers to the tradition regarding the battle at Firāḍ. No reference to the battle of Firāḍ is to be found in Kaegi either, though in his work on Heraclius he says:“Muslim accounts of their conquest of Iraq refer to the presence of Byzantine troops and commanders among the opposing forces.” The same is true for Kennedy, Hoyland, and Zarrinkub. Crone, also, in her entry on Khālid in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, expresses a general skepticism as to whether Khālid was in fact the leader of the expedition against Iraq, and therefore does not address the battles which this operation comprised. Johann Fück considers the account of the battle “dubious."

The violation of WP:UNDUE would be to present this as an actual event, since there are numerous academics that doubt it even occurred! And your answer is to stick "Rashidun victory" in the infobox? I'm more inclined to just delete this fantastica(per Caetani) battle, as what 3 other editors suggested, and be done with it! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2025

I want to add other context because view of falsehood in early Muslim sources is not only view of modern historians. This what is can remain but other views should be added.

However many contemporary academic research nonetheless supports the conclusion that Khalid secured a victory in this campaign and that his opponents included regular Byzantine and Persian (Sasanian) military elements. For instance, A. I. Akram in The Sword of Allah explicitly treats Khalid’s success against such a combined force (Akram 1969, pp. [exact page] [10]). Michael G. Morony in Iraq After the Muslim Conquest situates Khalid’s operations within the broader context of Sasanian and Byzantine military presence in Mesopotamia, implying the presence of both in the opposition (Morony 1984, p. 225) Akram, A. I. The Sword of Allah: Khalid ibn al‑Walid, His Life and Campaigns. Lahore / Rawalpindi, 1969 (English edition Adam Publishers & Distributors, 2009). ISBN 978‑8174355218. See pp. [exact‑page] for the Mesopotamian campaign and Firāḍ. [10] 2. Morony, Michael G. Iraq After the Muslim Conquest. Princeton University Press, 1984. ISBN 978‑0691053950. See p. 225 for discussion of Khalid’s campaign in Iraq and the context of Byzantine/Sasanian military presence Zubrysasupee (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Muslim sources

I think Muslim sources should also be included to remain as neutral as possible. The Arabic Wikipedia, for example, does this. Why not here? ~2026-31247-19 (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

What is this ?!!!

What is this nonsense? What primary source did you rely on to claim that the outcome of the battle is disputed? To say that the Byzantines and Persians were victorious without any primary source is simply ridiculous and reveals nothing but hatred, racism, and prejudice. Your interpretation of the battle is not factual as long as there is no source for it! ~2026-32722-59 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Why

Deleting this logically sound topic instead of responding to it shows that you are not being fair. ~2026-32722-59 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Ha ha ha

This is the first time I have seen people who are supposed to be academics abandon the original sources of the event and rely on nonsense that happened two thousand years after the battle, nonsense that is not based on any source from non-academic historians. ~2026-32722-59 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Funny

Haha, dozens of historians have estimated the size of the armies in this battle, but they relied solely on the estimates of Takirtakuglu Constantine, who portrayed the battle as a mere fistfight. This man estimated Khalid ibn al-Walid's army at between 500 and 800 men simply because he hated Muslims, being a Greek ( Byzantine). Yes, Khalid ibn al-Walid conquered Syria and Iraq with 500 soldiers! 🤣 ~2026-32722-59 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Funny 2

In a topic and battle that's supposedly Islamic, there isn't a single Islamic reference or source 😂😂😂 You guys are so academic 😂 ~2026-32722-59 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Why??2

There are dozens of Western historians who have confirmed Khalid's victory in the battle, and they possess greater scholarly weight and standing than the Greek (Byzantine) historian Constantine Tekertakuglu. So why didn't you rely on their accounts? ~2026-32722-59 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)