Khalid ibn al-Walid dismissed twice by Umar?

Feb 2019
631
Thrace
It says on his wikipedia:

On 22 August 634, Abu Bakr died, having made Umar, Khalid's cousin, his successor. Umar's first move was to relieve Khalid from supreme command of Muslim Forces and appoint Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah as the new commander in chief of the Islamic army.

Umar was reported as saying:"I did not fire Khalid ibn al Waleed because I am angry with him or because of betrayal of trust or responsibility but the reason was just that I wanted people to know that it is Allah who gives victory".


Later on, they have another paragraph titled Dismissal from army:

The reasoning of Umar here is essentially the same: I have not dismissed Khalid because of my anger or because of any dishonesty on his part, but because people glorified him and were misled. I feared that people would rely on him. I want them to know that it is Allah who gives us victory; and there should be no mischief in the land.

My question is, are these instances one and the same and wikipedia just rephrased Umar's reasoning to appears as two different events, or was he actually dismissed twice? Given that both appear to have happened in 638, the former is more likely. But then why did they say: "Umar's first move was to relieve Khalid from supreme" when Abu Bark only died in 634. It's a bit confusing for me.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,793
Republika Srpska
The story of Khalid ibn al-Walid's dismissal is a bit confusing since different sources place it at different times as you yourself noted. However, more reliable sources date Khalid's dismissal to after Yarmouk. And it makes sense. Why would Umar dismiss such an important commander before the main portion of the war against Byzantium was finished? And the reason for Khalid's dismissal was not because Umar wanted to show that it was Allah who gave Muslims victories, it was because Khalid and his family started amassing huge wealth. Tabari tells us the following:
"It has been reported that a dihqan entered the presence of Khalid and said: O, amir, your son's wealth has exceeded ten million. I fear this may reach the Commander of the Faithful and that he may consider it too much."
There are also reports that when Umar went to Syria, he saw Khalid's forces wearing silk and he threw stones at them and reprimanded them.
Also Tabari:
"Umar demanded of Khalid: O, Khalid, take the money of God from under your bottom. And Umar confiscated 40,000 dirhams which he found on his (Khalid's) person"
This is further reinforced by the fact that immediately after taking over Abu Ubayda concerned himself with the division of spoils, apparently looking to rectify Khalid's mistakes. It is possible other factors were at play. Khalid was from the Banu Makhzum, one of the wealthy Quraysh clans, and the Banu Makhzum had close ties with Banu Umayya (the Umayyads). Caliph Umar, despite being a Quraysh himself, aimed to limit the power of the Quraysh Meccan aristocracy. So, he might have dismissed Khalid as part of this policy since Khalid was connected with the Quraysh elites, but it seems that Khalid's hoarding of wealth was the primary reason.
 
Feb 2019
631
Thrace
The story of Khalid ibn al-Walid's dismissal is a bit confusing since different sources place it at different times as you yourself noted. However, more reliable sources date Khalid's dismissal to after Yarmouk. And it makes sense. Why would Umar dismiss such an important commander before the main portion of the war against Byzantium was finished? And the reason for Khalid's dismissal was not because Umar wanted to show that it was Allah who gave Muslims victories, it was because Khalid and his family started amassing huge wealth. Tabari tells us the following:
"It has been reported that a dihqan entered the presence of Khalid and said: O, amir, your son's wealth has exceeded ten million. I fear this may reach the Commander of the Faithful and that he may consider it too much."
There are also reports that when Umar went to Syria, he saw Khalid's forces wearing silk and he threw stones at them and reprimanded them.
Also Tabari:
"Umar demanded of Khalid: O, Khalid, take the money of God from under your bottom. And Umar confiscated 40,000 dirhams which he found on his (Khalid's) person"
This is further reinforced by the fact that immediately after taking over Abu Ubayda concerned himself with the division of spoils, apparently looking to rectify Khalid's mistakes. It is possible other factors were at play. Khalid was from the Banu Makhzum, one of the wealthy Quraysh clans, and the Banu Makhzum had close ties with Banu Umayya (the Umayyads). Caliph Umar, despite being a Quraysh himself, aimed to limit the power of the Quraysh Meccan aristocracy. So, he might have dismissed Khalid as part of this policy since Khalid was connected with the Quraysh elites, but it seems that Khalid's hoarding of wealth was the primary reason.
I figured that a double dismissal might be possible as in the first being just a demotion. And in 638, he is kicked out of the army. The confusing part is that in both cases, virtually the same line was quote as Umar's reasoning (whether or not genuine as you pointed out). That's why I thought that maybe they just confused the dates and mistakenly included 2 separate dismissals.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,793
Republika Srpska
The confusing part is that in both cases, virtually the same line was quote as Umar's reasoning (whether or not genuine as you pointed out).
Well, it is a justification worthy of a Rightly Guided Caliph and also does not destroy the perception of Khalid as a valiant and just Muslim warrior.
 

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,505
Malaysia
Or it could have been possible that Umar actually saw Khalid as a possible future rival, and he was just acting in reasonable good sense.
 
Nov 2019
9
USA
There are many stories around about Khalid. I read beside being a great general he was a savage and rapist. The truth is hard to digest for some religious folks. Khalid has been glorified for ages as "Sword of God". Caliph Omar definitely saw some negative behavior in Khalid, before dismissing such a capable general. He could be a political rival/threat for Caliph as well.
 

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,872
Cornwall
There are many stories around about Khalid. I read beside being a great general he was a savage and rapist. The truth is hard to digest for some religious folks.
I would suggest 'some religious folks' are extraordinarily naive about medieval times. Incredibly so in fact
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scorpixyz