Talk:Battle of Mu'tah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Mu'tah. 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/20061231061738/http://www.witness-pioneer.org:80/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_mutah.htm to http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_mutah.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

David Powers should not be used as a source

So it's fine to quote David Powers' own opinion because of his standing (i.e, "David Powers thinks..."), but his book:

https://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Not-Father-Any-Your/dp/0812221494

Is not a mainstream academic source to quote from.

In Muhammad Is Not the Father of Any of Your Men, Powers contends that a series of radical moves were made in the first two centuries of Islamic history to ensure Muhammad's position as the Last Prophet. He focuses on narrative accounts of Muhammad's repudiation of Zayd, of his marriage to Zayd's former wife, and of Zayd's martyrdom in battle against the Byzantines. Powers argues that theological imperatives drove changes in the historical record and led to the abolition or reform of key legal institutions. In what is likely to be the most controversial aspect of his book, he offers compelling physical evidence that the text of the Qur'an itself was altered.

He's arguing for his own pet, fringe, theories. The idea that Muslims did not believe Muhammad was the final prophet (literally stated in the Quran by any layperson's understanding) or that there was a conspiracy to alter the text of the Quran (though we've now got manuscripts radiocarbon-dated to the first century which aren't changed) are the sort of thing professors can argue for in their spare time as fringe pet theories. This is not what they are teaching in courses (they'd be kicked out) and the view in general would not be taken seriously in any university.

Wikipedia should not use such sources as representative of mainstream, accepted, academic thought. If someone wants to introduce a 'Controversial' or 'Criticism' area where they reference all the authors with whacky, non-mainstream views, go ahead, but the way it is edited right now (before I took it out) is disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.37.100 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh no. Delete referenced information, then demand Powers be removed? I see nothing presented that proves anything of your opinion of Powers. Sorry, but some arbitrary quote taken from Amazon.com is no evidence at all. Unless you have consensus, which you do not, you should not be removing referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have consensus. You don't. Something being in Wikipedia does not justify itself. That's circular reasoning. What I've written above is what you'd get as a response by walking into the history department of any Western university. Though this is less related to the issue of this particular article, Powers is, self-admittedly, arguing for theories of a conspiratorial nature (a.k.a. conspiracy theories). The burden of proof is on him. Since nobody else is concurring and the history books haven't been rewritten, it's safe to say they remain his pet theories.

The views of him cited in this article from that work that are clearly problematic:

It would not be until the third century A.H. that Muslim historians would state that Muhammad bestowed upon Khalid the title of 'Saifullah' meaning 'The Sword of Allah'.[10]

Besides this being arguable, what in the world does that statement have to do with this article? It literally comes out of nowhere and blindsides the reader with irrelevant nonsense. Who cares what Khalid's nickname was? How can you argue for this needing to stay in the article?

In early Muslim sources, the battle is recorded as a humiliating defeat.[10] While, later Muslim historians would alter early source material, revising the narrative of the battle as a Muslim victory.[10]

The first sentence is not problematic in nature, though Powers does not prove this in the cited work at all. The Muslims were portraying this as a "win" from literally the moment they came back (doesn't take a genius to understand how or why... a smaller force managed to survive an engagement with a superior foe, this is like a draw, and the smaller force can claim anything short of being annihilated was a win for them). The popular canonical Muslim historical accounts all portray both sides of this (that the survivors felt defeated, but people cheered them up with this spin).

But putting all that aside, I don't even care about the casual revisionist garbage that so typifies Wikipedia pages today. The problem is that second sentence I bolded. Powers never proves this in his work. Considering he has no proof earlier, differing, accounts ever even existed (his arguments are that they must have existed at one point in time, though no evidence remains or has ever been seen, because it would "make sense" based on the later works and actions of later writers). That sentence, like the earlier one, comes out of left field and blindsides the user with more statements irrelevant to the subject at hand. Worse, it portrays Powers' arguments, which are outside of mainstream academic consensus on the subject, as facts.

By the way, everything Powers argues for completely contradicts the main Wikipedia page on Islam (regarding belief of Muhammad being the final prophet and the Quran's alterations). Why don't you go try to edit that to match and remain consistent? Arguing for keeping Powers as a legitimate source but not using him on that main page is hypocritical.

68.132.37.100 (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is not consensus. You have to prove this source is not reliable.

• "Put putting all that aside, I don't even care about the casual revisionist garbage that so typifies Wikipedia pages today."

So you are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here to right great wrongs. Thank you. Words out of your own mouth.

• "What I've written above is what you'd get as a response by walking into the history department of any Western university."

Uh wrong. I have walked into the history department of numerous Western universities, they use facts supported by sources to prove their point, not their own self-inflated opinions. And definitely would not use some arbitrary quote from amazon.com to support their "argument".

• "By the way, everything Powers argues for completely contradicts the main Wikipedia page on Islam (regarding belief of Muhammad being the final prophet and the Quran's alterations)."

Really? Page number? Quote? Still nothing but your own opinion.

• "The first sentence is not problematic in nature, though Powers does not prove this in the cited work at all."

Really? Prove it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bad Language

There never was a Byzantine Empire. There was an Eastern Roman Empire.

The correct time indicator is A.D., not C.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Qur'an

While the great majority of the scholars interpret the beginning of Surah al-Rum (30) to be a battle between the Romans and the Persians, a few interpret it to be this battle. We have first to consider that in the original Qur'an there were no vowel diacritical marks. So this is what we have: غلبت الروم في أدنى الأرض وهم من بعد غلبهم سيغلبون Which is traditionally rendered as the following: The Romans have been defeated. In a nearby territory. But following their defeat, they will be victorious. [Talal Itani]

But actually the opposite meaning is possible: The Romans have won. At the lowest part on the earth. But after their victory, they will be defeated. [The Monotheist Group]

This is because the same verb without vowels can be read in the active and in the passive form, and it appears both in verse 30:2 and 30:3. The lowest part on the earth is the Dead Sea region, but most of the translators chose to translate في أدنى الأرض as "a nearby land" or "nearest land", but other examples in the Qur'an show that adna also means "lowest" (37:6, 41:12).

If we consider the context, it is logically clear why we should interpret this verse to mean the second option: - the "nearest land" could be more than one, so it is unspecific - the Persians are not mentioned, this theory comes from secondary sources - God says that the believers will rejoice "with the help of God". Why would the believers rejoice for the victory of the Romans? They say that is because they were "people of the Book", then they are closer to monotheism than Persians, but actually the Qur'an condemns the concepts of "Trinity" and "Son of God", so it makes no sense that the believers would rejoice. It is logically better that the believers would rejoice if they are the ones who will win against the romans, and this actually happened the very next year in the Battle of Tabuk.

Conclusion: the Battle of Mu'tah is most likely the one discussed in chapter 30 of the Quran, and the translation of this passage provided by The Monotheist Group is more accurate than the others:

1 ALM. 2 The Romans have won. 3 At the lowest part on the earth. But after their victory, they will be defeated. 4 In a few more years. The decision before and after is for God, and on that day the believers will rejoice. 5 With the victory of God. God gives victory to whom He wishes; He is the Noble, the Merciful. 6 Such is the pledge of God, and God does not break His pledge, but most of the people do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.10.142.20 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Victory

Kansas Bear, so what's the solution? Muslim strategical defensive success sounds fine, since Khalid successfully managed to bring them back and played good strategies in changing Byzantines' mind.--79.75.58.46 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why should it be what sounds good to you? Since you continue to edit war and knowingly ignore the fact that Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, not your opinion.

Where does Kaegi or Tucker state, "Byzantine political victory"? Your opinion.

Where does Powers or Buhl state, "Military stalemate and Muslim strategical defensive success"? Your opinion.

FYI, Mohammed Hussein Heikal author of Life of Muhammad is not an historian and should not be used.

All I see here is your opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Not my opinion. Muslim strategical defensive success should be ok since Buhl consider it as success. Strategies played in the Battle of Yarmouk were also used here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.38.19 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

How about that Some historians have described the battle of Mutah as a victory for the Muslims; others have called it a defeat. As a matter of fact it was neither. It was a drawn battle; but drawn in favour of the Christians, for the Muslims withdrew from the battlefield and left it in possession of their opponents. It was not a big battle; it was not even a very important one. But it gave Khalid an opportunity to show his skill as an independent commander; and it gained him the title of the Sword of Allah.

1. Ibn Hisham: Vol. 2, p. 382. 2. Waqidi: Maghazi, p. 322.

The infoboc mentions EXAGGERATED by modern westerns about the strength, so at least it was mentioned. The same applied for the result, we can mention about the historiography.--79.75.38.19 (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Muslim strategical defensive success should be ok since Buhl consider it as success."

Again, your unsourced unsupported opinion. Actually, Buhl states;

• "..but the vicarius Theodorus there learned of their plans and, rapidly collecting the garrisons of the fortresses, fell upon the Muslims at Mu'ta and defeated them." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and you should stop edit warring your opinion into the article and removing reference(s). That is disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

-Kansas Bear when did i remove the references? We can add then Stagnation according to certain Muslim sources, based on Ibn Kathir so this could have been put here too. User:LouisAragon you join the discussion too.

Also, the book says ," Khalid ibn al-Walid, who succeeded in saving the rest of the forces."

So among 3000 only some died and the rest went back. So this should be included? Then you tell me a better statement that could be put there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.61.27 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think anyone that continues to edit war, remove source(s), misrepresent sources, and cherry picks information from reliable sources to depict this battle as a positive outcome for the Muslims is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Considering that "Muslim sources" were rewritten from their original form to something more palatable, indicates "Muslim sources" should be used sparingly, or not at all, for this battle. Modern sources are quite clear on the historiography of "Muslim sources" concerning this battle, and no amount of cherry picking information will change that.

And since you have not answered my questions, I will ask again...

• Where does Kaegi or Tucker state, "Byzantine political victory"?
• Where does Powers or Buhl state, "Military stalemate and Muslim strategical defensive success"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And the sentence in the lead is not supported by Buhl, since this is what Buhl states;

• "Three of the leaders and most of the force were killed, and Chaledos, who was called the "sword of God", alone succeeded in escaping. The tombs of the martyrs who fell there used to be pointed out at Mu'ta, where a mausoleum was built over them."

So the sentence in the lead is source misrepresentation and will be removed. Also, the only thing that should be in the result section of the infobox is who won the battle. Just like other articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a misrepresentation according to Buhl, its just the Muslim account: "Khalid b. al-Walid, who succeeded in saving the rest of the force;" (Buhl, p. 756). Theophanes's claim that Khalid alone survived is ridiculous, of course, but you may want to include it if you wish. Also the early Muslim sources weren't "rewritten", rather the later sources revised the narrative of the battle as a strategic withdrawal in light of subseqeuent victories. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Then it should be labeled as such, considering the historiography section does state later Muslim sources were rewritten to make them more palatable. I would also like more eyes on this, since lately academic sources are being ignored, if not outright misrepresented.@LouisAragon:@Wario-Man:@Wikaviani:@Doug Weller:@LissanX:@Nabataeus: --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I was not able to access Buhl's source (Encyclopedia of Islam sec edition), however, here, on page 516, The New Encyclopedia of Islam describes the battle as being a failed Muslim excursion, Khalid ibn Walid taking command of the Muslim forces for the first time (thus, edits like this one are outright violation of WP:VER). Here, Tucker says "Khalid distinguished himself in the battle of Mu'tah (629) against the Ghassanids. When the three Medinan commanders were killed in the fight, Khalid was selected to command and was able to extract his small force of some 3,000 men against far larger Ghassanid and Byzantine forces." It seems clear that the battle was a defeat for the Muslim side, however, according to the sources, it also seems that Khalid ibn Walid could save some 3000 men, thus i would go with what Tucker states. Rewording the lead's sentence according to Tucker's cite sounds fine according to me.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on the Khalid ibn al-Walid article recently. From what I've read, it was an abortive raid against Byzantine territory and/or Byzantine-allied Arab tribes where the leading Muslim commanders were slain but Khalid was credited for taking the helm and overseeing a safe and orderly withdrawal amid difficult circumstances. He was rewarded for this by the prophet Muhammad bestowing on him the honorary title "Sayf Allah" (Sword of God). Will come back with detailed breakdown of academic, secondary sources. Al Ameer (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as what we should put for the "Result" parameter in the infobox, it should remain as "Byzantine victory". The other details about Khalid's tactical retreat and the aftermath should be provided in the article body, which needs to be expanded/copyedited. It is not a controversial or contested fact—the general consensus among scholarly, secondary sources is that Mu'ta was a battlefield defeat for the Muslim Arabs. Obviously, it did not deter the early Muslims, who conquered Syria a few years later, but that is irrelevant to the "Result" parameter in this article's infobox. Here's a sample breakdown of some scholarly, secondary sources:

• Hugh N. Kennedy (2007) The Great Arab Conquests, p. 71: "As the small band of Muslims rode north up the King’s Highway, they were met by a detachment of Byzantine soldiers, mostly local Arab tribesmen, marching south down the road to re-establish Byzantine rule in the area [after the Persian withdrawal from Syria]. In a short clash at Mu’ta, the Muslims were defeated and forced to flee, several of the leaders being killed and buried in the tombs we still see today. Among the Muslims who fled to fight another day was Khalid b. al-Walid, the ‘Sword of God’ who was later to play such an important role in the conquest of Syria. The defeat at Mu’ta was a humiliation for the nascent Muslim state but Muhammad seems to have been undeterred and was still determined to pursue the project of raiding Syria."
• Hugh N. Kennedy (2004), p. 42: The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: "The Muslims met the opposition near the village of Mu’ta on the edge of the cultivated lands east of the Dead Sea and were severely defeated. Zayd himself and the second in command, Ja‘far b. Abi Talib, brother of Ali were both killed and it was left to Khalid b. al-Walid, a recent defector from the Meccan camp, to lead the remains of the army back to Medina."
• Fred M. Donner (1981) The Early Islamic Conquests, p. 103: "They were part of a large number of tribal auxiliaries for the Byzantines that destroyed at Mu'ta the army of Muslims sent into Syria in A . H. 8/ A . D . 629 ... This challenge, perhaps part of a Byzantine effort to consolidate power among the tribes after the Mu'ta victory ..."; p. 109: "Though the campaigns to Dhat al-Atlah and Mu'ta were disastrous defeats for the Muslims, the raid on Dhat al-Salasil appears to have bolstered Medina's influence in the Wadi al-Qura and northern Hijaz, and the Tabuk campaign brought several towns in the northern Hijaz and southern Syria under Muhammad's control, as well as establishing his influence over local nomadic groups."
• Walter E. Kaegi (1992) Byzantium and the early Islamic Conquests, p. 71: "The battle or skirmish of Mu'ta was the first armed clash between the Muslims and Byzantine military forces, and it occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad. It resulted in a clear Muslim defeat, but it loomed large in later Muslim traditions about the hostile odds that the early Muslims encountered"

Others could be provided if necessary, but the aforementioned are authoritative enough. Al Ameer (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your insight and valuable cites.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Name of the battle

The arabic title written in this article is Ghazwatul Mu'tah

It is incorrect according to the Muslim verified sources. since Ghazwatul or Ghazwah only used as term for the battle where Prophet Muhammad Shalallahu Alaihi Wassalam himself involved

But in Mu'tah it is only sent some of his companions as delegated commander. so it should be called Ma'arakah, not Ghazwah

I can give reliable and academic source regarding this matter if u want to. the point is i want to argue that Ghazwah name is incorrect based on consensus of scholarly writing in Muslim historical matter Ahendra (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Result

I think we should change the result. Because according to Muslims it is Muslim victory or draw. Abdurrahman Receppaşa (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It is also inaccurate to describe a skirmish in terms of defeat or victory. Montgomery Watt in the "Result" column has "leaders killed". (Muhammad in Medina, 1956, p. 342) He explains "It is possible, then, that the encounter was of the nature of a skirmish. [...] While the expedition was doubtless successful in increasing respect for Muslim power, the death of the general may have had a contrary effect in some quarters." (pp. 54-55) I suggest changing the results to "Muslim leaders killed" (per Watt), which is the only factual description given the dispute about the nature of this encounter. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Also the uncertainty about the result existed in the earliest sources. Both al-Waqidi and Musa bin Uqba (d. 758CE) collected accounts stating that the Byzantines were first to flee Mu'ta. Watt makes a note of this: "in which according to one source the enemy fled". (p. 54) He further concludes that we're only certain of the barest outline: "(1) there was some sort of an encounter with an enemy force; (2) Zayd, Ja‘far, and ‘Abdallah were killed, but not many others; (3) the army returned to Medina under the command of Khalid without serious loss. Beyond these points there is much uncertainty. (p. 54) Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: Why did you remove Kaegie and Tucker, two WP:RS, from the "Result" part of the infobox? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: We don't use the infobox to hide uncertainty or make doubtful claims. Tucker (p.200) is a timeline that does not indicate from which sources specific facts were drawn. He cites Kaegi elsewhere so that's probably where he got his information. Hence it's one source being presented as two sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If Wiqi55 was so worried about "doubtful claims" why not ping everyone that has taken part in discussion(s) concerning this battle?

• "We don't use the infobox to hide uncertainty or make doubtful claims."

The only thing doubtful is the Muslim sources which were rewritten.

• Hugh N. Kennedy (2007) The Great Arab Conquests, p. 71: "As the small band of Muslims rode north up the King’s Highway, they were met by a detachment of Byzantine soldiers, mostly local Arab tribesmen, marching south down the road to re-establish Byzantine rule in the area [after the Persian withdrawal from Syria]. In a short clash at Mu’ta, the Muslims were defeated and forced to flee, several of the leaders being killed and buried in the tombs we still see today. Among the Muslims who fled to fight another day was Khalid b. al-Walid, the ‘Sword of God’ who was later to play such an important role in the conquest of Syria. The defeat at Mu’ta was a humiliation for the nascent Muslim state but Muhammad seems to have been undeterred and was still determined to pursue the project of raiding Syria."
• Hugh N. Kennedy (2004), p. 42: The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: "The Muslims met the opposition near the village of Mu’ta on the edge of the cultivated lands east of the Dead Sea and were severely defeated. Zayd himself and the second in command, Ja‘far b. Abi Talib, brother of Ali were both killed and it was left to Khalid b. al-Walid, a recent defector from the Meccan camp, to lead the remains of the army back to Medina."
• Fred M. Donner (1981) The Early Islamic Conquests, p. 103: "They were part of a large number of tribal auxiliaries for the Byzantines that destroyed at Mu'ta the army of Muslims sent into Syria in A . H. 8/ A . D . 629 ... This challenge, perhaps part of a Byzantine effort to consolidate power among the tribes after the Mu'ta victory ..."; p. 109: "Though the campaigns to Dhat al-Atlah and Mu'ta were disastrous defeats for the Muslims, the raid on Dhat al-Salasil appears to have bolstered Medina's influence in the Wadi al-Qura and northern Hijaz, and the Tabuk campaign brought several towns in the northern Hijaz and southern Syria under Muhammad's control, as well as establishing his influence over local nomadic groups."
• Walter E. Kaegi (1992) Byzantium and the early Islamic Conquests, p. 71: "The battle or skirmish of Mu'ta was the first armed clash between the Muslims and Byzantine military forces, and it occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad. It resulted in a clear Muslim defeat, but it loomed large in later Muslim traditions about the hostile odds that the early Muslims encountered"

These were originally posted by Al-Ameer son. You know, someone that was not pinged.

And another one,

• "..but the vicarius Theodorus there learned of their plans and, rapidly collecting the garrisons of the fortresses, fell upon the Muslims at Mu'ta and defeated them." -- Buhl, F. (1993). "Muʾta". In H. A. R. Gibb (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Islam. 7 (Second ed.). BRILL. p. 756.

Also, according to the MOS for military infoboxes;

• ""result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say." --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I'm already familiar with most of these sources. However, Watt's analysis of the primary sources is more detailed and brings a different perspective, hence it should not be ignored. And some of the sources you cite are almost tertiary, lacking any evidence or analysis of the primary sources. To demonstrate why citing such sources is inadequate, let me ask you which Muslim sources you claim were "rewritten" and how do they compare to the earliest sources I mentioned above that already include reports of a Muslim victory? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• "I'm already familiar with most of these sources."

And yet you have chosen to ignore previous discussions and remove Byzantine victory from the infobox. Nothing like ignoring what you do not like.

• "And some of the sources you cite are almost tertiary.."

Actually, Buhl is the only "tertiary" source and these are the sources listed in the bibliography for Mu'ta; Ibn Hisham, ed. Wustenfeld,791 ff.; Tabari, i, 1610 ff.; Wakidi, tr. Wellhausen,301-15; Ibn Sa'd, ii/1, 92 ff., cf. iii/2, 82, 14; iv,22 ff.; Caetani, Annali dell' Islam, ii, 80-8; Mas'udi, Tanbih, 327; Theophanes, ed. de Boor, i, 335; Lammens, Le berceau de l'Islam, 176; Ya'kubi, Buldan, 326; Mukaddasi, 178; Yakut, Mutant, iv, 677; Abu 'l-Fida', ed. Reinaud and de Slane, 247;A. Musil, Arabia Petroea, i, 152; E. Probst, Diegeogr.Verhaltnisse Syriens u. Paldstinas nach Wilhelm v. Tyrus(Das Land der Bibel), 1927, i, 73; W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford 1956, 53-5,347; M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Mahomet, Paris 1969, 169-70; F. McG. Donner, The early Islamic conquests, Princeton 1981, 103, 105 ff.

• "..lacking any evidence or analysis of the primary sources."

So? I see nothing at WP:RS that supports your assertion. More ignoring what you do not like.

• "let me ask you which Muslim sources you claim were "rewritten".."

Excuse me? Are you saying that Muslim sources have never been "rewritten"?

• "Chase Robinson calls al-Tabari's "Ta'rikh" the definite record the the first three centuries of Islam"..[..]..Thus, in my investigation, it is crucial to mark the completion of the time period under scrutiny before al-Tabari, as he appears to have affected both the detail of historiographical accounts and the later authors who merely paraphrased and summarized his reports....[..]..During this period, Muslims began not only to write their history, but also to rewrite it." --Conversion to Islam Competing Themes in Early Islamic Historiography, Ayman S. Ibrahim, page 4.

That is amusing, so there are no sources in the article stating a "reworking" of early Islamic historiography??

• "Muslim accounts of the battle differ over the result. In the earliest Muslim sources, the battle is recorded as a humiliating defeat. (hazīma). Later Muslim historians reworked the early source material to reflect the Islamic view of God's plan. Subsequent sources present the battle as a Muslim victory given that most of the Muslim soldiers returned safely." -- Powers, 2009, page 80.

So now, you have decided that an academic work published by a university is not good enough? Inventing your own requirement(s) for reliable sources??

• "However, Watt's analysis of the primary sources is more detailed and brings a different perspective, hence it should not be ignored."

Really, on page 53 of Watt's book he only lists one source WW, 314. On page 54, nothing is cited, page 55 cites Ibid 309. 22-33; Caetani ii/1. 82, n2. Only Al-Waqidi and Ibn Hisham are mentioned and then used for casualty numbers on page 54(uncited). I see no indepth analysis of any kind from pages 53-55 or 342. AND, considering Watt states page 54, "The story of Mu'tah has been greatly manipulated in transmission...".

I see nothing else to discuss. I move that Byzantine victory be placed back in the result column of the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the previous, long-standing version of "Byzantine victory" should be restored immediately. Multiple high-quality, modern, secondary RS consider Mu'ta to have been a Muslim defeat/Byzantine victory. They clearly outnumber/outweigh those claiming otherwise. Glad another reputable RS, W. M. Watt's (1956) Muhammad in Medina, has been introduced to the discussion, but it is far from enough to change the "Result" against the other sources. Also not sure how the proposed rewording, citing Watt, helps the case against "Byzantine victory": the three leading Muslim commanders were slain (leaving command to Khalid) and the Muslim troop had to retreat to Medina, even if it returned mostly intact. How was this not a defeat, even if the engagement was just a skirmish? Energies ought to be invested in expanding/improving the article, which is in poor shape, rather than changing the clear consensus of modern sources about the battle's outcome. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: To answer your question, Watt actually noted that "according to one source the enemy fled". He also proposed a Muslim victory to explain the low causality count: "unless, indeed, the Muslims completely routed the enemy." (pp.54-55). If any of Watt's suggestions are true, then we can't characterize the result as a defeat. Also the sources you refer to do not discuss the battle in detail, let alone the conflicting early Muslim reports. They seem to be more focused on Theophanes's account, the structure of Byzantine armies and their allies, etc. I'm not saying we should ignore these sources, but we shouldn't use them to determine consensus on issues they seem to be completely unaware of. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Watt's take—definitely should be incorporated into article (along with the others). That said, I still do not see why one expert RS from 1956 (Watt) should outweigh the more recent, multiple expert RS cited above—Kennedy, Donner, Kaegi, Buhl, Powers. I understand your reasoning, but it is not sufficient to change the current version. The abovementioned historians are experts in this field. I do not agree with your assessment of their work, as it relates to this battle, as being less qualified than Watt's. Al Ameer (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Actually, Powers (2009) is closer to Watt in being uncertain and entirely rejects the common narrative: "In my view, it is difficult if not impossible to say what really happened at Mu'ta." (p. 73) He concludes that it was "a skirmish that took place during the first year of Abū Bakr’s caliphate in which a small Muslim raiding party [5 men] was wiped out by Arab auxiliaries of the Byzantines." (p. 89) To cite Powers in the infobox as supporting a defeat of 3000 men in 629 is misleading to say the least. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: First, we do not need to use Powers to cite a Byzantine victory in the infobox—ideally there should be no citations in the infobox, all sourcing should be in the prose. Second, the other four sources cited above definitely consider it a Muslim defeat/Byzantine victory. Third, though Powers may doubt the whole affair, his final assessment is that the Muslim group was wiped out by the Byzantines' Arab confederates, which reads to me as being a Byzantine victory. Last, whether it was a skirmish, raid, or expedition and regardless of it was 5 Muslim participants or 3,000, it was still a win by the Byzantine side, hence "Byzantine victory". I am not convinced we need to change the current wording of the Result. The proposed "Muslim commanders killed" could be added to Casualties. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Powers' argument isn't about the details though, but extends to two different battles: These discrepancies are so striking as to suggest that the Islamic and Byzantine sources are referring to different battles. (p.89) This view is also corroborated by Robert G. Hoyland (2011): Possibly the Greek and the Muslim accounts about Mu’ta concern different events, for in Muslim sources the battle of Mu’ta occurred in AH 8/629, when Muhammad was still alive, whereas this notice is placed by Theophanes after Muhammad’s death.[1] Hence, according to recent sources, the Theophanes' account that Kaegi and Donner rely upon may not at all concern the Battle of Mu'ta of 629. This includes the defeat and wipe out claims mentioned by Theophanes.

Perhaps we should set the Results to "Disputed" or "Uncertain"? This would be inline with how recent sources are doubting Theophanes relevancy to Mu'ta 629, as well as the "much uncertainty" and "Byzantines fleeing" noted by Watt, not to mention the conflicting reports found in the earliest Muslim sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Perhaps we should set the Results to "Disputed" or "Uncertain"?"

Nope. Its time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Numerous users disagree with your WP:OR analysis. This battle, per the majority WP:RS, was a Byzantine victory. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Even Montgomery Watt is not convinced that it was a Byzantine victory. The sources in the infobox cite Theophanes, whose relevancy to the Battle of Mu'ta 629 is disputed by two recent sources -- Powers (2009) and Hoyland (2011). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Here is a widely-cited article that includes Watt's Muhammad at Medina in a bibliography about Mu'ta.[2] This should prove how notable his work for this topic. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)×

The article should mention that the consensus among Muslim scholars (both ancient and contemporary) has been like this: "that the battle ended in a Muslim victory, even though it was relatively not considered a satisfactory one". On the other hand, it should mention that some contemporay Western non-Muslim scholars have been trying to re-write the Muslim narration in order to present an alternative view claiming that the battle ended in a Roman victory rather than a Muslim one. Both views (that of Muslim scholars vs that of Western scholars) should be presented in a neutral manner, and let the readers decide which group is telling the truth.-Zymogen.88 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Specify which

Hi User:Kansas Bear! Please discuss the matters related to this article here instead of discussing them on my talkpage. This phrase: "In the earliest Muslim sources, the battle is recorded as a humiliating defeat. (hazīma)" is attributed to a source. However, no link for verification is provided to make sure it is not a Wikipedia:Fictitious references. Furthermore, it is very important to "specify which" of the "earliest Muslim sources" described the battle as "a humilating defeat (hazima)", and provide at least one example of such a description. That's why the templates "specify", "which?", and "example needed" were added. If this statement is true, it won't be difficult "to specify" and "provide one example". However, if this statement is false, it will impossible to "specify" or "provide one example". I am pretty sure You won't be able to specify because none of the earliest Muslim sources in reality described the result of the battle as "humilating defeat" "hazima". If the author of the source truly made such a claim, then it can be mentioned, but it should be indicated clearly that the author of the source failed to specify or provide a single example.--Zymogen (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to speak to a supposed "new user" that deletes my message off their talk page with the personal attack, "rv disruption". Done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Btw, this page is automatically archived. Threads without new comments for 60 days is archived by a bot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Powers is referring to al-Waqidi, but his statement is inaccurate. According to Powers (2009), "The earliest extant account of the battle is that of al-Wāqidı̄" (p.74), citing Marsden Jones OUP edition of Kitāb al-maghāzı̄. He then claimed that "In the earliest Muslim sources, the battle is recorded as a humiliating defeat. (hazīma)." (p.80) Fortunately, the Arabic edition of Jones's book is available online, and anyone can verify that Powers' claim is not true. Al-Waqidi in fact recorded multiple accounts with different outcomes for the Battle of Mu'ta, including reports of a Muslim victory. For example, see the narration of ʿAṬṬāf bin Khālid (2nd paragraph), which is cited by Ibn Asakir, Ibn Kathir[3], Montgomery Watt, et al. I think Powers' claim about the earliest sources should either be qualified or entirely omitted as fringe/inaccurate. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: Rehashing the same self-interpreted WP:OR, which was rejected recently[4] by numerous (veteran) users, is a violation of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Actually, I noticed you often resort in doing this; looking at numerous diffs, it appears you just wait for the next bypasser or new user or sockpuppet or meatpuppet to hop in, in order to have a new casus belli for reiterating the same rejected POV. I noticed this is not something you've done only once or twice; you've done this numerous times throughout the years. I remember veteran user Wario-Man noticing this as well.[5] Unless you have found (new) WP:RS sources that support your "stance", this is considered to be disruptive editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Could you point out where is the original research in the above paragraph? Passing accusations without evidence is not compelling. Also please do not sidestep this question by referring to previous discussions. They were inconclusive and mostly irrelevant to Powers claim about the earliest sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Watt notes: "in which according to one source the enemy fled" (p.54) Watt sparsely uses inline citations, but the only primary source cited in his discussion of Mu'ta is al-Waqidi (i.e., WW). It is also verifiable in the OUP edition of al-Waqidi linked above. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The stuff you keep adding is WP:OR analysis and fails WP:VER:

• "However, Montgomery Watt notes that al-Waqidi also recorded an account where the Byzantines fled".

I couldn't find it within the cited reference. As you insist that you are "right" in your assertion, it shouldn't be too hard to quote the relevant passages from the source, right? Until then, I really wouldn't revert as you have no WP:CON for the inclusion of what appears to be original research. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Here is the relevant passage from Watt (emphasis mine):

The Muslims are said to have taken to flight, but to have been rallied by Thabit b. Aqram of the Ansar and Khalid b. al-Walid. After some further fighting (in which according to one source the enemy fled) Khalid decided to lead the force back to Medina. (p.54)

Watt cites al-Waqidi's Kitab al-Maghazi throughout his discussion of Mu'ta (p.52,53,55: "WW"). Indeed, one source of al-Waqidi states the enemy fled (English translation of Routledge Press):

'Attaf b. Khalid related to me, saying: When Ibn Rawaha was killed in the evening, Khalid b. al-Walid stayed up the night, and when the next day dawned he had made the rear guard his front and his front his rear guard. And his right became his left, and his left, his right. And the enemy did not recognize what they knew of their banners and their positions. They said, “Help has come to them!” And they were frightened, and withdrew, defeated. They were killed as never before. (p.376)

Signed Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The book by Rizwi Faizer is a direct translation of Waqidi's book (primary source), which gives conflicting reports as to who wins and loses. This is a more neutral alternative that passes WP:VER IMO; "Despite Watt's assertion that the information concerning the battle has been greatly manipulated, he states there is an account where the Byzantines fled."

Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed here ad nauseum. It has been already established that the majority of available, scholarly sources have determined/interpreted it to be a Byzantine victory or a defeat by the early Muslims. If there are other secondary, scholarly sources that say otherwise or qualify this view, they should not be omitted from the article, but it cannot replace the apparent consensus. To that end, I do not oppose Louis's proposal in principal. Al Ameer (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

LouisAragon, we shouldn't mix statements from two different paragraphs. Watt doesn't link the manipulation issue to the enemy fled account.

Al Ameer son, as far as I know, David S. Powers' misconception about the earliest sources was never discussed before. Powers and Watt came up with different assessments of al-Waqidi, which happens to be the earliest source according to Powers (p.74). Per npov we shouldn't present Powers opinion in Wikipedia's voice and ignore Watt's. Btw, the relevant section of Watt can be found here. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Biased View

The last sentence of the description is highly biased: "Three years later the Muslims would return to defeat the Byzantine forces in the Expedition of Usama bin Zayd." In reality, three years later a Muslim force would "successfully" raid the countryside but never fight a major force of the Byzantines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F7:C701:F556:D059:F3D2:4A3F:8DEF (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023 (2)

103.87.26.57 (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

[Result of battle of Mutah is Muslim victory. Because it was changed some months ago by anyone without any proof and before it wikipedia shows muslim victory and i saw it 3 years ago it showed muslim victory so please edit the result : Muslim Victory ] . Thankyou

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 18:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

The content displayed on the Infobox military conflict is often misleading. The result parameter should contain the data regarding the operation of Khalid ibn al-Walid that he successfully rescued the remaining Muslim forces. Else, he should be removed from the 'commander' parameter since he didn't took part in conflict. Ajayraj890 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong:

• "Khalid is said to have fought valiantly at the Battle of Mu'tah and to have broken nine swords during the battle."
• "Khalid distinguished himself in the Battle of Mu'tah of 629 against the Ghassanids."
• "In Bukhari Khalid bin al Waleed says: “During the battle of Mu'tah nine swords broke in my hand."
• "According to that, Khalid made peace with the Hirans provided they delivered Karamah to him. ... in them. Then he went away, saying "When I fought on the Day of Mu'tah, nine swords were broken in my hand.." --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Who actually won?

The muslims won stragetically as since the Romans stopped and couldn't defeat the Romans, the Romans wanted to stop and they stopped the arab-byzanytines war temporarily, the battle of Mutah was a stragetic Muslim victory or a cease 116.204.230.25 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, it was a Byzantine victory--Kansas Bear (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

NO 116.204.230.25 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

ok but it was all a ceasefire as Khalid Ibn Al walid lured the Roman army into the deserts and the Romans couldn't fight in the deserts as well the Romans knew they would lose if they fought there so they ceasefire, it was a Muslim stragetic victory 116.204.230.25 (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Reliable secondary sources, which is what are used to write Wikipedia, state it was a Byzantine victory. Your personal opinions and/or interpretations of this event are meaningless here.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If Rashidun Caliphate lost then why is Khalid Bin Walid considered undefeated by Wikipedia? Wikipedia is created with help of reliable secondary sources like you said so in your comment that means reliable secondary sources claim Khalid Bin Waleed is undefeated so it does not make sense if Khalid Bin Walid lost then why he undefeated?Also the battle is devided many sources claim it as Rashidun victory many as Byzantine victory but as much as I know the Hadith,Chatgpt,and other sources claim it was Rashidun victory plus his comments makes sense unlike yours

He is right it isn't a opinion it is fact which you don't want to believe 103.180.55.224 (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)