Talk:Battle of Hunayn

All contributors, please read WP:NPOV and Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).Timothy Usher 06:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Badr Hunayn
Is this "Hunayn" related to Badr Hunayn? If so, it should be mentioned in the article, which is currently an extremely stubby stub. --Quuxplusone 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. Someone should expand this article.Timothy Usher 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Larger article
This version of the article was long. It wasn't good. I paste this because I figure it could be a source of some relevant information for future expansion if good sources can corroborate any of that and the hagiography can be removed. If you know more about this battle and can salvage and source the material then please do. gren グレン

How could/should this be improved/added? Abidh786 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i Have found this source was reliable enought to include. it contain the source of its very source, Tabaqat al-Kubra - written by Ahmad Abdul Bin Wahab Sha'rani which you can found his resume from http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?41612-Shaikh-Abdulwahhab-Sha-rani Ahendra 03:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.149.11 (talk)

NPOV
I removed most of the references to "the Islamic Prophet Mohammad" as per the manual of style by means of search and replace. I may have missed a few, though. 翔太 「Shouta:talk」 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO problem
The material added in this revision, much of which is still in the article, is taken from this book, which appears to be still in copyright. The text is available on the web (with no copyright information) at this page. I will revert the page back to before those additions were made. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And please, if the source material turns out not to be in copyright, please do just revert me (and add some information into the page on the source).
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Strength
What source does the strength numbers obtain from? Misdemenor (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be an error on the reporting of the numbers and the "prisoners". The Muslim army was 12,000 (a formidable force in those days), but the enemy army was not 20,000. An army of 20,000 in those days was virtually unheard of. There were a total of 20,000 people, including at least 6,000 women and children who were the "prisoners" taken and sold into slavery. The fact that the Muslim army outnumbered the enemy is supported by the Qur'an: "Allah hath given you victory on many fields and on the day of Huneyn, when ye exulted in your multitude but it availed you naught, and the earth, vast as it is, was straitened for you; then ye turned back in flight;" (9:25), where the Muslims are chided for thinking that their superior numbers would win the day. Can somebody please correct these figures. Kmasters0 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Hunayn. 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 tag to http://islamanswers.net/moreAbout/Hunayn.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051112012351/http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/state/chapter_27.html to http://hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/state/chapter_27.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Abu Sufyan ibn Al Harith, not ibn Al Harb.
The cousin of the Prophet Muhammad, Abu Sufyan ibn Al Harith is someone entirely different than Abu Sufyan ibn Al Harb. Please focus on sourced material or collateral information within the article next time. These differences matter. JasonMoore (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency with pointing out references
In the Aftermath section, the first three sentences are ended with a reference to Sir William Miur, but he is not mentioned explicitly in these sentences.

"Because Malik ibn Awf al-Nasri had brought the families and flocks of the Hawazin along, the Muslims were able to capture huge spoils. 6,000 prisoners taken and 24,000 camels were captured. Some Bedouins fled, and split into two groups."

The final sentence of this section is being attributed to William Montgomery Watt but with no references.

"William Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad took on the role as the hero of Meccans by facing their Bedouin arch-enemies, the Hawazins and the Thaqifs of the city of Al-Ta'if."

My question is, why is the first 3 sentences given references with no mention explicitly of Sir William Miur, and yet the last sentence explicitly mentions William Montgomery Watt, but quotes no sources.

First of all, this gives the impression that what Sir William Miur said is fact, and not an opinion.

Another minor point is that the William Montgomery Watt reference has no proof of its quote so it shouldn't be there.

Marccarran (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)