Talk:Conquest of Mecca/Archive 1

Biblical Prophecy????
Which Muslims actually claim that?? Pls. provide string sources! Bless sins 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Info
Good inforamtion copied from here: http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=101919&forum_id=70

I know its much, but im afraid the forum will close or somthing.

Amr Khaled said: The conquest of Makkah was on the 23rd of Ramadan in the 8th year after Hijra. It was the fruit of the patience and determination of Somayya, Bilal, and others who bore all kinds of torture and torment stemming from their strong faith in Allah and his Messenger. Thanks to this conquest, millions visit Makkah for Hajj and Umrah today.

The treaty of Hudaybiya heralded the conquest of Makkah. The number of people who embraced Islam after the treaty until the 8th year of Hijra increased many folds compared to number at the beginning of the Message. Each of the tribes of Daus, Ashja‘ and Ghaffar embraced Islam. By virtue of the first article of the treaty, the tribe of Khuza‘a embraced Islam and was known to be in the party of Prophet Muhammad (SAWS[1]). On the other hand, the tribe of Banu Bakr was in Quraysh’s party. Many wars used to take place between Khuza‘a and Bani Bakr, but these conflicts calmed down after the treaty of Hudaibiyah. However, since Khuza‘a was getting stronger by being with Prophet Muhammad (SAWS), Bani Bakr decided to violate the treaty and attack them in order to have the upper hand over their rivals. Thus, Bani Bakr, led by Nawfal Ibn Mu‘awiyah, took Quraysh’s consent to attack Khuza’a. Sohail Ibn Amr, Ikrima Ibn Abu-Jahl, and Safwan Ibn Umayyah helped Bani Bakr and even provided them with weapons to launch this attack, knowing that by doing this, both Bani Bakr and Quraysh would be breaking the treaty, which stated that there would be no war for ten years.

The tribe of Khuza‘a was preparing for Umrah and spent the night in al-Wateer. Nawfal Ibn Mu‘awiyah and his companions attacked Khuza’a while they were sleeping and killed three of them. Khuza‘a ran to the Haram for shelter but Nawfal followed them and killed 20 of them inside the Haram. Killing in al-Haram was a great sin for the Arabs but the people of Bani Bakr were used to stealing there so killing was not that big of a deal for them. Khuza‘a rushed to Juthail Ibn Warqa’ but ten of them were killed on his doorstep. Juthail quickly sent Amr Ibn Salem to Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) to tell him what happened as fast as he could. Amr reached the Prophet’s Mosque and narrated to Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) what happened in the form of a poem. When Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) heard what happened, he said, “you are triumphant Amr Ibn Salem.” Prophet Muhammad SAWS could never stand treason and disloyalty. His plan was the conquest of Makkah. He did not inform his companions about Quraysh’s treason because he did not want bloodshed. It was time to consolidate Islam in the Arab Peninsula.

Amr Khaled said: Revenge was never the aim of Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) although Quraysh had tormented him and his companions for nearly 20 years in Makkah. Quraysh was the cause of Khadija’s death and they killed his beloved uncle Hamza, but he still wished them guidance. Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) was an example of tolerance, forgiveness, benevolence, strength, power, wisdom, and all sublime ethics. Quraysh now gathered in Dar-an-Nadwa to discuss the issue. Abdullah Ib Abi-as-Sarh was once a Muslim and stayed with Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) in al-Madinah for one year but later became an apostate because he did not acquire a high rank among Muslims after accepting Islam. He told Quraysh that they could either pay blood money, or send the murderers to Khuza‘a to take their revenge, or declare war. Abu-Sufyan had another plan. He did not know that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) already knew of what happened, so he decided to go to al-Madinah to offer Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) a peace treaty with a new date, under the pretext that Abu-Sufyan himself did not attend the treaty of al-Hudaybiya. By that, it would seem that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) did not have the right to retaliate for what happened to Khuza‘a as it took place before the new treaty. Hence, Abu-Sufyan took off to al-Madinah. He headed to his daughter Ummu Habiba, Prophet Muhammad’s wife. It is noteworthy that Abu-Sufyan was very happy to marry his daughter to Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) as he knew that the latter would honor and respect her.

Amr Khaled said: When Abu-Sufyan entered al-Madinah no one harmed him because they were committed to the treaty. Prophet Muhammad’s companions used to wonder about Ummu Habiba’s feelings towards her husband, Prophet Muhammad, and her father Abu-Sufyan who led the Quraysh armies to fight the Muslims. The following incident bears an answer to their queries. When Abu-Sufyan met his daughter in her house, she refused to allow him to sit on Prophet Muhammad’s bed telling him that he was unclean. One has to point that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) originally urged people to respect their parents even if they were disbelievers, but in this case the father was the leader of the Muslims’ biggest enemy. Abu-Sufyan went to meet Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) who had a clear political vision and was sure that Abu-Sufyan came to seek a new treaty. Prophet Muhammad told Abu-Sufyan, with remarkable self-composure and tolerance with his enemy who had just broken the treaty, that they were still loyal to their commitment to the treaty so there was no need for another one, unless Quraysh did otherwise. Abu-Sufyan assured Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) that nothing had happened and hence, failed to sign a new treaty with the Muslims.

Let us look at the following Verse from the King James Version Bible: "And Enoch [Idris in Arabic, one of Allah Almighty's Prophets peace be upon all of them to the people of Israel.] also, the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14-15)"

Let us also look at the following Verse: "And he said, The LORD came from Si'-nai, and rose up from Se'-ir unto them; he shined forth from mount Pa'-ran [Mecca in Arabic], and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (The King James Version Bible, Deuteronomy 33:2)" According to Islam's history, when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his followers faced hostility from the people of Mecca (Paran), they had to leave the city. They fled to the City of "Yathrib" which was called later "Madina" where Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him continued to spread Islam to all of the Arabs and then later to the countries near by.

Amr Khaled said: When he got back to Makkah, Abu-Sufyan related what happened to the people there. They said: "Young Ali who used to play among us as a kid years ago succeeded to mock you, Abu-Sufyan. The same Ali whom we all laughed at when he embraced Islam at the age of ten." Abu-Sufyan burnt with rage and went out to the idols and said: "I swear I will never worship anyone but you as long as I my lungs do breathe." You know why he said so? He felt inside that he is about to stop worshipping them. After Abu-Sufyan left, Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) went to Aa'isha (RA) and asked her to help him get prepared for battle. He related to her how Makkah had broken the treaty. He told no one but her. See how the Prophet entrusted a woman for a military secret! See his appreciation for women! Can this man who had trusted a woman for a military secret mean by 'mentally and religiously imperfect' that women are mentally retarded than men? Surely not. He just said it while kidding with women during Eid. By mentally imperfect, he meant that in women emotions sometimes overcome their intellect, while by religiously imperfection, he meant that they are excused from worship during certain days every month.

Amr Khaled said: Abu-Bakr then came and saw Aa'isha preparing the Prophet's fighting clothes. He started inquiring if the Prophet had intended to fight the Romans or the people of Hawazen (a name of an Arabic tribe), or if he intended to fight Quraysh. Aa'isha did not answer any of his inquiries. She just smiled to him every time he asked. This is a piece of advice for you women. Never ever to tell your husbands' secrets to anyone, even to your fathers. Prophet Muhammad then started calling upon his people to get prepared for the war. "Against whom will we fight?", they all asked. "You will know later", answered the Prophet. He wanted to keep it as a secret because he was afraid the Munafiqeen (hypocrites) of Al-Madinah or even the Muslims there might tell Quraysh. He wanted to make it as a surprise for Quraysh so that no bloodshed would take place. He even called upon the nearby tribes who embraced Islam to come and join the army. Yet, he kept the destination a secret from them too. Everyone was eager to know, so some of the Ansar wrote some poetry lines in which they praised the Prophet then ended it by the question "where will our destination be?" They went to present their lines before the Prophet and when they reached the question, the Prophet smiled to them, shook his head, and then left. See how the prophet kept the secret! See the personality of the Prophet! Imagine when you meet him by the door of paradise and embrace him affectionately! When you tell him I love you dearly!

Amr Khaled said: The Prophet then called Abu-Bakr and Omar and talked to them for a long time. It seemed that he had told them because the companions heard Omar saying loudly "O, Prophet! They have expelled you and called you a magician. They have called you a madman." As the narrator of the incident relates, it appeared like the Prophet (SAWS) was trying to soften Omar's heart towards them, whereas Omar wanted to fight them. Then Prophet Muhammad sent his intelligence agent Talha Ibn Ubayd Allah and seven others to wipe out the route to Hawazen. See the Prophet's trick! The news spread all over Al-Madinah that the Prophet intended to fight Hawazen, exactly what the Prophet wanted to happen. Many tribes started to join the Prophet's army: Aslam, Ashgaa, Ghifar...etc. The Prophet prayed for every tribe as it showed up. See how he used to bring the hearts of Muslims closer. His prayers remained a source of pride for every tribe till the Day of Judgment.

Amr Khaled said: See how the Prophet was working hard to unite Muslims everywhere, while we nowadays, dispute upon very tiny fiqh (jurisprudence) issues and get away of each others because of that. This was never the Sunnah of the Prophet. His Sunnah aims to draw Muslims closer and not to draw them away from each other. While getting prepared for the battle, Hafez Ibn Abu-Baltaa, who was sitting with the Prophet while receiving Amr Ibn Salem, and who had witnessed the Battle of Badr, sent to Quraysh to inform them that the prophet had intended to fight them and asked them to take their measures. He wrote a letter to Abu-Sufyan and gave it to a woman and ordered her to hide it and start her way towards Makkah using an unfamiliar route. So, Allah (SWT) sent Jibril (Gabriel) to tell Prophet Muhammad about it. See when Allah sends the revelation! Notice that during the previous period and in the Battle of Khaiber, no revelation was sent, because Allah always sends it with a message and when the matter is one of danger. If Quraysh knew about it, they would surely fight the Prophet, so the revelation was sent to keep peace. Upon knowing, the Prophet sent Ali and Al-Zubair and asked them to fetch this woman and bring her before she reached Makkah. They found her and asked her for the message. "I swear I have no messages", she said repeatedly. "Neither the Prophet nor Jibril (Gabriel) was a liar. Get the message out", said Al-Zubair. Upon threatening her to pull off her clothes till they got the message, she felt they were serious and got it out.

--Striver 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Article does not have reliable sources.
The article should have one of two things done to it: Squinky86 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * remove the "Biblical Prophecy" section due to inaccuracies and conjecture
 * include a rebuttal to the "Biblical Prophecy" section, since most Biblical scholars are able to conclude that these "prophecies" are not of events that were to happen, but of events that happened in the past. See:
 * "God's Messages Bible Commentary" by Leon D. Stancliff
 * "Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible" by Matthew Henry (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1.v.xxxiv.html) (relevant quotation: "blessed in what God had done for them already")
 * numerous online Bible scholars. (http://www.conservanation.com/story.php?title=Islam-in-Bible-%28part-1%29--Deuteronomy-33)


 * I've taken the first option. It is not attributed to anyone, and a peripheral topic at best. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Some sources say Khaled went Mecca on other side of Muhammad(saw). Khaled's army had casualities of three against 13 of Quraish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.207.14 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

-

I havn't checked this article in full, but why does it say;

The Muslim forces had gathered in strength and apparently Muhammad was waiting for a pretext to settle account with Quraysh and for the final attack and the conquest of Mecca.[2][3]

"Apparently", why does it sound like this page is only being edited by Christian Evangelics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.196 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC) AI AKRAM claimed of 3 Muslim and 10 Non Muslim death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.53.141 (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

- Arsalan Ahmed Malik: I have edited this page and added some important missing information. I verified it from another user probably admin by the name User talk:CambridgeBayWeather I believe the neutrality is not disputed. Read the article and comment. Arsalanahmedmalik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsalanahmedmalik (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Date Conversion
The date conversion has mistake: 20th Ramadan 8 AH is not 11 December 630 AD/CE; if we use Julian calendar, 20th Ramadan 8 AH = Thursday, January 11, 630 AD/CE; and if we use Gregorian calendar (which shouldn't be used since the date is before 1582 AD/CE), then 20th Ramadan 8 AH = Thursday, January 14, 630 AD/CE. I don't know why the cited sources have made this mistake. I suggest the date in this article be corrected to Jan 11, 630 AD/CE. Similarly, other dates should be adjusted. BrokenMirror2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Conquest seems to be a value laden term
Here's my logic. My dictionary tells me that "to conquer" means 1. to acquire by force of arms; win in war: ie "to conquer a foreign land." 2. to overcome by force; subdue: ie, "to conquer an enemy." Given that he Muslims entered Mecca in 630, AFTER Abu Sufyan had embraced Islam and promised no military action, and given that the city gave itself over to Muhammad without recourse to force, the word conveys a mistaken meaning. The city submitted to Muhammad in order to PREVENT a conquest.

I have put aside the fact that 1.7 billion Muslims (including me) reject the word "conquest" and use the word "fateh" ("opening") to describe what happened. I don't expect non-Muslims to use our word. And words like "liberation" might also contain a value judgment that not everyone would accept. So I thought "occupation" might satisfy editors and readers as being both an accurate and a neutral term. I hope this explanation helps. I'm willing to explore other options if any editors would like to initiate a dialogue. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Recent attempts to label this as "Conquest" vice "Occupation" has occurred again. I see no citation to support such a change, nor consensus for the change on the talk page. As the article itself is titled Occupation of Mecca, not Conquest of Mecca, to change the lede from Occupied to Conquered is problematic. I am reverting those changes, and have invited the editor to discuss here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Occupation is a recent International Law term governed specifically under the 1907 Hague Regulations. According to this Regulation, "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised". The word conquest is more accurate and appropriate because i) it is consistent with the historical works on the subject ii) Though Abu Sufyan and other notables submitted without force, the column led by Khalid Bin Waleed did meet resistance and a minor skirmish did take place iii) Occupation in modern parlance (emphasized above) deals with forcible occupation and subjected to dispute between different claimants. No such claims exist over Mecca (since 630 AD).

````


 * Dear nameless friend (User:Camran.hameed?), thank you for replying. It might be seen as a bold claim to state that conquest "is consistent with the historical works on the subject". Given that there are many thousands of books on this subject, you'd need to demonstrate this via a reasonable statistical sampling. I have around 1,000 books on early Islam, of which 1/2 or so are by Muslim authors (in English but also in Arabic too) and very few of the Muslim scholars' books refer to this event as a conquest (Martin Lings' book is the notable exception). Given that Muslim authors shouldn't be invalidated because of their faith (I'm sure you'll agree that that would be as wrong as, say, excluding Jewish history books if the authors are Jewish), I'm merely trying to find a neutral term. As I explained, I'm well aware that poor frightened and pressured Abu Sufyan worked hard, once he saw the writing on the wall, to avoid a conquest. In this regard he was rather successful. Similarly, the annexation of Austria in 1938 -- the Anschluss -- was not an invasion or conquest, or called either, but an occupation based on a coerced political decision. Note that the Wikipedia page on the German occupation of Czechoslovakia the following year shows that it was also a coerced political settlement involving threats, fear, but no "conquest". The Wikipedia page on Austria doesn't use the word "conquest" and the page on Czechoslovakia uses it only once to denote what Hitler had planned to do (but didn't end up doing it. Instead he took the country through coerced diplomacy based on fear). I'm not trying to justify ANY of these historical events, or white-wash them. I'm just trying to remove what seems to me to be less accurate but heavily value-laden terms. By the way, an army of 10,000 killing only a few (I'm talking about Khalid's actions) after instructions were issued that there should be no deaths hardly seems to justify the word conquest. Let's wait and see what other editors say. Regards and thanks for your reply, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi George,

Lets start from the beginning. That the page and all the contents used the word ‘conquest’ and then your logic told you that conquest was somehow value-laden (in a negative manner) and that occupation is a neutral word. You were kind enough to take the value-laden context for the word ‘Conquest’ but what about occupation? According to Oxford dictionary, occupation, when used as a mass-noun, means “The action, state, or period of occupying or being occupied by military force”. So judging from your logic, we should assume that all the occupying militaries and forces would always be peaceful and therefore is appropriate word for this event. It betrays logic. Now, you mentioned that 1000 odd books you have do not mention it as “Conquest”. I am clearly impressed that you sifted through 1000 books to reach at the word “Occupation” but as you suggested that I should do a sampling; did you do the same for the word occupation? If the answer is yes, then I guess no room for discussion. Your whole argument is ‘since no bloodshed took place’, hence ‘occupation is right word’ and my point is that occupation in modern day parlance is used specifically when legal status of a territory is challenged. You cant apply this term for a 630AD event where no legal regime say international law existed.

And then Germany’s actions in Czechoslovakia and Austria. Treaty of Versailles had certain terms which Germany had to follow, one was NO to Anschluss. Hitler occupied/conquered it (i-e he broke the legal aspect) and after world war, many pre-war borders were restored. Hence the ‘end’ of occupation, NO LEGAL DISPUTE. Since your whole logic was value-laden driven, consider this: Kashmir occupied or conquered? Palestine occupied or conquered? Crimea occupied or conquered? Cyprus occupied or conquered? You see, when we say occupation we mean it in a legal way as used in 20th century onwards. I mean, how can you be so sure that occupation fits in because it is neutral because it has clearly legal connotations (check my previous reply where I mentioned Hague convention and definition). Are you so sure about the linguistic neutral aspect of the word “occupation”?

If you want to emphasize the peaceful nature (Fatah which means Victory and not entering), why don’t we use “Peaceful Entry to Makkah” (as used by Philip K Hitti) or ‘”Fatah Makkah” (as described in Quran itself) or any other word which doesn’t have legal connotation.

Kamran


 * Dear User:Camran.hameed, I hope you mind if I send you my salam (I'm unsure if you are Muslim and don't want to offend you either way). Thanks for a thoughtful, interesting and really smart reply. I would be happy with either of the terms you suggest. Actually, yes I did spend an awfully long time going through my books to see what words they used. My regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi George,

Visiting this page after almost a month and the page is still the same... May i ask why, after our discussion, we are persisting with this word?

Kamran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.132.133 (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Kamram, I was waiting for two things: for other editors to chip in with their views; and for you to make your changes. I wasn't aware that you wanted me to make them. Please clarify. My regards and best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi George,

The replacement is made now. I replaced one last word. But i still cannot change the hyperlink that leads to this page which says "occupation_of_mecca" and also the title... May be i do not have admin rights. Can you do it?

Kamran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camran.hameed (talk • contribs) 10:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you said: "why don’t we use “Peaceful Entry to Makkah” (as used by Philip K Hitti) or ‘”Fatah Makkah” (as described in Quran itself)". I agreed to THAT, not to the reinsertion of "conquest". Let's wait until OTHER editors wade in on this topic. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi George,

Can you show me the "consensus" on the word occupation? Because you seem to mention it everywhere that due to lack of consensus amongst "other" editors, you revert my changes. I am not able to locate the debate and "consensus" which led to the insertion of this word so kindly share the link. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camran.hameed (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kamran, I said I am waiting to see what editor consensus will emerge. On 28 Feb I said I was waiting "for other editors to chip in with their views" and today I said: "Let's wait until OTHER editors wade in on this topic." That's my position. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk)

Hi George,

Absolutely no issues with waiting. I understand that these are the rules of wiki editing. I was asking something different though. Prior to the title of 'occupation', the word in use was 'conquest'. Pardon me for asking since i am still new to wiki editing but i wasnt able to locate the debate and consensus that led to the usage of word 'occupation'. So can you share the link? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camran.hameed (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kamran, I hope you are well. We (you and I) are both waiting for a consensus. It will come when other editors enter the debate. Sometimes that happens immediately. Sometimes it takes ages. The initial debate took place on editors' talk pages, including mine. It is presumably hard to find. I know it was thousands of edits ago in my own case and I don't remember the other editors' names. Like you, I don't want an edit war. I have explained my case; so have you. Let's wait until other editors help us out. In the meantime, if you would like us both to move away from "conquest" AND "occupation", maybe we could discuss alternatives. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi George, Here are my alternatives:
 * 1) Fatah Mecca (Used by Quran in chapter 48 verse 27)
 * 2) Peaceful entry to Mecca( Used by Philip K Hitti in his book “History of Arabs”)
 * 3) Conquest of Mecca (Used by Bernard Lewis in his book “The Arabs in History”)

Happy to wait for input from other editors.

Kamran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camran.hameed (talk • contribs) 11:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello and salam, Kamram. I hope you are well. I especially like the first two. Now let's see what others say. My best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi George,

It has been more than two months and this page is still waiting a 'response' from the editors. Meanwhile, i have checked up the entire edit history of this page. There was no consensus to begin with when you, 'based on your logic', changed it from Conquest to Occupation. If there is, then share it because i havent been able to find it and i have checked the entire history of this page.

Secondly, you yourself mentioned that based on your logic, you changed the title from "Conquest" to "Occupation". Now, since when you changed it unanimously without any consensus (if there is, then it is my right to see it!) and i have made my point very clear with references, i think it is about time we address this issue. I have been trying since last 4-5 months!!!

Kamran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camran.hameed (talk • contribs) 05:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can I just jump into the discussion here. I think the editors are trying to be politically correct while abandoning objectivity here. I invite you guys to read this opinion with re: occupation vs conquest. http://muslimdebate.org/theological-arguments/answering-islamophobic-claims/376-do-muslim-occupy-mecca. While you guys are arguing that "conquest" is a value-laden term, nobody in their right mind would accept the term "occupation" either, especially in the aftermath of the Afghanistan War and the second Iraq War. US Japenabeit (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Japenabeit, I am in my right mind. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Date problem
The article contained the following two statements;

" The Muslim army set out for Mecca on Wednesday, November 29, 629 (the 6th of Ramadan, 8 hijra). " and "The Muslim army entered Mecca on Monday, December 11, 629 (18th of Ramadan 8 hijrah). "

I've been unable to get to see inside the book using Google Books but assuming the citation is correct there is a problem with the dates. Using Fourmilab's Calendar Converter, Calendar Converter and Islamic calendar November 29, 629 (Julian Calendar) converts to 6/7 Sha'ban 8 AH, while December 11, 629 (Julian Calendar) converts to 18/19 Sha'ban 8 AH. On the other hand 6 Ramadan 8 AH converts to December 28, 629 (Julian) and 18 Ramadan 8 AH converts to January 9, 630 (Julian). It would appear that in this reference the Islamic dates are correct but the Julian is not. By the way if you take the Western dates as Gregorian they still don't match the Islamic ones. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that all online Islamic calender converters assume that the calendar used in Mecca and Medina before 10 AH operated on the same rules as the present-day Islamic calendar and never inserted intercalary months to keep the calendar in synchrony with the seasons. Shaikh's book corrects for these omitted months (one in this case) and thus arrives at a date which is one lunar month earlier. It would be helpful if the top of the article would clearly state which version of the Islamic calendar is followed: the current version or the original (intercalated) version. Please only use Julian calendar dates - never use Gregorian calendar dates before 1582. AstroLynx (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the second thread up - looks like the OP and CambridgeBayWeather made the same mistake as the sources CBW has added, not realising that it was long after the conquest of Mecca that the Muslims stopped intercalating their calendar.  CBW should not have removed sources without getting a consensus on this page first - I've added them back.   The writers who give the correct dates were probably aware that Muhammad left Mecca on Wednesday night, 10 Shawwal, which was Tuesday, 2 January.   The reason why the ancient writers say Wednesday is of course because in the Muslim calendar the new day begins at nightfall. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I can. See WP:BOLD. Question for you. If as you say above "Muhammad left Mecca on Wednesday night, 10 Shawwal, which was Tuesday, 2 January" why does the article say "Muslim army set out for Mecca on Wednesday, 29 November 629 (the 6th of Ramadan? In that case what year is Tuesday, 2 January referring to? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously, if Muhammad left Mecca he was there.  So he left Medina en route to Mecca on 29 November 629, entered Mecca on the date stated and left Mecca on 2 January. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation of the article name in the lede
, you stated in your edit summary that the first letter of the article title is always capitalised. If you look at Article titles you will see that in the lede, the article title follows the rules of standard English and so has a small "a" not a capital "A". You see the same thing in Manual of Style/Lead section. The latter explains how the first sentence should be, etc. Please can you revert yourself.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Needs citation
Only half of the section is sited. Misdemenor (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Great Conquest
The Conquest of Mecca is called in Qur'an 48:1 as "the Great Conquest": "Indeed, We have granted to you, [O Muhammad], a great conquest"

- Qur'an 48:1

This is also how this event is described in the Muslim history.--Spring 857 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A quick search in Google Books indicates that "the Great Conquest" is used about 100 times less frequently to refer to the event in English than "conquest of Mecca", and nearly the same proportion holds for Arabic. Eperoton (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Did I say that I want to change the title of the article?! No, I didn't say that. Thus, your observation is not related to my comment.--Spring 857 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What changes are you proposing, then? Eperoton (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem with citation 2
Thank you for your edit, in which you changed the page number of the citation to Muhammad and the origins of Islam by Peters from 334 to 235.

Page 235 is indeed the page referenced by the URL. Whilst it is on the topic being talked about in the background section of the article, it does not clearly support the text it is being cited for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The original reference gave a problem if one tried to follow it up ("Check |url= value (help)."). I did not know which one or more of these reasons would have caused the failure: (a) Too much quoted text was "dragged in", more than the referencing system could cope with; (b) The discrepancy between parameters "page=334" and "&pg=PA235"; (c) the fact that although "page=334" this page 334 is not included: "Pages 295 to 339 are not shown in this preview." So, even if page 334 in the book is the one desired, I was not sure how one can handle this! I have now experimented further, and I can confirm that only reason (a) was relevant! In the light of your comment, I have now changed it to "'page=235 & 334", while keeping "&pg=PA235". Of course, it would be great if somebody can find an on-line version which includes this page 334! Heraldica (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Having the right page number is the most important thing, because it makes it verifiable.  People can always order a hard copy of the book over the internet.--  Toddy1 (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem with the background section
There is/was a long and detailed background section, read as follows:
 * In 628 CE, the Meccan tribe of Quraysh and the Muslim community in Medina signed a 10-year truce called the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.


 * According to the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Arab tribes were given the option of joining either of the sides, the Muslims or Quraysh. Should any of these tribes face aggression, the party to which it was allied would have the right to retaliate. As a consequence, Banu Bakr joined Quraysh, and Khuza'ah joined the Muslims. They thus lived in peace for some time; but ulterior motives stretching back to the pre-Islamic period, ignited by unabated fire of revenge, triggered fresh hostilities. Banu Bakr, without concern for the provisions of the treaty, attacked Banu Khuza'a in a place called Al-Wateer in Sha'ban, in 8 AH. Quraysh helped Banu Bakr with men and arms, taking advantage of the dark night. Pressed by their enemies, the tribesmen of Khuza'ah sought the Holy Sanctuary, but here too, their lives were not spared, and, contrary to all accepted traditions, Nawfal, the chief of Banu Bakr, chased them in the sanctified area — where no blood should be shed — and massacred his adversaries. Khuza'ah at once sent a delegation to Medina to inform Muhammad, of this breach of truce and to seek help from Muslims of Medina being their allies.


 * After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation. The Muslim forces had gathered in strength to settle account with Quraysh and for the final attack and the opening of Mecca.

At some state in the edit history an editor added two citations to the last paragraph An IP editor has said that the two citations for the final paragraph do not support it. As far as I can see, the two citations have information relevant to the background, but they were not placed against specific facts that they provided information on.
 * I have checked page 235 but not page 334.
 * I have checked page 235 but not page 334.

Most of the background section was added in this 19 September 2009‎ edit by Mazharhashmi:
 * According to the terms of the treaty of Hudaibiyah, the Arab tribes were given the option to join either of the parties, the Muslims or Quraish, with which they desired to enter into treaty alliance. Should any of these tribes suffer aggression, then the party to which it was allied would have the right to retaliate. As a consequence, Banu Bakr joined Quraish, and Khuza‘ah joined the Prophet [pbuh]. They thus lived in peace for sometime but ulterior motives stretching back to pre- Islamic period ignited by unabated fire of revenge triggered fresh hostilities. Banu Bakr, without caring a bit for the provisions of the treaty, attacked Banu Khuza‘ah in a place called Al- Wateer in Sha‘ban, 8 A.H. Quraish helped Banu Bakr with men and arms taking advantage of the dark night. Pressed by their enemies, the tribesmen of Khuza‘ah sought the Holy Sanctuary, but here too, their lives were not spared, and, contrary to all accepted traditions, Nawfal, the chief of Banu Bakr, chasing them in the sanctified area — where no blood should be shed — massacred his adversaries.


 * This behaviour on the part of Quraish was clearly a breach of the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah and was obviously an act of hostility against the allies of the Muslims, i.e. Banu Khuza‘ah.

It would probably be best to build up a background section based on sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar): Biography of the Prophet by Sheikh Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarkpuri, published by Dar-us-Salam Publications is a book available in English on Amazon in several editions. The Amazon version is to some extent searchable without buying it.  There is also a pdf version online: Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar), translated by Issam Diab.--  Toddy1 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Toddy1 for opening a talk page section about the background section. I was disappointed to find content flagrantly deleted with an effort to address missing citations or improve the article. I restored what was deleted and added citation needed tags. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Orphaned references in Conquest of Mecca
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Conquest of Mecca's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ishaq": From Abd-Allah ibn Jahsh:  From Kaaba:  From Qatada ibn al-Nu'man: Muhammad ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Alfred Guillaume (1955). Oxford: Oxford University Press. From Kinana:  From Hejaz:  From Masjid al-Haram:  From Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad: Muhammad ibn Ishaq. The Life of Muhammad. Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford University Press. From Uzair: Muhammad ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780196360331 </li> <li>From Fakhitah bint Abi Talib: Muhammad ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</li> <li>From Ubaydah ibn al-Harith: Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Victory
SheriffIsInTown notes that the event is referred to in Arabic as "Fateh Mecca", but mistakenly believes that the word Fateh literally means "victory". It does not necessarily mean this at all. It is also routinely translated as "success", "triumph" and various related words. In the context of the liberation of Mecca it is usually given the meaning of "opening". The first surah in the Qur'an is Fatiha ( سُّورَةُ الفَاتِحَة‎), from the same root, and this is also usually translated as "opening". No less importantly, it is not necessary, or necessarily helpful, to use the Muslim term to denote this event in world history. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * with controversial moves the correct procedure is the process at WP:RM. Given that the background to this event was a war between the Muslims and Mecca, "victory of Mecca" would mean that the the Muslims were totally defeated (like Saddam Hussein in 2003).  "Victory of Mecca" is therefore not the right name.  However "conquest of Mecca" would carry the sense that you are trying to get across.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * George Custer&#39;s Sabre notes that word "Fateh" does not necessarily mean only "victory" and i understand that, in any given language, one word has multiple meanings and you can only use one meaning in one context. He also notes that "Fateh" also means "success", "triumph" and various other words, i completely agree with him on this. This can be the case with any word, i have not seen a word in a dictionary which does not have multiple meanings. That being said word "Fateh" does not mean "occupation", the word being used in this article. I can support "Conquest of Mecca" as an alternative and i think this article used to carry this title for some time. Now regarding not "to use the Muslim term to denote this event in world history." I think we need to examine the reliable sources to find out what this event is most called and that includes Arabic sources as well where word "Fateh" comes into play. That is not a question of a Muslim or non-Muslim term, we have to follow the policies and we have to use the term which is most commonly used in RSs then we can agree what meaning to prefer whether "victory", "triumph", "opening", "success", "liberation" or "conquest". I will support any of these over "occupation". Sh eri ff  (report) 07:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2015
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Occupation of Mecca → Conquest of Mecca – Approve as nominator WP:COMMONNAME There are six accessible sources in the article, five of them describe the event as "Conquest of Mecca" and one describes it as "Fall of Mecca", none describes it as an "Occupation", the article's current name.

Sources in support of "Conquest of Mecca": Bernard Lewis, Lt. Gen. A.I.Akram, Abu Dawood, Ibn Hisham, Abu Dawood

Sources in support of "Fall of Mecca": Francis Peters Sh eri ff  (report) 18:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, move back to stable title for years.  George Custer's Sabre's move to "occupation" isn't particularly convincing; there's no particular evidence this is called "occupation" in English language sources.  If there's a complaint about "Conquest", then an alternative term that is actually used in the sources should be proposed.  SnowFire (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly reject, for reasons I've stated at length above on this talk page. I'm open to "opening of Mecca". But I reject an opion that a military conquest occurred. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide English-language sources that use Occupation / Opening / something else? Even if Conquest is "wrong", if that's the term used, it's the term Wikipedia uses.  Lots of examples of misleading-to-wrong names out there (the Norway rat is from China, etc.)  Basically Wikipedia shouldn't invent a term that isn't used in the literature except as a last resort.  SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the word "conquest" necessarily implies a military conquest, how is "occupation" different than "conquest", an occupation does require a military to occupy a piece of land. I think "conquest" is a better word to describe that event over "occupation" and is supported by the sources. I am open to "Opening of Mecca for Muslims", it would make more sense than just "Opening of Mecca" but given the choice here i would prefer "conquest" over "occupation". I would suggest you reconsider and support a move to "Conquest of Mecca" since this is the right thing to do considering WP:COMMONNAME once that is completed then we can further discuss the other options. Also i read your comments above, i see you rejected "Opening of Mecca" yourself, not sure why you rejected it at first place and went for "Occupation" if you were so inclined for that. Sh eri ff  (report) 19:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've explained above. My friend, it's not seemly to write that adopting your view "is the right thing to do". It could be seen as arrogance, although I'm sure that wasn't your intention. I have hundreds of books in Arabic that use the phrase "fateh Makkah" so I'm willing to support that as a compromise as I still prefer "occupation" and reject "conquest" for the historically valid reasons I've mentioned above. But either way, I'm not dogmatic. I won't oppose whatever editor consensus eventually emerges. I'm sure you'll do the same. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but English language sources usually trump a literal translation of a foreign term. Now, it might be reasonable to stick the Arabic term and its literal translation in the opening sentence of this article if that would help, but it's not uncommon for terms in language A to not be a direct translation from language B.  SnowFire (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am willing to support "Fateh Mecca" as well but I just came out of bed to give a little more explanation about why I think "conquest" is better than "occupation", when I hear the word "occupation", I see occupation of Iraq by American forces, I see occupation of Palestine by Israel and I see occupation of Kashmir by India, all of them were by force, that is not what Prophet (pbuh) did in 632 AD as hearts and minds can be conquered as well for which you do not need a force and that is what happened back then and is supported by sources but I have never heard that anyone ever occupied hearts and minds. Sh eri ff  (report) 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, Sh eri ff, that's encouraging. If we both agree we could live with "opening of Mecca", which is my compromise position, let's advocate this as the way to re-title the page. Dear SnowFire, do you have a view on this? Could you live with "opening of Mecca"? Regards to both, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will support "Opening of Mecca" or "Opening of Mecca for Muslims" or "Opening of Mecca to Muslims" if everyone supports it but i do not want to lose this move request if there is no consensus on any version of "Opening of Mecca" then the article must be named to " Conquest of Mecca" as per sources in the article. Sh eri ff  (report) 08:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, occupation is confusing, it's like the city is under military occupation for 1400 years !!? I Googled, in fact, "occupation of mecca" refers to the Wahhabi occupation of the city (or even to the American forces in Saudi Arabia). Kavas (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, this is the common name for this in English language histories.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will go with the editor consensus and surrender my initial position. Thanks and regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. "Occupation" sounds like foreigners coming in and ruling an area that remains foreign (e.g. Allied-occupied Germany), which is very different from what's described in this article.  Of course we need to make an exception for when the odd term is consistently used in the sources, but the absence of such sources means that we can be free from this rather odd usage.  Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date conflicts
The article now gives two different dates for the conquest of Mecca: 11 January, 630 AD, in the lead and infobox and 11 December, 629 AD, or one lunar month earlier further in the article.

As I already mentioned on the talk page in 2015 (see "Date problem"), the date difference is caused by the fact that one author used a modern date converter based on the current (non-intercalated) Islamic calendar while the other attempts to correct for the fact that the early Islamic calendar before 10 AH used intercalary months.

Similar date conflicts can be found in other Muhammad-related articles on Wikipedia. In my opinion there would be less confusion in these matters if the article would clearly state at the top whether the Western dates cited are based on the current (non-intercalated) Islamic calendar or otherwise. AstroLynx (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Failed citations for dates
 * No, page 397 has no dates at all.
 * Page 7 has a discussion of Islamic dates, but does not have an explicit statement that supports the claim that Mecca was conquered by Muslims led by Muhammad on 13 December, AD 629.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Page 7 has a discussion of Islamic dates, but does not have an explicit statement that supports the claim that Mecca was conquered by Muslims led by Muhammad on 13 December, AD 629.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This is the problem we come up against over and over again.  It is routine to make a conversion from one calendar to another.   This is done under the WP:CALC exemption.   That means if we have an Islamic date we can use the date calculator to get the equivalent Julian date.   I would therefore remove the Sealed Nectar reference and go with just the Hamidullah one. We don't actually need to look for a book to tell us that Islamic date x = Julian date y. 78.145.21.69 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:CALC exemption only applies to calculations you can explain well enough for other people to replicate, or where there is an approved Wikipedia template to do the conversion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, we do have a book that explicitly states that the conquest of Mecca occurred on 11 January, 630 AD.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, and as AstroLynx pointed out right at the beginning of this discussion, some writers are unaware that the calendar was intercalated right up to 632.  Hamidullah tells us the date was one month advanced in 629, and plugging in 20 Sha'ban we get 13 December. 78.145.21.69 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So take us through the calculation that converts one date to another here, explaining each step.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Julian calendar>Julian calendar>Calendar Converter brings up this dialogue box:
 * Islamic Calendar
 * Date:
 * 1440
 * Muharram 21
 * Normal year
 * Weekday:
 * yawm ath-thalatha'

Change the boxes as follows:
 * 1440>8
 * Muharram>Sha'ban
 * 21>20

Press "Calculate". The display now reads:
 * Date:
 * 8
 * Sha'ban 20
 * Normal year
 * Weekday:
 * yawm al-'arb`a'

Now scroll up to Julian calendar The display reads:
 * Date:
 * 629
 * December 13
 * Normal year
 * Weekday:
 * Wednesday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.21.69 (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The WP:CALC exemption does not apply, since this is not a calculation that the user can do himself/herself (or if it is, you have not demonstrated that). You are depending on the converter program, and therefore need to cite that. For example:
 * 20 Sha‘bān 8 AH entered into Fourmilab's calendar converter produces 13 December 629 AD Julian Calendar.
 * That would be an acceptable citation for the conversion - though you will also need a citation that explicitly states that the date was 20 Sha‘bān 8 AH.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that the article currently gives the date of the conquest of Mecca as 20 Ramadan, 8 AH, which Fourmilab's calendar converter turns into 11 January 630 AD Julian Calendar. You seemed to like The Sealed Nectar as a source - on page 392 it says that on 17th Ramadam 8 AH, the Prophet left Mar Az_Zahran with the Muslim army on its way to Mecca.  So clearly the conquest of Mecca occurred after 17th Ramadam 8 AH.--  Toddy1 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * All date conversions are capable of being done manually.  We don't need a date converter at all.   A handheld calculator is just as effective.   Example:

Required the Julian equivalent of 20 Ramadan AH 8

Islamic calendar>Islamic calendar. Note the rubric:

From 412 AD/CE to 632 AD/CE inclusive the month number is 1


 * 629/19 = 33 remainder 2
 * 2016/19 = 106 remainder 2
 * Interval between the two years = (106-33)x19 = 1387 years

Hebrew calendar>Hebrew calendar. Note the rubrics:

For long period calculations, dates should be reduced to the Julian calendar and In the Julian calendar, every 76 years the Jewish year is due to start 5h 47 14/18m earlier


 * Base time: 02:40 4/18 Friday, 8 April 2016 (Julian 26 March)
 * Base time: 10:07 3/18 Tuesday, 8 April 1997 (Julian 26 March)


 * Decrement the day of the week by 2d 16h 33 1/18m per cycle.  Total decrement = 73x2d 16h 33 1/18m = 196d 08h 13 1/8m
 * Cast out complete weeks: 08h 13 1/8m
 * Base time for AD 629: 6d 02h 40 4/18m - 08h 13 1/8m = Thursday 18h 27 3/18m
 * Increment the date by 5h 47 14/18m every 4 cycles
 * Base time = March 26d 10:07 3/18 + (5h 47 14/18m) x 18 = March 26d 10:07 3/18 + 4d 08h 20m = March 30d 18h 27 3/18m
 * Check: March 30 AD 629 was a Thursday.

Month begins with the appearance of the crescent (evening of 1 April)
 * 1 Muharram = Sunday, 2 April
 * 1 Safar = Tuesday, 2 May
 * 1 Rabi'I = Wednesday, 31 May
 * 1 Rabi'II = Friday, 30 June
 * 1 Jumada I = Saturday, 29 July
 * 1 Jumada II = Monday, 28 August
 * 1 Rajab = Tuesday, 26 September
 * 1 Sha'ban = Thursday, 26 October
 * 1 Ramadan = Friday, 24 November
 * 6 Ramadan = Wednesday, 29 November (confirmed by the source)
 * 17 Ramadan = Sunday, 10 December
 * 20 Ramadan = Wednesday, 13 December — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.21.69 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all you claimed that Fourmilab's calendar converter produces correct answers. But that calculator turns 20 Sha'ban 8 AH into 13 December 629 AD Julian.  It turns 20 Ramadan 8 AH into 11 January 630 AD Julian.


 * So do you think that you have made a mistake somewhere?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * When I enter the Islamic date from PERF 558 into that calculator I get 28 March, 643 (Julian calendar). That's a month away from the documented date. 2.247.240.177 (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a hint for open-minded, helpful editors that you might be wasting your time trying to understand 78.145.21.69. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.240.177 (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, what can I say?  A lexander Jones (not to be confused with the Egyptologist Alexander Jones) says that the last day of Jumada I, year 22 corresponds to 26 April 643.   If you don't know who he is, we probably have an article about him.   You say the Fourmilab converter equates some Islamic date (which you don't specify) to 28 March.   I can't really comment unless you say which date you punched in.   Fourmilab is reliable, but only for dates after AD 632.   Before then, it goes haywire.   As Jones says, the thirtieth and last day of Pharmouthi is 25 April.   It's no coincidence that that is also the latest date on which Easter can fall - the Easter rules were originally formulated in terms of the Alexandrian calendar. 78.145.21.69 (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that Alan Jones and Alexander Jones are two different people. AstroLynx (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. 78.145.21.69 (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The article on PERF 558 claims that Jumada I 22 AH = 25 April 643 AD in the Julian calendar. But "Jumada I" is a month of 30 days.  The article is not saying what day of the month. The Fourmilab converter calculates the following:
 * 1st day of Jumada I 22 AH = 28 March 643 AD
 * 29th day of Jumada I 22 AH = 25 April 643 AD
 * The source for the text of the PERF 558 text is PERF No. 558 - One Of The Earliest Bilingual Papyrus From 22 AH / 643 CE. The comments in that page state "Jumādā I, 22 AH (25th April 643 CE)".  In the original document, the day of the month is only given in the statement "30th of the month of Pharmouthi of the 1st indiction".--  Toddy1 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at this a bit more closely, 11 January 630 (which was a Thursday) is equated with 20 Ramadan in the Fourmilab fantasy.  We already know that 6 Ramadan was a Wednesday, and if 6 Ramadan was a Wednesday no way could 20 Ramadan be a Thursday.   Another reason to consign Muhammad: Islam's First Great General by Richard A Gabriel to the sourcing dustbin. 78.145.21.69 (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know this? You have sources?--  Toddy1 (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's in the article (section "Entrance into Mecca", paragraph 2). 78.145.21.69 (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will try to find a copy of the source cited for the date in "Entrance into Mecca", paragraph 2. I want to know whether it gives both the AH and the AD date, or just one of them.  If it does, then another page is likely to provide a reliable source for the date of the Conquest of Mecca in both AD an AH.  If this date is different from that produced by Fourmilab (and the present cited source), then some sort of note explaining the difference might help people avoid future disputes.--  Toddy1 (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked as the sock of a LTA very active in calendar disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I have looked at pages 3 and 72 of Chronology of Prophetic Events by F.R. Shaikh. These say that various chronicles give different dates for the events: F.R. Shaikh's preferred date for Muhammad's army entering Mecca is Monday 18th Ramadan 8 AH.
 * Muhammad's army setting out for Mecca - either 2nd, 6th or 10th Ramadan 8 AH.
 * Muhammad's army entering Mecca - either 10th, 17/18th, 19th or 20th Ramadan 8 AH.

Pages 134-136 of Chronology of Prophetic Events deal with the conversion to the Julian calendar. F.R. Shaikh argues that this depends on what assumptions you make about the calendar in use in Mecca at the time. His preferred conversion to the Julian calendar for 18th Ramadan 8 AH is 11th December 629 AD. But other scholars have converted it as 10th January 630, 11th January 630 or 6th June 630 [note June not January].-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps as a compromise we could mention both. Give the dates throughout the whole article in the uncorrected Islamic calendar as is usually done (citing Gabriel and perhaps also Montgomery Watt Muhammad at Medina (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), pp. 65-66 as this is the source usually followed by more recent authors) but mention at the top that, when corrected for intercalation, the actual calendar dates of the events recorded probably fell one lunar month earlier in the Julian calendar.


 * Shaikh's Chronology of Prophetic Events is certainly the best effort so far in reconstructing the difficult chronology of the first years of Islam but it remains relatively unknown and only a few scholars have adopted his corrected dates. One of the few who adopt his corrected chronology is Russ Rodgers in The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2012), p. 20. AstroLynx (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be making "assumptions" about the Meccan calendar.  We should follow the sources.

- Faizhaider 14:02, 12 November 2010

- AstroLynx 14:46 22 March 2013

So let's look at the sources. The History of al-Tabari vol 9 states "The Prophet left Mecca on Saturday, the seventh of Shawwal" [i.e. the evening of the sixth (W Montgomery Watt)] and reached Hunayn on Tuesday evening, the tenth of Shawwal", and references follow.   The Sealed Nectar says "Wednesday night the tenth of Shawwal", because Wednesday began at nightfall on the ninth.   We know that the Saturday was the nineteenth day of the conquest (Sealed Nectar).   It is therefore a simple matter to establish the first day of the conquest, once we establish how many days Ramadan had that year.   Muhammad left Medina on 10 Ramadan (Sealed Nectar, W Montgomery Watt).   He left Marr-Az-Zahran on the morning of Tuesday, 17 Ramadan (Sealed Nectar).   So Ramadan had 29 days and the first day of the conquest was that Tuesday.   The following (Wednesday) night Muhammad advanced to Dhu Tuwa (W Montgomery Watt). The following morning his forces advanced into Mecca (W Montgomery Watt). On the Friday (20 Ramadan, W Montgomery Watt) Muhammad said prayers and rode to the Ka'bah, where he delivered a sermon (Sealed Nectar).

78.145 based his/her analysis on the statement in the article that 6 Ramadan was a Wednesday. That does not tie in with the other sources, and until such time as someone verifies this by examination of the cited source I propose we remove it. This in turn means that 78.145's dates, which rely on that statement, must be recalculated. The Arabs learned intercalation from the Jews. That we know because they use the Hebrew word nasi, which means "intercalation", for the practice. We also know that the two calendars were aligned. When in AD 622 Muhammad reached Quba' on Monday, 8 Rabi' I he found the Jews observing a festival. Their explanation of its meaning involving Moses and the tablets identifies it as the feast of weeks, which is observed at that time of their third month. But Rabi' I is the third month of the Muslim calendar. We also know that the Jews regulated their calendar (although practice varied) by aligning the first month with March. So Muharram would have been aligned with March and 78.145's "base time" of March 30d 18h 27 3/18m marks the beginning of Safar. The reconstruction is then facile:


 * 1 Safar = Thursday, 30 March
 * 1 Rabi' I = Friday, 28 April
 * 1 Rabi' II = Sunday, 28 May
 * 1 Jumada I = Monday, 26 June
 * 1 Jumada II = Wednesday, 26 July
 * 1 Rajab = Thursday, 24 August
 * 1 Sha'ban = Saturday, 23 September
 * 1 Ramadan = Sunday, 22 October
 * 1 Shawwal = Monday, 20 November

The conversion is thus:


 * 6 Ramadan = Friday, 27 October
 * 10 Ramadan = Tuesday, 31 October
 * 17 Ramadan = Tuesday, 7 November
 * 20 Ramadan = Friday, 10 November
 * 6 Shawwal = Saturday, 25 November
 * 9 Shawwal = Tuesday, 28 November
 * 10 Shawwal = Wednesday, 29 November (Battle of Hunayn)

We cannot use F A Shamshi because he is an unreliable source. In The Date of Hijrah he says

"The Qurayshite Meeting and the Prophet's departure from home took place on Thursday the first of Rabi' I: the Prophet stayed in the Cave of Thawr from Friday the 2nd to Sunday the 4th of Rabi I."

He didn't.  Muhammad left his home on Thursday 27 Safar and he left the Cave of Thawr on Monday, 1 Rabi' I.   Shamsi is confusing the dates of the departures from his house and the cave. F A Shamsi, Islamic Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Winter 1984), pp 289-323, see also.

F R Shaikh fares no better. For example, he equates 18 Ramadan 8 to 11 December 629. 1 Ramadan is therefore 24 November. Is that a Julian or Gregorian date? Your guess is as good as mine. If it's Julian it's a Monday Friday and if it's Gregorian it's a Friday Tuesday. Take your pick. That year Ramadan began on Sunday. For a reliable source we need look no further than Muhammad Hamidullah. He correctly identifies the start of the Hijri era, 1 Muharram AH 1 as 21 March AD 622. He correctly identifies the entrance into Medina, Friday 12 Rabi' I, as 28 May (although he gives 31 May as he's using Gregorian dates). Again, he gives a completely reliable account of how intercalation worked:

The 13th month was intercalated sometimes every two years and sometimes every three years according to the requirements of the time calculation, cf Birúni, al-Athár al-Báqiyah, p.62, Maqrizi, Imtá' al-Asmá, (MS Koprúlú 1004), p. 1727. As this part of Maqrizi's work is not yet printed,I quote him textually along with translation:

"This work (of intercalation) for the benefit of the Arabs was entrusted to the nasa'a (plural of nási), who are better known under the name of Qalámisah of the tribe of Kinánah, the singular of which is Qalammas. He used to stand up, after the Hajj ceremonies had finished, and to make a sermon, and to retard by intercalation the months, so that every month was called by the name of the month which would normally follow it [no - see below].   Everybody accepted this verdict of the (Qalammas).   The name of this practice was nasi (retarding) because they retarded the beginning of the year by one month once every two or three years, according to how much the advance (of the time) there was.   The first intercalation touched the month of Muharram, and the real Safar was called Muharram, and the real Rabi' al-Awwal was called Safar, and so on all the months (of the year).   During the second intercalation it was the real Safar which was touched and the month which followed it (that is the Rabi' al-Awwal of the first period of intercalation, which was the real Rabi al-Tháni) was now called Safar. And so on in like manner, until the intercalation touched (turn by turn) all the twelve months (of the year), and it came back to Muharram (the first month). Thereafter they used to begin anew what they did before."

It is easy enough to work out how long this process took - twelve intercalations, or about 33 years. That is why, following the abolition of intercalation, the Muslim months rotate through the seasons about every 33 years. This is simple enough, yet people still get it wrong. They claim that no month was added, and instead the ceremonies of the holy months were continually being transferred to the month following. For example, the Haj ceremonies of 9 Dhu al-hijjah would, after the first intercalation, be observed on 9 Muharram. In truth, they were observed in the real Muharram, but they continued to be observed in the month which they called Dhu al-hijjah. In the Qu'ran Muhammad says that God did not like this, and told him to stop it. 82.14.255.206 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * F R Shaikh is explicitly clear that the conversion is to a Julian date.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

If Shaikh thinks 1 Ramadan AH 8 equates to 24 November AD 629 Julian then he is displaying academic incompetence. The conjunction occurred at 17:39 GMT on 20 November. According to the latest conjunction was on 9 October 2018 at 03:47 GMT. The crescent was spotted in California around 02:00 GMT the following day. Added to that, contemporary sources are unanimous that both 10 and 17 Ramadan in AH 8 were Tuesdays, but Shaikh insists they were Wednesdays Sundays. I note that Alsee, who is attempting to have this discussion closed to IPs, is not a collegial editor. (S)he has not engaged on his/her talk page for a year. 82.17.252.234 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Toddy is now talking about "untruthful edit summaries". Please WP:AGF - it is ASTRONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Shaikh's reconstruction to be valid. 82.17.252.234 (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.


 * If the IP editor believes Shaikh's book to be wrong, then he/she should write his or her own book and get it published.


 * Please read Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and the reason why the phrase "verifiability, not truth" was deprecated was because some people took that to mean that if a reliable source says the moon is made of green cheese it is incumbent on us to mention it.  Mentioning deprecated policies without also mentioning that they are deprecated is a sign of bad faith editing.   Following Jimbo's lead our approach changed - in his words "we are not transcription monkeys".   Another sign of bad faith editing is the setting up of strawmen.   You say "editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct".   Is that why you just removed two solid references (Montgomery Watt and Mubarakpari)?   Then you say "editors may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them".   If when removing a source an editor says it's because the source is unreliable (and gives reasons why it is unreliable) you should be addressing the argument not lying about why they were removed.
 * If you go to an ostensibly reliable source like the Fourmilab date converter and punch in "24 November 629" you get Sha'ban 1.  So you could argue from that that Shaikh is verified.   How wrong would you be.   Fourmilab is probably the most unsophisticated date converter on the market.   Since it employs the tabular Islamic calendar its mean value for the synodic month is 29.5 + 11/360 = 29.530555 days, or 0.000034 days too short.   That is exactly 29d 12h 44m or some three seconds out.   Those three seconds per month sound insignificant, but boy do they mount up.   Over 19,000 months they amount to a whopping 3,800 minutes (all of three days).   So if Shaikh used Fourmilab instead of contemporary sources he's a bigger fool than I thought he was.   If you can get a consensus to use Shaikh (instead of adding  him back without discussion) then we'll have to use him, but since we'll be using Hamidullah as well (because he is proved right) we're going to have to explain to the readers why the dates differ, and quite frankly I don't think they are going to be interested.
 * Surprisingly, Fourmilab gives the correct date for the commencement of the Islamic era, 1 Muharram AH 1 = 16 July 622.  So I looked into this converter in more detail.   The following table gives (column 1) the year AH, (column 2) the Islamic month, (column 3) the Julian date of its first day, (column 4) the number of days it falls after the conjunction.   An asterisk (*) indicates a kabishah year in which month xii has an extra day - normally odd months have 30 days and even months 29.   This is a tabular Islamic calendar with kabishah years numbers 2, 5, and nine others in each 30 - year cycle.   The tabular calendar is notoriously inaccurate - at the end of a kabishah year there are three 30 - day months in succession.

1 i   16 July 2    2*  5 July 2    3 24 June 3    4 13 June 3    5*  2 June 3    6 23 May  3 ii  15 Aug  3        4 Aug  2      24 July 3      13 July 3        2 July 3      22 June 4 iii 13 Sept 3        2 Sept 2      22 Aug  3      11 Aug  3       31 July 3      21 July 3 iv  13 Oct  3        2 Oct  3      21 Sept 3      10 Sept 3       30 Aug  3      20 Aug  4 v   11 Nov  3       31 Oct  2      20 Oct  3       9 Oct  2       28 Sept 2      18 Sept 3 vi  11 Dec  3       30 Nov  3      19 Nov  3       8 Nov  3       28 Oct  2      18 Oct  3 vii  9 Jan  3       29 Dec  2      18 Dec  3       7 Dec  2       26 Nov  2      16 Nov  3 viii 8 Feb  3       28 Jan  3      17 Jan  3       6 Jan  2       26 Dec  2      16 Dec  3 ix   9 Mar  3       26 Feb  2      15 Feb  3       4 Feb  2       24 Jan  1      14 Jan  2 x    8 Apr  3       27 Mar  3      17 Mar  3       6 Mar  3       23 Feb  2      13 Feb  2 xi   7 May  2       25 Apr  2      15 Apr  3       4 Apr  2       24 Mar  2      13 Mar  2 xii  6 June 3       25 May  3      15 May  3       4 May  3       23 Apr  2      12 Apr  3


 * Although the Islamic month generally begins on the day after conjunction Fourmilab gets it right just once - month ix in year 5.  Just five months later the first day is placed four days after the conjunction.   This happens frequently.   Fourmilab is a work of fantasy, totally inadequate for reconstructing the early Islamic calendar.   DO NOT USE IT IN WIKIPEDIA - IT IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE.   Shaikh apparently bases his conclusions on it, so we can't use him either. 2A00:23A8:830:A600:2553:6245:CA68:3DC (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.20.226 (talk)  10:30, 7 November 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Please tell us which pages of Shaikh's book reference Fourmilab. Toddy1 (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The book you're referring to appears to be this one and there's no preview on Google.   You've cited it, so you must have access to it.   You mention various claims made by Shaikh, but you don't cite his sources.   Does he provide sources and, if so, what are they?   At first blush he seems to be a highly unreliable source.   First, he says that dates we know to be Tuesdays were Sundays, and secondly he claims that 1 Rabi'I in AH 1 was a Thursday.   Using Fourmilab, I've just found that that day was a Monday, so maybe he didn't use Fourmilab for that particular calculation - it doesn't really matter because unless he tells us where he is getting his information from he's an unreliable source.   Does he give a Julian date for his "Thursday, 1 Rabi'I?"   The elephant in the room is, of course, that multiple reliable sources say that Muhammad didn't leave his house on 1 Rabi'I at all, but on Thursday, 27 Safar. 78.145.20.226 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a Julian date on pp 51-52, apparently, Thursday, 17 June 622 = 1 Rabi'I AH1.  How did Shaikh reach that conclusion? 78.145.20.226 (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet another sock of community-banned WP:LTA/VXFC. Favonian (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He/she/it makes statements about Shaikh's book, and then states that he/she/it has never seen the book and so does not know what it in it. Toddy1 (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Toddy1 is a problem editor . 78.145.18.184 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone's aware that there is no consensus on the wording of the article, and I didn't suggest there was.  What we can do is remove unsourced "facts".   The article now says that "ancient sources" say various things.   It is elementary that such claims are removed as a matter of course.   We even have a tag to warn the person who included them that this is about to happen.   The usage notes say:


 * "This tag is for placement after attributions to vague 'authorities' such as 'serious scholars', 'historians say', 'some researchers', 'many scientists', and the like."


 * Once the sources are identified, then we can examine them and see how reliable they are.  Comparison may enable us to see why they differ in the dates ascribed to the same event, and a day of the week may enable us to assess reliability. 78.145.30.183 (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My last edit summary was If the source says merely that "ancient sources" give [dates] without specifying them, that is not good enough because the reader cannot verify the dates by consulting the source supplied. If the source did name the "ancient sources" but Toddy1 was too lazy to transcribe them that's a different matter. Which is it?  Toddy1, who is a battleground editor (maybe that's why (s)he is taking such an interest in this article) came back with  Since the secondary source is cited, the objection raised by  is invalid.


 * Well no, because any serious work of scholarship will contain a bibliography of sources.  There are many examples of authors who base an entire chronology on a couple of correspondences - for example H Matzat who "reconstructed" the entire Roman Republican calendar in Römische Chronologie I using nothing more than a couple of eclipses.


 * Toddy1 has messed up this article big time.  (S)he has altered it so that the summary in the lead says that the campaign ran from 10-20 Ramadan of AH 8.   In the body (s)he says that it began on 6 Ramadan.   The summary in the lead must agree with the detailed presentation in the body.   Then again, in the infobox (s)he says that the campaign took place in December 629 or January 630.   However, in the body (s)he equates 6 Ramadan to 29 November (the infobox does not mention November, and if the campaign began in November it could not have extended into January).   So, in the immortal phrase, "either shape up or ship out". 78.145.30.183 (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding sources, "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." (Citing sources) In addition "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." (WP:PSTS).


 * You will notice that there is no policy saying that when citing secondary sources we also need to cite the primary sources cited by the secondary source we are citing.


 * The IP editor (WP:LTA/VXFC) complains that when summarising the secondary source we have not listed the ancient sources cited by the book referenced in citation 3.  This certainly could be done.  We could create a table showing which ancient source claims which date for which event.  Do you think that the article would be improved by such a table?  Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not normal to provide a table when just a couple of dates are involved.  An inline citation for each date in the usual form (author, title, page number etc.) will suffice.   It's likely that these reports are secondary, not primary sources.   Would you like to get the ball rolling by copying here the works cited (it will probably take you under a minute to do this). 14:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)78.145.30.183 (talk)
 * It is a table in F.R. Shaikh's Chronology of Prophetic Events. The sources he cites were written over a thousand years ago.  Toddy1 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I prefer to stay of out of the discussion. I will, however, continue to block socks of this community-banned user and, if necessary, semi-protect the page. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * May I suggest to place the table at the end of the article between "Aftermath" and "See also". Most visitors of this page will want to know the basic facts of the main event itself and not about chronological issues such as the correct conversion of Islamic calendar dates into Western calendar dates. AstroLynx (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please move it to where you think it best fits. Toddy1 (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Another possibility would be to put it in a "note", or to have it as a collapsed table. Try what you think is best.  Toddy1 (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Article is POV
It needs to be scrubbed of religious language, and more references added. Watt, to start. Also, more people were killed than just those ten. Zora 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you please enlighten us with references for the "real" number of causalities?--BelalSaid (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the true number mme Akremi yassin (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All authentic historical reports state the number of casualties as ten or similar. This is well-known in Islamic history. Can you provide any authentic sources that prove otherwise? Noel Malik (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Pages moves
According to the page history for this article: If people think that the article should have a different name, please will they use the procedure for a controversial move. Please also look at the last move discussion, which can be found at Requested move 23 November 2015. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 23:34, 27 August 2014‎ (UTC) User:Afrogindahood moved page Conquest of Mecca to Liberation of Mecca: The change of name is referred to the original language (Arabic) term of the event
 * 17:41, 30 August 2014‎ (UTC) User:CambridgeBayWeather moved page Liberation of Mecca to Conquest of Mecca over redirect: It was at a stable title for several years. I think a requestd move is required.
 * 05:18, 17 December 2014‎ (UTC) User:GorgeCustersSabre moved page Conquest of Mecca to Occupation of Mecca: See talk page
 * 17:28, 22 November 2015‎ (UTC) User:SheriffIsInTown moved page Occupation of Mecca to Victory of Mecca
 * 17:46, 22 November 2015‎ (UTC) User:GorgeCustersSabre moved page Victory of Mecca to Occupation of Mecca over redirect: See the talk page. The rationale for "victyory" is weak.
 * 14:44, 12 December 2015‎ (UTC) User:Jenks24 moved page Occupation of Mecca to Conquest of Mecca: per requested move discussion; see talk
 * 11:14, 3 April 2023‎ (UTC) User:N219 moved page Conquest of Mecca to Opening of Mecca: Closer to its true meaning in the original language, which is "opening".
 * 11:19, 3 April 2023‎ (UTC) User:Toddy1 moved page Opening of Mecca to Conquest of Mecca over redirect: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM)

Clean up
A recent edit rewrote most of the article using a single source. I have tried to clean up the article.
 * The 55 citations to:
 * have been consolidated, and changed to use the following format:
 * Alternative URL
 * The Sealed Nectar is a genuine published book, which even won a prize. It considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable secondary source.  Having the citations call it The Sealed Nectar - alhamdulillah-library.blogspot.in.pdf makes it look like a worthless blog; i.e. an unreliable source.
 * There is a need for page numbers for each instance of the book that is being cited.
 * There is a need for page numbers for each instance of the book that is being cited.


 * In Wikipedia, the lead section of the article should contain a summary of the article, so I moved the new summary section to the lead section.
 * There is a standard format for headings in Wikipedia articles. It is best that this article uses it.  So I have removed bolding from the Heading-3s.
 * I have also removed instances of excessive and inappropriate use of formatting devices such as italics and block quotations.

I am concerned that many of the old citations appear to be vestigial. Citations should be placed against statements they are there to support. They should not be gathered together at the end of paragraphs. (The latter style is fine in a published book – but does not work in Wikipedia because people are always changing the text in Wikipedia articles.)

I am concerned that the article is based on a single source, and ignores the many books published by scholars.

I am also concerned with the use of loaded terms like Helper (note the capitalisation). It is being used as though it were a proper noun! It would be better to use less-loaded common nouns or to use the Arabic term ansar (which is a common noun, and therefore not capitalised). -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "Helper" is a proper noun. It is a translation of "Ansar" which was the NAME given to the people of Medina Noel Malik (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that someone needs to rewrite the article using paper books, not internet sources, and that the version dated 20:38, 21 December 2013 would be a good starting point for the rewrite. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)