Talk:Muhammad after the occupation of Mecca

Untitled
The battle of Hunayn bit seems to be taken from another website directly, yet isn't sourced. Can someone please cite the original source, and change that block of text into something original and useful? Galactor213 (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the life of Muhammad has not been correctly divided. The battle of Hunayn and the Siege of Ta'if are integral parts of the expedition that includes the "conquest" of Mecca. It misleading to divide this expedition into two separate events. In spite of its later importance the actual moment when the Muslims took charge of Mecca is an anti-climax.

If one is coordinating the biography of Muhammad with Ibn Ishaq the point where the earlier phase should end and the phase called "Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca" begin is on page 597 of Guillaume's translation after the end of the second with the title "The Apostle makes the lesse pilgrimage from al-Ji'rana."

In the "after Mecca" part, as I have defined it, Ibn Ishaq has sections on    Ka'b ibn Zuhayr The Expedition to Tabuk, The Opposition Mosque and the Three Men who Stayed Home Thaqif accepts Islam Abu Bakr leads the Pilgrimage The Poetry of Hassan ibn Thabit about the expeditions The Year of Deputations (this is extensive) The Farewell Pilgrimage Usama ibn Zayd is sent to Syria Letters are sent to kingdoms A Summary of the Expeditions (this is extensive, but not really in chronological order) His Illness, death and burial The selection of Abu Bakr as successor. This is a non-trivial amount of activity and, in view of the deputations, very much a different phase in Muhammad's life.

How you actually want to present this material is up the community. I am incapable of even making a beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.194.83 (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Families and flocks of Hawazin?
Can anybody explain to me what this sentence is saying? "Because Malik ibn Awf al-Nasri had brought the families and flocks of the Hawazin along, the Muslims were able to capture huge spoils, consisting of 6,000 women and children and 24,000 camels" It seems to be suggesting by some religious belief that these two events are causal, which would not be allowed per Wikipedia's standards. -Eaglescout1984 11:26, 14 July 2010 (GMT)

Name change
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. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the article is wrong, and that Mecca did not surrender to Mohammed after the Quraish leader learned that Mohammed's army of 10,000 men was advancing on Mecca? Do you have reliable sources for your alternative version of events?--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Normal English languages sources call this conquest - for example Oxford Islamic Studies Online, Treaty of Hudaybiyah.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Toddy1, thank you for replying again. It might be seen as a bold claim to state that "normal English language sources" call it conquest. 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. Regards and thanks for your reply, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)