Talk:Military career of Muhammad

message: This page was created to take some of the pressure off the main Muhammad article, and to give the combatants room to spread out and make extended arguments with citations. As it stands, it is only a sketch. Zora 08:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Muslim commentator Ismail Patel summarized modern historical research suggesting that the total casualties in the Arabian peninsula during the period of Muhammad's ten-year career as a warrior could be estimated at 216.
How did he get that number? If you accept Banu Quariza incident, just that number alone will exceed 216. I haven't checked the number of reported causalities for Badar and Uhad yet, but I seriously doubt the credibility of this figure. The source "Ismail Patel" is not neutral. Also, Ramakrishna Rao wrote a very pro-Islamic biography of Muhammad. Credibility of that is also doubtful OneGuy 07:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message: 10/10/2022: If you count up the casualties of individual battles and sieges by Mohammed here on Wikipedia, the number is well over 2000. So Wikipedia is not consistent here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:F2C:1E6A:E03A:1514:D8BB:F41 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: By consulting the sirah, or biographical work, of early writers such as Ibn Hisham, it is possible to reconstruct an casualty figure of well under one thousand persons during the campaigns of Muhammad. Of these, something like 600 were the men of a Jewish tribe, the Bani Quraiza, whose case is a special one. They had agreed to, and violated, a treaty of alliance with the Muslims, who then met them in battle. When the Quraiza surrendered to Muhammad, they agreed that their fate should be decided by Sa'd bin Mu'adh, a former ally of theirs. Sa'd thereupon considered the case and held that the men of the Bani Quraiza should be put to death.
Now, I went to some trouble to get an informal but reliable consensus on this from folks I considered to be trustworthy sirah-heads. If the figure I offered is not credible, my question is -- Compared to what other figure does its credibility suffer?
We really should make an effort to identify some casualty total here. 
* If we think <1000 is incorrect, what specifically makes us think that this number is incorrect? 
* Are we doing the reader a service by not specifying any figure at all? 
* Are we doing the reader a service by omitting the details of the Bani Quraiza incident? No matter what the number is, this business of Muhammad murdering hundreds of Jews has been oversimplified to make him look a) more responsible for the decision of execution than he was and b) like an anti-Semite.
Key point we are now overlooking: From everything I can make out, the advent of Muhammad (p) came about with an astonishingly low casualty rate, and this astonishingly low casualty rate was the RESULT of his (new) way of thinking about military conflict.
Now, as unlikely as this way of thinking about war may appear, even to a modern reader, surely it is even MORE unlikely that it actually, you know, worked!
Can we picture the American, or French, or Russian Revolutions proceeding under the injunction to spare life whenever possible, encourage personal repentance before God, and forgive enemies? Can we picture them succeeding in these goals while holding casualties to microscopic levels? (Understand: He berated one of his own men for killing an opponent who professed Islam -- conveniently -- on the battlefield, with the conflict raging, and when it was quite obvious that there was no other option for survival.)
This <1000 figure, or some other comprehensible measure, needs to show up in the article, I think. If it's off, can you share by how much you think it's off?
If you're going to delete this estimate, can you take responsibility for providing a better estimate for the reader?
For some reason this subject of the specific level of casualties keeps getting passed over in summaries of his military career. 
The result is people assume Muhammad (p) was a blood-drenched military figure in the model of Alexander the Great or Hitler, which is manifestly not the case. 
We should rectify this misimpression by getting specific with some kind of casualty figure. BrandonYusufToropov 14:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty est -- let's replace or substitute 

message: tabari isn't an accepted source, not by Muslims or non-Muslims. Nor is ishaq for that matter.
Really?
There is extremely strict and actually UN-SPARING method of confirming legitimacy of the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad. Even then, legitimacy is categorized to be perfect, good, weak or fabricated. The narrator also is checked strictly, he also should never have told major lie in his lifetime or committed a major sin or have said wrongly or accused a confirmed pious person or another narrator. Many other things are used to authenticate and by all means Tabari is not to be trusted only in minor issues. Crazy clasher (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: =====

message: Anonymous editor, to you, as a Muslim, it seems obvious and factual that Muhammad is the final prophet. However, there are many millions of people who would deny that Muhammad is a prophet at all, and millions of Baha'i who would deny that Muhammad is the LAST prophet. We can't state debatable matters of belief as if they were generally accepted matters of fact. That's NPOV. Zora 21:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but "final prophet of Islam" is what I said. What Muslims "consider" is what Islam as a religion states. But its no big deal, if you want to keep it this way, it is fine with me. --Anonymous editor 21:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Whoever quoted tabari is kidding himself, tabari isn't an accepted source, not by Muslims or non-Muslims.
You seems like you want to spread your faith around us.
--Robert Weigel notes:  THere are several documented false prophesies of Muhammad.  Particularly comical was his claim that sex of a child is determined by who...goes off first in relations.  In that time there was little scientific knowledge about such things of course.  So he could get away with making incorrect claims like that.  Now he's fully exposed as the false prophet that he was.   Here is a page giving details: http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbworld.aspx?pageid=8589953019  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sounddoctorin (talk • contribs) 04:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considered to be final prophet, or IS final prophet? 

message: Somehow -- I'm not sure when -- people started adding hadith and Qur'anic verses re war to the article. 
I don't think they belong here. This is not the jihad article. This article was merely intended to provided a place for the charges and counter-charges re Muhammad and warfare that kept erupting in the Muhammad article. It should send people onwards to the jihad article, rather than duplicating the jihad article. 
Starting to add hadith is particularily dicey, as there are probably hundreds of hadith that have some relation to warfare, and it takes some judgment to discriminate between strong and weak hadith. If we say we're only going to add strong hadith ... well, who gets to say what is weak and what is strong? 
Perhaps it would be possible to move these lists into new articles? Qur'anic references to war and Hadith regarding war?  That might be useful, for this article AND for other articles relating to jihad. Zora 05:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has morphed 

message: I made some changes to the article, and added some more relevant Koran quotes. Another change was that I used the Yusuf Ali translation instead. 
The anon that has reverted my changes, has told me on my talkpage that he prefer the other translation. However, he has failed to explain to me why he believe it is wrong to use the translation by Yusuf Ali.
Irishpunktom haven't so far explained his reasons for reverting my edits. 
-- Karl Meier 20:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain, karl, why your edits should be included?--Irishpunktom\talk 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is you that insist that my changes should not be included, so it is you that has something to explain. It should be a simple question, why did you choose to revert my changes to the article? -- Karl Meier 15:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my two cents would be that you don't state any reason for changing the translation to another source, one that is renowned for: "Writing at a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism, Yusuf ‘Ali constructed his oeuvre as a polemic against Jews." (According to Middle East Quarterly, ). The work is also renowned for not being the standard translation used by anyone anymore. While I don't mind that you add extra quotes, I do mind that a version of the Qu'ran deemed to be one of the most anti-semitic translations ever written is your choice of source. --Jakob mark 23:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Karl, if you want to change the source material to another version, you need to tell why.  However your previous edit history allows one to presume it suits your POV. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is my edits reverted?

message: This article is a disappointment. I think I started it more than a year ago, as just a sketch. I fondly imagined that the anti-Muslim critics and the Muslim defenders would soon fill it up with referenced information. But all that happened was that the Muslim defenders filled it up with Qur'an and hadith quotes, as if that was all there needed to be said about warfare. 
There is already an article on rules of warfare in Islam, where all that belongs. I removed it. This article is about a specific person at a specific time. I therefore added a great more detail about the actual battles. I haven't yet had time to google for info on the critics and defenders, so that section is still deficient. 
I have to go back and add references, I just realized. 
I still haven't said all that could be said about Muhammad's career as warrior. I should add Ibn Ishaq's list of the twenty-seven or twenty-six engagements in which he participated or fought. I need to do a lot more wikifying. It would of course be nice if other editors joined the effort. Zora 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision 

message: If he died in 632, then how can "613 to 622" be "his last ten years"? --71.132.153.146 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates contradict 

message: I would suggest that an appropriate and succinct title as described in the header. 71.61.180.31 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad as a warmonger 

message: Do we know how many people did Muhawmud kill? Kill directly by his own sword? Kill as a general in military conquest? Kill by decree? We could use some statistics, I think. Opinions?DocEss 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Less than either of the George Bush's and always just as idelogically charged, both populations and military forces were generally small during his time they became larger later also it's much harder to make such estimates on historical events though it would probably be a better informed on than say something like the Sassanid Hepthalite war a even a century earlier.--Tigeroo 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for your response, even though I don't really understand what you're getting at. It's just a math question, so I don't require any editorial commentary. I really wanted some numbers --- how many deprated souls are on Mohammed's account? DocEss 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends, first on what you attribute to his accout, what events you accept as historical and what numbers you accept from the narrations. Numbers range from single digits to billions through the ages, there are plenty of polemical sites from both fringes exploring those numbers across the net.--Tigeroo 23:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The total number of casualties in all of Muhammd's wars, including the Jewish tribes, is less than 1600. I don't remeber the source. --Striver 12:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I ponder these responses whilst I scratch my head, I wonder if anyone else can offer up an answer. Let's face it: "billions through the ages" is as silly response as "1600 but I have no source." What I want to know is: how many people did Mohamud kill? Kill directly by his own sword? Kill as a general in military conquest? Kill by decree? In other words, while he was alive and directly attibutable to him.DocEss 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kill directly by his own sword: one. Kill as a general in military conquest: more than 1000, less than 2000. Kill by decree: less than 20, if im not wrong, and then add Banu Quraiza. Don't take my word for granted, its all from the top of my head. --Striver 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Striver, would like to provide a reference to that suggestion that muhammad himself only killed one person, so that we can put that into the article? Faro0485 (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question 

message: How did the person who added the sword to the article reach the conclusion that the sword is Muhammad's? Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: dunno.. the image is currently unsourced and so there is no way we can certify that the image is truly licensed under GFDL.. ITAQALLAH 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sword 

message: This book is not a work of history nor is it written by a historian. It must be excised. The tag will stay until this is accomplished. Arrow740 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that such a reason warrants such a tag, nor can you unilaterally draw such a distinction upon an article, this is not your soapbox to set down rules for others to follow. Can you found your opinion on something concrete? He is a valid source for use in this article, and has even referenced his work to various historical sources. Can you raise references to corraborate your claim, else you will need to stand down because there are plenty that do the opposite. Historians don't have to be either secular or posses western academic degrees. His sources are the same upon which all "historians" draw their inferences from, infact his sources are even more extensive since he had access to many yet untranslated works and worked with them in the original. Wikipedia can easily be NPOV by using him, if that is your concern. That is a different matter entirely.--Tigeroo 13:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree completely. ITAQALLAH 14:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Historians don't have to be either secular or posses western academic degrees." What do they have to be? I am disappointed that you people fight tooth and nail for this fairy tale to be viewed as history while protesting that Bat Ye'or can't be used as a historian. Her sourcing is extremely thorough, as well. Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad is not fact. If this debate is going to continue I'll make a list of quotes from your "work of history." Arrow740 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mubarakpuri is a trained Islamic scholar who has worked in the sira department of the Islamic University of Medina, compiling all related authentic reports relating to the biography of Muhammad, whose work is furthermore endorsed by the same university. ITAQALLAH 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you knwo where I can get more info about this guy?Bless sins 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really accept the Sealed Nectar by Mubarakpuri as a reliable sources? It seems that he is only glorifying his religion over the others and one must remember this is a non-academic book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.89.91 (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sealed Nonsense 

message: The merge discussion can be viewed at Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat.--Sefringle 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: The quoted hadith used as citation DOES NOT relate to initial raids on quraysh caravan but to Abu Basir's conduct who fled to Medina from Mecca following the Hudaybya pact.
Everyone, here is the text from the source of Sahih Bukhari that is used as citation that Muhammad denounced the raids. Its a long hadith, telling the events surrounding hudaybya pact.
   Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891
     Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan:
    (whose narrations attest each other) Allah's Apostle set out at the time of Al-Hudaibiya (treaty), and when they proceeded for a distance, he said, "Khalid bin Al-Walid leading the cavalry of Quraish constituting the front of the army, is at a place called Al-Ghamim, so take the way on the right."''
The same hadith continues down to paragraph 10 and 11 and I quote
 Umar then divorced two wives of his who were infidels. Later on Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan married one of them, and Safwan bin Umaya married the other. When the Prophet returned to Medina, Abu Basir, a new Muslim convert from Quraish came to him. The Infidels sent in his pursuit two men who said (to the Prophet ), "Abide by the promise you gave us." So, the Prophet handed him over to them. They took him out (of the City) till they reached Dhul-Hulaifa where they dismounted to eat some dates they had with them. Abu Basir said to one of them, "By Allah, O so-and-so, I see you have a fine sword." The other drew it out (of the scabbard) and said, "By Allah, it is very fine and I have tried it many times." Abu Bair said, "Let me have a look at it."
When the other gave it to him, he hit him with it till he died, and his companion ran away till he came to Medina and entered the Mosque running. When Allah's Apostle saw him he said, "This man appears to have been frightened." When he reached the Prophet he said, "My companion has been murdered and I would have been murdered too." Abu Basir came and said, "O Allah's Apostle, by Allah, Allah has made you fulfill your obligations by your returning me to them (i.e. the Infidels), but Allah has saved me from them." The Prophet said, "Woe to his mother! what excellent war kindler he would be, should he only have supporters." When Abu Basir heard that he understood that the Prophet would return him to them again, so he set off till he reached the seashore. Abu Jandal bin Suhail got himself released from them (i.e. infidels) and joined Abu Basir. So, whenever a man from Quraish embraced Islam he would follow Abu Basir till they formed a strong group. By Allah, whenever they heard about a caravan of Quraish heading towards Sham, they stopped it and attacked and killed them (i.e. infidels) and took their properties. The people of Quraish sent a message to the Prophet requesting him for the Sake of Allah and Kith and kin to send for (i.e. Abu Basir and his companions) promising that whoever (amongst them) came to the Prophet would be secure. So the Prophet sent for them (i.e. Abu Basir's companions) and Allah I revealed the following Divine Verses:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxGustakhxX (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The Hadeeth has nothing about the situation in question. Cite or remove -- Raziman T V (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Raids were denounced by Muhammad

message: I've reverted . The section is not referenced (obviously). Nor is asserting "besides it's common knowledge" good enough, especially for things that aren't common knowledge William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 2 references listed: (Guillaume 1955, p. 500) and (Watt 1957, p. 46). The main article Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is not broken, and I should have mentioned the it's common knowledge to those familiar Muhammad's biography or Islam's history. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Watt is only used as a reference for the intro. Please kindly find more citations. there is a book called the Sealed Nectar, made by a muslim author, its apologetic in many parts, maybe the current info in the section was from that book, so maybe you should add that as a reference. but i think its best to add more than 1 reference (as i have found many times, what muslim authors say, contradict with what non muslim authors like Watt and William Muir said)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In just 3 lines you (1) claimed the the content was derived from a Muslim source, (2) that it is "apologetic", yet no details given regarding this accusation, and (3) that Muslim scholars contradict non-Muslim scholars. Going back to the issue, why did you delete the section ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  Yep, the two refs are only refs for the number of people taken. All the rest is unref'd. If this is "common knowledge" then you'll have no problem finding refs, no? And as for Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is not broken: err, you see the big banner at the top of the article? The one that says his article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since May 2007. It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since August 2007. - it is there for a good reason William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hudaybiyyah 

message: The Views section is inaccurately polarized between just "Muslim" and "Non-Muslim" views. This section should be broken down by the particular group or person(s) who hold a particular, relevant opinion about the military career on Muhammad. This includes individual schools of Islam and distinct non-Muslim people/groups.
It may be appropriate to remove the section altogether, interspersing its sourced contents across the rest of the article.
- Fennasnogothrim (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On that issue, I think there is room here to be a little more explanatory in what the positions are.  At first glance, it is hard for a lay reader to understand how the later expeditions, say the last 10 or so, (as listed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad ) fit into the statement "the Muslims fought only when attacked, or in the context of a wider war of self-defense."  I am not arguing for or against that statement, I am pointing out the need for further elaboration. Wickedjacob (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Categorization - Muslim/non-Muslim views 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Military career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813123204/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/ to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115065145/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/martitl2y2.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/martitl2y2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Military career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302095200/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/536/in7.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/536/in7.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201161759/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/fasting/tajuddin/fast_76.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/fasting/tajuddin/fast_76.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 :Military career of Muhammad'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 "EoI-Muhammad":
From Splitting of the moon: Wensinck, A.J. "Muʿd̲j̲iza." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007.
From Muhammad in Medina: Alford Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam
From Muhammad: 
From Historicity of Muhammad: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Muhammad
From Timeline of early Islamic history: 
From Constitution of Medina: Alford Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam
From Islam: 
From Muhammad in Mecca: Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam.
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⚡ 23:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Military career of Muhammad]] 

message: For being about such an important topic, this article is pretty damn flawed. Will start to rework it soon. If there are any comments let me know here. LeGabrie (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a break. LeGabrie (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework 

message: I propose to remove the remove the Views section in its current form for two reasons: (1) The sole view presented is about jihad, not the military campaigns of Mohammad, and (2) the section contains only one viewpoint which does not reflect a common consensus.
To the first point, the whole section is referencing various aspects of the campaigns to reach the conclusion about when war is appropriate. (“Therefore, after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam, hence now, the only valid reason for war is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. (jihad)”)
Notice also that random parenthetical dangling after the comma. This seems a bit too removed (see WP:Relevance). I’m open to alternative thoughts. However, it seems likely if we expand this section as required to present more than one view (see below) this section will end up of a summary of views of Jihad.
Second, the Views section currently has a single subsection, Muslims Views, which outlines the views of two progressive Muslims from the group Al-Mawrid, a progressive Islamic group, and presents no other.  A quick trip over to the Jihad page indicates that this view may be the minority view and certainly doesn’t capture the view held by the vast majority of Muslims or Islamic scholars, whose views are diverse.  Currently the absence of any other views might suggest to a reader that this is the one widely held view.
As a final reason, we already have a Views on Mohammad page and a Jihad page.  The former covers view on his military exploits. The later covers Islamic thought on Jihad.
What are everyone’s thoughts? Jgalt87 (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would propose a "Legacy" section, addressing the political legacy of Muhammad's wars and how his deeds and the Quran verses about war shaped the Islamic understanding of war. LeGabrie (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholly back this. If you would like help in getting this started, let me know if you would like help. I think it will be critical to, as always, rely on reliable sources. Jgalt87 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to go ahead if you wish, I am currently working on something outside of Wiki, so I don't have time for it anymore. LeGabrie (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the Views Sections 

message: In Military_career_of_Muhammad#Battle_of_Badr, I changed moral to morale, which was reverted by User:Gog The Mild. without explanation. The full sentence is: This victory must not so much be ascribed to divine intervention as is done in the Islamic sources, but had several conventional reasons, like the Meccan inability to use their cavalry, the questioned leadership of Abu Jahl,[e] the Meccan lack of access to water and the higher moral of the Muslims. I am confident morale is correct. Jontel (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . Apologies for the delayed response - my user name has 'the' (not "The") in the middle. And apologies as well for the revert. I have no idea what I was thinking; you are of course correct. It should be "morale". Gog the Mild (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral or morale 

message: , can we delete or un-hide the four parts currently hidden in HTML comments? --mathieu ottawa (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden text 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: For almost every expedition starting with the 3rd Daumat al-Jandal expedition, the "Outcome" column registers either 9 or 10. What is the meaning of this? 50.45.158.5 (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome