Talk:Expedition to Tabuk

The valiant 200,000?

I find it hard to believe that the Byzantine forces were so huge. Further, this wasnt even a battle! Naerhu 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources I've read (which all deal with this 'battle' very briefly, and somewhat vaguely), say there was no Byzantine army for the Muslim force to engage. I think the numbers cited might be confused with the battle of Mu'tah. [Essay writing fiend]

The problem is that there is a persistent poster of Muslim myth. The Army could not be that big because it would have been about half the Byzantine Army and stripped the borders. The problem is that Muslim historians have built this into a massive Muslim victory over the cowardly Romans. But it is ahistorical. Lao Wai 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that Lao Wai hadn't read a single Muslim historian account of the expedition. According to Muslim historians there was no actual fighting. The expedition was a preemptive measure, caused by the rumours of large Roman(Byzantine) army preparing to invade Arabia. It proved to be a false alarm, since no such army was encountered. All this babbling about "conspirating Muslim historians" and "Muslim myth" is caused by misinformation. No Muslim historian tries to "built it into massive Muslim victory over the cowardly Romans".78.191.91.99 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you a Muslim? What are your evidences that Romans are cowards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.89.91 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed infobox reference to "Roman Empire"

This battle involved the Byzantine Empire, not the "Roman (Byzantine) Empire." If the nomenclature needed to be revised at all, it would be to "Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire." Dppowell 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

tabuk

I agree. This article needs to be formatted in a far more neutral sense as it talks about Mohammed and Heracliu as if it were a documentary or out of an eye witness account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I have just adjusted the article to take into account that most agree it was neither decisive. I also changed the words 'the enemy' to Byzantines and 'Muslims' to 'Arabs', it is politicaly incorrect to say Muslims and inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

How is it inaccurate to say "Muslims"? They were pretty much all Muslims. And it can't quite be indecisive either because no battle took place in the first place, it was more like an expedition which if they fought could've been considered a battle. How about "None"? Jedi Master MIK 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for the letter given by Mohammed to the tribes? MidnightSoldier 18:40 EST, 20 October 2007

Yes

I totally agree with you tourskin the words should be switched to bzantines and the muslims to arabs since these battles were fought between the same empires like the battle of yarmouk and ajnadayn they should also be switches except in the strength box of the yarmouk one it should be stated who was actually there which were the greeks,mesopotamians,armanians,arab allies and a few russians but a larger portion of greeks.

Fictional Nature of the Battle

OK I'm told there is a discussion here of the fictional nature of this battle, but I do not see it. As the Byzantines never turned up, there is no reason to think they ever intended to turn up, there is no historical document that suggests they ever turned up outside the Muslim tradition, why does this article give an impression this was a real battle? Of course the irony is Muhammed did what Bush did - invade another country that was no threat to him at all on the basis of phoney evidence, but I expect I'm the only one that enjoys that. Given there was no Byzantine commander, no Byzantine Army, no "other side" at all, why should this article suggest it? I would welcome an admin. Lao Wai 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well people are still simply unilaterally editing. I am still happy to talk about it. Lao Wai 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been editing articles at Wikipedia for about a year now and I know that the Infobox Military Conflict box only contains information which is also in the article, nothing less nothing more. And if the article is saying that the Roman Empire was involved in the battle then I guess the Roman Empire’s name should be shown in the Infobox Military Conflict box, regardless if the both armies clashed with each other in the battle or not. Salman 22:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Article, last I edited, very carefully did not say that the Byzantine Empire was involved. Because not only is there no evidence that they were, it is extremely improbable that they stripped their entire Empire of soldiers and moved them to Jordan, only to run away, without anyone even noticing. Muhammed did what George W did - he invaded a peaceful neighbor based on false intelligence. I don't see why that ought to be given credibility. Lao Wai 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again bro, the Military Conflict box is only going to contain what the article is saying, regradless of what the readers or other editors believe. If the article is saying that “… the followers of Muhammad were heavily outnumbered by the army of the Roman Empire”, then I guess Roman Empire’s name should be in the Military Conflict box. If you want to do something about it. Then I would prefer that you edit the article and try to change what the article is saying, if other wikipedians do not contradict to what you are saying. Salman

And once again, the article does not say the Byzantines turned up. I doubt that the article does say that but if it does, it can only refer to the Roman Empire as a whole, because there were no Roman soldiers there. This is a non-battle. I have edited the article. I'll edit some more if you like. But as no battle took place, as there never were any Roman soldiers there, the article should not say there were. Lao Wai 10:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude it doesn't matter if they actually fought the battle or got scared and decided to chicken out. The article says that the battle was between the Islamic army and the Roman army. It does not matter if the battle actually took place or not. Salman 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does matter. It matters a lot. The article does not say anywhere that such a battle took place. It says 1. Muhammed thought that the Romans were marching and 2. that Muslim scholars have claimed that they did. It is not that the battle took place, it is that the Roman Army never marched on Arabia, the intelligence was false, and Muhammed, like George W, invaded a peaceful country on the basis of that false intelligence. The article nowhere says that any battle took place or was ever going to because the entire basis of the Muslim histories is false. Lao Wai 09:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You just don’t understand what I am trying to say. Okay how about this brother, instead of saying Roman Empire, I will say Ghassanids. I hope you will not have any problems. Salman 20:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So here we are again discussing the same issue. The Romans never turned up for this battle, or at least there is no evidence they did and for numbers that large there would have to be. This is simply Muhammed invading a peaceful neighbour based on false information. It is wrong for the information box to claim as fact something that is not. We have been over this. If you are not willing to produce any evidence that the Romans did fight, and yet will not accept the article saying just that, we need to ask an Admin to adjudicate. Are you willing? Lao Wai 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay Lao Wai, If you don’ want the name of the Romans to be mentioned in this article then fine. I am going to mention Ghassanids. Man you are really protective when it comes to Romans (when they are running away from battlefield). Anyway man I don’t want to talk about this issue anymore, I will not mention the name os the Romans in the article or the war inforbox, instead I will mention the name of the Ghassanids, I hope you will not have any problem with it. Later Salman 20:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind the name of the Romans being mentioned in the article. I do not see why it is worth mentioning the Ghassanids as they did not fight either. I might be, if the Romans actually ran from anywhere. This battle simply did not take place. It is fictional. Nothing can change that. Lao Wai 10:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lao Wai my brother, we the Muslims believe that the battle didn’t take place because the Romans ran away from the battlefield. You can disagree, if you want to, the article has to present the story of the Battle of Tabuk from a neutral point of view. In the article we cannot speak from the Muslims or the Romans point of view. Later Salman 18:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for theological beliefs. I am sorry that you want to believe that but unless you have some evidence for believing it, why should it be in the article? No doubt many Muslims also want to believe the Earth is flat or evolution is a lie, but why should Wikipedia support those points of view either? The neutral point of view is not the theocratic point of view but mine. I'll put anything in that has any evidence to support it. There is no Roman point of view here because the Romans have no records of this "battle". Because it was based on false intelligence. Lao Wai 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

wrong the romans didnt run away from the battle no one did.some sources say the muslims outnumbered the romans and it wasnt only romans there if there was any.

before lao wai said the romans were cowardly would you want to explain that?

I did not, Salman did. Lao Wai 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

salmon would you mind explaining how the romans could have been cowardly?the romans didnt run away and where would he get such a fact?some sources say the muslims were more then the romans.no one ran away.some say that the romans wernt even there.i believe he just doesnt want to believe the truth to make him feel better about this because what he sais doesnt make sense.

He didn't say that they retreated, Salman was saying that. I would also like to comment however on several things I noted above. The first thing is Muhammad never technically invaded Syria as he pretty much stopped at the border, camped out, and checked for any signs of encroachment, signed some pacts with local tribes, and then got up and left without any loss of life; he only was checking to see if there was any trouble. The second thing is on what Muslim scholars and sources say or give as possibilities. I've read in places that there really wasn't any troop movements but internal societal enemies of Muhammad (saw), some known as the hypocrites, started and exacerbated the rumors in hopes that Muhammad (saw) would wrongfully invade the neighboring Byzantine controlled Syria and get in a worse fight than at Mu'tah but when nothing of the such happened the plan became defunct. Jedi Master MIK 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is doubtful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.165.12 (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Title Change

Pardon me if this will sound totally like sheer madness but maybe the title should be changed from "Battle of Tabouk" to something like "Expedition of Tabouk"? As it has been agreed on so far, no battle or fighting ever even took place but something on the scale and fitting in description of something like an expedition did take place though. Whether there were troop movements by any opposing force or not doesn't even matter as it never came either if there was one at all. So, comments anyone? Jedi Master MIK 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree to this. Misdemenor (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The expedition

Can someone please verify the contents of the 'expedition' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.167.66 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

I have removed the Kaegi source, which makes NO mention of a battle nor giving a date for said fake battle in September 629.

Also, Rafig Y. Aliyev, Loud Thoughts on Religion, Trafford Publishing, p. 53-54, makes no mention of a battle, even calling it "Expedition to Tabuk". Therefore this source will also be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

How odd, even Muir, William (1878). Life of Mahomet. Kessinger Publishing Co. p. 454, makes no mention of a battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Still looking for a reliable secondary source:

• Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Arab States, Volume 1, edited by Sebastian Maisel, page 419. States no battle took place.
• Islam at War: A History, by George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, page 12. Muhammad led a force of 30,000 to Tabuk and found nothing.
• Muhammad: Islam's First Great General, by Richard A. Gabriel, page 196-197. Muhammad arrived at Tabuk, but the Byzantines were 200 miles away. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I highly recommend naming the article as Expedition to Tabuk, for this reason. The success of the mission was securing the northwestern border and making sure they pay tribute, this is mentioned in the New Cambridge History of Islam, volume 1, page 192. Most trustworthy source on this area. No contact with Byzantine were made, as far as I'm aware. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you Alexis. I have found no reliable sources calling this a "battle". --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)