The (hoax of the) battle of Mutah
Nima Rezai
recently I came across a Wikipedia article covering the battle of Mutah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah
To put it simple this is totally ridiculous and a further proof for the
voluntary naivety of us muslims when "we" are depicted as heroes.
No sane person can seriously believe that 3000 muslims fought against
100000 to 200000 byzantines, thereby suffering only 12 casualties but
inflicting 20000 losses on the enemy.
This is the same brazen outright lying and fact twisting as it was
performed by the late Saddams information minister Sahhaf.
What is interesting is that among the 12 dead muslims were the top
commanders one to three. I ask myself why and how they died:
Theory 1: They were shot dead from a distance.
This would mean a) that the Byzantines had skilled archers and b) that
the muslims had little armour.
Problem: If (1) is true, then the Byzantine archers must have succeeded
in killing much more muslims than only 12
Theory 2: They died in single combat.
If this is true, then the morale of the Byzantines must have been
drastically boosted. Why did they then suffer 20000 dead while only
being able to kill few more muslims?
Interestingly in Tabaris depiction of Khalid ibn Walids early battles
against sassanid persians every time the muslims win against numerically
highly superior persians because Khalid or his generals allegedly
managed to kill the persian top commanders in single combat, thus
leading to a moral collapse of the persian armies and to their
subsequent losses.
In Mutah this analogy seems to be reversed: The muslims lose their top
commanders one after the other, but kill 20000 enemies despite being
outnumbered 1:33 or 1:66.
Also it remains a mystery why Heraclius fielded such a huge army only to
counter a small muslim unit when he had to fear an attack in his back
from his persian arch enemies.
Why did Heraclius invest huge amounts of money, material and man power
only to kill 12 muslim enemies?
Is there any trace of this event in regular byzantine history?
Sorry, but to me its more than obvious that this battle must have been
completely different and that the muslim version contains a great deal
of propaganda and exxageration.
Very probably a muslim army of few thousand met a slightly bigger army
of local arab tribal fighters loyal to Byzantium and suffered a defeat.
The non-muslims probably lacked the troop strength and/or had suffered
too big losses themselves to be able/willing to pursue the muslims and
attack Medina.
The muslim tradition probably restricted the naming of the muslim dead
to the most famous victims.
I welcome any comments.
Best regards
Nima
DKleinecke
I agree with the basic idea that the battle has been distorted in the
more recent accounts. Ibn Ishaq outright calls it a disaster. If one
follows Ibn Ishaq's account (a little fuller than al-Tabari) one gets
the impression that the Muslims, in fact, ran for their lives and
suffered only a few casualties. Most likely they were able to mount
their camels and flee into the desert where their opponents
(doubtless, as you say, local Arab militia) could not follow because
they were dependent on horses.
The description of the fighting makes no obvious sense, as you
observed. I believe, although I am reading between the lines here,
that we are supposed to imagine the two armies facing one another. The
Muslims have no idea how many enemy there are, but they look
formidable. Zayd ibn Haritha signals for a charge and leads it - but
essentially no one follows him and he is killed. Then Ja'far in Abu
Talib does the same. Then 'Abdullah ibn Rawha. At that point Khalid
ibn al-Walid takes charge and executes an orderly withdrawal.
But what I just recounted is probably not what really happened. It is
no more than the story as it was told around the end of the first
century. I submit that we do not know who led the expedition - Khalid
is the most likely suspect - nor who among the leaders were killed
there. The rank and file casualties are more reliable - there was a
minimum of glory involved dying in this battle and therefore probably
a minimum of false claims.
But none of Zayd, Ja'far nor 'Abdullah can be reliably imagined to
have been killed there (in the course of glorious vain jihad on the
path of Allah), They are simply prominent Muslims who disappear from
history around this date. I suspect they died ignobly in their beds. I
grant you that there is some chance that Zayd did lead such an
expedition and was killed. Ja'far and 'Abdullah I consider sheer
fantasy.
But all of these matters are a mystery wrapped in an enigma. All we
can do is speculate.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:6dkk28F...@mid.individual.net...
Salam,
<snip> ...
> recently I came across a Wikipedia article covering the battle of Mutah:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I wouldn't put much store on what appears in Wikipedia, especially in these
controversial historical areas.
> Why did Heraclius invest huge amounts of money, material and man power
> only to kill 12 muslim enemies?
> Is there any trace of this event in regular byzantine history?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What is the intrinsic problem with mediaeval statistics and figures from a
honest historical perspective throughout the then known Occidental and
Oriental worlds? Are these numerical estimates of populations and armed
forces and the like historically reliable? Aren't these figures, as with
many provided in mediaeval documents, often several hundred years after the
actual events, simply impossible to verify?
Are these uncorroborated figures then a "hoax"? Bearing in mind that a
"hoax" is something intended to deceive or deliberate trickery intended to
gain an advantage?
It would appear, on one polemical side, you have the latter dated non-extant
reports of Ibn Ishaq [that was subsequently edited by Ibn Hisham in his
recension] and Al Tabari (i.e. Arab), and on the other side of the
ecclesiastical coin, Nicephorus and Theophanes (i.e. Byzantine). Observably,
these writers made unusual historical judgments, especially from our
contemporary and critical perspective, but they did so as a consequence of
the probes of any student of history agonising from the student's perennial
predicament, the lack of corroborating sources.
The most recent history covering this volatile mediaeval period is Walter
Kaegi's, "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests". Cambridge, Eng.:
Cambridge University Press, 1992. Paperback,1995. Well worth reading.
<Reviewer's Quote> ...
The core of the problem of analysis is the difficulty of using and
interpreting both Byzantine and Arab literary sources. Kaegi cites the
narratives and sources relating to the reign of Heraclius (610-641 A.D.)
They are late: those of Nicephorus and Theophanes date from the 8th and 9th
centuries respectively. Further more, the problem of rhetorical artifice in
literary works concerning the [Byzantine] Emperor makes it impossible to use
such material as a check against Arab sources. Strictly non-historical
sources present equally difficult problems for Kaegi. He cites the range of
genres and the fact that they make no effort to provide a coherent account
of the Muslim campaigns as a whole. [Lee]
<Unquote> ...
When reviewing mediaeval history, in general, we should keep in mind what
Harald Motzki wrote about early Muslim historicity :-
<Quote> ...
At present, the study of Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim community, is
obviously caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, it is not possible to write
a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the
sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources
critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography. [Harald
Motzski]
<Unquote> ...
As a direct comparison, this is what Henri Pirenne had to say in his
profound "Une Histoire Economique de l'Occident Medieval" (An Economic and
Social History of Medieval Europe.):-
<Quote> ...
These are far removed from the fantastic figures that have been accepted for
so long, in defiance of all probability. ... The data, too, often propagated
on the strength of information venerable with age, but entirely devoid of
numerical precision, cannot withstand criticism. (Henri Pirenne - "An
Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe" p. 172)
<Unquote> ...
For more details, see Walter Kaegi, "Byzantium and the Early Islamic
Conquests", pp. 71-4; and passim
<Quote> ...
This view is not a common one among the standard histories of the early
conquests, who usually portray them as resulting from the aspirations of
Muhammad to dominate the region of Syria-Transjordan or at least the desert
areas bordering alongside these provinces. [Dr. D Cook]
<Unquote> ...
According to Lee's review of Kaegi's "Byzantium and the Early Islamic
Conquests" :-
<Quote> ...
Before the death of Muhammed there was at least one significant but
inconclusive contact between the Arabs and the Byzantines at Mu'ta in 629,
which was counted as a victory for the Byzantines, but for Kaegi, the years
633-634 mark the real commencement of the military crisis for Byzantium. He
returns to the sources to demonstrate the difficulty of placing many of the
events in any form of geographical or chronological scheme. However, it is
clear to Kaegi that the Byzantines were in the process of rebuilding their
authority in the region and that the Arab invasions prevented Heraclius from
carrying out this process by focusing on areas with less definite ties to
the Empire. [Lee]
<Unquote> ...
For more details, also see Walter Kaegi, "Heraclius" (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003), pp. 78, 80, 175-79, 205-7, and passim.
As a backdrop this startling revelation from W. E. H. Lecky might generate
some "Christian" interest or Muslim commentary in this forum.
<Quote> ...
Of that Byzantine empire, the universal verdict of history is that it
constitutes, without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and
despicable form that civilization has yet assumed. Though very cruel and
very sensual, there have been times when cruelty assumed more ruthless and
sensuality more extravagant, aspects ; but there has been no other enduring
civilization so absolutely destitute of all forms and elements of greatness,
and none to which the epithet "mean" may be so emphatically
applied... The Byzantine Empire was pre-eminently the age of treachery. Its
vices were the vices of men who had ceased to be brave without learning to
be virtuous. Without patriotism, without the fruition or desire of liberty,
after the first paroxysms of religious agitation, without genius ; slaves
and willing slaves, in both their action and their thoughts, immersed in
sensuality and in the most frivolous pleasures, the people only emerged from
their listlessness when some theological subtlety. or some chivalry in the
chariot races, stimulated them to frantic riots ... The history of the
empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs, and
women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude." (W. E. H.
Lecky - "A History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne" 2 vols.
(London 1869) II, p. 13.)
<Unquote> ...
According to Henri Pirenne :-
<Quote> ...
On the other hand, before the Mohammedan epoch the [Byzantine] Empire had
had practically no dealings with the Arabian peninsula. It
contented itself with building a wall to protect Syria against the nomadic
bands of the desert, much as it had built a wall in the north of Britain in
order to check the invasions of the Picts; but this Syrian limes, some
remains of which may still be seen on crossing the desert, was in no way
comparable to that of the Rhine or the Danube.
The [Byzantine] Empire had never regarded this as one of its vulnerable
points, nor had it ever massed there any large proportion of its military
forces. It was a frontier of inspection, which was crossed by the caravans
that brought perfumes and spices. [Henri Pirenne "Mohammed and Charlemagne"
; W. W. Norton, 1939. p 147]
<Unquote> ...
--
Peace
--
The past is what you remember, imagine you remember, convince yourself you
remember, or pretend you remember" [Harold Pinter]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Joubin Houshyar
> Salam,
Salaam Nima,
>
> recently I came across a Wikipedia article covering the battle of Mutah:h=
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah
>
> To put it simple this is totally ridiculous and a further proof for the
> voluntary naivety of us muslims when "we" are depicted as heroes.
'Do you Believe' this?
http://images.google.com/images?q=3Dthermopylae
(Frankly, am not sure what to make of your "we". We are all Family
here.)
"I welcome any comments. "
Do you welcome this?
"... (in the course of glorious vain jihad on the
path of Allah).... I suspect they died ignobly in their beds ..."
"But all of these matters are a mystery wrapped in an enigma. All we
can do is speculate [and use the opportunity to insult your Religion].
"
/& Salaam
> No sane person can seriously believe that 3000 muslims fought against
> 100000 to 200000 byzantines, thereby suffering only 12 casualties but
> inflicting 20000 losses on the enemy.
Btw, his elicited a calculation (first degree algebraic) ala "how many
angels can dance on a pinhead" and I have arrived at the Angel Warrior
to unbeliever factor of 2 orders of magnitude. :)) [I applied the
Qur'anic verses regarding the same (3,000 angels), and applied the Sun
Tzu's 5 to 1 factor for 'attacking' to a hopelessly kafir force of
100,000 to 200,000]
http://www.lila.info/media/daniel_mirante/archangel_michael_yellow.jpg
Sure glad ~!! They !!~ are on OUR side ...
/& Salaam
DKleinecke
>> "Nima Rezai" <rezai_n...@yahoo.de> wrote
>> ...recently I came across a Wikipedia article covering the battle of Mutah:
> I wouldn't put much store on what appears in Wikipedia, especially in these
> controversial historical areas.
I have tried to bring order to the Wikipedia in "these controversial
historical areas" (meaning the history of the first few Islamic
centuries) but I quit trying because anything I wrote was quickly over-
written, usually by a Shi'ite who felt I was not giving enough credit
to Ali (or some other Shi'ite-favored notable) or too much credit to
Mu'awiya (or any other of their pet hates). I think the matter is
hopeless.
But, while the Wikipedia is a poor place to look for factual truth, it
is a grand place to learn about people's biases and presuppositions.
> What is the intrinsic problem with mediaeval statistics and figures from a
> honest historical perspective throughout the then known Occidental and
> Oriental worlds? Are these numerical estimates of populations and armed
> forces and the like historically reliable? Aren't these figures, as with
> many provided in mediaeval documents, often several hundred years after the
> actual events, simply impossible to verify?
The numbers are as hopeless as the Wikipedia. More often than not they
were even known at the time the event occurred. The Qur'an has several
passages about how Allah made the Muslims miss-estimate the size of
the opposing army. If the battle of Mutah was anything like the
traditional account of it the Muslims had no idea at all about the
size of the opposing army.
But the difficulties with the early history of Islam are deeper than
mere numbers. There is considerable doubt whether the famous battles
even happened. The battle of Yarmuk, for example, is almost certainly
fictitious. Mutah has a better chance of being genuine because it is
so much less glorious.
After this Zuiko goes on to discuss the sources.
But he does not mention the conclusion of John Wansborough that none
of this can be trusted - neither the Islamic histories nor the non-
Islamic counter histories. So, at least as I see it, it is not
possible to bring any of this into the realm of normal history, at
least not until you have answered Wansborough's argument.
In other words, before you trust any of this - prove that what you
intend to trust is, in fact, trustworthy.
I can see no reason to reject any of Wansborough's conclusion (I would
date the Qur'an a quarter of a century earlier). He has never been
answered by any defender of the old traditions. So far as I know, he
has never even been engaged.
Personally I enjoy mucking around in the old traditions knowing full-
well that I am reading a immense collection of folklore and rumor and
trying to guess what the next previous version might have said. But I
don't take it seriously as history.
Compare Geoffrey of Monmouth or the Shah Nama. A less well-known, but
perhaps more fitting, example would be the pre-Conquest history of the
Incas.