Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:14, 25 January 2016

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 16 January 2016, see discussion. no consensus, 26 March 2015 (UTC), see discussion.

Islam: Hadith Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hadith task force.

@MezzoMezzo and Mhhossein: In my view this article provide Sunni Hadiths, while contains Shia templates and category! I do not know whether this is Sunni or Shia authentic Hadith or not. Can you please solve the problem?--Seyyed(t-c) 03:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of unreliable sources

Copypaste from AFD. Cleanup is being performed due to following concerns.

1. The first source is "The Prophet Jesus (as) and Hazrat Mahdi (as) Will Come This Century". It is an unreliable source penned by Adnan Oktar who is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. Therefore this is an unreliable source and any article which exists based on this as a "scholarly source on Islam" should be deleted.
2. There are two references to the Quran. This is 100% coatrack, as the very title of the article is "The hadith of....". Including the references to Quran here are just a part of a coatrack.
3. Source number four is Sahih Bukhari, which is a Primary collection of traditions. This is pure 100% Original Research. Misplaced Pages forbids WP:OR due to this kind of issues, because editors can cherry pick information out of a primary source and then create an article based on that. There are more than Ten Thousand subjects covered in these Primary books, should every one of those subjects be now used to create a wikipedia topic?
4. Source number five is a hate book written by Akhtar Rizvi. Now although we can use, and should use, hate books to show the opinions of their writers, we should not use them as sources of "Scholarly opinion". The simple proof that this book is a hate book is that it uses the hate word "Qadiani". A simple analogy is that a book which uses the word "Dirty niggers" throughout the book "should not" and "will not" be used as a scholarly source in African American Articles. Same is the case with books using the word "Kike" throughout not being used as scholarly sources in "Semitic" articles.
5. Sources six and Seven are once again Primary sources from which information has been cherry picked through WP:OR.
6. Source number eight is quite a conundrum. According to this article the information is from the book "Nuzool Isa Ibn Maryam Akhir al-Zaman" written by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti. Now when we try to find this book it appears to be un available on the internet in any form. Even Though many books have been uploaded in Arabic, there are hundreds which are not on the internet, so this is not a big deal. It does however raise some eyebrows. When we try to search for this book in google books, to see if "any OTHER scholar" has quoted Suyuti's opinion, we come up empty handed. Only "Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor) Held at Leiden, 27-28 April, 2000" and "THE BIOGRAPHIES OF THE ELITE LIVES OF THE SCHOLARS, IMAMS & HADITH MASTERS: Biographies of The Imams & Scholars" have the name of this book in their index, and both of them refrain from giving any quotes etc. So even though this "may well" be a reliable book, up till now I am having trouble ascertaining whether it is even a real book or not.
7. Source number ten is "Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah". This appeared to be suspicious to me from the get go as this a highly polemical book written against the Shia's and Almost the entire book is written to show the good qualities in the first four caliphs. the book had literally nothing to do with Jesus and Imam Mahdi, but I have perused the book just in case. I was not able to find the Original Arabic version but rather an Urdu translation. the first Problem with this reference is that the book has more than one "Sections 11's" and none of those sections 11's is on page 254. The first is on page 477 and talkes about how a marriage was arranged while the second is on page794 and that talks about Ahl-al-Bayat, and nothing is said about Jesus. So this is either source misrepresentation, or something else. In the nutshell, this source also, does not support the article.
8. Source number 11 is "Fara'id al-Simtayn. p. 43". Now this too is a book which has almost nothing to do with jesus, but again AGF, I took the time to search for it and read it. Now page 43 as given in the scanned version of the original here ( you may have to scroll down and the pages are in Arabic Numeral, so the page number 43 will look like "3" and then a "trident like thingy". this is the image of the page you can see the page in top left, then use the orignal text to scroll to the required page) does not state anything about Jesus, or about the Imam Mahdi. The tradition is in Arabic, an Arabic user can understand it, but if you have a keyboard in Arabic you can type it in google translate and the translation will show that Imam Mahdi and Jesus are absent here. So again, source misrepresentation, or something like that.
9. Source 12 is again the same dubious book by Suyuti under a different name. Already discussed.
10. The last source is a "Shi'ite encyclopedia" now even if throw out the little fact that two bit encyclopedias like this are not sources. We are left with a HUGE book and no reference. It is like me asking for the directions to the Ayatollahs house and the reply being."The Ayatollah Bamboozly Al Bomby lives on the earth". Kinda hilarious to be frank.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Manipulation Clean up without discussion and building a consensus just after nominating the page for deletion and its closing is 100% unilateral manipulation. Nannadeem (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nannadeem and User:HyperGaruda would you be so kind as to discuss these concerns? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat: Don't mass remove (don't commit edit war). let's go step by step. Mhhossein (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein what objections do you have to this removal? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nannadeem, Mhhossein, I'm jumping in here to say that you really need to address these concerns, or your reverts are without warrant and thus disruptive. FreeatlastChitchat, look at WP:RFC and see what RfCs you could start (they work best if they're not about a dozen things). The advantage of an RfC is that they're posted on a central page and thus attract more editors. I also think you all should post on Wikiprojects's pages, for the same reason: these articles where some of you are frequently clashing need attention from other editors, to look at the reliability of sources, whether some content is undue or not, to check for NPOV... Drmies (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your intervention Drmies. I really meant to do so, but the mass removal does not even let other users say what they think. Mhhossein (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

background

We usually do not give a background section on hadith anywhere. It is coatrack, therefore it has been removed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat: I think we should provide a background for the readers not familiar with the case but I don't think this long section on Hadith is suitable. How can we trim it? 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC for sourcing

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: History and geography Religion and philosophy Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the sources should be kept and which should be removed? A detailed analysis of sources and the concerns about them is found one section above. Given below is a short summary of each source and the concern raised.

1. The first source "The Prophet Jesus (as) and Hazrat Mahdi (as) Will Come This Century" is by Adnan Oktar who is a conspiracy theorist. WP:FRINGE is violated here.
2. There are two references to the Quran. the article is about . Including the references to Quran is WP:COATRACK.
3. Source four is Sahih Bukhari, one quote is enough more than that and WP:QUOTEFARM.
4. Source five is a hate book written by Akhtar Rizvi. The proof that this book is a hate book is that it uses the hate word "Qadiani". A simple analogy is that a book which uses the word "Dirty niggers" throughout the book "will not" be used as a scholarly source in African American Articles. Same is the case with books using "Kike" not being used as scholarly sources in "Semitic" articles.
5. Sources six and Seven are once again Primary sources from which information has been cherry picked through WP:OR.
6. Source number eight is "Nuzool Isa Ibn Maryam Akhir al-Zaman" written by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti. It is un available on the internet in any form. When we try to search for this book in google books, to see if "any OTHER scholar" has quoted Suyuti's opinion, we come up empty handed. Only "Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor) Held at Leiden, 27-28 April, 2000" and "THE BIOGRAPHIES OF THE ELITE LIVES OF THE SCHOLARS, IMAMS & HADITH MASTERS: Biographies of The Imams & Scholars" have the name of this book in their index, and both of them refrain from giving any quotes etc. So even though this "may well" be a reliable book, up till now I am having trouble ascertaining whether it is even a real book or not.
7. Source number ten is "Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah", which discusses how a marriage was arranged and discusses Ahl-al-Bayat, and nothing is said about Jesus.
8. Source number 11 is "Fara'id al-Simtayn. p. 43". Imam Mahdi and Jesus have not been mentioned by this source. So again, source misrepresentation, or something like that.
9. Source 12 is again the same dubious book by Suyuti under a different name. Already discussed.
10. The last source is a "Shi'ite encyclopedia"; a HUGE book and no reference has been given.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unassessed Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• Unassessed Hadith articles
• Unknown-importance Hadith articles
• Hadith task force articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment