Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad's slaves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Muhammad's slaves

Muhammad's slaves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article is based on [1], which is an Islamic propagandist website (see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Answering-Islam.org). And as reason given by User:Truthspreader on talk page that Zad al-Ma'ad is a historical document, and hence a primary source.

Major flaws include:

1. Implication that Muhammad had sexual relation with these slaves, when even the source doesn't say that except Answering-Islam.org
2. Many of the slaves were freed and it is not mentioned, as if mentioned then the article would be giving a false impression from it's title
3. Bernard Lewis 1994 does say that Muhammad and his companions had slaves without these details from Answering-Islam.org, hence this topic can be easily merged with Islam and slavery or Muhammad article, in which former already discusses this issue.

--Herald_reply 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with conditional Merge. As per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it, it is pretty clear now that this is coming from answering-islam.org. And even if the source is correct, to conclude using Zad al-Ma'ad is Original research, being it a historical document. And as per nom, if the author can find some good sources, this article can easily fit into Islam and slavery or Muhammad article. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this is too obscure to merit its own article. KazakhPol 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possibly mention in Islam and slavery if the information can be verified by a more reliable source. In any case this topic in no way needs a separate article. Koweja 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment actually, the article could be keep worthy, if it was sourced adequately, sourcing from ONE book through a non-reliable extremist web-site is not acceptable, specially considering that the author of the book is controversial in it self. Removing the OR and POV is a first step... i think i will vote keep on the condition that it is cleaned up to everybody's satisfaction before the end of the afd. --Striver 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and on the condition that it is renamed to Muhammad's ma malakat aymanukum. --Striver 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the topic on its own is not notable enough and the sources provided are of a dubious nature. TSO1D 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems like this deletion nom takes issue with the content of the article, not the suitability of this topic for an encyclopedia. If he did have slaves (as is implied in the nom, if he freed them) then its possible that there should be an article for that, even if it doesn't look much like the current article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment but even if it is true, does it need a separate article? Verifiable is one thing, notable enough is another. I simply cannot see how this information cannot be added to Muhammad's article if it just about his personal life, or the article on Islam and slavery if it is more relevant. Koweja 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep And change title to Muhammad and slaves. The fact that the founder of Islam was a slaver, killed men and enslaved their wives, etc is very notable, and we could have a thorough article on the topic. Arrow740 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and improve. So far just the one quote from Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya is enough to stand up it's crediblty. It ought to be expanded and research though. frummer 03:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. the article is solely based upon an unreliable source attributing information to another source (i.e. Ibn al-Qayyim). the entire reliability of these extracts is thus dependant upon the credibility of the resource providing it (as outlined in WP:CITE), which as we know is zero. ITAQALLAH 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It seems to be original research with no reliable links to back up the article --Soft coder^Talk 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is sufficient material from traditional biogrpahies of MUhammad to justify the existence of the article. Beit Or 09:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is a person who wish to delete all the article created on Muhammad [2] even with good sources. However, here he is supporting an article which presents no good sources. First thing we must make sure is that he never evaluate any Islam related wikipedia article. --- ALM 10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This topic is no less legitimate than Muhammad's marriages. Beit Or 10:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete: Delete it and recreate when you have very good sources to justify your big claims. --- ALM 10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the source is no worse or better than the islamic sources used in wikipedia, Athesists, christians and jews have the right to write about islam, they cannot be discredited just because they are not muslim, naming this wbsite as "extremist" is ridiculous, I myself find all islamic websites as satanic but I have never asked to delete a whole article just becasue it has a satanic sources (you call the website in question "exresmist", allow me to use my own POV words).Toira 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above and improve as necessary. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename and solve the contentious issues, such as the freeing of slaves. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)