Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of loving and hating

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith of loving and hating

Hadith of loving and hating (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The conception and organization of this poorly sourced article constitutes original research. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a pulpit. This article should be deleted. Proabivouac 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No reliable sources given for the balance of the conclusions in this pro-Shia POV essay. --Charlene 16:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't see where this is POV. Sure it's still substandard like many Islam related articles, especially on Hadith, but this can be recitified. Str1977 (smile back) 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The text isn't stridently POV, but the topicality of this strangely-titled article appears to constitute original research. Consider this Google seach for "Hadith of loving and hating"[1] - all results point back here or to Sahih Muslim, where the creator of this article added it himself[2] (the other listed sistes merely drawing content from Wikipedia.) The two sources used here (e.g. www.answering-ansar.org) mention only the verses, but not the phrase "hadith of loving and hating" or any similar concept. Perhaps there is a notable concept here, for which the creator has chosen an unusual translation. If so, it should be sourced and renamed. As it is, I see no evidence that the concept of "Hadith of loving and hating" exists outside Wikipedia.Proabivouac 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Maybe I should explain that I created this title only yesterday. Previously, the article was titled "Hadith of the equality of love and hatred" which is both misleading and horrid English. I merged the article "Hadith of loving and hating Ali" into the article and changed the title into the current one, which is at least a bit better linguistically. However, the title of Ali article seems uncommon as well, if you haven't found anything by that name (with or without Ali). Str1977 (smile back) 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Stong keep concept is very real and the hadith of Loving Ali is frequently referenced by Shi'as. And the article gives examples of the same for Umar and there are the same for the Ahl al-Bayt. --Striver - talk 19:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • May be you are right. I do not know it because I am sunni. But you should provide strong references (of secondary sources, not primary sources) in the start of the article. Otherwise, it looks like an original research based on some primary sources only. Also I do not understand that why you have to create so many partisan articles? These article are small enough to be merge as section in some other article. --- ALM 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with Striver creating partisan articles? Should we all make articles about stuff that bores us instead? — coelacan talk — 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The article do not have enough material to be justified as stand alone article. I do not support articles that are so small and also have no future to extend. Secondly without some secondary sources it is an original research. How you justify that article opening is not an original research?. These two are my reason for marking it for DELETE.
Now there is nothing wrong in term of wikipedia to create partisan article. I will NOT vote delete because they divide Muslims and I dislike them. However, yes I do dislike those articles. --- ALM 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of source material: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources." There are primary sources being used here, but there is no interpretation of their meaning going on. So claims of Wikipedia:No original research do not apply. There is some uncited commentary on how Sunnis and Shi'a view these Hadith, but that should be easy enough to cite, and it is a separate issue from the quotations of Hadith themselves. — coelacan talk — 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The start of the article is an original research. It says There are various Hadith that talk about loving or hating someone or something being equal to hating someone or something else. The most famous are the Hadith of loving and Ali. That is the base of the article. Do not you find it an orginal research without good references? One CANNOT have an article only on the bases of primary sources. Secondly we should not create article by grouping some Hadiths. Many hadiths are already group in seperate chapter in their original books. An article should be on real topics instead of topic created by collecting hadiths. --- ALM 03:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Otherwise, someone might create articles, Hadith of passing wind during prayer, Hadith of urinating towards Syria (they're in there), etc. We must establish that the subject of the article is notable and that the title is appropriate to the subject.Proabivouac 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's perfectly silly, but that's the way it goes. The notability and verifiability seem to be in place. A renaming might be in order? — coelacan talk — 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. It looks like an original research. We cannot use primary sources (of Hadith) to justify something without using some secondary sources. The first paragraph of the article is the base of the article and it looks like pure original research without any references. --- ALM 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Because on the sources provided by Striver. However, I will still prefer if we have one detailed article instead of so many small ones and we do NOT create articles by cherry picking some hadith. I will still not vote for keep. --- ALM 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Week Delete Comment Having an article on Primary source is not wrong but this article lacks secondary sources badly. The problem is that we can find heaps of Shia sources for this article, but almost no source from Sunni side, and hence article will always be imbalanced. (Note: giving a quote from Suyuti is not using his source. His source will be used properly if he comments on this hadith). TruthSpreaderreply 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Drivel. There's no requirement of balance. The requirement of WP:NPOV is that we cite what sources there are. If there's no Sunni sources, too bad, should have thought of that before the Internet was invented. There's no Islamic sources on the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh) so the article may indeed be unbalanced but what are you going to do? Her Pinkness still reigns. We can't cite Sunni sources that don't exist, and we can't be beholden to the fact that Sunnis didn't bother. You really ought to have run that argument through your hogwash filter one more time. — coelacan talk — 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Please have Good faith for others. No doubt your argument is convincing. Cheers! TruthSpreaderreply 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for being late, i had other issues to take care of. Thanks Coelacan for holding the stance, so that i wouldn't need to face the usualy bach of "delete" before starting.

  1. Long hadith from Sunni source quoted by Shi'as + secondary source comments on al-islam.org' Shi'a encyclopedia. Al-Islam.org is the Shi'a site that Google have given the highest page rank. [3]
  2. See above [4]
  3. "Both tawalla and tabarra have to be reflected in the way of life as obedience of the Holy Prophet and his Ahlul Bayt. Repeated utterances of expressions of love or hate do not constitute tawalla or tabarra unless such repeated utterances are intended as declaration of commitment. " [5]
  4. Al-Mamoon once asked him why the Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (A.S.) is called the divider of Paradise and of Hell, and how that attribute came to be applied to him. The Imam (A.S.) in turn asked him, "O commander of the faithful! Have you not narrated from your father from his forefathers quoting Abdullah ibn Abbas saying that he had heard the Messenger of God (S.A.W.) saying, `Loving Ali (A.S.) is iman, and hating him is kufr?'" Al-Mamoon answered in the affirmative, so the Imam (A.S.) said, "If the distribution of Paradise and of Hell is done according to loving or hating him, then he is the distributor of Paradise and of Hell." Al-Mamoon then said, "May God never permit me to live after your demise, O father of al-Hassan! I testify that you are the heir of the knowledge of the Messenger of God (S.A.W.)." from a Shi'a book about Ali al-Rida [6], [7], again on Al-Islam.org
  5. Muhammad al-Tijani quoting "Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him" and following up with a long commentary on his book Then I was Guided, again on Al-Islam.org [8].
  6. Peshawar Nights, chapter "AUTHORS WHO NARRATE HOLY PROPHET'S HADITH ABOUT HYPOCRITES' HATRED OF ALI", again on al-Islam.org [9]
  7. "So, those who love us cannot hate us and those who hate us cannot love us; and our love can never be combined with the love of our adversaries in one heart."... [10] in a book by Mulla Asgharali M. M. Jaffer [11], the former head of the World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities

I hope this will suffice to show that the concept is prominent in Shi'a literature and argumentation. --Striver - talk 12:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It could use improvement and references, but it's got the basics of a good article showing Shia and Sunni perspectives on the issue. Seems notable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Look closely, there are several different traditions referenced here, some of which have no direct relation to the others besides the juxtaposition of "love" against "hate" in relation to Ali. The organization and labelling of them as "Hadith of love and hatred" is a dubious basis for an article. Apparently, Striver has created a number of articles consisting of a single Hadith, e.g. Hadith of Uthman's modesty. The trouble is that Striver becomes Wikipedia's de facto interpreter and labeller of Islamic scripture. Because the articles are so short and distributed all over the place, it is difficult for other editors to exercize any oversight, or for readers to find the informtion they're looking for. I was going to suggest merging this one into Shi'a veneration for Ali, only to discover to my amazement that no such article exists. I am also amazed that there is no category for Shi'a Islam. It's desirable that this information is presented, but this method of (dis-)organization is appalling.Proabivouac 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - i really don't like having any of these "Hadith of..." articles, if there is a concept meriting discussion then surely it can be done in a manner other than this. i feel that almost all of these "Hadith of..." articles are simply proxies of Succession to Muhammad: extensions of sunni vs. shia internet polemics (used to 'prove' one set of beliefs over another) which we can do without. it wouldn't be fair, however, to opine "Delete" here whilst dozens of other similar articles currently exist and serve as a precedence for this one. the wider issue of such articles in general must be addressed. ITAQALLAH 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks that we've a significant problem on our hands: [12] (please do follow this link.) How can we delete any of them, if the existence of others is the defense for any particular one? Most (if not all) of these are attributable to one particularly energetic editor. The question is, how can we re-channel this energy into a policy-compliant direction? Deleting these articles must be a component of the solution. It's simply unacceptable for Wikipedia to serve as the platform for any one user's exegeses, however good-faith and worthy these might be.
While I personally have sympathies with the Shi'a perspective, it does seem that Itaqallah's "proxies" charge has validity. Articles which promote, implicitly or otherwise, any particular religion or religious faction are unacceptable.
The author seems well-intended and mostly fair-minded, but it is not up to any of us to designate the Shi'a view vs. the Sunni view, or the Muslim view vs. the non-Muslim view; this is an inherently and needlessly divisive way of structuring articles. Most of these are mostly uncited, and suffer from the same problems noted here.Proabivouac 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, isnt all hot Shi'a - Sunni topics in one way or another an extension of the Succession to Muhammad? I mean, even the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin are extension of it, even the succession to Abu Bakr is a extension to that. Why is the list of hadith being addressed as an unaccaptable extension, while all the battle and other controversies are viewed as acceptable? Isn't the point to show notable controvesies? I have already shown with ample evidence that this hadith is notable, and i can do the same with most other hadith i have created. And btw, please do remeber that i am not just "an energetic editor", i am the only active Shi'a editor, and i have the support of every single Shi'a editor on wikipedia. -Striver —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.64.242.133 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
I mean, somebody pointed out above that non-notable hadith are not worth having here on wikipedia, and i agree. So why is there anyone surprised that the notable hadith are the controversial, and that the controverisal are those that Shi'a and Sunnis do not agree on`?- striver

DeletePer nominationSefringle 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.