Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad's slaves

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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[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 And as reason given by User:Truthspreader on talk page that Zad al-Ma'ad is a historical document, and hence a primary source.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.

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

Comment Part of AfD rational is illogical - the claim that the Zad al-Ma'ad is a primary source because it is a historical document is illogical. The Zad al-Ma'ad was written by Ibn_al-Qayyim who lived around the mid 1200s i.e. over 600 years after Muhammad. It is all historical to us, yes, but the definition of primary source is one in which the document was created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied. This is obviously impossible so is it a secondary source ? Ibn_al-Qayyim was a "commentator" who would have used the Quran (a primary source) as well as Hadith and other stuff - it goes on. Anyway, Ibn_al-Qayyim though would be veiwing the events of the life of Muhammad from a historical perspective as it happened 600 or so years prior to his own life. The Zad al-Ma'ad (and other relevant works of Ibn_al-Qayyim) are thus historical works derived from primary sources and are thus secondary sources and if Ibn_al-Qayyim is accepted as a notable commentator then his works are notable secondary sources. Ttiotsw 20:26, 17 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 coderTalk 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)
  • 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)
  • Weak keep - I know of Victor A. Gunasekara (humanist, I'm an atheist thus the overlap) who has commented on this with e.g. http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/tr05manu.htm in which he says " After the slaughter of the men of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza, and the enslavement of the women and children, Muhammad took Rihana, the wife of the chief of the Clan as a concubine. Of this incident Gairdner asks: "What of Rihana, the beautiful Jewess, taken to Muhammad's tent on the very night of the slaughter, she with a face yet wet for a husband massacred in cold blood, he with a soul newly stained by the blood of that husband?".(19) Rihana later tried to poison Muhammad." The reference is Gairdner Reproach of Islam, p. 96-7.. This sounds that there is a bit more to this and it would be suitably encyclopedic for Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Ah yet another attempt to censor relevant material that has to do with Islam. Amoruso 14:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep--CltFn 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Slavery was neither something specific to Muhammad, nor other encyclopedias or books I've seen have such sections. Slavery was not a significant point in life of Muhammad that could deserve an article. Usually, we should have an article on something where it is a significant part of someone's life otherwise it is violation of undue weight policy. Slavery was practiced until recent times and was approved by all religions. --Aminz 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Islam is credited by many as reforming the lives and circumstances of slaves. This article should record the lives of the founder of Islam's own slaves. That other encyclopedias have no articles on this need not be a reason to reduce Wikipedia to the least common denominator. Ttiotsw 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Well, we have an article on Islam and slavery. I am afraid this article might touch the "easy association of slavery with Islam" issue discussed here [3] --Aminz 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Amoruso. -- Karl Meier 11:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article should be expanded on. I'm not sure about the title as well. Maybe "Slaves of Muhammad" is better. There are a lot of hadiths giving a lot of information on his slaves and so, this article can be more than just a list of his slaves.--Matt57 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment per my recent changed to the article, the topic is even more credible. There are actual articles on indevidual slaves. frummer 05:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable and sourced. Patstuarttalk|edits 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Muhammad. This article doesn't look like it has enough information to stand on its own. If it stays up, it needs a HUGE amount of work done on it. --Wizardman 15:36, 21 December 2006 (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.