Talk:Hadith of Jesus praying behind Mahdi

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

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)


 * ,, I'm jumping in here to say that you really need to address these concerns, or your reverts are without warrant and thus disruptive. , 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)
 * @Drmies I have no idea why we have to go through an RFC here to be frank. Why can't Mhhossein just give his opinion here on the talkpage? There is a long list of concerns, why is it required that an RFc be started when we haven't even discussed anything? I fail to see anything preventing hossein and nadeem from commenting here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why you jump into reverting! Wait please. Mhhossein (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein what? did you understand my comment btw? your response seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote. I have said that "there is nothing preventing you and nadeem from commenting on this TP and discussing these concerns, so why are you reverting me without even discussing the concerns on TP?". I have also said that as there has not been any discussion from you on TP then we should not have started the RFC. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you did not even read my comment! did you? you said: "there has not been any discussion from you on TP" or "Why can't Mhhossein just give his opinion here on the talkpage" so I asked you to wait for the coming comments. Mhhossein (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein cool. Usually editors start a discussion when reverting, and do not wait for like 24 hours and revert twice before being pinged by an admin who "kindly asks" them to start a discussion. But hey, no problem. I'll AGF here, let's get the ball rolling. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool! Do you really believe that FreeatlastChitchat "Usually starts a discussion when reverting"? Anyway, you could not have mass removed before gaining the consensus for removal. The removal was disputed by Nannadeem. By the way, such mass changes should be done with care. Mhhossein (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein Yes, I believe he does. This very discussion which you are being forced to go through was started by freeatlast before he reverted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the BRD cycle, Freeatlast should open talk page discussion, sure. However, the two quick and easy reverts by Mhhossein and Nannadeem were less than collegial, IMO, and looked a bit like tag-team edit warring. An RfC is a way to settle these things, but it has to be done carefully and neutrally. Another way, Freeatlast, is to make more smaller changes, since it's easier to fight more smaller fights, with less chance of a discussion being derailed. Again, what you all need is more experts, more participants. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @FreeatlastChitchatThis was my purpose (discuss, build consensus), you can see my comments during deletion discussion too. Any how long discussion is under progress.   I could not participate timely due to my personal business. @ Drmies You are requested to recollect his reverts and his objections which are same as were placed for page deletion.  In this scenario I think it is not justified to revert the 70-80% contents without discussing first. Nannadeem (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies: He should learn that, there is some where called talk page which is dedicated to discussions and editors should build consensus before making such mass removals. By the way, I've no idea about Nannadeem's reverts. I was doing what I though was correct. Mhhossein (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not everything needs to be discussed on the talk page first. If that were the case no one would be editing this encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The result was keep (of 16 January-2016). A keep outcome reflects a rough consensus to retain.  Here deletion nominator deletes 70-80% contents, just after closing of deletion discussion.  He should prefer   placing WP:TC to honor the WP:CON.  By the way,  if  I label a prefix of “Pro” to any user;  will it be justifiable per norm of WP? Nannadeem (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies:I emphasized on "such mass removals", as you see. I did not mean "every edit needs to be discussed". Mhhossein (talk) 05:18, 26 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)
 * Please see my comments below. If removing a plainly helpful and brief introduction to the Hadith might have anything to do with your recent deletion nomination FreeatlastChitchat, that would be understandable, but also not appropriate. Many articles on literary works have introductions that explain the general form, and that's a good thing, since many readers will come to these without that crucial information. -Darouet (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Darouet that we should provide a background for those readers who are "without that crucial information". I also believe that we should have it as short as possible, but not shorter. Mhhossein (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC for sourcing
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. Those who comment here can format their comments into two options if they like. They can use a bullet list to make two sentences like this FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 [Hadith]. 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.
 * "source 1,2,3,4.....is bad and should be removed"
 * "source 5,6,7,8.....is good and should be kept"

Addressing the sources

 * 1) Per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." So, instead of removing the whole materials by this author you should have only used " use in-text attribution to the source...," as the policy suggests.
 * 2) Reference to Quran???
 * 3) Using primary sources for such quotes is not OR provided that a secondary sources is also used besides. As you see, a secondary source is used there.
 * 4) Even if it's a hate book and hence biased, per WP:BIASED, the book by Allamah Rizvi can be used. As you see, attribution is done. By the way, the only thing used from the sources is the quote pasted there.
 * 5) I agree that the next primary sources (Sahih Muslim, Musnad of Hanbal and Soyuti) should be removed unless a secondary source is found to explain the quoted material.
 * 6) As you said here is verified that "Nuzul Isa Bin Maryam Akhir al-Zaman" is by Jalal al-Din Soyuti.
 * 7) No idea about the "Fara'id al-Simtayn. p. 43." and "Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah". They could have been added from a secondary source. I don't object their removal.
 * 8) You can get more info about the refs used to write "A Shi'ite Encyclopedia" here. Mhhossein (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein I think you have misunderstood what the concerns are
 * I am not talking about WP:BIASED. I am talking about the policy WP:FRINGE which says that conspiracy theories should not be given undue space. Perhaps if the article is long enough and the theory is notable enough we can give a sentence or two somewhere in the article, but certainly not the lede. The concern is not that the source is biased, the source is WP:FRINGE and therefore WP:UNDUE to be mentioned in the lede.
 * Reference to Quran. These were removed by an IP so no longer in the text.
 * You say that "Using primary sources for such quotes is not OR provided that a secondary sources is also used besides. As you see, a secondary source is used there". It still does not justify violating WP:QUOTEFARM.
 * You say "Even if it's a hate book and hence biased, per WP:BIASED, the book by Allamah Rizvi can be used. As you see, attribution is done. By the way, the only thing used from the sources is the quote pasted there." Even then we should remove this because firstly we will need another source to create balance if we use this source. And secondly, what he says is not even required. The hadith says that imam of muslims will lead jesus in prayers. This guys says the exact same thing, it is not an explanation or anything, just a copy paste. So no actual need for him to be there. The statement has no encyclopedic value.
 * You can get more info about the refs used to write "A Shi'ite Encyclopedia" here. I did not mean the refs used in the encyclopedia lol. I meant that the article just says "Shi'ite encyclopedia". It does not give any reference as to which article in that encyclopedia we should look at, and which page that article is on.
 * FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FreeatlastChitchat note that:
 * I agree that we should not insert fringe theories in the articles as facts. But we are not here putting a fringe theory into the article, are we? We are not reflecting a minority viewpoint!
 * I'm also against WP:QUOTEFARM. I said that I dont object removal of the the materials from Fara'id al-Simtayn. p. 43." and "Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah".
 * "because firstly we will need another source to create balance if we use this source [the source by Rizvi]," is not policy based! if it's not balanced add a balancing sentence. By the way, what he says is an explanation for the quoted hadith from Bukhari. As you see, the sentence begins by "...Rizvi quotes the above tradition in his book and ... ."
 * We can easily find which article of the "Shi'ite encyclopedia" is used, no need to remove it. You removed it just because of this? Mhhossein (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein so in principle you agree with everything that I wrote except
 * The quote by Rizi
 * The Adnan Okhtar source
 * The Shiite encyclopedia
 * Please reply with affirmative so that we can discuss these further and mark others as resolved. Ty FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think the suyuti source is also reliable. Mhhossein (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein ok so four concerns left in all others we are agreeing to delete until better sourcing can be found. ok with you? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it's OK. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment
 * The Hadith collections are primary sources and therefor the secondary sources which endorse them should be added.
 * Al-Suyuti is clearly reliable scholar. There is not any criteria which enforces us to use the sources which are available on the internet. There is some information about this book.
 * Shia encyclopedia looks unreliable. However, I suggest to review it and check the authenticity of its author.
 * Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi is an authentic scholar to introduce Shia viewpoint. However, I prefer to use Ali Al-Kourani's work "The lexicon substantive Ahadith of Imam Mahdi " which is available in Arabic. He has reviewed all of the Shia and Sunni Hadith in his book. -- Seyyed(t-c) 07:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Seyyed According to your information given here we may be able to acept the source, but even then the statement given in the article is not an "interpretation" of the hadith. It gives no encyclopedic benefit. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not written it. You can add a tag which for clarification :-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If I may: I don't know where this fits in, but there is no way that this or this are ever going to be accepted as reliable sources, and that they were brought up at the AfD is kind of embarrassing. Three others were linked, and at first glance they looked fine, but adding such sources seriously lowers the bar. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this were a medical or (life) science-related wiki-article, none of the current sources would pass WP:MEDRS. Those wiki-articles are usually very strict in what is and what is not reliable, with an emphasis on: secondary literature (reviews), written by relevant academics and experts, published in reputable journals by respected publishers. These criteria ensure that such sources have been reviewed by a knowledgable third party, so that weird and wrong stuff is kept out. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, if the quotefarm and all irrelevant background is removed, there is not much left. An option would be to merge the remainder into another article (e.g. Islamic eschatology). It is after all the event that is discussed here, and not the hadith itself (so we're essentially dealing with a WP:COATRACK). - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Can't see how you can actually apply wp:fringe with any reasonable basis. We are talking religion. WP:Fringe was not created to block religious views because the individual is a conspiracy theory. Religion lacks the falsifiability of science. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the removal of these sources as per FreeatlastChitchat in the opening of the RfC. Jeppiz (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No change based on this mess of an RfC. This is not how to do an RfC.  It should ask one question, e.g. "should we use  version of this passage in this article (based on this sourcing), or  one, based on that sourcing?"  Another example might be "Is Claim X supported by enough reliable sources?".  Another:  "Is Source Y too unreliable to use in this article in this way?"  A laundry list of unrelated complaints, each given a line-item, and some invective, but no demonstration, about multiple sources and claims, just ends up looking like "this article sucks, and I should get my version just because I can complain more". I don't see coatrack at all. There's a lead, there's a helpful overview of what hadith are and why they matter, followed by samples of these hadith and their translations; then a section on interpretations. It's entirely valid to include primary-sourced interpretations here (and they will be biased almost by definition), provided they're attributed, balanced against each other, none are given WP:UNDUE weight, the claims they make are not presented by WP as facts but as viewpoints, and the person issuing an interpretation actually matters to an encyclopedia audience (i.e., is reputable in some branch of Islam, in Abrahamic religious studies, etc., and is not just some random dude at some random mosque or school).  There are various potential fault points in this article, and if some can be identified, they should be addressed individually, whether it be incorrect description of what hadith are, incorrect translation, alleged hadith that are not actually accepted as such, or interpretation material from misc. bloggers no one cares about, or misinterpreted/miscast interpretations (e.g. selective and misleading quoting).  Yes, the A Shi'ite Encyclopedia citation needs to be completed, but as this is a published work available in many libraries and available through inter-library loan, so WP:V is probably satisfied that the point in question is source just not yet entirely source. This is a textual analysis article, which will necessarily quote texts. That does not make it a WP:QUOTEFARM. It looks like one, because someone is abusing a pull quote template, against its own documentation and MOS:QUOTE, to present block quotations. I would go fix that myself, but it's built into the  template, so it would need to get fixed there. I certainly oppose merging this article away, since the topic is of encyclopedic interest in its own right. (I say that as an agnostic, with near-zero interest in Biblical and Q'ranic matters, but thinking of the public interest.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing "Background" section
I have no comment for the moment on the edit war over the inclusion or exclusion of text from this Hadith.

But, in response to that edit war, here removed the "background" content that I had added. The content is sourced and links to the main article for Hadith, giving readers (like me) an introduction to what a Hadith is. I see no reason for the removal of this content, especially since it wasn't an issue in the edit war, and no justification has been given for its removal. -Darouet (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just saw your comments above. I disagree with the contention that because other articles fail to introduce the Hadith, this article should therefore replicate that omission. I was reading a series of our articles on Shakespeare's sonnets recently and all of them include some kind of short introduction to the idea of a sonnet, and Shakespeare's sonnets particularly. This is useful for the many readers who come to these articles without any knowledge of Hadith or sonnets. -Darouet (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good extracts of a long discussion. Nannadeem (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Would keep at least a summary of that background material. It's important for readers who are not steeped in this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

last four concerns
@Mhhossein has agreed with all of my concerns about sourcing except four. Therefore I am creating this new section to separate this discussion from the long discussion. This is merely an effort to make the TP look clean. The discussion is not effected by this cosmetic change. I will list the concerns and give my input and request Mhhossein to comment. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The first concerns is The quote by Rizi. The quote reads "This refers to the fact that prophet Jesus (a.s.) will not lead in the prayer, but the Imam of the Muslims who will leading them will lead in the prayers, and prophet Jesus will follow him." You can clearly see that this adds nothing to the encyclopedia. Everything that is given in this quote is already in the hadith. The hadith describes this saying "Mahdi reappears and Isa bin Maryam descends to the earth and recites prayer behind His Eminence." Thus the quote adds no extra information. Any other day this will be borderline fine, but here we are using a highly biased source and as per policy at WP:BIASED we will now have to insert another source to create balance in the article, which is of course a hassle to be frank and does nothing for the content. Therefore I want to remove this. You have said that there is nothing in policy which says that we should have two sources when one is biased. According to the policy guideline "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." In my view this is one of the times when we can just exclude this in order to save the hassle. Just consider what happens to the article when we remove this. Does it suffer? The simple answer is No! The article does not lose any information whatsoever. So why go through all this?
 * 2) The Second concern is the Adnan Okhtar source. [Adnan Oktar] is a conspiracy theory writer and most of his writings fall under WP:FRINGE and this is no exception. The number 29 given by him is not supported by any mainstream source. This may sound incredulous to some people and they may ask "The article is about hadith of Jesus praying behind Mahdi, shouldn't we give the number of hadith saying so?" But the fact of the matter is that muslims have yet to agree upon what is a hadith. The Shi'ites do not believe in Sunni hadith and Sunnis do not believe in Shia hadith, so is this number from Shia traditions or Sunni ones? Had he been a mainstream writer his opinion would have been accepted but a conspiracy theory writer giving such a nebulous opinion falls under WP:FRINGE and should be removed. Furthermore this is not something which can be "remedied", unless ofc Shias and Sunnis accept each others hadith, it is therefore not unusual that even great scholars have never given out numbers like this. Rather they have always said, this subject is discussed this number of times in that specific book or by that specific sect.
 * 3) The third concern is the Shiite encyclopedia. I am sure that you have misunderstood me till now, so please bear with me. My concern is not the sourcing and references used by the encyclopedia itself. My main concern is that first of all we have no idea where in the encyclopedia this article is. for example if I cite the source "BRILL" in an article about "Islam" the underlying meaning is that this information is found under the article "Islam" in brills encyclopedia and to make life easier I will most probably give page number and volume number, maybe even include a direct link to the article. However life has not been made easier here. We have no Idea which article in the Shi'ite encyclopedia gives information on this subject, there is no page number, no direct link. The link provided by hossein leads to a very clumsy search thingy which is no help at all. So we should remove this as a source at least until someone can pinpoint as to exactly where this information is coming from.
 * 4) The fourth concern is about the book by AL-Suyuti. I have already said that I have been unable to find any record of this book giving the information cited to it. To be frank there is ample evidence that the book does not even exist in its original form these days. A reliable library gives this information about the book. now take a look at the bottom. Those three lines explain it all.  Even they do not have reprint of the original, rather it is the personal interpretation by Abdul Qadir, who appears to be some sort of in house researcher. Now I am ok with allowing non digital sources, but we cannot even prove that this book exists. So seeing this kind of dubious and suspicious attribution, I would like to remove this as a source. Secondly, let us for a minute examine what information has been used from the book. The book has been used to source the statement that "I have heard some of the deniers of (truth) deny what has been conveyed about Jesus that when he descends will pray the Fajr prayer behind al-Mahdi. They say, Jesus has higher status than to pray behind a non-Prophet. This is a bizarre opinion since the issue of prayer of Jesus behind al-Mahdi has been proven strongly via numerous authentic traditions from the Messenger of Allah, who is the most truthful." What exactly does it add to the article? Nothing to be frank. the gist of what he is saying is that "there are many hadith which say that Jesus will pray behind Mahdi". But there is no dispute about that why the explanation? It is like a person editing the Obama article and adding "there are numerous sources which say that Obama will go to sleep tonight". The matter is not even under dispute. In a nutshell a source whose very existence is dubious should not be used. It must be kept in mind that i am not questioning SUYUTI. I repeat, Suyuti is not being questioned here. He is a scholar and he may have written this book, the matter under discussion is that there is no way a wikipedia editor could have access to what he wrote.
 * Although I think we'd better change the wording and turn the qoute by Rizvi into the inline text, I should say that the quote by Rizvi is not mentioned to repeat the hadith, rather it's used to further explain a hadith by Abu hurayrah saying:"...What will be your condition when the son of Mary will come down... ." Allamah Rizvi is making his conclusion. If it's ommited, the relationship between Abu hurayrah's hadith and the subject of the article is nonsense. How can you call this source "highly biased'?
 * On Adnan Okhtar's source, you're concluding based on a wrong assumption that "The Shi'ites do not believe in Sunni hadith and Sunnis do not believe in Shia hadith." Where did you find it? By the way, if there were any mainstream sources saying there are total of 3 (or any number much larger or samller than 29) hadiths, then we could say that Okhtar's opinion is against the mainstream sources. Even if it was the case and the number reported by mainstream sources were much different, we could still mention Okhtar's viewpoint and attribute the number 29 to him. Also, even if it was a fringe theory (which I believe is not) we can't remove it because per policy, "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." There's no mention of removing them, we should be careful not give undue weight to them.
 * On "Shiite encyclopedia" source, as I said before and it showed how I exactly understood what you mean, one may easily search for the quoted text to find out what article is used. I did, and I can say that the "Sunni Documentation on Imam al-Mahdi (as)" is the mentioned article. Did you aim to remove this only for this?
 * On the Suyuti source, as the library and some other reliable books say, the book do exist! It really esixts. the infobox says that the author is Suyuti, it's repeated 2 times. The world Abdul ghader is seen in "دراسه و تحقیق محمد عبدالقادر", which is not an author! The existence of the book is also verified here. Both of the links verify that the book is printed in Beirut in 1985. OF course it makes an important change to the article. It's presenting a notable information on the hadith! Sompe people say that "...Jesus has higher status than to pray behind a non-Prophet," which is rejected by Suyuti. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein here are my thoughts. I would like to call in Jeppiz and Drmies to give thier input as I am getting a bit tired of explaining the same thing over and over again. Plus there appears to be lack of basic Islamic knowledge on your part so perhaps that is the reason this has been dragged so far. Anyway here goes.
 * Abu hurrairahs hadith is The Subject of this article, what "relationship" is being established here? Please explain how a copy paste of the hadith "establishes relationship". The article is titled "hadith of Jesus praying behind Mahdi". A hadith is quoted which says that Jesus will pray behind Mahdi. Rizvi says "Yeah that's right! Jesus will pray behind Mahdi". Now what "encyclopedic benefit" does one derive from this statement? Is it an explanation? No! Is it then an interpretation of some subtle point? No! Does it then perhaps paraphrase a long narration for the benefit of our readers? No! So when some quote gives zero benefit to wikipedia, whats wrong with removing it?
 * When you deny the statement that different schools and sects have different hadith collections, I am not sure whether you have the knowledge and competence necessary to participate in anything related to the topic of hadith or not. This is one of the very basics in hadith literature, that different sects have different hadith books. The wikipedia article on Hadith is very, very clear about this and devotes almost 38% of the text to discussion of these differences. Now how is one supposed to argue against you when you deny things like this. Furthermore I am not, I repeat I am NOT against including Fringe theories. But statements by Fringe guys which are so out of this world have no place in such a small article, and especially NOT in the lede. You want to put in a fringe theory, just make sure its not undue weight first like this theory.
 * The Shiite encyclopedia you quote does not give the Shia viewpoint at all, rather it is being used as a source for Sunni views. Let me just /facepalm here please. Sourcing a Sunni view to a Shia book, and on top of that a Shia encyclopedia it beyond ridiculous. This is like sourcing the views of Christians to Kabbalah texts or the Midrash.
 * You say that "some people say Jesus has higher status than to pray behind a non-Prophet". Who are these so called people btw? The article makes zero reference to them and neither are they available for comment in any google books. As far as I know there are no such people. Perhaps you will be kind enough to enlighten us as to who these people are and where in reliable sources their views are quoted? You say that Abdul Ghader is not the author, while the infobox clearly states in the last two lines that even though the original author is Suyuti, the author of the book in possession of this library is Abdul Ghader who wrote a "study" and the research on the original. I would like to again repeat that this is beyond suspicious and the encyclopedic benefit of keeping this borderline hoax is literally zero. We have not given the viewpoint of the "people" whose statement is being rejected, and to be frank it appears to be comical that we do not give a statement but give its rejection.
 * FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also am getting a bit tired of explaining the same thing over and over again. Your nominations and evaluation of the sources clearly show that your "basic Islamic knowledge" is very little, if not zero. Mhhossein (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude just read the article on Hadith. It makes it absolutely clear that different sects use different collections. Jut give it a quick read please. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per my comment above, I can't support any changes based on this RfC, which does not follow many if any of the instructions at WP:RFC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)