User talk:ALM scientist/Muhammad Edits

My Log
Book Issued Today I have issued following books from my University library. I might get more books later on.

1) Karen Armstrong, "Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet", Guernsey Press Co. Ltd, 1995, ISBN 0575062444

2) Martin Lings, "Muhammad: His life based on the earliest sources", Sohail Academy Lahore, 1994

3) D. S. Margoliouth, "Muhammad And the rise of Islam", 1985

4) Moulavi Cheragh Ali, "Jihad", Karimsons, 1977

5) Barakat Ahmad, "Muhammad and the Jews: A re-examination". 1979, ISBN 070690804X

6) Dr. Majid Ali Khan, "Muhammad The final Messanger", Islamic Book Services, 1998, ISBN 81-85738-25-4

--- Faisal 13:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Today I have issued 3 more books (without returning back any). The aim is to provide as many reference as possible. The books are.

7) Muhammad Husein Haykal, "The Life of Muhammad", Traslated from the 8th Edition by "Isma'il Ragi A. AL FARUQI", Islamic Book Trust Kuala Lumpur, 1993

8) Brig. (Rtd.) Gulzar Ahmed,"The Battles of The Prophet of Allah", Vol-1, The Umma Publishing House, 1975

9) Muhammad Bin-e-Abd-Al-Wahab, "Life of The Prophet in Brief", English translation by "Sharif Ahmad Khan", Adam Publishers & Distributors (Dehli 110006), 2002, ISBN 81-7435-192-2


 * Of these, only Margoliouth can qualify as a reliable source. Pecher Talk 15:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All of them has ISBN or could be found on the net, hence are reliable. --- Faisal 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Every book has an ISBN, but that doesn't mean that every book is reliable. There is lost of stuff that can be found on the Internet, but that doesn't mean that all of it is relaible. Quite the opposite: very little web stuff is suitable for Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That said, Margoliouth is, of course, a great scholar, but his works are somewhat dated: published in 1905, Muhammad and The Rise of Islam is not the best one can find. If you really want to use something in the article, look for more recent works. Pecher Talk 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

it is much rather nonsense to believe you can impose your standards of "reliability" by fiat. The claim that any of these books are or are not "reliable" must itself be referenced, viz. by referring to reviews. Prima facie, they are all alike citeable. dab (&#5839;) 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Dbachmann. BhaiSaab talk 01:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, the burden of proof lies on the editor who wants to add material. Dbachmann's "prima facie" is not an argument in favor of any of these sources. Among the authors here, Margoliouth is a great scholar, but he wrote 100 years ago and has been superseded by subsequent research; Armstrong is a popular writer, not a scholar, and her books are no better as a source than A Complete Idiot's Guide to Islam; Lings' work is Muslim hagiography; of the other authors, I know nothing. So, prima facie none of these books is citable. Pecher Talk 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I know all the extremely reliable scholars you use like Bat_Yeor, Bernard Lewis and Stillman are your reliable (favorite) sources. For me they are yucky biased and not-reliable. Even I can quote many people (with references) speaking against your sources. But that will not stop you from quoting them. Will it ???. Similarly I also do not care (like you) what you feel is reliable and what is not. --- Faisal 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Books less
I am once again without any English book on Muhammad (still have books on Urdu). It is because, I had to return all the books when leaving Pakistan for Germany. But soon I will visit local library and issue a new set of books in order to continue working on the Muhammad article. --- Faisal 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)