Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of expeditions of Muhammad


 * 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. There is consensus that the article at least can be rewritten to comply with the policies; the rest is content dispute. The oppose arguments that the article is insulting to Islam were ignored since they are irrelevant according to WP:N. The separate expedition papers were not properly discussed, and, whereas technically kept, there is no prejudice against separate renomination those of them which look problematic.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

List of expeditions of Muhammad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Xtremedood nominated this but could not finish it, I will let him fill this in Misconceptions2 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like you just couldn't wait for me to finish posting the opening. Xtremedood (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a multitude of issues with these articles and the author of these articles.

Issues with the Article:

The user, Misconceptions2, has dedicated a lot of effort at creating a significant sum of articles, which consist of his own original research (WP:NOR), involves a large sum of misattribution of sources, is slanderous, violates WP:NPOV and is non academic in nature, but rather rehashes materials from notable hate sites like wikiislam.net. The following article List of expeditions of Muhammad was first published by him, with non-academic and biased materials. This article was simply a repost of his previously deleted articles, “List of killings of Muhammad (discussion over here, and ) and Muhammad and assassinations (discussion over here ), which were all deleted. The article is also largely copied from the notoriously anti-Islamic website, www.wikiislam.net, which over here, , consists of much of the same materials and slanderous original research, which are not accurate. There are many articles; however, they all consist of similar biases by the user, similar original research, and similar misattribution of sources for biased and slanderous statements. There are many examples, however, I will give you a few: For example, according to the article Caravan raids, Misconceptions2 starts out as saying “The raids were generally offensive” and attributes this to William Montgomery Watt, in his book “Muhammad Prophet and Statesman”, a PDF version can be found here. However, according to page 105 of the book, Watt states “''In our peace-conscious age it is difficult to understand how a religious leader could thus engage in offensive war and become almost an aggressor. The first thing to be said in explanation of Muhammad’s behaviour is that the raid or razzia was a normal feature of Arab desert life. It was a kind of sport rather than war.''”

This is Watt’s personal interpretation regarding a question posed by presumably Western critics. No where does he state that the majority of the Caravan Raids were offensive. This is a clear misattribution of the sources. This is a common tactic used by WikiIslam.net editors. The section "Muhammad's order and reason for expedition" in List of expeditions of Muhammad, is also very biased, limited, and largely consists of original research.

There is also an extremely heavy reliance on primary sources. As seen here, the articles heavily rely on an approximately 1200-1300 year old text,  called “The life of Muhammad: a translation of Isḥāq's Sīrat rasūl Allāh” translated by Alfred Guillaume. This source is not valid according to No_original_research and is heavily used throughout the articles as well.

issues with the user: As we can deduce from this history of this user, he appears to have an immense enthusiasm of posting materials from Wikiislam.net, using primary sources he interprets himself/herself, misattributes sources throughout the articles, and engages in sock-puppetry to promote his ideas. Although the topics are interesting, the articles have remained largely unchanged from when Misconceptions2 first published them, and therefore they should be deleted in accordance with Blow it up and start over. I request impartial, neutral and rational editors to read books such as, Afzalur Rahman’s “Muhammad As a Military Leader” and others, which give completely different insight of these expeditions, rather than what the author of these articles is stating.
 * The user is a notorious sockpuppet and has been blocked for sockpuppetry in the past, see here.
 * The user also has a strong history of writing articles that violates WP:NPOV.
 * The user also refers to fringe and prominent anti-Islamic personalities with the following statement, over here : "these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"". The user has a history of using sources such as Ali Sina, Faith Freedom, Islam Watch, etc. which are known hate sites.
 * note: Ali Sina refers to himself as the most anti-Islamic person alive (clearly not neutral), as sourced here . Ali Sina has a militantly anti-Islamic agenda. Sina also has strong links with Pamela Geller.
 * note 2: Robert Spencer in a statement expresses fringe and overly-generalized views about Islam and Muslims. An example of this may be seen in his statement "It [Islam] is a religion or a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society ... because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.", as quoted and sourced over here.
 * note 3: Geert Wilders has called for the militant and forced expulsion of millions of Muslims from Western countries.
 * This user uses generalized statements aimed towards Muslims, see here “ . This is indicative of a battlefield mentality, of us versus them.

Other articles of his, which also consist of immense bias, violate NPOV, consists of OR, rely heavily on primary sources and have largely remained unchanged since Misconceptions2 has added materials to them include:

Caravan raids, Nejd Caravan Raid, Expedition of 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik, Expedition of Abdullah Ibn Unais, Expedition of Al Raji, The Mission of Amr bin Umayyah al-Damri, Expedition of Bir Maona, Expedition of Dhat al-Riqa, Invasion of Badr, Invasion of Dumatul Jandal, Expedition of Muhammad ibn Maslamah, Second Raid on Banu Thalabah, Invasion of Banu Lahyan, Raid on al-Ghabah, Expedition of Dhu Qarad, Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Al-Jumum), Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Al-Is), Third Raid on Banu Thalabah, Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Hisma), Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Wadi al-Qura), Invasion of Banu Mustaliq, Expedition of Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Expedition of Fadak, Expedition of Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri, Expedition of Abdullah ibn Rawaha, Conquest of Fadak, Third Expedition of Wadi al Qura, Expedition of Umar ibn al-Khatab, Expedition of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, Expedition of Bashir Ibn Sa’d al-Ansari (Fadak), Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Mayfah), Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Fadak), Expedition of Bashir Ibn Sa’d al-Ansari (Yemen), Expedition of Ibn Abi Al-Awja Al-Sulami, Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid), Expedition of Shuja ibn Wahb al-Asadi, Expedition of Ka’b ibn 'Umair al-Ghifari, Expedition of Amr ibn al-As (not started by Misconceptions, however, current version is largely of his doing), Expedition of Abu Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah, Expedition of Abi Hadrad al-Aslami, Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Khadirah), Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam), Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Nakhla), Raid of Amr ibn al-As, Raid of Sa'd ibn Zaid al-Ashhali, Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Banu Jadhimah), Expedition of At-Tufail ibn 'Amr Ad-Dausi, Battle of Autas (not started by Misconceptions2, but current version is largely of his doing), Expedition of Abu Amir Al-Ashari, Expedition of Abu Musa Al-Ashari, Siege of Ta'if (not started by Misconceptions2, but current version is largely of his doing), Expedition of Uyainah bin Hisn, Expedition of Qutbah ibn Amir, Expedition of Dahhak al-Kilabi, Expedition of Alqammah bin Mujazziz, Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Expedition of Ukasha bin Al-Mihsan (Udhrah and Baliy), Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Dumatul Jandal), Expedition of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar, Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (2nd Dumatul Jandal), Expedition of Surad ibn Abdullah, Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Najran), Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Mudhij), Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan), Demolition of Dhul Khalasa, Expedition of Usama bin Zayd.

The articles created by Misconceptions2 should be deleted in accordance with Blow it up and start over, since the articles contain an incredible amount of bias, an incredible amount of OR, an incredible amount of materials from Anti-Islamic sites, and an almost total lack of academic secondary sources.

For users uninformed about the matter, here is an online version of the Sealed Nectar (commonly used by the author) in PDF, Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad" in PDF , which contradict much of the articles. The articles are far beyond repair at this moment and need to be deleted and rebuild. I do not want to see Wikipedia turned into an Islamophobic hate site with content rehashed from wikiislam, faithfreedom, Islam-watch and other Islamophobic websites. I would much rather advocate for a more academic focus on the articles, not marred by bias, misinformation and prejudice. Xtremedood (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * write here, which source used is fake? which source used contradicts whats written in article. Thats a serious allegation.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep- Well sourced with multiple reliable academic sources. Controversial is not a reason to keep it out, it is a reason to keep it in, it demonstrates notability. The nominator has said the same about an entire group of articles and has engaged in a user attack. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. Can we please discuss the issue of notability of this article instead of throwing around epithets like "anti-Islamic" and "Islamophobic"? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Xtremedood" (nice user name if you're going to be duking it out with ideological opponents on wiki) seems to be conflating a content issue and a user conduct issue. This page is about the merits of a specific topic, not about the conduct of a user contributing to it. If the user posted biased material in the past, learned a lesson and went on to compile a properly sourced article, so much the better, it would mean our system worked. If there is anything fundamentally wrong with a page about "expeditions by Muhammad" sourced on the Quran and Hadith, this would be the place to bring up such objections. Tbh, I do not see any such problem, we have list articles on much more contrived topics. --
 * "Wikipedia turned into an Islamophobic hate site" is not the proper way to address this, and if "Xtremedood" wants to be at all taken seriously, he should reconsider his rhetorical approach asap. This is pure name-calling. It is a fact that the hadith among other things contains accounts of the military exploits of Muhammad. This does not make the hadith an "Islamophobic" document, this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not going to emulate the triumphalistic tone taken by early Islam, neither is it going to suggest such conquest was evil or barbarian, it is just going to report such conquest happened, and report on the triumphalism of the conquerors and the disastrous fate of the conquered, you know, as part of history, as in "stuff that happened to be recorded". If this is "Islamophobic", then Islam itself is "Islamophoic". dab (𒁳) 07:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not well-sourced with academic materials. Rather, it is a culmination of biased and non-impartial statements made by the user which clearly violate WP:NPOV, using sources that often violate WP's policies regarding primary sources or are misattribution of sources, whose authors did not say what Misconceptions2 is implying. The user has dedicated a lot of effort at posting clearly biased materials, which are often contradict what the sources indicate or state. The hadiths are primary sources, compiled approximately 1300 years ago. Using such sources and interpreting based on your own interpretation violates WP policies. I have studied a variety of his articles, and they are not what academic sources such as Afzalur Rahman, Haykal, and others say. This requires a lot of research and a biased user like Misconceptions2 is spreading a lot of misinformation and non-neutral content. Xtremedood (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To add, clearly Misconceptions2 has not learned anything from his period of being blocked. In a recent statement of his he states (over here ) "I feel the decision to delete data on this topic by 3 people: user:Eperoton, User:Al-Andalusi, User:CounterTime should be looked at again. This is because I worry there maybe a conflict of interest since they are Muslim and the article is about their religion. I worry because the decision to remove the data was made entirely by the above 3 people ALONE and since all 3 are Muslims there is possible bias?". Not only is there no proof that these users are necessarily Muslims, he also demonstrates a biased battlefield mentality, which is indicative of an us versus them approach. He clearly seems to have something against Muslims. This is not a user who should be publishing so many articles related to the central figure of Muslims. This negativity towards Muslims appears to have passed on to the articles he has published and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. Xtremedood (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of the sources used here are by muslims themselves. I did learn lessons. i did NOT use any fringe websites or anti Islamic sources. Most are academic. Tell me fake source used and i will look into it. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Since Misconceptions2 posted before I finalized the opening paragraphs, I suspect my delete vote may not be registered in the afd stats, so I am going to post my vote here. Xtremedood (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not worry, this is not a vote or democratic process. Also why do a "User attack", kettle calling pot black??--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have shown that you are not a qualified user to be making such articles. Your biases, your misattribution of sources within these articles, your immense usages of primary sources, your OR, and the fact that you are reusing materials from a well-known anti-Islamic (non-neutral) source shows that these articles are not fit to be in WP. Xtremedood (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  12:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I give up with you. I told you to name anti islamic sources. You won't. Or do you mean the Unviersity published books are the anti islamic sources?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Following comment by Misconceptions2, moved by Xtremedood because it was placed in the opening, when it does not belong there:

"Which anti islamic site has been used? Most of the sources used are Muslim soruces like The Sealed Nectar--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)"

and

"1. It is Muslims scholars who say that most of Muhammad's raid were offensive. Please see: http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm by a Muslim scholar who outlined which were offensive and which were not. He lists 80%+ as offensive.

2. "The life of Muhammad: a translation of Isḥāq's Sīrat rasūl Allāh” translated by Alfred Guillaume" is a primary source. You are right. Thats why it has been mostly used in the primary source column. The source is significant and relevant because its the earliest existing biography of Muhammad used by Muslim scholar Ibn Ishaq. All secondary sources use primary sources for the basis of what they wrote. Some have used this, some have used others. It only makes sense to mention this in the article in the primary sources column. Its not like I used it as a source for the text written here. Its a source for the text written in secondary sources !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)"
 * The source you indicated does not say that. The source is also not a published source, the website is not reliable according to Identifying reliable sources. It is not academic and not related to the statement. The point is that you sourced Watt as the source for this statement, when Watt clearly did not say that. This shows that you are misattributing sources, which shows an immense bias. Also, your reliance on primary sources, over here are typically without a secondary source. For example you can look at Ibn Ishaq's source, which is not accompanied with a secondary source. You also heavily rely on other primary sources such as Tabari, the Hadiths, etc. which are 1000+ year old texts. They are typically not accompanied with secondary sources in your articles. Xtremedood (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a PDF version of the Sealed Nectar . Looking through your articles it is clear that the Sealed Nectar does not state what you include in your articles. You have a tendency of picking and choosing certain passages which conform with your own POV, while ignoring or neglecting positive passages and passages which do not adhere to your POV. Xtremedood (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I told you I give up with you. i need examples of where the source does not back up what is written. Otherwise please do not reply back to me--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to effectively engage in the talk page has prompted other editors to be suspicious of your intentions and is causing editors to disengage. This is not an effective manner of discourse to adhere to. Xtremedood (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Afd is the wrong location to resolve a content dispute. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The content literally spans nearly several dozen articles. This justifies Blow it up and start over, which states: "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over." The extreme POV, bias, and misinformation is so much that it deserves a restart. Not to mention it is simply a rehash of two already deleted articles which are List of killings of Muhammad and Muhammad and assassinations. See above for the deletion discussions. Also, the user was once indefinitely banned, but was allowed to operate again. Xtremedood (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. All else aside, this fails WP:LISTN, in that few reliable sources seem to focus on the group or set of expeditions by independent reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know a lot of content has been removed from this article user:Aquillion ? It had content, it was removed. This is a content issue--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of them would have solved the core problem, though. You need sources that refer to expeditions by Muhammad as a group to justify a list like this; throwing a bunch of unrelated sources together without that risks becoming original research. --Aquillion (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Source 1 which lists as a group Source 2 which lists as a group Source 3 which lsits as a group, type Ghazwah Source 4 which lists a group, ordered chronologically year by year, starting page 3 from saudi arabian government website Theres more going on here. The content has simply been removed. '''In fact user:Aquillion, theres an entire Islamic science on expeditions of Muhammad called: Maghazi, It deals entirely with military expeditions. Books dedicated only to this group !!!'''--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC) "In general, the word maghāzī means raiding expeditions, primarily for the sake of plunder. But as a literary technicality, it is specifically applied to the accounts of the early Muslim military expeditions in which the Prophet took part" Some famous Maghazi primary sources dedicated entirely to this group/list/topic: I also have already given links to some modern Maghazi books already. A lot of Muhammad's old and new biographies also have a section dedicated to "Maghazi"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For more information on entire books, sources, literature dedicated to this topic and list please research Maghazi, example see: The Maghāzī literature. I quote--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC):
 * 1) Ibn Ishaq Sirat Rasul Allah
 * 2) Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr
 * 3) Al-Waqidi Kitabl al Maghazi
 * 4) Tons of early Muslim scholars who specialized on Maghazi here
 * Canvassing - Note canvassing has been taking place here. So we may see a lot of ip address accounts and SPA's. Just a heads up. If you have been asked to do anything on this article outside wikipedia, please do not. If you were please use the talk page and not this page if you want to give an opinion.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Coming here from WP:COIN, which declines to deal with the issue, since it's not really a conflict of interest problem. The article has content problems and battleground problems, but it's about a subject of significant historical importance.  Deletion is thus not the answer. Yes, this article is going to be a headache. Wikipedia can handle it.  John Nagle (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable issue and a well referenced article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the current version was from the changes done by user:CounterTime, whereas the version created by Misconceptions2 had a lot of flaws (mentioned above). Now the focus should be on the individual articles created by Misconceptions2 that should be deleted in accordance with WP policy. The changes may have salvaged this article, but the others are certainly not suitable for Wikipedia. Xtremedood (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article appears to be well-referenced with notable sources. David A (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how relying heavily on primary sources and violating both WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:MOS/Hadith is an example of a well-referenced article "with notable sources." 22:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * The primary sources are in the primary sources column--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not correct, many (in fact, too many) primary sources are used outside that column, c.f. our previous discussion as a single example.
 * 22:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * List some?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples off sight: 4, 10, 11, 55, 71, ...etc -23:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * We have discussed this on the talk page. 71 and others have plenty of secondary sources on their respective article page. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

...and so on. Every single one has secondary sources. Just go to the article page take it from there and add it here. How do you think the article pages you mention were made without secondary sources? Totally fixable problem if secondary sources are missing from 2 or 3 rows out of a 100 !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Being "well-sourced" does not suffice as a legitimate reason to keep an article on WP. Most of the sources are not appropriate according to WP:IRS, and the ones that may be are often misattributed. Xtremedood (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @CounterTime. This is 71: Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam). All we have to do is add the references on that page to this page. Some references:
 * Source 1: Atlas Al-sīrah Al-Nabawīyah, pg. 218, Dr. Shawqi Abu Khalil, Darussalam Publishers
 * Source 2: Note: Book contains a list of battles of Muhammad in Arabic, English translation available here
 * Source 3: The Sealed Nectar, pg. 250, Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, Darussalam Publishers. (archive)
 * This is 4's missing secondary sources:
 * Mubarakpuri, Saifur Rahman Al (2005), The sealed nectar: biography of the Noble Prophet, Darussalam Publications, p. 244, ISBN 978-9960-899-55-8
 * Haykal, Husayn (1976), The Life of Muhammad, Islamic Book Trust, pp. 217–218, ISBN 978-983-9154-17-7
 * Muḥammad ibn Khāvandshāh Mīr Khvānd (1893), The Rauzat-us-safa: v. 1-2. The life of Muhammad the apostle of Allah, p. 282, Royal Asiatic Society
 * This is 10's missing secondary sources:
 * Ruthven, Malise (2006). Islam in the world. Oxford University. p. 52. ISBN 978-0-19-530503-6.
 * Jane Smith, in Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Ellison Banks Findly Editors (1985). Women, religion, and social change. NewYork:
 * As we have discussed before, you didn't provide any RSs that solves the WP:MOS/Hadith problem.
 * 10:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Delete with caveat For the same reasons outlined by, this simply fails WP:SYNTHESIS. If the article only lists Maghazi as a list (as in List of Napoleonic battles) then it wouldn't violate WP policies and could be kept. 22:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * How does it fail WP:SYNTHESIS? That is, where does the article "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? See WP:SYNTHNOT. Rentier (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete with caveat. This kind of bad authorship needs to be removed from wikipedia ASAP. But the problem is that these battles/expeditions actually happened so we are basically removing information, therefore my solution is to first ask the article creator if he is willing to work on these articles in his userspace/draft etc. If he is willing to make them worthy of inclusion I see no problem in giving him a second chance. So if he agrees we should just userfy or incubate these articles until they pass through AFC. However if the said user thinks that he has done "all that can be done" for these articles, then the problem arises that these articles are for the moment unable to justify their existence on the wikipedia. the Deletion is not cleanup policy does have its limits. It is not the job of wiki editors to be forced to keep articles that will never pass through AFC, we can vote to delete them until an acceptable version is created. So userfy if creator agrees to get it through RFc, otherwise delete. The bottom line, this needs to go, but it can return in a btter form if it wants to. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there are problems with the article, fix the problems. Deleting it sounds more like pro-Islamic censorship. Did these events happen? Then why delete the article? Kanbei85 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85
 * "Did these events happen?" This is one of the main problems of the current article, it lists nearly 73 saraya, however there is no consensus on those,
 * "In most instances, biographers give their account in the form of a narration of the incidents, without explaining the background and objectives of these expeditions, and they give different totals for these incidents, such as 35, 38, 47, and 56. These differences indicate that each biographer arrived at his own conception of what constituted a sariyah. For example, Ibn Sa‛d at the beginning of his book, following his teacher al-Wāqidī, states that the number of sarāyā sent by the Prophet was forty-seven, while the present study finds that he ends up referring to fifty-six sarāyā.Some biographers used the word ghazwah to refer to incidents others called sariyah, while some used the word ba‛th (delegation) in the same context. In many incidents, no encounter at all occurred with the clans. A number of incidents involved fighting and in some cases the number of victims is not given. According to the numbers that are given, eighty Muslims were killed, including sixty-nine preachers who were assassinated in one incident, while sixty-five non-Muslims were also killed. These accounts of sarāyā are a much less credible source than those of the ghazawāt, not only because of the lack of clarity and details about the reasons for and objectives of such minor incidents, but also because the narrations are not scrutinized and in some cases are unconvincing as stories."

- Ahmed al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, pp. 29–30


 * Furthermore why include non-military events in a list of battles?
 * Of course, if fixed (and if the user who made that article starts to cooperate) then it would be kept, and I don't think there would be any type of conflict about that.
 * 16:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * This is a list of expeditions of Muhammad. not a list of battles alone. Hence description says: "This list of expeditions of Muhammad, also includes a list of battles of Muhammad and comprises information about casualties, objectives, and nature of the military expeditions ordered by Muhammad, as well as the primary sources which mention the expeditions.", although the description was altered by someone from this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad&oldid=639512671 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's "List of expeditions of Muhammad" and not "List of expeditions under Muhammad".
 * But as said earlier, there are too many discrepancies and differences concerning saraya, you can't even respect WP:MOS/Hadith for Maghazi, let alone saraya.
 * 18:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

one of the articles]] apparently included in this AfD in addition to the main article. I see a number of issues with the nomination:
 * Keep. Quite by accident, I came across [[Expedition_of_Zaid_ibn_Haritha_(Hisma)|


 * First of all, the accusation of misattribution of sources is bewildering. I downloaded the PDF linked above. On page 105, William Montgomery Watt states: In the raids the Muslims were taking the offensive. How does that not justify the sentence in the article? If that is the strongest example of the alleged bias the nominator could come up with, then surely the articles are not bad enough to justify WP:BLOWITUP.


 * Secondly, the notability of individual events seems to be beyond doubt. The nominator calls for deletion under WP:BLOWITUP, but the partial reliance on primary sources, which is the only problem I see, justify at most the removal of a few sections and preferably only appropriate tagging. As for the list, good arguments have been put that it should be kept as well.


 * Finally, the whole ad personam issues with the user section reeks of WP:WITCHHUNT. Only the articles are under consideration here, not the author. Whatever flaws Misconceptions2 may or may not have should have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion.


 * Rentier (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Which source Watt are you referring to? Watt's Muhammad at Medina, p. 105 doesn't state that.
 * 13:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * The very source mentioned in the nomination and in the article: "Muhammad Prophet And Statesman", PDF available here.
 * Rentier (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think that there ought to be a shift in your assessment of the meant user, if there's a consistent pattern of problems in contributions by user X then I see no reason not to apply WP:TNT, by the way I have no doubt that the meant user  does but problematic edits, and this from the very start of his WP contribs, see here for instance:
 * "Some critics have said that "beheading is part of islam", and western Muslims who deny beheading has got anything to do with islam are "hippocrates". Beheading is also practiced in Saudi Arabia."


 * 20:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Are you saying that the fact that one editor added content to some article seven years ago justifies the deletion of a completely different article, to which dozens of people contributed? By the way, I see nothing wrong with the quote you provided (except for a possible misspelling). Note that the references were promptly fixed.
 * Rentier (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim that because user X made an edit Y, Z years before means we should delete article A.
 * What I actually stated was that since user X has a consistent pattern of problematic edits, then WP:TNT can certainly apply if the allegations against him stand.
 * Concerning the present article at discussion, note that I didn't state that it should be barely deleted, but that it may be kept if we solve the issues present in it. See the talk page of the relevant article for a detailed discussion of all its problems.
 * 10:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * You wrote: I didn't state that it should be barely deleted, but that it may be kept if we solve the issues present in it. But WP:TNT only applies to articles that are beyond repair . You cannot have both!
 * Rentier (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that, I had to be a little more precise. Basically, the List of expeditions of Muhammad article contains both Maghazi (expeditions in which he took part) and Saraya (expeditions, most of whom aren't military, that he allegedly sent). One of the points of conflict was that the mentioned Saraya in "List of..." and the Saraya articles must satisfy WP:MOS/Hadith (and that they should be deleted from the list since they are mainly non-military, without even considering WP:MOS/Hadith), and if not satisfied they (the Saraya articles) should be deleted altogether (and since the meant user made pretty much most of the pages on saraya), so WP:TNT definitely applies, but not for this particular article "List of expeditions ...", but for these saraya articles. Hope that was clearer, if you want more details you can check the talk, particularly this.
 * 11:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I REPEAT: :::This is a list of expeditions of Muhammad. not a list of battles alone. Hence description says: "This list of expeditions of Muhammad, also includes a list of battles of Muhammad and comprises information about casualties, objectives, and nature of the military expeditions ordered by Muhammad, as well as the primary sources which mention the expeditions.", although the description was altered by someone from this version: old ver --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the elaboration. I assume that by WP:MOS/Hadith you are referring to this section. I took a look at the discussion. I attempted to summarise some of the arguments:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Claim
 * My reply --Rentier (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Saraya articles must satisfy WP:MOS/Hadith.
 * Are these articles about historical events? If so, the MOS/Haddith does not apply. A hadith is a  report describing the words, actions, or habits of the Prophet Muhammad, not the words, actions or habits themselves.
 * If [MOS/Hadith] not satisfied they (the Saraya articles) should be deleted altogether
 * On its own, failing a single manual of style guideline is not a reason to delete content.
 * They [Saraya] should be deleted from the list since they are mainly non-military
 * The leading paragraph should be clarified. Is there any basis to exclude the non-military expeditions after the article has been renamed?
 * WP:TNT definitely applies, but not for this particular article "List of expeditions ...", but for these saraya articles
 * How so? I keep hearing accusations of violating NPOV, NOR, misattribution of sources, etc. but I am yet to see a specific example of irreparable problem in any of the articles proposed for deletion. Furthermore, where a specific example was given (the alleged misattribution of Watt's that the raids were offensive), the accusation turned out to be mistaken.
 * }
 * Rentier (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT definitely applies, but not for this particular article "List of expeditions ...", but for these saraya articles
 * How so? I keep hearing accusations of violating NPOV, NOR, misattribution of sources, etc. but I am yet to see a specific example of irreparable problem in any of the articles proposed for deletion. Furthermore, where a specific example was given (the alleged misattribution of Watt's that the raids were offensive), the accusation turned out to be mistaken.
 * }
 * Rentier (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rentier (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, It's "List of expeditions of Muhammad" and not "List of expeditions under Muhammad".
 * 18:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Are these articles about historical events? If so, the MOS/Haddith does not apply. A hadith is a report describing the words, actions, or habits of the Prophet Muhammad, not the words, actions or habits themselves.
 * The main sources synthesized by are al-Waqidi's Maghazi, Ibn Sa'd's tabaqat, the Tarikh of al-Tabari, Sirat Ibn Ishaq, ... and some secondary sources such as The Sealed Nectar which rely partly on these primary sources. When a report of a sariya for instance is mentioned there, WP:MOS/Hadith is demonstratively obligatory, since we're talking about historical events, hence there authenticity should be assessed.  But in any case, the table violates WP:SYNTHESIS so in this particular version of the article, WP:MOS/Hadith is redundant.
 * The leading paragraph should be clarified. Is there any basis to exclude the non-military expeditions after the article has been renamed?
 * Renamed? I didn't speak about renaming the article at all. I don't see how you came up with that à priori since we didn't even talk about it as a possibility ("after the article has been renamed", implying an action) Anyway, that was weird.
 * On its own, failing a single manual of style guideline is not a reason to delete content.
 * So using unreliable hadiths to make up articles would be deemed correct simply because WP:MOS/Hadith is a "manual of style"?
 * I am yet to see a specific example of irreparable problem in any of the articles proposed for deletion
 * Synthesis. Simple. (Of course I can go on and on to describe how a violation of WP:MOS/Hadith draws to 0 the credibility of these articles, and their notability, but WP:SYNTHESIS is sufficient in this case.)
 * 18:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * 18:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Thank you for the explanation! I understand your stance much better now.
 * Renamed? I didn't speak about renaming the article at all. I don't see how you came up with that à priori since we didn't even talk about it as a possibility ("after the article has been renamed", implying an action) Anyway, that was weird.
 * Apologies for bad grammar on my part. I did not intend to imply that you said anything about renaming. I got confused in relation to the articles deleted in the past ("list of killings ..."). Basically I fail to see why we should remove the non-military expeditions as long as the leading paragraph is changed to clarify the inclusion criteria.
 * So using unreliable hadiths to make up articles would be deemed correct simply because WP:MOS/Hadith is a "manual of style"?
 * Of course not. But the relevant guideline is WP:RS, not MOS/Hadith. The statement "articles must satisfy WP:MOS/Hadith [...] and if not satisfied they (the Saraya articles) should be deleted" is not justified. The articles should be deleted if their content has no basis in reliable secondary sources. I could be persuaded that this is the case! But in my view the proponents of deletion have not made a convincing argument.
 * Synthesis. Simple. (Of course I can go on and on to describe how a violation of WP:MOS/Hadith draws to 0 the credibility of these articles, and their notability, but WP:SYNTHESIS is sufficient in this case.)
 * Would you mind clarifying this for me? Which article "combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? In the spirit of WP:SYNTHNOT, can you explain what assertion is made that is not supported by sources?


 * I acknowledge your concern regarding the use of primary sources. I would appreciate if you could provide specific examples of original research - specifying articles and statements that are OR. What I have seen so far is not enough to justify a bulk deletion of articles.
 * Rentier (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest and your constructive questions,
 * I would appreciate if you could provide specific examples of original research
 * The whole table is, per definition, WP:SYNTHESIS, since it synthesizes multiple sources to make a table. made a proposal which, if followed, would solve the problem, which is to use as an RS Watt's expeditions table in Muhammad at Medina as a core, although there's still a debate on the saraya (in particular their authenticity and relevance to a military expeditions article)
 * But I think a much simpler solution is just to render the table as a list, like the article List of Napoleonic battles, and this would of course only contain military expeditions, as it doesn't make sense to add non-military stuff in an article about military stuff.
 * Of course not. But the relevant guideline is WP:RS, not MOS/Hadith.
 * I think the best way to approach this is through an example, let's take for instance al-Waqidi as a primary source, and say, there's a book X that relies on him on a report without mentioning the authenticity of that report. As is known, al-Waqidi is unreliable, Ibn Hanbal (the founder of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence) denounced him as a liar, and according to al-Ghunaimi, al-Waqidi is considered as one of "the most famous four, among the many, fabricators of hadith".(— Ahmed al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, p. 23.) So should we add this report when classical Muslim scholars would deem it to be non-authentic?
 * Secondly, as Ahmed al-Dawoody says, "biographers give their account in the form of a narration of the incidents, without explaining the background and objectives of these expeditions, and they give different totals for these incidents, such as 35, 38, 47, and 56. These differences indicate that each biographer arrived at his own conception of what constituted a sariyah. For example, Ibn Sa‛d at the beginning of his book, following his teacher al-Wāqidī, states that the number of sarāyā sent by the Prophet was forty-seven, while the present study finds that he ends up referring to fifty-six sarāyā.Some biographers used the word ghazwah to refer to incidents others called sariyah, while some used the word ba‛th (delegation) in the same context. In many incidents, no encounter at all occurred with the clans. [...] These accounts of sarāyā are a much less credible source than those of the ghazawāt, not only because of the lack of clarity and details about the reasons for and objectives of such minor incidents, but also because the narrations are not scrutinized and in some cases are unconvincing as stories."(— Ahmed al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, pp. 29–30) So which total include? Or should we, as the present article does, combine and synthesize different primary sources (in this case works in which saraya are given)? (Note that the present article arrives at a total of 73 saraya, when biographers didn't even exceed 56 in their reports)
 * So as you can see, there's a whole range of problems that arise when considering saraya, and these problems are really unnecessary to say the least, we can, as I proposed earlier make a list of articles (so no need to use 400 ref), like the article List of Napoleonic battles, and this would of course only contain military expeditions, as it doesn't make sense to add non-military stuff in an article about military stuff.
 * Hope that was clearer,
 * 22:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Congratulations on tracking Watt's citation. Now, do you want to address the *main* concerns raised against this article, like the fact that this was copy pasted from anti-Islamic propaganda website? (which btw isn't the first time, see Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence) or the fact that this article is a recreation of another article that was *twice* deleted: "List of killings of Muhammad", as pointed out by OP? I'm sure this is nothing but just a witchhunt against Misconceptions2. Right? Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rubbish claims. What exactly is rehashed there. That article probably only has 2 similiar articles to this one, Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak. Out of a 100. All sources on this article are accurate and reliably, more than 50% are Muslim sources themselves. None are anti islamic. Give me 1 example of an anti islamic soruce used here? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not difficult. The reference is right there in the article. As for the rest:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Claim
 * My reply --Rentier (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was copy pasted from anti-Islamic propaganda website.
 * According to its revision history, the wikiislam.net article was created after the Wikipedia article. There are very significant differences between the two.
 * This article is a recreation of another article that was *twice* deleted: "List of killings of Muhammad"
 * Without access to the deleted versions, so I cannot tell how similar they are to the current one. There is no rule that forbids recreation of deleted articles if the new version fixes the issues that were the reason for removal. The closest thing to consensus on this: WP:RECREATE.
 * }
 * --Rentier (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kindly avoid the table format. It is not conductive for discussion. If you think that there are "very significant differences" between this article and the one on Wikiislam.net, then I think you are blind (sorry, there is no other way to put it). As for the 2nd claim that "there is no rule that forbids recreation of deleted articles if the new version fixes the issues that were the reason for removal." Except that, user Misconceptions2 has not addressed any of the issues raised against the original article (compare the deletion reasons for this article and that of the earlier List of killings of Muhammad, discussion 1 discussion 2, and you tell me if the issues have been "fixed" as you claim). The user simply made cosmetic changes and re-submitted it. The issues with primary sources, POV pushing, and wide mishandling of sources are still there. Finally, no word on Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The articles are totally different. Why dont you tell us what is similar between them? One is about several people Muhammad has assassinated and the other is about the expeditions he ordered --Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the table format useful in talking to people who cannot present their arguments clearly and concisely. Anyway, I trust that the closing admin can see through your sophistry. If they cannot, nothing I can say will change that. So I will take this opportunity to disengage, unless relevant new arguments are put forward. (I have no idea why you think I should comment on a 4 years old issue in an article that is not a subject of this AfD) --Rentier (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are distancing yourself from Misconceptions2, now that you found yourself unable to defend his/her article or editing behavior. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The articles are totally different. Why dont you tell us what is similar between them? One is about several people Muhammad has assassinated and the other is about the expeditions he ordered --Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the table format useful in talking to people who cannot present their arguments clearly and concisely. Anyway, I trust that the closing admin can see through your sophistry. If they cannot, nothing I can say will change that. So I will take this opportunity to disengage, unless relevant new arguments are put forward. (I have no idea why you think I should comment on a 4 years old issue in an article that is not a subject of this AfD) --Rentier (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are distancing yourself from Misconceptions2, now that you found yourself unable to defend his/her article or editing behavior. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually the Wikiislam.net version is older than this version, see here (archived here ). I have been watching them for some years now, they converge pages, create new pages with the same or similar materials, delete history, and try hard to censor any edits that they don't agree with. Also you often can't trust the history on private Wiki's.


 * 07:55, 27 January 2015 Axius (Talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden
 * 13:46, 13 January 2015 Sahab (Talk | contribs) deleted page List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad
 * 12:57, 22 December 2014 WikiSysop (Talk | contribs) (Page edit blocked for "List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad" by user *180.151.0.146 - Vandalism detected (Edit Monitor code #13))
 * 10:53, 16 August 2014 Sahab (Talk | contribs) changed visibility of 4 revisions on page List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden (Inappropriate comment or personal information)
 * 09:09, 26 December 2011 Sahab (Talk | contribs) automatically marked revision 68182 of page List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad patrolled
 * .Xtremedood (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. The article is an affront to all muslims. As such, it does not belong to Wikipedia. Pious999 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, and this is not a majority vote. GABHello! 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Its a SPA account, 2 edits. All today--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per Wiqi55's comments on the talk page:
 * "This article recreates the same material of another article that was twice deleted: "List of killings of Muhammad" (see deletion discussions, 1 2). Many of the issues mentioned in the previous discussions apply here as well (mainly poor and misrepresented sources). Also the creator of both articles, Misconception2, has a long history of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry in the Muhammad topic area. I wouldn't trust his summary of primary/secondary sources. I took a brief look at this article and noticed that the "reason" column lacks context and relies on primary sources. We don't usually present similar information in a list form. The primary sources are also problematic. We should avoid turning what is said to be alleged, disputed, rumored in the primary sources into fact. I suggest we reduce this article to a simple list of expeditions, and leave the complex/disputed information to individual battle pages." Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Same reason given from Rentier and Gab --DJ SG Gayashan 13:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ SG Gayashan (talk • contribs)
 * This is a sockpuppet of Sajithgayashan and Misconceptions2. See here Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a user attack. Where do you have proof he is a sock puppet of mine? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: This article is well-sourced and useful for everyone who needs it. It contains a lot of information about the begining of the Caliphate expansion and has no problem of NPOV or SYNTH that require a deletion. If there are source problems, those can be fixed easely without deleting the article and this article is far from offensive toward Muslims so all the users with DAESH flag in their userpage can't really call this offensive. This article is here for a long time and it is here to stay.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please demonstrate how that doesn't violate WP:SYNTHESIS? The current table just synthesizes some dozens of different sources. However, proposed to rely on Watt's table for Maghazi/Siyar (with some debate over the second class), that is present in his book Muhammad at Medina, so that doesn't imply immediate removal, since it solves the WP:SYNTHESIS problem.
 * As per sources, see the talk page of the meant article for a conclusive argument, that demonstrates that current sources violate WP:MOS/Hadith.
 * Besides that your other comments do not make an iota of sense.


 * 17:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * From What_SYNTH_is_not: you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." I am genuinely trying to understand which claims you believe constitute SYNTHESIS. Rentier (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * once again many of the sources are either misattributed, fall into WP:Synthesis (meaning that the author of the sources aren't actually saying what is stated in the article), are not in accordance to WP policies of Identifying reliable sources, or are self-interpreted (often primary texts) by Misconceptions2. An other example of SYNTH may be seen here, when Misconceptions2 blatantly misrepresents a source by Ibn Khavandshah, . The author did not state what Misconceptions2 accused him of stating. Also, above we see him misrepresenting Watt. He is known to engage in OR and interprets texts according to his own whims. Xtremedood (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost every argument you make are just baseless claims without evidence. This time you gave evidence but the evidence does not back up what you claim. And the Kavandshah source was not even used in this article. It shows how false your claims and evidence are. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is not just about this article, but it is also tagged to a lot of other articles you made. The problem is that you misattribute sources and there is plenty of evidence and proof to show this. In actuality, it is you who makes the false claims. You did so in the vote section, in the Patrol of Waddan article, throughout this article, and elsewhere. Xtremedood (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that two new users added some (admittedly not the best) arguments to this AfD's talk page. Rentier (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually that is a statement more applicable to your inclusions as well as Misconceptions2's. Xtremedood (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please remember that this is not a vote. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:LISTN per sources such as Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature which states "Several of these sub-genres were particularly important. One was maghazi ('military expeditions')..." Andrew D. (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with you, however, don't you think that this should be a list of articles (such as List of Napoleonic battles)?
 * 13:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Sometimes a list is considered a good alternative to having lots of similar stubby articles. Anyway, in this case, the entries in the list are blue links and point to pages like Nejd Caravan Raid.  The nominator wants to delete those too but I don't agree with any of that as he just seems to be trying to own the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he's mainly concerned about saraya (e.g Expedition of At-Tufail ibn 'Amr Ad-Dausi), and not the other maghazi articles (e.g. Conquest of Mecca). 17:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Keep -- I cannot believe that an article with nearly 300 footnotes is inadequately sourced, even if the references come mainly from nine works. I am not familiar with the subject, but suspect that the number of primary sources will be quite limited, so that nine is not necessarily a small number.  Equally the fact at a person has been guilty of sockpuppetry in the past does not mean that he cannot produce a valid article.  The life of Mohammed was violent and there are unsavoury aspects to it, which Muslims may well want to hide from.  That is all the more reason why the article should be kept.  It is common practice in WP to have a general article with links to more detailed ones.  That is what this one does.   If there are errors in the content the solution is to correct it, not delete it.  If the alleged errors concern differences of interpretation, such as what Muir (presumably an Englishman) wrote, the place to discuss those is in a more detailed article on the particular topic.  This may mean pruning the detail in this article, but again that is an issue to be resolved by editing, not deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you see that this article violates WP:SYNTHESIS? I'm not suggesting a raw delete altogether, rather, as long as the issues I outlined here and in the talk are solved the article should be kept. 17:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * This is an AFD debate. If there are problems with the article, they should not be resolved by applying the sledge hammer of deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I stated, however I only commented on your assertion that just because this article has "nearly 300 footnotes" then it must not be "inadequately sourced". 17:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * If you do not want it deleted, stop being so sensitive and continually pinging me. I have expressed my view, with which you to some extent seem to agree.  I regularly go through history AFDs, and express an opinion on many of them, so the extent that I am sometimes pinged asking me to do so.  I lack the knowledge to edit this article and I do not intend to.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your statement "I am not familiar with the subject" is proven through your incorrect assertions. The issue is not of it being "inadequately sourced" as you say. Rather the issue comes with the misattribution of a lot of these sources, the OR, the biased statements, the self-interpretation of primary sources by the author and the incorrect information in the article. You speak from a clearly orientalist perspective when you say "The life of Mohammed was violent and there are unsavoury aspects to it, which Muslims may well want to hide from", and academics like Zafar Ali Qureshi and Edward Said have debunked these 18th and 19th century European-supremacist biases that still permeate among certain groups till this day. If you look at the life of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, you see that violence was instigated by the Pagans against the Muslims after 13 years of immense persecution, oppression, harrassment, abuse and insults at Muslims. Western Orientalists have been debunked by reputable contemporary academics like Zafar Ali Qureshi, who have taken apart the slander, lies and incorrect assertions propagated by a variety of biased Orientalists. However, still the orientalist position of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ dominates WP with Watt, Muir and others being major sources for information pertaining to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ on Wikipedia. This Orientalist bias has not been directed at any other religious figure to such a large extent on WP. I think it is about time to bring about more academic, neutral and correct information. What Misconceptions2 does, however, goes even beyond what Watt has done and he totally misattributes sources in certain instances, while neglecting altogether the historical, correct, and accurate information for these events. Xtremedood (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article is a valuable source of information on Muhammad's military career, something that is not possible to delve with depth in his biographical article.Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2016 (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.