Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad in the Bible


 * 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. Consensus is that this is a viable and notable topic. No prejudice to a consensus being reached on the talk page to move the article to a new title. Davewild (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad in the Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The reasons are best summarized on the talk page, lacks reputable sources and has zero clarity. LutherVinci (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Islamic view of the Bible. Which is not actually much better sourced (there is one possibly-RS secondary source and a bunch of primary sources), but at least the problem can be confined to one article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing is poor, but topic is notable (,, , , etc. etc.) This availability of sourcing means that the article should be improved, not deleted. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per availability of tertiary book sources. I added these to the article:
 * (2006.) "Essentials of the Islamic faith." The Light, Inc. ISBN 9757388327
 * Benjamin Keldani, David B. ('Abdul Ahad Dawud) (2006.) "Muhammad in World Scriptures (Volume II): The Bible." The Other Press. ISBN 9839154656
 * Ünal, Ali (2006.) "The Qurʼan with annotated interpretation in modern English." The Light, Inc. ISBN 978-1-59784-000-2
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources have been found.  D r e a m Focus  19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I have added a link to Gospel of Barnabas and added a ref I found there. Seems to help, but I'm no expert on this Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Still has zero clarity. The biblical references make no sense and do not describe what's being presented. Example: "Isaiah arrested in Isaiah 11, 28 and 42 will learn from it." Isaiah was never arrested, nor did he arrest anyone. Chapters 11 describes a decedent of Jesse (not Qeder, as the article states). Chapter 28 makes prophesies concerning Mount Zion, not some future prophet. This is just an example. I simply don't care how many modern scholars say Muhammad was in the Bible, there is little logical argument for it.LutherVinci (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have clarified that statement. Muslim scholars claim that Isaiah 42 foretells Muhammad, as he is the only person who fits the passages description, which they claim is of the Kedar people (based on evidence from Isaiah 11), and from whom Muhammad is decedent. Ravendrop 17:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Absolutely a notable subject. Entire books have been written about the subject and a quick google scholar search shows a vast number of references to the subject (though unfortunately most are behind paywalls/paper references).  It needs the attention of an expert in the field, as well as someone who is familiar with the Arabic sources, as most of the material (especially commentary) has yet to be translated.  (Additionally, someone fluent in German should be able to find some info as well).  Unfortunately this is a topic that is not easy to research via the internet.  Yet go to any large university library and you will find a lot of sources covering the topic.  Ravendrop 17:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no affiliation with islam, I am saying that to clarify it is not my reasoning for defending this article. I know at least 450 million people who would find this topic useful. I will admit This article desperately needs a rewrite by an expert on the subject. The only reason this isn't well sourced with internet references is because because the Koran (a source more accurate than any website could possibly provide) is most likely there source. This is an extreemly notable subject not just in the Middle East and North Africa, but for muslims around the world, this is deffinatly salvagible, do not delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but move. Enough sources are present to cover this topic properly, but Muhammad's name does not appear in the Bible, and there's definitely nothing that is widely agreed to be a description of him — the current title is of a style that better fits topics such as "Assyrian Empire in the Bible", which clearly and undisputably appears in it.  We need a name such as "Islamic proposal of Muhammad in the Bible".  Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Islamic interpretation of Muhammad in the Bible? Proposal sounds as if its a fringe theory among Islam, where as its core belief.  Proposal also suggests that there is a right or wrong answer, which can be 100% proven.  Which, academically, there isn't (spiritually/faithfully/etc. there is, but its different per faith/belief/religion, etc.) Ravendrop 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that title; thanks. I'm somewhat confused by "where as..." and your parenthetical comment; could you please clarify?  Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially my point is that the word proposal is likely to be much more controversial, and prone to POV, than interpretation because proposal, at least in my mind, implies that there is one true answer that can be determined. My parenthetical comment is simply stating that there is an one answer for Muslims (he is in the Bible) and one answer for Christians (he isn't), which are opposing from an academic point of view that does not use any presuppositions when answering the question.  That there is only answer for Muslims/Christians relies purely on faith and is not something that can be "proved" using the standards of academic inquiry. Ravendrop 21:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added a wikilinked example of a Muslim scholar involved in the debate, taken out a statement I couldn't source and removed a couple of tags as a consequence. Hope this helps. Article still has obvious issues, but worth keeping. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Islamic view of the Bible. No reason why it can't go in that article. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2011 (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.