Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran and Sunnah (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn, so keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Quran and Sunnah
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Like many other articles written by this article's long-retired creator, this is merely a synthesis of primary religious sources which only loosely relate to the topic stated in the article's title; it's as clear an example of original research as one could find. The last AfD was ruled "no consensus" because not a single other person participated for the entire three weeks it was up. Reopening the discussion speedily per WP:NPASR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔  17:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Article cites no secondary sources at all, AFAICT. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, as my ignorance of the subject is profound.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I do believe that Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of Prophetic Traditions in Islam is a secondary source. Mustadrak al-Hakim is both primary because it is a collection of hadith, and secondary because it constitutes a commentary on those hadith. --Bejnar (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Hadith as Scripture book is only listed as further reading though; it isn't actually cited for anything in the article. As for Mustadrak, then I have never owned a copy as it's a big book but it is always referred to as a collection rather than a commentary. Are you sure that it does contain actual commentary on the contents of the hadiths? If it just contains his verdict on whether or not he thinks it's authentic, then it absolutely is a primary source only just like the Six Books for Sunnis or Four Books for Shias. A proper commentary would be like Fath al-Bari of Ibn Hajr, which could be a secondary source, but a simply collection wherein the author says "I think this hadith is inauthentic due to X, Y and Z" then that's a textbook example of primary source religious material in Islam. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article now cites two additional secondary sources. I do not find the article to be significantly tainted with original research. When looking for substantiation of the statements in the article, I find it.  Yes, the article could use work. As the article is confusing, I can understand why the nominator might have thought that it was synthesis, but the debate between the Sunni and the Shia over the authenticity of Quran and Sunnah as a hadith is very real, and that is the topic of the article, as hidden as that may be. --Bejnar (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I must admit User:Bejnar, while I respect your view and am delighted that a discussion is finally happening, I am a bit perplexed by that view. The two sources you added are absolutely irrelevant to proving the notability of this subject. The first one simply stated that the Sunnah is a thing, and as I explained at the first AfD this article isn't about the Sunnah in general, it's about one specific supposed statement attributed to Muhammad. The second source you added then essentially supports the same thing, just explaining what a hadith is. Neither source bears any relation to this specific hadith at all, and so I once again must reiterate: notability of this topic has not been sufficiently altered in any way and is still totally unsupported. I hope my language doesn't come off as standoffish; it's not a serious, Wikipedia-threatening issue, I just don't see how this is notable (or how the article isn't just a bunch of OR). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This hadith is notable because (1) it is a saying of Muhammad that is basic to the two source belief of followers of Islam; and (2) because it has generated a controversy that has lasted centuries and has lots of commentary in secondary sources. Now to non-Muslims it may seem ludicrous to argue the superiority and authenticity of the two hadith, since the result seems to be so similar, but consider how the controversies between what became Orthodox Christian belief and Arianism or Monophysitism might look to an outsider. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I not quite sure where the other problems that you are having lie. There are two closely related hadith, one (2 weighty things) for which Wikipedia has an article entitled  Hadith of the two weighty things, and a second hadith known colloquially as "Quran and Sunnah", which in one of its many expressions is: I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of God and my Sunna. attributed to Muhammad. This second hadith is not universally accepted. Although there are noted scholars who do accept it, and there are footnotes to their works, see FN 10-12. Acceptance of this hadith is a point of controversy between the Shia and the Sunni.  The editor of this article tried to present the hadith and the controversy in NPOV terms, but it is obvious to me that he/she basically feels that the "2 weighty things" hadith is more important and should provide all the guidance that is necessary for the faithful.  The result seems to have been a lack of clarity. This is not OR, the scholars do discuss the authenticity of this hadith and the reasons for supporting it or not.  Unfortunately, the article, in my opinion, currently gives undue weight to the "2 weighty things" hadith. I tried in my two edits to give some of the background, but maybe it would be better to strip out about half of the "2 weighty things" discussion and start the lead as: Quran and Sunnah is a saying attributed to Muhammad (a hadith), namely I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of God and my Sunna. Cite:  The authenticity of this hadith is rejected by many Shi'a.  The concept itself is not rejected, as most Muslims hold that Islam is derived from two sources: one being infallible and containing compressed information — the Qur'an — and another being a detailed explanation of the everyday application of the principles established in the Qur'an: The Sunnah, or the living example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.FN1  What makes you think that this article is original research? --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding User:Bejnar, this is actually one of the more interesting discussions on AfDs lately. Anyway, my main objection is to proof of notability. If Muslim scholars discuss this hadith so much, then where is the proof? The sources you provide talk about hadith and sunnah in general, not this specific one. We only have one secondary source mentioning this hadith at all. That isn't notable.
 * The authenticity of it isn't for us editors to delve into, which is why much of this consists of OR. The collections of Nishaburi and Hakim, for example, are primary sources, not secondary; they cannot be used on their own to establish a point without reliable secondary sources to support what is being written. Additionally, even if we did want to perform OR here, this is amateurish. Quoting Ihkam and Tamhid and calling it a day isn't how it works; the takhrij of one hadith can occupy an entire book, especially one on a contentious issue. So this isn't just OR relying totally on primary sources, but it's also bad OR. Wait I'm at work gotta go ttyl MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, duty called. Anyway I kind of lost my train of thought but the gist of it is that I don't think primary source material like the Mustadrak or Tamhid can establish notability, and right now I'm only seeing one secondary source which is actually relevant to the topic. If I am mistaken - and that is possible - then I will gladly withdraw the nomination, but right now I just don't see this passing WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The authenticity of it isn't for us editors to delve into, except for reporting the opinions of others, since the controversy being reported on is about "authenticity". As editors we don't make a ruling, we just report, but that usually means reporting the arguments on both sides, which usually requires delving. --Bejnar (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Does regard a source that reports on a hadith as a primary source? How about if the source says "X reports that Y reports that Z said"? --Bejnar (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Bejnar, it isn't really what I consider a primary source or not. This isn't a matter of opinion. Mustadrak of Hakim, for example, is where hadith come from, no different than Sahih al-Bukhari. Those are the actual books of hadith, which renders them primary like the Qur'an. Quoting books of hadith alone with no secondary source is like using the Talmud as a citation for Judaic articles.
 * Now, books like Ihkam are a different story. Ihkam is a derivitave work so it's secondary, but it's also a thousand years old. Quoting that one book in which that one author says a given hadith is authentic isn't how a professional muhaddith supports an argument in favor of the authenticity of a hadith, especially in 2014. There have been another thousand years of study done on most other hadith and the literature review alone could theoretically occupy quite a bit of space. Which goes back to my original point: I think this is OR, and if I am correct, it isn't even quality OR.
 * Keep in mind, even if the hadith isn't authentic, it can still be notable. Wikipedia allows articles on all sorts of things not considered to be true like bigfoot, so an inauthentic hadith would be no different. Which brings me back to a point I had wanted to make earlier: I don't think authenticity is the issue here, I think notability is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * May I assume that you have looked at the discussion of this hadith in Mālik and Medina: Islamic Legal Reasoning in the Formative Period? --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignoring OR for the moment, if notability is your concern, see my comments above of 06:21, 25 May 2014. --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey User:Bejnar, indeed I did scan it, but it's one source. Can notability really be established with mention in one source? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is saying "one source"? You already mentioned Ihkam above, and I assume that you have not read the introduction to Dogan's Islamic Law with the Quran and Sunnah Evidences, since the book is new and not widely held. (£28.58 + postage from a reseller at Amazon). I have also added a citation to a book by Muhammad Hisham Kabbani to the article. That one you may be able to find in a nearby library or school. See also the discussion of this hadith with regard to shariah which I have added to the article, in particular the discussion in Ali's The Position of Women in Islam.  --Bejnar (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you added three new sources in the past day or so. Correct, I haven't heard of the Dogan work nor am I familiar with Kabbani's written work in comparison to audio and video of him. But are these passing mentions, references to other topics like two of the sources already in the article, or the real deal? Can you give me a day or so while I look it up just to see for sure? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, in fact I am supposed to be on-the-road for the next week, with iffy Internet access. But I think that I have just scratcched the surface of modern secondary sources.  The problem seems to be an absence of good search terms.  I came across Ali's The Position of Women in Islam by happenstance. --Bejnar (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well User:Bejnar, the discussion was already relisted four days ago and it was the second time so it might not be listed again before being closed. To avoid a "no consensus" result (which could mean someone else renominates it in the future), I would be willing to withdraw the nomination (and it would appear as such, defending the article to an extent) if you tell me you're absolutely sure the secondary sources you have found, some of which are quite new, push the topic past WP:GNG. You're a respected editor and if you will go on the record here saying that point blank, I would withdraw the nomination in recognition of that and somewhere down the road we could work on the article. This is if you're absolutely sure that the topic is notable as proven by secondary sources and should not be renominated later, as a "withdraw" result would be a better ending in that case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I am convinced that the existing secondary sources provide acceptable coverage for WP:GNG. I still have other books on order via interlibrary loan, that I hope will add additional substance, but that are not necessary to provide Wikipedia notability.  I also look forward to redoing the Shia section which is particularly perverse (full of extraneous arguments about 2 weighty things that belong in that article, if anywhere). As I mentioned I may be off the air for a bit starting tomorrow (Friday). --Bejnar (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It needs addition sourcing and that can be found. Let's continue to work on the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Withdraw nomination per the discussion with Benjar. There appear to be multiple sources, some of which are very recent and some of which Benjar has requested via interlibrary loans to help build the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2014 (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.