![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article needs some sort of tag, to reflect that it is POV. (For starters, the use of the words "authoritative" and "popular".)
Another reason for a tag, is that some editors might not want to work on this article, without a tag present. At least with the current text.
If someone comes up with a reasonable suggestion, then I expect to tag the article. (If no one else does.)
This book is frequently used in article here as a source. But is it a WP:RS. This article says:
which indicates problems. Elsewhere, I've seen it described as a hagiography William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This source, The Sealed Nectar is not reliable. Even many Muslims say the author, Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri is not an authentic scholar and he is anti-Hanafi ahli hadeeth, despite his book was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.165.12 ( talk) 00:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved from main content: "It provides references which looks biased, unreliable and controversial to audience, who view Islam being spread by the sword. Complete history of his actions, aggression and subjugation of local populations as Islam was spread by the sword are some of the allegations against this book and as being left out or extremely minimized, mainly by riven groups within Islam (read Rawafidah, Shia etc.,) and other non-media adversaries."
Even if completely true the language seems to indicate POV problems not to mention issues with grammar of the English language. Elinruby ( talk) 04:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I find many of sources for this book that can make it notable.. Here some are:
While this page is quite informative, it is written as though it were a review or advertisement for the book. The bias of the author is rather apparent. 2600:6C5D:5A00:1013:656F:56C6:906:8907 ( talk) 19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article needs some sort of tag, to reflect that it is POV. (For starters, the use of the words "authoritative" and "popular".)
Another reason for a tag, is that some editors might not want to work on this article, without a tag present. At least with the current text.
If someone comes up with a reasonable suggestion, then I expect to tag the article. (If no one else does.)
This book is frequently used in article here as a source. But is it a WP:RS. This article says:
which indicates problems. Elsewhere, I've seen it described as a hagiography William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This source, The Sealed Nectar is not reliable. Even many Muslims say the author, Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri is not an authentic scholar and he is anti-Hanafi ahli hadeeth, despite his book was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.165.12 ( talk) 00:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved from main content: "It provides references which looks biased, unreliable and controversial to audience, who view Islam being spread by the sword. Complete history of his actions, aggression and subjugation of local populations as Islam was spread by the sword are some of the allegations against this book and as being left out or extremely minimized, mainly by riven groups within Islam (read Rawafidah, Shia etc.,) and other non-media adversaries."
Even if completely true the language seems to indicate POV problems not to mention issues with grammar of the English language. Elinruby ( talk) 04:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I find many of sources for this book that can make it notable.. Here some are:
While this page is quite informative, it is written as though it were a review or advertisement for the book. The bias of the author is rather apparent. 2600:6C5D:5A00:1013:656F:56C6:906:8907 ( talk) 19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)