Talk:Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Comments[edit]

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.)

--Spøkelse (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?[edit]

This book is frequently used in article here as a source. But is it a WP:RS. This article says:

It also provides authentic references which makes it more reliable and less controversial.[citation needed]

which indicates problems. Elsewhere, I've seen it described as a hagiography William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@William, wherever you read its a hagiography (i added that to some articles, because i saw another article describing it as a hagiography).... I dont mind if you change it to "biography" , or whatever you think is better. I also think that this book is only part reliable. After creating many articles where i used this source for the battles of Muhammad. i compared it with what primary sources had to say. And in some cases, i found that the book left out major information of importance, for whatever reason (most likely because if he mentioned the extra information, it would make him look like an extremist or anti islamic author). It does match in the majority of cases what the primary source said, but the book adds extra information sometimes, to justify Muhammad's actions, those extra information are almost always opinions which are apologetic. He also sometimes makes claims that Muhammad attacked X , because X was being provocative. He does not even explain what he means by that. The author also sometimes changes the wording of what the primary sources said, in order to justify Muhammad's actions. Such examples can be found at Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid). I used the source to make my articles more neutral--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is about the book, right? I don't think you need to worry about whether the book is RS about the actions of the Muhammad as a historical figure. You need RS *about the book* if anything. Elinruby (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

These sentences need work[edit]

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)[reply]

Written as a new format[edit]

I find many of sources for this book that can make it notable.. Here some are:

Bias present[edit]

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)[reply]