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 delete. Because deletion discussions are not a vote, I must take the strength of the arguments (that is, how well they conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines) into account.

The argument for deletion is that the article is an essay, that is, a piece of original research trying to make a point, and that it is a content fork of material already covered elsewhere, for instance in Muhammad in Islam, as well as an aggregation of quotations with little in the way of context. These are persuasive arguments that touch on several of Wikipedia's important content policies. The "keep" opinions would have had to address these arguments and make a case for why they do not apply. Almost all of them do not do so.

Leaving out the opinions by sockpuppets and by people simply expressing their own appreciation for the topic, most "keep" opinions consider this article to be a counterweight to Criticism of Muhammad. I can't give this argument weight, for two reasons: While Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, this applies to each individual article: we don't write "pro" articles to counterbalance "anti" articles. Also, each article is considered on its own merits; if Criticism of Muhammad is deemed problematic (possibly for some of the same reasons as this one; and there are valid arguments to be made that all "Criticism of ..." articles are inherently non-neutral), then that would have to be discussed in a deletion discussion about that article.

Based on strength of arguments, therefore, we have a consensus to delete the article. Editors interested in improving the neutrality of the coverage of Muhammad should focus on improving the existing articles with material based on reliable sources, and consider whether some of these can be spun out into subarticles that allow more detailed coverage of some aspects, without having a built-in "pro" or "anti" slant defined by the title.  Sandstein  11:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praise and veneration of Muhammad[edit]

Praise and veneration of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · and veneration of Muhammad Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a overtly positive article and made as response to Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad. Muhammad#Legacy was by far enough for including any positive impacts. Article actually contradicts WP:FANPAGE. Capitals00 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An Arabic language article on this topic has existed since 2 Feb 2006 on the Arabic Wikipedia, but it hasn't been linked to this English language article before. Someone was supposed to link the two articles using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12201780. Now they are linked.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arashtitan can you tell the requirement of this article when we already have Muhammad#Legacy? Capitals00 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00 I think in order to cover the vast opinions it deserves a separate page, but it is subject to discussion of it should be merged with Criticism of Muhammad or not. Nevertheless, I agree that the redundancy should be avoided. Arashtitan talk 16:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The topic "Praise and veneration of Muhammad" definitely needs an independent article for it. If I wanted to write an article about this topic in particular, I would definitely need at least ~500,000 bytes to cover it thoroughly.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::I have removed the side-quotes and it actually has less quotes than Criticism_of_Islam#Nineteenth_and_twentieth_century or Criticism_of_Muhammad. I disagree with the assertion that it is a "cherry-picked synthesis". The article is of encyclopedic value and contains valuable insight into the interesting perspectives of prominent Muslim personalities throughout history. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

Sheriff: You hit the nail on the head when you compared the case with Criticism of Muhammad. Mhhossein (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could also turn it the other way around: there are no praise articles for Jesus, Moses, etc. so why should there be a separate page on Praise and veneration of Muhammad? - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HyperGaruda is right but there is also no criticism articles on Moses or Jesus. Sheriff was trying to say "that similar articles exist or do not exist" is not the determining factor (am I right?). We'd better adhere to policies, the criteria which is ignored by the nominator. Mhhossein (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Please see my previous comment, I disagree with these assertions. I have removed the excess quotes and it contains less quotes than articles such as Criticism_of_Islam#Nineteenth_and_twentieth_century or Criticism_of_Muhammad. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

There is still plenty left in the form of <blockquote> and ((quote)). Just because other articles were written badly, does not mean that everything should degrade to that level. I had carefully tried not to mention the criticism articles, because frankly I disagree with their existence too, per the official WP:POVFORK guideline. We're an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece, and should thus stick to the facts. IMO the only time that opinions might be considered, is when facts are challenged. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::::Thanks for stating that you disagree with the criticisms articles as well, because I think it goes to the core of whether or not perspectives (whether positive or negative) should be included in the WP encyclopedia. Both the criticisms articles and this one consists of persuasive statements, which are not reflective of impartial or neutral stances, but however, have been expressed by notable personalities throughout history. The issue therefore goes far deeper than this particular article. I think for the time being it is best to leave this article as it is, and perhaps discuss (as user:Arashtitan has suggested) whether or not to merge the criticisms article with this one while giving it a new title such as "Perspectives about Muhammad" or something like that. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

*Keep. The article gives a historical analysis from the 7th to 20th century of predominantly Muslim perspectives of Muhammad. The following sections are especially important Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Contemporaries_of_Muhammad, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Early_History, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Islamic_Golden_Age, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Ottoman_and_Mughal_Empires, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#18th-19th_Century, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#20th_Century as they give chronological details on trends within Muslim societies on the topic of praise and veneration of Muhammad. This topic has been the focus of prominent papers and books, including Annemarie Schimmel’s ‘’And Muhammad is his Messenger’’, Carl Ernst’s ‘’Muhammad as pole of existence’’ [1], as well as Ali S. Asani’s and Kamal Abdel-Malek’s ‘’Celebrating Muhammad’’ [2], all of which are referenced in the article. The article appears to be a historical piece and not so much a biographical piece. Just as the article Criticism of Muhammad gives an array of prominent figures in Judeo-Christian Civilization from the 7th century to the modern era on negative perspectives of Muhammad, I do not see why an article like this, which gives detailed accounts by prominent Muslim personalities of Muhammad which happen to be positive should be neglected. I think it is a valuable addition to the content available on Wikipedia. 69.165.152.170 (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

::The tone of the article is rather impartial, however the statements by the Muslims specified within the article are quite devout and may be seen as persuasive. Similarly the quotes by various Western scholars pertaining to criticisms, seen here [3], [4], and here [5] are also in a persuasive tone. If Martin Luther can say "a devil and first-born child of Satan" over here Criticism_of_Muhammad#Martin_Luther, then I do not see why Saadi Shirazi can not say "God made your praise and uttered your glorification" over here Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Saadi_Shirazi. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

::I disagree, criticisms are encyclopedic because they provide insight into negative opinions on a matter or personality. The opposite therefore should be allowed. This article is in regards to perspectives of various influencial Muslim personalities. I do not think allowing for negative opinions while removing positive opinions adheres with WP:OSE. To add, I have removed the excess quotes, which does not constitute WP:QUOTEFARM. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock) *Keep as it is an article that is of encyclopedic value and of significant importance. As per WP:OSE it is important to allow for the diverse opinions on such a personality to be shared in an encyclopedic format. The nature of the article is not much different from articles such as Criticism of Muhammad or Criticism of Islam. I have removed the excess quotes and what remains is an article that is about 80% quote-free and straight to the point, which are less quotes than many other articles, such as the ones mentioned previously. It could use improvements, however, deletion is contrary to WP:NPOV, since criticism articles have flourished on WP for some time now. An article aimed at praise and veneration is therefore of value. Articles such as Muhammad in Islam, Muhammad#Legacy, and Muhammad_in_Islam#Muslim_veneration_for_Muhammad do not properly address the historical perspectives of Muslim personalities, but rather focus on Islamic beliefs pertaining to Muhammad. I do not see any point in comparing the two articles. Similarly Muhammad#Medieval_Christian_views does not provide as much insight into the matter of negative perspectives as compared to Criticism of Muhammad. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

A few things. Firstly, WP:OSE is an essay, not a policy, so there is no requirement to "adhere" to it. Secondly, I think you are misreading it as well, as it states both "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged.", so it kind of discourages people from using it in precisely the way you are using it. It also says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist..." so I don't see how you consider this particular essay to support your line of reasoning that this page should exist on account of a Criticism page also existing. As a matter of fact, the essay is pretty much about how that is NOT a good reason for it to exist, summed up perfectly by this quote: "When an editor introduces a novel type of article in Wikipedia, it may be necessary, however, to consider whether such organization of material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view and no original research. Other editors may argue that a certain type of articles doesn't exist because of inherent violations of said policies; see WP:ATTACK for example. Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate."(emphasis added). So, your assertion that this article's very clear violations of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYNTH should be overlooked in order to adhere to WP:OSE is completely backward, as the essay you reference explicitly speaks out against that.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::You could use the same reasoning on articles such as Criticism of Jesus or Criticism of Muhammad. As I have stated, I do not believe that this article violates WP:NPOV since it details the the perspectives of historical personalities in a neutral and impartial way. No where does it explicitly say that "Saadi Shirazi is without a doubt right," rather it states Saadi Shirazi's views and statements in regards to Muhammad. The same is done in the criticisms article. As for WP:SYNTH I think that the nature of the article is such that it is an analysis, compilation and resource for various positive perspectives about Muhammad. Like I said, it is no different in principal from the analysis, compilation and resources provided in the criticisms articles provided above. As for WP:NOR, I do not see any original research here. It is a well sourced article and the statements are verifiable. No where are conclusions implied or drawn. It simply consists of sourced and referenced views of a variety of notable personalities. I think WP:OSE should definitely be taken into consideration here. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

You still don't understand what OSE is, it states over and over that whether or not other articles exist is not a good rational for inclusion or deletion, and says "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article." which you continue to ignore as you use the existence of criticism articles as your main basis for inclusion. However, since you insist on drawing parallels, let me briefly explain that this is totally different than the criticism articles. The criticism articles are not just compiled lists of everyone who has ever said something bad about Muhammad. They are articles about historical criticism, and as such they actually include views by people on both sides, i.e. they have criticism and they also have defense against and rebuttal of those criticisms when applicable. So your argument that this page is needed to counter balance those is unfounded. You are conflating the criticism pages with attack pages (Which they are not), and then trying to balance them with this purely positive one. The fact is that all this information is redundant as it is covered elsewhere, and the way in which it is being presented is what violates policy. Also, you still have not addressed the fact that "Annemarie Schimmel (1985), And Muhammad is his Messenger - The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety" is cited 39 times in the article, meaning the vast bulk of information in this article is derived from one single source. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an oversimplification of my positions. The article in question, Praise and veneration of Muhammad does not violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, or WP:NOR. There is no original research, so WP:NOR does not apply. The article is written in an impartial and neutral manner, in which positive perspectives about Muhammad are referenced and given as they are without drawing any conclusions, which means that it does not violate WP:NPOV. This brings us to WP:SYNTH, which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This does not apply here, since no conclusions are drawn. Referenced materials are given as they are and they are stated for what they are. The article itself is a neutral and impartial description of various positive perspectives about Muhammad that have been expressed by notable personalities throughout history. The section of the Criticism's article dealing with history of critics do not include the views of both sides. This is clear over here Criticism_of_Muhammad#Critics, where the perspectives of critics are only given and there are no opposing views given. However, in regards to the section Criticism_of_Muhammad#Points_of_contention, there are opposing views, simply because this is not a historical analysis, rather it involves accusations and contentious points. Since this is not a historical analysis of the topic it makes sense as to why there are views from both sides, however, like I have said previously, there are no opposing sides given on the critics section of the article. Since this article, Praise and veneration of Muhammad only deals with the historical analysis and description of perspectives of notable personalities in regards to positive perspectives about Muhammad and not points of contention, it is in line with other articles on Wikipedia, which brings us to WP:OSE (as discussed in my previous comment). As for Annemarie Schimmel, she is an award winning author, who remains a leading figure in Western scholarship on the topic. The article itself, however, contains 118 references, far more than the 39 that you have indicated. If you read the book, Annemarie Schimmel herself disagrees with some aspects of the praise and veneration, as she mentions in her book, however, from what I see she typically references the quotations for what they are. What you say is not a legitimate reason for deletion. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]
You might want to re-read the critics section you just quoted. "A more positive interpretation appears in the 13th century Estoire del Saint Grail, the first book in the vast Arthurian cycle, the Lancelot-Grail." "Oussani states that...the views of Luther and those who call Muhammad a "wicked impostor", a "dastardly liar" and a "willful deceiver" are an "indiscriminate abuse" and are "unsupported by facts: Instead, 19th-century Western scholars...give us a more unbiased estimate of Muhammad's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity.". These would clearly appear to be opposing views to the other criticism being presented (i.e. including both criticism by Martin Luthor and criticism by Oussani of that criticism), so there goes your no opposing views point. Also, you claim that the article is unbiased, without synth and original research, yet much of the article is uncited ("The Islamic Golden Age saw the expansion of Islamic civilization throughout much of the world. By 750 AD, Muslim communities could be found from Al-Andalus in the Iberian Peninsula to China. Praise and veneration of Muhammad has also existed throughout these various communities throughout the Muslim world. Both Muslim philosophers and mystics looked up to Muhammad as their ideal, and many examples of praise and veneration aimed at Muhammad may be found throughout this period."[No citation], "Islam is said to have been preached in China by a relative of Muhammad himself, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas. Muslims have made up a significant part of the Chinese population ever since. During the Ming Dynasty Muhammad was seen by the Chinese Emperor, Zhu Yuanzhang, as the leader of holy figures and as a guide to all creations."[No citation], etc.) and much is cherry picked and mis-represented in a way that violates Synth. For instance, the "Jewish Sources" section consists exclusively of the information that Michael H. Hart (A White Supremacist with no actual ties to the Jewish community or historical Judaism) listed Muhammad as the most influential person in history. Not only is it wrong to attribute this to "Jewish Sources", but to say that this fulfills the criteria of "Praise and Veneration" requires the editor to interpret the word "Influential", as one can be influential in a negative way (i.e. Time Magazine making Hitler Person of the Year in 1938 for the reason "Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today", recognizing his influence yet neither praising nor venerating him), so the interpretation of this label as praise IS original research. This isn't the only example either, just one of the more obvious ones, and indicative of the type of problems that are replete throughout the article. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Depends what you mean by "opposing views". That's not so much an opposing view to criticisms, but rather it may be seen as a reevaluation by certain Western scholars on the topic of a particular criticism made by Martin Luther. Oussani is simply saying that Martin Luther went overboard, he is not praising Muhammad in the passage you have quoted. Similarly we see a similar point given in this article under Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#20th_Century, where it states "movements such as Wahhabism, Salafism and Deobandism opposed what they deemed as the "shirk" or polytheism in the praise and veneration of Muhammad". Clearly this is an opposing view that is given within the article that is against much of the praise and veneration of Muhammad expressed. It may be further elaborated upon. The statement you have quoted in regards to the Islamic Golden Age is totally unrelated to the perspectives of notable personalities that this article focuses on. It seems to be a introductory sentence which may be replaced or rethought out or kept. You are free to challenge any unsourced materials, but this is not an excuse for deletion of the entire article, which is well-sourced and encyclopedic overall. It is also well documented that by 750 AD Muslim communities existed from Al-Andalus in the Iberian Peninsula to China, see here History_of_Islam_in_China. As far as Hart's quote, I am fine with removing it. It doesn't appear to have been in the original version of this article and was added later. I do not find any use in including Hart's ranking, however, this is another topic of discussion and is irrelevant to the majority of the article, which focuses on Muslim perspectives. Therefore it is not an excuse for deletion of the article. Once again, none of the points you have mentioned indicate a valid reason to delete the article. Much of what you have stated is a diversion from what is relevant to the issue of deletion. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

@Milowent: An Arabic language article on this topic has existed since 2 Feb 2006 on the Arabic Wikipedia, but it hasn't been linked to this English language article before. Someone was supposed to link the two articles using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12201780. Now they are linked.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Interesting question. I think that since Wikipedia English is often the standard bearer of articles and categories, since it consists of more articles than any other language group, is a great place to start such topics. I disagree, however, with the assertion that the articles in the praise category have direct relation to this article. If you look at the praise section, it simply consists of religious practices and does not detail perspectives or views of notable personalities in regards to Muhammad. It simply consists of three articles, Mawlid, Durood, and Naat, which are simply explanations of practices, but do not give proper insight into historical perspectives of prominent personalities in either Muslim traditions or non-Muslim traditions. I also have no problem with articles for other religious figures such as Praise and veneration of Jesus, Praise and veneration of Moses, etc. since articles such as Criticism of Jesus and Moses#Criticism_of_Moses do indeed exist. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

Whoa: The striking of the primary IP commenter here defending the article, as he is also the blocked article creator, makes it difficult for me to assume good faith in the creation of this article. I have created a number of articles on Egyptian movies, and there is always an Arabic language version extant to help me. The lack of an Arabic language article on this topic is good evidence that this is an unnecessary fork article. A regular reader is not going to look for articles dedicating to recounting praise of their top figures, that coverage should be incorporated in the primary articles discussing the religion. Therefore, I recommend this article be Deleted.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: An Arabic language article on this topic has existed since 2 Feb 2006 on the Arabic Wikipedia, but it hasn't been linked to this English language article before. Someone was supposed to link the two articles using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12201780. Now they are linked.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Praising the Prophet Muhammad has existed since the earliest days and it is a fundamental pillar in the Islamic doctrine. God says in the Qur'an:

God is indeed saluting the Prophet Muhammad and his angels are doing so. Oh you have believed! Salute him and greet him with greetings of peace.

— Qur'an 33:56

And indeed, you are O Muhammad of a sublime moral character.

— Qur'an 68:4
I advise you to listen to the very beautiful song of Maher Zain about the Prophet Muhammad: "Ya Nabi Salam Alayka (O Prophet Peace be upon you)" here and also to listen to very beautiful song of Mesut Kurtis "Burdah (Mantle)" here in which he sings: "My LORD convey your salutations and blessings... forever... forever... upon your beloved one the best of all the creation... That is Muhammad lord of the worlds and all the nations."--86.96.60.18 (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AGF and remember to comment on content, not contributors. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said Eperoton. It should be improved rather than deleted.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : it is a subject in its own right. Books have been written specifically on this subject such as Annemarie Schimmel. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Muhammad-His-Messenger-Veneration-Religion/dp/0807841285/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More