Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category)

Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category)

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Code16 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Hadith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Criticism of Hadith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

The user FreeatlastChitchat has deleted the "Authenticity" sub category [[1]] and is continually reverting its inclusion in both pages. His main argument is that the source is not reliable and undue weight is being given to it. He also claims that the paper I cited isn't talking about Hadith in general. The talk page entry he created lists his concerns in detail. My main argument is

1. That the material is properly sourced from JSTOR. The main scholar used is Wael Hallaq, a recognized expert in the field of Islam, currently a professor at Columbia University.
2. User FreeatlastChitchat's assumption regarding the "misrepresentation" of the content in the JSTOR article are completely unfounded. The article is most certainly talking about hadith in general, and not only specific prophetic hadiths. He probably has not read the paper, since he most likely doesn't have access to JSTOR. For the purposes of mediation, I can provide access to this paper to the mediators and this editor, if that is allowed.

Update#1 User FreeatlastChitchat has claimed that "prophetic hadith" only applies to a specific subset of hadith. This is an unsourced claim. The author in the paper makes no mention of limiting his argument to only the set this user is claiming. In fact he's talking about mutawatir hadith in general, this is very clear from the content of the paper. Also the word "hadith" in Arabic means "report", and I'm sure the term "prophetic hadith", is being used by the scholar to refer to the reports by the prophet, which are compiled in hadith collections, not to that specific subset that user FreeatlastChitchat is claiming. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 04:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Update #2. The paper is available on a website too apparently online (URL: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html). Please note that the paper clearly does not limit its subject to the specific subset claimed by user FreeatlastChitchat. It's using the term "prophetic hadith" in the context I've listed above in Update#1. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 04:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Update #3: Fiqh (Islamic Law) includes Hadith as an important source, so any scholar of Fiqh would necessarily have expertise in Hadith by definition. Especially if he is a professor of Islamic Law at Columbia. The source is clearly an expert in the field. So user's counter-argument below on this issue is null and void. Also, this issue is about Hallaq, not Israr Khan, so the scope should not be expanded on other user's request. Lastly, Hallaq is not being given "a new section" as the user falsely claims. The category is labelled "authenticity" in general. Just because it currently has Hallaq as a main source does not mean its his category.

Update #4: I've suggested on the TP that categories be made based on the Subject Matter alone, and not the religious background of the scholars. This way, the authenticity category will contain all Muslim and Non Muslim scholars who have argued this. The same goes for the other categories. It will automatically fix the weight and also help the article considerably. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 08:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Update #4: Looks like the matter is settled. FreeatlastChitchat has apparently dropped most of his objections of reliability etc. and the weight issue doesn't even exist anymore, after the changes to the categories made, as per suggestions of multiple other editors and admins. Unless the other editor here objects to any of the relevant content in the main Criticism of Hadith article, I think we can close this content dispute. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 23:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• The inclusion of Israr Khan and his self published book in the article. The nominator has already agreed with me here that Israr Khan is just a non notable run of the mill professor at some malaysian university who is not a reliable source. So, even though the nom has agreed that this is an unreliable source he continues to add it back. This addition should be discussed as well.
• Wael Hallaq and his area of expertise should be discussed as he is not a scholar of hadith, rather he is a scholar of Islamic Law, also known as Fiqh. Even the paper that has been quoted (extensively) deals with hadith in a legal background. So we should discuss why a single paper by Wael Hallaq is being cited as an RS when he is not even an expert in the field.
• Even if it is recognized that Wael Hallaq is a reliable source, rationale should be provided why he is being separated from other eminent western scholars and being given a complete new section. This kind of weight should only be granted once consensus is established that the notability of Hallaq's views and his person is so high comparable to other western scholars that they are to be bundled together in one section and he is to be given a new section all by himself.

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 04:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Agree. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Accept. This case is provisionally accepted for mediation. I will now ask the committee if there is a mediator who is willing to accept the case. If so, you will be informed here. If no mediator accepts the case within fourteen days (i.e. by 21:55 UTC on December 12, 2015), then this case will be retroactively rejected for lack of a mediator. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
• Reject. In light of this message from FreeatlastChitchat on my user talk page, I am going to take his request to "Be kind enough to decline/remove/nuke the case." to be a conversion of his "Agree" above to a "Reject" or at least some form of non-consent, thus causing this case to fail to satisfy prerequisites to mediation #5 and #6, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation" and "Among the parties who have consented to mediation, every major viewpoint concerning the dispute is represented", respectively. The provisional acceptance of the case is withdrawn and the case is rejected. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)