"
@ you will do just fine; and Shabaz was ""made"" to retire as far as my personal opinion is concerned(his is by far the dirtiest dysysop I have witnessed ever). However Dougweller is quite an expert so his input will be valuable. Now to matter at hand. The current version of the article has three basic problems which I will list below. We can discuss them together or separately as you wish. (Code 16 apparently agrees with my other edits, even though he does not wish to state it, I would also like to state that  is quite right, I misunderstood prophetic as being concerned with prophecy at first but I am certain now that it means pertaining to the prophet)
 It has been proven here that Israr Khan is just a non notable run of the mill professor at some Malaysian university who writes self published books. Consensus has already been reached between me and Code16 that he is an unreliable source for content, as is clear from the discussion I linked. So I would like to contest his views being added here, or anywhere else for that matter. 
 Hallaq has been given a new section all by himself without any rationale. He is a western scholar so he should be included with other western scholars and given due weight. To be frank his weight should be LESS than other western scholars, as he is not a scholar of hadith per se. He is a scholar of law/jurisprudence, and as law is based on hadith he is also knowledgeable in hadith. But he cannot compare with other scholars whose main interest was hadith.  
 I would like to contest the creation of ""authenticity"" subsection. My  argument is that this section is highly misleading. It leads one to assume that other scholars are against hadith for other reason, whereas in reality almost all scholars(both western and eastern) criticize hadith because they consider it as ""inauthentic"". So this section should not be created at all. Regards   "