Talk:Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable source? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  These sentences need work 

message: I find many of sources for this book that can make it notable.. 
Here some are:
* https://dailytimes.com.pk/104619/love-leaves-a-mark/?_gl=1*1r0t4xx*_ga*YW1wLUV0TEUydTd1blRDREdhQzFzYVFEWk5ZOVJsN1FKQmZ5VjVDaUNTN1AtRVAtNnI1N0p4R3dZTGhRbmpFUmJreU4
* https://www.quranandscience.com/discover-islam/prophet-muhammad/his-biography/218-ar-raheeq-al-makhtum-the-sealed-nectar
* https://web.archive.org/web/20161228032845/http://www.icsbook.info/1582/shibir
* https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=r_80rJHIaOMC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=first+Islamic+Conference+on+Seerah+1976&source=bl&ots=LFx0SQsLXv&sig=AU8mqX6AdovgrmsIAlr8eODMPxQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KhoEVOqEKMbV8gXwtYHQBw
* https://web.archive.org/web/20131203035434/http://store.dar-us-salam.com/product/004a.html
* https://www.siasat.com/speech-on-prophet-muhammad-s-a-w-s-and-message-of-islam-2025835/
* https://www.universitypressbooks.com/book/9798714126345
* https://www.quranandscience.com/discover-islam/prophet-muhammad/his-biography/218-ar-raheeq-al-makhtum-the-sealed-nectar Xpërt100 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written as a new format 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias present