Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Islam Way of Life

Islam Way of Life
This book was ment to teach how to become a good muslim. Is it a textbook we want? I don't think such book is useful in universities and schools. As for me, Islam Way of Life is an advocacy book and therefore it should be removed from Wikibooks. --Derbeth talk 08:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep There is nothing inherently wrong with advocacy. Any book teaching a practice or skill will (well, should) have a rationale for why (or why not) that skill is interesting (at leas for some people). Of course, it mustn't shun critisism of the topic. If "becoming a good moslem" is the scope of this book I think it could be an interesting read.
 * That doesn't say that this book isn't worth deleting -- I haven't read it -- but I don't want to do so on the arguments given.
 * Furthermore, I'm unhappy with how adamant some are about needing all books to fit some existing educational institute curricula. Frankly, not all interesting subjects that are worth learning are necessarily taught in existing classrooms.
 * Finally, for those who disagree with the previous paragraph, if there are moslem equivalents of a religious collage that I know of, then this would most certainly be useful. --Swift 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want Wikibooks to be filled with books like "Islam Way of Life", "Being a Good Jew" or "Handbook of Faithful Baptist". Books at Wikibooks should serve people to learn new useful things. The purpose of this book is to make people be muslims like the authors wants them to be. For me, that's unacceptable. Wikibooks definitely should not tell people what is good for them and what is not, how should they live, what software should they use etc. --Derbeth talk 10:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But for people who already are muslems, or who are making the transition to become muslems, this book could be a valuable instructional resource. If there are NPOV issues, that's a different story entirely, but the discussion of how to do X well, with very few possible restrictions on X, is certainly an allowable topic for a book here on wikibooks. There is a distinct difference between "How to be a good muslem", and "Why you should be a good muslem". The first is textbook material and can stay, the latter is advocacy and should be deleted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've been watching these too, but really don't know what to think of them. Advocacy is a problem, because if it's advocating a POV, it's obviously not NPOV, and wikibooks are supposed to be NPOV. It's not that they aren't useful, it's just that they're only useful if you hold a particular POV (and probably a fairly specific one too... both these books are probably aiming at specific interpretations of islam). Is there anyplace in wikicities or wikia that hosts religious texts? I feel that there should be a place for writing this sort of textbook, but I have a hard time convincing myself that they belong on wikibooks.-- SB_Johnny  | talk 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is my opinion that an instructional book on how to do X well is an acceptable topic for wikibooks, with a few restrictions on X. For people who are newly-converted muslems, or who are long-time muslems with questions about their faith, this book serves as an expository, "factual" resource about the topic. Talking about religion is not necessarily advocacy, any more then saying that the cookbook advocates against vegetarianism because several recipies advocate the cooking and eating of meat. Talking about the religion, including a history of the religion, basic teachings and scholarly discussions of it are and should be acceptable topics. Nearly every major univeristy in the world has a "religion" department of some kind where religions are studied. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not talking that History of Islam is not ok. We need such books, because they provide some objective wisdom. But this book does not do it, it does not even say how to do X. It is saying you should all do Y!. --Derbeth talk 14:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So then any how-to artical should be viewed as NPOV and propaganda? Are we to believe that the readers here are so suggestable that they will follow all instructions they see? In this day and age, I think it is predominantly important to understand what different religions are about, how they are the same, and how they are different. Especially, with the global political climate, it is important that people learn to understand this particular religion, because there is much unfounded bigotry on this topic between people who don't know. Politics aside, this book is allowed to say "all good muslims should do X", because there are a set of things that a person must be to be defined as a good muslim. If you want to be a good muslim, you must do certain things, in the same way that to be a good mathematician, or to be a good scientist, or a good engineer, you must do certain things. Disregarding certain principals on a given topic make you bad at that topic. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As an additional comment, I've read a sizable portion of this book since the discussion began, and I can't hardly find any instances of blatant POV violations. The authors of this book have clearly taken some care to maintain NPOV, and I am inclined towards leniency if a few small infringements can be found. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept. By my count there are two votes to keep, and only the original nomination to delete. TThere also have been no comments on this one in over a week. This is hardly a consensus to delete. --Whiteknight (Discuss this) 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)