Talk:Idries Shah

Caveat Lector!

"The scholarly consensus today is that the person allegedly called Idries Shah was a hoax..." This little ludibrium, which one hopes Shah would have enjoyed, represents a light-hearted attempt to point up the deplorable standards of scholarship, axe-grinding partisanship and self-appointed custodianship that bring discredit to this and other 'Shah family' entries. Must everything the man did be "alleged" or "supposed"? Can't the writer get off his arse and do some primary research of his own, finding out whether it actually was or wasn't? Innuendo, based solely on what google turns up, has turned what should have been a serious, balanced account of a considerable life into a caricature of P.C. Plod's testimony in the Magistrate's Court: "The suspect peregrinated down Brighton Road and into the Middle East, where the crime of hoodwinking readers and passing off forged manuscripts took place..." Even in the Magistrate's Court, though, the defendant is deemed innocent until proven guilty - and those who make accusations are cross-examined in the witness box. Lamentably, the same standards don't seem to apply to Wikipedia.

Deflections

The article has improved considerably since I last read it, and appears generally neutral and reliable, so congrats to the editors. A few observations.

As a response to the attacks on Shah, twenty-four scholars and writers, drawn from both East and West, compiled a Festschrift in honour of his services to Sufi studies (Sufi Studies, East and West, 1973)

What is the source for the statement that the 'festschrift' was a response to criticism? And is it irrelevant that Shah was accused of producing his own 'festschrift', from conception and commissioning the authors, through to marketing? I suggest deletion.

Some orientalists were hostile, in part because Shah presented classical Sufi writings as tools for self-development to be used by contemporary people, rather than as objects of historical study.

That's an opinion that Shah often uttered, and sourced here to a Shah follower. Did orientalists really say 'We object because Shah is popularizing our historical field of study'? Again, delete, or say the Shah camp claimed, etc. Another tactic was to claim that (unspecified) criticisms were pseudonymously written by Shah himself.

Moore (op cit) says:

"This article constitutes a footnote to L. P. Elwell-Sutton's magisterial 'Sufism & Pseudo-Sufism' (Encounter Vol. XLIV No. 5, May 1975, pp. 9-17)."

'Sufism & Pseudo-Sufism' ought then to be cited here. It might have been published in 1972, but it's a long time since I read it, and Encounter is not online. The correspondence was as long as the article, and dragged on for months. I think only Moore objected to Elwell-Sutton lumping together Gurdjieff and Shah, which E-S dismissed in an Author's reply. Moore's subsequent attacks on Shah were written as much to rally the Gurdjieffians, as to discredit Shah, IMO.

Sam Weller (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sam,

I would agree.

"Sufi Studies:East and West" was presented as Commemorating the 700 th anniversary of the death of Jalal ud Din Rumi (died 1273)

We are hardly to judge wether it was entirely fabricated.

I found the piece written by Reza Arasteh in it quite usefull for further study. 'His' work at least was not fabricated and was published years before by Brill, Leiden. Academic stuff.

Of others I was not at liberty to judge.

Reference to Arasteh in the context of "Sufi Studies..." has been omitted from footnote, Wikigod knows why...

First time I ever heard of Elwell-Sutton in reference to Sufi Studies was in the context of this article. Perhaps he was frustrated about not being mentioned in general reference elsewhere i.e. Henri Corbin e.a. and had to have his voice heard, no matter what.

Moore is a joke or a hoax or whatever, certainly not a scholarly source. I never understood how he was accepted in the first place.

As it stands this here is an article written for internet, using internet sources on the fringe.

We might as well be sorry for Belgian weather...

In general though I think it necessary that the information should be in relation to Shah's own work under his own name. Critics should have their own page, if they are notable enough. This for the sake of clear reference. I mean reference to follow up a study on.

"Critics should have their own page"? I don't think that is the way Wikipedia goes about things, Lunarian, and I'm not quite sure what you intend by this, except to then find that Shah's critics aren't notable enough to have their own article and hence they are not in a position to pass any comment (which is heading in the direction of WP:NOTCENSORED).

And if a critic has his/her own page for their criticism, then where on Earth do you put criticism of the critics :)? Which is not to say that I personally enjoy folk having a pop at Shah. Esowteric+Talk 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Need I intend anything, Eric ?

I am surely not the one who is going to be interested in making the articles, since I am already ... solidly entrenched in the Shah camp...perhaps.

And what is wrong with the notabilty critirion ?

Don't we all love to hate it ?

Cheers,

Lunarian (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sam, thanks for your kind comments.

To respond to your points, the source for the Festschrift sentence is the following paragraph in Shah's obituary in The Independent:

When in 1967 Graves published his new translation of Omar Khayym, challenging Edward Fitzgerald's refusal to treat the Persian Khayym as a Sufi poet, critics saw a chance to attack Shah, despite the fact that he had had no hand in Graves's version. Those interested in Sufism as a force in the modern world rallied to Shah's support and 24 of them, drawn from both East and West, compiled a Festschrift in his honour, Sufi Studies, East and West (1973).

As for the characterisation of Orientalists' objections, that is taken from the same article. I was not aware that Robert Cecil had been a pupil of Shah's, though I now note his presence as an author on ishkbooks e.g., so I'm sure you're right. I'll do a bit more research on this to see if there are alternative sources commenting on orientalists' stance. Sources commenting on Cecil's status might be useful too; I wasn't aware of any.

In particular, if you have any ideas as to where I might lay my hands on a copy of Elwell-Sutton's article, please let me know. Regards, JN466 11:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that Cecil (a professional historian who died 2 years before Shah) wrote, '... Graves published his new translation of Omar Khayym, ... critics saw a chance to attack Shah, despite the fact that he had had no hand in Graves's version.' Beryl Graves's response, cited here as evidence of her husband's implicit trust in Shah, was carefully worded, but expressed 'surprise' at the obit's smooth deflection of attention from the Shah family's responsibility for the hoax. Omar Ali-Shah claimed the literal translation (actually Heron-Allen's) was his, and asked Graves to improve it. Graves knew no Persian, but did so as a favour (from a hospital bed recovering from an op). Idries Shah was personally involved, promising to produce the ms.

I'll look for the Encounter article. Rawlinson's 8500-word entry on Idries Shah in his Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions is worth reading as a rare attempt to make sense of both the Elwell-Sutton/Moore and 'Shah school' versions of reality. Sam Weller (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I recall leafing through Rawlinson's book and reading that entry in a bookshop some ten years ago, though I don't remember much of it. It never occurred to me to use it as a source here, but I see it is quite well cited, was reviewed in the Times Higher Education supplement, and the author has a few journal publications. I'll try and get hold of it again. Cheers, --JN466 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And yes, like you say, Beryl Graves' letter has another dimension that had not occurred to me before; partly because I didn't know Cecil was associated with Shah. --JN466 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the Festschrift sentence and adjusted the quote from Beryl Graves' letter to follow her wording more closely. JN466 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And there no longer is going to be any mention at all of Sufi Studies East and West edited by Pr. L.F. Rushbrook Williams ISBN 0525211950 ? Despite the reviews of Adil Askari in Theoria to Theory, International Journal Of Science , Philosophy and Contemplative Religion Vol 10, No 3 (1976) pp. 249-254 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Ltd -or M. Bashir Dervish in Islamic Culture January 1977 pp 71-73, published by the Islamic Culture Board Hyderabad-India -or Pr Leonard Lewin in International Philosophical Quarterly,etc ?

Talk about balance

As for relevance...

Pr. Reza Arasteh was Director of Interdisciplinary Research at the Psychiatric Institute of Washington at the time when he contributed to the symposium under observation. He had by then written "Rumi the Persian, the Sufi" ISBN 9780415442558 prefaced by Erich Fromm. Final integration in adult personality Leiden Brill ed 1965 [1] etc...

His contribution was called "Psychology of the Sufi Way to Individuation" -a process he described as the transcendance of three stages into one single state 1)illumination of name (cultural self) 2)illumination of qualities 3)illumination of essence...

He had coresponded on the subject with Thomas Merton and this is where a social and cultural relevance needs to be accentuated, since this is the kind of context Idries Shah's work ( "The Sufis" 1964 a.o.) participated in. A relevance underlined and accesible in " Thomas Merton and the Sufis" ISBN 1887752072.

That is where we learn about Merton's study of Ibn Abbad of Ronda through the work of Miguel Asin Palacios.

Remember Asin Palacios from "The Sufis" ? ISBN 0863040209 Chpt V, The Secret Doctrine Pg 246 cites Palacios' words: "Recently publishing a doctoral thesis- Character and Origins of the ideas of the Blessed Raymond Lulle (Toulouse 1912) -its author, Mr. Probost, with completly infantile audacity, calls Menendez y Pelayo, Ribera and me liars and romantics for maintaining the Arab affiliation of the Lullian system. This inexpert youth does not know my study Psychology According to Mohiedin Abenarabi, published in actes du XIVme Congrès des Orientalistes seven years ago, in which I had demonstrated documentarily the copying of the allegory of the Lights" Even in those days- Idries Shah commented- before his studies of the illuminism of the Sufis were complete, Asin was ready and willing to produce documents to prove its point. ( the reference is to Palcios: Obras Escogidas, I, Madrid 1946 -let us add Pg 164, note 2 for completion, in: "Ibn Masarra y su escuela, origenes de la filosofia hispanomusumana" 1914)

One can read some of Shah's presentiment of his own critics in to this ( see also the introductory essay to "The Way of the Sufi")

What did the man say ? " Take what is in my hand" ?

Lunarian (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shah and his detractors

L.P Elwell-Sutton

Having read L.P Elwell-Sutton's allegedly "magisterial" work (Sufism and Pseudo-Sufism in Encounter), I can just picture him reading Shah's books; angrily scribbling down the errors he's detected; adding to his list of eulogies; beginning to froth at the mouth and rage, and determining to write a fierce rebuttal, like "Disconcerted of Milton Keynes" writing into the televison company to complain on "Have Your Say".

I think the grotesque and distinctly un-PC caricature of Idries Shah on the second page of the vindictive is quite appropriate, but for all the wrong reasons. Elwell-Sutton begins his critique by building up a sharp picture of charlatanism and disrepute, and though this rhetoric concerns figures centuries before Shah, when he then switches his gaze to talk of Shah, the idea is presumably that this shameful image or "straw man" fallacy that he's painted should rub off on Shah and some might, and wrongly, stick.

Yes, there's no denying that a handful of mistakes have been made in the books, and yes some of them look pretty basic. A more charitable interpretation would simply be that these occurred due to a simple lapse in concentration. Having worked to self-imposed and punishing schedules like Tahir and his father, this is easily done, though in this day and age, all we have to do is click edit, type and save (often several times over) and nobody is any the wiser.

It's possible that things such as Shah's misreading "bad ast" (it is wind) as "ba dast" (with the hand) might actually be the kind of play on words of which the Sufis were fond. Had I been Shah, and were this the case, and considering that such things would be lost on the vast majority of readers, I think I would have added an explanatory footnote. I think that Shah, too, would have been more careful about such things once he became aware of the opposition of folk like Elwell-Sutton. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The jury's out here regarding the possibly deliberate way in which a "mythology" has been built-up. Rawlinson's alternative explanation that this had a teaching role and that it was deliberately made to be deconstructible is worth considering, though in the end even Rawlinson made the odd mistake (such as speculating incorrectly that the real Leonard Lewin might be another of Shah's creations), and in the end he can only speculate.

The wheel's still in spin or the fat lady has yet to sing, as they say. I think Tahir might have the odd surprise twist to bring to the table in the next few months and years, in an informational rather than teaching role. Esowteric+Talk 13:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

James Moore

Without wishing to be un-PC and offend washer-women: as for James Moore's equally vexed contribution (Neo-Sufism: The Case Of Idries Shah), it's just more of the same. He's heard another dog barking, and he's going to join in (while the caravan moves on). His offering hardly deserves a footnote, in my personal opinion, though I have to set aside such dismissal when editing.

What's missing?

If there is something vital missing from Shah's projection as Elwell-Sutton proposes, then it is not God nor Islam imo, but for the vast majority of those enrolled on the correspondence course (and who take to heart Shah's insistence that adopting random exercises is to be avoided; etc; etc): it is perhaps mindfulness and exercises concerned with working on the Heart. It's my OR, of course, but that's how I see Idries Shah's Sufi Paradigm.

Having said that, perhaps this is merely a matter of there being more than one way to skin a cat? Some work on the heart; others work (or at other times there is work) on the nafs, to reveal the heart. Esowteric+Talk 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific " exercise concerned with working on the Heart " in mind ? Any a " real teacher " might conduct and oversee ? Shah in his writings never spoke of himself as a teacher, as you probably well know; nor is there such a thing as a correspondence course on these matters.

Your opinion is worthy of respect but should not stain the issue.

You remember perhaps the play on the word Kalb (Heart), KLB also carrying the meaning of dog : Beat the Heart (dog) and the neglectful behave  ? Shah thought this was the kind of advice you were bound to find on your path...

So, what is missing ?

Lunarian (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you mean QLB (heart) and KLB (dog). Nor did Shah himself claim to be the Qutub (et al). It all smacks of "plausible deniability" to me. Esowteric+Talk 10:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its ISBN 0863040209 "The Sufis" pg 116

" Chaucer's use of the phrase.. " ff.

I remain confused about your point though.

But have you thought of "Eating the blame" ?

When the cook of a Zen monastery once was so hasty he cut part of a snake in the vetgetables...

The followers of Fugai thought they had never tasted such good soup. But when the zen master himself found the snake's head in his bowl, he summond the cook. "What is this ?" he demanded, holding up the head of the snake.

"Oh, thank you, master," replied the cook, taking the morsel and eating it quickly"

It smacks of Koan

( in "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones" Paul Reps 1973 Pelican Books )

when in doubt about the link between Sufism and Zen turn to Toshihiko Izutsu (in particular ISBN 1883991048)

While you are picking the camel bones of the critics the caravan is defenitely moving on.

For a decent many without the "loose and informal chain of command where upper rungs quarantine the blame to the lower rungs"

Lunarian (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

World Tales book is not just for children

World Tales is an anthology of folktales, demonstrating how so many interesting motifs recur around the world and in manuscripts down through the centuries.

The introduction to each tale details some of the various sources for similar tales, though without providing Aarne-Thompson classification numbers or other precise references as might be found in a scholarly work on folklore. So it is a popular publication in the field of folklore.

This does not make it a children's book. Many adults are also interested in folktales, and particularly in identifying motifs, understanding symbolism, learning about origins of tales, and so on, while most children are primarily interested in enjoying stories for their entertainment value.

Nowhere on the cover of the book or in the publication details does it say "Children".

I think it ought to be re-classified to indicate that it may be of interest to adults. A suitable header might be "Folklore" or "Inter-Cultural Studies".

213.94.192.200 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Coilín, 8 September 2009

Senior line of descent

This was recently posted at the usenet newsgroup alt.sufi:

" (start quote) This below from the wikipedia article is quite misleading, and is in fact, incorrect information coming from Sutton, who appears to be sadly misinformed about the lines of descent from Mohammed. The wikipedia entry reads, in part,

"Sutton, in a 1975 article on Shah, opined that Graves had been trying to "upgrade" Shah's "rather undistinguished lineage", and that the reference to Mohammed's senior line of descent was a "rather unfortunate gaffe", since Mohammed's sons all died in infancy.[11][20]"

A Sayyid/Sayid/Sayed/Said does not trace his line of descent from any of Mohammed's sons, but from Mohammed's grandsons via his daughter, Fatima, which is how Idries Shah would have traced his lineage. Sutton is embarrassingly wrong about "Mohammed's senior line of descent". Being a descendant of Mohammed is really only a big thing in the West, although there is supposedly an obligation from Mohammed upon all his descendants concerning spiritual things and I don't remember the details or where I read that right off-hand. That obligation is of more concern within sufism, from what I understand, but again, I don't know the details, not being subject to that obligation as far as I know.

More on the subject here -- Sayyid

More on the various titles according to which grandson they descend from -- Sharif (end quote) "

What do you think? Esowteric+Talk 12:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The mistake was mine. I forgot to include the word "male" in that sentence. --JN466 13:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is not unreasonable to call it a gaffe. There are no other references anywhere else to a male line of descent from Mohammed[2][3], even though there are plenty of references to male lines of descent from other people. --JN466 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought that the descendants of the Prophet Mohammed all descend from his daughter Fatima, so I understood "senior male line of descent" to refer to the line of her eldest son, or the eldest grandson of Mohammed. Looking this up, it seems that Fatima had only two sons, Hasan (Hassan) born in AH 3 and Hussein (the martyr revered by the Shias) born in AH 4. So senior male line could refer to descent from Hasan ibn Ali. These two brothers were counted among "the People of the House" and knew the Prophet personally. I think the implication intended is that of a direct line of teaching from the Prophet, and perhaps also a reference to being Sunni rather than Shia. Descendants of either Hasan or Hussein are called Sayyids. After all, of course, if there were no male line of descent, there would be no descendants at all! :-) So one wonders a little why so much has been made of this. JPLeonard (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Musavi Sayyids are descended from Hussein. --JN466 13:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Text of reverted edit

I've never reverted a page before, and I don't know much about Idries Shah. What I saw, though, was so clearly not neutral that I went ahead and reverted it. Here is the text I reverted in case anyone can rewrite it to be more neutral and put it in an appropriate place.

"He seemed to have been reconciliatory to the Christian school of thought while repudiating their ethos, at the same time. Additionally, he never seemed to have recovered from his bias against the Indians, their culture and ancient wisdom. He fails to recognize all the predecessor streams of wisdom, as in Greeks, Chinese and Indians. In his widely acclaimed book, The Sufis, he would want the reader to believe that Islam, out of which Sufi-sm was born was the beginning and end all while totally ignoring the reference and exploration of wisdom that pre-existed in the context of Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks and the Chinese." Jackal59 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert; you did well, because the commentary is entirely unsourced. If anyone has written something along those lines about Shah, then we could look at including it, but first we need to have a published source making that argument. --JN466 15:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is Idries Shah's name written in Gujarati in the introduction to the article given that his father was an Indian from UP state and his mother tongue was Urdu not Persian and certainly not Gujarati? Idries Shah claimed to be of Afghan descent but was not Afghan nor was he a Farsi speaker - though he may have learned this due to it being a language of literature in the same way that British have studied French or Latin. He also claimed to be a Hashemi Sayyid and I don't see his name being written in Arabic style. It may be because Idries's mother was an Indian Parsi who predominently speak Gujarati, and cite it as their mother-tongue adopted over two millenia since their flight from Persia. In that case then the name should also be written in Pahlavi script of Zend Avesta. Idries was a very disengenous when it came to lofty claims and these must be seen in context of colonial times - and even now - when some Muslims have claims about their ancestory that are Afghan Pashtun, Tartari/Taimuri/Turkic/Chughtai, Mughal Barlas, Georgian (Gujjars), Abbasids in addition to Sayyids (Prophets family through his daughter Fatima) to name but a few. The further east you go from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (NWFP) the loftier the claims. Moarrikh (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)