Talk:Sufism

What appears to be a highly inappropriate line

"The Indian government has likewise praised Sufism as the tolerant face of Islam though many believe that Sufis like Naqshbandis have been fanatical and that some of the Sufi traditions like dancing, copied from native Indian traditions help in camouflaging Islamic extremism."

the accusation of "copying", rather than adopting, and "camouflaging Islamic extremism" are very accusative lines, I find. Tolerant face of Islam? This whole fucking thing is just totally offensive and patronising, as though the Indian government is taking some high ground and talking down to Islam. I'm getting rid of it, it's offensive.

Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars

Editors appear to be removing scholars without due reason, such as the article being thin or notability not being established. Please discuss the following entries until a consensus is reached;

• Ahmed Raza Khan who wrote many scholarly works including Tasawwuf and also founded the Barelvi sufi movement.
• Habib Umar bin Hafiz who is a scholar of the Ba 'Alawiyya sufi order.
• Muhammad al-Ya’qoubi who is a scholar and murshid in the Shadhili sufi order.

Persecution

In the Persecution section, it is siad that Atatürk persecuted Sufis, according to a Guardian article. This information is wrong. Atatürk was positive toward Sufis. Especially, Mevlevis enjoyed greater protection by Atatürk. Many sayings of Atatürk on Rumi and Mevlevi order are recorded. Still, today, Mevlevi events are held by state organisations. And Kemalist people are most affiliated with Sufi sects rather than Sunni ones.

The article is a entirely POV. And persecution section is the same.

In one part of the article, it says that Sufis are either Sunni or Shia! This is a sahme for Wikipedia. Sunni, Shia and Sufi are three seperate sects of Islam. They are not compatible with each other. You can't be in two or three of them at the same time. It seems that some Sufi writers are pushing hard in Wikipedia.

An extensive correction is needed.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means, provide one. Just be sure to source it, that's all. Carinae986 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course:

"Whenever I'm to come to this city I feel excitement inside. The thoughts of Mevlana envelope me. He was a great genius, an innovator for all ages." -Mustafa Kemal Ataturk here and here (Silivrikapı Mevlâna Cultural Center).

Thus, let's please remove misleading hate speech from the article. For a religiously sensitive article like Sufism, a jornal such as Guardian, can't provide quality information.

As I said, Rumi's cult, "Mevlevilik" is almost a "state run" Sufi order in Turkey. Among many other, İskenderpaşa cult is another Sufi order which was favorite of Turgut Özal and Bülent Ecevit. Özal was president and Ecevit was prime minister. Asserting that Sufism is under persecution in Turkey is ridiculous--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Asserting that Sufism is under persecution in Turkey is ridiculous"

Which may be why nobody has done so. The article talks of historical persecution, in the past, under Ataturk. That statement is sourced. And a quote like this one really doesn't establish that the statement in the article is in any way wrong.

Also, you're dredging up totally irrelevant things. What do Turgut Özal and Bülent Ecevit have to do with whether there was persecution of Sufis under Ataturk? --Sarabseth (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)