Talk:Ikbal Ali Shah

Sources needed

There are big chunks missing in this bio; so far, we have only Moore, who is fairly scathing and comes from a debunking frame of mind.

In particular, we need reliable sources giving an outline of his involvement with the Foreign Office. I'll have a look at newspaper archives; nothing much to be found in google books (except proof that his works are quite well-cited, and seem to have been popular in his day). Jayen466 22:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need more bio. As it stands (albeit that it's early days for the article) there is far too much weight on Moore who seems to have been on a personal and vindictive mission to debunk Ikbal Ali-Shah's and his son Idries Shah, partly due to what they published about Gurdjieff's Fourth Way. And just how reliable IS the information that Moore provides? EricT (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Moore's paper was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, making it, according to WP:RS, a highly reliable source indeed. I am aware there are old newspaper articles with reviews of Ikbal Ali Shah's books, some very positive, to be found in newspaperarchive.org, going back to the 1920s and 1930s; these could be cited, but I haven't gotten round to reviewing and extracting all of this material. Jayen466 13:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Jayen. EricT (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve removed the offensive and libellous Moore piece. Shame on whoever incorporated it here in the first place, casting aspersions on a fine and honourable man and overshadowing many years of service to humanity with some unfounded vitriol. I defy anyone to post it back here: whoever does so should be aware that they are complicit in viciousness – and be aware of the consequence of their actions. James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.41.43 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your concerns, opinions are best placed here on the discussion page and they and unilateral, large-scale deletions are likely to be considered vandalism. See WP:VANDAL. Another editor has undone the changes made and I have copied the points you make to the section on 'Moore' below. Regards, EricT (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is, however, 'vandalism‘ of the worst kind to allow a supposedly ‘objective’ record of a man’s life to be dominated by a vitriolic attack. I’ve once again restored the piece to what it should be, stripped of Moore’s scurrilous accusations. Which is a straightforward encyclopaedia entry, without contentious, unfounded and libelous material. Unsigned comment by 89.240.41.43.

Have tagged the article as under dispute and this discussion as controversial. Beware of entering an edit war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war

Regards, EricT (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who keeps bringing back the defamation could explain why material that is unbalanced and libelous is considered appropriate for an encyclopaedia entry? Peer reviewed? Really? Has anyone actually examined the bases of Moore’s accusations? Is there evidence of a diagnosis of Munchausen’s Syndrome? Is there evidence of swindling? Or is it wikipedia practice to assume a man is what his enemies say he is, until evidence is produced to vindicate him? Whoever is doing this is intent on waging war on Ikbal Ali-Shah’s reputation. And for my part, I will be resolute in excising material that is unacceptable by any decent scholarly standards - this is a point of honour now. Please, by all means, try to have me banned from here for defending the reputation of a man who cannot defend himself against such invective: it will be interesting to see how you can make a case for the inclusion of an article that reads as pure vehemence and venom. And, finally tonight I understand what this Moore business was all about – a lighbulb moment: he must have been turned down by Idries Shah as a student. Hell hath no fury... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.41.43 (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:DISPUTE. There are means of resolving a conflict other than a biblical overturning of the tables of the moneylenders. EricT (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas, 'lightbulb moments' which may be Sufic or may be spurious imagination would be considered unencyclopedic unless backed by reliable sources. EricT (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

'There are means of resolving a conflict other than a biblical overturning of the tables of the moneylenders.' Yes, but there is only one way of removing shit from someone's gravestone - and that is to return, patiently, with one’s bucket and cloth and wipe it off each time it is put there. And to wonder at the person who keeps putting it there. Unsigned comment by 89.240.32.119.

A couple of the reversions have been made by semi-automated and disinterested editors spotting unexplained deletions. See the article's history page. My hope is that we can together find a less abrasive and more cooperative means of 'cleaning the gravestone' as you put it without resorting to sandblasting. Regards, EricT (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV (please take the time to read and digest it if you're not familiar with it) demands that we make the various significant published viewpoints accessible to the reader. Moore's viewpoint, whatever its merits, is a significant published viewpoint. The opinions he expressed are and have always been attributed to him, using phrases such as "According to Moore" etc. The article is not (and should not be) asserting that Moore's version is "the" truth; we are simply fulfilling our job of reporting that these allegations were made. Consider that we would not be doing the reader a service by sweeping them under the carpet; the reader should be given this (and other) information, to enable them to research the matter further, and make up their own mind on the matter. Jayen466 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Moore's piece is a single article, written by someone who had never met the Sirdar (and the 'described the Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah as charming, personable...' is even a misrepresentation of what Moore says, since in the context of his piece this is clearly referred to others' perceptions). The fact that he managed to get it published in Telos is, I suggest, merely a reflection of the fact that the scholarly community like a bit of scurrilous invective as much as the man in the street, especially if it concerns someone known to be critical to scholars (in this case, Idries Shah, the subject of the piece, and not his father). It would be interesting to know what Moore's scholarly credentials are - and whether he has the professional competence to make the allegations, medical and criminal, that he does.

Every man has his enemies, some principled, others rogues (as Moore shows himself to be). To allow an ad-hominem attack on a man to be a prime source of reference - taking up nearly a third of the content - especially when there is no balancing comments, is a partisan act. Whoever would do this declares himself an enemy to the person whose reputation is thus tarnished, but can hardly claim to be a 'friend to scholarship' either, by including such an emotionalised and unbalanced review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.48.25 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) after the text. EricT (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Moore cites Foreign Office records for his more specific allegations which are verifiable in The National Archives without excessive effort. Jayen466 17:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken receipt of scans of some of these papers from the National Archives, shared them with Eric and am happy to share them further (any interested editors can drop me an e-mail). The papers document that the subject was assuredly unpopular with the FO at the time, who were clear that they did not want to reemploy him for any similar missions, and sought to prevent his return to South America to prevent further problems. Jayen466 14:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All 19 scans are also available to members at The Tenth Donkey yahoo! group in the Files section "Ikbal Ali-Shah - National Arch" folder. (If that's not cosher, let me know). Regards, EricT (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the view was that IAS had "hoodwinked" the University into sending him a letter at his own request giving him the Professorial designation (as a matter of no more than courtesy), after which the University, like the FO, wanted nothing more to do with him. They concluded that "the game is up", though they couldn't deny him a passport visa on those grounds. Nearly but not quite a "swindler" (that allegation made elsewhere by the Ambassador?) EricT (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time, effort and outlay, Jayen. Regards, EricT (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be that the Foreign Office source records themselves are even more damning than James Moore. EricT (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try in due course to get hold of the specific papers Moore quotes as well. Jayen466 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading the papers in question, I was unable to find anything that compromised the Sirdar's integrity whatsoever. It is clear that (someone in) the British Embassy in Montevideo did not like him, and was anxious to do whatever was possible to thwart a subsequent visit by the Sirdar to Uruguay. The Passport Office, on the other hand, could find no grounds on which to deny him a passport - which clearly picqued the mugwumps in Montevideo. As for 'hoodwinking' the University, it seems clear from the copy of the letter that was sent to him, that the Sirdar had friends there who were keen to help him outwit the British authorities. I don't see any grounds for 'swindling' there: it was outrageous that the British authorities were trying to compromise his movements in the first place. I know from first hand accounts that the Sirdar's visits to Uruguay were centrally connected with his role as a Sufi master, and it may be that the 'hallalled' meat business was itself simply a cover to get him, and Idries Shah, passports in during the immmediate post-WWII restrictions on travel. Indeed there is a very strong suggestion in what is written by the Foreign Office officials that they did not know what the Sirdar was doing in Uruguay. So, in the absence of any tangible evidence of a 'scandal', can the unproved and damaging allegations in this piece be removed?--Jsouttar (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No. They were published in a reliable source, and indeed other sources have commented upon it. My understanding, based on correspondence with Moore, is that the matter concerned the purchase of halalled meat from Uruguay. Ikbal Ali Shah was supposed to certify that the meat was halal. He did so, and substantial amounts of money changed hand. In fact, the meat was not halal, and the matter caused a scandal. Let me add that as far as I know, only a very small proportion of the relevant FO papers are online; I am hoping to get to the National Archives later this year and do some more research. However, there is already enough to vouch for the fact that Moore did not make this up. --JN466 18:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The papers may bave been published in a 'reliable source', but my point is that there does not appear to be anything incriminating to the Sirdar in them. If you can produce documentary evidence, from the Foreign Office or elsewhere, of Moore's claim, then that is a different matter. But Moore is clearly partisan here. He was also very clearly not present in Uruguay at the time. And I really fail to understand why you give Moore such credence here: you are the self-appointed 'guardian' of a man's reputation here in Wikipedia, yet I sense that you have some project to discredit the Shah family. Don't you feel some responsibility to try to establish the truth of the matter, rather than to simply perpetuate allegations? Perhaps the prediction Idries Shah made to his son (reported in the latter's book), that 'people who were once our friends will turn against us' applies here?--Jsouttar (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Moore's paper was originally published in Religion Today (now the Journal of Contemporary Religion). It's a peer-reviewed academic journal. By Wikipedia criteria (WP:RS#Scholarship), this is a top-class source, and it represents a significant view, having been cited and referred to by many other authors writing about the Shah family.

Wikipedia is committed to a neutral point of view; this means we have to take an agnostic standpoint and simply reflect the balance of opinion out there. There is plenty of praise in the article, too; opponents of Shah could and have argued that much of it is of doubtful provenance and questionable reliability.

Wikipedia is not about establishing the truth. That is a matter for discourse outside Wikipedia; Wikipedia simply attempts to mirror that discourse, representing opinions in proportion to their prevalence in the most reputable soures. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. JN466 16:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not delete material sourced to reliable sources. As I pointed out, there are further sources on the article subject which may help to add balance to this article. You can help by locating them and citing them. Jayen466 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Moore

89.240.41.43 added the following unsourced opinion to Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah: "Moore’s allegations, however, form part of a scathing and vitriolic attack on Idries Shah, and are unfounded, overblown and based entirely on hearsay (and it is highly questionable whether they should even appear here). As the son of an Indian Prince, it is by no means certain that Ikbal Ali Shah ever intended to become a doctor, and his attendance at Edinburgh University can be seen as consonant with a pattern in his family of experiencing Higher Education without feeling obliged to complete it.

"Ikbal Ali Shah acted as an adviser and confidante to numerous Eastern leaders, such as President Attaturk of Turkey, King Amanullah Shah of Afghanistan, King Zog of Albania, King Fuad I of Egypt, and King Ibn Saud, and published a number of biographies of such statesmen. It is said that his influence on Attatürk prevented the Turkish leader from siding with Hitler and Mussolini.

"Amongst Sufis he was considered to be the ‘teacher of the Age’ (Sahib-i-Zaman) and the person responsible for the ‘translation’ of the Sufi Way for the modern West." EricT (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No source, no inclusion. Also consider WP:SPS, WP:QUEST, WP:SELFQUEST. Jayen466 20:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the gigantic ironies about Moore's pretensions to scholarly authority is that he, himself, has had no formal higher education (on his own website, he phrases this as "deriving his tertiary education outside the academic mainstream"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.231.179 (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lessing

This source has information on the subject that could be incorporated: http://www.serendipity.li/more/lessing_shah.htm Jayen466 12:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Munchhausen's Syndrome and Moore

I'm hoping that as part of his initiate to increase the presence of authorized material on the Shah family on the internet (coming soon after Tahir's return from Brazil around 22nd Nov 2008), Tahir Shah will tackle the Graves controversy and the Moore controversy currently bedevilling the Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah and Idries Shah Wikipedia entries.

In MedTerms we read:

" Syndrome, Munchhausen: Recurrent feigning of catastrophic illnesses .... "

" The syndrome was named by an astute English physician Richard Asher in 1951 after the German cavalry officer Baron Karl Friedrich Hieronymous von Munchhausen (1720-97), a teller of tall tales.

" Although Asher named the syndrome, he did not discover it. In 1893 Henry Miege, a student of the famed French neurologist Jean Charcot, wrote his thesis on patients with the syndrome and Charcot (1825-1893) referred to it in his own writing. Forty years later, the Kansas psychiatrist Karl Menninger (1893-1990) discussed the subject in a paper entitled 'Polysurgery and Polysurgical Addiction.' "

The Ikbal Ali Shah article reads: " Following the controversy, James Moore, in an article in Religion Today (today the Journal of Contemporary Religion), described the Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah as charming, personable, and a lifelong sufferer of Munchhausen's syndrome, who compensated for his failure at Medical School, and his predictably ignominious treatment as a son-in-law, with invented private conversations with King George V. "

Looking at the above paragraph, I wonder if Moore meant that IAS, like Munchhausen was a tale-teller and incorrectly referred to this as Munchhausen's Syndrome? Or did IAS actually feign illness? It might or might not be that IAS suffered from a lifelong illness that was eventually named as Munchhausen's?

If Moore was wrong about the 1929 diagnosis or the definition of Munchhausen's, doesn't this throw sufficient doubt on the whole mention of Munchhausen's? EricT (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I always understood Moore to mean that Ikbal Ali Shah was a "teller of tall tales" in the manner of Baron Münchhausen. We could e-mail Moore, if need be. :-) Cheers, Jayen466 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to look at what Moore said in context:

Ikbal Ali Shah (1894-1969), the son of Amjed Ali and father of Idries, settled in Britain before the first World War, only to meet rebuffs. Behind his compensatory inventions of private conversations with King George V lay his failure at Edinburgh Medical School and -- equally predictable -- his ignominious treatment as a son-in-law. Charming and personable, Ikbal was a lifelong sufferer from Munchhausen's syndrome -- a condition first diagnosed in 1929, when he tried to compromise the P. M. Ramsay Macdonald, and Foreign Office investigation revealed there 'was hardly a word of truth in his writings.' Towards Sufism, Ikbal's stance was ambivalent. He did write one innocuous popularisation, "Islamic Sufism" (Rider & Co., 1933). However, he dipped his pen in the inkpot of Voltaire when alluding to the Rifa'i, Mevlevi, and Ansariyya tariqas; and he positively applauded Mustafa Kemal's abolition of the fez and the Turkish dervish orders on 2 September 1925. As to orthodox Islam, Ikbal's conduct over the notorious 'halal' meat scandal in Buenos Aires in 1946, provoked the British Ambassador to describe him as 'a swindler.'

So I think Moore is speaking figuratively – as I read it, he is equating the FO investigation's revelation that there "was hardly a word of truth in his writings" to the "Münchhausen diagnosis". Jayen466 15:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it to "teller of tall tales", accordingly. Jayen466 15:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers,Jayen. EricT (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pen Names

The pen names of Ikbal Ali Shah would add a significant number of books to the list supplied. For example, Sheikh Ahmad Abdullah and John Grant are both authors of Fighting Through which is generally thought to have been written by Ikbal Ali Shah. --Wool Bridge (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources? Jayen466 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the list of books here, Jayen. EricT (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird! It lists Through the Garden of Allah and Travels in the Unknown East as books by Sirdar Ikbal. These were published under the name of John Grant, the first in the 30's and the second in 1992. Grant wrote an introduction to the latter dated 1991 from the British club in Omdurman, 22 years after the death of Ikbal Ali Shah. So unless he was writing from beyond the grave this can't have been the same man!--Wool Bridge (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone included this: PZ 8456/36 Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah; particulars of writings, movements, etc, question of commutation of pension IOR/L/PS/12/216 27 Nov 1936-29 May 1946

Ramsay MacDonald

"When he (Iqbal Ali Shah) tried to compromise..."

Unless the nature of this trial can be substantiated in detail,i.e. why, how, when, where etc this allegation can not be cited as fact. Moore himself does not cite his sources for this, nor about the meat scandal for that matter. His allegations are build in such a manner that they appeal superficially ( anything can be read into the Foreign office communications...)

The tenacity of the defence for Moore's "debunking" is exemplary for a frame of mind often critisized with acid irony by both Iqbal Ali and Idries Shah.

The review that accepted Moore's expertise also accepted what he had to say about "Islamic Sufism" ( re "innocuous popularisation" )...

Sayyed Iqbal Ali Shah writing in september 1933 thus ended his introduction to "Islamic Sufism":

"In the progress of this book, I have been greatly assisted and advised by such scholars as professor Reynold Nicholson, the late professor Thomas Walker Arnold (...) the Islamic-Laureate Sir Muhammad Iqbal (...) to each and all my heartfelt and gratefull acknowledgement (...)"

Muhammad Iqbal is cited in the opening of Chapter VII:The spritual expieriences ( about The Secrets of the Self ).

Wikipedia informs us that in 1933 Muhammad Iqbal was invited to Afghanistan to help with the founding of the Kabul University...

So far the superficial mention of something of the nature of "Islamic Sufism". A more complete judgement can only be given by those who read the book in the context of the studies illuminated therein by the author.

The date (september 1933) is significant for any state of the art review of Sufi studies such as they actually progressed among those who thought them worth pursueing.

I think many of the parrots envying Moore's feathers would be surprised to find a brilliancy of colour outside their area of dispute.

Lunarian (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting, reading about Ramsey Macdonald, that, two years after taking office again in 1929 (when Ikbal Ali Shah was called a liar for attempting to 'compromise' him), Macdonald committed a huge betrayal of his own party that caused tremendous bitterness against him.

then again, in 1924, it appears that Macdonald wanted to make a deal with the Soviets, and he was implicated in a false scandal which stopped the deal. Given that the Sirdar was clearly anti-Soviet and anti-Communist, it would be interesting what it is he actually did that Moore calls an attempt to compromise Macdonald. Jlburton (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

Islamic Sufism

"Towards Sufism, Ikbal's stance was ambivalent. He did write one inoccuous popularisation Islamic Sufism"

This is a much celebrated point of scholarship hailed by many a superficial expert.

The source is James Moore

Sayyed Hossein Nasr described Islamic Sufism as: "A discussion of Sufism by a contemporary Sufi although some of the references to Western concepts and ideas are inacurate and many misleading for a Westerner not acquainted with Sufism" in ISBN 1855384094 Ideals and Realities of Islam, first published in 1966.

It follows then that Sayyed Hossein Nasr accepted Ikbal Ali Shah as a Sufi whose references to the Sufi Way were consistent even if they were problematic to students with an unapropriate background.

He gave Islamic Sufism as a suggestion for further reading appended to the chapter: "The Tariqah, the spiritual path and its Quranic roots"

Why should such an introduction be given to an "innocuous popularisation" that one rather associates with general accessebillity ?

In his same form of debunking James Moore writes on Doris Lessing: "...lacking any indegenous Sufic expierience, she has set her judgement against that of profound thinkers like professor Sayed Hossein Nasr."

In fact she seems to concurr with the Sayyed, who does not think Ali Shah's stance on Sufism ambivalent.

And her long time acquaintance with the Shah family thus could be the very Sufic expierience denied her by the (by Wikipedia) much honoured scholar James Moore.

Again this inconsitancy from a scholarly point of view reflects on the accuracy of the private details expounded by...a learned charlatan ?

Lunarian (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Moore reference deadlink

Reference 1 reads: "Moore, James (1986). "Neo-Sufism: The Case of Idries Shah". Religion Today 3 (3). ; the author's website features a link, Pseudo-Sufism: the case of Idries Shah, to an online copy of the paper, which cites a "detailed and condemnatory report on Ikbal's integrity and veracity" in the Foreign Office records"

The current online copy which was at Geocities is now a deadlink as yahoo! have pulled the plug on their free Geocities web sites.

The first part of the article is here at gurdjieff-legacy.org, but I haven't changed the URL as another spam killing editor has been going through all the articles s/he can find at WP deleting such links, even deleting and orphaning a reference containing the URL at Saira Elizabeth Luiza Shah (see edit diff) on the grounds that another editor has been adding such spam links and that the article is "pay per view" and not a reliable source, probably not realizing that the Moore article is seen as a reliable source and that the URL is just there to assist in editors' research and verifiability. Aren't most books "pay per view", and yet we still cite them? :) Esowteric+Talk 11:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO 6 says that we shouldn't link if the user has to pay or register to view the relevant content. At http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/neosufism.htm the full article is in fact available for free, and placed there by a legitimate publisher. I see no reason not to link there. --JN466 12:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Page move proposal

I believe we should really move the page to "Ikbal Ali Shah". Sirdar is a title (it means commander, roughly), rather than part of the name. Where his books are cited by other writers, some use Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah, others just use Ikbal Ali Shah. I think the latter is more compatible with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Obviously we can use and explain the Sirdar title in the text. Cf. General MacArthur. --JN466 12:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Yes J, I was thinking the same myself and would agree that this is the right thing to do. Esowteric+Talk 13:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

as long as there's a redirect from sirdar, so people can find the page. it seems a strange thing to do, though, considering almost all his books are signed off as Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah. but the ways of wikipedia never cease to amaze me.Jlburton (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

Sure, leaving a redirect is standard for page moves. Quite a few of the mentions in bibliographies by other authors list his books under the name of Ikbal Ali Shah. --JN466 02:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

the name on his books is 'sirdar ikbal ali shah', at least all the books i've seen by him. but it's not a big deal to me.Jlburton (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

i just looked through all the covers that are available on the Sirdar's home page--the one Tahir created-- and every book cover shows the name Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah. Not that it matters, i guess. Jlburton (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

Sirdar does not mean 'commander' in Farsi. Commander is 'Sardar'. 'Sar' means 'Head'. 'Sirdar' is 'Keeper of secrets' from 'Sirr' meaning Secret.

--Wool Bridge (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary: Sirdār [- Urdu sardār, f. Pers. sar head + dār possessor.] In India and other Eastern countries, a military chief, a leader or general of a force or army; also spec. in recent use, the British commander-in-chief of the Egyptian army. Cf. [1], [2]. Sirr = secret is Arabic, not Farsi. JN466 21:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OED is not an authority. Steingass is: From Steingass Persian dictionary: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3dsal?dbname=steingass&query=سردار&matchtype=exact&display=utf8 سردار sar-dār, A general, field-marshal, officer of rank, king's lieutenant, a chief in any department; a prince; a paragon (m.c.); provided with a head (opp. to bī- sar);--sardāri magasi angubīn, A queen- bee;--sir-dār (for sirr-dār), A confidant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.98.87 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Farsi contains many Arabic nouns, and Sirr is one of them, (any ignorant urchin who speaks Persian can tell you this)
See Wikipedia on Persian nouns:

"Many nouns borrowed from Arabic feminine forms pluralize using the āt (ات) suffix. Nouns borrowed from Arabic human forms often pluralize using the īn (ین). The most challenging type of noun pluralization is for the class of what are termed Arabic broken plurals, which are formed through internal vowel alternation. These nouns pluralize in Persian like their counterparts in Arabic." --Wool Bridge (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Rushbrook Williams

Rushbrook Williams was a disciple of Ali Shah's son (I think; anyone have an RS?), who had a hand in publishing the book. Given how often we quote it, we owe it to our readers to make them aware of that connection. --JN466 02:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[Bump] Anyone have a reliable source about Rushbrook Williams' connection? Esowteric+Talk 13:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

i have never heard that rushbrook williams was a 'disciple' of Ali Shah's son-- where do you get that from? he may have been a sufi student of Ikbal Ali Shah, or not. i don't know where it would say that. i guess you're talking about the sufi studies book-- in any case, my version is published by Dutton, which is a 'neutral' publisher, so regardless of whether Octagon published it at some point, it was also published by a 'neutral', legit publishing house, as far as i know. Jlburton (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If Rushbrook Williams was a student of Ali Shah, then likewise we should point that out. The version of Sufi Studies East and West that Elwell-Sutton reviewed was by Octagon Press, according to the review. My first impression doesn't even name a publisher, only saying it was printed in "Tonbridge, Kent". The copyright holder is given as Sally Mallam (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Sally Mallam is the wife of Robert Ornstein, Shah's US deputy, as well as the illustrator of Idries Shah's children's books. There is no question that this symposium was organised by people who considered Shah their master. That should be made clear to the reader. --JN466 12:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

unless you have some info i don't have, we really don't know for sure if Rushbrook Williams was a 'disciple' or 'student' of one of these people. in any case, you would need a source or reference for that assertion and i don't know of any such sources. it sounds like what you would call 'original research' or just opinion or whatever you guys call it around here. the article already includes Rushbrook Williams' statement that the Sirdar was known to him for many years, and that he explained to him his ideas about Sufism. if we were to say that all these people praising Ikbal ali Shah and Idries Shah were students, that would be an extremely 'illustrious' list. however, by scholarly standards there is nothing to back that up.

as far as i know, you also don't have any sources as to how the 'symposium' was organised. as i see it, you can put in the details you're mentioning-- about mallam and the octagon press-- in a neutral and balanced way, but to extrapolate to the idea that it was organised by whoever is your own opinion and not a verifiable fact.

also, if we're going to start attempting to 'throw light' on the background of these claims, maybe we should include James Moore's background and the context of his attacks. and also we could look at Elwell Sutton's career and make some factual comment on his book sales, or lack thereof, in comparion with Shah's, and maybe hint at a bias based on professional jealousy.

i think all these things are outside the scope of an encyclopedia article, but if we're going to start leading people to conclusions based on 'hints' then we might as well be 'balanced' about it.

i'm having a little trouble understanding wikipedia's issues with 'publishers'. to use an extreme analogy, if barack obama says that i'm a great american, and i publish a book in which that's said so that everyone will know what he said, and he knows it's been published and it's acknowledge he really did say that, how does that discredit what he's said or what i am? do they think that i 'bought' barack obama's praise, or that he's so desperate to 'get into print' thathe'll say anything? Jlburton (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

If Obama really said that, then there will probably be other sources reporting that too. If the only source reporting Obama saying "Jlburton is great" is a book published by Jlburton himself, then WP:SELFPUB kicks in. On the whole, I think that is sensible. --JN466 19:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

hhmm i just had a look at the entry and see that it doesn't have the line about the sirdar being known to rushbrook williams 'for many years'.. it must have got cut out at some point because i thought i had included it. i'll put that in later, so there will be some idea that there was a relationship between them, even if it was just a friendship or a work-related one.Jlburton (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

ah, i see i was attributing denison ross's line to rushbrook... in any case i'll add more about rushbrook's/ikbal ali shah's connection.

Jlburton (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

I've added a mention saying they were friends, based on p. 16 in Sufi Studies. I believe there was some controversy about the organisation of the symposium at the time (will see if I can locate more details); you have Elwell-Sutton's scathing review of it ("a strange galaxy of retired civil servants, army officers and politicians from both East and West, whose commission apparently was to rewrite in their own words selected handouts from the Master's publicity machine"), and the close involvement of Ornstein's wife (described here as the "head of the foundation which is the custodian of the works of Idriss Shaw") suggests that the project was managed by Shah's close associates. A symposium of this type gains credibility if the people organising it are peers, rather than students, of the person honoured. But be that as it may, the mention of Rushbrook Williams' and Ali Shah's personal friendship has already gone some way towards addressing the issue. JN466 19:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

i'm thinking i'll do a description of the book, complete with the names and positions of some of the major contributors, like the chief judge of india, major john glubb, rom landau, and all these other people who, on the basis of one scholar and one angry ex-gurdjieffian have apparently been downgraded to sychopants and washed-up nobodies who are in shah's pocket.Jlburton (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

Prescient writings

Ikbal Ali Shah's grand daughter Safia Shah, quotes the story 'Visions of a Recluse' in her book 'Afghan Caravan', 1990, saying that this experience, published in 1937 in the Book of Oriental Literature, referred to the Barbarians of the North descending on his country. It describes what could be the modern Soviet Army and Air force, devastating Afghanistan some 40 odd years later.

In Eastwards to Persia he ends the book, using the politest language, by predicting that the population of this country will seek new leaders if their tribal stuctures are destroyed. This is a fairly accurate prediction of the Iranian revolution, I guess. --Wool Bridge (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.serendipity.li/more/lessing_shah.htm

  Triggered by \bserendipity\.li\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)