This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
A word doesn't characterize a language family!
Suggest removing introductory sentence stating "Baba"'s use as an honorific in "Indo-Aryan languages." Language families are not characterized by "use" of a particular word. (And especially not when the etymology of the word in question is from Old Persian!)
Suggest replacing and presenting "Baba" as a concept shared by myriad cultural/spiritual movements , with emphasis on social/ideological role of an archetypal "baba" esp. in South Asian context- this is far more germane than what incredibly-massive-family-of-languages (Indo-Aryan!) may arbitrarily use some word. --Gñāna (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Shri Sai Baba page is being constantly modified to make him look wrongly pro-islam
There is consistent and deliberate effort to change faith of Shri Sai Baba. Even if Hindu references are there on the website, they are mentioned in secondary options and referred after a muslim reference is given. The page has distinctly changed from the year 2002 to make it pro-islamic. This seems to be effort of some sufi saint followers who feel there sufi saint was re-incarnation of Shri Sai Baba or a follower of him. I recommend someone to monitor these consistent effort to sound Shri Sai Baba islamic. There are several wrong mentions that Shri Sai Baba read Quran. There is absolutely no evidence of the same.During the times of Sai Baba, Mughal ruled and created nuisance for Hindus. To keep these mughal crooks at bay, Shri Sai Baba tried to bridge gap between two faiths.Request all Hindu followers to seriously monitor the page content and check the history as to monitor who is doing this consistent changes. Request stringent action for all the false information on this page as it deals with Hindu faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It is mentioned in sources that he recited Quran (one of these sources is Marianne Warren, for example, I think you won't accuse her for being pro-islamic or pro-sufist). Also during the times ofSai Baba, Mughals didn't rule India but the British did. Mughal rule was abolished completely at 1857, a year before Sai Baba returned at Shirdi at 1858 and began his activities. Even before this, Mughals were a dependency of the British and they ruled only in name on the very small territory around Delhi. Your comments show ignorance in both Indian history and Sai Baba's life and are completely biased. There seems to be effort not of some sufi followers, but of some Hindus to cut Sai Baba from his Islamic ties. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This page is constantly being updated to look Sai baba as one of many Hindu deities. There millions and millions of Hindu deities and please do not make Sai Baba as one of them. It has been written that Sai baba was "Avatar" of Dutta. Well there is no such proof for this claim. Even there is no proof whether Dutta was ever existed. Sai baba focused more communal harmony and peaceful society. If you notice his teachings, they not just resemble but in fact they are Sufism. There are many examples like Sai baba where Sufi preachers lived without disclosing anything and all they did is social work. There is nothing wrong in accepting anybody as a God but let's accept with truth rather than changing that God for your convenience.
From the above post it seems that an entire faith and religion of oldest civilization is being questioned. If you question if Lord Dattatreya existed, then same holds true of other religion. There is no proof that Mohammed existed and even if a person of that name existed, then there is not proof that Quran was ever told to him by God. It might be someones poetic imagination. And the same holds true for Christ & Bible which can very well be fantasy. It cannot be proven for any religion that their religious figures ever existed. It is matter of faith. Please stay away from questioning the same, since even if you are atheist, you would be non-believer of 'something' which you cannot even prove. As for Shri Sai Baba, he never preached anyone to read Quran, he never referenced it nor did he have any immediate islamic follower. They all cropped up after his death with some kind of self declaration.In most instances, just to popularize some other Sufi cult follower.Please do not misguide people by associating Shri Sai Baba with Sufism. Sufi folks wore black clothing and had completely different lifestyle. They never spoke about Hindu scriptures. Shri Sai Baba just lived in one broken shelter which incidently was a mosque. But he never preached islam, never said or wrote any islamic verse and have not seen following namaz rituals. It is convenience of other faiths to rewrite history claiming Hindu Saints are of their faith. Probably since they lack completeness in their religion but are not courageous to acknowledge. Hijacking a saints religion may not help. Please allow Him to rest him peace and with the religion He believed in which majority of Hindus followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I will repeat what I wrote upper. It is mentioned in sources that he did recite Quran and did followed namaz rituals (one of these sources is Marianne Warren, for example, I think you won't accuse her for being pro-islamic or pro-sufist). Also there are many proofs that Muhammed (s.a.s.) existed. There are historical evidence and historical records including contemporary Byzantine ones. You may not accept his message but you cannot deny his existence, which is confirmed even by his enemies. Your comments show complete ignorance in both history and Sai Baba's life and are completely biased. There seems to be effort and self-declaration not by some sufi followers, but by some Hindus to cut Sai Baba from his Islamic ties. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to state that Shirdi Sai was a Hindu. He was neither Hindu nor Muslim, he was both and neither. He was above religion. He had many muslim devotees, and many Hindu devotees as well. The both held their festivities on the same day, which became the Ramanavami festival. Just read the Sri Sai Satcharita. If Sai Baba, whom you obviously respect, taught everyone that they are brothers, then why would seek to quarrel about something like this?????? --Satrughna (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This page is constantly being revised by anonymous editors, many of whom think it is important to change the text to say that Sai Baba was a muslim and by deleting 'unwanted' pieces of text. This happens all over Wikipedia, but here it seems the text isn't regularly patrolled, so that recent versions often are much worse than older versions. Please look closely before marking changes as approved. Satrughna (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Today a new phenomenon occurred: an anonymous (apparently muslim) contributor thought it necessary to change the text to make certain Shirdi Sai Baba was depicted as NOT approved by muslims in general. Just have hindus chirping in and the confusion is complete. Really. It's not about your or anyone else's religion. If not backed by literary evidence, these changes will be reverted. Satrughna (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Marianne Warren was the writer of Unravelling the Enigma- Shirdi Sai Baba in the light of sufism. As the title itself suggests, her basic purpose is to portray Sai Baba as a muslim sufi. So the above allegation of her being pro islam and pro sufi holds. As for Mohammad he or Mecca is not historically attested in contemporary records but only in accounts 100-200 years after his supposed existance .Ashsinghal74 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashsinghal74 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 15:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian." Though he in his lifetime, he was simply known as Sai Baba and never as plain "Shridi Sai". --RedtigerxyzTalk 06:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose – O deus! why don't you understand the policy of COMMONNAME. What's your agenda here, you're tagging articles for move with no good reason. Why Shirdi Sai? when Shirdi is a place and Sai itself is honorific, then you'll name him Shirdi? — Bill william comptonTalk 10:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Seperating facts from devotional interpretations
This article is full of interpretations by devotees while obscuring the few known facts about shird Sai. The interpretations by devotees should go to Shirdi Sai Baba movement though a summary can be left here. The facts are that he was a beggar who was sometimes abusive and even violent. This is well documented. Why can't we write that? Andries (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the article to the version of april 2014. A very large part of the information had been deleted. Indeed Andries, the material upto that date stated the facts mentioned by you.This article is getting worse rather than better over the years.--Satrughna (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)