Talk:Sufism

Sufi impact on the torah????

From the article: "The precepts prescribed by the Torah number 613 only; those dictated by the intellect are
innumerable."

"This was precisely the argument used by the Sufis against their adversaries, the Ulamas. The
arrangement of the book seems to have been inspired by Sufism. Its ten sections correspond to the
ten stages through which the Sufi had to pass in order to attain that true and passionate
love of God which is the aim and goal of all ethical self-discipline."

Does that mean that the book that got finalized between 200BC and 200AD was actually influenced by a religion born at least 400 years later? Or is the sufi movement older than islam? Or did I misinterpret the text? At least provide a source - maybe (even I) get it when reading the source. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.131.216 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

On Deobandis and Sufism

Deobandis are not anti-Sufis. All the founders of this movement were affiliated with turuq, mostly the Chishti tariqa. This is common knowledge. Please remove the misleading information from the main page listing them as anti-tasawwuf. Note that Wahhabis often criticize Deobandis, such Shaykh Ashraf Thanvi, for believing in wahdat al-wujud. See: http://www.ahya.org/tjonline/eng/03/7wahdat.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.15.144 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Sufi shaykhs-section is unsourced and superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.15.144 (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The blatant POV and apologetics within the article

After some review, I noticed that quite a bit of the content within this article consists of apologetics on behalf of Sufism. While it is not the purpose of any article here to attack or slander its subject, it is also not the purpose of any article to promote its subject. The underlying point of much of the more obvious POV-pushing within the article is that Sufism is "non-quantifiable" and complicated, and any criticism of it is born from the critic simply not understanding. This is not only inappropriate, but clearly false. There have been many critics of Sufism who were educated and informed on the beliefs of Sufis, and still held critical views. The article should not be tipped in either direction, and should simply present all the viewpoints on a controversial movement without trashing it or painting a rosy picture of it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a POV issue in the article, I believe someone forgot that the above advice said it has to be NPOV. The introduction to this article seems overly critical the Sufi tradition. Criticism is fine, but it does not belong in the introduction. The introduction should be made NPOV and SHORTER so that it is easily understandable to people not familiar with the subject and the debates it is involved in. Mamechishiki (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe worth checking out lead section. EricT (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am a salaafi and can I say how disgustingly biased the articles I have been reading are on wikipedia. What I have seen is not good. Salaafi Islam and sufism are two opposing ideologies that definitely have not been given fair and balanced treatment. Most of this stuff is clearly written by sufi's who are trying to make dawah (indoctrination) on people.Dawud.Beale (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dawud. It would help if you could provide details of specific objections. And with respect, the Salafi point of view is a minority point of view, so we have to be careful not to give it undue weight. Esowteric+Talk 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dawud, deleting large chunks of articles like Wahhabi and replacing it with your own bias (see neutral point of view), with no explanation in the edit summary and no prior discussion on the talk pages, is not going to help you here at Wikipedia. Esowteric+Talk 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sufism in India - Kabir?

I'd would apprecate an elaboration on Sufism in India. I know that Sufi Saints are revered in many parts of India. Often it appears that its supporters do not consider it a manifestation of Islam alone (many Hindus revere Sufi Saints), but as a system or "school" for the attainment of wisdom and spiritual enlightenment with strong historical (rather than theological) links to Islam. Perhaps this may explain why some consider Sufism a widely accepted part of Islam while others consider Sufis heretical. Kabir, for instance, is considered a "Sufi Saint" in India (he has a page on Wikipedia as well) and is popularly referred to in Indian culture (his "dohae" in particular). He finds no mention in this article. I am not an expert on Sufism, Kabir or Indian Culture and while I may be able to get support (citations) for changes to the main article about Kabir, I would prefer attention from an expert since this does pertain to religion and people are sensitive to comments related to religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh.jaywant (talk • contribs) 08:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many others who were much more orthodox in their Islam, such as Nizamuddin Auliya, who are also revered by Hindus. A Sufi being revered by another faith doesn't make them less of a Muslim. There is a similar situation in Turkey where Muslims do special things for ancient Christian saints. --Afghana ^[talk] 09:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC). Agreed, perhaps a better way to put it would be to suggest that it was (and is) an Islamic movement whose benefits were not restricted to Muslims; Which would in turn suggest that it has certain underlying secular values (I mean in addition to and not in derogation its Islamic values)! Obviously, I do not consider religious and secular values to be mutually exclusive. I agree that there are other historic (perhaps even contemporary)Islamic figures revered by other faiths (and the other way round) but this was one that came to my mind in this context. I am not into religious figures and so my knowledge is limited - Kabir comes to my mind because of the persistence in popular media of the secular value (in terms of dealing with matters common to humans in general rather than only Muslims) of his work as a Sufi. Saurabh.jaywant (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel such a subject deserves its own article (Sufism in India) and probably a section here as well, as particularly with the strong Persian influence in Indian culture and philosophy it is a topic which I am sure there is much one could base an article around. Peter Deer (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You can read Sufi Saints of South Asia. I have also initiated a proposal to shift the entire article to Sufism in India--Shahab (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Sufism#Criticism_within_Islam. This section is about the unfortunate events surrounding Shahi, an not criticism of Sufism in general. Criticism of Sufism (or even Shahi) would be more along the lines of 'orthodox Muslims rejected ______ part of Shahi's teachings', not that orthodox Muslims abused the human rights of Shahi.VR _talk 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sufism and Islam (20 June 2009 edit)

A recent edit was made to the article:

Sufism is generally understood to be the inner, mystical dimension of Islam. However not all Sufi orders adhere to the tradition of Islam, and fall outside of the category if Islam.{ref name=Godlas}

The words shown in bold were added to the text, then removed by User:Ogress with the edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by Lifewater000; Rv "minor" edit that is highly polemical, POV and takfirism!"

You might argue over the wording or where to best place such words, but Dr. Alan Godlas has said things along these lines in the cited reference work. See Source: Dr. Alan Godlas, Sufism -- Sufis -- Sufi Orders Sufism, the West, and Modernity here, portions of which have been reproduced below:

Islamic Sufi Orders in the West

"The common denominator of the Islamic Sufi Orders now established in the West is the avowed adherence to Islam and specifically to the Shari'ah, although the interpreter of the Shari'ah for a particular order may be the shaykh of that order. (In a few of these orders the shaykh may on occasion have non-Muslim disciples.)"

Quasi-Islamic Sufi Organizations and Orders

"In most of these organizations, although the shaykh himself or herself adhered or adheres to the Shari'a, the practice of Islam was not made a condition for receiving instructions on following the Sufi path. In some instances the shaykh may have identified him or herself as a Muslim and on other other occasions may have identified him or herself as a member or another faith. Also in some of these organizations, on some occasions the shaykh may have not observed the shari'a in the manner that is normative for Sunni's and/or Shi'is. Hence in these organizations, significant numbers of aspirants are Muslims and significant numbers are non-Muslims."

Non-Islamic Sufi Organizations and Schools in the West

In addition to the various Islamic Sufi orders that now have centers in the West, a number of non-Islamic Sufi organizations have arisen in the West. These groups teach various Sufi doctrines and practices but -- in contrast to nearly all Sufi orders in the Muslim world -- have disconnected their teachings from Islam. Hence followers of these groups are generally not Muslims. Adherents of such schools often assert that Sufism pre-dates Islam and thus in prinicipal is universal and independent of it.

Thanks, Esowteric | Talk 10:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned with undue weight. Sufism is quintessentially a Muslim movement, even if sometimes antinomian. The Meher Babaists, Inayat Khanists and Idries Shahists comprise a cup of water in the vast ocean that is Sufism... even among ORGANISED sufi orders, they are barely a drop. Perhaps a rephrasing would reduce its emphasis? "However, some Western movements explicitly define themselves as non-Muslim." Otherwise it sounds like anti-Sufi propaganda from Wahhabis/Deobandis. Ogress _smash! 00:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the rewording, but should the " Adherents of such schools often assert that Sufism pre-dates Islam and thus in prinicipal ^{(source typo?)} is universal and independent of it." assertion be included or elaborated upon? - Nuβiατεch ^Talk/_contrib 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rajendrakgupta: external links and additional reading

Rajendrakgupta previously added some external links that were reverted by a bot and then by me. These books were later added to "Additional reading" and I reverted the edit as self-serving. However, if the books are worthy of inclusion, please add them to the list again.

1. Gupta R.K. Yogis in Silence-The Great Sufi Masters, 2001 ISBN 8176461997
2. Gupta R.K. Sufism Beyond Religion, 2004, ISBN 8176464112
3. Gupta R.K. The Science and Philosophy of Spirituality, 2006, ISBN 8176465453

Thanks, Esowteric | Talk 10:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Have re-added these books to additional reading as from a google search the work looks interesting and the guy is legit. His web site is SufiSaints and there's bio at places like IndiaClub. Esowteric | Talk 10:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Militant "Sufis" in the news: a worrying trend

This rather awkward material was recently introduced into the Wikipedia article on Sufism in the section 'Perception outside Islam': Sufism#Perception_outside_Islam

"Others have criticised the non-Muslim perception of Sufis as 'peace-loving meditative seekers of the divine.' Professor Andrew G. Bostom has argued that Sufism has been linked integrally to the Muslim institution of jihad war since the 11th century C.E. He writes [in a well-referenced article entitled "Sufi Jihad?"]:

"'Consistent with this nexus between Sufism and orthodox Islam, Sufis have supported (fervently) the corollary institution of dhimmitude, replete with all its oppressive and humiliating regulations for non-Muslims.'" [1]

Further articles:

Iraqi Insurgents Turn To Small But Deadly Weapon (mention of Naqshbandi): [2]

U.S. Sees New Threat In Iraq From Sufi Sect: [3]

U.S. admits Threat from Naqshabandiya Army (with pix): [4]

Let's hope we don't all get tarred with the same brush and that moderate Sufis and commentators distance themselves from this.

Regards, Esowteric | Talk 09:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does it appear that this material has been removed? Most of it is from well-known and reputable media sources (I don't think the Wordpress link would be acceptable though). MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio reverted

A massive suspected copyvio (about theosophy) was added by Manzarakbar on Wed 5 August 2009. Replaced with last clean version by User:Esowteric.

The edits closely paraphrased content at:

• source (a bit of the text)
• google page cache (the whole text). Esowteric+Talk 16:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

a marginal note

I added a ref for the fact that in Persian language these things are called "صوفی‌گری". The reference is Dehxoda's loghatnameh. I am sure one does not need references for this kind of edits, but the editor who removed this piece is in a compaign of al-ification of wikipedia and removing Persian (empire, language, culture, ...) from wikipedia. So, if the other editors wish may remove the ref and leave the Persian word without reference as any non-illetertate reader can find out about it.Note the accompanying poem in Dehkhoda's entry makes it clear that "صوفی‌گری" is not insulting.Xashaiar (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"صوفی‌گری" is used in some modern Persian texts, but it is mostly derogatory and is not as common as "تصوّف", even in Persian language. Referring to a dictionary (like Dehkhoda's loghatnameh) is meaningless in this case (ideally, you can find all Persian words in a dictionary, but finding a word in a dictionary doesn't mean that it's the most common and most appropriate word for that concept, in that language). All the major Persian encyclopedias use "تصوّف" for the corresponding entry (example: [5]). Alefbe (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No OR. What you say is original research and in fact folk etymology. That's not allowed here. Dehkhoda states Sufigari=Tasavof and has not made any illiterate statement that the word is derogatory. Looking at a dictionary is the only way to find out the Persian equivalent to words. If there was any negative meaning in Sufigari, the authority Dehkhoda would state that. What reliable sources say is what matters not your OR. Your OR is not even correct: if you were concerned about "the common word in Persian language" you would have used "Erfan" (which is most common for these things but unfortunately a wrong designation) so in terms of "most common" first comes Erfan, then Sufigari, and then Tasawof.Xashaiar (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Erfan" has a more general meaning and is not equivalent with Sufism (it is equivalent with Mysticism). Alefbe (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"According to the true teachings of Islam there is no sufism and it is a new branch extracted by some scholars." from the article

This is very much PoV. It doesn't flow with the surrounding text. Could it be a vandalistic insertion? 65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads-up. I think that POV content, which as you say doesn't flow with the rest of the text, can be ditched. An IP user added it earlier today but the edit was hidden by subsequent edits. Esowteric+Talk 19:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No mentions of kosovo

There is no mention of Gjakova and Prizren in Kosovo as centers of Sufism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bektashi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Frash%C3%ABri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saadi_(poet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Hi. I recently edited this article to add some information about Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, but it was reverted without explanation. I wanted to add that "A death certificate was issued in his name in November 2001. He is believed by some of his followers to simply have disappeared in occultation. For example, the organization Messiah Foundation International depicts him as a messianic figure who is to return, and this has been met with much opposition from authorities in the Pakistani government and orthodox scholars."

Dawn.com reported:

2005 – December 23: Five members of the Mehdi Foundation International were arrested in Wapda Town, Lahore, for putting up posters of their leader Riaz Gohar Shahi showing him as ‘Imam Mehdi’. The Anti-Terrorism Court sentenced each to five years of imprisonment under 295-A of PPC. Their prisoners’ records posted outside the cell falsely indicate that they had been sentenced under 295-C – the Blasphemy Law.

Is this appropriate to add in this article? Personally I think it would make it more clear exactly why the orthodox scholars in Pakistan oppose him and his followers. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Why is this person even mentioned in the article? In the pantheon of Sufi Sheikhs, he is a very minor figure, certainly not in the same league as the other 4. There are literally dozens of Sufi Sheikhs more eminent than him who are not mentioned, so for him to be there -- and with such a long entry -- hardly seems fitting. --Sarabseth (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many believe this guy to be revolutionary. He has a following of masses, according to some websites. I think it's reasonable. And I certainly don't think comments such as 'Sufi Sheikhs more eminent than him' should be passed, as they can cause mischief and dispute with others who may be reading. Thanks. Nasiryounus (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well he seems to be a prominent modern figure, as his teachings supposedly promote divine love, tolerance and peace for people of all religions- though most people say his teachings relate to Sufism, which is why he has a section here. In addition his followers claim that he is the awaited messianic figure, which has caused a lot of controversy, particularly in Pakistan. I don't know how relevent the controversy surrounding him is to this article, however I think it would provide insight on Gohar Shahi. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Here's just a short list of Sufi sheikhs much more eminent and influential than Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi:

Bu Ali Shah Qalandar

Fariduddin Ganjshakar

Lal Shahbaz Qalander

Moinuddin Chishti

Nizamuddin Auliya

Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki

I fail to see how see how "many believe this guy to be revolutionary" or "Well he seems to be a prominent modern figure" justifies Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi's inclusion in this article when these 6 people are not included.

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi has his own wikipedia article. I don't think the entry for him on the Sufism page is warranted by his status as a Sufi Sheikh. --Sarabseth (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly an option, yes. Thanks. Esowteric+Talk 15:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both Omirocksthisworld and Nasiryounus have very similar contribution histories, histories which suggest they may not be neutral editors in matters concerning Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

Their contributions are almost entirely confined to articles relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, articles such as Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, The Representative of Gohar Shahi, Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi.

In other words, they appear to be very dedicated single issue editors. Such editors rarely represent an objective perspective, in my opinion. --Sarabseth (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm hoping that Jayen466 (who is very experienced in subjects like new religious movements) will have a little time free from RL to offer some assistance. Esowteric+Talk 16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution Sarabseth, however, I'd like to make it clear that I am actually a neutral editor. I've come to hear a lot about Gohar Shahi and latter and the majority of what I've read is usually negative propaganda, and what the organisation relating to Shahi seems to propagate exactly opposite to the negativity based upon them, thus, I decided to use Wikipedia as a way to clear everything relating to Shahi, the organisation related to him and the claims. I, however am nor pro or anti the mentioned. I aim to bring forth the correct information about Shahi, be it pro or anti his agenda or his organisation.

Thanks, and I certainly do appreciate your efforts in this article, Sufism. Nasiryounus (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

This whole article must be referred to an independent authority since it seems to present sufism as an offshoot of islam, whereas it could well be agreed that the sufi movement/revolution was all about a simple and spirtual way of life away from the prescriptive nature of religion.

Anand Dixit. UK.

• If you go to tell a Sufi that he is not a Muslim, you are likely to get very angry rebuke - Skysmith (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on what particularly seems to give this impression? Peter Deer (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange edits

Can someone who knows something about Sufism have a look at these edits? Note that the added text occurs quite a few times on other websites, according to Google. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, have reverted the "strange edit". In wrong place, unsourced, found elsewhere on web. Esowteric+Talk 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sufi Sheikhs -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi sub-section edit war

There is an ongoing edit war in the Sufi Sheikhs -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi sub-section of the article. Could we please discuss this issue here? Thanks. Esowteric+Talk 10:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any Edit War as the omairocktheworld/nasiryounus are trying to add some ficious information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.27.188 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've done some research on the topic regarding this said Sufi Sheikh -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, and what I read a few days ago on this page with, in this sub-section didn't mention that he had "disappeared" or, according to his believers, applied 'occultation', and I wanted to highlight this issue on the actual page which speaks about this man. It doesn't mention that he's believed to have disappeared, rather than died (which quite a minority believes). So, I've often edited this section of the article, and as a result someone repeatedly edits this section back from different IP addresses' and different IDs. If found constructive and better-written, I've no reservation if it is changed, but if the facts are totally removed, I don't think that would do any justice to readers, as they'd only be reading half the truth. Hope it gets resolved soon.Nasiryounus (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well previously, I did try to add information, cited to Dawn.com, about why Gohar Shahi and his followers are opposed- but this was reverted without explanation. So to get feedback on it, I made a section "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi" in the talk page, but I didn't get any response. Anyway, recently I have noticed that User: Nasiryounus made a contribution to the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi section mentioning a little more about why Gohar Shahi is so controversial (Because his followers believe him to be the Imam Mehdi, Messiah and Kalki Avatar) and mentioning the dispute over his alleged death. I personally thought that it gave readers a little more insight into Gohar Shahi and thought that it was reasonable information to add. I found it strange that it was getting reverted so much. However, I also understand that this page is primarily about Sufism so, if the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi section does not discuss Gohar Shahi's controversy in great detail, it's not a problem. However I think that the main points of the paragraph that has been written should be mentioned, as this seems necessary for the reader to understand the situation surrounding Gohar Shahi more. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

[outdent] One of the editors, User talk:116.71.15.61 has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on another article. Esowteric+Talk 10:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

By removing the contentious paragraph (which shouldn't carry the "Moon" ref, surely), the section is unbalanced. Perhaps the paragraph could be reinstated and reworded to restore balance? Have asked an experienced editor to look at this. See WP:Neutral point of view. Esowteric+Talk 10:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I Beleive that information in this section are completed. No need to add further!--Falconkhe (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

... OR, we go along with Sarabseth's view that Gohar Shahi doesn't merit a section at all in this article. BTW, I reverted three attempted redirects from the Imam Mahdi! and variations to this guy's article. Esowteric+Talk 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder of we could get the page semi-protected, so that users can't hide behind IP addresses to get around WP:3RR? Esowteric+Talk 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the question of balance within this subsection, I don't believe we should have a section on Goharshahi at all in this generic overview of Sufism. I might support a brief mention elsewhere in the article, e.g. in the contemporary sufism section; however, I first would like to see evidence of exceptional noteworthiness in reliable sources (e.g. regular mention in scholarly summaries of present-day sufism, frequent media mentions). --JN466 20:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --JN466 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free, JN. Esowteric+Talk 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Gohar Shahi is a great Muslim, sufi saint. Gohar Shahi declares that "all kind of worship is fruitless without first purifying the heart". He does not propagate any specific religion, but he teaches and preaches the Divine Love and the way of entering into hearts. Gohar Shahi states "When a person's spiritual connection is established with God, then God guides that person towards the right path". Many seekers of the path see The Name of God written on their hearts during the meditative exercise. According to Gohar Shahi any word in any language that points towards God is worthy of respect and useful for attaining spiritual benefits. People of all religions love Gohar Shahi. He has cured many people with incurable diseases by his spiritual grace. --Falconkhe (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's funny. When I read Gohar Shahi, he seems to state "All ye who love me, devalue not my greatness by putting me on Wikipedia pages where I do not belong!" --Sarabseth (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We were listing Goharshahi in the company of Ibn Arabi and Mansoor. WP:Due weight is established by prevalence in reliable sources. There are more than 2,000 books that mention Ibn Arabi, vs. less than 20 mentioning Goharshahi. In terms of coverage in reliable sources, Goharshahi is not in the same ballpark as Ibn Arabi or the others listed in that section. Note that this does not say anything about Goharshahi's qualities as a sufi and a saint, which may very well be of the highest, but simply reflects the preoccupations of published literature, which we are required to mirror. --JN466 14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. JN, what you have said makes sense- since Gohar Shahi is relatively newer compared to the Sufi's of 1000 years ago, there is, of course, less mention of him in literature. Also, some people will say that Gohar Shahi's teachings relate closely to Sufism but is not exactly the same. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

I agree.Nasiryounus (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, JN. Thanks for your help. Esowteric+Talk 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree to JN but JN should also consider this conspiracies against HH Gohar Shahi and attempts by Govt of Pakistan to remove the message and followers of GS has left no stone unturned used all resources available to Govt (MFI & Younus is a part of that conspiracy). I request to consider this.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to realize that whether or not Gohar Shahi was persecuted (by the Govt of Pakistan or anybody else) has no bearing on the relevance or irrelevance of the Gohar Shahi section in this article. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sarabseth. This article is about Sufism not about conspiracies against any personality. I suggest Falconkhe make another article which may as well be a stub, which talks about what you've mentioned (conspiracies etc), keeping in mind that you must use reputable and relevant sources. Happy editing :) - Nasiryounus|Talk 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

S.R. Sharda text and reference removed 6 February 2010

In Sufism, the material from S.R. Sharda should probably read "According to S.R. Sharda in ...". However, it has been deleted by Roctour (see edit diff).

Should that material stay removed, or be re-inserted, or can alternative sources be found to provide alternative points of view or to refute this material? Esowteric+Talk 11:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sufi Films

The following two comments are copied from User_talk:Sarabseth#Sufi_Films, and refer to a minor edit war between the two editors over the last 2 days:

Sufi FIlms has nothing to do with Sufism, you can't be serious. There are very few sources in the media promoting films with a Sufi sensibility. While you may disagree with Sufi Films gentle approach in making films that have a sufi sensibility, like the Sufi or Islamic practice of medical cupping or using meditation oils attars to reach the divine, you have no right to deprive others of this information or hinder the promotion of Sufi oriented media ecause you disagree. Furthermore, if you looked a little harded at the website and films already produced like the biography of Sheikh Nazim, clearly Sufi subject matter, then you may change your mind.

I do agree that the Spiritual Circle link is not what it, at first glance, appeared to be (Sufi) and thus it is being removed. I hope that satisfies your objections. I do intend to add other production, film and media companies to this site as they are a valuable resource under this category as is Quawali Music is to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.26.52 (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Anyone can give their company any name. If you look at their own website that you linked to in Sufism, it doesn't claim any Sufi content to their films, or anything resembling Sufi sensibility. There is just some roundabout stuff about correcting Western misconceptions about Islam. Vague talk of "gentle approach in making films" and "sufi sensibility" by you hardly justifies their inclusion in the Sufism article.

There may be other articles where including a link to Sufi Films may make sense, but nothing on their website justifies adding a link to Sufism.

Copying this discussion to Talk:Sufism, as well, which is where you should have posted your comment in the first place. And I'll leave it to other editors to adjudicate this issue, instead of reverting your edit. --Sarabseth (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

--Sarabseth (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

-- Copying two more comments from User_talk:Sarabseth#Sufi_Films. Will reply in a little while when I get back online.

Can I ask your particular expertise on what is Sufi. I'm serious, because I am at a loss as to why you would think a film company would deceive theri audience by calling what they do Sufi Films and not make Sufi Films. Sufi Films has a film called Spiritual Circles, it jumps off of the Sufi Hadra "circle" and explores the comminality of all spiritual paths that utilize circles to reach the Divine, this is from the Director. Historically Sufi's approach the masses with a subtle wisdom that seems to elude you. I would think anyone who really wants to see Sufism understood would be thrilled to see companies like this working in this genre of filmmaking. I hope you are not someone who has an agenda and are here to waste people's time who have practiced sufism for twenty or more years and are better able to determine what Sufi means and is. In short it is controling the ego, which seems to be the agenda. So please reflect a little and contemplate your motives and do not argue for sake of arguing. I really would like to know your credentials other than some interest in Sufi music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the site again, they have a film institute to train people to make Sufi oriented films. They have a stock footage house to preserve Sufi film and photos and they are non-profit. I intend to report this as vandalism if it continues. Peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

--Sarabseth (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, just to be clear, is BeUnknown the same editor as 97.123.26.52?

As for, "Can I ask your particular expertise on what is Sufi. (sic)", I am not aware that any special qualifications beyond common sense and reading comprehension are required for any editor to question the relevance of any included material or link.

A link to the Sufi Films website was added to this page. This seems to be a commercial website. The home page that was linked to exhorts readers to "be sure to visit the Sufi Films store and purchase our existing offerings and products." Although you say "they are non-profit", I did not find any such statement anywhere on their website. Their page titled NON-PROFIT seems to exist to market their services to non-profit organizations: "Learn how Sufi Films can help your non-profit deliver a message of hope and peace to a troubled world and utilize cross platform new media campaigns to help promote and support your noble efforts." It is probably also relevant that their website ends in .com and not .org, which is what non-profits use.

The name "Sufi Films" alone is hardly enough to warrant a link, and the content of the home page of that website does not seem to justify a link either. 97.123.26.52 fell back on soft focus talk about "gentle approach in making films" and "sufi sensibility". You are arguing that a filmmaker whose website lists only two films, one of which is about the basketball player Hakeem Olajuwon, merits inclusion in the Sufism article because the other film is about a Sufi Sheikh, and because he has one more film about Sufism (Spiritual Circles) that is not even mentioned on his own website.

Fine. Instead of making ad hominem attacks on me, why don't you simply let other editors adjudicate whether a link to Sufi Films is warranted on this page or not?

Both your comments -- and these two statements especially: "I would think anyone who really wants to see Sufism understood would be thrilled to see companies like this working in this genre of filmmaking." and "I hope you are not someone who has an agenda and are here to waste people's time who have practiced sufism for twenty or more years and are better able to determine what Sufi means and is." -- suggest that you are very far from being a NPOV editor on this page.

And do try to refrain from gratuitously threatening other editors. It serves no useful purpose. I have been active on Wikipedia for almost 5 years, and my editing record speaks for itself. If you think you have a valid case to make against me for vandalism, do please go ahead and report me. --Sarabseth (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The non-profit status of Sufi Films is not the only fact about them that BeUnknown seems to have got wrong. He said: "Sufi Films has a film called Spiritual Circles, it jumps off of the Sufi Hadra "circle" and explores the comminality of all spiritual paths that utilize circles to reach the Divine, this is from the Director." However, the Sufi Films website describes this (under "In Development") as a proposed project, not a completed film. --Sarabseth (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted this passage today, for the reasons explained below:

Newer production companies and directors are beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility. Most notably Sufi Films with Director James McConnell also Director Simon Broughton for Sufi Soul – The Mystic Music of Islam, to name a few in a growing field. Films in the Sufi genre are also being featured at a number of newer film festivals devoted to the genre, such as the World Sufi Festival

Not clear what some of this means. For example, what does it mean to “emphasize a Sufi sensibility”? Or what is a film “in the Sufi genre”?

Furthermore, if a director with one completed film about a Sufi Sheikh is the most notable example of this trend (of newer production companies and directors beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility), it doesn’t seem to be much of a trend.

However, the bigger problem is that “Newer production companies and directors are beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility” is a subjective opinion, not an objective statement of fact. As such, it belongs in a WP article only if supported by expert opinion. Without such a citation, it constitutes “original research”, and must regretfully be removed. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"As for, "Can I ask your particular expertise on what is Sufi. (sic)", I am not aware that any special qualifications beyond common sense and reading comprehension are required for any editor to question the relevance of any included material or link."

If only you were questioning it and here to learn rather than boost your ego!

There is no dialogue, I have the distinct impression I am arguing with someone with no expertise and is sixteen years old.

This is a primary argument against and complaint of editors on Wikipedia. A pimple nose sixteen year old with no expertise on a given subject can interfere with a busy accomplished proven expert with a doctoral degree on the subject. While there should be no standard for who can contribute, Wikipedia desperately needs a standard for who can challenge expertise and edits to the subject matter. When someone with no experience who has unlimited time to waste challenging an edit because they have some bias or issue rooted in opinion, the real experts are chased away. Sufi Films is not Sufi? This young inexperienced person would have you believe that the owner of this site spent thousands of hours to up a website solely to deceive Wikipedia into believing it is Sufi at the expense of reaching their real audience. Unflipping believable. I must say - what an amazing display of stupidity and arrogance. This is a contest between a foolish person with unlimited time on their hands, apparantly with no expertise, against a person with years of training under a true Sufi master. When asked what their credentials are, as anticipated, nothing is offered accept it is my right. All self aggrandizing pomp and circumstance making a lay person feel important and on a level to challenge real accomplishment and knowledge.

I am constantly seeing these sorts of complaints about Wikipedia on the Internet and now understanding why. It is very frustrating that accomplished people can be challenged by teenagers.

This, I assume, young inexperienced person, who is here only to argue his/her uninformed POV, already agreed to leave this for others to decide - A mature decision that his/her ego would not permit him/her to accept for more than a few days. So now he/she is back exerting their own uninformed importance and interfering with important recognition in an area that desperately needs more entries, not less. There are so few voices in the media on this subject. They need to be encouraged.

The real sign of abuse here is the fact that there has been no effort to modify the entry, only completely remove the edit. That is not an invite for this non-expert to modify it – let someone with some knowledge do it. The experience of the director of Sufi Films is more notable than most persons in the field. He was responsible for starting the most successful genre of television in the past decade - I would suggest that is notable.

What do you do when people admitting no expertise take control of a subject and waste accomplish people’s time?

Is this person bucking for an admin position with Wikipedia and is building up the number of entries they make so they may apply?

Any suggestions on how to deal with someone that wishes to waste your time?

I am new here and the young man/woman is right - I registered my account in fear that this person will use my IP to do me harm. Seems he/she is already looking in that direction as they took time to investigate and match my IP. Is there a way to stop this foolishness? Have some constructive contributions on the subject from real experts. Or will I be warn down by a teenager who has nothing better to do resulting in critically important media efforts espousing Sufi perspectives in the media being destroyed before they even begin. It boggles the mind and the heart.

Is this why Wikipedia was developed, to give a voice to the unaccomplished and make them feel they are on the same level?

Can someone more experienced offer advice? I will try to read up on what to do, but my time is very limited.

Peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I see that User:Sarabseth has modified these talk pages and removed the protion where he/she will leave it to experts. Is this a violation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What amazes me is our dear friend has an objection to Sufi Films from a real Sufi while the following entry under IN MUSic does not seem off topic or non-Sufi.

"Madonna, on her 1994 record Bedtime Stories, sings a song called "Bedtime Story" that discusses achieving a high unconsciousness level. The video for the song shows an ecstatic Sufi ritual with many dervishes dancing, Arabic calligraphy and some other Sufi elements. In her 1998 song "Bittersweet", she recites Rumi's poem by the same name. In her 2001 Drowned World Tour, Madonna sang the song "Secret" showing rituals from many religions, including a Sufi dance."

This makes Madona a Sufi or is the best example of Sufi Music?

Help with Islamic titles

While editing various articles relating to Islamic subjects, I have picked up the notion that titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat are not to be used (just like honorifics like PBUH or R.A.). I cannot find any Wikipedia style/policy document which discusses this. (WP:MOSISLAM discusses only honorifics, and not titles of this sort.)

Will appreciate it very much if anyone can point me in the right direction.

If there isn't any Wikipedia style document per se which addresses this, would appreciate feedback on whether generally not using titles like titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat as part of names is the convention Wikipedia seems to use in practice, even if it isn't written down anywhere?

In case anyone is interested in taking a look at the context of my question, please see Madurai Maqbara‎ (edits starting 15:04, 5 February 2010) and Talk:Madurai Maqbara, section titled "Qazi, Qadi, Imam, etc".

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)