Talk:Rumi

Archives
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Archives: Archive 1 - Archived on December 7, 2006 Archive 2 - Archived on January 9, 2008 Archive 3 - Archived on March 7, 2009 On the Back and Forth arguments on Rumi's background

/On the Back and Forth arguments on Rumi's background

Maulana jalaledin mohamad Balkhi is an Afghan

maulana was born in balkh province of Afghanistan and it,s a fact. please don,t waste your time to say he,s an Iranian poet or a Turkey!it,s very clear that we deal with a enormous cultural invasion so Iran and turkey wants to use these situations of Afghanistan to prove their benefits but who love Maulana and his poems must say or write that. Maulana one of the greatest poets of the world was burn in balkh province of Afghanistan. thise sentences will end the claims of Iranian and turkish and all people around the world .hosinmokhtary@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosinmokhtary (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was born in contemporary Afghanistan, we note that in the introduction. The nations known as Afghanistan, Iran, and so forth are (relatively) new nations. Both Afghanistan, Iran, and other nations, share their heritage in the Persian empire and culture. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PI, but I think the user meant something different. Going by the historical meaning of the word "Afghan", Mowlana was - of course - not an Afghan. See Afghan for more information. Afghanistan as a modern nation was created in 1919, 700 years after Mowlana. Tajik (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maulana is born in Balkh which is a province of Afghnistan. Please edit the parts where it is being claimed that he is an Iranian. Yosuf-Haydary 04april2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosuf-haydary (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It never states even once that he is Iranian from what I can see. It states he is Persian: Tajiks for example are considered Persian. The modern states of Afghanistan and Iran did not exist at this time, so we must base this on ethnic or linguistic definitions. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How ironic!!!!!, this debate is contrary to the very teachings of Rumi, why do we need to associate him where he came from or where died, his words are what is most important and everything else is not relevant,,,,,afghan,,,iranian or turkish, does not matter,,,,,,Saalim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.112.88 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way Pashtun Ismailiyya, Iran as a country did exist back then, but of course its borders have changed over time. Balkh was part of the Iranian nation back then and would have been no different to a person from Shiraz or Esfahan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from such useless troll-like pointers, if there's an official claim against his 'citizenship', it should be quoted with solid references rather than expressing your own point-of-view. Thanks.hameed (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana is a Turk. He has Turk culture. He lived in Konya and died in Konya.He isnt İranian or Afgan.We think.. Mevlana is Turk. Because Mevlana's grandmother is turkish princes of Harzemşah family. her name's Melika-i Cihan Emetullah SultanBABP (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on! Is it honestly that difficult to say that he was an ethnic Persian, born in either Vakhsh or Balkh (located in what is today either Afghanistan or Tajikistan), who spent a large portion of his life in Turkey? Szfski (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is as ridiculous as at the Nasrudin article. Good grief, it's an encyclopedia folks. Peter Deer (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana Jelaleddin Rumi is TURKISH and he is also a component of TURKISH culture. Rumi was born in Baklh. At that time Khwarezmian Empire was in power. Khwarezmian Empire was also a TURKISH State. Then Rumi came to Konya. There was Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in Konya and it was a Turkish State. Rumi wrote his masterpieces with Persian as in that the language of literature was Persian. So that he is not an Afghan nor Iranian. He is TURKISH. Listentotheney (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) You come on. mevlana is TURK. This is real. You must accept. mevlana say, "My ethnic group is Turk." You look Mevlana's statements. And this is not as ridiculous as at the Nasrettin article.BABP (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana was a Turk. It is not important where Mevlana was born. He was born in Belh and he wrote in Persian. Thats true. But that does not make him Persian. He known Turkish. He tried to write in Turkish but he failed. Because he used aruz... Mevlana had Turkish culture, he lived Turk city..BABP (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana is neither Iranian nor Turk. Why do you argue about it? He is universal and is a part of world culture. Butterflyeffective (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We are TURK. We must protect our values. Otherwise other ethnic groups claim to our values and culture. For example; Iranians. Iranians says; "Mevlana is İranian". That's not true. Mevlana is TURK. BABP (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We accept RUMI is a global but according to same information RUMI is a Persian.We defend that RUMI is not persian, he is TURK. He is piece of TURKISH culture and he always lived in TURKISH land, but he wrote his masterpiece with Persian.We are arguing this subject because we want to defends our culture(Listentotheney (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)).

You must supply reliable sources for your claims. Please have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. Regards--Shahab (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

During the period of Seljuk state.Konya has its most brilliant years.Rumi is also very happy to live there to be in a Turkish state.This happiness made him write his best works in Konya.He wrote his works in Persian not in Turkish and as Iranians did not want to share such a great person, they think that he is an Iranian.However, realities are obvious.The works whick make Rumi as real Rumi was written in Anatolia.Moreover, the ideas of Rumi under the title of Mevleviyeh was only systematized in Anatolia not in Iran or in another country.Rumi said in his Masnavi and rubais that is Turk. (Listentotheney (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

What are your proofs related with Turkishness and culture of Turk at Masnavi and rubai.You have to explain. (Butterflyeffective (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

The works of Rumi demonstrate that he is influenced from Turk culture.Especially in Masnavi he used a lot of Turk proverbs.The meanings of that proverbs are true and logical.To succeed this, he must be know the meanings of the proverbs.That is, he succeeds that bringing up in Turk culture.For example; As you saw, so you shall reap and he said in his rubais “ Aslem Turk-est egerci hinduyuyum”. (Listentotheney (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Why did Rumi writte in persian not in Tukish! Because languages are born grove develop and die like humans.If Rumi had writte his Masnavi in Turkish, his poems would be ineffective like 13.century poets and he wouldn't be able to Rumi who lighten the world with his works.And Masnavi which has been translated into different world languages wouldn't be one of the immortal perfections of all times.According the 13.of century Persia was a rich language.therefore Rumi wrote Masnavi in a Turkish language.(Listentotheney (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Mevlana’s father was Bahaeddin Veled who was also known in his life time as the”Sultan of the Scholars”. His mother was Mümine Hatun, the daughter of Rükneddin, who was the Emir of Behl. So Mümine hatun was Turk and Bahaeddin Veled was Turk.. Also Sultanü’l - Ulema and his family who arrived at Karaman in 1222, stayed there for 7 years. There, Mevlana married Gevher Hatun who was the daughter of Şerefeddin Lala. The marriage gave Mevlana two sons named Sultan Veled and Alaeddin Çelebi.So Gevher Hatun was Turk..He wrote in Persian. Thats true. But that does not make him Persian. He known Turkish. He tried to write in Turkish but he failed.... .Mevlana died on Sunday, December 17,1273 in Konya. So Konya is Turkish City. Iranians, Afgans and the other must understand!!!! MEVLANA IS TURK...BABP (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mevlana says:“Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem” So he says: I am a Turk...He likes Turks.. Turks were praised by Mevlana. BABP (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Obviously you have not read the archives and talkpages and have repeated some stuff that has been been responded to multiple times. New users should read the archives.

2) Rumi did not just write in Persian. He spoke in Persian and all of his sermons (Fihi ma Fihi) recorded by his students are in Persian. The Fihi Ma Fihi is in an informal Persian and best proof that Rumi spoke Persian in everyday affairs. Had he spoke Turkish in everyday affairs, then his lectures would have been recorded in Turkish. But they are in informal Persian. These lectures were recorded by his students while Rumi was preaching are in Persian and are in everyday informal (not written but spoken) Persian. So that puts an end to the theory that "he wrote Persian because it was more beautiful". Obviously the propents of this theory have not read Fihi ma Fih or the Seven Sermons (Friday sermons again in Persian recorded by his students). Also his recorded conversations with Shams are in Persian (and some in Arabic), but never Turkish. So you have: A) His conversations with his students all in Persian. B) His friday sermons all in Persian. C) His conversations with Shams, primarily and overwhelmingly in Persian. 3) As per the verse you claim. Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su"

تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم

دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو

Professional Translation: “You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, know that much, that much, that in Turkish the word for water is su”(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196)

Turk, Hindu.. have very different (mainly symbolic) meaning in Persian poetry and show opposites.

Here is another one for example:

گه تركم و گه هندو گه رومی و گه زنگی از نقش تو است ای جان اقرارم و انكارم

Gah torkam, Gah Hendu, Gah Rumi, Gah Zangi Az Naqsh tost ay del, Eqraaram o Enkaaram

Translation:

“I am sometimes Turk, sometimes Hindu, sometimes Rumi and sometimes Negro, O Soul, from your image is my approval and denial”

So these imageries are not a proof of background. Turk vs Hindu, and Rumi vs Black are faviorate symbols of Persian poetry.

The verse you brought says "Agarcheh hendu gooyam" . Assuming authentic, it means "I speak in Hindu".. Now we know Rumi did not speak in Hindu. However Turk as opposed to Hindu is a constrast of climates, colors, lifestyle, kings vs desolates and etc in Persian poetry.

4)

The connection of Rumi's mother to the Khwarizmshah empire is seen as legendary hagiography and not factual due to both chronological reasons as well as textual reasons. Scholars reject it and it was designed to simply connect him to royalty. In reality, the grandmother of Rumi is a simple woman as demonstrated by Baha al-Din's Ma'arif. I would read the articles in Encyclopedia of Islam on Rumi as well as the book of Franklin. These are the secondary sources acceptable in Wikipedia.

5) Although Hindu, Turk, Rumi (Roman) and Black are faviorate symbols of Persian poetry and even "Rumi" is called Rumi, if you look at Aflaki, there are also some comments about Turks. Here is an anectode from Rumi quoted by Aflaki (pg 503) about Tukrs vs Greeks. Note he is not putting Turks downs or praising Greeks (in my opinion) but just making an observation: "Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. When God—He is sublime and exalted—ordered the creation of the world of sovereignty (‘alam-e molk’), first He created unaware-infidels, and He conferred on them long life and great strength so they would strive like hired laborers in building the terrestrial world. And they built up many cities and fortresses on mountain peaks and places on top of a hill such that after generations had passed these constructions were a model for those who came later. Then divine predestination saw to it that little by little these constructions would become completely destroyed and desolate, and be eradicated. God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. And they are still doing so, and day by day until the Resurrection they will continue to destroy in this manner. In the end, the destruction of the city of Konya will also be at the hands of wicked Turks devoid of mercy.’ And this being the case, it turned out just as Mowlana said. " (pg 503) See: Shams al-Din Ahmad al_Afkali, Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn, ed. Tahsin Yazici, 2 vols, Tehran, Donyaayeh Ketab, 1983. English translation: Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002.

Here are some quotes from Rumi: "“God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished.”" “Oh ignorant Turk! Give up (tark) this idea and undertaking. Take back your Turks (torkan) to your lady (tarkan) as quickly as possible. Otherwise, you will not escape with your life.” “Majd al-Din, why did you let out a shout and release your quarry from your gullet? A Turk who is a recent disciple is able to bear the burden, but you divulge the matter. Many things like this occur to abdals to God.” “Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. “

Note I only brought these for demonstrations. The Diwan Shams overall contains a positive usage of the word Turk, the Mathnawi seems somewhat neutral towards negative, but the Manaqib Aflaki seems negative. The reason is that Diwan Shams is a mystical book and the imagery of Turk in Persian mysticism has been positive (along with that of "Rum/Rumi"(Greeks)).

6)

Rumi's son on multiple occassions has attested that his Turkish is very poor.. yet his son was born in Anatolia but he claims little knowledge of Greek and Turkish. This is described in this article: [1]

According to Franklin: “Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 239)

“Sultan Valad did not feel confident about his command of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 240)

Sultan Walad actually admits the fact that his knowledge of Turkish and Greek is rudimentary four times. For example in the Ibtedanama, Sultan Walad states:

بگذر از گفت ترکی و رومی که از این اصطلاح محرومی گوی از پارسی و از تازی که در این هر دوخوش همیتازی

Translation: Abandon the speech of Turkish and Greek Since you are deprived of these expressions Instead speak Persian and Arabic Because you are well versed in these two Sultan Walad, Masnaviyeh Waladi, Ensha’ Baha al-Din b. Mowlana Jalal al-Din Mohammad b. Hosayn-e Balkhi, Mashur beh Mowalana, ed. Jalal al-Din Homa’I (Tehran:Eqbal, 1316) (pp 393-4)

His son admits 3-4 times that he has very poor command of Greek and Turkish.

7) A complete response to the arguments you have and could have is given here: [2] Wikipedia works by standards of Western scholars. Schimmel and Franklin are the top Rumi scholars and they have called Rumi a Persian and Persian poet. That is sufficient. It is unfortunate that the same arguments get repeated again and again. It is extremly tiring that instead of reading the archives some new user always comes to make the same repetative arguments. The fact is Rumi is known because of his Persian poetry. No one is going to examine his corpse for DNA evidence.

8)

Wikipedia works by WP:weight and WP:RS. Western scholars in general and Rumi Western scholars in particular (like Franklin and Schimmel) affirm Rumi's heritage and background as a Persian. So that is what counts and not endless polemics that is constantly repeated.

Encyclopedia of Islam is also another weighty source. GoshtaspLohraspi

1) Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000. How is it that a Persian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considered in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in Central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere, in which is now Turkey, some 1500 miles to the west? (p. 9)

2) Annemarie Schimmel, “The Mystery of Numbers”, Oxford University Press,1993. Pg 49: “A beautiful symbol of the duality that appears through creation was invented by the great Persian mystical poet Jalal al-Din Rumi, who compares God's creative word kun (written in Arabic KN) with a twisted rope of 2 threads (which in English twine, in German Zwirn¸both words derived from the root “two”)”. 3) Ritter, H.; Bausani, A. "ḎJ̲alāl al- Dīn Rūmī b. Bahāʾ al-Dīn Sulṭān al-ʿulamāʾ Walad b. Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad Ḵh̲aṭībī ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. Excerpt: "known by the sobriquet Mawlānā (Mevlânâ), Persian poet and founder of the Mawlawiyya order of dervishes" 4) Julia Scott Meisami, Forward to Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2008 (revised edition) 5) John Renard,"Historical dictionary of Sufism", Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. pg 155: "Perhaps the most famous Sufi who is known to many Muslims even today by his title alone is the seventh/13th century Persian mystic Rumi" 6) Frederick Hadland Davis , "The Persian Mystics. Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí", Adamant Media Corporation (November 30, 2005) , ISBN-10: 1402157681

But if you are interested in this matter, read here:[3]. However from Wikipedia's point of view, the most comprehensive books on Rumi are those written by Rumi scholars and amongst them, the book fo Franklin currently stands out as the most detailed and objective biography of Rumi in any language. And he is a Professor of University of Chicago. The Encyclopedia of Islam is also another weighty source. GoshtaspLohraspi

mevlana jalaluddin RUMI is TURK.He isn t IRANIAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Listentotheney (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Turkish banknote

Two days ago, I added a short sentence mentioning the fact that Rumi was depicted on the reverse of the Turkish 5000 lira banknotes of 1981-1994. — The edit was blindly reverted by Nepaheshgar (edit summary: irrelevant).

In my opinion, the fact that the Turkish government considers Rumi as having enough symbolic significance to depict him in its currency is interesting to our readership, and worthy of mention in a single, short sentence.

In general, a government's decision to showcase an individual as a symbol of a country's culture and historical heritage (for that is what the banknote depiction connotes) is quite interesting. This is especially true in the case of Turkey, which up to that time had not depicted specific persons in its currency (with the exceptions of Ataturk & İsmet İnönü, the Republic's presidents). When the Turkish Bank decided to depict individuals, from all possible candidates they chose four: the author of the national anthem, Mehmed II, Sinan and Rumi. – To be honest, I cannot understand why this fact wouldn't belong in the article, especially when just above of where I introduced the sentence a mention of MySpace is deemed worthy of inclusion. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is extremely noteworthy. I will support you if you put it in. The reason you were reverted is because there are many edits done in bad faith to try to change Rumi's ethnicity, Nepaheshgar is a good editor and meant no harm. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I reintroduced the sentence at the same time I wrote the above comment. I know I should have waited for this discussion to take place, but sometimes blind reverts reduce my patience. My apologies. - Regards, Ev (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am against all this banknote stuff. Please stop this and try to understand "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia". According to Examples your banknotes appear to "belong to trivia section", and according to WP:TRIV "Trivia sections should be avoided." I strongly oppose your addition of picture of banknotes to Wikipedia. Please remove what you added.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, do you ever read the links you provide ? As its title implies, the Trivia sections guideline deals with the creation of separate trivia sections whithin articles, like the trivia section in our article on Pretoria. Of course those sections should be avoided. – Notice however that I did not add to this article a "Trivia" section with a "list of miscellaneous facts", but only a single noteworthy fact (whose relevance I argue above), and to the section I deemed appropriate. Moreover, the "Example" section of the Trivia sections guideline you are citing clearly states that "[t]he facts themselves are not the issue here: the problem is with their organization" (emphasis mine). - Ev (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand my point. Banknote provides no or unimportant information. That's it. If you click around in the page I posted you see kind of definition: "Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important." and I wrongly assumed that after seeing some examples you will understand that mentioning banknotes should be avoided. Also regarding your last sentence: no body is saying that there is no banknote with picture of Rumi on it, but I am saying SO WHAST?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, those examples you wanted me to see are interesting facts that are all currently mentioned in the article in question. The whole point of that "Example" section is to indicate how to organize noteworthy information within articles, instead of listing it randomly in a trivia section. – If you are comparing a mention of the banknote in this article with those facts about James Monroe, it is quite evident that the banknote should be mentioned here.

In any case, above I argue that, far from being unimportant information, mentioning the banknote helps to convey to our readership the significance attributed to Rumi in modern Turkey. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion that's not significant at all.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's significant either. But it's fine as an image with a caption. That said, the image shouldn't be in the middle of the page by itself. It should be embedded with a paragraph like all the other images, so I moved it to the right of the next paragraph. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, the articles on the following individuals currently mention similar depictions in currency:

• George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant & Benjamin Franklin.
• Except for Elizabeth II, all other 29 individuals included in Category:People illustrated on sterling banknotes mention those depictions, including: Alexander Graham Bell, Robert Burns, Charles Dickens, Michael Faraday, Alexander Fleming, David Livingstone, Isaac Newton, Florence Nightingale, Robert I of Scotland, Walter Scott, Adam Smith, George Stephenson, Robert Louis Stevenson, the Duke of Wellington, Christopher Wren and the featured articles on Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Charles Darwin. In the case of William Shakespeare, the mention is done in the "Memorials to William Shakespeare" sub-article.
• Some examples of literary figures: Antoine de Saint Exupéry (France), Banjo Paterson (Australia), Selma Lagerlöf (Swedish Nobel Prize), Elias Lönnrot (Finland), Taras Shevchenko (Ukraine), Mihai Eminescu (Romania), Henryk Sienkiewicz (Polish Nobel Prize), Turlough Carolan (Ireland), Annette von Droste-Hülshoff (Germany), Marko Marulić and Ivan Gundulić (Croatia), Jonathan Swift and the featured articles on James Joyce & William Butler Yeats.

These examples demonstrate that, in general, Wikipedia deems such depictions noteworthy. In view of this clearly attested general practice and my argumentation above, exactly why would that not be the case here ? Why would Rumi's depiction in Turkish currency be deemed "irrelevant" or "not significant at all" for this article ? - Ev (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the mention, which had been removed without explanation by 89.165.6.109 in October 2009 (dif). - Best, Ev (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud! Are the Persians and Turks fighting over Mowlānā/Mevlana again? Everybody just calm down and take a breath. It's just a banknote Xashaiar. Szfski (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the mention, which had been removed without any meaningful explanation by 188.158.12.85 (dif. Edit summary: there is no need to put turkish lira.). - Best, Ev (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Prose works of Rumi

These should be elaborated on, since they are very important in understanding Rumi's philosophy. Of course he is known primarily for his poetry but still the prose works are highly elegant. The Fihi ma Fih is a work recorded by his students when Rumi was giving lectures. --GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. -Shahab (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity subpage

The debate on Rumi's ethnicity, whether he was Persian, Turkish, Tajik, Afghan or belongs to humanity has been raging on for a long time on this page now. The same old arguments are repeated by newbies, and no constructive decision has resulted. Little effort has been made towards taking this article towards FA and the energy of the contributors is being spent towards deciding on the "vital" question of ethnicity. I propose that first of all a subpage Talk:Rumi/Ethnicity be created where this debate can be continued. The main talk page should be reserved for discussing other improvements to the article. (A similar approach has been taken on a number of other wikipedia articles). Secondly, if no consensus is forthcoming then a request for comment be filed. I am willing to take the lead if no one objects.-Shahab (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good one. However, the debate on his ethnicity is usually done by some new wikipedia users who have no handle on sources and comeup with some slogans. In reality Fraklin, and Schimmel are top Rumi scholars of the world and their words are final. The article can use improvement though in terms of Rumi's philosophy. I suggest the new edition of Franklin be used to expand upon these. Thank you.--GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rumi's philosophy? He wasn't a philosopher in the traditional sense. The ideas espoused by him are not strictly his own but really the dominant Sufi ideas of his period(and I say this after having written nearly 95% of the philosophic outlook section of the article.) Rumi was not a traditional philosopher, not the kind Ghazali was anyway. His real genius lay in experiencing the inexpressible and yet expressing it through his poetry. (What's notable and missing though, is the extent of Rumi's impact on philosophy.) Anyway that is besides the point. My question is: Should we create an ethnicity subpage where everyone wishing to debate Rumi's ethnicity can do it to their heart's content. This would allow this page to focus on other issues and bring some balance.-Shahab (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

About the subpage you suggested, Wikipedia is not really a forum. See WP:forum. People that have really fringe claims or reasonable claims, can make an external link based on scholarly sources and put it at end of the article. For example he is what I think is a decent article: [4] and it is linked as an external link. Even nationalist Turkish scholars like Talat. S. Halman: “Baha ad-din (Rumi’s Father) and his family eventually settled in Konya, ancient Iconium, in central Anatolia. They brought with them their traditional Persian cultural and linguistic background and found in Konya a firmly entrenched penchant for Persian culture. In terms of Rumi’s cultural orientation – including language, literary heritage, mythology, philosophy, and Sufi legacy –the Iranians have indeed a strongly justifiable claim. All of these are more than sufficient to characterize Rumi as a prominent figure of Persian cultural history”(Rapture and Revolution, page 266). Other opinions as external links are welcomed by readers are not here in wikipedia for forum talk or to give citations to their on WP:OR. However the article follows top Rumi scholars like Franklin and Schimmel. --GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know he is not a traditional philosopher. But by philosophy in general I meant his "ideas, thoughts, spiritual path" and in one words what he calls the identity ("Andisheh"). The book of Franklin is really a must and the most comprehensive book on Rumi and should be used to expand this article. Good luck on that journey!--GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Instead of making a subpage for debating Rumi's ethnicity how about making a subpage seperately of the archived discussions of his ethnicity. Any new reader who has an objection can then be directed to it so can then read up before cluttering up this page with the same old repeated arguments. A similar approach was taken on Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi regarding the controversy of Mahatma vs Mohandas. Or alternatively, a FAQ on the lines of Talk:0.999... can be put up on the top of the page.-Shahab (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming there are no objections forthcoming I am adding a consensus notice on the top of the page. This will help new readers realize that for their objections to be taken seriously, they must be accompanied by reliable sources.-Shahab (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

-_-

can someone create a wikipage for

"Persian scholars/poets/scientists being claimed by enthusiast Turk nationals" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Persian poet info-box

Please change the Persian poet info-box to a standard infobox like William Shakespeare's article. Let's stop claiming people as this or that for nationalistic reasons. Just write a biography of them with their lives and accomplisments and works. EasternAryan (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Persian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian Persian

Tell the tale in Persian so that all may understand it, Even though they lack insight and are (spiritually) sleep. Sultan Walad سلطان ولد

Reduce the number of sources citing Rumi's ethnicity

"Rumi... was a 13th-century Persian[1][4][5][6][7][8][9] poet". Should there really be nine sources citing the fact that Rumi was Persian? It is obvious to anyone who has studied Rumi and his life that he was Persian. Some people dispute this fact (and they are wrong). It is quite common that a fact that is disputed by some people (even if they are uneducated about the topic) to have many sources citing it in a Wikipedia articles. But this trend is getting out of hand. Having nine footnotes following a word (especially a word in the middle of a sentence) really reduces the readability of the sentence. What is gained from having so many sources cited? Nothing at all. The number of sources citing a fact doesn't make the fact any more or less true. I could find over 50 sources citing that Rumi was Persian. Should we cite them in the article? It's true that some POV editors will be less likely to remove a fact if it has nine sources following it, but those nine sources could be cited in the Discussion page in order to establish consensus. Surely a fact that has a consensus of support cannot be removed; any attempt to do so will quickly be reverted. Ironically, those that keep citing sources to facts such as this one, are those that most zealous about readers knowing the fact. However, the addition of so many footnotes reduces the sentences readability, reducing its clarity. Are readers more likely to believe a fact if it has nine footnotes? Perhaps the number of footnotes has some persuasive effect, but our role here is not to try to write a persuasive or convincing article, rather an informative, clear, and concise article. If we tailor the format or tone of the article in order to make it more persuasive we will compromise important things: in this case, readability and clarity. Where should we draw the line on the number of footnotes? There should be only one footnote following a fact in the middle of the sentence, preferably the most authoritative and reliable source being chosen for citation.Agha Nader (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any readability issue however they can collected more like in Scythians where a footnote covers many sources. So two three footnotes can have three sources each (3x3=9)...Each of the footnotes provide valuable information. However the article should be ip protected permanently as 95% of ip contributions are edits designed to change historical facts. Once the article is permanently ip protected the next logical solution would be to transform the 9 footnotes into either 2 or 3 footnotes with each footnote covering 3 sources or so..

False (Non-Authentic) Quotes Attributed to Mowlana Rumi

The quote thats used on Rumi's Universality section is not composed by Rumi, though its attribute to him. I am quoting from Rumi & Islam: Poems and Selections, by Ibrahim Gamard, Page Xiii (Introduction section).

"I traversed the lands of the Cross and the Christians, but he wasn't on the cross. I travelled to the temple of idols, to the ancient temple, but, there wasn't even a tinge evident within it.... I looked into my heart, and I saw Him in that place, He wasn't in any other place."[3]

"Even if you are an unbeliever or Zoroastrian fire worshipper or an idol worshipper, return. ..... The Sufis court of ours is not a court of despair. Even if you have broken your repentance a hundred times, return"[4]

Both the above quotes are not composed by Rumi. As I looked into sources [3] and [4] of the book's Notes, this is mentioned:

[3] First Translated by Nicholson in 1898, Selected Poems from the Divani Shamsi Tabriz, no XVII, ppg 71-73. This poem doesnot occur in the earliest manuscripts of the Divan and is no longer considered to be authentic by scholars. Nicholson mentioned that this poem occured in only one manuscript which is dated over 170 years after Rumi's death.

[4] This quatrian does not exist in the earliest manuscript of Rumi's Divan, but is found in manuscript of another poet Baba Afzaluddin Kashani (died 1274), it has long been attributed to Aby Said ibin Abi Khayr (died 1048), for which see Abramain, Nobody, Son of Nobody:Poems of Shaikh Abu Saeed Abil Kheir (Prescott, Arizona: Hohm Press, 2001), p 4.

Someone should remove that quote, or add a criticism note. -- Thanks. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)