Jump to content

Talk:Fana (Sufism)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the relationship between Fanaa and Nirvana: I remember from my studies of world religion that Zen Buddhists view Nirvana differently than the common Buddhist viewpoint, namely that achieving enlightenment doesn't mean the cessation of self existence, but rather transforming into a more perfect realm of existence where one retains one's physical body but simply has undergone a change in perspective--a mental or psychological transformation that redefines the persons nature internally--externally they look the same. Kind of difficult to explain, but that sounds just like what this article is saying about Fanaa.

Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.69.223 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article is a well-written account of Sufi lore, but could do with an introduction for lay readers -- the Fana (Islamic term) article would serve that purpose well, I believe.

Jacob

Grammar & Allah

[edit]

I suggest that references to "Allah" be changed to God because Allah simply means "the God" in Arabic (contraction of "al Elaah") and is not considered by Sufis to be a particular being outside of God. Most Westerners mistakenly state that Muslims worship Allah, but that is like saying Persians/Iranians worship Sobhaan (the word for God in Persian). I don't want to make the change unilaterally and possibly upset people, but it is not a question of faith; it is a question of linguistics. --Smalek 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comparison to Nirvana

[edit]

It seems to me that the Hindu term samadhi is probably closer to Fanaa than Nirvana, since it's a state of merging with God and yet isn't necessarily a permanent union or dissolution. I'm hesitating to change it, since I know more about Hindusim than Sufism, but the description matches what I know about samadhi in Hinduism (better than it matches Nirvana, I'd say). --Snowgrouse (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've just reverted this article back to before User:Augustana-Kilbride made these edits back in May 2009. This editor's contributions here were basically just a sequence of sentences copy/pasted from the sources.

Unfortunately, once reverting back before that, it seems the previous version was believed to have some copyright issues too. I can't see quite where it was meant to have been copied from, so I'll leave it as is for the moment.

If someone who knows more about the subject than me could re-work the reverted material, it looks good, but far too close to its sources to be acceptable as is.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Article

[edit]

The article was more like a stub article with one paragraph of content and barely 2 references. I have made genuine contribution to the article by adding significant content to improve this concept of the Sufi belief. Every statement is backed by reliable sources. I have made new categories in accordance to the concept. The article now has a shape. Pixarh (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Fanaa

[edit]

I would like to propose moving this article to Fanaa as this is the generally accepted spelling.

Initially, this was the article URL anyway, until in 2006 an editor moved it to Fanaa (Sufism) (and later to Fana (Sufism)) in order to disambig it from a newly made Hindi film Fanaa. However, the film title is secondary to the the fanaa being the subject of this article. Hence, I propose to restore the Sufi meaning to Fanaa and keep the film where it is, i.e., under Fanaa (film). Any comments are welcome. kashmiri TALK 01:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Reference to Incarnation

[edit]

The reference on incarnation is not a Sufi view and not supported by the sources. Rather fana is eradication in God. This is totally different from incarnation. Please don't misrepresent Sufi views. Sheedibroz (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of source content, OR, Synthesis and use of unreliable sources.

[edit]

@Naiiska:

In your edits you are removing what is backed up by the source, that 'Orthodox' Muslims consider it heretical. No where does the source state "Salafi":

Controversial among the Sufis is whether fana means dissolution of the human ego before the divine, or whether it is absolute union with God, the latter interpretation being condemned by orthodox Islam.

— Yaran, Cafer. Muslim religious experiences. Alister Hardy Religious Experience Research Centre, 2004.

Thus "Salafi" is an interpolation of the source. Your own views and research are not considered in Wikipedia. Bring a reliable source.

As for accusing an academic source of being incorrect, you have failed to do that. The academic source makes no statement on Rumi - you are using a synthesis of two sources and your own analysis to attempt to do that - that Source A (which is non-academic/less reliable than our academic source) states "Rumi is orthodox" and source B states, "Rumi held Y view", then you inferring that source C which states, "Orthodox Muslims consider Y view heretical" to be incorrect. This is improper editorial synthesis, and a synthesis that uses a questionable source.

The source above is from an academic paper from a University of Wales research repository, published by the Alistair Hardy Religious Experience Centre, written by Dr Cafer Yaran, senior lecturer in the faculty of Theology at Istanbul university - the source you have provided is a book meant for popular - not academic - reading entitled, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Rumi Meditations". Clearly this is not academic source. Not only does it not allow you to remove the sourced statement above - as it doesn't even comment on that, just says "Rumi is orthodox", but even if the source did comment on the topic, it would be considered to be in the same category as the academic source above.

So please stop removing sourced content. Review WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. ParthikS8 (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please don't remove a legitimate source that claims Orthodox like Rumi accept Fana like you did here [1]. You are overly relying on 1 source, which is controversial and not accurate and censoring other sources that don't fit this view. Fana is an Orthodox belief and many Orthodox Muslims accept it. Naiiska (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Naiiska:
Firstly, I would like to apologise for reverting you the second time, we must not get involved in an edit war - we should discuss this on here, come to an understanding and then make any edits. It also seems you are a new user, so I apologise for biting.
I removed it because you are using it for editorial synthesis of sources, you are adding your own research and analysis onto wikipedia which is not permitted. And no, I am not relying on one academic source - that source itself quotes two other academic sources on this topic - I do not include them as citations as they are already in that source and so we avoid too many citations. So you are opposing at least three academic sources and with a single non-academic book which does not even comment on the issue directly, so you are using your own analysis to arrive at a conflict.
My issue with your edits is that you consistently remove reliably sourced material, and only added one non-academic source to perform you own editorial synthesis in concluding that (multiple) academic sources are incorrect.
Contested Edits
And your first set of reverts:
And your latest reverts:
The version prior to your edits I wish to re-instate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fana_(Sufism)&oldid=1015580404
I request some other editors take a look at this dispute, particularly Faizhaider, GorgeCustersSabre and TheEagle107, all editors who should be familiar with the subject topic and - with the exception of Faizhaider - all editors who I have had respectful disagreements with in the past. I look forward to their comments.
Naiiska I am adamant that the version I wish to re-instate should be re-instated for the reasons underlined above. Beyond that, I would agree that Rumi's statement should be removed as it is not clear that it relates to that type/interpretation of Fana, and it essentially relies on a primary source. I hope we can agree to not remove the academically sourced content. Look forward to your reply. ParthikS8 (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Naiiska: The doctrine of Hulul (Allah's incarnation/indwelling/fusion in creation) and Ittihad (Allah's union/identification within a creation) is rejected by the orthodox Sunni Muslims, including Sufis themselves! The belief in this doctrine is considered kufr, meaning infidelity or unbelief.[2] According to the school of Moderate Sufism, represented by Abu Bakr al-Kalabadhi, 'Ali al-Hujwiri and others, Fana' (Evanescence) does not mean that the freed soul loses its essence or attributes in God. While Baqa' (Subsistence) does not mean that it becomes one with God either in essence or attributes or in both. The reasons for these are that the soul is a substance, and a substance can never become identical with another. Further there cannot be any identity between even the freed soul and God, as the eternal relation between them is one between a humble servant and a sovereign Master. Hence, here Fana' simply means the total and permanent destruction of the human attributes of worldly attachment, self-will, independence; while, Baqa' means, attachment to God alone, living through God's will and power always.[3]

To sum up, Fana' does not mean Hulul and/or Ittihad, but self-illumination. If you feel this statement is incorrect, please bring up WP:reliable sources to prove the point false, otherwise your edits will be reverted. And, please bear in mind, the WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research policies.--TheEagle107 (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Zarrabi-Zadeh, Saeed. "Comparative mysticism and the problem of interpretation: Rumi and Meister Eckhart." Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 26.3 (2015): 288.
  2. ^ J. Spencer Trimingham (1998). The Sufi Orders in Islam. Oxford University Press. p. 162. ISBN 9780198028239. ...The distinctions between these and wahdat al-wujud, it need hardly be said, counted for nothing with the 'ulama' who condemned them all, as did the orthodox middle-of-the-road Sufis; as-Simnani, for instance, regarded belief in ittihad as kufr.
  3. ^ Amiya Kumer Mazumder; Swami Prajnanananda, eds. (1971). The Bases of Indian Culture. Ramakrishna Vedanta Math. p. 313.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fana_(Sufism)&oldid=1207178086"