|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sufism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3|
|Sufism has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Your edit summary says, "I see no cite for the alleged cited material." We cannot simply strip the blockquotes from cited material. That is plagiarism and a serious offense. The offending text is "Pakistani faith healers are known as pirs, a term that applies to the descendants of Sufi Muslim saints. Under Sufism, those descendants are thought to serve as conduits to God. The popularity of pirs as a viable healthcare alternative stems from the fact that, in much of rural Pakistan, clinics don't exist or are dismissed as unreliable. For the urban wealthy, belief in a pir's powers is either something passed down through the generations, or a remedy of last resort, a kind of Pakistani laetrile."
Spinout current section
I propose splitting the current attacks section, either to the Sufi-Salafi relations article or a new main article about Sufi persecution. We usually have separate articles for persecution instead of adding everything into the overview article for the religion, for example see the Christianity article, it only discusses persecution briefly and links to the main article Persecution of Christians Seraphim System (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, there is definitely enough material for a Sufi persecution article on its own, and it would make the main page a bit less unwieldly.PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I also support creation of a "Persecution of Sufis" article. Sufi-Salafi relations is a partially overlapping but different topic. Eperoton (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Relationship between Sufism and Islam should be in the intro
I believe the nature of Sufism i.e. that it is one of the major religious disciplines in orthodox, traditional Islam should be better clarified in the intro. It's basically the salient point of the article and the main take away. I would suggest that the gist of those passages belongs the intro:
Existing in both Sunni and Shia Islam, Sufism is not a distinct sect, as is sometimes erroneously assumed, but a method of approaching or a way of understanding the religion, which strives to take the regular practice of the religion to the "supererogatory level" through simultaneously "fulfilling ... [the obligatory] religious duties"
As a mystic and ascetic aspect of Islam, it is considered as the part of Islamic teaching that deals with the purification of the inner self. By focusing on the more spiritual aspects of religion, Sufis strive to obtain direct experience of God by making use of "intuitive and emotional faculties" that one must be trained to use. Tasawwuf is regarded as a science of the soul that has always been an integral part of Orthodox Islam
Historically, Sufism became "an incredibly important part of Islam" and "one of the most widespread and omnipresent aspects of Muslim life" in Islamic civilization from the early medieval period onwards, when it began to permeate nearly all major aspects of Sunni Islamic life in regions stretching from India and Iraq to the Balkans and Senegal.
Sufism continued to remain a crucial part of daily Islamic life until the twentieth century, when its historical influence upon Islamic civilization began to be undermined by modernism as well as be combated by the rise of Salafism and Wahhabism. Islamic scholar Timothy Winter has remarked: "[In] classical, mainstream, medieval Sunni Islam ... [the idea of] 'orthodox Islam' would not ... [have been possible] without Sufism," and that the classical belief in Sufism being an essential component of Islam has only weakened in some quarters of the Islamic world "a generation or two ago" with the rise of Salafism. In the modern world, the classical interpretation of Sunni orthodoxy, which sees in Sufism an essential dimension of Islam alongside the disciplines of jurisprudence and theology, is represented by institutions such as Egypt's Al-Azhar University and Zaytuna College, with Al-Azhar's current Grand Imam Ahmed el-Tayeb recently defining "Sunni orthodoxy" as being a follower "of any of the four schools of [legal] thought (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki or Hanbali) and ... [also] of the Sufism of Imam Junayd of Baghdad in doctrines, manners and [spiritual] purification."
Whereas the hadith quotes, and all the technical concepts like ihsan, insan kamil, majalis, zawiyya, and so on do not need to be in the intro, they can be introduced later down the article. Thank you for considering this suggestion. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is no main takeaway in this article. It should present a balanced reflection of how the subject is treated in RSs. It doesn't currently do a good job reflecting current academic discussions, which emphasize that the historical phenomenon of tasawwuf is too varied to be concisely defined. It also doesn't adequately cover the various social roles that Sufism has played. We could include something like the two sentences above that start "Historically, Sufism became..." and "Sufism continued...", though they should preferably be based on solid academic publications rather than quotes from Youtube. The rest is too tendentious for the lead. We aren't here to channel statements of religious leaders engaged in traditionalist/Salafi polemics, as that paragraph currently does. Eperoton (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Idries Shah's work
I don't have skills to work with wiki, but
As I know the most deep and correct academic research was done by Idries Shah, and he wrote down all that he found. As I know, he recommended only 2 scholars to work with: Nicolson and Arberry.
That article cries for quotations from "The Sufies" book, even 2 first paragraphs is enough for complete change in impression of the article
"In most other Muslim countries, attacks on Sufis and especially their shrines have come from adherents of puritanical schools of thought who believe that practices such as celebration of the birthdays of Sufi saints, and dhikr ("remembrance" of God) ceremonies are bid‘ah or impure innovation, and polytheistic (Shirk)."
Is it possible to replace "puritanical schools of thought" with Salafi/Wahhabi? (i.e. what all three sources actually say) I mean frankly, who else blow themselves up in shrines?