Talk:Sufism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Films about Sufism

One film the article did not list was The Jewel of the Nile.--Splashen (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Attar statue-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Attar statue-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor fix to Basic Views on Aug 15, 2011

Parenthetical insertions require space before and after the dashes:

While all Muslims believe that they are on the pathway to God and hope to become close to God in Paradise — after death and after the "Final Judgment" — Sufis also believe that it is possible to draw closer to God and to more fully embrace the Divine Presence in this life.

If the sentence ended with "Final Judgment", then it would read:

While all Muslims believe that they are on the pathway to God and hope to become close to God in Paradise—after death and after the "Final Judgment".

But the way it is written, it needs the spaces before and after the dashes. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sufism and Judaism

There are (almost) no sources at all on this section.

At times it seems the author is making his own hypotheses based upon similarities between the two traditions, without supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropicana383 (talkcontribs) 17:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality, and cleanup tags??

There's tags on the article yet nothing here on the talkpage to guide editors on what needs changing. So either we remove the tags and forget about it, or address the concerns if the editors are still around.--SexyKick 14:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

POV Language

Sarabseth: Hodgson uses a variety of monikers for these people. The passage I footnoted reads: "From the first generations of Islam there had been those who tended to emphasize personal purity and freedom from the temptations and taints of living in the world. While the Islamic tradition set its head against monastic celibacy, there were many Muslims noted for their zuhd, a pious zeal which practically amounted to asceticism.... much was learned by the mystically-inclined from Christian monks, and no doubt from other soruces too, of the inward life of the soul that would detach itself from the world and love God only." pp. 394. Atleast for Hodgson, the link between extreme piety and sufism is fairly explicit. Carinae986 (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hodgson can write what he likes in his book, but his tone is not necessarily appropriate for a Wikipedia article. That's the whole point of the NPOV concept, isn't it?
Also, I cannot see how the passage you cited above supports the statements you added to the text, namely:
More prosaically, the Muslim Conquests had brought large numbers of mystically-inclined Christians, particularly the monks and hermits of Syria and Egypt, under the rule of Muslims. They retained a vigorous spiritual life for centuries after the conquests, and many of the especially pious Muslims who founded Sufism were influenced by their techniques and methods.
Unless Hodgson has a much more direct statement along the lines of what you added, your addition would appear to be OR.
Meanwhile, the "especially pious Muslims" still remains POV language,and I am removing it once again. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
If you think Hodgson was wrong, or if you think I'm misrepresenting him, I'd encourage you to do some research and start citing sources. If you can't be bothered, then I'd atleast appreciate it if you would stop mangling my edit. Unlike your opinion, it's sourced. Carinae986 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't be obtuse. I'm saying that the passage you quoted really does not support the addition you made. If your addition is a reasonable summary of what Hodgson says, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that by adducing relevant quotations. At this point, you have not demonstrated that the statements you added can reasonably be said to derive from Hodgson's book.
You're asking me to prove, by citing sources, that Hodgson didn't say these things. That's patently absurd. It is you who need to be able to support what you added. Just pointing to a source isn't enough. That source has to actually support the statements made. So far you have not demonstrated that it does. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a few things to you.

1. I have a copy of this book, you don't. I've read it, you haven't. You aren't in a position to know what it says one way or another. Maybe you should do some Research, or else Assume Good Faith.
2. For Hodgson Piety and Sufism are explicitly linked. He uses the word piety in connection with Sufism dozens of times across the work. I could cite, but since you don't have a copy, you can't look it up.
3. Sufism appears in a chapter entitled "Muslim Personal Piety" (The Venture of Islam, Volume 1, pp. 359-409). I don't know much more obvious it can get.
4. Whether or not Hodgson wrote from a Neutral Point of View doesn't matter. The standard is verifiability, not truth. He was an eminent and widely respected scholar of Islam. His opinions matter more than yours.
5. By changing the citation to reflect your undocumented, uninformed opinion, you're conducting Original Research. What you need to do if you disagree with Hodgson, and you want the article to reflect that, is document an opposing view. Carinae986 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note. I saw this dispute listed at the Third Opinion project and started to issue an opinion on it, but then discovered that I have had prior contact with Sarabseth, which disqualifies me from doing so under the rules of that project. In preparation for doing so, I happened to note and wanted to note here that the relevant text from Hodgson is available online at both Google books and more completely, though it requires login, through the "Look Inside" facility (search on "zuhd") at Amazon. Note to other Third Opinion Wikipedians: I have not "taken" or otherwise "reserved" this dispute, so please feel free to opine upon it. Good luck with this issue and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, I got here from the 3O noticeboard. After reading the sections that TransporterMan helpfully linked, I'd say that the edits Carinae made are justified, although perhaps a bit awkward. The source clearly implies a connection between piety and Sufism, which isn't immediately evident in the quote that Carinae used to support his wording. Indeed, the only thing in the sentence I would have an issue with is the phrase "mystically-inclined Christians"; in the source, the author uses the phrase "mystically-inclined" to refer to the Muslims who learned from the Christians ("Much was learned by the mystically-inclined [Muslims] from Christian monks"; emphasis and bracketed prepositional noun added by me), not the Christians themselves. The current wording makes it seem as though these Christians were particularly mystically-inclined, when it appears that they were pretty much normal for Christians at the time, and only mystically-inclined relative to Muslims. Perhaps something that would make this relativity more obvious would be helpful?
I would add to Carinae, though, that you've been a little combative yourself over this; moreso than Sarabseth. The original quote you produced did not support your addition particularly well; it didn't demonstrate the link between the two sentences. When Sarabseth said as much, you took a condescending manner towards him and accused him of "mangling [your] edits." He's not wrong when he says that you need to support that phrasing; at first glance, it does look like a POV edit, and as I said, the quote you supported it with wasn't particularly helpful in that regard. So, let's all relax and have a hot cup of delectable tea, shall we? Writ Keeper 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to help resolve this dispute, Writ_Keeper! I fully accept your opinion. (By one of those quirky coincidences, I am in fact having my morning cup of tea as I write this!) --Sarabseth (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars

Editors appear to be removing scholars without due reason, such as the article being thin or notability not being established. Please discuss the following entries until a consensus is reached;


Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi: As per his Wikipedia article, his area of scholarship is not Sufism. He's a scholar, no doubt, but not a Sufi scholar.
Ahmed Tijani Ben Omar: ditto
Muhammad al-Ya’qoubi: ditto
Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy: ditto
Habib Umar bin Hafiz: Nothing in his Wikipedia article to say he's a scholar
These names should therefore all be removed from the list. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


Incorrect. Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi is a world renouned scholar of Tasawwuf. His name should definitely be mentioned as a great Sufi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.143.247 (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not a section for great Sufis, but scholars of Sufism. His article says "Raza Khan wrote on numerous topics, including law, religion, philosophy and the sciences." No mention of scholarship on Sufism or Tasawwuf. If he was a renowned scholar of Tasawwuf, that fact should be added (with reliable sourcing) to his article. Or you should add a citation here. Without either action, his presence on this list is unsupported. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Those are all general topics, if you read all of his article you'd see that on the topic of religion his main interests specifically were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf amongst others. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid the statement that his main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf appears only in the infobox. There is absolutely nothing in the article to support it. (Which means it should really be removed from the infobox.) --Sarabseth (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing, are you sure? Look at the first sentence and you will find; that 'he was a Sunni Islamic scholar and sufi, whose works influenced the Barelvi movement of South Asia.'
Yes, he was a scholar and a Sufi but, as I said before, nothing in his article suggests that Sufism was one of his areas of scholarship. --Sarabseth (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The title of the section has always been modern/contemporary Sufi scholars not Modern/contemporary scholars of Sufism therefore the requirement is not whether their area of scholarship in Sufism but a scholar who practises Sufism. However this does not apply to Ahmed Raza Khan. Examples of a few of them are "The Pre-Eminence of Sayyid 'Abd al-Qaadir Jilaani," "In the Path of the Prophet," "The Shadowless Prophet," "Salaam-e-Raza," "Mustafa, The Paragon of Mercy." Note he has written over 1,000 books and many of them are only available in Urdu and have not been translated into English. --Tanbircdq (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. I don't agree. "Sufi scholars" could mean either Sufis who are scholars, or scholars of Sufism. My personal opinion is that a list of scholars of Sufism is much more constructive than a list Sufis who are scholars. I also believe that the interpretation that has been applied in the past (by other editors too, not just by me) is "scholars of Sufism".

Since we disagree, perhaps we should let other editors chime in, and resolve the issue? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was my interpretation when I created the section. In all honesty a lot of your edits on this article is generally about you thinking and believing your opinion is far more superior than anyone elses, because if anyone adds something new it needs your complete approval or else it will get removed. You may have a vast amount of knowledge on Sufism, however I do not think you are familiar with the work of most of these scholars and doubt scholars is your strongest point otherwise you would not question the validity of Ahmed Raza Khan being included on the list. I would welcome other editors comments, opinions and interpretations as the whole purpose of this discussion as I initially stated is so a consensus can be reached. --Tanbircdq (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this personal attack is totally uncalled for, but you're welcome to your opinion. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It was not meant to be an attack nor personal but merely constructive criticism and my observations of how you may have come across sometimes. Please accept my apologies if that is how it was taken. --Tanbircdq (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see how either the tone or the content can be regarded as constructive criticism rather than a personal attack.--Sarabseth (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well none of what was mentioned was about you but the manner of your edits. Maybe I did not get my point across very well but try and re-read the content of your edit summary in some of your previous edits. However I do not wish to get into a discussion about it unless you have anything specific you would like to point out about my comments. --Tanbircdq (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You said you think I believe my "opinion is far more superior than anyone elses". That's a statement about me. And it's certainly not a complimentary statement. The bottom line is you made a personal statement about me.
"but try and re-read the content of your edit summary in some of your previous edits"
I have no idea which edits you have in mind. Perhaps you can provide a few examples?--Sarabseth (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Persecution

In the Persecution section, it is said that Atatürk persecuted Sufis, according to a Guardian article. This information is wrong. Atatürk was positive toward Sufis. Especially, Mevlevis enjoyed greater protection by Atatürk. Many sayings of Atatürk on Rumi and Mevlevi order are recorded. Still, today, Mevlevi events are held by state organisations. And Kemalist people are most affiliated with Sufi sects rather than Sunni ones.

The article is a entirely POV. And persecution section is the same.

In one part of the article, it says that Sufis are either Sunni or Shia! This is a shame for Wikipedia. Sunni, Shia and Sufi are three seperate sects of Islam. They are not compatible with each other. You can't be in two or three of them at the same time. It seems that some Sufi writers are pushing hard in Wikipedia.

An extensive correction is needed.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means, provide one. Just be sure to source it, that's all. Carinae986 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course:

"Whenever I'm to come to this city I feel excitement inside. The thoughts of Mevlana envelope me. He was a great genius, an innovator for all ages." -Mustafa Kemal Ataturk here and here (Silivrikapı Mevlâna Cultural Center).

Thus, let's please remove misleading hate speech from the article. For a religiously sensitive article like Sufism, a jornal such as Guardian, can't provide quality information.
As I said, Rumi's cult, "Mevlevilik" is almost a "state run" Sufi order in Turkey. Among many other, İskenderpaşa cult is another Sufi order which was favorite of Turgut Özal and Bülent Ecevit. Özal was president and Ecevit was prime minister. Asserting that Sufism is under persecution in Turkey is ridiculous--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"Asserting that Sufism is under persecution in Turkey is ridiculous"
Which may be why nobody has done so. The article talks of historical persecution, in the past, under Ataturk. That statement is sourced. And a quote like this one really doesn't establish that the statement in the article is in any way wrong.
Also, you're dredging up totally irrelevant things. What do Turgut Özal and Bülent Ecevit have to do with whether there was persecution of Sufis under Ataturk? --Sarabseth (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by GAYousefSaanei

I don't understand why you are adding new material and saying "read any book on the topic. don't delete, insert [citation needed] tag if you must".

Where did you get this material from? If it's a reliable source, you should add the citation yourself. If not, then you shouldn't add the material. To say "read any book on the topic" doesn't make any sense. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. No one owns their Wikipedia edits, and it is entirely acceptable to remove content that does not meet with the guidelines. If he does it again, I recommend you place one of these templates on his talk. Peter Deer (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!--Sarabseth (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Indries Shah?

Why is Indries Shah treated as a RS in a serious article on Sufism? His unreliability in this area appears widely known. Reputable sources addressing his "creations" can be found at http://androidsinlove.com/site/?p=690 spamguardsucks124.148.164.7 (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Films subsection

This sentence at the end seems out of place: "Newer production companies and directors are beginning to produce films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility.[4][5]"

Also, the wording is problematic. "Are beginning to produce" as of when? Can someone reword it, and integrate it into the section? Or is it better just to remove it? --Sarabseth (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious Statements?

There's a line: "The teacher, to be genuine, must have received the authorization to teach (ijazah) from another Master of the Way, in an unbroken succession (silsilah) leading back to Sufism's origin with Muhammad.[dubious – discuss][citation needed] "

Given that earlier parts of the main article suggest Sufi tradition may predate Islam, surely either those are wrong or the feeling that "to be genuine [a teacher] must have received the authorization from ... an unbroken succession leading back to Sufism's origin with Muhammad" is sufficiently non-universal that it "must" not be true and should at the very least be qualified so a reader can ascertain who would hold such a belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.194.184 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Amending to "The teacher, to be considered genuine, must have received the authorization to teach (ijazah) from another Master of the Way, in an unbroken succession (silsilah) leading back to Muhammad." --Sarabseth (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mehboob Ali Shah entry in Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars

Please understand that this is not a section for promoting your favorite Sufis. Mehboob Ali Shah may have an article (created by the same person who keeps adding him to "Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars"), but this article really cannot be said to establish his notability. The article is written by a devout follower, in a tone of complete veneration, without anything remotely resembling objectivity, and without any references. It is currently flagged with the "advert" template. The existence of an article like this one cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to justify his inclusion in this section. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The word

When you write "taṣawwuf (Arabic: تصوّف‎)" there people who have no idea of the subject will think Sufism is something that is practised by Arabic-speakers, even though Sufis were/are mainly from Persian-speaking areas, and later South Asia (Urdu/Punjabi/Hindi-speakers etc) and Turkey (Turkish-speakers), and in much lesser extent, Levant and Egypt. --Z 14:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for correcting that entry from Arabic to Farsi and Urdu. Can you do that? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mercan Dede

I don't know why people oppose adding of this man as a person who incorporates Sufism into his music. He is much more involved on Sufism compared to Madonna and Loreena McKenitt which are mentioned without any references but with only Wiki links as well. Can involved editors explain why keep the two lady but delete this man? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Come on, the issue is not whether there are references or Wiki links. Neither edit summary says anything to suggest that.
For one thing, the section under which these entries appear is "Popular culture". Madonna is very much part of popular culture; Mercan Dede, unfortunately, isn't.
For another, to say that he "incorporates Sufi philosophy into his music" is really not a fair representation of what his article says. Given the controversy mentioned in the article, he cannot be simply described as incorporating Sufi philosophy into his music. If he was prominent in popular culture, an extended entry describing the controversy might be warranted. But he's not. So it isn't. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
1) One edit summary of revert of my edit claimed it to be unsourced and unsupported.
2) Mercan Dede may not be part of the American or British popular culture but it is part of the popular culture in Turkey and possibly in some other countries. Popular Culture doesn't necessarily mean that someone is widely known. It's a term to distinguish new music from traditional music. The accomplishments mentioned in his article is enough anyway.
3) Mercan Dede article doesn't mention any controversy. There is just one sourced statement from a single artist and the source link isn't even provided. At best he is criticized to some degree for not using Sufism properly. At least nobody can argue that Madonna uses Sufism more properly than him.
4) A quick look at his article shows that he does indeed incorporates Sufism through many ways. His music is even used in a German documentary about Sufism.
You're putting undue weight to a dubiously sourced one liner and unsourced claims while ignoring the rest of the article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
"Popular Culture doesn't necessarily mean that someone is widely known. It's a term to distinguish new music from traditional music." I'm not sure where you're getting that from. (Apart from anything else, that term doesn't refer just to music. As you can see just from its use in this article.)
"At least nobody can argue that Madonna uses Sufism more properly than him." You really don't seem to get what the "Popular Culture" section is supposed to be all about. It's certainly not about using Sufism properly. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
As far as the Sufism article is concerned, the issue is that you added an entry saying that Mercan Dede "incorporates Sufi philosophy into his music". The only statements his article makes on the subject are:
1) "His sound incorporates traditional instruments and ney from Turkey and other parts of the world, with horns, dance beats, ambient electronic music, and a Sufi spirituality."
2) "Dede has been criticised by Turkish music purists for not being steeped in the Sufi traditions and for not properly representing Sufism in his music and writings.[4]"
As a result, it is not clear that the statement you inserted into Sufism is accurate. If you have a problem with how the Mercan Dede article portrays this issue, then you need to resolve it at Talk: Mercan Dede, not here. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You criticized statement 2, saying "There is just one sourced statement from a single artist and the source link isn't even provided."

In all fairness, it needs to be pointed out that statement 1 is not even sourced. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me why Mercan Dede doesn't fit under the Popular Culture section?
Here are the parts of his article that his connection to Sufism is mentioned:
  • "Their first album was Sufi Dreams, released in 1998. This album got a boost when the music was used in a German television documentary on Sufi music."
  • "The sound of the ney goes back to this period, and the music aspires to the spirit of the mystic Sufi poets of that time, such as Mevlana."
  • "The shows often include men and women in Sufi costume doing Sufi whirling."
I could add the criticism part as well as it criticizes him for not incorporating Sufism properly but not for not incorporating.
There is a reference for the first statement but it confusingly doesn't provide a link.
I believe the statements from his article is enough to add his name here. That doesn't mean his article doesn't need more though. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The issue is not what parts of the article mention his connection to Sufism. The issue is what parts of the article bear on your statement that his music "incorporates ... a Sufi spirituality".
I still feel that if his article continues to say what it says, then the kind of entry you want to make in Sufism cannot be justified. If you do not agree, I can refer this for a third opinion. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you tell me why he doesn't fit under the Popular Culture section though?
All the parts I showed shows that he incorporates Sufism into his music at least a lot more than Madonna and Loreena McKenitt. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, it's not about who incorporates Sufism into their music more. The Popular Culture section is intended to provide examples of Sufism references appearing in popular culture, especially references associated with prominent and well known people (celebrities, if you will). Madonna is much more prominent than Mercan Dede. When she shows "an ecstatic Sufi ritual with many dervishes dancing" in a music video, that is exactly the kind of example this section is intended for. There are many musicians who may incorporate Sufi elements in their music to a considerable degree. But recording those instances is not the purpose of this section. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
And Loreena Mckenitt is well known? Yeah everyone knows Madonna. Same can't be said for Loreena Mckennitt. So, what's the criteria? If you look at the Achievements section of Mercan Dede you can see that he is pretty known. Maybe not known as much as Madonna but he is known in a way like Loreena Mckennitt. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Loreena McKennitt. As a general rule, I stay away from old content because the person who added it may not be around now to defend the addition. But if she's not reasonably well-known, her entry should certainly be deleted.

And please understand that the main issue for Mercan Dede has been not how well known he is, but that the entry you made for him is not really supported by his article. That plus the fact that this section is not for Sufi musicians or quasi-Sufi musicians, but people with no Sufi associations who incorporated Sufi references into one or two films or books or songs. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

His music is featured in a documentary about Sufism, his album was #1 for two months in a music chart, etc. He has enough accomplishments to be regarded as a part of Popular Culture. His article does talk about Sufi incorporation. I've listed some of those parts below. His article even explicitly words it out: "His sound incorporates traditional instruments and ney from Turkey and other parts of the world, with horns, dance beats, ambient electronic music, and a Sufi spirituality." The evidence clearly proves you wrong. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Mercan Dede should be added under the Popular Culture section as he incorporates Sufism into his music and performances. Relevant pieces from the artist's article:

  • Their first album was Sufi Dreams, released in 1998.
  • This album got a boost when the music was used in a German television documentary on Sufi music.
  • The sound of the ney goes back to this period, and the music aspires to the spirit of the mystic Sufi poets of that time, such as Mevlana.
  • His sound incorporates traditional instruments and ney from Turkey and other parts of the world, with horns, dance beats, ambient electronic music, and a Sufi spirituality.
  • The shows often include men and women in Sufi costume doing Sufi whirling.

TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The edit request is dishonest. You have deliberately omitted a very relevant statement from his article in your summary, which is self-serving rather than honest.
You have consistently dodged the point I have made repeatedly. The entry you made for him was that he "incorporates Sufi philosophy into his music." This is not supported by his article, since the only two statements in his article that speak to this specific statement (as opposed to Sufi credentials in general) are "His sound incorporates traditional instruments and ney from Turkey and other parts of the world, with horns, dance beats, ambient electronic music, and a Sufi spirituality" and "Dede has been criticised by Turkish music purists for not being steeped in the Sufi traditions and for not properly representing Sufism in his music and writings". These two statements, in effect, are in opposition. They cannot be summarized as he "incorporates Sufi philosophy into his music."
I am referring this issue for a third opinion, which is the right thing to do under the circumstances. I request you to withdraw your edit request. --Sarabseth (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You can't accuse me of dodging the point when I explicitly quoted the sections from his article above that supports the fact that he incorporates Sufi philosophy into his music. Please do not disrupt this edit request with such baseless accusations. Repeating a claim based on ignoring evidence won't really make a point. This edit request is intended to be used in a conflict request. Calling it dishonest is not really constructive. Let's leave this to other editors. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It is hardly a baseless accusation to say that you have left a key statement out of your summary because it does not support your point of view.
You should probably read the information page for "Edit Requests" again. As the template makes clear, it is intended to be used only when an editor has a conflict of interest. It doesn't really apply here. Leaving it to other editors is precisely what I suggested before, when I proposed a third opinion. And that is what I have already done. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The part you accuse me of leaving out actually supports my request. As I said before, let's leave it to other editors to figure out why you're not letting an obvious entry go into this page. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This statement supports your request?
"Dede has been criticised by Turkish music purists for not being steeped in the Sufi traditions and for not properly representing Sufism in his music and writings".
I really don't see that; you'll have to explain it.
And you're just going to ignore the fact that your Edit Request is inappropriate under the circumstances? --Sarabseth (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I have explained this before. Please refer to our previous discussion.
You have yet to explain it properly why it's not the proper one. However, looking at the COI article I see that it's not the appropriate one. Meanwhile, please avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon me. I assumed that "As the template makes clear, it is intended to be used only when an editor has a conflict of interest" was a sufficiently clear explanation.

I cannot see where you have explained how the statement "Dede has been criticised by Turkish music purists for not being steeped in the Sufi traditions and for not properly representing Sufism in his music and writings" supports your request. If you have explained this before, can you kindly point out where?

I totally fail to understand "Meanwhile, please avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND." We had a difference of opinion. I patiently explained myTanbircdq point of view several times. When we weren't getting anywhere, I suggested we should refer the issue for a third opinion. And I did so. If you believe I have exhibited any battleground behavior, feel free to spell it out. --Sarabseth (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

All your points have been addressed above. I'm not really interested in this pointless bickering. I prefer to wait for other people's comments. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep Mercan Dede appears to incorporate Sufism in his music, I see no reason why he should not be included. Tanbircdq (User talk:Tanbircdq) 21:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
As I've tried to explain above, the Popular Culture section is not intended to list every musician who incorporates Sufism in his music, especially those who are actually Sufi musicians or quasi-Sufi musicians (since that would quickly become a very long list).
There is also the issue of the language of the entry, and whether that language accurately reflects what his article says. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It's becoming clear, TheDarkLordSeth, that all you're interested in doing is making questionable statements and insinuations that you are not prepared to back up or defend. That's dishonest Talk page behavior.
I challenge you to point out where you have explained how the statement "Dede has been criticised by Turkish music purists for not being steeped in the Sufi traditions and for not properly representing Sufism in his music and writings" actually supports your request. Dodging the question by hiding behind the skirts of "All your points have been addressed above" is pretty pathetic. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If the Music part of the Popular Culture section is not intended to list every musician incorporates Sufism in their music because that would become a very long list. Where would suggest Sufi musicians/musician whose incorporate Sufism to be placed? Tanbircdq (User talk:Tanbircdq) 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 3O response: I see no reliable secondary sources to give weight to the text. Can someone show the quality of the sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a review on iTunes: "Guided by Sufi principles of balance and a love for both ancient and modern musics, Mercan Dede is among Turkey's most prominent musical exports." [1]. Here is the page on him on BBC as he received an award in 2007: "What makes Dede unique is his pioneering attempts at building musical bridges between Turkish Sufism and contemporary Western electronic music." [2]. He was also a part of a documentary called Sufi Soul: The Mystic Music Of Islam: [3]. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there more? Particularly more of higher quality? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course, that was a 5 min search. Though I think the BBC one is pretty good.
Another BBC source: "Dede's music has been inspired by aspects of Sufism" [4]
Guardian: "Dede wrote the music, which is partly influenced by songs from Istanbul and the Sufi tradition, and adds the ney flute, percussion and, of course, the electronic sounds." [5]
Guardian: "In the film, Mercan Dede explains how during his first gig, he put the sound of the ney against techno beats, and realised how the sound of the ancient instrument could reach any audience. Both the style and content of Sufi music cut across boundaries: the rhythms of Sufi drums, for instance, lend themselves to mixing with a variety of other musical styles." [6]
Hurriyet Daily News: "Mercan Dede's use of Sufi music is a perfect example for this kind." [7]
Guardian: "Cross-legged among the graves, playing his ney, one of the oldest musical instruments in the world, is DJ Arkin Allen, more commonly known as contemporary Sufi musician, Mercan Dede." [8]
Music and Solidarity: Questions of Universality, Consciousness, and Connection: I don't really know how to copy-paste from Google Books pages, so only the link: [9]
Global Beat Fusion: The History of the Future of Music: [10]
Middle East: [11]
Turkey: [12]
TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, what's your proposed edit? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
My initial edit that Sarabseth reverted: "Mercan Dede, known as DJ Arkin Allen in Canada, is a well known ney player who incorporates Sufi philosophy into his music." [13]
The initial purpose of my edit was to add his name to the article so that others could build up on it. My proposal now would be: "Mercan Dede, known as DJ Arkin Allen in Canada, is a Turkish composer who incorporates Sufism into his music and performances." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I like the new language a lot more, but I would suggest dropping "known as DJ Arkin Allen in Canada". It's unnecessary detail, and the link to his WP article is there for more info.
Also, in view of the statement in his article, would it make sense to add "but not without some controversy" at the end? It would then read: "Mercan Dede is a Turkish composer who incorporates Sufism into his music and performances, but not without some controversy."--Sarabseth (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Would "musician" be more accurate than "composer", since he plays instruments too? --Sarabseth (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be unnecessary, read WP:UNDUE, as at the moment there is only one person, Kudsi Erguner, who criticized him. The reference for that sentence is not verifiable. One criticism, however, doesn't really create controversy. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
To me that looks fine but without the "but not without some controversy", as it doesn't seem to be explained anywhere what that controversy is. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you go ahead and edit it in as an uninvolved part? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The Mercan Dede article says "Dede has been criticised by Turkish music purists for not being steeped in the Sufi traditions and for not properly representing Sufism in his music and writings." Is that a sufficient explanation of what the controversy is? For example, should the entry read: "Mercan Dede is a Turkish composer who incorporates Sufism into his music and performances, but he has been criticised by purists for not representing Sufism"?--Sarabseth (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
It's undue weight and adds inaccuracy. There is no purists criticizing him but there is only one other musician who criticized him. How does adding such a dubious information improve the article? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
As I've said before, if you think that statement in the Mercan Dede article is inaccurate, you should address the issue over there, not here. Criticizing the content of that article here is kind of pointless. --Sarabseth (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)--Sarabseth (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you dismissed one point I made. I don't really see any merit in that argument but you seem to miss the bigger picture. How does adding such a dubious information improve the article? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I will fix the Mercan Dede article once we're finished but it's not really an excuse for an inaccurate entry in this article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It's inaccurate according to you; it's not inaccurate according to the Mercan Dede article. It seems it is necessary for me to point out that I am being guided by what the Mercan Dede article says, whereas you are saying that you know better, that your personal opinion trumps what the Mercan Dede article says. In effect, you seem to be violating the WP principle of no OR (WP:OR). --Sarabseth (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it is inaccurate according to the Mercan Dede article. The claim points out multiple people but references a single person. The reference is not verifiable as well. Once again you miss the question. How does your addition contribute to this page? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe I have said everything I can say on the subject, several times actually. I'll just leave it to IRWolfie- to decide what's the best way to phrase the Mercan Dede entry here, given what the Mercan Dede article says. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to Tanbircdq: there is already an article Sufi music, so maybe it's not necessary to add list of Sufi musicians here? --Sarabseth (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • On a separate note the following 2 statements made by Sarabseth in this discussion;
As I've said before, if you think that statement in the Mercan Dede article is inaccurate, you should address the issue over there, not here. Criticizing the content of that article here is kind of pointless. --Sarabseth (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)--Sarabseth (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It's inaccurate according to you; it's not inaccurate according to the Mercan Dede article. It seems it is necessary for me to point out that I am being guided by what the Mercan Dede article says, whereas you are saying that you know better, that your personal opinion trumps what the Mercan Dede article says. In effect, you seem to be violating the WP principle of no OR (WP:OR). --Sarabseth (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Appear to contradict the following statement made in a previously archived discussion here; [14]
I'm afraid the statement that his main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf appears only in the infobox. There is absolutely nothing in the article to support it. (Which means it should really be removed from the infobox.) --Sarabseth (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems Sarabseth is only interesting in using Wikipedia policies that suit him as he accusesTheDarkLordSeth of voilating (WP:OR) in this discussion when he himself is guilty of violating it in the previous discussion. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how and where I'm violating WP:OR. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI the statement; "There is absolutely nothing in the article to support it. (Which means it should really be removed from the infobox.)", is violating WP:OR. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't understand this. Can you explain how that statement violates WP:OR? --Sarabseth (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
OK the Ahmed Raza Khan's main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf whereas you were of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing in the article to support that his main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf and thought it should really be removed from the infobox. To conclude to quote your previous comments "you are saying that you know better, that your personal opinion trumps what the" Ahmed Raza Khan article says. Therefore by your own definition is that not a clear violation of the WP principle of WP:OR? Tanbircdq (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That's totally ridiculous. It's not my opinion that "that there is absolutely nothing in the article to support that his main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf". It's a fact. The words appear in the article only once, in the infobox. The article does not say anywhere that his main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf. Therefore, the claim in the infobox is unsourced. As a general practice, the infobox is only meant to encapsulate facts that are in included in the article. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)--Sarabseth (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)--Sarabseth (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
No it was your opinion. Just because the word doesn't appear doesn't mean there is nothing else to support it, if you refer back to the discussion and his article you will find this. Regardless of this to quote you again "it seems it is necessary for me to point out that I am being guided by what the article article says." By the way it wasn't a charge it was a simple observation, which I thought if I shared you may take it on board, but judging by your reaction I guess I am mistaken. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Leave the pointless hair-splitting to one side. You accused me of editorial hypocrisy. That is an accusation or a charge, even if you now try to insist it isn't. Why don't you instead actually substantiate your claim: what is there in Ahmed Raza Khan's article to support the statement that his "main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf"? --Sarabseth (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you are putting words in my mouth there, however you are entitled to your own opinion. Only difference I can see in the two examples are that you believe your WP:OR was correct and justified whereas TheDarkLordSeth’s was incorrect and unjustified. I’ll leave it up to other people to draw their own conclusions as to whether by your own definition you were guilty of WP:OR or not.
Regarding me substantiating my claim, if you refer back to the archived discussion you stated the following; “Since we disagree, perhaps we should let other editors chime in, and resolve the issue?” To which I replied; ”I would welcome other editors comments, opinions and interpretations as the whole purpose of this discussion as I initially stated is so a consensus can be reached.” So rather than go off topic I’d rather we leave that discussion there as previously agreed.
However in addition to that discussion shouldn’t the following statement made by you in this discussion also have been applied over there;
As I've said before, if you think that statement in the Mercan Dede article is inaccurate, you should address the issue over there, not here. Criticizing the content of that article here is kind of pointless. --Sarabseth (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)--
To clarify if his "main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf" is incorrect, “you should address the issue over there (Ahmed Raza Khan article talkpage), not here (Sufism article talkpage).” Tanbircdq (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC).
Putting words in your mouth? Let's not be disingenuous here. These are your exact words: "Seems Sarabseth is only interesting in using Wikipedia policies that suit him as he accusesTheDarkLordSeth of voilating WP:OR in this discussion when he himself is guilty of violating it in the previous discussion." You are trying to claim with a straight face that calling someone guilty of something is not an accusation or a charge?
It's pointless to engage in this discussion with you. You kept insisting that there are other things in Ahmed Raza Khan's article to support the statement that his "main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf". I invited you to actually substantiate your claim. And you have just dodged that in a way that doesn't do you any credit.
Unless you are willing to substantiate your claim, I'm done with this discussion. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Like I said lets not change the subject we were talking about whether you were guilty of WP:OR not whether I can substantiate my claim. In addition like you said in the archived discussion we are going to disagree there anyway therefore we should leave it to other editors for a third opinion, like it was done on this discussion and it was decided that TheDarkLordSeth proposal was passed ahead of yours. If indeed I am 'dodging' my claim then refer back to that discussion to argue your case further. Finally I have used your own quotes to back up my stance, maybe you should re-read those quotes and use your own advice. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC).
I'm fed up of this nonsense, and I am now signing out of this futile conversation. Can you really not understand this simple fact: if your claim that there other things in Ahmed Raza Khan's article to support the statement that his "main interests were Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf" is unfounded, then there's no question of my being guilty of anything? So it's not changing the subject at all. Whether or not you can substantiate your claim is the very crux of the matter. --Sarabseth (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of my claim the fact remains that his main interests were and still are 'Aqeedah, Fiqh and Tasawwuf' and his school/tradition is 'Sufi' on his article. I have nothing further to add as I have said all I have to in that discussion and I do not wish to repeat myself. What statements I make do not relieve you of your guilt, it is Wikipedia guidelines and principles which determine this. You have not explained the difference between your WP:OR (on the archived discussion) and TheDarkLordSeth's WP;:OR (on this discussion), which is actually the basis of this matter. This discussion was about whether you committed WP:OR or not so far all you have done is attempt to change it to being about me substantiating my statement. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC).
  • There is no point in waiting to me to make the specific edit. I thought the best would be to remove "but not without some controversy" and keep the rest of the suggested text. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits to "‎Traditional and Neo-Sufi groups" by user Peterdjones on 9/17

Most of the new material is unsourced, and therefore reads like OR. Can you please add citations? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree this needs more work. There seems to be two different definitions of "neo sufism" floating around. 1Z (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I was raising one specific issue. Namely, that the new material you have added on 9/17 needs to be sourced. That is totally separate from whether the section needs more work, or whether there are two different definitions of "neo Sufism" floating around. Can you please add citations for the material you added? --Sarabseth (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Who are these sufis Al-Kusajri and Al-Harawi ??

Editor Bbeehvh raised this issue on Sep 19.

Good question. The only hits on Google seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. Unless someone can clarify who is being referenced here (and provide some citations), this should probably be removed. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has responded for 3 months, I propose to go ahead and remove these citations (and any consequently unsupported material). Does anyone have an objection? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sufis and dhikr

I find the following sentence within the lead a bit odd:

"Modern Sufis often perform dhikr after the conclusion of prayers."

Practicing dhikr after prayers is common with all Sunni Muslims, not just practitioners of Sufism. Is there a way to make this sentence more specific? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Sufism

Like all Islamic movements, Sufism is not without its critics. Way back when - this was years ago - there was a subsection here on the article for such criticism. The goal here isn't to defame any belief system, but the article as it stands now gives the uninitiated reader the impression that Sufism is universally accepted within Sunni Islam, or that the only Sunni critics of Sufism are Salafists, both of which are certainly inaccurate. Academic, informed, properly cited sources should be found in order to provide a fuller, more balanced view of the practice of Sufism and its reception in the Muslim world. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If the deleted sub-section was properly sourced, that could be resurrected as a useful starting point. Was there any discussion on the Talk page when it was removed? --Sarabseth (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I really cannot recall; this was perhaps four or five years ago. That could be checked in the archives, though reviewing the material before inserting anything into an already lengthy article is a good idea. What I did find in the past is that this article - and I'm talking even earlier, perhaps 2006 or 2007 - became a battle ground between critics of Sufism and Sufis themselves to attempt inserting various non-neutral points of view from both sides. What I would suggest is that we (meaning all concerned and interested editors) dig up what we can find, also bring any new material if possible, and review each source before adding it to the article. Anything which is written with an informative tone is acceptable, anything written with a persuasive tone is not. Also, academic sources (which almost invariably end up being from non-Muslims) should take preference. I'd like to hear the opinions of my fellow editors on this suggestion before starting any process, though. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds to me like the right way to go about things. Hopefully, others will also agree. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I almost forgot about this. I have found some sources from SUNY Press and Brill Publishers, which have been added to other articles. These sources could be used to objectively report that criticism occured, without supporting or opposing said criticism. I still have yet to look through this article's history and its talk archives. Is it possible to make a sandbox specifically for this article where such a section could be worked on collaboratively before its addition to the article proper? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Influence of Sufism on Judaism

All the claims seen here are full of "citation needed" yet still there? The Sufi ideas are the same as those of the Kabbalists, and the early Kabbalah books predate Islam by a long time, thus all the claims of Sufism influencing Judaism is pretty funny. Not to mention the talk about Ibn Pecuda's book which gets about 90% of his ideas from the Bible (citations of the passages are there in the Hebrew translation by Rabbi Yossef Kapach). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.94.177 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. Have you considered creating an account here and adding good sources? If you're concerned about the issue, you could be in position to make very helpful contributions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Ghumaris

I feel that the Ghumaris should be included in the list of contemporary Sufi scholars, as they are acknowledged as such. As the leaders of the Siddiqi tariqa, they are important figures in Moroccan Sufism. That being said, people from other regions and Sufi orders have also been influenced by them as can be seen in their articles. Some issue has been raised regarding whether the articles for these individuals reflect their status as scholars of Sufism, so that can be addressed. Most of what is written about them in Western languages is written in French; it may or may not be acceptable to source their status per WP:NONENG, as I for one have forgotten most of my French. I could also go to the Arabic sources - as I've learned the language to near-fluency - and translate some per WP:TRANSCRIPTION. What's been written about them in English is often in the form of personal accounts by former students of theirs, though it might be considered overly positive and not in line with NPOV. I am confident, however, that their scholarly status in Sufism can be affirmed in English, especially once I create a Wikipedia page for their Order. I hope to receive some feedback for what I have suggested here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The section is for Sufi scholars, not leaders of Sufi orders or important figures in Sufism. Their Wikipedia articles don't say or suggest that they are Sufi scholars. If they are indeed Sufi scholars, you should first add that to their articles (with proper sourcing, of course). And then their inclusion here is not problematic. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not totally clear on what defines a Sufi as being a scholar of Sufism specifically. Quite a few people on the list might be the leaders of Turuq but not people regarding as scholarly in academic circles. Some of the people on the list aren't leaders of Turuq and aren't scholars; they're just writers. Now, when I said the Ghumaris should be on the list, this was based on my impression that being the leaders of a Tariqa sufficed; if not, then what does define someone as a scholar of Sufism? The impression I'm getting is that much of the list will need to be cut down now. I hope you can clarify this for me. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I really don't understand what is ambiguous about the concept of "Sufi scholar". If there are people on the list who are not Sufi scholars (but leaders of Sufi orders or just writers), they should obviously be removed.--Sarabseth (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's ambiguous because there's no university offering degrees in Sufism. By what criterion do we use in this case? How do we decide who is a scholar of Sufism? What is the standard? That's my question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
In any case, having a hypothetical degree in Sufism wouldn't make you a Sufi scholar either. There are many people on the list who are described as scholars of Sufism; some have published books on Sufism, some are academics. The criterion I have tried to use is simply to see if there is something in their article that justifies considering them to be scholars of Sufism. --Sarabseth (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, there are a few others who could be cut from the list, if simply being the leader of a Tariqa or writing about Sufism isn't sufficient. If we're applying the rule in this case, we should be consistent and remove this handful of other individuals, right? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should be consistent. I do screen new additions, but I've never looked through the whole list. --Sarabseth (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I forgot about this article entirely. Shall we go through the list here on talk and look at each entry? It will take a while, but obviously an issue like this isn't a big deal. I'm willing to put forth time however long it takes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
If you're deleting people from the list because they are not Sufi scholars, I'm not sure we need to discuss each case here. Just go ahead and delete them, and put the reason in the edit summary. We can discuss only those entries whose legitimacy is not clear-cut. --Sarabseth (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I guess once I have the time, me (or anyone else) could do so. I will try to ensure that nobody whose status could be debatable is removed without discussion first, though. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Being leader of a tariqa per se does not justify making someone a scholar of sufism, however writing about Sufism does justify considering someone a Sufi scholar. You have to also remember that it is unlikely that any modern scholar is going to write anything vastly original about Sufism.
Although this is an encyclopaedic list, should the list not be inclusive to include someone notable with a vast amount of knowledge of Sufism whether that is a writer, academic, teacher, murshid, leader of a tariqa, all of whom may be consider scholars in their own right. Why should the list be exclusive to those? Tanbircdq (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The list as it currently stands is titled "scholars of Sufism." After the discussion with Sarasbeth, I do lean to the view that a tariqa leader is not necessarily a scholar by virtue of their position; per the Scholarly method, the two terms aren't synonymous. In the same sense, I wouldn't call Pat Robertson a "scholar" of Protestantism or even Southern Baptism; he is a polemicist, not an academic. With that in mind, writing about Sufism in and of itself does not confer scholarship or academic prowess. This is especially true in terms of the leaders of turuq (plural of tariqa) in Egypt, where father often passes leadership down to son regardless of the son's knowledge, aptitude or even ethics.
We also run into the issue of length, which is what I've been trying discuss at Template:Sufism. We can't include every single Sufi figure simply because there's too many of them! So we run into an issue, should we now make separate lists for scholars of Sufism (many of whom are not Muslim and, for some reason, not included in this article) separate from a list of leaders of turuq (who are preachers and polemicists but not automatically academic scholars). Both could also be separate from another list for prominent figures in Sufism who aren't murshidun, aren't scholars, but rather are public speakers who focus on Sufism.
I'm not making any concrete suggestions yet because I think this needs some more discussion first. If we do make separate lists, then we have the undue weight question: why should scholars have a list on this article and not preachers or leaders? What about early Sufis such as Junayd and Ruwaym who didn't lead turuq, weren't academic scholars and weren't preachers, but just really respected mystics? I think we should answer these questions about delineation of groups before moving further. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken the list is and has always been titled “Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars.” I agree with the notion that being a tariqa leader does not necessarily make someone a scholar, I was not disputing that. Regarding leaders of turuq who have had leadership passed down to them without knowledge, these are the tariqa leaders that should not be on the list. However there are also leaders of tariqa who do have studies and gained knowledge who should be on the list, which was my point earlier.
Regarding length this has not been an issue for past 18 months of the list existing, as all entries that should not be on the list have been removed. No one has suggested including Sufi figures, just scholarly ones.
Regarding early sufis the words “Modern/contemporary” are there for that reason. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Preeminent Sufis" section addresses some of your concerns, MezzoMezzo (about Junayd, etc.)

"as all entries that should not be on the list have been removed" is obviously not true, since what MezzoMezzo raised, and what we have been discussing for a while now, is that are are still people on the list who should probably be removed.--Sarabseth (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So what's the status? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

sufism

Whoever is working on this article might find it useful to read this article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/sufism_1.shtml Quesauth (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm at work and news sites like that are blocked on the server. What does the article contain? You seem new to Wikipedia; why not practice by bringing the info here and helping everyone else incorporate it into the article? I don't think anybody will dispute the BBC as a reliable source. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Persecution section expansion

This section has been expanded as part of dealing with this proposal for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

IRAN

Iran's section is quite depressing although true. But could we possibly mention some of the greatest Sufi names that are of Iranian origin as well? Iran is after all the greatest of all Muslim lands in the history of Sufi mysticism (this can hardly be exaggerated).

Stephen Schwartz, Executive Director, Center for Islamic Pluralism of The Huffington Post writes:

"It is often asserted that the Sufi author Jalalad'din Rumi (1207-73 CE) is the most widely-read poet in the U.S. Rumi is among the supreme literary figures for Iranians. He is joined in the Iranian consciousness to such Sufis as Bayazet Al-Bastami (804-874), Husayn bin Mansur Hallaj (858-922), the great Al-Ghazali (c. 1058-1111) -- known as the Muslim equivalent of Thomas Aquinas, Faridud'din Attar (12th-13th centuries), Saadi Shirazi, from the generation after Attar, Hafez Shirazi (1325/26-1389/1390)... the list is spectacular in its extent.

Western enthusiasm for Sufis like Rumi is not new. The philosopher G.W.F. Hegel was influenced by Rumi. In America, Ralph Waldo Emerson became a lover of Saadi Shirazi, describing him as "like Homer, Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Montaigne ... perpetually modern."

Henry David Thoreau, our great idealist, was also devoted to Saadi Shirazi, writing of him in 1852, "A single thought of a certain elevation makes all men of one religion; I know, for instance, that Saadi entertained once identically the same thought that I do, and therefore I can find no essential difference between Saadi and myself. He is not Persian, he is not ancient, he is not strange to me. By the identity of his thought with mine he still survives."

Walt Whitman was similarly affected. He began his poem "A Persian Lesson," "For his o'erarching and last lesson the greybeard sufi,/In the fresh scent of the morning in the open air/On the slope of a teeming Persian rose-garden..."

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27543:iran-continues-crackdown-on-sufis-&catid=5:human-rights&Itemid=27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What appears to be a highly inappropriate line

Actually Sufism gained a position in Islamic history by growing power of Turkic and Mongolian people who were Buddhist-Zen Buddhism- before. Especially in Turkey, most religious Turkish cities(Konya,Bursa,Istanbul) are very very Sufi. Or in Egypt by Mamluk(Turkic) influence Sufism is very strong. In Saudi Arabia and other southern Arabic countries there is no sufism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.219 (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.117.24 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bayazid Bastami, Ali Hujwiri, Junaid Baghdadi, etc. were Sufis LONG before the Mongolian invasions and long before these Turkish dynasties. Also, if I remember correctly Tengrism, not Buddhism was the dominant faith. Stop your lies. Buddhism has nothing to do with Tasawwuf. Tasawwuf is a PART of Islam.

Some help with the template?

The sections on notable early and modern Sufis is incredibly bloated, with someone thinking it's a good idea to list every single Sufi scholar with a Wikipedia page. Is there any chance we can get an expert on this field to trim this list down?

The talk section has a few posts on this, but that was almost a year ago.

69.204.91.53 (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Idries Shah: contention that "sufism" predates Islam

I added the cite to Munn 23Jun13. I believe my cut-paste of the same cite from the Article in Shah's book "The Sufis" is adequate, but please correct if not as I am not a stuided wikipedia contributor. Shah makes the case that the term 'sufi' is an invention of western scholars and that one who knows does not need or use labels. Each teaching is addressed to specific people, in specific circumstances for specific needs, and a real teacher does not need to recycle the approach(es) applied in other circumstances. In any case my recollection is that he said, in effect, it is ironic that Muslims claim sufism to be the essence of Islam, since it took an intentional effort by "sufis" over the course of a thousand years (including many martyrs) to infiltrate (my word) Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki mn (talkcontribs) 22:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is WRONG. Ever read the book Awariful-Maarif? This is the oldest textbook of Sufism, long before the West knew much about the rest of the world. The term Sufi originates with the Sahhaba, and a Sufi as Jalaluddin Rumi (Rah) says:
"The Sufi is hanging on to Muhammad, like Abu Bakr."
- Jalaluddin Rumi
Tasawwuf is a part of Islam. Western Orientalist propaganda has distorted much information and has spread racist propaganda and lies. Idries Shah is a liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Origins of Tasawwuf

There seems to be fallacious information perpetuated by some individuals who do not know the history of Tasawwuf. In reality, Tasawwuf is a part of Islam. This has been historically proven as all major Sufis, especially those prior to the eighteenth century have indicated an Islamic origin for Tasawwuf in their works. In the works of Awarif Maarif, the first textbook of Tasawwuf it is clear that Tasawwuf is of Islamic origin. However a second view arose in the eighteenth century by Western Orientalists who were racist and racial-supremacists. They proposed the idea of Sufism being a perennial philosophy that pre-dates religion and whose essence is in all religions. I have kept this second view, but it is important to note the origins of this point of view.

Please see that following book:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=LI0kjBlXS5UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=william+chittick+origins+of+sufism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1XQIU9_LA4OCogTMzIHoAQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

In this book, professor William Chittick makes it clear on page 24 that it was the views of Western Orientalists that brought about the fallacious idea of the section view as stated above, he writes: "Those who are hostile toward Sufism or hostile toward Islam, but sympathetic toward Sufism, or skeptical of any self-understanding by the objects of their study, typically describe Sufism as a movement that was added to Islam after the prophetic period. The diverse theories of Sufism's nature and origins proposed by modern scholars cannot be summarized here, though they do make up a fascinating chapter in the history of Orientalism. For our purposes, it is enough to repeat that most of Sufism's own theoreticians have understood it to be the living spirit of the Islamic tradition."

Also, it should be noted that Hossein Nasr makes it clear that Tasawwuf is a part of Islam, and that the second view stemmed from non-Sufis on page 192 of the following book:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=IgVtq3kNCrYC&pg=PA192&dq=origins+of+tasawwuf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UUYNU7OXIYz_oQSstoCoDw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=origins%20of%20tasawwuf&f=falsehttp://books.google.ca/books?id=IgVtq3kNCrYC&pg=PA192&dq=origins+of+tasawwuf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UUYNU7OXIYz_oQSstoCoDw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=origins%20of%20tasawwuf&f=false

He states on page 192: "Western scholars who have been influenced, whether directly or indirectly, by the particular aspect of Christian spirituality as a way of love, have usually condemned the primarily gnostic character of Islamic spirituality as a form of "pantheism," "panentheism," and recently as "natural mysticism." Also, they have usually mistaken the theoretical formulations for the interior experience and have therefore postulated diverse origins for tasawwuf, including Neo-platonism, Buddhism, and "the Aryan reaction against the Semites." Without attempting here to refute these many theories, all of which from the point of view of tasawwuf are false, we base our definition of tasawwuf upon the witness of the Sufis themselves. According to them, it is a set of doctrines, spiritual techniques, and finally a grace, or barakah, the totality of which constitutes the essence of Islam, the realization of Unity (tawhid)."

It is once again clear that the second view is not that of historical Sufis, but of later Western scholars. Therefore it is CRUCIAL to indicate that the second view is from Western scholars.

Also, the theory of Christians influencing Sufis is not warranted. The above statements prove that Tasawwuf is purely Islamic in origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

All of these statements appear to only represent the particular beliefs of followers of Islam and Sufism. Therefore, although notable, they are not neutral. There are other views, arguably more neutral, which have a different understanding. One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia articles is that they represent differing views in a neutral manner. In religion articles the beliefs of the religious tradition are presented as just that ~ beliefs. They are not presented as objective truths. Afterwriting (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
It is one thing to offer neutral, objective views...quite another to distort by insisting on faulty, suspicious information about historical facts. Each of the major religious traditions seem to have an exoteric and esoteric expression. In Islam, the esoteric expression is Sufism or Tasawuf. Tasawuf is an acronym which was explained in Arabic as a cluster of spiritual principles beginning with T,S,W & F. If there is documented proof, a spiritual manual or something scholars have seriously debated which shows that the practice of "Sufism" or "Tasawuf" predates the revelations of the Prophet Mohammad....present that information. I suspect this is really more about an agenda which has nothing to do with "differing views in a neutral manner." These "suggestions" have a long history of coming from Islamophobia and other motivations of religious bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBlakeRoss (talkcontribs) 16:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Two new drafts

Please see:

Comments?

Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sofia Noorbakshia[1] (Arabic: صوفيه نوربخشيه ‎), also called Nubakshia, is an Islamic sect and the Sufi order[2][3] and way that claims to trace its direct spiritual lineage and chain (silsila) to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, through Ali, Muhammad's cousin, son-in-law and the First Imam, via Imam Ali Al-Ridha. In contrast, most other Sufi paths trace their lineage through Ali. This order became famous as Nurbakshi after Shah Syed Muhammad Nurbakhsh Qahistani who was attached with the Kubrawiya Sufi order (tariqa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.212.128 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sufism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

missing clause.

"Although Barelvi are fully described as Sunni Sufis,[111] whether the destruction and death is a result of Deobandi's banned militant organizations persecution of Sufis (Barelvus)."

That sentence doesn't make sense. It appears to be in the form of opening clause, parenthetical clause, closing clause but with the essential closing clause portion missing.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sufism or Tasawwuf (Arabic: تصوف‎) is the inner mystical dimension of Islam."

I think many Muslims would disagree with this statement. VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What is it then ? Xerxes (contact) 20:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It would seem most Muslims view Sufism as the inner dimension of Islam. Its detractors are mainly Salafi/Wahabbi who follow a self described puritan form of Islam.
Hman101 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)