User talk:Hassanfarooqi/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] User:Khokhar976
Assalamu alaikum. Thanks for your comment. I'll try to keep an eye open but I don't actively edit much on Wikipedia these days. The quality of information on complex subjects (like Islamic Sharia and Tasawwuf) is not very good. It's impossible to improve them either with all the requirements for citations etc. I just revert vandalism and fix small details these days. Wassalam. --Nkv 17:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chisht
As-salaam alekum. I have edited the Chisht page as the link is already there. I hope you don't mind. Gwaka Lumpa 10:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I also thought you might be interested in reviewing or expanding The Tale of the Four Dervishes. Gwaka Lumpa 11:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Tale of the Four Dervishes
Nice! Gwaka Lumpa 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ANI
[1] --Striver 02:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] mansur
Assalamu alaikum, You have written that "aham brahmasmi" is interpreted as 'I does not refer to one's self but outer divinity', I think there is slight deviation. According to hindu philosophy the one's self is manifestation of God.Though one is unaware of his true self due to maya(illusion). Aham brahmasmi refers to a state when one has crossed the personal concept of self. 'Aham' still means self but the self refers to Supreme. It is improper to say 'one's self' or 'outer divinity', as in this state there is no difference between 'one's own' and 'universal' self, outer and inner divinity. This is state of absolute oneness or ananya. Everything is just manifestation of self (which is Supreme). Such a realized one will see God in every being, there is nothing in the world except God.
The another version used is tattvamasi or that(my self) is You. It is same in essence but different way of expressing 'Aham Brahmasmi'. In this method one looks his self as the part of universal conscience.Again universal oneness is perceived but the entity referred is tatt(thou) or God. Indian philosophy considers both the same way. Speaking in different words it is same as 'There is no true existence except that of God'. Thus finally one has to realize his existence as manifestation of God, and then the entity called self becomes part of the only existence i.e. God.
The other misunderstanding is on part of God as truth. In vedic literature God is widely addressed as truth. The attainment of truth is seen as attainment of God. The word 'satya'(truth) is derived from sat (God), and both are interchangeably used. However the term 'brahm'(don't confuse with brahma) is applied for impersonal form of God, which is transcendental and without any attribute.
would like to know your opinion before editing the section. You can mail me @ singh.vish(at)gmail.com.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Singh.vish (talk • contribs).
Thank you for the discussion. What I quoted was not my opnion but a verbatim from an online Hindu Dictionary/Encyclopedia. Unfortunately my google is blocking some of the sites for some reason otherwise I would have given you the exact link. I understand that not all will ever agree on one interpretation even within a religion. So if there is a different interpretation of "Aham Brahmasmi", please go ahead and put it as long as it is a credible Hindu source. Hassanfarooqi 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I checked that link. Ancient Indian philosophy needs to be interpreted with care. Although that interpretation is not completely wrong, but it's not very precise and illustrative. on pantheism, Hinduism is not pantheism, although pantheism may be sub set of the concept. There are two parts of pantheism, while first "all is God" is in line with Hindu philosophy but not vice-versa. The second part "God is all(universe)" is fully acceptable in hindu philosophy. Brahmand(universe) is just a manifestation of Brahman(God) and not identical with God. Brahman(God) is considered transcendental, which can't be defined, can't be known, and who is above any attributes, names, forms, shapes and senses but can have any attribute.At the first stand it may seem confusing and opposite to popular belief, but this is basic tenet of Hindu philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#HinduismSingh.vish 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I am glad you can differentiate between "All is God" and "God is all". Unfortunately Wahhabies who now control Islamic media, do not. Therefore they paint "Wahdatul Wajood" as pantheism or "All is God" which is in direct clash with Islam. Critics of Mansur also found him guilty on these ground. It is said that when Mansur was being stoned with rocks, he was laughing though bleeding to death, but when Shibli threw a tiny pebble on him per the order of the king, he shouted with pain and said, "It does not hurt to be hit by stones of these idots, but you know what I meant and therefore it hurts being hit by your tiny pebbles".
"God is all" is still delicate but slightest of misinterpretation can get it in clash with Islam. For this reason Sufis like Shibli condemned what Mansur said because this concept was not for the public and was only for the trained mind.
To sum up, my point is that Wahdatul Wajood is not "Aham Brahmasmi". Thanks for the chat, it was nice talking to someone knowledgeable for a change :) Hassanfarooqi 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User Striver
I know that i should not refer this to you, but i feal really agrivated at user:striver attempts to vandalise islam related articles. Can anyhing be done. Imranal 22:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think he is vandalizing. He is Shia by faith and might be putting Shia views. user:itaqallah is Wahhabi and put Wahhabi views. The difference is, Striver is open to dialogue and itaqallah is not. If you point out the problems striver is causing, I can discuss with him. Hassanfarooqi 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Striver seems to put shia views, but his agenda(if he has any) seems to be be to disrepute sahaba. I realise that there is need for shia views in islam related articles, but his attempts seems deteremental and not constructive. Imranal
We can not stop anybody to put their views. What we can do is to classify it into topics i.e. Shia View, Wahhabi View etc. Then we can write a "Sunni Response" to it. I did that to Siddiq for Shia view, and Ibn Arabi for Wahhabi view. It worked, all other resulted in revert wars and warnings. I was inexperienced then. Hassanfarooqi 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Can I use the argument that since there is little balance between the non-muslim quotes and muslim quotes, that these quotes be removed untill such "balance" be acheived? For reference see Uthman ibn Affan. --Imranal 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to become dubious to the methods of user Striver. Forinstance see the article about the ayah Al-Isra, 26. He has created the entire article. Please check the history of the article. Aswell as that, he has created the sunni source aswell. See : Dur al-Manthur. He has done this in many places. See other articles he has worked with aswell. As matter of fact see all the articles from the category ayat. -- Imranal 16:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ahmad Sirhindi
Salam dear it is to tell you that you have mentioned in Ahmad Sirhindis talk page that he was not a sufi at all . To correct you dear he was a sufi in all the four order and he has his own order known as Mujaddadiya Naqashbandiya as well as he has written three volumes of Maktubaat which is a very good example of his sufi writings. Please cheak out his website in urdu Abrar Ahmed 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are confusing me with somone else. Instead of guessing, check the history of the article and it will tell you who exactly had said that. Hassanfarooqi 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- But the text is on the discussion page cheak it by your self. Abrar Ahmed 05:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't know what is going on but I have deleted them now. Hassanfarooqi 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Request for Help
Can you please join the discussion on the following:
Aga Khani Islamic Cults
trueblood 04:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Peer Pagaro:
I had heard a different story about the origin of the word Pagaro. The original peer was a great scholar in the 19th century and upon his death his Pagri was inherited by one son and thus he came to be known as Peer Pagaro and his staff or some other relic was given to the other son and I am not sure what he was known as. Peer Pagaro's line continued while the other son is not well known these days. Can this history be verified by authentic sources?Khokhar976 08:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ubaidullah Sindhi
I have never reverted you on the above page, in fact I have never editted the above page. I would like an explanation of what exactly you claim I have done? The history can for the article can be found here; [2]. In your words, do some research before you starting to throw accusations around about people RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- You know very well what you did. Yes the history somehow does not show you reverted and re-reverted the changes of the main article but it does show you reverted the discussion and then re-reverted. Here is the link. [3]
[edit] Category:Sindhi Wikipedians
Dear add it to ur page.
Sindhi Template 1
| سنڌي सिन्धी |
|
 |
Khalidkhoso 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Ubaidullah Sindhi
Dear Hassanfarooqi. Yeah I love to keep Eye on this topic. Thanks for informing me. I have seen ur discussion on "Maulana" article Ubaidullah Sindhi,.I try to keep ur version of article when it is vandalized Ciao Khalidkhoso 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have Reverted artilce which was edited by User:Khokhar976.he is vandlizing page and trying to show that Maulana was a Qadiani.He does not have any prove,so there is no point to allow him vandlize page. Khalidkhoso 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanx Dear for Tags
Hello Hassan ,thanx for tags and sorry for so late reply i been busy with other stuff in wikipedia and in life,r u sindi too?i am glad to c if u r .any thing new in life? Till then Sadian Gud
OK, thanks for the notice, I added him to the "list". We'll see what happens.Gzuckier 19:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
