Talk:Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

1 Comments

Comments

Shams

Would it be possible to include a transliteration of the words in the picture of Shams-e Tabrizi? And since there is no dispute over the fact that Rumi wrote in the Persian language, I would hope that such a transliteration would reflect the vowels of Persian--as opposed to those of Arabic.

Headline

Headline of this Article must be "Mevlana/Rumi" It is absolutely not objective to claim that Mevlana was 100% Persian. In fact that's Bullshit. He was born, lived , died and was buried in the middle of the turkish empire, his literature is important to ALL cultures in that region, so stating, thar he was Persian is PROPAGANDA-BULLSHIT ! WHO WROTE THIS ARTICE ??? AHMEDINEDJAD or someone else crazy iranian ?????? And by the way, there ist no "â" in the turkish alphabet !!! It is simply "Mevlana" So don't change it to the wrong again !!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.143.76.166 (talk • contribs) .

Dear Sir, or madam

The way you are discussing the matter doesn't seem so scientific maybe of course in your country is that way but as a general rule this is not considered scientific discussion anyway Best regards,

Rumi Yesterday and Today

It is still arguable whether Rumi was Persian or not, but what I suppose has been overlooked in this dispute is that Mevlana or Rumi's family today is Turkish. They reside in Turkey, control Mevlana's offical website [1], and consider themselves to be Turkish. Secondly, the article states that his birth place and usage of Persian indicate he was Persian. Forgive the usage of the maxim but Jesus being born in a barn doesn't make him cow, nor a child that barks a wolf.

I do not know about animal much specially cow or wolf or their sounds anyway, but I know Mowlavi is born in Khawrazm then in Iran and most of his poems are in persian, but some ... guy changes the information from the english page of this poet.

We mention his birthplace and language as indicators yet we don't mention his name or the roots of his family - the fact that he is known as Rumi and where the word is derivied from and where his father comes from.

Rumi is believed to be a Turkic word that means foreigner or a foreigner on Islamic lands, but that is its current modern usage, today. Rumi was actually a Turkic title that meant "enlightened traveller from a Seljuk province" - similar to the word "celebi" and was bestowed on such people.

As for most modern day Turks not being able to read Mevlana's poetry - most modern day Turks cannot read old Ottoman poetry of the Ottoman king Suleyman the Magnificent - this doesn't mean that there is no connection between Mevlana and Turkic roots. I am sure the Turkic people of Mevlana's day - who would have heard the poetry - will have understood him. This type of argument just shows that one is ignorant of the development and changes in the Turkish language from its beginnings in the 7th Century BC to today and the languages it adopted along the way from its occupation throught the Seljuk and Ottoman periods of Turkish domination in that region.

I know many Turkish people that criticise the Turks and are yet Turkish. Turkic tribes have been each others worst enemies someimes. Simply the fact that Mevlana criticised Turks in writing does not mean he could not be one - in fact it could mean that as a Turkic person living under a Turkic Empire he was best experienced to criticise - but all we are really doing in the former is assuming and placng a modern sense of Arabic nationalism on a man by implying that one would not criticse his own race. Either way, Mevlana saw humans as one entire family - and would be laughing at Iranians (who are not even the Persians they are trying so had to associate with) that are so adamant to get the label Persian beside his name.

Mevlana was a part of the Seljuk Empire, and as such was inspired by it. Whether he was Persian, Greek or Turkic, makes no difference. That should be inherent in the article. 82.145.231.189 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumi and Turkey

Rumi is "a Turk"?[2]--Zereshk 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The article states that he is regarded as a religious figure in Turkey. I think it would be more accurate to say he is as well a philosopher. No single sect of Islam in Turkey relates to him.Olympos 17:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't live in Turkey, but the impression I get is that the religious movement(s) still in existence there do pay homage to him; and not simply as a philosopher, but more as a theologian and wali. Aside from the general public, there are the remnants of the Mevlevi order. I assume they're in accord with their original precepts, and would thus come under the umbrella of mainstream Islam. - User:Ashu8845

Some of the paragraphs of this article are systemically being deleted without declaring a reason. I put the article back in the original form as much as possible. User:ErdemTuzun

"Rumi was a Persian and not a Turk, and all of his poetry is in Perisan. In fact, Turkish people cannot read and understand any of his poetry, unless they read a Turkish translation of Rumi's works, or they study and learn the Persian language at a high level. However, he lived most of his life in Konya which is in present-day Turkey, but at the time of his life, there was not even a country called Turkey, nor was present-day Turkey a 'Turkish land'."

I removed this paragraph and carried to the discussion page because it contains wrong informations and logical fallacies.

First of all, nationality is a relatively new concept. In 13th century, this concept was obviously not even a matter of discussion and people were not carrying identity cards on which their nationalities had been scripted. So, actually, while we are talking about the nation or ethnicity of an old age person, most of the time we are just making estimates. In Rumi's case there is no way of knowing exactly what ethnicity he belonged to. Actually, territories involving present Iran were controlled centuries for several Turkic dynasties like Safavids or Qajars and Turkic and Persian people lived side by side and surely mixed, complicating the estimation of Rumi's ethnicity.

Secondly, Rumi was born in a Turkic country and lived and died in another Turkic country. While we are talking about the countries of people in their biographies, we are not only mentioning the country they were born in but also the country they lived most of their time and made their greatest contributions. For example in many biographies Einstein is presented as Germany born Jewish American scientist. Rumi's position is just the same. Of course there was no Turkey that time as there was no Iran. But there were Persian and Turkish people living in different locations of Asia. In this article the word turkish does not point a citizenship of country but a certain ethnicity.

It is true that Rumi was writing in Persian and Turkish people can not understand his poems unless it is translated. However, Persian was the official language for science and art in all Islamic countries. All prominent Turkish artists and scientists have written their works in either Arabic or Persian. It is very similar to the fact that Latin language was the official language for artists and scientists in Europe and regardless of their ethnicities they were producing their works in Latin.

For these reasons, I added the deleted paragraphs to the article and of course all of these paragraphs are open to modification and refinement.

Finally, controversial issues should be solved by discussions carried on this page rather than blindly deleting things that we don't like to read. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here". User:ErdemTuzun

If what you say is true, then perhaps you can tell us why all the major encyclopedia of the wrold (Britannica, Americana, etc.) describe Rumi as Persian and not a Turk, or your interesting designation of "Turkish/Persian"?!

Furthermore, if you actually could read his poetry, you would see that in a number of places, both in his Mathnavi as well as Divan Shams, he refers to his ethnicity, but almost in all cases, he is trying to teach you that the label doesn't matter. Somehow I have a feeling you have not even read any of his poetry and you are only going by your Pan-Turkish chauvinism and trying to 'claim' Rumi as Turkish or part-Turkish.

It is true that at that time the Persian language was more popular, and it is also true that some Turks (and others) wrote _some_ of their works in Persian. But in such cases, they _also_ have works in their own native language. One example would be the great poet Qatran from Tabriz. He has poetry in both Persian and Turkish. Another example is Iqbal Lahuri who has poetry in Persian and in Urdu (his native language). There are a number of other examples ... many examples in fact. But there is not any example where one would not produce any works at all in his native language. Do you know of _ANY_ works by Rumi in Turkish?

Furthermore, if you study the poetry of the great poets of the Khorasan territory (the Greater Khorasan is where Rumi was born in, Blakh was part of the Khorasan province), many of them complain about the Turkish encroachments to their land. For example, Nasser Khosrow, also from Balkh, in his poetry says, and I am just translating and paraphrasing, "now khorasan has become a land of the Turks -- a free man (aazaadeh, in Persian) and a base (low) man ("doon" in Persian) do not fit in one place -- that a bunch of homeless and uncultured rascals (referring to the Turks) -- today have become Khans and Khatuns (Turkish titles of eminence for men and women) in this land.".

There are plenty of examples and evidences like the above that show that people disliked the Turks because they abused people and they were uncultivated and often violent, rogue and unfair in their practices.

In fact, many people left that land BECAUSE OF the Turks, and Rumi's family was no exception. If you study the history accurately, you will see that his family left Blakh years BEFORE the Mongol invasion, and they did not leave to avoid the Mongols -- unless his family possessed a very good crystal ball that could inform them about the future!

For you to claim that up to this date in human history everybody has been misinformed and wrong to call Rumi "Rumi the Persian", including all the major encyclopedia of the world, is quite astonishing and remarkable. So for centuries and centuries all academicians, including the two great Rumi experts from England and Germany where wrong to call him a Persian, and suddenly in year 2003 you are educating the world about his 'true' cultural identity?

You claim to be an educated man. Let us keep the centries-old tradition of intellectual integrity and honesty in the academia alive and don't allow our personal prejudices and biases to interfere with facts.

Rumi was a Persian. Also, even if somehow miraculously you manage to convince the world that he was anything else, the fact remains that there is only one people on earth who can truly understand, feel and enjoy his poetry, and that people is none other than the Persians. There are too many subtlties in the Persian language, and in particular, in Persian poetry, that a translation, no matter how masterfully done, will never come even close to the original. I myself have read his poetry, together with the works of many other great poets, since my early teens; and I am no exception among Iranians. Even before I could read them by myself I have been told stories from the Mathnavi as children's stories. When many other peoples of the world rent a movie to watch after dinner, many Persians go the the wonderful treasury of Persian Literature after dinner.

Finally, you are also wrong in saying there was "no Iran" at that time. Iran's history, geography, language, culture, calendar and traditions go back to much longer than that; but naturally, in such a long history there have been many ups and downs. If one truly understands the Persian language, one would CLEARLY see that even the very name of Khorasan is made up of parts that is relative to Iran. I won't even mention the long long list of works before and after Rumi's time that contain "Iran" all over the work.

I am afraid, after reading what you have written, I am left with the impression that you are either allowing chauvinistic biases and prejudices overcome your good conscience, or you are honest about what you say but you are simply misinformed.

Sincerely,

Keyvan Partovi.

P.S. You also removed the part where I had mentioned Rumi's two major works. Really, essentiantially these two works are what the world knows him by, one is the Mathnavi and the other is Divan Shams, without even offering any reason why you removed that part. It indicated (correctly, I might add) that these two works are two of the greatest works of all of Persian Literature and Poetry. I can only think of one reason why you would want to deprive the article from such important and correct information.

Dear Partovi,

First of all, I want to assure you that I did not insist on writing that Turkish/Persian phrase as a result of any kind of nationalistic chauvinism. I have always been an opposer of this kind of thinking. Actually, it is my anti-nationalistic ideas that forced me to try to change this article. When I saw the phrase Turkish in one of the older versions of this article printed and then observed that it has been deleted, I thought that it was some chauvinistic person that has committed this action. This is why I insistingly tried to change this article.

I have read several important works of Rumi and I think that I know his ideas quite well. I also agree that it is not good to label a person like Rumi, with this kind of nationalistic discussions. This is why I decided to put a more general title as Turkish/Persian, which symbolises the international feature of Rumi, which does not recognise any boundaries. If I had deleted the name Persian and replaced it with Turkish, then this would make me chauvinistic.

If you were able to read Turkish encyclopedias, you would see that he is mentioned as neither Persian or Turkish. Usually his nationality is not mentioned or just expressed as Anatolian (which is also wrong for me).

I also tried to modify this article to draw people's attention to another important problem. It is true that many important encyclopedias refer not only Rumi but also many people living in the same area as Persian. There is also an ongoing discussion about the ethnicity of Avicenna, for instance. I will ask the same question again. How in the world can a present time person know the nationality or ethnicity of a middle age person? Even by the current genetic technology, this would be impossible, since after several centuries of intermarriages, genetic features of people living in Near Asia are quite identical to eachother. Now, we are living in a more nationalism based and dominated world and possibly the scholars feel themselves urged to label people of the past with some kind of ethnicity without necessarily having enough information about this.

For me this was a good opportunity to make this point by using this article as an example. The fact that some mistake has been done by previous people does not mean that we should repeat it. In my opinion, we should not write something that we don't know exactly. In these kinds of articles, the best strategy would be to only write the birth and death places of these important people and also mention which dynasty, empire or country was controlling the area back then. But since it is difficult to change the old traditions and readers would always expect to see some nationality or ethnicity coined to a person's biography, I decided to put that ambigous phrase to draw the attention of readers on this topic. Besides, big encyclopedias can also make big mistakes. For example, I remember reading in some important encyclopedias that Turkish people are Chinese and in present Turkey death penalties are executed by impaling people on a wooden rod. It is sad to see that encyclopedia authors are also human beings and they are under the influence of political biases.

Additionally, as I tried to point out by Albert Einstein example, people's countries are not only considered by their birth country but also the country that they have produced their work. As an another example, Nobel Prize Winner Ahmed Zewail who has been born in Egypt but has made his scientific contributions in USA is usually being mentioned as Egyptian American. Examples can be increased of course.

The fact that past time Iran people did not like the invading Turkish people does not prove that there were no prominent Turkish scholars or poets at this time. Additionally, I am well aware that Iran existed throughout centuries and played a very important part in history. I wrote this as an answer to your mentioning that since there was no Turkey (as a country) at that time, there were no Turkish people.

I sincerely apologize for deleting some of your sentences. But I really did not know I was deleting some important information too. You have right to complain about this. Surely, these sentences should be added to the article appropriately. But you also deleted some of my sentences about the birth place of Rumi, while you were changing the paragraph. I am also sorry to evoke such hard feelings but I always though that what I did was completely suitable for Rumi's teachings. By changing the ethnicity phrase, I tried to emphasize that his presence should not be the game of excessively nationalistic people. User:ErdemTuzun

-My dear Keyvan Partovi: Firstly, I accept that Rumi is most likely Persian and it should be indicated as such. However, your style and some of your claims are culpable! You claim that Rumi escaped not the Mongols but the Turks?! Is this the reason why he immigrated to Anatolia which was under Turkish Selchuq Dynasty? Does this make sense to you? (You can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Turks).

Also, you imply that Turks were uncultivated, rude etc!? It is sad that we seem to complain about nationalism but we are the ones committing it with our sometimes almost hate-filled writings. I don't think this is very healthy.

Secondly, If we claim to inherit Rumi's heritage, why do we behave so "unRumi?" Rumi is so great of a person that he is beyond anybody or any country to "own" him, much less to involve him in such a discussion. I think what Hz. Ibrahiym said renders this situation perfectly: "He then who follows my (ways) is of me."

Love, User:Lugalbanda

Rumi and Afghanistan

Interestingly enough, Afghanis will consider him as one of theirs. Much of the Afghani classical music will make use of his texts - similar as in Iran and probably Turkey. In Afghanistan he is usually called Jalal Al-Din-e Balkhi. This obviously widens the debate above. I suggest re-editing along these lines. Refdoc 00:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At the time of Rumi there was not even a country (nor a culture) by the name of Afghan/Afghanistan. In the ENTIRE works of Rumi you can't even find one instance of the word "Afghan" (by itself or in any combination). Blakh, the birthplace of Rumi, was part of the greated Khorasan province of Iran. Much of the territory of the country Afghanistan today, was (and is) a part of the greater Khorasan territory. There is no "Afghani literature" or if there is, it sure as hell ain't in the Persian language. Just because some Afghans claim the old Persian poets of the greater Khorasan territory as "Afghans" doesn't make them Afghans. In fact, the only "Afghans" who can even attempt to read such literature are the ones who have learned the Persian language at a high level.

Also, I am well familiar with afghani music and their lyrics. More than any classical Persian poet, they have used lyrics from Saadi (from Shiraz) in their songs, and not from Rumi. In fact, I can't even think of one from Rumi that I have heard in the context of Afghani songs. If they have started using Rumi now, it probably is deliberate. Afghans also insist on calling the Persian langauge "Dari", but the funny thing is that even the word "Dari" is taken right out of the Persian language and literature.

Let's not "contribute" to a subject we don't know about. --K1 06:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cut from article page contribution by unknown contributor : Just like the previous paragraphs, the final paragraph of this article is flawed and does not reflect credible information about recent historical events.Firstly, the Turkish Government does not make important decisions concerning its cultural heritage based on how "profitable" they may become by attracting tourists. Mevlana has always been one of the very many highly valued elements in Turkish history. I am not sure what he wants to say, but i think it is better here than on teh actual article. Refdoc 18:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Afghanistan and Rumi : It is odd that this matter has to come up again and again in so many guises. But I think it was wrong to delete the references to Afghanistan and Afghan culture. The Persians of old have split up into 3 countries ( at least) - more if one counts the Turkic countries of Centralasia, most with sizeable Farsi/Tajik speaking minorities. Nations develop, split and merge and while there is continuity in many ways there is also change. Just like any German will - rightly - consider Mozart and Beethoven as German composers, so will - equally rightly - an Austrian lay claim to the same heritage. Austria is considered a truely separate entity only really since the begin/middle of the 20th century - would it now be right to speak of "There is no Austrian culture! Mozart and Beethiven ar Germans and nothing else !" ? Similarly - and here we come close to the other dispute on this page re his "Turkishness" have a look at Haendel - no German would hesitate to call him one of the most significant German composers, while English people would be quite astonished to be told he is not one of "theirs". In that sense todays Afghanistan is just as justifiedly inheritor of the great Persian poets of old as Iran or indeed Tajikistan.

Further - the notion that people can not appreciate him if they are not Persian is a bit silly. Appreciation is highly individual and simply impossible to compare.

With this explanation I will try and re-insert the deleted references to Afghanistan Refdoc 18:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here, as well as in the previous article about the original race or "nationality" of Rumi or any other historical figure. To start with, today's "Afghanistan" and "Iran" are simply boundries creating a nation. Historically, and even today, from a cultural, lingusitic, and even ethnic aspect, most people who live in the country "Iran" and a sizeable number of poeple living in the country "Afghanistan" are Iranian--linguistically they speak near identical languages--Dari, which is a Persian dialect. Pashtun is an Iranian language from the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European languages. Ethnically, it is less clear cut nowadays, as people have mixed and invaders from the Arab and Turkic nomadic areas outside the Iranian plateau have settled in the areas and mixed in with the Iranian races (Persians, Bactrians, Balkhis, Tajiks, Baluchis, Kurds, etc) creating the ethinicities that are present today.

During the time of Rumi and about 900-1200 AD, the areas of Balkh, Azarbaijan, and western region of modern-day Turkey were predominantly Iranian-speaking people (note, not Persian speaking, but Iranian speaking). In Balkh, they were Tajik and Persian, and Turkic tribes after successive invasions settled and mixed in. This is why you see central asian features and Turkic languages in some areas there. Similarly, in Azarbaijan, whose name is even a Persian name meaning Fire-foundation of life (reference role of fire in Zoroastrian religion). Azarbaijan population pre-900-1000AD was majority Iranian speaking, speaking the Iranian languages of Taleshi and Tati, which are today spoken only in the remote villages of Azarbaijan. After successive Turkic invasions by the Seljuks, the Ugurs etc, and after forced language conversions in some instances, the population mixed with Turkic people and the language in the major cities changed to Turkic languages, with Iranian languages receeding to the remote villages as it is today. It is a similar situation in the Caucusus, where you see poeple who are Iranian speaking (Ossetians and Alanians) in remote mountains in the north Caucusus, while the rest of the fertile areas are Turkic speaking in Azarbaijan. The Ossetians withdrew to the mountains as successive waves of invasions form Turkic tribes and then Russians forced them to withdraw. Similarly in western areas of modern day Turkey, where the population was actually Armenian, Kurd (Iranian) and Persians speakers, among others. With the invasion of the Seljuks and Ottomans, these areas changed to Turkish speaking within a few centuries. This does not mean that all the population is Turkic ethnically, since the Turkic nomadic invaders did not kill everyone (except Gengis Khan, who decimated the Iranian population).

In any case, at the time of Rumi and most of the scholars of the time, the areas were predominantly Iranian, if not Persian, ethnically, and Persian was the lingua franca. Balkh certainly was Tajik, and the eastern part of the Turkey was a mix of Armenian, Persian, and Kurdish, with Turkic tribes only starting to trickle in.

It is certainly possible that Rumi might have been from one of the minority Turkic tribes of the time, but given the demographics ethnically and linguistically, it is a remote possibility. Also, given that he has left no trace of any work in any Turkic language or any reference to his Turkic ancestery (given the massive migrations happening at the time, it would have been reasonable to mention it), it is even more remote that he could have been either a native Turkic speaker, or of a Turkic ethnicity.

In any case, I think it is irrelevant nowadays who is from where 1000 years ago. I simply want to state some historical arguments that are more based on evidence that the two arguments given above. Both of the arguments confuse the three notions of nationaism, language, and ethnicity. When one of them refers to Turksih, it is not clear if he is talking about the Turkish nation as it is today, the Turkic race and ethnicities, or the Turkic language group. Similarly, "Iranian" could refer to the current Iranian nation/country, but it could also refer to the Iranian language group (of which Persina is only one of many) or the Iranian (Arian) race.

To make an analogy: Consider the ancient Egyptian civilizations. If one were to call them Arab civilizations today, simply because the poeple that live there speak arabic nowadays, it would be eroneous since it would be giving credit for the great work to a language and ethnic race that had nothing to do with it. Today's Egyptians speak Arabic, but that does not mean they are ethnically Arab. They are certainly mixed with Arabs from the Arabian peninsula, but they are still mostly Nobians and Egyptians ethnically, and thus, we call their encient civilization Egyptian, and not Arab. Similarly with the Phonecians. Phonecial history was located in today;s Lebanon. But nobody calls it Lebanese civilization..it is Phonecian. This is because the modern day nation of Lebanon has nothing to do with those achievements. It is the people who live in Lebanon, ie, the decendants of the Phonecians, who are now mixed with Arabs and Romans etc, who are most associated with the Phonecian civilization. We do not call it an Arab or Lebanese civilization, it is Phonecian in reference to the orginal name of the people who developed it. It is thus the same with what is today eastern Turkey, Turkic speaking Azarbaijan and other regions in the Caucusus or in Central Asia. It is not what nations call themselves today, or what languages are being spoken today in those areas, the question is: What language and ethnic people lived there when that civilization or that piece of literature was developed. Then we call it by that name. For example, the Safavid dynasty ruled Iran and its Iranian people for a couple of centuries. They were Turkic of origin. We do not see anyone--nor should they-- call the scientists and artists who lived and developed their work during the Safavid period call themselves Turkic. The dominant culture and language, as well as the dominant ethnicity in that period was Iranian (and more specifically, Persian).

Hope that was clear enough.

Cheers!

"western region of modern-day Turkey were predominantly Iranian-speaking people" Where do you get that nonsense from? Western region of Turkey (anatolia) was greek and the south east was mainly armenian and arab. Is this what they teach you at schools in Iran. When Rumi arived in konya in 1220 the turkish seldjuk empire ruled most of anatolia. The population was mostly turks (turkmen) with sizable greek and armenian minorities. What are you ging to claim next that the balkans were also iranian speaking?Orrin_73

Rumi and the dervishes

Over half of the current article is about the whirling dervishes. While it is obviously significant to mention these. I think they are a) significant enough to justify their own article b) teh article would benefit by concentrating more on the actual person or Rumi and his works rather than on an order founded after his death. I fact there is already a large article under whirling dervishes, while the reference within this article here leads recursively back to Rumi. I suggest cutting the whole bit about the order and leaving a short reference and transferring the cut material onto the already existing article + cleaning up links on the way too. Refdoc 18:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clear-out and re-organisation

Done... Please tell me what you think about it! Refdoc 20:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merged the sentences that appeared to be repetative, broke the article into sections, added a reference and a few sentences about Rumi's biography.--Vonaurum 19:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The whirling dervishes

Currently there are two active links to the Sufi order founded by his disciples Mevlevi and The Whirling Dervishes. The article is at The Whirling Dervishes while mevlevi is a redirect. I would like this to be swapped around, as Mevlevi order is the actual name while the whirling dervishes is just a kind of nickname. This will need admin rights so i can just go ahead and do it. Refdoc 22:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

really?

Is this really by Rumi? I've always seen it quoted as anonymous.

Dance, as though no one is watching,
Love, as though you've never been hurt before,
Sing, as though no one can hear you,
Work, as though you don't need the money,
Live, as though heaven is on earth.
~Rumi~

The style tends to be modern , it may be a free translation of Rumi poems.Pasha 04:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening lines

I removed the word Persian before "Sufi Muslim ...." because his birth place and language is mentioned in the next sentences , I also placed poet before jusrist and theologian because he is best known as Sufi and poet , also replaced Sufi mystic with teacher of Sufism.Pasha 05:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Rumi is Clearly Persian

Rumi is "a Turk"?[3]--Zereshk 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC) He is not Turk he describes Turks sometimes that shows turkic apperance was strange for him "When a Turk laughs his eyes get so narrow that no one can notice" he wrote this so clearly he is not a turk but trained and grew in turkish culture and helped to the foundations of ottoman empire. But if you think he is a sunni so he cant be persian maybe from a relative nation"

Incidently I wrote a letter to the Guardian article and here is the response:

"Thanks, but I never said Rumi was Turkish. It was whatever idiot at the Guardian wrote the standfirst and headline. You will note that such a claim is never made in the text of the article, which draws on FD Lewis's work which I also admire, khuda hafez, WD"

The following is article from AFP: http://www.thingsasian.com/goto_article/article.2460.html

We must analyze this issue from all the available sources. Here are reasons why Rumi was clearly Persian.

a) A good proof towards this are the verses of Sultan Valad. Sultan Valad, who is the son of Rumi claims he knows Arabic and Persian, but clearly says that he does not know Turkish and Greek well.

گذر از گفت ترکي و رومي چون از آن اصطلاح محرومي ليک از پارسي گوي و از تازي چونکه در هر دو خوش همي تازي

Also 99% of the work of Sultan Valad is in Persian, but he does have a few Arabic, Turkish and Greek poems. In one of the Turkish ones he says the same thing about Knowing Persian and Turkish:

تورکچه اگر بيليديم بي سوزي بين ايليه ديم تات جه اگر ديله سوز گويم اسرار اولي

Which translates: If I knew Turkish, I would bring one word to a 1000 levels. But When you listen to Persian, the hidden secrets I tell wonderfully.

Also there are some more points to consider: b) There are some harsh comments about Turks in the Manaqib of Aflaki. For example this one is in the praise of Greeks and belittlement of Turks, from the book of Aflaki:

There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks.

When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times.

But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!" ---

I am not sure how a person can be of Turkic ethnicity, but say such a thing.

c) There are some harsh comments about Oghuz Turks in the Mathnavi For example the Oghuz Turks are compared to Abu-Jahl. d) The Majale's As'saba or the sever seremons of Rumi are all in Persian. Which means that Rumi used Persian to preach the Friday sermon. This is significant since in every Islamic country, the preacher usually either preaches in his local tongue or in Arabic. e) Rumi uses the word "Tang-Cheshm" (narrow eyes) for Turks. Genetically it has been proven that most of the Turkish speakers of Anatolia are not Turks, but former Greeks/Armenians who were Islamicized. But the Central Asiatic Turks who are of mongloid race, are the real Turks. Rumi mentions his eyes "Cheshmhaayeh Faraakh" (wide eyes, big eyes). f) The best Biography of Rumi is written by Franklin Lewis, called Rumi Past and Present, East and West (March 1, 2000). The Iranian ethnic identity of Rumi is made clear in this book. g) Balkh was a Persian speaking region before the mongols. For example see Zakhira-Khwrazmshahi for Persian phrases in the local Persian Balkhi tongue. Today it is mixed Tajik and Uzbek regions. But Uzbeks claim descent from Cheghniz Khan and were not in the area priorly. h) The word Turk had a negative connotation in the Ottoman empire and people referred to themselves as Othmani and not Turk. The word Turk only became positive in Turkey after Ataturk. Prior to that the word "Turk" meant a wild person. It should be remembered that the Ottoman language, specially in poetry was more Persian/Arabic than pure Turkish. i) Finally Rumi lives by the Persian language and is alive by the Persian language/culture. And the Persian language is alive because of people like Rumi. Persian speakers of Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan are the ones that can read and understand Rumi. No amount of translation can do justice to his poems, because poetry is so closely linked with the language, that the translations will always be imperfect. It is true that in the Islamic empire of the east, people mixed and married. But the cultural language of this empire was Persian. Even the Seljuqs became Persianized and adopted Persian names like Kheykhosrow and other Shahnama names. They mixed with other local Iranian dynasties and peop.e Today the word Turk or Persian or Arabi are cultural/linguistic more than racial. Rumi culturally was a Persian and mentions a lot about other Persian poets. For example he mentions Attar and Sanai profusely. Or he mentions the heroes of the Shahnama like Rustam and Esfandyar. So hypothetically speaking, even if Rumis parent were both Africans, he would be considered a Persian since what is at stake is cultural. Rumi could have had Arab, Persian, Turkic, Indian or whatver blood in him, but he was culturally Persian. For example how many citizens of Turkey or Arabia or Iran can claim that all of their ancestors were pure Turks, Arabs or Persian. Probably no one can. For example Ataturk himself was of Macedonian and Albanian background and was not Turkic. Yet he is considered a Turk because culturally he was Turk. So Rumi and his cultural background is also the key factor, even if we do not know Rumi's 50th ancestor and that is why Rumi belongs to the Perso-Islamic civilization.

--Ali doostzadeh 07:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Ali Doostzadeh

Dear Ali Doostzadeh: In your effort to "own" Rumi, and sort of, belittle Turks, you are forgetting one thing: Rumi spent most of his life, and matured and produced all his major works among them, and his genetical and cultural heritage are mainly, to a good extent, preserved in Turkey; surely they deserve a bit respect and some credit to associate themselves so closely with Rumi. It is not fare to indirectly belittle and deprecate the Turks here. Also, your claim that Ataturk was not Turkic is baseless. Yes, he definitely had other ethnic backgrounds, but that does not mean that he did not have Turkish ethnicity.

BTW, just so there is no misunderstanding, I am ethnically not Turkish. I am of Kurdish origin (Kurds, BTW, are an Iranian people). I felt to say this so that there is no preconceived ideas.

Let us put an end to this ethnicity discussion. I accept the fact that Rumi ethnically most likely was Persian, but to say that he belongs to the "Perso-Islamic" civilization is far from the truth. He definitely lived among, and interacted with, Persians, Afghanis, Tajicks, Turks, Arabs etc. As such his culture is the culture of the Middle-East. As far as where he belongs? He belongs to all humanity.

Love, user:Lugalbanda

- Err.. there was a time, Pre WWI, when every Muslim was known simply as a Turk, irrespective of where they came from. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don`t get it, Rumi himself wrote he travelled from Persia to what is today Turkey, because he escaped persecution. His father, his mentors, his teachers, his best friend and his wife were Persian as well. So why he should be named a Turk? Let`s not belittle his heritage please.Zmmz 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not as if we're talking about sports teams, where you're either on the team or off, and teams compete for good players. Rumi wrote in Persian and Arabic, he lived in Turkey, he speaks to all Muslims and humans. Nobody gets exclusive "bragging rights". Zora 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What does bragging rights have to do with the man`s Persian origin? You can admire him, but do not falsely change his nationality.Zmmz 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "nationality"? There was no concept of nationality then. He migrated from one Islamic principality to another. Zora 01:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He was born and raised in Persia, he was Persian. History agrees. If there was no concept of nationality so let`s call Alexander the Great Turkish too, why call him Macedonian, Greek?Zmmz 02:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some historians would agree and others wouldn't. The anti-nationalism position is the newer, trendier one. Zora 02:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some historians believe in UFOs too. Please name some refrences. My refrences are, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Encarta, the Meriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries etc...etc[4][5][6][7]. They all say he was Persian. You need more? Zmmz 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but all that absolute nonsense about Sultan Veled is quite hilarious regarding that he patroned and comissioned a massive work on Turkish Dictionaries and the Kamanan-Selcuk State proclaimed Turkish as the official language of all matters of affiar.

Mevlana moved to the Capitol of the Selcuk Turks, its quite logical that he or his relations were Turkic as they had to know somthing about the people's land they were seeking refuge in.

Plus, Mevlana was Sunni today's "Persian" National sense is galaxies apart from what Mevlana's views and identity was.

And last, he wasn't a Nationalist, he was simply a Muslim belonging to the nation of Islam so TO END ALL ARGUEMENTS SIMPLY DO THIS

MEVLANA = MUSLIM SUFI PHILOSOPHER, it will end all arguments.

Regards

johnstevens5

References?

We need to add some references to the article. If you have any, please add them using the new cite format (see the one in the intro). Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot put modern borders on ancient empires!

for those who claim that rumi was turkish just because he lived and died in a town that is NOW in turkey, doesnt make him turkish. at that time, that town was part of iran! your claims are crazy! i know, lets claim that einstein was actually origionally ethnically american, because he lived and died in the USA rather than in germany! LOL also, lets claim that columbus was portugese, because he sailed for portugal! LOL you pan turks have no evidence for your claims, all you can do is talk. its only us iranians making logical arguments.

again, you are making fools of yourselves! i hate to see people ruining their own image.

--Iranian Patriot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.181.241 (talk • contribs).

Iranian Patriot could you please tell me when Konya was part of Iran??? Konya was a part of the Turkish Seldjuk empire that is some 1300 km from the Iranian border. Look at a map dude before claiming nonsense. Orrin_73

The man himself wrote he migrated from Persia to modern day Turkey out of fear of persecution, so what is the argument?Zmmz 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

what persecution are you talking about? he fled from the mongol invasion! no matter what you read off of your pan turkist sites, almost all non turkic historians call him persian or tajik. infact, i have never even heard of a non turkic historian calling Rumi anything other than persian or tajik. your fighting a losing battle. dont believe in your turkish propaganda, its the opposite of the truth. -- Iranian Patriot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.181.241 (talk • contribs).

His life was in danger due to the Mongol invasion so he fled Iran. But he was born there and [is] Persian.Zmmz 02:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He was not born in Iran, he was born in present day Afghanistan. Error one. Error two - it is aperson's lineage not place of birth that tells us who he is. Not everyone born in Iran today is an Iranian by descent. Error three. Labelling him as a persian does not make him an Iranian. With such a non NPOV you shouldn't be editing any part of this article until you stop confusing issues. 88.255.16.38 11:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Authoritative Refrences

Some important refrences that cite Rumi was Persian are, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Encarta, the Meriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries etc...etc[8][9][10][11].Zmmz 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

exactly. turks cannot find one non pan turkic source that says rumi is turkic. why dont they just give up, they are fighting a losing battle. --Iranian Patriot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.181.241 (talk • contribs).

These sources all say the same thing. [rm personal attack]. And if they don't I hope the Turks give you a good go. Noting Mevlana and his life one thing is sure, being a persian he certainly didn't like his "homeland" enough to want to fight for it or live in any region of it. 82.145.231.42 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL in your interactions with other editors. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully for us, Mowlana Rumi chose life over certain death at the hands of the Mongolians, otherwise, not only the Persian culture, but we all would have missed-out on some great poetry, and some keen human observations.Zmmz 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How you can hijack the creative works written during and under the Seljuk Empire as Persian I have no idea, especially when Mevlana's father's lineage is unclear. The man at best was an Anatolian. This was the region he chose to live and die in. Writing in the main language of the day does not prove a thing. Muslims to an extent must know Arabic as the Quran is written in Arabic - shall we now hijack G-d into Arabic nationalism? At the end of the end of the day Iranians like to hijack things to promote their so-called culture with a feverence akin to terrorism allowing no room for another view - and this is just another ploy. We should protect Mevlana from such Persian influences - which Isee as destructive as any 'Mongolian' in its day. 88.255.16.38 11:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Authoritative" reference

"I am not from India, not from China, not from Bulgar, not from Saqsin.

I am not from the kingdom of the two Iraqs.

I am not from the land of the Khurasan.

...

My place is placeless, my trace is traceless

No body no soul, I am from the soul of souls..."

—Rumi

Let's not fight over ownership. deeptrivia (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Amen. I was wondering when somebody would finally realize how arguing over the Mevlana's ethnicity was a blatant contradiction of everything the man stood for. —Saposcat 08:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful sentiments! Others have also expressed similarly noble ideas. Take Perpetual Peace from that Russian philosopher from Kaliningrad for example. It requires:

republicanism

hospitality, the acknowledgement of the right to freely move and resettle in another state.

and a league of nations.

—Kant

--Kaveh 11:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I was pleased to see someone quote the Russian philosopher from Kaliningrad, since he lived in East Prussia, was actually from Koenigsberg, and counts these days as a German philosopher. In his case as well, present-day borders don't help us much in making sense of past writers. Cheers, Anthony Krupp 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rumi was Persian

The whole world knows that Rumi was Persian. It is stupid to claim otherwise. Dariush4444 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ironic how a man like him is being used for chauvinism. I wonder how much he cared about his ethnic roots. Anyway, his foundation and creation lives still in Turkey and we cherish his legacy; you can have all his DNA... although of course his descendants are today Turkish as well so we have the DNA too.--Kagan the Barbarian 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

title

I suggest that the page title be moved to Rumi. It's the most recognizable name, and there is no disambiguation issue, because Rumi redirects here. Cuñado - Talk 19:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is no disambiguation issue, which there isn't, then there is no reason to change the article's title. Besides that, to retitle "Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi" as just "Rumi" would be akin to retitling "Joseph Stalin" as simply "Stalin" (an identical redirect type, not coincidentally). The man's name was Jalal al-Din Muhammad (in one transliteration anyhow), and it makes sense to respect that (as far as I can see, at least). —Saposcat 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

See also the case of Ali, which uses the simplest, most recognizable name for him. I'm not incredibly familiar with the subject of Rumi, so I'm not insisting anything, but I think he's best known as simply "Rumi", which is not equivalent to an English surname like Stalin. Cuñado

- Talk 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is, of course, Ali; you are right. However, the name "Stalin" and the name "Rumi" (who would ever have thought of those two polar opposites being yoked together in one phrase?) do bear similarities with one another and differences from Ali in that Ali is one of Ali ibn Abu Talib's given names, whereas both "Stalin" (Ioseb Dzhugashvili's adopted name, meaning "Man of Steel") and "Rumi" (meaning "from/of Anatolia") were names later taken on as distinguishing marks. Of course, by all means the "Rumi" must stay in the title, since that is indeed the name that the man is most identified by (at least in the West); but I think that it is best that the article's actual full title should stay as is. —Saposcat 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, if the longer title remains, it really should be Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi, and not "al-din". The "D" is a solar letter and when preceded by "al", the "L" becomes a "D". Cuñado

- Talk 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

On this matter I certainly won't claim anything even approaching to expertise, but I've always thought that "al-Din" vs. "ad-Din" was just a matter of preferred transliteration styles, though as far as I know "ad-Din" does approximate the pronunciation much better (i.e., no one actually says "al-Din" with the "l" sound). Insofar as you probably know more on the subject than me, I would say that this change to the title seems valid (but if you make it, be sure to apply the appropriate redirect from "Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi" to "Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi"). Peace. —Saposcat 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title and corrected the many re-direct pages. You can see them if you click the "what links here" link underneath the search on the left. Cuñado

- Talk 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

reversion

An anon keeps reverting my clean-up of the intro. See this edit. My edits were improving the structure and clarity and were not even content related. Cuñado - Talk

I made verifiable additions without taking away the 'label' attached for Rumi as a Persian poet - but removed Persian/Iranian and added extra arguments about the poet's father's lineage being unknown. I also added a music sample. I don't see how Mevlana was Iranian or should be listed in Iranian people. He would be more a Seljuk than an Iranian I'd guess. 82.145.231.219 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

nominate for featured article?

i think we should - unsigned by 194.247.244.240 02:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I had been working on getting it to FA status. Unfortunately, this article is not stable right now because of the debate and reverts going on (see above). Probably I'll return to complete what I planned to do once these discussions are over. Of course, you are free to work on it right now to improve it if you so desire. Good luck :) deeptrivia (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora's edits

I removed claims that Rumi was "in exile" in Turkey, and that Khorasan was part of the Persian Empire. There was no Persian empire then. Balkh was ruled by the Khwarizmshah. However, I did make it clear that Balkh was part of the eastern Persian "culture province", so I don't think that I can be charged with trying to change Rumi's supposed "ethnicity".

I also made various small edits to straighten out convoluted prose and ungrammatical constructions. Zora 07:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Khwarizmshah and Samanids were native Persians, and ruled Persia and Iran. They are considered a Persian Empire. --ManiF 08:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

By whom? I have never seen the words "Persian empire" used of the Khwarizmshahs or Samanids, at least in any academic text. They were culturally Arabo-Persian, typical of post-conquest Khorasan and Transoxania, but they weren't empire builders on the scale of the Achaemenids and Sassanids. Oh, I see ... I type in Persia and I get "Persian empire" here at WP. I guess any ruler you tag as Persian gets an empire. Don't you think there's something a bit dodgy about that? Zora 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Samanids were a Persian dynasty of Iran or Persia [12]. It's accepted history, and that's all there is to it. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research. --ManiF 09:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

ManiF, you are correct in your assertion that the Khwarizmshah and Samanids were Persian dynasties..However, it is incorrect to say that Rumi "died in exile in Konya" - yes, he did in fact migrate to Konya to flee the invading Mongols, but it was not an exile. Exile implies the expulsion, usually by authorities, from one's land to another land where one does not belong. This is not the case with Rumi, Rumi was not exiled, rather he volubntarily migrated, and not only that, settled in Konya permanently, not temporarily as is implied by exile. Therefore, Rumi migrated to Konya but he wasn't there in exile, so the caption is wrong - it's not POV, it's just outright historically inaccurate. This is the accepted scholarly fact and I'm sure a person as knowledgable and well-read as you can appreciate that fact. However, I am not one to pointlessly bicker and I shan't change the caption back to what it should be until you yourself realise the inaccuracy of the statement in the caption and the false notion that it asserts. This, although erroneous, is minor, and I don't want to be party to a petty editing war. No hostility intended, yours in peace, Tanzeel 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Tanzeel. I see your point, perhaps exiled is not the best description, so I'm removing it from the caption. --ManiF 14:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

THE DILEMA IS SOLVED

Sadly extremist Persian Nationalists are making a Nationalist issue out of a humanist, this is the most ridiculous, outrageous, ludacris nonsense I've ever seen.

Now, I have come up with a remedy to shut up all sides.

Mevlana moved to the Capital of the Selcuk Turks, its quite logical that he or his relations were Turkic as they had to know somthing about the people's land they were seeking refuge in.

Then again he wrote most of this works in Persian.

Yet Persian was the literary language in those day.

Plus, Mevlana was Sunni today's "Persian" National sense is galaxies apart from what Mevlana's views and identity was.

And last, he wasn't a Nationalist, he was simply a Muslim belonging to the nation of Islam so TO END ALL ARGUEMENTS SIMPLY DO THIS

MEVLANA = MUSLIFM SUFI PHILOSOPHER (BELONGING TO NO NATION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NATION CONCEPT UNLESS YOUR GOING TO STATE HE WAS A SELCUK)

I have edited it to this.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

MEVLANA = MUSLIM SUFI PHILOSOPHER, it will end all arguments.

Regards

Look Mowlanas son did not know Turkish/Greek well according to himself. So this is a good proof that this family was not from the area. He didn't even write 1% of his work in Greek/Turkish. He comes from Balkh Afghanistan. Seljuqs themselves didn't like Turks and the Ottomans did not consider themselves Turks. The majority Persians of Afghanistan (where mowlana was born) and Tajikistan are Sunnis as well. Prof. Franklin Lewis has done considerable research on Mowlana and he is the top scholar on Mowlana and Mowlana is a Persian Sunni Muslim. Just like Abu Hanifah who btw was both Sunni and Persian. --Ali doostzadeh 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am just writing to second the facts put forward by Ali Doostzadeh. It is true, the concept of the modern nation did not exist at the time, but "Persian" is not referring to nationality but to ethnicity (which did exist). Maulvi Balkhi (as I was brought up to know him) was, in the light of almost all conclusive historical research, an ethnic Persian from Balkh (presently in Afghanistan). His literary language being Persian is immaterial as most Turks probably wrote in Persian as well - what matters is that he was born a Persian. His relationship to Turkey is, however, great, and he is very significant in Turkish history and literature, which should be mentioned, and it is. Tanzeel 10:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What a sad bunch of people we have, what is it with you extremists.

Selcuks were Turks so were Ottomans get over it guys, stop being so bitter, the Persian Empire ceased to exist 2500 years age, you've never had anything to equal that since and have been ruled by Macedonians, Arabs and Turks for the past 2000 years.

Anyway, there was no "ethnicity" called Persian, there were tribal and clan confederancies and under the Islamic law there was no distinction made between the Muslims.

Mevlana was a Muslim, his nation was Islam, he didn't refer to himself as being Persian, Turk, Arab or anything else, all he openly stated was his religion now that's the hard evidence we have.

The only Hard Factual Evidence we have is that, Mevlana was a Islamic Sufi Phillosopher, this is somthing nobody can have a problem with so to end all further arguments, I will edit the article to simply state this.

p.s Mevlana was not born in a "so-called Persian Empire" this is a total and outrageous fabrication, the area was under the governance of Turkic rulers when he was born.

Regards

--[[User:Johnstevens5|Johnstevens5]

Firstly Mowlana was born in Balkh in Afghanistan, which was a Persian speaking reigion according to Tartusi and other sources. It doesn't matter who ruled the region. Just like many Greeks/Armenians were born under ottomans but that does not make those Greek/Armenians Turks. And it doesn't mean Greek/Armenians did not exist! Many Kurds are born in Turkey today, but none of them are ethnic Turks. BTW At least choose a Turkish name for yourself, since you are giving the wrong impression by your name that you are American! Mowalana was an ethnic Persian, just like Umar was an Arab and Oghuzkhan was a Turk. Mowlanas relationship is great to all countries in the region including Turkey, Kurds, Iranians, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, India..And as per ethnicity IRanian, read shahnameh, garshaspnameh, or read about the Shu'abiya movement. Also Mowlanas son did not know Greek/Turkish well(he has pointed it out three times at least) although these were the two main languages of the region during the Seljuqs. This shows that Mowlanas family were ethnically Persians. I agree he was a Muslim first but nevertheless, he was born as a Persian.

--Ali doostzadeh 19:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He was Islamic, if he was Persian and if it was of importance to him he would have specifically highlighted this however, he didn't.

Its possible that he could have been anything, its possible that he was neither a Persian or a Turk but of another heritage.

However, what we can be sure of is that he was Islamic.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We cannot say if Rumi was Islamic or not. We can only report what reputable sources say about him. See WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We can quote for example Rumi's own words: "I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Magian, nor Muslim", which we do in the article. So regardless of what sholars, politically motivated or not, Rumi did not consider himself Muslim or from any religion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

- Jossi, with all due respect, obviously you do not understand what Rumi is talking about when he says he is neither this nor that. As far as religion is concerned, his religion was Islam and his prophet was Muhammad: Man banda-i Quranem eger jandarem man haqi rahi Muhammad-i muhtarem (Rumi)(I am a slave of the Qur'an as long as I live, and I am the dust in way of respected Muhammad). User: Lugalbanda

Sincerely,

Keyvan Partovi.

Rumi's identity

Its amazing how the persian and turkish nationalists are trying to claim rumi for themselves; by using mean and awful words and hardly looking at the cold hard facts. The way i look at it Rumi was without doubt a iranian. The Turkish claim wich spouts from the fact that Rumi lived most of his life in modern day Turkey is ridiculous - do you forget were this great man was born? why he was born all the way on the other side of Iran, no where near Turkey. Lets make note that countries like turkey and afghanistan did not exist back then, most of the afghan region and large parts of the turkish region was inhabited by the iranians. Turks themselves orginated from the outskirts of the Gobi desert and migrated to the tops of pakistan before moving around the top of iran and settling in Modern day turkey.

the fact he was born in modern day afghanistan which was at that time IRAN is clear enough; i personally beleive if a false claim had the most eligibility it would be a afghans claim to rumi. It is like if Marco Polo died in China, would the Chinese then jump to conclude the Marco Polo was Chinese.

im not a historian or an anthropologist, im analysing the details which i have learnt from my father, and have read on the net. the basic fact that Rumi wrote in persian, was born in persian territory, identified himself as one, and never ever mentioned turks or turkey in any of his writings is enough for me. This debated is ridiculous, everybody on earth besides a few turks know that rumi was persian. the Iranians out there should stop arguing because it useless the turks will never give up, trying to claim rumi for themselves - let them argue as much as they want, because most of the educated world understand the logic of the scenario and would not fall prey to petty reasons.

Rumis family today have also no claim, the article below forgets that when peoples live in a particular country for centuries they lay claim to that particular nantionality - what does rumis family today know? they have been succumbed to pressure by the fact that they lay these claims while residing in turkey, i dont blame them, any family would make that conlcusion - without a doubt these OTCHA ! So if his birthplace is so important, he is 100% turkish ! And your "Marco Polo" example is a very funny one. You really think, that i can take you serious ? Josef Stalin was born in Georgia. So according to your arguments, he is not russian ??? LOL !—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.143.76.166 (talk • contribs) .

Rumi was not born in the Seljuq Empire, but in Balkh, then a semi-independent state and a vassal of the Khwarezmian Empire. The Seljuqs had been defeated and replaced in Central-Asia and Iran. Their last stronghold at that time was the Rum-Seljuqid sultanate.

Tājik 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

on top of that, rumi wrote only in persian, NEVER IN TURKISH. and at the time he fled from the mongol invasions, konya was not part of the seljuk khanate, it was part of iran at the time.Khosrow II 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Rumi did write some poems in Turkish. But those poems are written in a simple language, and their number is no comparison to the vast amount of Persian verses. His son, Sultan Valad, had a few more Turkish poems, but still no match for his Persian poetry. Rumi and his family stayed most of their lives in Anatolia and had direct contact to Seljuqid and Turcoman nobles. That's where and when he learned Turkish, as well as Greek. He also wrote a few poems in Greek and Arabic.

Sultan Valad's "Rabāb-Nāma" includes:

Persian verses: 7,745

Turkish verses: 157

Arabic verses: 35

Greek verses: 22

(from www.rumi.org)

Tājik 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point Tajik. But His son also says that forget about Turkish/Greek since my knowledge of them is not good..Also Rumi does not have real turkish poems, but poems were a turkish like is followed by Persian line. He also in total 50 lines of Greek and 200 Turkish.. But the acknowledgment from his son Sultan valad that they do not know Turkish/Greek well, is an important point we must consider. Also his fathers work has many interesting Persian/Soghdian words and all of his father's work is in Persian as well. (Ali Doostzadeh).

Tajik, do you remember these points that Ali brought up a while ago: [13] Are those mentioned in this article?Khosrow II 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This has rather remarkably been debated time and time again. I might add here that most of the arguments from both sides are not valid. The language of Rumi's verse has no bearing on his ethnicity. The chosen literary language in the Muslim world at that time was Persian. Even if he were Turkish - which he definitely wasn't - he would probably have written in Persian, so the language of hos writings is immaterial. Secondly, to whomever it was that claimed that he was from Iran - that, too, is a fallacy, because a) there was no Iran at the time and b) his birthplace is also immaterial. For example, I am born in Britain but I am ethnically not White English. Rather, the real historical evidence of Rumi's ethnicity is his lineage- and historical evidence based on the geography and ethnography of the area points almost definitively to a Persian ethnicity. However, having lived most of his life in Seljuk Turkey, one could perhaps accurately say he was a national or a citizen of the Seljuk Empire, but that is not to say he was a Turk, and the fact that his descendants are Turkish is also a void argument, as his descendants lived in Turkey over the centuries and assimilated into Turkish society as Turks. It is also worth noting that it is just as wrong to claim he was "from Iran". Rumi was not "Iranian" and "Iran" didn't exist at the time, not even Persia as a single political entity. Rather, there were many different Persias - that is, in the political sense. But the real defining characteristic of an area are not political borders, but cultural boundaries; much of the Seljuk Empire's territories were culturally Persian, and Rumi was born in what was culturally and ethnically Persian. Therefore, Rumi was Persian. And for goodness sake, stop the bickering and accept scholarly fact.

Tanzeel 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Persia is only what westerners call Iran. Iran has always been Iran to Iranians first of all. Also, whether there was an Iran at that time or not doesnt matter. There was technically no nation of Iran during Nizami's time, yet Nizami writes about Iran in one of his poems.Khosrow II 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. When I say "Iran", I mean "Iran" in the sense of the modern political sense of the country of Iran - and Rumi is not of this "Iran", but you are of course right, Rumi was "Iranian" in the more historical and cultural sense, but for reasons of ambiguity "Persia" is preferred, especially in English. And your comment about Nizami is exactly the point I am making- "Iran" didn't exist in the political sense, but it existed in the cultural sense, which is what counts. The existence of political nations is immaterial- it is cultural boundaries, not political, that matter. Too often, different nations like Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan keep claiming Rumi as one of theirs, but the modern political boundaries of countries don't count. It is culture and ethnicity that define Rumi's Persian-ness.

dervish, darvish: ?

Greetings, I see that the term dervish is getting changed to darvish and back to dervish. On the page dervish, I read that "Dervish, especially in European languages, refers to members of Sufi Muslim ascetic religious fraternities, known for their extreme poverty and austerity, similar to mendicant friars. The term comes from the Persian word Darwīsh (درویش)." So I can understand the impulse to write 'darvish,' but that's not the English term. Shouldn't it read dervish in this English-language article? Best,--Anthony Krupp 21:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosopher infobox?

When a man like Rumi contributes mightily to music, poetry, dance, literature, philosophy, and religion, it is hard to know how categorize him — or whether applying a category does more harm than good. I elected to use the "Philosopher" category for Rumi, because that group is so broad and expansive. If someone has a better idea, I would be glad to learn of it. I also faced some difficulty with categorizing his type of philosophy, and so elected simply to identify him as a Middle Eastern Medieval philosopher. It seemed the most neutral choice. — Aetheling 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Poet" is the usual qualification. Although he was a philosopher, his philosophy was recognised through his poetry and as a part of his poetry. Perhaps, it may be said that all poets are philosophers. Nevertheless, I don't disagree with you and the philosopher infobox is a good choice, as I'm sure most will agree. Tanzeel 01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to stick to a usual qualification, and a verified one. (Otherwise, you're doing WP:OR.) If "it may be said that all poets are philosophers," then why are they called poets in the first place? What do you mean by philosopher? For a long discussion of related issues, read about Goethe on the talk page of List of German-language philosophers. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion, consensus, User:Addtok and User:80.177.64.89

Dear new editors: please discuss here what additions you'd like to make. Please make sure they are correct, if possible! For example, Rumi's birth city is in present-day Afghanistan, not Iran. The lead section refers not to all of Khorasan (which was in what is now called Afghanistan, Iran, etc., etc.) but just to the city. Please be accurate.--Anthony Krupp 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Has he been iranian or not

I have read in several books that when he was born in Balkh a city in Kharazm the city and all the Kharazm had belong to Iran, but nowhere in the article this fact has been discussed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addtok (talk • contribs) date.

Then make a change, and add a reference to the book you are citing, along with a page number. That way, no one can simply remove the change without finding conflicting evidence.--Anthony Krupp 16:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But here's a question: is it possible that you are confusing Khorasan, now a region located in eastern Iran, with the older Persian province of Khorasan (also known as the Greater Khorasan), which included parts which are today in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan? --Anthony Krupp 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on your question, and some research on Khorasan and Greater Khorasan, I've made some changes to Rumi to help clarify where he's from. Let me know if there are further changes that should be made, based on your research.--Anthony Krupp 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir thank you for your answer, in fact my problem is that Balkh, and Great Khorasan, was in Persia at that time and so he is born in Persia (Iran) anyway and think it should be mentioned in the text. you can check it form the wikipedia page for Balkh city. There is mentioned that balkh was located in Persia in the old times and now it is a part of Afganistan. The whole afganistan was belonged to Iran (Persia) until recent years. Unfortunately most books about this are in Persian (Farsi) and I could not find a link for them in www.

"Persia" is not "Iran", and most of all, the modern Islamic Republic Iran is not the same as historical "Iran". Yes, Rumi was "Persian" (in regard of his language and origin) and he was "Iranian" (in regard of his birthplace) ... but he was NOT "Iranian" in regard of the modern Islamic Republic.

You are clearly confusing the modern Islamic Republic with historical Irān - also known as "Greater Iran".

Tājik 09:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well-explained! That is exactly the point I have often tried to make, but many fail to understand this. Tanzeel 19:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the point so he was born in Iran or Persia as you say and his poems are in Farsi, Persian so it should be mentioned that he was Persian as you say anyway but that afghan guy deletes every reference to this fact

I don't think we should have this on the talk page. Is it really our job to call him a Muslim when we know he said "I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Magian, nor Muslim"? So regardless of what sholars, politically motivated or not, Rumi did not consider himself Muslim or from any religion. —Khoi khoi 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rumi was a Muslim, no question. I think you are misunderstanding the above quoted extract. I suggest you to read the book "Rumi and Islam" by Ibrahim Gamard.

Tājik 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sure. —Khoi khoi 21:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rumi did not consider himself muslim. We can describe the opinions that consider him such, as per WP:NPOV, but we cannot declare that as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, stop removing the template, this is the talk page, remember? --Striver 13:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? Why should we have the template if Rumi didn't consider himself a Muslim? —Khoi khoi 14:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Because: "This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars.". And because "Rumi didn't consider himself a Muslim" is you pov, evident from this talk page. --Striver 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Turk or Persian, not so important

I believe it will not take us any further place to discuss if Rumi was Persian or Turk. But I know why this discussion keeps going on.

Mevlana Rumi is a very important historical person for Turks. I don't know how many of you visited Konya, but I had been there. If you see Konya city, you can easily understand what Mevlana means to Turks. On the other hand people from Iran wants Mevlana to be labelled as Persian. I think they want a piece of him to show how Persian culture was.

But let me tell you something, even Rumi was a Persian, that changes nothing. He was still a part of Turkish culture, not Persian or Afghan. What makes ourself Persian or Turk is not our birth place or the blood in our veins. What makes ourself is the way of spending our lives. When you look at Rumi, you can easily see he was a man of Turkish culture. Turks didn't kidnap him from Persian or persuaded him to live in Konya. But it was his choice to be the part of Turkish society. Therefore, you can say anything about his ethnecity, if you like it. I don't want to answer any more to those obsessed racists. But even if you call him a Persian, you have to admit he was a part of Turkish culture.

For those who constantly keeps saying "Rumi is persian because his writings are in Persian"; I have a few words of course... It doesn't show anything. In those ages, writing in Turkish was not a common thing. In fact, people had to speak Arabic or Persian languages almost in everywhere. Yes they were Turks, but until 15th century, Turkish language wasn't so popular for literac. If you really look at old writings, you will see how Persian and Arabian affected Turkish.

So you wrote three paragraphs criticising the people that label him Persian and you conclude to: he should be called Turkish. If you can provide good sources then people might value what you say. Ozgur Gerilla 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to label him as Turkish. I only tell you guys, he was a part of Turkish culture rather than persian. That mustn't be so hard to understand.

I could waste my time trying to explain to this person the facts, but he can just read the article for that.Khosrow II 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the facts? His birth place or Persian language in his writings? Maybe you should try to understand culture doesn't have to be based on racism. It would be better to look at Rumi's life again, if you don't like to waste time. You will see how Mevlana spent most of his time and created his works as a part of Turkish society. It doesn't change anything if Mevlana was a Persian or Turk. If you like, I can say he is Persian, because it has no importance. But also there's another thing, everyone should accept: as I said before, he is an important part of Turkish culture.

It seems to me that the first section of the article already indicates that he is an important part of Turkish culture.-Anthony Krupp 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire argumentation is illogical, because Rumi was not living in a "Turkish society". The Seljuqs were Persianized Turks who spoke Persian among themselvs. And Rumi's voyage to Anatolia was not his free choice, but the result of the Mongol invasion of his birth place.

What does Persianized Turks mean? Islamic, Arabic and Persian cultural effects could be seen on Turks, but it doesn't make them Persian or Arabian. It only show how these cultures affected Turks. And yet, this doesn't change that they are Turks. Also you say, he ecaped from Mongol invasion, so it wasn't his free will. But you don't answer why he chose Turkey for rest of his life. Something must affect him to stay in Turkey as a homeland.

95% of Rumi's poems are written in his Persian mother-tongue, only 5% being in Arabic, Turkish, and Greek. In his poems, he makes remarks about his birth-place Wakhsh (nowadays a small city in Tajikistan, back then a sub-urb of Balkh). Many of his poems deal with Zoroastrism and Persian mystic.

Tājik 00:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As you said before, Persian language had a great effect on Seljuqs. For example, until 15th century, it is hard to find a Turkish poet written in Turkish. But let me tell you something; in Europe history,until Mozart, people didn't compose operas in their own language. They used to compose in Italian. But It doesn't show, everybody is Italin; it only shows the great effect of it on Europe.

Actually to add to Tajik the 200 line Turkish and 50 line Greek are scattered between Persian couplets. They are not even 1% of his work considering Rumi has left 60,000 couplets. Also the word Turk itself was considered deragotory in the Ottoman era. There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks. When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times. But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!.. These show that Rumi was not Turkish. Also his son has several times alluded to the fact that he does not know Greek and Turkish well. But we can say he has had a great influence on the culture of Indian, Persian and Turkish speaking world. But to say he was Turkish is incorrect since culturally he was Persian and ethnically he was from Wakhsh in modern Tajikistan. --alidoostzadeh 02:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we read it before. The same story goes on; you are trying to improve Rumi was persian because he used Persian language. I say, even if he wasn't Persian, it wouldn't change anything; and he would still use Persian. Let's come to the story of building wall. First you say; "Also the word Turk itself was considered deragotory in the Ottoman era." Then you tell Rumi's story. So isn't it normal Rumi said such a thing? Seljuqs are ancestors of modern Turkey, not Iran. Rumi didn't see anything wrong to live among Seljuqs. Even if Rumi said Turks are bad, he must find Seljuqians are good enough to live with. So we come to a dilemma; Rumi says Turks are bad; but still he lives among them, until the rest of his life. It has two possible explanation. First possible answer is Rumi didn't consider Seljuqs as Turks. Second one is, there's something missing about this story.

The Seljuqs were not ancestors of modern Turks, but only the cultureal ancestors of modern Anatolian Turks. Rumi did not consider the Seljuq sultans "Turks" ... the Seljuqs had only Turkic ancestors, but were - after 200 years in Iranian lands - mostly Persianized: in language and culture. Rumi could have written his poems in Turkish, like other contemporary poets, such as Yunus Emre. But the point is: he did NOT. Rumi was part of the Persian exile community in Anatolia, protected by Seljuq sultans who considered themselvs the "protectors of the Persian culture" that was in danger after the Mongol invasion. Persian scholars like Rmi were known as Horassan erleri among the Turcoman nomads, the "saints of Khorasan". Rumi was neither Turkish in ethnicity,nor in language or culture.

Tājik 12:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article: Seljuk_Turks. As the article says, Seljuq was a branch of the Kinik Oghuz Turks. And please don't make everybody Persian to fabricate history. Seljuks were different than Persian, that's the period! They conquered a lot of lands, but it didn't change what that they are. They don't consider theirselves as Persian. If they did so, they would have called their land, Great Iran not Great Selcuks. You say, Rumi could have written in Turkish and give Yunus Emre as example. Yes, Rumi may had written in Turkish. But you're missing a point again and misleading people. Yunus Emre was an extraordinary example. If you compare how many Turks had written in their own language in those ages, you'll see they were just a few. I can understand Iranian friends, you're trying to prove that Rumi belongs to Persian culture. But whatever you fabricate about history, that cannot change anything. Rumi lived in Turkey. Rumi's most work had been produced in Turkey. Mevlevi order is in Turkey. And his tomb is in Turkey. If you're a little objective, you could understand Rumi belongs to Anatolian-Turkish culture more than any other. But if you still insist Rumi belongs to Persian culture, just because he borned in Persian and used Persian in his work; then you're choosing a wrong path. And that shows, you're not capable of understanding common situation of Anatolia to understand why Rumi chose Persian. I am afraid after a point, everybody will be labeled as Persian. That's very disturbing; some Iranian friends are really trying to make everybody and everything Persian. Guys, I am sorry but the world doesn't just consist of Persians. Especially it is obvious that, my dear friend Tajik had worked to prove Selcuks were Persian in an another article. Please don't be so obsessed for pan-Iranism. I am afraid, after a point, you are going to say Atatürk was a great Persian.

I think you need to be objective. I am sure you heared of the Qaramanids who made turkish official until they were defeated by the Seljuqs.. Well Rumi's son Sultan Valad (who clearly states he does not speak Greek/Turkish well several times) wrote to Sultan Masoud about these Turks and said: hamehTorkan mazaar zendeh cheh mir baashad o cheh bandeh, keh khoon koshtani baashand beh 'aayaat shar' Quran which translates to

As per Oghuz Turks, Rumi says: Gham nakhor az day o ghaz o ghaarat , wa dar man bebin kaargozaari.. (Do not be troubled by the memory of yesterday, Oghuze's and plundering and look through me for wonders). Again also he says in Mathnavi about Oghuz Turks: An ghazaan khoonriz amadand- bahr dehi yaghmaa bar zadand (Those blood spilling Oghuzes came, and attacked and plundered a village). .. And BTW rumi was the product of his father and shams tabrizi, both whom were not Turks. As per the cultural argument, Culturally Rumi belongs to the culture that can read and understand his work. Since poetry can never be translated without losing a good deal of its meaning. Also Turkey at the time was host to a great deal of Khorasani scholars who had fled the Mongols. Plus the majority at that Rumi's time were Greeks and that is why he has adopted the surname Rumi (Roman=Greek). BTW I am not arguing against the original Seljuqs being turks, but they intermarried greatly with lots of different ethnicities and later on they adoped names like Keykhosrow and Keyqobaad.Culture and poetic language are really tied together. A poet lives by the language and the language lives by the poet. Besides poetry, all of Rumi's compositions are in Persian and he constantly refers to Persian poets like Sanai and Attar and Kherghani.. Thus his cultural background was Khorasani as all these poets are Khorasani. --alidoostzadeh 09:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion is really pointless, because there is no such thing as "Turkish culture" ... what the IP-user calls "Turkish culture" is exactly the same was Perso-Arabic culture, exatcly the same as Persian culture. Both Islamic and modern Turkish culture are based on the older Persian culture of the Sassanid era.

Tājik 11:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't forget what selcuks did for Persian culture. If selcuks had tried to destroy persian culture, today persian culture wouldn't be so great. Therefore there's no reason to insult Turks by saying, "you don't have culture". It is a non-logical expression. Before Turks accepted Islam as a religion and affected of its culture, Turks were a shamanist society. And they had a central-asian culture. When you're saying something, please don't insult.

name

Is it a mistake or is he known as Mevlânâ Celâleddin Mehmed Rumi in Turkish because in Persian it's Mawlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī — notice in Turkish it's Mehmed and in Persian it's Muhammad. Ozgur Gerilla 01:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mevlana is the Turkish pronunciation, its not how his name is really spelled. Turks do not have the "ao" "o" or "a" (I dont know exactly how to put it in letters). For example, Turks pronounce Azarbaijan as Azerbaijan, Tabriz as Tebriz, Babak as Bebak, etc...Khosrow II 02:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But that isn't a reason why his name should be Mehmed in Turkish and Muhammad in Persian. Ozgur Gerilla 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean?Khosrow II 18:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised that he's known as, Mevlânâ Celâleddin Mehmed Rumi and Mawlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī. I thought that one (Mehmed and Muhammad) was a mistake. Ozgur Gerilla 20:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Every language has a different pronunciation for everything. Hes only known as Mevlana to Turks, hes not also known as Mevlana in general...Khosrow II 21:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation but surely Mehmed can't be pronounced as Muhammad. Ozgur Gerilla 23:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mehmed/mehmet is a different pronunciation of Mohammad/Muhammad. Again, Mohammad/Muhammad has those sounds that are not in the Turkish language, therefore its pronounced Mehmed/Mehmet for them.Khosrow II 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mehmet is Turkish spelling of Muhammad. It is because Turkish has different consonants and pronouciation than English. Other examples are Recep (Rajab) Bakeer (Baqir) Salahettin or Salatin (Salahuddin) Aca (Agha)Hassanfarooqi 13:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WRONG! Actually, Mehmet is totally different from Mohammed. In Turkish, we use Mehmed as 'Mehmet' whereas Mohammad as 'Muhammed'. By the way, I am from Turkey; and tired of hearing your non-reasonable comments.

Mehmed and Muhammed are two very different names in Turkish with Muslim origins. Ozgur Gerilla 19:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? Can I have a source? Wikipedia says the same thing I say.Khosrow II 20:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. If you want a resource, you can look at TDK (http://www.tdk.gov.tr) You will see both Mehmet and Muhammed exists. I really cannot understand why you're so stubborn. My native language is Turkish and I say, we have two different names as Mehmet and Muhammed; but you still don't believe. Maybe many many years ago, (I am talking about centruies), 'Mehmet' was derived from 'Muhammed'. But today, In modern Turkish, Muhammed and Mehmet are seperate names with different pronancuation. In conclusion, we are talking about present, and they are not same.

Exactly, thanks for confirming it, Mehmet/Mehmed is derived from Muhammad.Khosrow II 21:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No not exactly. Let's look at what you say: "Mehmed/mehmet is a different pronunciation of Mohammad/Muhammad. Again, Mohammad/Muhammad has those sounds that are not in the Turkish language, therefore its pronounced Mehmed/Mehmet for them." Mehmet has a different pronunciation and Muhammed has a different pronunciation. And they don't point same persons. For example, Muhammed Ali and Mehmet Ali are two very different people. You say, Turkish doesn't include some sounds therefore, they use Mehmet instead of using Muhammed. That's totally absurd. Mehmet and Muhammed exists separetly. For example, Çağatay is a Turkish name. But English cannot say 'Ç' and 'ğ'. Therefore, they write it as Chagatai and they pronounce it a little different then its original. But when you write Chagatai in English that points exactly Çağatay. But derivation is another thing. Mehmet doesn't point Muhammed. Muhammed and Mehmet are different in Turkish. When you write or say Mehmet, people will understand it is not Muhammed. So, if you are a little reasonable, maybe you can get today's lecture. And please don'preach about my native language with your lack of information.

Guy's it really doesn't matter — it's a small detail that is interesting to find out but there is absolutely no need to argue and insult users. I was thinking and it's true — I can't think of a person that has the name Mohammed in Turkey so Mehmed can be derived from Mohammad. -Ozgur Gerilla 22:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I always thought that Turkish Mehmet is derived from Arabic Mahmoud. The Turks usually change the d into a t, while the two vowls are changed to e due to teh Turkic vocal harmony. Mahmoud --> Mehmet.

Of course, this is only (my) assumption.

Tājik 22:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think your assumption is correct because there is, in Turkish, both the names Mehmet and Mahmut but not Muhammed. Thus it has a higher possibility for Mehmet to be derived from Muhammad. Ozgur Gerilla 23:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know he was TAJIK !!!!!!!!???????

Realy?? has he been tajik??!!! it is completely new!!! but there is no references

Look up the meaning of the word Tajik, then you'll understand. Tājik 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So I cordially refer you to the discussion in the same article the reference you provided does not contain any reference or proof so be logical, just a link to an article that might be created by anyone like yourself is not a proof, I bring a part of discussion here and hope you double think the opinion, and hope you would understand too Sincerely yours and best regards,

This article is very-very wrong and probably is written by an uneducated person, it is also very old please take it from this site. Tajiks are Arians the original inhabitants of Central Asia. They spoke Eastern-Iranian Languages prior to conquest of Arabs. Tajik name come from Persian word "Taj" meaning Crown. It meant crownies or royal nation probably indicating their nobelity and or superiority over new-comers, Turks. Later this name was given to all sedentary muslims which were arabs and sogdians (Tajik ancestors) thus later it became solely refered to Iranian speaking population. The reason Tajiks started to speak Dari is because Samanid kings tried to revive the ancient history of Arian and thus one of the way to create unity and revival they saw having common language. Dari became the common language for Persians and Estern Iranians. In fact this short unity best known in history as the peak of civilization in Eastern Middle Ages that produced many world-wide famous scholars. like Avicenna, Algfarabius, Dzhami, Rudaki, Beruni, Omar Khayam, Firdowi to name a few

Dear editor of this web-site Please remove this aritcle or upgrade it with newest information. I am as Tajik ashamed to read it.

The thing is that anybody can modify articles, so you, and the guy below, can add stuff or change anything that's wrong, and it's of course always better if you provide reliable sources. Also, to anybody, this article could use the ethnicity template, and if someone knows the estimated Tajik population, it would be a good thing to add.

Only Breath

Nor Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu,Buddhist, Sufu, of Zen. Not any religion of cultural system.
I am not from the East or the West, nor out of the ocean or up from the ground, not earth or air,
not composed of elements at all. I do not exist, am not an entity in this world or the next,
did not descend from Adam or Eve or any origin story.
My place is placeless, a trace of the traceless. Neither body nor soul.
I belong to the beloved, have seen the two worlds as one and that one [I] call to and know,
first, last, outer, inner, only that breath breathing human being.

As you know this is a Rumi poem. And this is the most real, most reliable, and most genuine source about him. He rejets religions and cultural systems here(islamic culture, persian culture and turkish culture). He says clearly did not descend from Adam or Eve or any origin story, therefore why are you doing Rumi persian? He clearly rejects these, all origin histories. Besides you emphasize his birthplace and lived regions. He says My place is placeless, a trace of the traceless. Under this circumstances, i'm moving his disputed ethnic origin, his disputed nation. He rejects all of these. While he rejects why are you sticking these labels by force? He rejects. This is most reliable source about him, because he has written himself, not iranian scholars. I have put this poem to references.--Karcha 00:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is extremely funny! Yes as a spiritual person he rejects all labels but does not change the fact that he was Persian and Muslim. My cousin say she is only a citizen of the world, an I am sure in her heart that is all she believes she is, but if we ever write a biography of her we have to mention that she is an Iranian born citizen of USA! She can keep her love for the world unity in her heart, facts are facts!Gol 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He was indeed both Muslim and Persian, he was just using that as an expression to show that religion and beliefs are what is seperating people which is wrong.Khosrow II 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your nationalist and mostly emotional conclusion. Everything is said by Rumi clearly.--Karcha 01:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the nationalistic one? I doubt it. You sincerely believe that his name was really Mevlana. That is the the Turkish pronunciation of his real name, because the Turkish langauge doesn't not contain the proper letters/sounds for the correct pronunciation.Khosrow II 03:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Persian and Iranian

Indeed Rumi kept himself above the divisions of race, religion, and nationality. However the fact is that he was a Muslim and Persian. Anyone who read his original Masnavi knows that it was written in Persian language and had Quranic interpretation. For this reason it is said, "Masnavi-e-Maulavi o Manavi, hast Quran dar zabanay Pehlavi" (The poetry of Mevlavi is Quran in Persian).

The dispute seems to arise from the confusion between the terms Iranian and Persian. Persian empire included Iran but was not limited to it. East of Iraq, West of Afghanistan, South of former Soviet Union, and large part of Turkey was part of the Persian empire and Persian is still spoken and/or understood there. Hence Rumi was Turkish geologically, Persian culturally, and probably Tajik ethnically. Hassanfarooqi 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Shia influence

According to late Dr. Annemarie Schimmel, Rumi was (possibly) influenced by Imami Shiism, possibly through his mentor Shams-e Tabrizi who was a Shia. At least certain poems strongly support this view, including his odes to Ali ibn Abu Talib (example: "Learn from Ali"; in the poem, he also uses the expression "Lion of God", typical for Shia).

I have included this info into the article along with a reference to Annemarie Schimmel's "Eine Einführung in die islamische Mystik" ("An introduction into Islamic mysticism"). Please do not change the sourced info, but instead try to find an opposing view supported by reliable sources.

    Based on what I heard from Sidi Shaykh Faraz Rabbani , Melvana Rumi is a Sunni Sufi of the Hanafi Maddhab

- Muazammil

Tājik 16:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Shams Tabrizi that Rumi was influenced by, was a Sufi and therefore a Sunni. Unless you are a Wahhabi who do not believe that Sufis are Muslims at all, let alone be Sunni. The Shams Tabraiz that Annemarie Schimmel got confused with, was indeed an Ismaili Shia.

As for refering Ali as Asadullah (Lion of God), this title is used by all Muslims except maybe Kharjites.

As for "Learning from Ali", most major Sufi Tariqa indeed originate from Ali e.g. Qadiriya, Chishtiyya.

Wahhabies have proved with their illogical logic that Sufism is derived from Hinduism. Then they prove that it is actually derived from Jewish Kaballah. Then they may also point out to similarities with Christian Gnosis. Oh I forgot, they also compare "Nafs Mutmainna" (Annemarie has written a lot on it) with Buddhisht "Nirvana". So why I am not surprized if they have created confusion to make think that actually actually Sufism is Shia in Sunni garb. They can prove anything :) Hassanfarooqi 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Annemarie Schimmel was one of the most influental scholars on Islamic history, specialized on Sufism. I do not think that "she was confused".

As for Sufis, you are making a mistake by believing that "Sunni" and "Sufis" are synonyms. In fact, for a very long time, the Sunnis were strictly opposed to Sufism, until the Islamic mysticism was partly introduced to Sunnis by Ghazali.

Most of the Sufi orders today are Shia in origin, meaning the spiritual Shiism, not the political one. The overwhelming majority of Sufi orders trace their "Silsila" to Ali ibn Abu Talib through his sons Hassan and Hussein, while only a very few orders - such as the Naqshbandiyya - trace their Silsila to Abu-Bakr.

Have you ever had the pleasure to watch a Mawlawi Dervish-dance? In case you have: do you remember the opening prayer of it, in which the spiritual leader begins the ceremony with a prayer in honor of Ali and - especially - his son Hussein?!

I am not an expert on Rumi's orthodox faith, as most sources correctly describe him as a mystic who was neither Shia nor Sunni. However, Annemarie Schimmel is not just an "unimportant source" ... she is still - 1 year after her death - the leading scholar and source for Rumi's biography and poetry in the West.

As for Wahhabis/Salafis: they are still Sunnis, the same way Ismailis are still Shia.

And, btw: I think it's spelled "Khishti", after "Khisht", a small village near Herat where the order was created ;) It may also interest you that Shams-e Tabrizi was a student of Hajji Bektash Wali, the spiritual and legendery founder of Alavi-Shiism.

Tājik 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never said Annemarie was "Unimportant". As a practicing Sufi of Chishtiya order, I value her contribution. However she is not immune from confusion especially when two persons with the same name are interacted. All the Chishti Qawwalies open with Amir Khusro's "Mun Kunto Maula", a Manqibat of Ali. It does not make Sufi's as Shias.

When you are speaking of Sufis and Shias being one in the begining, you might be getting confused witht he fact that during the time of Ali's tussle with Muawiya, there were three groups i.e. "Shi-aan Ali", "Shi-aan Muawiyya", and "Khaarji". "Shi-aan Muwaiyya" has long ceased to exist and Shi-aan Ali have split into what are now known as Ahl-e Tashee and Ahl-e Sunnat. The Wahhabi movement, which originated from Nejd, is a fairly recent one and had no impact whatsoever until their occupation of Hejaz and the discovery of oil. The claim of some Shia's that Sunnies are "Shi-aan Muawiya" is not correct. Similarly the Wahhabi claim that they are the only Sunni is also incorrect. Sufis reject both claims Hassanfarooqi 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that "Sufis were Shia in the beginning", but that many Sufi schools began with a strong affinity to the person of Ali ibn Abu Talib, which is a creteria for an "Alawi Shia". "Shia" and "Sunni" are political terms, not spiritual. It's all about Arab politics of 1400 years ago. The issue was turned into a religious one centuries later.

Sufism, on the other hand, has a pure spiritual essense and is not interested in politics.

"Alawi Shiism" has - unlike other traditions - also a spiritual side, in form of praising Ali. From the very beginning of Islamic, the person of Ali and the "Shi'at ul-Ali" were linked to Non-Arabic spiritual movements throughout the Islamic world, for example the Khurramites. This is also the very beginning of the "spiritual Shiism", the one that also influenced Islamic mysticism.

Annemarie Schimmel did not make any mistakes by asserting that Rumi was POSSIBLY influenced by Shiism. This does not make him a Shia. Goethe was influenced by Hafiz, and Muhammad Iqbal was influenced by Goethe ... this does not mean that Goethe was Muslim, and Iqbal a Christian.

However, I've got also to admitt that I've never seem any credible source describing Rumi as a Sunni - neither does his poetry indicate such a belief.

So, I think we all agree that Rumi was neither Shia nor Sunni nor anything else, though his father may have been a follower of an orthodox school (since he was invited by the Seljuq sultan to teach in one of his universities, Rumi's father was probably an orthodox Sunni). He was simply a Sufi ... un-orthodox. But this does not mean that he was not influenced by Shiism.

Tājik 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read the entire Masnavi and his style is definitely that of Sunni. I think the confusion is arising because now-a-days the term Sunni is used for "Shi-aan Muawiya" and Wahhabies do sometimes sound like them. Then anyone praising Ali is referred to as Shia which would be correct 1400 years ago but no today. Today Shian-e-Ali are split in Ahl-Sunnah and Ahl-Tashee. The majority of Ahl Sunnah follow Imam Abu Hanifa and his works had lots of contribution from Imam Jaffer Sadiq.

Annemarie was definitely wrong in declaring Shams Tabrizi a Shia. The Shia Shams Tabraiz was a different one and not Rumi's master.Hassanfarooqi 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. What do you mean that the Mathnawi is written in "Sunni style"?! I have read parts of the Mathnawi myself, but I do not see any specific tendencies toward Shiism (not to be confused with modern Safawi-Shiism of Iran) or Sunniism?!

Just another example: although Avicenna was born and raised in an Ismaili Shia family, his writings are very clearly Mutazilite. I do not see any such clear line in Rumi's writings. the basic difference between Shia and Sunni is the question of the early Caliphate - I do not remember any poem in which he praised any other of the early Caliphs except Ali. Please keep in mind that Ferdowsi has also praised all 4 traditional Caliphs, but his Shia faith (or at least his pro-Shia stand, since he was - possible - not a Muslim) is clear from the long lines in praise of Ali.

Tājik 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I am glad you used the word "Safavid Shia". I hope by this you agree that the term Sunni is not synonymous to "Shian Muawiya" and the term Shia is not synonymous to "Shian Ali". We then need to agree that "Shian Ali" has split into Athna Ashrie, Zaidies, and Ismailies. Ismailies have split into Bawaheer (Bohras) (who have further split into Dawoodies and Sulaimanies) and Nizaries (Agha Khanies). Most of the Sufi Sunnies are spiritually "Athna Ashri Shias" as they rever the 12 Imams. However for Fiqah, they follow Imam Abu Hanifa (who benefited from Imam Jaffer Sadiq), Imam Malik, Imam Bin Hanbal, and Imam Shafii. "Safavid Shias" on the other hand follow "Fiqa Jafferia" after Imam Jaffer Sadiq.

The Wahhabies, who distance themselves from the twelve Imams attribute their faith to Imam Ibn Taimiyah. Imam Ibn Taimiyah had seen the treachery of Ibn Alqami in the destruction of Baghdad by the hand of Mongols. Since Ibn Alqami was an Ismaili Shia, Ibn Tamiyah carried a grudge against anything that looked Shia. Furthermore, the Mongols became Muslims and then Hanafi, Sufies. For this reason Wahhabies further hate Sufies and Hanafies :)

So when you seperate Wahhabism from Sunni method, you will find that praising Ali is a very Sunni trait. I myself recite "Dua Haidari" (dua that includes Naad-e-Ali) twice a day. Still I wont like being termed Shia because this term has a different term today.Hassanfarooqi 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me my bluntness, but this all seems to me a non-issue. Forget the orientalists like Annemarie Schimmel (no disrespect intended, I happen to be a great admirer of her), rather look at Islamic sources. It is clear from orthodox Islamic sources that Rumi was a Sunni. The orthodox (and by "orthodox" I mean traditional Sufi pre-Wahhabi) Sunni Muslims are all of the view that Rumi was "one of theirs" (so to speak). The Shias do not come close in their reverence for Rumi as the, say for example, the Sunnis of the subcontinent. Just thought I might add my penny's worth to the debate and attest to everything that Hassan Farooqi has been stating, which is clearly correct from an "orthodox Sunni" perspective. Tanzeel 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

argh!

Will you stop removing the template? It does say nothing of they guy, it is not even a part of the article, is just says in the TALK PAGE that the article is of interest for the project. Is that so damn dificult to appreciate?! Do not remove it a third time without a valid reasong. the angry Striver 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It says "WikiProject Muslim scholars", but Rumi said he wasn't Muslim... Khoikhoi 02:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

FFS! STOP REMOVING THE DAMN TAG"!!!! THIS IS THE F**ING TALK PAGE, NOT THE ARTICLE!!! We do have included non-Muslim in the project, consider RUMI as yet another non-Muslim in the project, i DO NOT F***ING CARE HOW YOU CONSIDER IT, JUST GET YOU HAND OF THE F*** TALK PAGE TAG!!!1--Striver 11:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned about your violation of WP:NPA. Please stop. If you continue, you may be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are taking his words so literally that even a Wahhabi wont take Quran so literally, or even an evangelistic wont take bible literally. He just meant to distance himself from the divide. Just like Meer the famous Urdu poet said, "Meer kay din o madhab ko kiya pochtay os nay tow ab, deer main betha qashqa khencha kab ka tark Islam kiya". (What are are you asking about Meer's religion? He has long ago been sitting in Hindu temple, putting hindu mark on forehead, has abandoned Islam). Ofcourse he was a staunch Muslim as evident by his praises to the House of Mohammed.Hassanfarooqi 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Hassan. Rumi's poetical language with its many symbols and methaphors is no proof for the claim that he was not a Muslim. Of course Rumi was a Muslim, and this can be proven directly with the preserved letters as well as the poetry of "Fihi Ma Fih". Claiming that he was not "Muslim" is rediculous. Of course Rumi was not orthodox, he was a Sufi mystic, and he was not interested in political Islam ("Shia vs. Sunni" in modern terminology). But these are not the definitions for a "Muslim".

Tājik 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

I searched the whole discussion page for "protect" and all I found was:

We should protect Mevlana from such Persian influences
protected by Seljuq sultans
protectors of the Persian culture

I also took a look at the edit history and nothing unusual stuck out. I personally wouldn't have marked the protection a minor edit - it is very prominent in the article, and it certainly isn't unimportant, but maybe there's a policy for this that I'm unaware of. — Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Balkhi

Listen, you fight amongst yourselves whether to use the Persian or Turkish. I don't care about your immature squabbles. But in the English speaking world he is not "simply known as Balkhi." That is just preposterous and insane to even suggest such an alternate reality - which somebody seems to be living in – and vandalising in. Somebody else can take this edit war up, as it's not my cause. And oh yeah, 'bout time to archive this sucker. ... some people are so immature... I pity them. Khirad 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. It appears that some anon changed every instance of "Rumi" to "Balkhi", including the images and interwikis. As for the last thing you said, I don't know what you're talking about. ;-) Khoikhoi 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF?!

Will you FFS stop removing the damn tag? Even if you consider him as an Islam-hater as Talk:Henri Lammens, the tag belongs here. Stop vandalizing a project tag to make a point! --Striver 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be calm and civil when responding to other editors' actions. As for my two cents: it is clear that Rumi is part of the Sufi tradition. I don't think the talk page banner is claiming that this person is Muslim, it only says that this page is part of a project dedicated to improving articles related to Muslim scholarship. Rumi was an Alim, yes? A person who studies Islamic law is a scholar of Islam, regardless of his religious identity. (The project page makes it clear that it refers to both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars.) But, again, I'm fairly ignorant here. Anyway, please discuss this calmly before making any more changes to this banner. -- Merope 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is again removed, and yes, again without motivation. --Striver 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is yet again removed. This IS vandalism, a talk page talk is not part of the article and there is NO valid reason to remove it. The tag applies just as well to non-Muslim scholars. reveting vandalism does not violate 3rr. This is NOT an editoria dispute! --Striver 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, Rumi was a Sufi right? Some scholars argue that Sufism is different from Islam, so why don't we just keep the "Muslim" template off for now, until a consensus is reached? --Mardavich 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mardavich, can you quote me the "Scholars" who say Sufism is different from Islam? Please don't quote the desert bandits that started the cult of death two centuries ago, have taken holy cities thru bloodshed, and are promoting terrorism all over the world. Hassanfarooqi 17:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you in any way, I didn't mean to imply that Sufis are not Muslim, that's not my view. Sufism is much more liberal than traditional Islam, so there are those who consider it a spiritual offspring of Islam, rather than an official branch of Islam, but that's not the majority view. I personally find Sufism to be a beautiful and life affirming way to go about life. --Mardavich 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed there is a secular side to Sufism, but it is not outside the fold of Islam, and certainly not against Islam. The only thing is, Sufis have different priorities than fundamentalists. They try to convince a person into monotheism, and then into a quest in seeking the will of God. It is like one person giving water from his well directly, and the other by bottling it, labelling it, and then giving it. This can be seen in relationships of Baba Farid and Sikhs, Khawaja Moinuddin and Hindus, Ibn Rushd and Jews, etc etc. Hassanfarooqi 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's remove it until a consensus is reached. Khoikhoi 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For all i care, he could be a rock or a ship, it is not important, what maters is that he is of interest to the project and this is a talk page, so let the tag be! "removing until consensus is reached"? Since when do we need a consensus for a project tag on a TALK PAGE? --Striver 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Which consensus?! Of course Rumi was a Muslim ... I really do not understand the dispute here. Only because in one of his poems, he wrote that "he was neither Muslim, nor Jew, nor Christian"?! Rumi also wrote in his poems that he was "no human" ...

You people forget that his religious background is well-researched, and leading scholars - such as Annemarie Schimmel - have written countless books about this.

Since you people are so much into Rumi's own words, why do you not mention these ones:

“

I am the servant of the Qur'an as long as I have life. I am the dust on the path of Muhammad, the Chosen one.

If anyone quotes anything except this from my sayings, I am quit of him and outraged by these words.

”

These verses are from Rumi's Divan, taken from the rubāyāt (quatrains) at the end of it; Quatrain #1173.

Tājik 03:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if people make an effort to keep their POVs on the subject at bay. I would also appreciate if the discussions are kept within the limits of what is appropriate for this project. I have placed WP:NPA warnings on the talk pages to those that deserve a fair warning. As for the dispute about which religion Rumi belongs to, please keep your opinions to yourself. Discuss the article and not the subject: no one is interested to know your opinions. Just report what third-party, reliable sources say about Rumi's religious affiliation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

His religion is utterly irrelevant, he could be a computer made from the planet mars that builds tunnels on Pluto, and accidentally printed an original Islam related book due to gamma radiation! Or he could be just an abstract idea! It is totally irrelevant what he is or is not, the only thing that maters is that the project is interested in the subject. I dont get why all the people vandalizing this talk page by removing the tag are not blocked right now!? C'mon admins, were are you? What am i supposed to prove? Am i supposed to prove that the project is interested in him? Or that Muslims tend to be interested in him? --Striver 03:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You may attract more bees with honey than with vinegar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes true, but its hard to be sweet when faced with this type of non-sense. --Striver 12:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, Rumi's religion is the subject of discussion. Some Wikipedians remove the "Muslim scholars" project tag from the talk-page, because they say that Rumi was not a Muslim. Isn't that POV?! The entire academic world agrees that Rumi was a Muslim mystic and saint. His own writings reflect his beliefs. The tag should be kept! Tājik 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NO! his religion is IRRELEVANT to whether the tag should be kept or not, even if he was a satanist is the tag to be kept for the simple reason that he is of INTEREST for the project. This is NOT a discussion regarding his religion, this is NOT the article, its the talk page, this is NOT a editorial dispute, this is nothing more than vandalism! --Striver 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, only a bandit from the deserts of Empty Quarter would say Rumi was not Muslim. However Striver's point is that "even" if Rumi is not a Muslim, the tag should be kept due to the fact that his works are of interest to people who are interested in Islam. Hassanfarooqi 17:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is much of a do about nothing. The project tag can of course remain, and other project tags added if needed be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

At last a voice of reason! Could you please follow it up by re-adding the tag? --Striver 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/l/Talk%7EJalal_ad-Din_Muhammad_Rumi_Archive_1_f437.html"

Category: Talk archives

Talk:Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Comments

Shams

Headline

Rumi Yesterday and Today

Rumi and Turkey

Rumi and Afghanistan

Rumi and the dervishes

Clear-out and re-organisation

The whirling dervishes

really?

Opening lines

Rumi is Clearly Persian

References?

You cannot put modern borders on ancient empires!

Authoritative Refrences

The "Authoritative" reference

Rumi was Persian

title

reversion

nominate for featured article?

Categories

Zora's edits

THE DILEMA IS SOLVED

Rumi's identity

dervish, darvish: ?

Philosopher infobox?

Discussion, consensus, User:Addtok and User:80.177.64.89

Has he been iranian or not

{{WikiProject Muslim scholars}}

Turk or Persian, not so important

name

I didn't know he was TAJIK !!!!!!!!???????

Only Breath

Difference between Persian and Iranian

Shia influence

argh!

Why is this page protected?

Balkhi

WTF?!

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search