Talk:Sufism/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.

I've deleted this phrase "This infinite tolerance is expressed in the most beautiful way" and have reworded it becasue it seems a little heavy on the preaching and doesn't seem to be as "balanced" as it can be.

Extremely biased article

This article on Sufism is extremely biased and it seems more like a booklet propogating Sufism instead of giving an encyclopaedic, accurate and un-biased view of Sufism, which is supposed to the encyclopeadia's concept. Moreover, the article is biased in favour of Sufis and it appears to have been copy-pasted from a pro-Sufi site, instead of giving historical facts. The history of the modern movement of Sufism itself is not given, and while Sufism is portrayed as a 'traditional school of Islam' in this article, the Salafi movement is portrayed as a 'sect'. Sections like 'The word Sufi' and the 'Sufi doctrines' are completely biased in favour of Sufism and it appears like the article conforms the doctrines of Sufism as if they were facts - thus trying to force the reader into accepting this highly biased view. This same article in Wikipedia can be found all around the net like http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6588/firststep.html&ei=3VIWQ6S7IpT4sQGVkemzDg and http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A//64.239.81.148/100_Steps.html&ei=3VIWQ6S7IpT4sQGVkemzDg. This is not even original.

When I tried to edit this article to make it into a more encyclopaedic version, adding History and Criticism sections and reforming the copyrighted sections of this article, my entry was deleted. I propose that this article be cut down to a un-biased version and that the copyrighted version of the article be deleted. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a centre of Sufi propoganda.

I have something to add about the biased nature of this article , most of the material this article represents seems to be the beliefs of a particular Sufi order/tradition represented as Sufism .But Sufism has a long and very complex history and there has been so many differint points of view through the ages , this article seems to simply ignore the majority of these different doctrines and practices.I do not think one can stablish a specific sufi cosmology at all.The system this article represents is not even a very common perpesctive.For example look at the works of Rumi or Attar and you will not find many of the doctrines state in the article there.

Definition/Introduction

Sufism is a Mystic school of thought that includes philosophers and muslims. Some famous examples of sufis who were not Muslims would make this opening statement more credible to the ignorant such as I. Alternately, or additionally, we'd like to know why sufism maintains itself so self-consciously as separate from Islam, when every historical detail shows that it is not. An opportunity for some Islamist casuistry here, and enlightenment for us. Are sufis heretics in Islam? Wetman 20:32, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Funny how this abuser Wetman refers to all Muslims as "Islamist" or "Muhammadan." The word is "Muslim." OneGuy 23:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the first paragraph doesn't make any sense..."Includes carpenters and catholics" would make as much sense as that...--AstroNomer 05:30, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine?!

why is this article part of the alternative medicine series? really it makes no sense, it's the same as putting kabbalah and gnosticism under that heading... i think it should be dissociated. any opinions? Uri 14:32, 29 May 2004 (GMT)

I do not know anything about sufism, but if it is a current inside a religion, I agree it does not make sense inside "alternative medicine". We need somebody knowledgeable in Islam to take a look at this.--AstroNomer 05:30, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

In recent months, there has been a trend of alternative medicine series boxes getting attached to dozens of Wikipedia articles with very vague relations to AM. Given this trend and, since nothing in the article talks about medicine at all, I will just go ahead and remove it. If anyone disagrees with me, please give the reasoning here. Andris 13:38, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

True sufism is not a current inside a religion. It is its own entity that happens to enbody the essential aspects of religious aspiration, but without form or doctrine. To put sufism under the category of religion is like putting the sun under the category of plant. It is a relationship that only goes one way, the plant exists because of the sunlight, and it's life force comes from the sun so it could be put under the category of sun within some margin of accuracey, but in no way does the sun fit under the category of plant. As to the relation between sufism and medicine (or more accurately, healing) very few people have a deep enough understanding of sufism to make a judgement on the matter.

Word of Caution

The following text was added to the further reading list I have no clue who put it there or why, but I think this is not its proper place in an encylopedia. Also I am very suspicious about that Syed Hussain business all over the place. I have found absolutely no evidence that he is in any way a significant historical or contemporary Sufi master beuond a couple of promotional websites. His page here on Wikipedia I have listed for deletion as it is mainly gobbledigook rather than biography or similar. Refdoc 21:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deleted Text A word of caution though before you start reading. It is quite debatable if intellectual knowledge is any better or worse if the quest be enlightenment. Going by the track record, looks like knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with it...mostly acting as a hinderance and puffing up the ego. Sufis are simple people who theorise less and do more. So all the tons of theory available pales before an ounce of simple living - The Sufi Way. Remember, knowing/reading/theorising all the intricacies of mysticism doesn't make you any better or worse than the average Joe on the street. As Syed Hussain aptly says, “Sufi mysticism”is neither a religion nor a philosophy. It’s neither occultism nor Belief System. Infact, Sufism is a science; a science of esotericism. To be a Sufi, does not depend on one’s creed, sex, dress, nationality, profession, status, and education or on the fact whether he is a layman or a monk or whether or not he performs particular rituals.

Sufi Whirling

"Sufi Whirling - the no-nosense way to divinity" looks to be in the same vein. I've deleted it and placed it here:

== Sufi Whirling - The no-nonsense way to divinity ==

The ancient Indian Sufis (and modern Turkish Dervishes), practice the Whirling meditation. Sufi whirling is said to be one of the most ancient techniques, and one of the most forceful, synchronizing people with the raw primordial sources of existence. It is said to be so deep that even a single experience can make one totally different. To practice, spin around with eyes open, as if your inner being has become a centre and your whole body has become like a top.

Raw primordial forces and inner beings: nice stuff, but they do not belong in an encyclopedia. Can't tell what it has to do with Syed Hussain, but I would not be surprised if there was a connection. --Ardonik 03:09, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

More of the same ==Related topics== Dances of Universal Peace A system of spiritual practise through dance originally based on Sufi teaching but expanded to include all spiritual paths.Refdoc 23:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro sentence

"Sufism is a Mystic school of Islamic thought that includes philosophers and muslims." This really needs to be changed, but I'm not quite sure what to turn it into. The fact that it includes muslims is already indicated by it being a mystic school of Islamic thought. The separation of philosophers and muslims indicates they are not overlapping groups. It's just kind of a mess. It might be better to point to the geographic or historic origins of Sufism instead, which serves as a more appropriate introduction. Any ideas? KuriosD 00:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed some debate about this at the top of the page. That'll teach me to skim. Still, doesn't seem as if anyone's touched it in the past couple months. KuriosD 01:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To me, someone who has a family background in Sufism, it is Hinduism in the guise of Islamic thought.

Even when it is practised in parts of the world with no history of Hinduism, like Turkey, Central Asia, Arabia, etc.?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Alcohol and the Sufi way

One of the things that always intrigued me about Sufi practices is the use of alcohol (which is frequently referenced in the works of Rumi, and other Sufi writers). Not only does it appear important to Sufi practice, but also doubly interesting considering the Muslim prohibition on the fermentation of fruit or grain, which appears to make Sufism at least partly heretical (but at the same time tolerated). I noticed there's no reference to the subject, but I don't have enough information on hand to write it right now. Anyone?

BTW - This is a discussion page. There's no need to delete the question if you have an answer. Feel free to add your information to the article itself.

While different people will tell you different things about whether any Sufi has tolerated alcohol, I think most people would agree that the references to alcohol in Sufi literature are metaphorical. The state of intoxication is meant to represent the state of the follower when he or she is "intoxicated" with the love of the Divine. "Wine" often represents "Divine love", the "Cupbearer" (saqi) usually refers to God, or sometimes the spiritual guide. This metaphor has been extended quite further in many poems. You're right though,... there is alot more to say about this subject. --Katangoori 22:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alcohol is considered forbidden (Haram) by all Sufis. In fact most celebrated Sufis were known to be giant scholars of Islam.

The reference to alcohol in the works of Rumi, and other Sufi writers is purely metaphorical. Not a single eveidence exists where a known and celebrated Sufi has been known to drink.

Sufism like other sciences has its own jargon and it is dangerous to interpret it as an outsider, that is the reason why one of the contemporary Sufi Sheikh Nuh Keller says that Orientalists have lost the message of Sufism knowing it through transalations from people ignorant of the science.

Refer to his articles on www.suhba.org

Nuh Ha Mim Lecture?

66.143.177.83 pasted a huge lecture by Nuh Ha Mim Keller in the middle of the page. I've removed it since it's huge and out of place (and maybe under copywright). If you want to read it, you can find it here. --Katangoori 17:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sufi history needed

Either in this article, or in a breakout article, there's need for a sober academic history of Sufism. I'm aware that this could be controversial, since I gather that some or all Sufi orders claim a chain of transmission back to Muhammad, while anti-Sufis would give the movement a much more limited history. Still, people who know nothing about the subject need more of a framework.

Also, info on the objections of Salafis and the like to various Sufi or popular religious practices (such as the veneration of saints). Zora 09:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"prophet Muhammad"

Let's not overdo the toning down of religiosity. One does not say "president Bush" or "prophet Jeremiah", but "President Bush" or "Prophet Jeremiah"; in the same way, it should be "Prophet Muhammad". Maybe the removal of the article "the" before the name will satisfy everyone.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:49, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they'd say "the prophet, Jeremiah". An encyclopedia shouldn't be referring to Jeremiah as if "prophet" were a title the way President is. There's only one president of the United States. Muhammad is certainly the most important non-deity in Islam, but not unique in being a prophet (in a religion where even Jesus is a prophet). I would support Prophet Muhammad before I would Prophet Jeremiah, but I don't think either one is really appropriate in this format. It's not like Muhammad needs some extra capitalization to make him special. And, since the script of Islam is Arabic, it's not like this is some established rule. Kaz 00:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Actually, the encyclopedia should most probably just say "Muhammad"?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:21, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're correct. Prophet Muhammad, though it's certainly respectful, is not really objective in any form, in this exact context. And, as I said, there's really only one Muhammad we're gonna be talking about here. Don't have to explain that we don't mean Sousse Chef Muhammad, or champion boxer Mohammad Ali.Kaz 17:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even though I don't have a strong opinion on this, please see Pope John Paul II, where the side reverting to the use of "His Holiness" argued (and that's the current version) that this is "honorific style" title. Wikipedia should have the same standard for all religious figures OneGuy 14:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's just ridiculous. The idea that an objective media source would refer to the British PM as "the Right Honourable" borders on insane. In fact, those examples are all worse than Prophet Muhammad. At least he's clearly a prophet, in some sense. Even an atheist could agree. What if one doesn't think of the Pope as His Holiness? There are plenty of protestants who think he borders on unholy. And plenty of PMs sure the hell aren't honorable. It smacks of PoV, to me. Kaz 18:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For more on Wikipedia policy on "Honorific prefixes", please seeWikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), Honorific_prefixes.29) OneGuy 14:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the crack abuse replete in objective media using such honorifics in the first place...especially considering the healthy American disdain for such nonsense...the article doesn't clarify when we're to accept such nonsense. Perhaps the article on Satanism should refer to that being as His Unholy Dominance, and I can email Doug and see what honorifics key members of the Church of Subgenius would like to have. While we're at it, I think I wish to be referred to as He Who Wields the Most Wonderful Manhood. Kaz 19:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not an article. It's Wikipedia policy (supposedly). You will have to change the policy (discuss it on that above page). As I said above, if the Pope is to be called His Holiness on WIkipedia, and Al Sharpton, Reverend Al Sharpton, then the same rules should apply here. If these other pages are changed, I won't have an objections to it here OneGuy 20:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone inserted Pope as an example on that page after I posted the above. This issue should be discussed on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)) OneGuy 20:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you have an opinion on this topic, please join the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) OneGuy 22:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-Islamic Sufis...

quick Google of Non-Islamic Sufis

One can definitely be Sufi and yet not Muslim. In fact, the concept of being Sufi predates Muhammad.

"The Sufi Way consists of four stages. The first stage involves learning the morality and ethics of all religion, which is accomplished by studying Islam. Non-Islamic Sufis rely on other religions or the writings of Sufi saints to establish the foundation of morals and ethics. The second stage is the path of Sufism[...]" [1]

"In addition to the various Islamic Sufi orders that now have centers in the West, a number of non-Islamic Sufi organizations have arisen in the West. These groups teach various Sufi doctrines and practices but -- in contrast to nearly all Sufi orders in the Muslim world -- have disconnected their teachings from Islam. Hence followers of these groups are generally not Muslims."[2]

It's pretty clear that the text saying that Sufis are Muslims and/or philosophers should be restored.

And, by the way, in reply to the question of whether Sufis are heretics in Islam, remember that the Sunnis consider the Shi'ites to be heretics, and vice-versa, to the extent that they have a hard time not lynching each other on sight. It's not a mild sectarian difference like Catholic vs Orthodox. So, since Sufism within Islam spans both sects and even ideas exclusive to both, any given Sufi is definitely going to seem like a heretic to some Muslims. Kaz 19:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in the above quote that says the word "Sufi" was used before Islam. The word "Sufi" is intrinsically linked with Islam (even if similar pracites/beliefs existed before Islam). I suggest "non-Muslim" Sufis in the Wes should find a different word. Otherwise this would be like someone saying he is non-Christian "Baptist." OneGuy 20:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, it's not up to encyclopedia writers to implement their spiritual theories in practice, only to record the facts as they actually are. If you follow the above links, you'll indeed find mention of the word pre-dating Islam. But there's no reason, considering what Sufism is, that it couldn't eschew Islam, which is why that does indeed happen. There is a significant number of non-Islamic Sufi groups out there, and a growing body of non-Islamic Sufi thought. Therefore the accurate definition is something akin to "Muslim or other spiritual philosophy", not simply "Muslim". Kaz 20:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I followed the first link. This is what I found:

While Sufism did not exist prior to Islam, Sufi doctrine contains many elements that go beyond the teaching of Mohammad. Islam is an external structure in which the individual exists while the internal quest for enlightenment belongs to a realm of Sufi knowledge. [3]

The bold part just confirmed that I was right. The word Sufi didn't exist before Islam OneGuy 23:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you're cherry-picking a single claim which is about as unbiased as the Rabbis who claim that Jews for Jesus aren't really Jews. It's a protection of one's power and territory, not an honest assessment. Follow the dozens of links to non-Islamic Sufi sites, and you'll see them consistently say Sufism predates Islam, and explain why.

Or check this out:

quick sufism pre-dates islam Google

quicky sufism before islam Google

Of the thousand or so hits above, a minority are Muslims arguing, as they feel compelled to do automatically, that their religion created Sufism. The rest are generally historians and Sufis saying Sufism came first. Even if one will not take their arguments as solid proof, it certainly establishes a position equal to the counter-claims. Kaz 17:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in google search result. There are all kinds of unreliable sites on the internet. You need to show a reliable site (not an anti-Islamic site) that claims that the word "Sufism" was used before Islam OneGuy 21:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we don't need to prove, however true it is, that Sufism predates Islam. You almost managed to reroute the debate to this specific detail, but on the actual page you're continuing to post a different false bit of information. You claim that it's an aspect of Islam, and that it might be referred to as "Islamic Spirituality". But the simple fact that many Sufi organizations exist which are not Muslim disproves this. When applied to Islam it's "Islamic Spirituality". But, overall, Sufism is a method, not a religion or a denomination. This is illustrated by the way a specific Sufi group or idea can be Shi'ite, Sunni, or some independent interpretation of Islam which violates the tenets of both. One can take the same principles, the same methodologies, and apply it to any religion.

Sufism is not, therefore, "Islamic Spirituality", and most certainly is not an aspect of Islam.

What's more, you have the same burden on the origins of Sufism as the many non-Islamic Sufis do. Until YOU prove, from some source not biased toward Islam, that Sufism did not predate Islam, the question is simply up in the air. Kaz 23:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since you have not posted any evidence to show that the word "Sufism" was used before Islam, it's correct to say that "Sufism" is Islamic Spirituality. If non-Islamic Sufi orders exist in the West that doesn't change this fact OneGuy 23:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since you have note posted any evidence to show that the word "Sufism", and the concept of Sufism, did NOT exist before Islam, or that it in any way invented them, it is NOT correct to say that Sufism is Islamic Spirituality. Especially since the very existence of non-Sufi groups proves that "Sufism", as a whole, is not "Islamic Spirituality". Only the Islamic aspects of it are.Kaz 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please take a class in basic logic. The one who makes a positive assertion must prove. You can't prove a negative. Since you have made a positive assertion that the word Sufism existed prior to Islam, post evidence for that assertion. Unless you do that, your claim is not worth anything OneGuy 00:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See, that's what you get for only taking a basic logic course. In this case what we're facing is a situation in which there is no evidence in either direction. One can as readily say that you are taking a positive position. You are claiming, by your stance, that Sufism came after and from Islam. It is not up to me to prove a negative...that it did not come from Islam.

But, and this is akin to scientific method, so perhaps not natural ground for the Faithful, what we have here is a situation in which neither position is proven, ergo neither position is the default. Without hard evidence as to the origins of Sufism, its origins default to "unknown", not to "what the devout Muslim says".

You are attempting, in the article, to claim that Sufism is intrinsically part of Islam. But you have no evidence of this. But there is certainly plenty of hard evidence that Sufism is NOT inextricably intertwined with Islam, since there are plenty of non-Islamic Sufi groups.Kaz 03:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that the word "Sufism" did not exist prior to Islam, such as I posted above Sufism did not exist prior to Islam [4]. If you claim otherwise, you will have to provide evidence. I don't have that much problem with the current wording, but if you try to introduce any kind of claim without evidence, such as the claim that the word "Sufism" existed before Islam, it will be removed immediately OneGuy 05:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Umm...okay, so in the modern world Sufism has been adopted by people that have not first accepted Islam. The same has happened to Zen, Kabbalah, etc. But does that mean that Zen did not start as the Japanese Buddhist version of Dhyana Yoga or that Kabbalah can be described and explained has being something that did not start with Judaism?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Just went back and read the article. It has one sentence in the beginning. Maybe we should include more of what you quoted above:

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:03, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Many people believe that mysticism transcends words and creeds. There are any number of books on mysticism (like The Perennial Philosophy, IIRC) that argue this position. There's a strong strain of what you might call "hippie" mysticism that involves sampling various mystical traditions until you find one that feels good. At its worst, this sort of spiritual pursuit is self-indulgent and antinomian (IMHO). If words and creeds don't count, then neither do fussy little moral rules. I think this is where non-Islamic Sufism sometimes fits.

That's the worst possibly interpretation of the tendency. Having been a Zen Buddhist for forty years, I think I've seen it in operation <g>. Perhaps we need to link the Sufi article to the article on mysticism -- which I now need to go inspect. Zora 01:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You go, girl!—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:49, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Sufism predates Islam, it's history has been undeniably linked with that of islam and its most famous students were (without any doubt) muslim. This debate is bordering on ridiculous. I agree whole-heartedly with the person above who mentioned Zen and Kabbalah... Just because a certain form of mysticism has been adopted by people of different religions does not invalidate the original connection between a given mysticism and its parent religion.

Using the possibility of Sufism predating Mohammed as validation of the original intro sentence is similarly silly... Whether the sentence was factually correct or not, it was ill-written and served as a poor introduction to sufism. "...includes muslims and philosophers."?! Continuing an unfortunate trend, the current introduction sentence is also quite atrocious (no offense to author intended).

"Sufism (Arabic تصوف taṣawwuf) is the esoteric aspect of Islam, or other spiritual philosophy." What is the "...or other spiritual philosophy" supposed top mean? Is this to imply that sufism is also the esoteric aspect of "some" other spiritual philosophy? Or is some other spiritual philosophy also sufism?

Might I recommend something along the following lines. "Sufism (Arabic تصوف taṣawwuf) is a system of esoteric philosophy commonly associated with Islam."

Granted, this doesn't tell the whole story, but unlike the other options, it has the benefit of not being utterly meaningless. Please do keep in mind that the overall intent of an encyclopedia article is to convey information simply and concisely.KuriosD 04:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Names of God/Wazifas?

I think Wikipedia should have an entry on the names of God (http://www.sufism.org/society/asma/) and/or wazifas (http://wahiduddin.net/words/99_pages/wazifa_practice.htm). This entry on Sufism should mention these Names in a little more detail than the current vague reference, and should link to the entry on wazifas or Names. I would do it myself, but I don't know as much as I'd like about the subject. Of course I might start a stub on wazifas anyway.

umm...please go ahead; Bismillah. But isn't the correct plural form Waza'ef. The other article might best be titled Islamic Names for God; with Asma and Asma-e-Husna being redirected to that page?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Asma Al Husna (99 names) are a core belief of all schools of Sufism and yet there is no mention of them! This whole subject needs a thrashing from a qualified scholar.

Mevlana Rumi or Mevlana aka Rumi

The article says "the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Mevlana (also known as Rumi)".

Isn't Mevlana a title (translating roughly as spiritual teacher or master) and not part of his name? If so, the quoted text is like saying: "the famous physicist, Professor (also known as Einstein)".

Sarabseth

Mevlana is a title , but some people call him only mevlana b/c he was the founder of mevlevi order

Removed Arabian nights as there is no evidence that any sufis were associated with it .

Added a link for sayings of Imams on sufism .

.farhansher

But then Rumi was his name and Mevlana is what he was also known as.

I think "the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Rumi (also known as Mevlana)" makes much more sense than "the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Mevlana (also known as Rumi)", although "the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Mevlana Rumi" is probably best. Sarabseth 13:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed & done farhansher

His full name is Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi. He is called Rumi because when he became famous he lived in Anatolia which also was called Rum, because of the Romans who lived there before. --Mounir 28 June 2005 10:38 (UTC)

Actualy he is not known as Rumi in Iran but as Mowlana[title] Jalal al-Din Mohammad Balkhi , or simply Mowlana or Mowlavi , Balkhi refers to his birth place , Balkh, the Turkish people prefer to use Rumi/Anatolian as he spent most of his life in Rum/Anatolia.

Sufi psychology & Literature

Editted , modified & combined Sufi psychology & Literature . Under the literature heading , there was no info about the literature , only the same things about Sufi Psychology . Hope its appreciated .farhansher

The Traditional Islamic Schools of Thought and Sufism

Can someone please fix: "Thirdly, the term Sufism has had such a wide range of connotations attached to it, mostly emotive definitions rather than precising ones." I'm not sure what the right word should be in place of "precising". Sarabseth 20:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How's the change I made?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:41, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Non-muslim Sufi Orders ???

There R links to so called "Non-mulsim Sufi orders" . I mean what makes them "Non-muslim Sufi orders" . R their shaykhs non-muslims , or were they started by some christian or athiest . All of their Shaykhs R muslims & they originated from some pre-existing muslim sufi orders . So what makes them non-muslim . Teaching non-muslims about sufism doesent make a sufi order non-muslim . Sufi teachers have been teaching Sufism to "all humans" since the very begining of Sufism . Cuz thats the main motto of sufis , love for all who exist . I have no idea what makes mevlevi order or sufi ruhaniat a non-muslim sufi order , while all the orders listed under muslim heading also teach sufism to people of all religion .farhansher

I think the idea is that there are now some "orders"/groups that approach sufism and its practices without the context of Islam. The same way that some people "practice" Zen outside of Buddhism. Traditional sufis always tell their potential members to first practice the zahir part of Islam (Shahada, regular prayers, etc.) before they start the journey on the path of spirituality. The "non-Muslim" orders don't even talk about or make it a requirement to practice Islam.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymus Users

69.113.103.32 , U can always start a new article on Silsila Owaisia . I dont see any reason why every Sufism related topic should have information about Owaisia Order in it .

219.93.174.110 , U hve added some links to non english sites . I dont think they R useful here .It would have been better if U started an article in your language & add the links there . This way they will be useful . U can write your own article or translate this one into your language .

And plz , create an account !!!

Hope that helps Farhansher

Mistaken Attribution to Rumi?

This religious tolerance is expressed in Sufism by the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Mevlana Rumi : "Come, come, whoever you are. Worshiper, Wanderer, Lover of Leaving; ours is not a caravan of despair. Though you have broken your vows a thousand times...Come, come again, Come."

I have read that this was written by Abu Sa`iid ibn Abi ‘l-Khayr, a person who lived considerably earlier than Rumi, and that it has been mistakenly attributed. See the opening pages of Abramian's "Nobody, Son of Nobody: Poems of Shaikh Abu Saeed Abil Kheir," Hohm Press, 2001.

Unknown group promoting itself in Universal Sufism

The group 'Sanskriti O Biddya CharchaPit' is trying to promote itself by inserting a whole paragraph about it in the "Universal sufism" section. Google search for the group return nothing other than the Sufism article or wikimirrors of this page, the very promotional text that was inserted. Being from Chittagong, Bangladesh, where this group claims to be active, I can definitely say that this is a non-notable entity, trying to promote itself. Thanks. --Ragib 08:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for the info . I didnt know much about Sufism in Bangladesh so I thought it must be important there . Thatswhy I left it as it is .Farhansher 17:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Unfinishedchaos just made some significant contributions on "The Traditional Islamic Schools of Thought and Sufism". I cannot tell how accurate they are, but they do need copyediting (tone, spelling) if they are to stay. Rl 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

i have added some research results about the roots of sufism , if they have any language mistakes ..plz correct them but don,r remove cause wikipedia is built essentially on the Democracy of Knowledge .--Unfinishedchaos 10:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/f/Talk%7ESufism_Archive_1_0a69.html"

Category: Talk archives