Talk:Sufism/Controversy and debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The Sufism article in the English Wikipedia has sparked a lively disagreement between several individuals. [1] As method of mediation and discussion, this article explores the essence of the essential disagreements.

Contents

[edit] Major areas of controversy

[edit] Is Sufism in its true sense the spiritual component of Islam?

  • Nkv -- It's the part of Islam that deals with matters of the heart (just like Fiqh deals with matters of the body and Aqida deals with matters of the intellect). The article entitled "Place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam" [2] discusses this is details. It's written by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. He's an authorized teacher of traditional Islamic knowledge. He's studied at Azhar and a Shakyh of the Shahdilli Sufi path. The article details most of the objections which are usually raised against Sufism and it would be useful to read it in an unbiased way when you judge the article.
  • Pakiguy -- It indeed is an innovation and was never a part of Islam in its current form. There are a lot of websites that can give you the explanations of how and why Sufism is a innovation and a deviant sect e.g. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]Some of these are salafi, some non-salafi and even non-muslim websites. There are many more. One of the website gives details of how it has been a bone of contention for a long time now, even before wahabbi movement. As for pointing out some scholars of religion that endorse sufism as proofs, it is ludicrous as there have been islamic scholars trained in different madhahib that have gone astray (e.g. a hanafi scholar that became the first khalifa of mirza qadiyani).
The links which you posted above support my point of view that it's mostly the Salafis who reject Sufism as being part of traditional Islam.
Yusif Hijazi's article was published in an openly wahabi magazine called Nidaul Islam. It has been refuted here[10].
the next two links are from Islamawareness.com. The articles you linked to don't even have well known authors. The site denounces Sufism as a deviation in the two links which are presented above but praise it in this one [11]. I quote.
The third category consists of recommended innovations such as building hostels ... the reciting of wirds (def: Reliance of the Traveller w20) by those with a Sufi path, ...
the flex.com pages linked to is an openly Islamophobic site with articles by Sita Ram Goel. The wikipedia article on him details the positions of the Hindutva.
I have already provided details on why the QSS site is Salafi in nature in my original comments.
If you look at the islamonline.com link provided above, it actually supports Sufism and claims that it is a part of Islam. It denounces the "flower power" variety that claims that Sufism is above the Sharia.
As for Mirza Ahmed Ghulam, He was declared a deviant by the majority of the scholars after the rise of the Ahmadiyya sect. No one (to my knowledge) has declared Imam Ghazzali, Imam Suyuti, Imam Nawwawi etc. as deviants and what they say about Sufism is clear from the sunnah.org which I posted above. --Nkv 07:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Killbillsbrowser --- It is not a 'part' of Islam, rather a deviation from Islam. Sufism is nothing but reminiscent of Hinduism, Buddhism and other beliefs that believe in salvation through mysticism. Each one of these has a concept of reaching a state where it is possible to be one with god such that 'i am in god and god is in me'. This is definitely kufr(disbelief) in Islam. There are people who write about it, coming from different backgrounds. If an ex-cop starts stealing and committing crimes, that does not deem these crimes correct.
You're oversimplifyling the ideas of classical Sufism or misinterpreting them. Show me a concrete non Salafi article that actually proves that it is a "deviation from Islam". --Nkv 07:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Has Sufism been approved of in its true sense by almost all the traditional scholars?

  • Nkv -- This link [12] gives examples of what the earliest scholars have said about Sufism. Some of the quotes can perhaps be considered ambiguous and like Pakiguy mentioned earlier out of context but most of them are (as far as I can see) quite unequivocal.
  • Pakiguy -- The links that are mentioned by killbillsbrowser give instances that state the opinion of some major scholars of different madhahib towards sufism. Having said that, it was never a part of the teachings of great scholars (whether in fiqh, aqidah, ilm etc.).
  • Killbillsbrowser --- There was nothing called Sufism to start with, so the real scholars could not have approved it and by these i mean the scholars of the first, second and similar generations after the prophet (peace be upon him). Sufism has come into existence much later, however, during the times of the major scholars there used to be innovators that would believe in a mystic world (similar to sufis), and those were rejected by the major scholars. The same concept later started in what is now sufism, and thus, automatically follows the same rules legislated by these scholars. Often people confuse Sufism with a practice that was not rejected by some scholars like Ibn taimiyah. That only refers to some practices by people wherein they would devote their lives more to religion and out of that more to worship rather than acquiring knowledge. Sufis often take these statements in their support where as Sufi ideology has corrupt beliefs that were definitely rejected by all scholars e.g. the concept of fanaa, baiyah with a shaykh, innovative methods of meditation, concept of orders (tariqah), concept of khilafa in tariqahs, singing, dancing and many more.
There was nothing called Aqida or Tafsir either but these are mainstream Islamic sciences today because of usefulness. Mistakes occurred in Aqida (Mutazilites for example) which were corrected. Mistakes occurred in Hadith exegesis (Israiliat fabrications for example) which were corrected. Mistakes occured in Sufism (considering onesself above the Sharia - eg [Abu Hilman]) which were corrected. You're assuming that the mistaken Sufism is the mainstream one. Classical scholars have rejected this. --Nkv 07:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Has Sufism been approved of and taught at major Islamic universities since the earliest days of Islam?

  • Nkv -- The Azhar University is the oldest center for Islamic learning. There is a book translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller called Reliance of the Traveller which contains a long and detailed section on Sufism quoting from various classical scholars (like Imam Nawawi, Mohammed Amin Kurdi, Imam Ghazzali etc.). Section w9.0 page 861. The book is the only translation of a classical Islam text that is approved of by the Azhar university. As they say in their authorisation letter (a scan of which is prepended to the book) we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and confirms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a). There is no objection to printing and circulating it. Also, many of the early professors who taught at Azhar like Ibn Ata Allah were Sufis [13],[14]). I know of smaller colleges that are not as old as Azhar which do the same but I they don't have any internet presence. This example should I believe suffice to prove my point.
  • Pakiguy -- It can very well be that after graduating from azhar, some scholars might adopt sufism, that does not prove it is taught there. If we name all major universities, sufism is never taught or is never a part of any curriculum (deoband,azhar,umm-ul-qura etc).
If it is never taught in Azhar, why would the only english book on classical Islam which they approve of have a long detailed section on Sufism which discusses how it was always part of traditional Islam? --Nkv 07:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Killbillsbrowser --- Definitely not. I dont know of any major traditional islamic university that teaches and endorses sufism and these include places quoted by nkv. There might be a few instances here and there but they cannot assume generality.
Well, that still doesn't answer my question of how they'd approve of a book which actually has a rather detailed section on Sufism for mainstream distribution. --Nkv 07:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have all of the traditional scholars disapproved of people who call themselves Sufis but who consider themselves as part of some esoteric elite who don't have to follow the Sharia?

  • Nkv-- The "Place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam" article I linked to earlier mentions this in detail. My contention is that the these are the people which Pakiguy refers to when he talks about Sufis as those believing in a magical world and those who reject normal lifestyles.
  • Pakiguy -- As i mentioned these have been taken out of context in many places and are incorrect at others. Whereas many major scholars denounced sufism, some approved it in its primitive forms only that includes things that are literally permitted by sharia (not even those where the sharia does not have clear proofs).
  • Killbillsbrowser --- The Sufis with the ideologies listed above and many more have always been rejected and deemed as deviants by all traditional scholars that believed that there could be no addition to the religion that what was understood by them.

[edit] Is the overwhelming majority (although perhaps not all) of the people who reject Sufism Salafi?

  • Nkv -- The Salafis have a high opinion of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. Classical scholars consider him a deviant who fractured the muslim community. All the sites which were mentioned that reject Sufism have this viewpoint. ([15],[16],[17]). The position of the people on Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab can be used as a sort of acid test to check the inclinations of the site. He is the founder of the Wahabi movement (which later became Salafism).
  • Pakiguy -- Absolutely not, this is a claim that has no proof at all. There are many articles, books etc. and millions of people including scholars that are non-salafi that clearly say this.
Please give me examples. --Nkv 07:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Killbillsbrowser --- This is absolutely a baseless statement. I do not want to talk about salafis or their beliefs here. But to say that majority or many non-salafis approve sufism is simply ludicrous. Also, nkv makes a statement that classical scholars consider abdul wahabb a deviant, please provide sources for your statement. And i suggest you to read Kitab-u-tawheed. One who can write a book like that can never be a deviant, but any person who speaks against him, surely has to got big time issues.
Please refrain from making personal attacks. Saying that I have big time issues is not helping this discussion. As for your request for a statement from a classical scholar speaking against Wahabism, here's a publication from the chief mufti of Mecca [18]. It also has links to more articles. --Nkv 07:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does the Sufism -- article contain some content (Nazar, Universal Sufism etc.) which is not really Islamic in nature (nor inline with traditional Sufism) but which are anyway mentioned?

  • Nkv Their non Islamic nature has been mentioned in the article and so, I'm fine with that.
  • Pakiguy -- I have no problems with them being there or even the article about sufism being there, but the article in its old state conveyed the message that it is a part of islam and endorsed by all besides salafis, which is totally incorrect.
  • Killbillsbrowser --- To me they are all same, some are less fabricated and deviant, others are more. As i said before there have been some sufis that typically endorse all religions and have their allegiance towards all faiths. It is also believed by some sufis that irrespective of the religion, salvation can be achieved through mystic means. This might not be belief of all sufis, but that does not make the other sufis correct.

[edit] ('Essence of dispute') Will the Sufism article become more factual and accurate if it is explicitly mentioned that most (not all) of the people who reject Sufism are Salafis?

  • Nkv-- I believe that to be the truth and have provided links and proofs above. I don't accept Pakiguy's assertion that mainstream traditional Muslims consider real Sufism (not the flower power, new age variety) to be a deviation from the true spirit of Islam. This question is dealt with in the "Place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam" article I have linked to above and so don't think that his changes make the article NPOV. I think they make the article biased and convey the idea that the majority position is the Salafi one.
  • Pakiguy -- As i mentioned earlier, it would be absolutely incorrect and misleading to do that. To make it NPOV i made some changes. My language might be off and could be improved but surely not reverted as the earlier article is totally biased.
  • Killbillsbrowser --- One word - 'No'.

[edit] Is the request for "non sufi" sites that support Sufism paradoxical?

  • Nkv -- I judge whether sites are Salafi in their opinions not by their positions on Sufism but by other content (opinion on Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahhab, position on Tawassul etc.). Once I'm convinced of their outlook, I look at their notes on Sufism and they are always against it.
  • Pakiguy -- Yes and No. it is just like nkv says, it is easy to label a website endorsing sufism as a sufi website, similary it is easy to label an anti-sufi website as salafi. The websites i mentioned i dont want them to be proofs because there is so much incorrect information on the internet (nkv will agree with me, go to a ahmadi website and they have proofs that a person like me just cannot refute). That is the reason i abstain from formulating an opinion based on websites. I tend to ask scholars (in my case hanafi scholars as where i come from , almost everybody is hanafi). In case nkv trusts me, i can word to word explain what many alive scholars say about sufism. But since it becomes a case of mutual trust, i think it is not possible. Having said that, my aim here is not to prove sufism wrong or anti-sufi correct. All i want is that it clearly be mentioned that this is opinion of the sufi sect and not attribute it to mainstream muslims. Also, not to mention that only salafis disapprove of sufism. By the way i was reading through wiki and i found an article that clearly and correctly itemizes sufism under a sect of islam. So, that clearly does not make me the first to do it.
Agreed. Websites are not proofs. I'm a Shafi'i and most of the scholars I go to for advice follow the same school. It's from them that I have learnt the position that I'm holding here. The dispute is that you claim that the mainstream position is that "Sufism is an innovation which is at best tolerated by some scholars" (based on your knowledge and things you've learnt from scholars) whereas I say that "Sufism in it's true form was always a part of Islam" (based on what I've learnt from scholars I'm in touch with). Now the question is how to come to a conclusion. The best we can do is to give book/website references (unless somoene has a better idea). I've done my best to do this and so far nothing I've said has been countered. Almost all the references which countered the idea that Sufism is a part of traditional Islam that have been posted are of a Salafi nature. My examples regarding Azhar have not been proved wrong. I don't distrust you but what you're saying is in disagreement with what I've studied. --Nkv 07:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Killbillsbrowser --- No, i guess nkvs statement that only salafis disapprove sufism would mean that there are many sites that do not practice sufism and still support it. Point us to them...
That was not my assertion. My assertion is that the ones who *do* reject Sufism as being part of Islam are of a Salafi bent and that this can be ascertained (in almost all cases) by checking their positions on other issues (support of Abdul Wahhab, position on Tawassul etc.). --Nkv 07:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Original content and lack of citations

The majority of the above paragraphs violate Wikipedia standards in that they contain original content without supporting authorities. See Wikipedia:No original research. The arguments will carry significantly more authority and meet Wikipedida standards when they are supported by the established writings of others. David Traver 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some proofs (not many though) mentioned earlier by me and also can be found in pakiguys comments. However, much of information is present in books, notes or lectures ,and cannot be cited online. I agree with the policy of wikipedia but unfortunately, the openness of the internet in addition to being beneficial has also many a times proven harmful. An example in addition to many other websites and articles is the article related to Sufism on wikipedia that contains non-factual material. I have made my comments and cited some references, but i still believe that the references are insufficient as there is much more material available in books and lectures and also can be confirmed from learned people which unfortunately cannot be found online.Killbillsbrowser 05:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no need, and no requirement, that we give only online resources. If you have books, just give the citation to the book and if you can, the page number. It would also be helpful if you could please include the ISBN number of the book. Likewise, if you have lectures that support your positions, give specifics that will help readers find the lecture materials and check the facts. See e.g. Wikipedia:Citing sources Without this, the majority of the paragraphs in the article remain unsupported, and thus, they devolve into a "he/she says, I/we say" arguments. Such arguments lack reliability and utility. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions, but not in an encyclopedia. David Traver 19:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just got back from my vacation and see that the article on sufism has really large section starting "contrary to popular misconception...". I think the mediation is not complete and that the article is still NPOV. Almost all my points above have been substantiated with references from the net. None of the refutations have any references except for one the first section. I have looked through the links and they provide further proof for my initial statement that most of the people who are against Sufism are of a Wahabi/Salafi mentality. I have detailed this below.

[[19]] Yusif Hijazi's article was published in an openly wahabi magazine called Nidaul Islam. It has been refuted here[[20]].

the next two links are from Islamawareness.com which don't seem too sure of themselves. They denounce Sufism as a deviation in the two links which are presented above but praise it in this one [[21]]. I quote.

The third category consists of recommended innovations such as building hostels ... the reciting of wirds (def: Reliance of the Traveller w20) by those with a Sufi path, ...

the flex.com pages linked to is an openly Islamophobic site with articles by Sita Ram Goel. The wikipedia article on him details the positions of the Hidutva.

I have already provided details on why the QSS site is Salafi in nature in my original comments.

If you look at the islamonline.com link provided above, it actually supports Sufism and claims that it is a part of Islam. It denounces the "flower power" variety that claims that Sufism is above the Sharia.

So, none of my points have been actuall disproved apart from a "No, you're wrong". Some of the statements made are wrong too. eg. Mirza Ahmed Ghulam of Qadiyan. He was declared a deviant by the majority of the scholars after the rise of the Ahmadiyya sect. No one (to my knowledge) has declared Imam Ghazzali, Imam Suyuti, Imam Nawwawi etc. as deviants and what they say about Sufism is clear from the sunnah.org which I posted above (multiple times). As for the claim that scholars changed their views after graduating form places like Azhar, this is debunked by their support for the "Reliance of the Traveller" which contains a long and detailed section on Sufism. Statements like 'anyone who doesn't agree with the Kitab-Al-Tawheed" has big time issues' is a personal attack and unjustified. Notable scholars of modern times denounce Abdul Wahhab as a deviant. I can give you sources if you want. People who support him are Salafis in their beliefs and practices. I'm still at a loss to understand how such a large section on how Sufism is separate from Islam came into the original article on the top of it even after we initiated this discussion. It's got no citatins, it belongs in the controversy section and has no business being up there when a separate article to discuss the controversies was being created. --Nkv 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Welcome back. I notice that the large section that you mentioned in the Sufism article (which was created last night) has been reverted and removed. I agree that mediation is not complete. You will notice my repeated comments calling for more citations and authorities to support various positions. I encourage all who have an interest in this discussion to please update, complete, and wikify all of their sections within a month. I will not be available in early July, so I will not be doing much on this page until then. You may wish to place your content-related responses under the other contributors' comments using indents. That will save future editing work cutting and pasting comments into the appropriate sections of the article. Thank you. David Traver 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I shall do that. Thanks David. Also, was the decision to change tradition to sect discussed? I remember it being reverted once by Lambian(I think). --Nkv 04:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not have an opinion about the "tradition" to "sect" question you asked, as I never noticed the issue. David Traver 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

KillBillsBrowser-- I was very busy with my proposal defense and now will be going on a vacation. So i could not follow this up. But today i read what nkv has to say. I was totally shocked when i read a website he had quoted [[22]]. It talks about the Grand Mufti of Mecca. There is no such position as Grand Mufti of Makkah. I have lived in that country. I know there is a grand mufti of the kingdom and i know all of them by name. Second i thought maybe he is a mufti of the haram(sacred mosque) in makkah, so i called up to confirm it. To my utter disbelief, there was no person by this name ever a mufti in the haram of makkah.

I can't talk about the position of Ahmad Zayni Dahlan authoritatively since I've never been to Saudi Arabia and I don't know anyone there. What you mention about there not being a grand Mufti for Mecca might very well be true (since you have first hand experience with the place). I did manage to find that his period was 1816 to 1886. Are you sure that your references are correct even for this period? I did a quick search for the name on Google and came up with lots of links about him. Some refer to him as the Imam of Mecca, some as the Mufti of mecca. In any case, I did some more digging and found two more sources that quote him [23] and [24]. Both have references to the books which he's written. --Nkv 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then i went to the website again and started reading other articles and i came upon the article [[25]].It is next to blasphemous to speak against Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyah. I have now totally understood what kinds of proofs are being brought up by nkv and people like him.

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah contributed a lot of matter to the Islamic sciences but there are some of his positions which the majority of traditional scholars have refuted (some points of Aqida, anthropomorphism, position on Tawassul etc.)[26]. I don't speak against or for him but you're blowing it out of propotion by saying it's "next to blasphemy". --Nkv 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

David, thanks for your mediation, but now i think it is beyond your capabilities to mediate it as it has come to a stage when the basic roots of Islam are being attacked. I did not imagine that nkv would belong to such factions. I am adding the controversial tag on the sufi article now and am not willing to discuss it any further considering the lies and fabrications that are being brought up as proofs. It is better to leave the tag as it is. Killbillsbrowser 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting (I might be wrong though). Let us for the sake of argument toss the flashnet.it link out. It might be fabricated (although I don't think it is). What about the rest of the points I've mentioned above? --Nkv 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Category:Sufism Category:Islam-related controversies

[edit] Consensus

Once we get enough material here, we can distill it to get a decent article and move that back to the main article page. Is that acceptable? The page has been unedited for a while now. Once David gets back from his vacation, we can arrive at some kind of consensus.

[edit] There is much work to do

I'm back from Guatemala, where I visted in preparation for an adoption. Upon return I see that there are some changes here. I would like to suggest that the parties work hard to supply some meaningful substantiation for their positions. As it is, a proper article could not be written with the materials provided because of too much original content and insufficient citations for each of the diverse positions.

For example, Killbillsbrowser has not provided a single citation or authority so far in this discussion. His or her work is all original content, which violates Wiki principles. It was my hope that the parities who wished to argue for specific positions would provide meaningful support for their arguments. I hope that in the next week or so the proponents of various positions will come forward with the materials needed to put together a useful encyclopedia article. I look forward to all of the good faith effort that will be needed to put forward all positions in the light most favorable to each of your beliefs.

Without your good faith effort the alleged impasse will not not really be an impasse at all, but rather, a unhelpful form of intransience. This would result results in unfairness to readers of the Sufism article. David Traver 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll be able to provide a substantiated skeleton for the article. I don't expect it to be very long though and so perhaps it can become a section of the main Sufism article rather than a completely separate article. I have my resources and references ready but need to put them in place to create the actual article. Thanks for the help David. --Nkv 04:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

Sufism is a somewhat controversial subject today. For didactic convenience, the perspectives on Sufism as a part of Islam will be mentioned first and after that, the non muslim groups who claim to be Sufi adherents.

[edit] Islamic positions on Sufism

[edit] Classic position on Sufism

Sufism was traditionally considered the systematisation of the spiritual component of Islam. It dealt with matters of the heart (just as Fiqh dealt with the body and Aqida dealt with the intellect). Many of the greatest Islamic scholars wrote treatises on the subject (eg. Al-Ghazali's ihya ulum-aldeen (احياء علوم الدين), Imam Nawawi's Bustan al-Arifeen etc.). Many of the traditional scholars who were part of famous Islamic insitutions (eg. Al-Azhar) like Ibn Ata'illah were Sufi masters. Even today, many of the traditional Islamic universities like Al-Azhar endorse Sufism as a part of the religion of Islam [1]. Many of the famous Islamic scholars have praised Sufis and their practices. For a list, please refer scholars on sufism.

However, Sufism emphasises non quantifiable matters (like states of the heart). The authors of various Sufi treatises often used allegorical language which couldn't be read by an unknowledgeable person to describe these states (eg. likened some states to intoxication which is forbidden in Islam). This usage of indirect language and the existence of interpretations by people who had no training in Islam or Sufism led to doubts being cast over the validity of Sufism as a part of Islam. Also, some groups emerged that considered themselves above the Sharia and dicussed Sufism as a method of bypassing the rules of Islam in order to attain salvation directly. This was disapproved of by traditional scholars. An example of such a deviant sufi was Abu Hilman. One of the most vocal critics of such deviations from the Islamic creed was Ibn Taymiya.

For a detailed article on how Sufism was part of traditional Islam and how mistakes crept into the field, please refer Place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam.

[edit] Criticism of Sufism

Sufism has been criticised as being non Islamic in nature. The adherents of the Salafi school form the majority of muslims opposed to Tasawwuf. They hold that Sufism was always held to be an innovation even by the earliest scholars ([27],[28]). Some of their main criticisms are listed below.

  1. Sufi masters have introduced many special prayers and devotional acts into their schools. These are criticised as being reprehensible innovations which are at best unnecessary. The supporters of Sufism defend their position by saying that innovations can be classified into good and bad ones. They hold that the textually transmitted prayers and invocations are superior in all respects to the ones they institute and that the latter only plays a reinforcing role rather than a main one ([29],[30]).
  2. Some point to certain practices like singing being inconsistent with the Sharia. Sufis defend their position by quoting prophetic traditions that condone certain forms of non instrumental music (refer links above).
  3. The allegorical and often obstruse language used by Sufis in their texts when interpreted by unqualified people opens avenues for many misunderstandings. eg.The concept of divine unity Wahdat-ul-wujood which critics consider equivalent to pantheism and therefore incompatible with Islam([31]). Sufi masters in many of their introductory texts caution aspirants from reading and interpreting texts by themselves. They hold that the subject can only be taught by a master to a student under strict guidance and suprevision owing to it's delicate nature. [32].

[edit] Islamic positions on non Islamic Sufi groups

The use of the title Sufi by many groups to refer to themselves and their use of traditional sufi masters (notably Jalaluddin Rumi) as sources of inspiration as well as the existence of interpretations of classical Sufis texts by people who have no grounding in traditional Islamic sciences has created a group of non Islamic sufis. These are considered by traditional Islamic scholars as beyond the pale of the religion ([33], [34]).

[edit] References

  1. ^ Keller, Nuh Ha Mim. Reliance of the traveller. “we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and confirms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a)” 

Please discuss this section in a separate one before major edits are made. It will be easier to track changes that way IMHO. --Nkv 07:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion of Project

Nkv, It appears the other parties to this discussion have decided not to participate further. You may wish to wait a few days to see if they come back with the well-supported substance we all hope to see. If they do not return, you may wish to then integrate your most recent work into the main Sufism article. Also, once this project ends, you may wish to integrate all of this discussion into the Sufism discussion page, so readers can see the effort that was made. David Traver 14:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I shall do that David. Thanks. --Nkv 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/f/Talk%7ESufism_Controversy_and_debate_c79b.html"