Talk:Sufism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Chronological Archives
Archive 1, Archive 2

Topical Archives

[edit] Discussion subpage

/Controversy and debate

===What happened to the Suhrawardri Order? It is one of the 4 Major orders; where is it?Unicorn144 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute?

Who is disputing what and why? I just went over every inch of the article, would it be ok to remove the dispute tag? I will interpret silence to mean "yes". Sam Spade 23:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I didnt add the dispute tag , but I can present a few reasons for keeping it.

1.The article presents a definition of Sufism : "Sufism ... is a school of esoteric philosophy in Islam, which is based on the pursuit of spiritual truth as a definite goal to attain..." such a simple definition fails to represents Sufism in my opinion.Such a view just ignores the different points of view of Sufis (which some of them do not believe in an "attainment of the ultimate truth" )as well as social and historical aspects of Sufism.This definition represents Sufism only as an abstract system of belief/thought.

2.The article presents no history of Sufism.Instead deals with Sufism as a clearly defined system.While in fact Sufism has changed considerably in time.From the time when Abusaid Abolkheir would use ordinary love songs to express his mysticism to the time of Ibn Arabi who constructed a very sophisticated Sufi philosophy and so on.Or from the time when there were only a few Sufis and there was no Sufi organization to the time when a Sufi leader had an army.

3.The article presents a long Sufi Concepts and Practice section claimed to be "found in various Sufi texts", these ideas are only the beliefs of a particular sect or sects and not a representative of so many different Sufi trends of thought.Specialy relating the mentioned spiritual stages to centers in the body (in a manner very similiar to Hindu chakra system) is not found in classic Sufi texts at all and seems the be the beliefs of a particular modern order(s).Many well-knwon Sufi concepts are not mentioned at all.

4.No mention is made of early sufis , their life and thoughts , even of the most famous ones like Mansour Hallaj.

5.Ideas similiar with Kabbalah's view of life and universe entered some schools of Sufi thought just recently and a kabbalistic view of Sufism is in no wise a widely accepted point of view.(If needed I can explain how the point of view presented here is heavily infulenced by Kabbalistic thought)

6.Not even a single mention is made of any Iranian Sufi traditions in Sufi Orders sections.Also,save in a phrase refering to Sufi poetry,throughtout the article the contribution of Iranian schools of Sufism (as well as many others like Iraqi schools) is almost ignored specialy in Sufi Concepts and practice section.

So in my opinion the article is heavily biased in favour of a partcular modern eclectic Sufi order or orders and parts of it seem like a knwoledge lecture given to students of Sufism.It represents a particular view of Sufism as a mystic system , neglecting other views as well as aspects of Sufism other than a mystic system (i.e its history , its influence on poetry , music , architecture , philosophy , cultures etc).

Actualy I could do some edits and justify my edits by giving the sources but I find it hard to perform on a such an organized article without changing its structure that I am not inclined to do.I hope we can find a soloution , I have no idea how to improve this article right now.Pasha Abd 10:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, you seem knowledgable. Improve the article if you can, I will help. if you have any info at all, i am glad to help add it. Sam Spade 20:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you , I think the best way would be to begin by writing a few articles on influental Sufi characters , each one containing both their life and their contributions to Sufism as well as arts and philosophy , it makes writing a NOPV section on Sufi history (and other such sections)a whole lot easier , because we do not have to confuse the reader with lots of Middle Eastern names and a short description of influence of each one of them.Pasha Abd 01:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. All editors who want to work on a better more comprehensive version of this article should probably start listing what they want to be added here or on a testing page. That neutrality tag is really getting annoying. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of really good work here, I wish you would remove the Disputed tag. Dispute means people do not agree on the basic attributes. I don't see that here. This is a good article and it is getting better as time goes on. 04:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [[User:Sevadar|Sevadar].

Hey, I just wanted to express concern with some of the external links represented on the Sufism article. Someone really needs to keep an eye on them, I deleted one under the title 'comprehensive Sufism website' which happened to be a incredibly biased and in some cases racist website. Feel free to check it out and see: http://www.sheiknazim2.com/thirdwar.html

To define Sufism as "Sufism is a mystic tradition of Islam" is a very limiting point of view. Fortunatly Sufism cannot be appropriate by anyone as Al Ghazzali said:" Sufism is based on experience, not premises." Many have tried to placate the label of sufis on themselves, one of the reason for the rise of the malamatiyya tradition in Iran that is still very much alive today: the men of blame and that was called a true path of sufism by Ibn Arabi. The mystic search to rise beyond distinctions and differences, to live with every breath in the presence of its beloved, call it Allah, God, Brahma, the intelligence pervading the universe, or whatever, again the name is no object, since only the actual experience count. How do you know them? Jesus said "let your light shine". The illuminated being will radiate light and demonstrate and reflect the sifats, the qualities of heart, as exemplified in the 99 beautiful names of Allah (qualities of compassion = rahman, mercy = rahim, faith and certitude = mu'min, majesty = mutakabbir, forgiveness = ghaffar the forgiveness of heart and ghafur the forgiveness of intelligence, patience = sabur, perserverance = matin, watchfullness = raqib, listening attentively = mujib, wisdom = hakam, sutlety = latif, generosity = karim, etc...). Sufism is the religion of the heart, the religion of love, harmony and beauty. The proof of attainment is again in the realisation and experience, not in the claim. Hazrat Inayat Khan presented the point of view of "The Universality of the Religious Ideal" having studied all the holy scriptures before bringing Sufism to the west in 1912. This is appropriately a point of view of tolerance, as loving sufi tarikat and sheiks have always welcome people of all traditions and religions in the past and still do today. [User: Salik 7 February 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Changes

This page has way too much detail on some parts, and very little information on some of the very basic concepts of Sufism. So here are some changes that I'm going to go ahead and make.

1) Get rid of the Lataif-e-sitta section and replace with a short summary. What we have right now is interesting but is too much detail for the main sufism article. Instead I'll move it to a separate article and link to it from here.

2) Get rid of the Sufi cosmology section. Again this is interesting, but does not belong on the main Sufism article because (i) it's too much detail, and (ii) that stuff isn't universally accepted by all or even most Sufis.... maybe we can put it in a separate page and link to it.

3) Get rid of the "Orders" section in the "External links". All of those links can be found in the appropriate page for the specific sufi order (i.e. naqshbandi, qadiri, etc). I might cull some other links as well as there are just way too many.

4) Try to write a bit about Fana and Baqa, and about the Shariat-Tariqat-Haqiqat progression, and other core widely accepted traditional sufi ideas.

Let me know of your disagreements. --Jungli 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Do you want a place where you can write your own article and then propose whether we want to replace this article with it? I'll be happy to provide you with one. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree with your ideas Jungli , I guess it is also a good idea to write articles about these topics first and then perhaps insert a concise of them to this article , please keep us informed of the title of your articles.Pasha Abd 15:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

New articles:

Muraqaba

Sufi Texts

History of Sufism section

I think we should have a Sufi Philosophies Article that should incorporate different cosmologies , & other concepts , like sharia>tariqa>haqiqa>marifa progression , or iman>islam>ihsan progression , & various other things . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^/c 21:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^/c 21:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I think it would be better to title it "Sufi philosophy". Sam Spade 21:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice and valuable articles F.a.y ,thank you sincerely , I guess it is better if you mention what schools of Sufism use this system , as far as possible, for providing some initial material for a good Sufi History section , I initiated Abusaeid Abolkheyr ,I guess this article may need a little edit for becoming NPOV though.I consider improving stubs and some other short articles on Sufi characters too as my free time allows me.Pasha Abd 00:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

farhansher on 28 October did this major edit i.e removed all existing materials on Origins section and wrote a totaly new version and also wrote a History of Sufism section.I do not want to get into positive and negative aspects of his edit but I feel it is not just right for an editor to do such a major edit without asking other editors opinion ,while some editors are trying to improve this article by writing new articles or test pages as a basis for a rather large program which is certainly time-consuming and challenging , and hopefully will lead to a high quality article which acts as a center of a hub for many Sufi related materials.I ask this editor to cooperate with us instead of working alone , this is the only way we can reach an NPOV , I agree that an NPOV article is by no means reflective of truth , but it is definitely the best way for writing an encyclopedia.Pasha Abd 02:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I am going on wiki vacations for 2 months , so I just wanted to add my stuff here , nothing else . If you find anything controversial in my edits , feel free to remove/change it . Regarding your question about Muraqaba , I have used books by the followers of Silsila Azeemia & Chishtia . I cant say which other schools use this system . If you know of ather kinds of Muraqaba , feel free to ad it there . Thanks for your compliments . Hope to see you in two months . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^/c 21:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

v • d • e

Sufism

Added a newsection List_of_spirituality-related_topics#Sufism . Dont forget to add new articles here . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^/c 21:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't this listed under the "Islam - Sufism" bullet at List of spirituality-related topics#Religion? — Richard_RDF^talk 22:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I rearranged the headings So that Sufism is listed under Islam and List_of_spirituality-related_topics#Sufism still works. — Richard_RDF^talk 00:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You also can tie articles together with a simple template. — Richard_RDF^talk 00:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a small note, but somewhat interesting, many sufi orders use alcohol and psychedelic substances (such as hashish) to induce themselves a state within which it is easier to communicate with God and practice al-muraqabeh. I think this should be put it as being a big difference from main-stream Islam, and the reason for which many muslims consider the Sufis to be qafirin(infidels). Just an idea
Sufitul 00:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your note above, name three sufi orders that practice that. David Traver 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Would like to offer this text by Hidayat Inayat Khan, Pir O Murshid of the International Sufi Movement, from the lineage of Hazrat Inayat Khan, that provides a broad definition of Sufism:

Sufism is neither a new religion nor a cult, neither a doctrine nor a dogmatic institution. Perhaps one could say that Sufism is the same religion of the heart that has always been, ever since wisdom was wisdom. Esoteric schools can be traced as far back as the time of Abraham, and even earlier. In Arabia, esoteric schools were known for their metaphysical teaching. In Persia, literature, poetry and music were the sources of inspiration. In India, the esoteric schools were mainly of a meditative character. Although these and others may perhaps differ slightly in the methods of inner training, yet all are united in their object, because esoteric knowledge does not belong to just one esoteric school.

The term “Sufi,” meaning wisdom, does not refer only to ancient schools, known or unknown, where spiritual concepts have blossomed through the ages and subsequently crystallized within various orders. It refers in reality to all efforts made to raise human understanding to a level of spiritual awakening, which is the outcome of the purification of the mind from the limitations of traditional barriers, as well as from one’s own pre-conceived ideas unconsciously built up day by day.

Wisdom cannot be worded, nor can it be identified as being the property of one single transmission because of its universal nature. It is a message of “human rights of thought and feeling” that has been calling since eternity but is not always heard, which explains why artificial terminologies generally misrepresent true inner realization. Unless there is an awakening to the basic moral principles of honesty in spirituality, the religious contingent of mankind remains enslaved by the tyranny imposed by the illusion of Truth.

For a Sufi, the diversity of names and forms of the world’s religious doctrines are like veils covering the phenomenon of the Spirit of Guidance constantly manifesting through all levels of evolution. This explains why one of the great ideals of a Sufi is the awakening of the heart qualities, resulting in a broader outlook, reaching far beyond concepts of faith and belief, and a compassionate attitude toward the tragic misunderstandings that divide the earnest followers of religious and philosophical traditions. The Sufi thoughtfully avoids making a display of speculative concepts, using only the language of the heart when communicating with others, respectful of all interpretations of the one and only object of worship.

All down the ages, the world Messengers have come to humanity with the great ideal of liberating the religious impulse from the various dogmas that over and over again through the centuries have built up speculative theories about the abstract. The “followers of the followers of the followers” impose these forms upon innocent believers, perpetuating thereby the specter of fanaticism even in this age when science has successfully catapulted factual knowledge as far as the surface of the moon, beyond the tragic limitations of what is held to be religious knowledge describing heaven in terms which appeal to those with closed minds.

The message of all times, which is sounding again in our century, reminds mankind that those religious traditions, highly respected within the “museum of the past,” now face the reality of new visions, such as the awareness of the unity of religious ideals. Obviously, this becomes a normal understanding as soon as one’s inner eye opens to the light of the “pearls of the ocean unseen” displayed in all religious symbolism. This light, which religion often hides beneath so many layers of disguise, pretence, and fanatical thinking, may also be seen within one’s own heart, which, to the mystic, is the living altar.

The Divine message, which comes in all ages under different names, is now the message of wisdom. This message is not meant for only a certain culture nor is it destined for just one part of the world; it is for the whole of humanity. It is a universal message, expressed in a Universal Worship inspired by teachings from the great religions, known and unknown to the world at large. The religious ideal is focused upon the Spirit of Guidance, the Teacher of all teachers, that offers inspiration to the world of science, creativity to the world of art, liberty to the social world, and to the religious world the realization of the Divine within all creation.

To the question, ‘What is the Message?’ the answer differs in accordance with the understanding, because each person represents a different point of view, yet all venture to drink from the same water, whether it be called a stream, a river, a lake, a sea, an ocean or the Divine source itself.

As we march courageously onward through the darkness of human ignorance, steadfastly holding aloft the banner of spiritual liberty, we may perhaps discover that truth could be interpreted as an invitation to become as living altars of all religious beliefs, communicating in each one’s language while safely holding on to the only secret that there is to inner peace, to happiness, to spirituality: the supremacy of truth that cannot be defined.

There is only one truth: the nobility of the heart. There is only one true heart: selfless feelings within. The inner self, the all-pervading, is revealed at all levels of mystical understanding when the illusion of the ‘I’ is transcended. This is the path of the wise, who recognize that all they know is what they imagine knowing. Wisdom is only wisdom when not pretending to others about one’s own wisdom, but when offering a silent example of an awakening to the everlasting riddle: who, what, why, how, which, whence, whither? (Salik)

[edit] Origins of Sufism

Modern research indicates that the origin of Sufism cannot be traced back to a single definite cause, discrediting at least partially the generalizations which represent it, for instance, as a reaction of the Aryan mind against a conquering Semitic religion, and as the product, essentially, of Indian and Persian thought. Before the Islamic invasion of India in the eleventh century, Buddhism exerted considerable influence in Eastern Persia and Transoxania. Buddhist monasteries flourished in Balkh (Bactria), a city that later became famous for its Sufis. The Sufi ascetic, Ibrahim ibn Adham, appears in legend as a prince of Balkh, who, like Buddha, abandoned his throne and became a wandering dervish. The Sufis learned the use of rosaries from Buddhist monks. It is generally accepted that the method of Sufism, so far as it is one of ethical self-culture, ascetic meditation, and intellectual abstraction, owes a good deal to Buddhism. The Sufi conception of the passing-away (fana) of individual self in Universal Being is considered to be of Indian origin. Its first great exponent was the Persian mystic, Bayazid of Bistam, who may have received it from his teacher, Abu ‘Ali of Sind

Sufism is also believed to be inspired by Christian ideals of austerity that contrasted sharply with the active and pleasure-loving spirit of Islam. In a famous sentence the Prophet denounced monkish austerities and bade his people devote themselves to the holy war against unbelievers. Although his condemnation of celibacy did not remain without effect, the conquest of Persia, Syria, and Egypt by his successors brought the Muslims into contact with ideas which profoundly modified their outlook on life and religion.

Hence arose the Murjites, who set faith above works and emphasized the divine love and goodness; the Qadarites who affirmed, and the Jabarites who denied, that men are responsible for their actions; the Mu‘tazilites, who built a theology on the basis of reason, rejecting the qualities of Allah as incompatible with His unity, and predestinarianism as contrary to His justice, and the Ash‘arites, the scholastic theologians of Islam, who formulated the rigid metaphysical and doctrinal system that forms the basis of current orthodox Islamic practice. All these speculations, influenced as they were by Greek theology and philosophy, reacted powerfully upon Sufism.

I agree this isn't very good, but I'm sure some of it could be merged into the article. Sam Spade 17:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well actuall , I tend to disagree . The stuff here has nothing to do with Sufism . It discusses supposed christian/dharmic/greek effects on Sufism , & is filled with loop holes . Judging from the other edits Special:Contributions&target=64.178.98.75of the person who added this * without concensus * , one can easily understand what he was trying to do .

The section just jump starts with Aryan/semitic warfare , without even explaining the begining of sufism at a time when Islam had no contact with Hinduism/Buddhism . The use of rosaries started somewhere around Iraq or western Iran . Sufi concepts also originated somewhere around Iraq , before contacts with Buddhism . If fana was copied from Hinduism , how can yoga end at Moksha while final step in Sufism is Baqa , totally different from Moksha or Nirvana . The contact of Bayazid with Abu Ali is again nowhere to be found .

The second para again seems to be orignal research , & deals not with history of sufism , but supposed effects of christianity on it .

In the end , third para says something about history of Sufism , but the things it discusses have to be researched very deep . In "Kashaf al Mahjoob , Data Gunj Buksh strictly calls both Qadrites & Jabrites as devients who gone astray . Mutazalites & Asharites are again not suited for history . Since they are Sufi Philosophy Schools , they are better to be discussed in Sufi Philosophy rather than history . In the end it says about Greek effects that are discussed in Sufi Cosmology .

So most of it is irrelevent in history of Sufism . Additionally it is Original Research , & contains a lot of unverifiable information . My best guess is that this section was copy pasted from some hindu site . It is not very much suitable here . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^/c 20:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

So sorry F.a.y I didnt know you work 2 usernames , please excuse me , If you dont mind , I try to merge a little of previous material to your new version and add some material myself , we can cover Origins now , but history needs much work, cheers Pasha Abd 13:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with these claims about the origins of Sufism. Care to substantiate your claims with references?

Much modern scholarship (eg. W. C. Chittick, A. J. Arberry) state that the origins of Sufism can be found in "mystical" passages in the Qur'an, or possibly from the practices of early ascetics (eg. the Ashab al-Suffa during the time of Prophet Muhammad).

It is true that earlier scholars (eg. R. A. Nicholson), writing in the early 20th century, claimed that Sufism derived from other sources (Christian, Hindu, Buddhism, Gnosticism, etc. etc.). However, many scholars no longer accept that point of view. Many of those who write from this perspective nowadays are often writing polemical works from a partisan point of view (eg. they are writing from a Christian or Hindu polemical perspective).

I think that to a great extent the roots of Sufism lie within Islam , but Sufism passed from a religeous perspective to a mystic one (a considerable difference ) and one can find many similiarities between different schools of mysticism , probably that is why some scholars think Sufism has widely incorporated different systems into itself, personaly I think Sufism in certain eras used platonian and neo-platonian philosophies and perhaps some gnostic ideas but no more than that.Besides these , I think that cultural backgrounds of early Sufis played a considerable role in formation of Sufism add to these the turbulant currents of Islamic thought in those times , and one should also note that Sufism was the major source of criticism of religeous hypocrasy , all these factors should be taken into consideration.Pasha Abd 18:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious that much of sufi mysticism has found some inspiration in sources outside of or predating Islam. Some Islamic scholars disagree, and their opinions can be cited and included, but they cannot be allowed to supercede all other sources. Correcting this will be a big step towards removing the NPOV dispute header. Pasha Abd is very corrct to say that nearly all forms of mysticism have some relations to each other, and it would be very foolish to think sufi mystics were alone ignorant of the views of others. One can learn from another culture or faith without losing ones own beliefs and character. Sam Spade 19:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You mentioned a good point , most scholars believe that hermetic writings , Gnosticism , Zoroastrianism and Hinduism etc had effects on sufi mysticism and philosophy sometimes in a very subtle way and it should be included in the article.By the way I initiated Esoteric interpretation of Qur'an which is related to relation of Sufism and Islam.Feel free to edit it.Pasha Abd 14:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest a version for Origins section , I tried to balance the opinions presented , excluding the extreme sides , like a major inspiratation from Budhism which was both far to the centers of sufism and non-theistic and considering Sufism the spirituality of early Islam.

Sufism began as an unorganized movement in eighth century.It is not certain when the term Sufi was first used to refer to early Sufis , partly because some of the characters mentioned in early Sufi treatises as the first sufis , like Hasan Ul-Basri and Ja'far al-Sadiq are not recognized by other sources as sufis.The general opinion holds that in its first stage Sufism was an ascetic practice without any doctrines of its own or even coherency in practice and it was not until the doctrines of divine love , union with God and necessity of following a spiritual guide were formulated that Sufism became recognized as a tradition.It is not known who first proposed these ideas but Rabia al-Adawiya , Dhu al-Nun Misri and Bayazid Bastami are among the famous early sufis who are known to have held such opinions.

Researches indicate that the origin of Sufism cannot be traced back to a single definite cause , different theories have been presented which highlight the effects of the synthesis of Persian civilization and its religions with Islam , expanding the mystic ideas existing in Qur’an by various means and incorporating ideas and practices of other mystic systems such as Hinduism and Gnosticism in formation and evolution of the early Sufi tradition.The evidences in support of these theories include the existance of considerable similiarities between Sufism and cultures and doctrines predating and outside Islam.

Traditional sufi writings insist that Sufism is only the mystic aspect of Islam and date back the origins of Sufism to a group of companion of Mohammad known as ‘’Ahl as Suffa’’ (People of the Veranda) that lived lives of poverty and piety , many of whom were of foreign origin (like Bilal from Ethiopia, Salman from Persia and Suhaib from Rome ) and consider Ali ibn Abi Talib as the first point of the line of transmission of mystic heritage from Mohammad to Sufi tradition. Many of these claims lack historic evidence , but some scholars find elements of reality in them and believe that early sufism was essentially the result of evolution of Islam in a mystic direction. Annemarie Schimmel proposes that Sufism in its early stages of development, meant nothing but the interiorization of Islam. Louis Massignon states: “It is from the Qur’an, constantly recited, meditated, and experienced, that Sufism proceeded, in its origin and its development.Pasha Abd 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I really like your comments here, and encourage you to make extensive edits to the origins section. Sam Spade 20:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we started a new article on history of Sufism , & added your stuff there .We will also be able to add separate sections on "Sufism in Persia" , "Sufism in Indian Sub-continent" , "Sufism in North Africa" , "Sufism in the West" e.t.c. in that article . So what do you say . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^/c 19:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea , because Sufism is a realy wide-spread tradition.Naturally I shall contribute to Sufism in Persia.Pasha 23:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually understand that the theories of "inspiration from outside Islam" as Chittick points out in his recent lectures has been used by Islamists (the term he used) to attack Sufism and this way they deny the beautiful aspects of Islamic traditions ,well , it is actually one of the charactristics of Islamic fundamentalism , examples can be found on Salafi sites [1] , should we get into details some Shi'a scholars reject Sufism as innovation and accept what they call Islamic Mysticism or Irfan(as opposed to Sufism which they define as asceticism) which is actually a philosophy based on works of the famous Sufi Ibn Arabi.I also agree that recent studies which use a phenomenological approach to mystic experiences do not consider it necassary to suppose that Sufism's origin is in mystic ideas of other systems.But there are many scholarly works by various authors which propose the idea of inspiration from non-Islamic sources and we can not neglect them.A good idea would be to mention Salafis and these Shi'a scholars points of view in an appropriate place.Pasha 23:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it is a good idea to add a section on religeous criticism of Sufism , here we can discuss it all.If editors agree I write a short section on this for balance of the Salafi criticism add opinions like this one by Chittick : (whithout the bomb and gun thing !) "It is worth noting that modern-day "Islamism"—that is, ideological posturing and political activism in the name of Islam —agrees with the early Orientalists on the origins of Islamic mysticism. Despite the fact that the Islamists are harshly critical of Western scholarship, they adopt many of its positions. They love Western technological expertise along with its guns and bombs, and they also love the various political theories that justify totalitarian control. By claiming that mysticism derives from outside sources, they embrace the Orientalist myth of a harsh and sterile Islam and ignore the spiritual and intellectual heritage of their religion. They have focused all their efforts on turning people away from the Islamic tradition and establishing authoritarian regimes." I hope it can resolve the (justified) worries of some people.What do you think?Pasha 01:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Edited Origins sections.Pasha 19:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Also added some information to Relation of tarditional Islamic schools of thought with Sufism.Pasha 19:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I also suggest that in the opening lines we replace an "esoteric philosophy" with a "mystic tradition" because sufism is much more mystic than esoteric (i.e related to knowledge preserved for the initiates) , it also has elements other than philosophy , in fact philosophy doesnt seem its cerntral element and it has characteristics of a religeous tradition.Pasha 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Did an edit on the setion on relation of Islam and Sufism , which included rephrasing some informations in a more coherent fashion and removing some phrases that seemed to me to repeat some information if any important information is lost please return it back.Pasha 23:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Lots of interesting stuff here. I would like someone to be more specific about the Persian/Islamic collision which helped create Sufism. No-one seems to mention the fact that before Persia (old Iran/Iraq etc) was converted or did convert to Islam it already had a long standing and extraordinary rich culture of its own with its own visionary religion: Zoroastrianism. Sufism is the product of the Persian and Islamic souls/minds striking and cross-fertilising each other. In fact many of the great Sufis represented a synthesis of Islamic thought with other cultures - Ibn Arabi with Christian and Jewish mysticism in Spain for instance. In the days when Islamic culture was in the ascendence it was a much more open and intellectually confident one than it is today. Muslim scholars, thinkers, philosophers and mystics were all very open to ideas which enriched their vision of Islam. In fact we shouldn't think of many of the world's religions as having sprung forth fully formed from the minds of their worshippers. Judaism was influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism and Egyptian/Hermetic beliefs as was Christianity which grew out of not only those three religions but also a cross-fertilisation with the Hellenic/Greek mind. Islam grew out of those colliding with the Arab mind. Situated as it was between the Judeo-Christian West and Hindu/Buddhist East why shouldn't Sufism absorb and be influenced and enriched by the best and most visionary thoughts of other cultures. Its still Islamic in context, just more expansive in outlook. ThePeg 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazar ill'al-murd

I have insufficient direct knowledge of Sufism to start major editing here, but it is clear from a quick perusal of the article that there is no mention of the formerly widespread practice of nazar, the "contemplation of the beardless." Is that the intention of the editors, or is it an accidental omission? Haiduc 13:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

there are many such omissions, please add whatever you can, if it becomes too much, we can always create spin-off articles for the excess. Sam Spade 16:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well never heard of these . Can you explain a bit .Secondly sufism as a whole can incorporate a lot of practices , there are some that are specfic to one region , others htat are specfic to one order . The things that are given here are those that are practiced in a lot of different places by many different orders . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^/c 19:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This practice existed at least in Persia , Turkey and some Arab countries as far as I know , in the article on pederasty in Sufi Outlook section it is discussed briefly , I think it is a good idea to initiate an article about it and then according to other editors opinion add information here.My opinion about Nazar is that due to social inhibitions , young boys were considered attractive , it was common and not restricted to those with sexual orientations different from average , some Sufis proposed the idea that every kind of love can be used to reach divine love and so the practice came into being , yet it should be noted that all referenes to a male beloved by male Sufi poets are not forms of nazar , this is the mistake of scholars with a prejudice that a spiritual love between tow persons can not exist.I would be glad if you initiate the article and shall work on it.I do not disagree that writing a section here is also good.Pasha 00:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well an excellent site on Nazar , but to the opposite sex , it contains also an interesting argument , I think for anyone interested in Sufism it is realy worth a read : [2]Pasha 12:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The above post was not necassarily for editorial ends.Pasha 12:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have initiated the process suggested by Pasha, copying (with some alterations) the bulk of the text from the article on pederasty, here. Please edit as appropriate. Haiduc 12:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Haiduc , I shall add material to it as soon as I find the chance.Pasha 12:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Sufi orders

PHILTAR (Philosophy of Theology and Religion at the Division of Religion and Philosophy of St Martin's College) has a very useful Graphical illustration of the Sufi schools.

The chart shows only Sunni Sufi orders based on a more abstract chart [3], granted that most Sufi orders are Sunni , there are other old/traditional Sufi orders which are not.For example Ahl-e Haqq [4], Nimatullahi and Bektashi. So removed the phrase as it seemed contradictory to NPOV policy.The link (i.e map of oreder) exists in External links sction , which seems to me appropriate.Pasha 18:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, nature is in general seen as a place, which may be unique but is ordinary, where man lives, the only creature worthy of 'salvation', to whom alone the holy texts are addressed in order to teach the 'right way'. The respect or sympathy that is sometimes directed towards nature/creation seems ancillary and in no way resembles, as we shall see below, the great esteem accorded it by most Asian religions, more especially those that are still influenced by animism and shamanism. However, exception must be made of certain marginal mystical or theosophical sects (Kabbala, magic, alchemy, Sufism), which do have several similarities to these Asian religions. Nevertheless the vision of nature is quite different in Turkish and central Asian heterodox Islam and some strands of Muslim mysticism (Sufism).

The religious and philosophical influences that come together to form this original vision of nature are threefold. The first is from the animistic and shamanistic faith of the Turkic nomads of Asia, which has much in common with that of the region's other nomadic peoples. The second influence, which might be described as an immanentism, is a descendant of Neoplatonic philosophy, recast in the context of Arabo-Muslim philosophy and Sufism. This strand has similar features to the 'magic panvitalism' of Paracelsus(FN3) and the 'energetism' that prevails in eastern Asia. And finally the third influence comes from belief in the transmigration of beings borrowed from shamanism or central Asian Buddhism.

Zarcone, Thierry, 2005, Stone People, Tree People and Animal People in Turkic Asia and Eastern Europe., Diogenes Vol. 52 Issue 3, p35-46, 12p

Sam Spade 20:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"It is He who is revealed in every face, sought in every sign, gazed upon by every eye, worshipped in every object of worship, and pursued in the unseen and the visible. Not a single one of His creatures can fail to find Him in its primordial and original nature."

O Marvel! a garden amidst the flames.

My heart has become capable of every form:

it is a pasture for gazelles and a convent for Christian monks,

and a temple for idols and the pilgrim's Kaa'ba,

and the tables of the Torah and the book of the Quran.

I follow the religion of Love: whatever way Love's camels take,

hat is my religion and my faith.

Ibn Arabi ,[5],[6]

The above qoutes fairly show the Sufi view of life and the universe and with this mind-set they learned so much from other sources , but I think , not simply through syncreticism because Sufis had enough mystical and philosophical understanding to incorporate ispirations to their system in an original fashion. For example consider this veneration for nature :

"The Prophet used to walk under the rain and would further bare his head to let the rain wet him and would say that the rain is close to the divine source(as being natural and devoid of free will).So look at this prophet's knowledge of God , how prfect , clear and lofty it was! Certainly the rain dominated the best of men for its close ties with its Lord , and played the role of a messenger bringing revealation.So with its very nature the rain called Muhammad to itself to share with him what it had received from its Lord , and it if the exposure to rain didnt have divine benefits , the Prophet would not do that" The Bezels of Wisdom , Ibn Arabi , in the context of discussion of the undeveloped and natural and their relation to the divine source.

It is certain that Islam in general does not pay as much attention as we see above to nature.

Please edit the origin section as seems appropriate.Pasha 23:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There is an interesting answer to the question of where sufi's got these ideas. One answer is thru interactions w non-muslim mystics. But another answer, which we have not addressed in the article, is that these may be obvious truths, like 2+2=4, available to anyone thoughtful enough to meditate upon them ;) That is my view, anyhow. Sam Spade 15:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree with this answer , mystical experience is fairly universal , I didnt mention this view because I felt people might think it is a 'mystic' bias ,because many people seem skeptic of even the existance of such states of mind.Although rigor studies indicate that mystical experiences at least at a subjective level are real and have similiarities.If you ask me how I realy think about Sufism , I think it is mysticism whithin an Islamic paradigm , the majority of Sufi stuf is mystic experiences explained by an Islamic language , not a result of combining Islamic and non-Islamic ideas.I would be glad if we mention this view in the article.At least it is the only way we can explain the centeral doctrine of Sufism (unity of existance) which is not mentioned in the Qur'an and to suppose its derivation from Hinduism by Sufis , we should also suppose that sufis had a level of knowledge in comparative study of religeons which was not available until early 20 century.Pasha 16:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "existance of mystic experiences" is a bias , but their non-existance is also a bias save that the latter is often introduced as an unbiased perspective and leads some scholars to the hypothesis that every idea peresent in Sufism is necessarily derived from a belief system : Islam , Gnosticism etc.Pasha 16:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The best (NPOV) way to handle this is to provide explanations of all POV's, with citations of possible. Sam Spade 17:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes , I shall try to find sources discussing Sufism from a mystical perspective and add that view to the article.Pasha 17:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well for unity of existance this hadeeth is given as an example:

Bukhari:Volume 8, Book 76, Number 509:

the most beloved things with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks.

Although ofcourse as pasha says , a lot of it comes from personal experience . I mean if a person is going through astral projection , the experience will always be the same regardless of the tradation he follows . But suppose he sees a horrible being in his vision , a hindu might call it rakhshus , a muslim might call it jinn & a wiccan wil call it a demon . And the details that they will tell will exactly be the same . Now nobody copied from anybody , but it would definitely seem like this . Farhansher 20:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

About the above mention texts...well...dont you guys think these details about influences belong to Formation of philosophies or a Sufi culture section rather than in origin section . If all this was the origin of Sufism , than what happened to Quran & Sunnah . If we read first books on "cleansing one's soul" ( at that time the word tasawwuf wasent created ) , they doesnt have any thing other than Sufi explanations of Quran . First manuals on Sufism by Hassan Basri only included verses from Quran & names of God , that he considered best to be used for dhikr . After wards Rabia came with love , Mansur came with Sukr & Junaid came with Fana/Baqa . Baqa is still not found anywhere in any mustic tradition other than Sufism . Its the main reason why Sufis have created poetry , music , philosophies , jurisprudence & even fought wars , while mystics of any other traditions only enter annihilation state , & thats the end of their journey . Even in the books by Jilani , who came much later , we only find stuff about how to follow Quran/Sunnah/Sharia in the best way , & how "cleansing one's heart" is a crucial part of Islam . And a lot of muslim scholars , even people like Ibn taymia (the founder of Salfism) , agreed with him . In its origins , Sufism was only an specialised field ( like hadeeth or Fiqah ) , that put stress on making connection with God , at a time when people started putting more stress to physical aspects/recommendations of Islam rather than spiritual ones .

But when Sufism reached other regions , ofcourse it was influenced by Persian poetry/art , Indian music & Greek philosophy . In india , Qawwali & Sikhism were created as a mixture of Vedic/Sufic tradations . Although as Bahauddian Zakaria ( who is considered to be the creater of Qawwali ) says , he created qawwali so that indians will sing in the praise of Allah & Muhammad too , besides singing in the praise of Rama & Krishna . The main creater of Sufi philosophies was Ibn Arabi , who was an scholar in ........well......almost everything . In his words , he tried to explain his visions in the light of greek/judochristian tradations , that were in fashion in Muslim spain . Although we can say that these people were subtly influenced by things outside Islam , & they brought these concepts in Sufism , but then this is called influence , not origin .

I think Sufism changed its crust according to its place , incorporated alot of things that werent anti-islamic in its mantle , including a lot of personal experiences & culture, & retained its core as it was in the begining of Islam . Judging from the crust , orientlists think sufism comes from out side Islam , but if you go in the core , its extremely islamic . People will be amazed to know the sufi intelperation of La ilaha illalah , which is much more islamic than what it seems to be .

Farhansher 20:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there is an ambiguty in the word origins , I think besides sources of Sufi thought , it means the social , cultural , etc causes of formation of Sufi tradition.In this sense for example conversion of people with different cultures to Islam in a short period could provide the air for new (here mystic) understandings of Islam because when cultures meet in such a scale , always new thoughts arise.Such theories , per se , do not mean that Sufism is the result of a syncretism.

There are even non-Sufis (like western scholars) who think Sufism is absoloutely faithful to original Islam , we can mention this in the article .But certainly Sufism is very different from other branches of Islam , it has a culture/ethics/language of its own , a world-view/philosophy of its own etc and we need to explain these in an appropriate way.Again this does not mean that Sufism is not Islamic. I agree that that we should distinguish between origins and influences. I have no real understanding of what Sufis call Baqa , but I am sure that many mystics worldwide are active persons. Pasha 23:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what is being written said here, and will support removal of the dispute header if we can describe the various views regarding sufi influences in a neutral manner. If origins is the wrong place, we can create a new section, or whatever needs done. let us put 1/2 as much effort to the article as this talk page, and it will be doing very well ;) Sam Spade 01:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

I wrote Sufism#Influences, have a look. Sam Spade 01:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you , I added some information there and also edited other sections take a look please.Pasha 04:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good, thank you! Sam Spade 13:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I took your advise ;) Pasha 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The influences I have heard of are monastries & wool from christianity , poetry , art & love of nature from persia , music & a lot of nature love from india & philosophies that heve been influenced by Zoroastrianism , Neoplatonism & may be kabbalah . Other than that , the section gives a huge list of influences , that I am not able to understand . Like I dont think sufis have been that much in contact with taoism , & transmigration (not reincarnation)can be found in Hadeeth . Animism , Shamanism , Gnosticism , Hermeticism , panvitalism .....I am not able to see these effects . Vedic religions might have an effect, but can you explain where . The only similarity I see is chakra/lataif , & lataif were there long before contact with vedic religions . Also there are many differences between the description of chakra position, color, function ) & lataif . Farhansher 10:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a need of a separate article on Sufi poetry . Farhansher 10:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Sufi poetry is indeed worth a separate article , as for influences we just list what people have said and also mentioned the criticism of their ideas by renowned people , so I guess it is almost OK.Pasha 10:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khaneqah

Is there any link to Khaneqas or Khaneqahs (or some other spelling?), because if there isnt, we need one. Please someone address this task.--Zereshk 03:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes we need to mention that , but it was very good if could knew what a khaneqah is called in India or Africa , I am not sure , but they may use another word.Pasha 08:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I took care of it. It's ready.--Zereshk 22:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

In India/Pakistan it is also known as "khanqah. In the Arab world it is known as "zawiya" and in turkish it is known as a Tekke, which already has an article as you can see. So I think we need to merge Khaneqah with Tekke.

My understanding is that dargah is the same thing. At the moment this is a redirection to tomb, for some reason Gwaka Lumpa 12:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Many of the links are critical of sufism (renouncing it as a form of reprehensible innovation). Many others are justifications. Mixing them like this is sort of messy IMHO. Perhaps we should make a "criticism of sufism" section in the external links one and put them there? --Nkv 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments please

"There are two methods for people born as muslims who do not know the ameenu spirit 49:14. The first is that a muslim without the ameenu spirit 42:52 & 49:14 can, through sunnah alone (42:51), start to recieve wahy. Thus a muslim could jump directly into becomming a mursal if so rightly guided. Thus even though a mursal, has not reached a mahmoodan state 17:79, alroohu can act in the mursal with/by/in The Truth, i.e. with/by/in practicing the sunnah. Obviously the next stage from here is, as a result of the quest to reach the mahmoodan state, when the mursal evolves into the veil that puts the spirit into the hearts of others in exactly the same way Muhammad (PBUH) did. The Second is that the ameenu spirit is inscribed on their hearts by the will of Allah (SWT) and they become mumineena 58:22. The ameenu spirit 26:193 etched on the heart 26:194 is the "veil" 42:51 through which 26:193 wahy comes 42:52 -as the muminan joins alnabi as a mursal. This "veil" is called Gabriel 2:97 (aka the spirit of Allah (SWT)'s attributes 's spirit 19:17) the allai of alnabi (66:4). This has always happened. Throughout hisory Angels appear to devout people. The people to whom this happens are not even yet mursalin, though given the opportunity they would certainly join the mursalin. To be sure, this is one form in which wahy occurs. The Sufi teacher must know this to know the job s/he is doing. "

86.138.187.252 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Other [anonymous] comment: Just my 0.02$ - the article's tone is not very impartial, and some points, such as Sufism being accepted by majority of other sects of Islam are, I believe, incorrect.

Sufism is accepted by a majority of other sects of Islam - Sunni (all 4 schools of law) and Shia. Many of the founders of these were themselves involved with Sufi activity. I can't reference this off the top of my head, or in time I'm supposed to be doing a tax return and writing some reports, but there are many learned people who can. Try searching Dr Alan Godlas's excellent site on Sufism and Islam in general. - he is a scholar rather than someone with an axe to grind.

The major group to reject Sufism, the Wahhabis, are, in the context of the 1300 year history of Islam, an exception and a recent aboration. Some other modern sects have followed this trend. Gwaka Lumpa 11:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sufism in INdia today

Can someone, preferably someone living in India, contribute a short section on how/why Sufism has come to assume a position of eminence in cultural circles in India over the last year or so?

I visited India in Dec 2004 and again in Dec 2005, and I was really struck by this change. There has been a virtual explosion of interest in Sufism and Sufi music, and every cultural forum worth the name has jumped on the bandwagon. Sarabseth 02:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North african Sufism

North African Tariqah mainly depend on repeating Qur'anic verses, and the 99 Names of God in specific orders in chapters called Hizb, your mix of Ahzab (plural of Hizb) depends on your class of knowledge of Sufism. [7] and it's offshoots read Alhizb Al-kabir and other Ahzab (plural of hizb)

[edit] Alhizb Al-kabir

Here is a portion of Alhizb Al-kabir (the big Hizb) (Arabic: الحزب الكبير) , it deals with fear, God was talking in the majority of the Ayats to Moses his brother Aron and their mother (once in (20:77)). They are in this specific order. They are somtimes part of the Ayat (verse):

Draw near, and fear not. Verily, you are of those who are secure. (28:31)

"Fear you not. You have escaped from the people who are wrong-doers." (28:25)

Fearing (or fear) neither to be overtaken [by Pharaoh] nor being afraid (of drowning in the sea)." (20:77) (to Moses's mother)

"Fear not! Surely, you will have the upper hand. (20:68)

"Fear not, verily! I am with you both, hearing and seeing. (20:46)

Fear not, verily! The Messengers fear not in front of Me. (27:10)

And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear. (24:55)

And has made them safe from fear. (106:4)

(Then the Sufi prays): Allah (God) please secure and shelter us from all fear..... --The Brain 17:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hello writer

Do you think my edit is fine to the text to make it more simpler?

thanks

[edit] Please help out at Khanqah

I merged tekke and khaneqah, as agreed by the editors involved, and redirected them both to khanqah, as that is the form of the word that gets the most hits on Google. By the time I had thrown out all the information that I couldn't verify, there was little left. More detail and more pictures would be nice. Just be sure that the pictures are public domain or creative commons, and that there are references for any text added. Let's try to get all orders and all countries represented. Zora 09:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahl al-Suffa vs. Ahl as-Suffa

I don't know Arabic. Are the Ahl al-Suffa ("People of the Veranda") from the "etymology" section the same as the Ahl as-Suffa ("People of the Shed") from the "origins" section? Thanks, ntennis 06:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabic is FULL of synonyms and homonyms. I would not be at all suprised if the word for shed at that for veranda were the same. Many words will share roots but have entirely different meanings. The etymology section is good, but one part bothers me. it says that the word sufi may have possibly come from the word saaf, meaning purity. However, it says that this is unlikely because the word we would be left with would be saafi, not sufi. I dissagree. The root of saaf is a hollow one, meaning that the second radical of the root is a long vowel, in this case an alif, or the aa sound. However, in other forms, the alif may turn into a yaa or a waw which make i sounds and u sounds, respectively. For example, the arabic word for it is tasawwaf, which is a form 5 hollow verb form. Form 5 can never have an alif in a hollow root and is ALWAYS replaced by a waw or yaa, in this case a waw. It is very conceivable that saaf, plugged into an alternate form would result in the word sufi instead of saafi.

[edit] Links

Various people have been adding links. But they don't just add them under external links, no. They add them under special categories indicating that these links deserve special treatment. Not fair, not organized.

I started by mushing all the links together. As I have time, I'll click through, weed out dead or junk links, and try to organize them. I'd suggest something like Academic links (not proselytizing) and then links organized by various Sufi tariqahs. If there's still so many links, it might be a good idea to move the links for the various tariqahs to the articles for those tariqahs. The proliferation of links looks like competition for followers and attention to me, and it's NOT OK. WP is not a link farm.

If someone else who is ruthless and a non-Sufi wants to start weeding, that's fine with me. I'd just like to see it done. Zora 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll reclassify the links under a couple of headings. It might not be perfect but it'll be start. Gimme a day or two --Nkv 14:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Pederasty?

Just out of interest, why is this article in this particular category? Is it a valid placement or vandalism? Vashti 21:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The section on Nazar is the reason for the category. I'm not too sure about it's accuracy or even facticity but haven't had time to research and edit/delete it. --Nkv 05:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam tag in links section

In response to a spam tag placed at the top of the links section, I reorganized the existing links, corrected some bad links, and generally tried to sort out the mess. I deleted one link that had no apparent relationship to the article. I will leave it to those more knowledgeable than me to determine what else may or may not be related to the article. I did not see, however, much in the way of overt commercial spam. Therefore, I removed the spam tag from the article. David Traver 02:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: viewpoints

( I have inserted my comments in between yours. I don't agree with whatever you've said so I'll call a third party to moderate this. I don't want to get into a revert war). It would also be a good idea if you could register under a username. It's hard to keep track of things this way. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.As for the website it may be a salafi website ( i am not sure what you mean by a salafi website) but there is nothing wrong in there.

I note that they are [Salafi] websites because of their praise for Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. No other parties credit him as a "scholar". As for "nothing wrong in there", I disagree. "Nothing wrong in there according to Salafi ideologies" would be more accurate. You have quoted two sites which are openly Salafi in their inclinations and opinions. If you can quote one that is not, I'm willing to think about it. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a salafi opinion that sufism is an innovation, but the opinion of all major scholars including the a'ima.

Nope. It is a [Salafi] position that sufism is a [Bid'a]. Please refer [8] for a list of what the classical position is. Also, I'd recommend you read "Place of Tasawwuf is traditional Islam" (google for it). --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

However, people conveniently call all non-sufis as salafis.

Who is "people"? There are millions of mainstream muslims who are not sufis who are not called Salafis by anyone. Can you substantiate this --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So conveniently, any such proof that clarifies it will be deemed as salafi.

Nope. People who deem themselves beyond the Sharia are denounced as deviants by classical scholarship (eg. Abu Hilman). My reasons for qss and allahuakbar.net being salafi are based on their high regard and esteem for [Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab]. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It can easily be verified from all scholars who ascribe to true teachings of islam (whether hanafi, shafi, salafi) about the sufis.

First of all, Hanafi and Shaf'i are not equal to Salafi in any way. The former two are almost as old as Islam itself (Imam Abu Hanifa was a Tabiee and Imam Shafi'i was 2 generations later). The Salafi movement on the other hand was founded by Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahhab and is around 200 years old. Please don't equate them.

As for their opinions, please refer the sunnah.org link which I posted above. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

However, this is not a forum to discuss that. Why i wanted to add this here is that people who may not know about islam should know that sufism is not an integral part of islam and is actually a deviant sect that arose.

And my concern is to inform people that Sufism was indeed a part of Islam from it's earliest times and that there were pretenders who corrupted the practice and that the Salafi movement is vehemently against any Sufi practice. If you can provide me with a non Salafi website that criticises sufism, I'd be willing to rethink this whole matter. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As for anybody who wants to adhere to it can very well do so, but should not relate it with Islam.

You're being unreasonable here. You claim that it's an misguided innovation and try to justify it. I say that it's called an innovation by the Salafi followers and that this fact should be mentioned. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the same as nation of islam, qaadiyanis, ahmadis, duroos etc.

You're equating wildly different groups. The Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ahmed Ghulam was a mujaddid, the Qadiyannis believe that he was a prophet (or the Mahdi). The Druze believe in a different book and pray a different number of times. They are not the same. Sufism cannot be equated to this. Please read "The place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam". --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Had it been an article about sufism alone, i would not have touched it, so either every reference to islam has to be removed or as a responsible muslim, i should always clear it by adding this mention.

I applaud your sense of responsibilty but

1. You've got your facts wrong 2. This is an encyclopaedia. Not a Da'wa outfit. So state everything clearly. It's a fact that the Salafis are the ones who hold Sufism to be an innovation. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to nkv

Thank you for the information. But unfortunately i fail to understand the relation you are trying to bring here between salafi and sufi. Sufism is an innovation and a deviation from Islam is a well established fact.

Nope. Sufism is an integral part of Islam. That's the well established fact. (read "Place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam"). There are "free spirit" types who call themselves sufis but who don't really follow the Sharia. Excluding them, sufism was and is part of Islamic education in all traditional madrassas. There are books written on the subject by scholars like Imam Ghazzali, Ibn Taymiya, Zainuddin Mallibari etc.

The fact that I'm trying to convey is that mainstream Islamic scholarship has always considered Sufism (in it's true form) as a part of Islam. The Salafi movement and their leaders where ones to deny this. If you want to include all your comments on sufism, please go ahead but make sure that you mention that it's the salafi position and not that of the classical scholars. --Nkv 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about salafism, but none of the mainstream madhabs (hanafi, shafi etc.) have endorsed sufism.

Read http://www.sunnah.org/tasawwuf/scholar.htm. Notable scholars of the four madhabs and the Imams themselves have endorsed Tasawwuf as the spiritual component of the religion. --Nkv 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As for mentioning that these websites are salafi websites (for that i have to do more research what exactly you mean and more about who Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab is), but the proofs you are mentioning supporting sufism are nothing but works of some sufis and thus biased.

The content is quoted from scholars like Imam Nawwawi, Imam Ghazzali, Shaykh Ibn Taymiya etc. Their combined positions are pretty conclusive.--Nkv 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have ever watched video lectures by likes of ahmed deedat, zakir nayak or books by ameen, modudi, safi-u-rehman they all belong to different madhabs but say same things about sufism as being astray.

And if you're listened to people like Shaykh Nuh Keller, Shaykh Abu Bakkar Ahmad Mallibari etc., you'll see otherwise. Here's what Maududi (one of the people you mentioned above) has to say [9].--Nkv 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

i can provide reference to all these. So, as mentioned this is not a dawah website or anything, so it becomes more important that the encyclopoedia does not give false information. In case tomorrow a nation of islam page writes about islam, then it should be clarified, otherwise false information is conveyed.

You are free to edit the pages. That's how wikipedia works. The *fact* is that it's the Salafis who consider sufism a deviation. When you call it a deviation, please mention who thinks so (That's mentioned in the article already). --Nkv 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add the section saying that the Mujtahid Imams didn't endorse it. The link to sunnah.org which I've mentioned above clearly shows that they did. I'm reverting your edits now. I've called in a third party to look at the content too. --Nkv 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the paragraph you are adding. I have interspersed it with comments as to why it is factually inaccurate. Unless we reach an agreement on this, please don't edit the article.

Whereas many scholars like Abu Hanifa,

Ibn `Abidin relates in his al Durr al mukhtar that Imam Abu Hanifa said: "If it were not for two years, I would have perished." Ibn `Abidin comments:

For two years he accompanied Sayyidina Ja`far al-Sadiq and he acquired the spiritual knowledge that made him a gnostic in the Way... Abu `Ali Daqqaq (Imam Qushayri's shaykh) received the path from Abu al-Qasim al-Nasirabadi, who received it from al Shibli, who received it from Sari al-Saqati who received it from al Ma`ruf al Karkhi, who received it from Dawud at Ta'i, who received the knowledge, both the external and the internal, from the Imam Abi Hanifa. (emphasis mine --Nkv 15:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

Shafii,

Al-hafiz al-Suyuti relates in Ta'yid al-haqiqa al-`aliyya that Imam al-Shafi`i said:

I accompanied the Sufis and received from them but three words: their statement that time is a sword: if you do not cut it, it cuts you; their statement that if you do not keep your ego busy with truth it will keep you busy with falsehood; their statement that deprivation is immunity.

Ahmad

Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188) relates in his Ghidha' al-albab li-sharh manzumat al-adab from Ibrahim ibn `Abd Allah al-Qalanasi that Imam Ahmad said about the Sufis: "I don't know people better than them." Someone said to him: "They listen to music and they reach states of ecstasy." He said: "Do you prevent them from enjoying an hour with Allah?"

and Ibn Taymiya

Please refer [10]. Ibn Taymiya was a vocal critic of people who called themselves Sufis but who openly violated and advocated violation of the Sharia. He however considered himself a Qadiri sufi and regularly referred to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani as "Our master".

consider them not following mainstream teachings of Islam, some scholars like Al-Ghazali, Suyuti etc have taken a lenient stance and labelled them as only misguided and of erroneous understanding.

The Sufi path consists in cleansing the heart from whatever is other than Allah... I concluded that the Sufis are the seekers in Allah's Way, and their conduct is the best conduct, and their way is the best way, and their manners are the most sanctified. They have cleaned their hearts from other than Allah and they have made them as pathways for rivers to run, carrying knowledge of Allah. - al-Ghazali, al Munqidh min al dalal.

I have looked at the matters which the Imams of Shari`a have criticized in Sufis, and I did not see a single true Sufi holding such positions. Rather, they are held by the people of innovation and the extremists who have claimed for themselves the title of Sufi while in reality they are not... - al-Suyuti, Ta'yid al-haqiqa al-`aliyya wa-tashyid al-tariqa al-shadhiliyya

This is an outright endorsement and a recommendation. Not a "lenient stance".

Source :: http://www.sunnah.org/tasawwuf/scholar.htm --Nkv 15:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fabrication (POV)

unfortunately you are being misled by incorrect information.

I could say the same thing about you. --Nkv 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Shiekh abdul qadir jeelani's lineage of students are still alive in my country (where he preached almost all his life). his books are still being taught and i know first hand what his concept was.

His lineage is alive and well where I am too. We can throw dust like this claiming superiority but it's getting us nowhere. --Nkv 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

as for ibn taimiyah i can surely say that you are totally unaware of his works. i would highly recommend reading his books before misquoting him. i am not satisfied with your proofs ( and you are once and again quoting the same incorrect website) so i am reverting the edits and shall do it as long as there is mention of islam alongside with sufism.

Your attitude looks like you're unwilling to discuss this. My claim is that the anti sufi position is a Salafi one. The website I quoted has excerpts from a book that specifically addresses this. Both of the websites you quotes are openly Salafi. I think the state of affairs is clear. However, this revertion is getting out of hand so I'll just tag the article as disputed and invite others into this discussion. Also, it might be a good idea for you to get a username. It's hard to discuss with an IP. And please use just this section to continue the dicussion. Don't keep on adding new ones. It makes things hard to follow. Thanks. --Nkv 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

in case you decide to make this article totally related to sufism such that no reader will confuse sufism being related with islam, i will no longer add anything to the article.

Sufism was, is and will always be a part of Islam. That's why the article shows that. There are some elements which are non Islamic. There are some people who claim to be Sufis that are beyond the pale of Islam no doubt. The article mentions them as well. --Nkv 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

you mentioned 'mainstream Islamic scholarship has always considered Sufism (in it's true form) as a part of Islam'. this is a fabrication and the reason i shall keep editing this.

I have given you proofs that it is not. You refuse to accept them. We have reached an impasse and it's time to call in a moderator. If I make the changes to article once again, you'll revert them. So there's no point in doing that. --Nkv 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i agree with the previous edits made by some person. however, the proofs are from salafi websites and i do not agree to many things in those websites. But for this topic i agree.

Since these "proofs" are all from Salafi websites(as you yourself admit), say that in your paragraph. Something on the lines of "Salafi scholars hold the position that the Sufis are deviants (links to allahuakbar.net and qss). Traditional Islamic scholars hold them to be part of the religion (links to sunnipath and sunnah.org)". That's all I'm asking for.

Well, this is getting into a war and I want to avoid that. Your ideas are wrong but you're not willing to listen. I shall wait for a third party to look at the article and till then, shall mark it as disputed. --Nkv 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: I am happy with the article being tagged as disputed. That way a person will not be misled. I am willing to discuss (not debate though). But unfortunately, the proofs you give are not correct and the statements you make 'Sufism was, is and will always be a part of Islam' make me think that you are pro-sufi and thus only want to prove your point. I have also marked this article to some learned people of different conventional schools of thought (hanafi and shafi, unfortunately i dont have acquintances that are hanbali or maliki but will continue looking for them).

I have removed disputed tag. Nkv, in my view additions by 69.163.24.19 are acceptable.

Whereas many scholars like Abu Hanifa, Shafii, Ahmad and Ibn Taymiya consider them not following mainstream teachings of Islam, some scholars like Al-Ghazali, Suyuti etc have taken a lenient stance and labelled them as only misguided and of erroneous understanding.

Siddiqui 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation offer

I respectfully offer my services to mediate this dispute. If you wish to have me do this, I would like to suggest that the first step is to outline the disputed issues. When the parties agree that the outline properly sets out the major disputes, then the interested parties would take positions on each outlined item, and submit appropriately supported wiki article segments explaining their position on each disputed item. This outlining and subsequent collaborative work could be done in a new article entitled for example, Sufism, controversy and debate

I would not be a judge or final arbiter. Instead, I would help the parties organize and fill in the essential arguments. While this was underway, I would verify that the supporting authorities actually contain the facts alleged if asked to do so by a party. That is, if asked, I would check specific citations and explain if I discovered difficulties. Then, I would help the parties to organize the final result into a final article. All of this would be very helpful to Wiki users, who would benefit from the thorough exposition of the controversies. Future users would also be able to link to the final product as desired in their other Islam or Sufi related works.

The quid pro quo for my donated services would be the agreement among all concerned to assert their positions in good faith, and with zeal. I promise to be neutral. I know none of the individuals involved in this dispute, and I am neither Muslim nor Sufi. I would work to provide a final product that fairly sets forth every major element of the dispute from all relevant perspectives. We would work together to produce a final product by July 1st, 2006. That product would have no disputed elements. As a result, the neutrality and factual accuracy tag in the Sufism article would be removed while we work. If we fail, the tag returns as a lasting symbol of either our incompetence or bad faith. David Traver 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all to mr.nkv i dont need to give you proofs and what you think is correct need not be here on wikipedia. My aim is not to prove sufism wrong here, my aim is to bring a neutral point of view. Mr Traver i have no issues with you being an arbiter. I have only two comments - first do you think your interest in Sufism can enable you a neutral standpoint and second i dont understand why mr. nkv is not willing to this - all i want is if there is a statement in the article, there should be sufis believe or sufis have the opinion or sufi view is instead of there is or muslims believe. Again, as for the statement, only salafis or mostly salafis believe sufism is a deviant sect is absolutely incorrect so it cannot be there, i am a living proof myself alongwith millions more of that. I would request you to please compare my version with one that was reverted by lambiam and then try tell me what is that is not neutral there, we can talk about that. as for the dispute tag on this article i am absolutely happy to make it permanent, there is no rule that every article has to be undisputedPakiguy 04:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I be interested in Sufism and still have a neutral point of view on issues regarding Sufism? Certainly yes. I have interests in Dressage and own horses, but I have no favorite breed of horse. I look at the Prajnaparamita Sutras with great interest, but I am not a Buddhist. I enjoy the the Tao Te Ching but I am not a Taoist. I read the Holy Koran (as best as one can do with an English interpretation,) but I am not a Muslim. Neutrality does not require ignorance. The real question is: could you maintain the open mind that I could be neutral? I suspect the answer is yes, or you would not have asked the question. David Traver 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I respect that and the only reason i asked is because i would trust your answer to my question as being an honest one and that i do. So, i have no issues you mediating. I would request you to compare my version and the one reverted by lambiam, so that a neutral view on the modifications i made in the text could be understood. Pakiguy 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe there are more issues at hand than the one you have indicated. That is why I suggested that they be outlined as a first step. Perhaps you would agree that this is not a one-dimensional question, and a thorough exploration of all the relevant disputes would serve to prevent further controversies regarding this article, and related articles. David Traver 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your offer of help David. At the risk of repeating myself (and Pakiguy), I shall outline here what I feel the differences are. I shall provide links and proofs (which are verifiable) as best as I can. I shall attempt below to summarise the issues.

Sufism in it's true sense is the spiritual component of Islam. 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" [11] 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 unbiassed way when you judge the article.
Sufism has been approved of in it's true sense by almost all the traditional scholars. 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.
Sufism has been approved of and taught at major Islamic universities since the earliest days of Islam. 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.
All the traditional scholars have 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. 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.
The overwhelming majority (although perhaps not all) of the people who reject Sufism are Salafis. 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).
The article contains some content (Nazar, Universal Sufism etc.) which are not really Islamic in nature (nor inline with traditional Sufism) but which are anyway mentioned. Their non Islamic nature has been mentioned in the article and so, I'm fine with that.
('Essence of dispute') I believe that the article will become more factual and accurate if it is explicitly mentioned that most(not all) of the people who reject Sufism are Salafis. 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 biassed and convey the idea that the majority position is the Salafi one.
Pakiguy's request for "non sufi" sites that support sufism is a paradoxical one. 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.
This is the best I can do on the net. I'm a student of Islamic sciences and most of my teachers (who have degrees in Sharia and authorisations to teach) are people who have taken a Sufi tariq from a Shaykh. All the poeple I have personally met who reject the idea of Sufism have been Salafis (or proto Salafis). I cannot prove these to you over the net but since Pakiguy makes a claim that "he and millions of others" are proofs of what he says, I thought I'd mention this as well.

These are I think the problems around which the debate is pivoted. I shall not be available for 3 weeks starting from today evening (I'm getting married :) ). However, I think the points I've mentioned above summarise our positions quite well. Thanks for all the help everyone. --Nkv 08:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I received a message on my talk page at User talk:David Traver from Nkv that he will not be available for the next month due to his marriage. As a result, I would like to suggest that I take his statements and use them for the initial outline of the new article. Sufism, controversy and debate. Others are, of course, free to modify the outline by adding additional or contrary additional outline items, and/or factually-based argument. While this process goes on, I will remove the tag at the top of the Sufism article. Is that acceptable to you, Pakiguy?David Traver 13:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am ok with removing the disputed tag for the version that was reverted by lambiam. if we revert back to that version with any changes in the language that lambiam suggests, then we can remove the dispute tag and go ahead with the mediation. In its current form the article is highly misleading. Pakiguy 14:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created the article Sufism, controversy and debate as discussed above. Please revert the Sufism article as you described, and remove the tag from the Sufism article. I look forward to your work on the new Sufism, controversy and debate article. David Traver 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I notice a large section starting "contrary to popular misconception, sufism is a separate religion ..." at the top of the article that provides no sources. I don't think the attempt to NPOV this article has succeeded. I've detailed my opinions on the Sufism, controversy and debate article. --Nkv 04:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The main article namespace is not for general discussion by Wpedians, but sub-talkpages are. Therefore I have moved the Sufism, controversy and debate article to Talk:Sufism/Controversy and debate. Feel free to continue the discussion there. --Zoz (t) 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag as there has been no discussion since a few weeks now. Please use {{NPOV-section}} if necessary. -- Szvest 11:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] Viewpoints

I notice that you are adding content regarding the opinions of the Mujtahid Imams on Sufis. All your references so far (qss and allahuakbar) are Salafi websites. You can see that by their opinions on Mohammed Ibn Abdal Wahhab. If you have any non Salafi sources that state the same, please provide them. Otherwise, you can add a note saying that Salafis consider Sufis innovators. --Nkv 13:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction, Allahuakbar is not Salafi, it's an Orthodox Sunni website.

It is not. It's a Wahabi site as can be seen by it's praise for Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab (whom traditional muslims consider at best a deviant). I had already provided this link. Please refer the controversy archives. [18].--Nkv 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And Salafis aren't the only ones who consider a lot of Sufis as innovaters, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tammiyah amongst a number of prominent Orthodox scholars wrote against a number of Sufi groups (he was around many years before the advent of Ibn Abd al-Wahab. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiya considered himself a Sufi of the Qadiri order. He denounced the people who disregarded the Sharia and still called themselves Sufis. He didn't criticise Tasawwuf as a science. I've provided links which detail this above. Please take a look. Also, Ibn Taymiyas positions formed the basis of Abdul Wahhab's Wahabi sect. I can show you (and have shown above) lots of traditional scholars who praise Sufis and Sufism. It was always considered a part of traditional Islam. Please add any more comments you have to the controversy subpage. It would make it easier to track. Thanks. --Nkv 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section

As a non-Sufi and a non-Muslim, I have created a section for the article entitled "Controversy." This section provides an appropriate place for exposition of the critical elements of controversy, such as innovation, to be set out for the reader in a systematic manner with appropriate links to related substantiating sources. At this point, discovering the controversial elements of Sufism from Wikipedia requires a great deal of study to find, and then review, several discussion pages. Forcing the reader to wade through multiple discussion pages to get to the heart of important controversy is a disservice to all Wiki users (including those who visit the article in the first instance with well-formed and long-standing points of view). The Controversy section also allows for quick removal of the neutrality/pov tag. A generalized neutrality/pov tag is inappropriate and misleading when applied like ketchup to the vast majority of other content in this article.

I apologize for the slight lag in time between discussing this new section on this page, and posting the changes on in the article.David Traver 15:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's quite agreeable and would solve this whole problem nicely.

There is however, another problem. The section which was added by Killbillsbrowser is as follows and is (from my knowledge and the sources I've stated is wrong and inaccurate).

I propose that this be changed to

Salafi scholars hold that opinion that Sufism is an innovation and was disapproved of by many classical scholars like Abu Hanifa, Shaf'i etc. (some more strongly than others) ([19],[20]). Other Muslim scholars hold that Sufism has always been an integral part of the religion and that the classical scholars like the ones mentioned above approved of and recommeded it to their students ([21]).

and moved into the controversy section you added.

My reasons for this are

* From my knowledge of the issues, the Salafis are the ones who reject Sufism as a part of Islam. This should be clearly mentioned.

* Both the sites mentioned above (provided by Killbillsbrowser) are Salafi inclined.

I'd be grateful if you (David) and Killbillsbrowser could comment on this. Thanks much. --Nkv 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the quote is acceptable since other non-Salafi theologians also have issues with many aspects of Sufism. Although Salafis have extreme anti-Sufi views.

Siddiqui 16:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but definitely not the ones mentioned. I have broken up that paragraph in an above section detailing what the mentioned people have said about Sufism. Please take a look at that. There are some people (mostly Salafis in my experience) who hold Sufism to be an innovation. If you know of non Salafi people who consider Sufis deviants, perhaps we can strike out the Salafi from my version of the above paragraph and say that opinions differ. To make a point blank statment that Imam Ahmad considered sufis outside the pale of Islam while he himself used to visit one or that Imam Ghazzali considered them misguided (whereas in the Ihya - his greatest work which I'm studying right now he praises them), is plain wrong. --Nkv 16:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice replies. I suggest you place the desired language where you believe it fits best in the article. Then, others may respond in kind as they see the need for additions or revisions. David Traver 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a synopsis of what changes I make over here and then make them so that people can edit them. Thanks for all the trouble you're taking over this. --Nkv 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the paragraph which I quoted above into the controversy section. I have mentioned that some groups ('mostly (not wholly) Salafis - this part can be removed if Siddiqui thinks it's wrong) hold Sufism to be an innovation and quote traditional scholars to prove their point. Others say otherwise and quote classical scholars to strengthen their points. I don't think I've skipped anything which Killbillsbrowser added. Please let me know what you folks think and whether it's acceptable now. --Nkv 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of Pakiguy's edits slant the whole article towards the Salafi point of view which is what I was trying to present in an unbiassed way. Also, he asks to "see discussion" but there doesn't seem to be any by him. I don't have the time to fix it right now so I'll leave it and revisit it when I get back from my wikibreak in about 3 weeks. See you all then. --Nkv 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article was technically incorrect in many senses. I have made minor modifications so that it becomes clear that theses statements are opinions of the sufi sect and not general.

Your modifications are not minor. They slant the whole article towards an anti-sufi standpoint.

I meant minor in terms of quantity. They dont make the article anti-sufi. I dont understand how. Try to compare the version before and after and you will see that all i did was to make it clear that these views are presented as opinions of sufis and not as general facts to make this arcticle neutral. Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It makes the Sufism look like some kind of cult. Sufism is not a sect (like are the Shia or the Qadiyanis). They're people who emphasise Ihsan. For the purpose of argument, I'm defining an Islamic sect as a group that claims exclusivity (if you're not one of us, you're not muslim). The original Wahabis were a good example. None of the people of Tasawwuf that I've personally met or have read about do this. --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sufism is a sect and i do not agree with your definition of the sect that believe in exclusivity. However, it is indeed a sect that has a different set of beliefs and practices like the shia, sunni, qadiyani, ahmadi etc do. What i would not call sects are schools of thought like hanafi, shafi, maliki etc. Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed i agree with Siddiqui's statement. I come from a place where i guess salafis are a rare species.

I'd like to know where this is. Pakistan? --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most people here are hanafis and few are shafiis. The local imam of the masjid is also a hanafi scholar.

i didnt mean the country. well it is pakistan but i was referring to a city there.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sufism is no doubt abhorred by most mainstream muslims and is considered as a deviant sect that beleive in some 'magical' world and give up the regular lifestyle.

Training in Tasawwuf was part of the Islamic curriculum in most traditional Madrassas till about a generation ago.

You are again making wild claims here. The major islamic universities or institutions do not deal with sufism.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you agree that the university of Azhar is a major Islamic university. It's well known that Shaykn Ibn Ata'illah was a professor there. It's also well known that he's a Sufi of the Shahdilli order. Indeed one of the Khalifas of the order and has written books relating to the subject. Shaykh Nuh Keller's Reliance of the traveller is that from a classical work of Shaf'i Fiqh. It has a long and detailed section on Sufism and was approved of by Azhar as reflecting the views of the Orthodox muslim community. So, my claims are not exactly "wild". What do you think? --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of textbooks written by respected classical scholars (like Zainuddin Mallibari who was a student of Ibn Hajar Haytami for example) on the subject. It's been taught (and being taught) in almost all traditional madrassas where I come from (Kerala, India - we have a Shaf'i majority here).

you can make this statement, but not the earlier one. It could be that it is taught in most madrassas in the kerala, india, but not everwhere.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave you two examples of the scholars of Azhar endorsing Tasawwuf in modern times and in classical times. Prove them wrong. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally know quite a few people who have taken a Tariq from a Shaykh and none of them believe in a "magical world" or give up regular lifestyles. All of them are married, they have families and respectable jobs. Classical Sufis have been involved in all kinds of professions. Imam Shamil was a soldier, many of the Ba'alawi Sayyids were traders, Shaykh Ibn Ata'illah was a scholar etc. The ones you seem to be referring to (magical worlds, giving up normal life) are the deviants that have been exposed by people like Shaykh Ibn Taymiya. --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

well they do believe in some mystical facts. I know for sure that there is no heirarchy in islam, every person can get close to Allah without aid from anybody else. Also, the extreme reverence to individuals, which has no basis whatsoever, tantamounts to kufr. I ask questions why imam abu hanifa, one of greatest people that ever lived does not have a sufi order of his own then? or which order did he belong to? i mean to say i follow him in his jurisdiction as a hanafi and honour him much, but not as a shaykh or something like sufis do to their shaykh.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

People go to teachers to learn. If you don't know how to offer your 5 daily salats, you don't figure it out by asking Allah directly. You go to a teacher to learn. That's the function of the Sufi Shaykh. If you don't know how to get rid of subtle problems with yourself (like envy, pride etc.), you go to him and ask him how. There is no hierarchy but it's plainly clear in Islam that a person of knowledge is superior to one of ignorance. The shaykh has no authority to rewrite the Sharia and all classical scholars warn against Sufi claimants who consider themselves above the Sharia (Abu Hilman is an example). The "everyone can get close to Allah without help from anybody else" is the core of the Salafi argument. the Takfiri claim is another hallmark of the Salafis. They're very quick to do that. I can't answer your question about Imam Abu Hanifa but his statements on the Sufis and his association with Imam Ja'far Sadiq (check the sunnah.org link I provided above) show his opinions of them. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree to Nkv's statement that it is a salafi viewpoint, rather a mainstream muslim viewpoint. In fact the others are viewpoints of sufis.

You're wrong there. I could ask you to point me to a couple of non salafi references on the web which denounce real sufism as a deviation.

Can you point me to some non-sufi websites that say sufism is correct? This is a statement that does not make much sense. I dont know much about the web as there is lot of incorrect and misleading information(alongside with some correct). But, I can take you to scholars that are so not salafi that can tell you.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If I point you to any site that endorses Tasawwuf, you'll shoot it down as a pro-sufi site. If a site is non sufi, it won't have anything about Tasawwuf. That's the point I was making. Every site I've seen that's anti sufi is pro salafi (which can usually be ascertained by their views on Tawassul and their high amount of praise for Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab). If you know of others, please show them to me. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can point you to people who have Ijazas to teach Hanafi and Shaf'i Fiqh who embrace Sufism and follow a Tariq (sunnipath.com is an example).

yes i can show you such in my country too. I do not disagree to this. But, they adopted it, they cannot attribute it to mainstream islam, it was their choice. Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

They were taught it as part of their religious training as it was (till the advent of Salafism). --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As to your statement that "others are the viewpoints of the sufis", it's a nonsensical argument. It's like saying "anti-sufis hold opinions that are against Sufism". --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

i assume from your statements that you cannot accept the fact. it is a mainstream opinion whether you call it anti-sufi or whatever. This forum is not to argue what is correct or incorrect. The changes i made were only to make it sure that they become as neutral as possible rather than making it look like it is belief of everybody.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fact that's it's a mainstream opinion. It's a fact that it's a Salafi opinion. From your talk here, I gather that you hold similar views (although I might be wrong). Your changes have not neutralised anything. It's slanted the article against Sufism. It's presented as a cult which has no relation to Islam. This is a Salafi view and that's what I'm trying to say.--Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in adding this to discussion- got caught up. Pakiguy 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to reconcile this though. I can give you online evidence (the links I've pasted above, "The place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam" etc.) which support my viewpoints (that sufism is part of Islam and it's mainly the Salafis that oppose it) but if you disagree, I can't do anything about it. In short, I give up.

i am sorry i have to disagree here. It is not just salafis that have this opinion. Salafis could have issues with others too, but mainstream muslims also have problems with sufism. Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is biassed and I don't have the time to battle to get it right anymore. Peace --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was biased before. I guess now it is more neutral.

You guess wrong. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It clearly mentioned what is sufism, what is their opinion and then in the controversy section stated that there is criticism to sufism from mainstream islam. Some statement that were claims, i changed them to opinions. I guess that is being more neutral and less biased Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It moved out the fact that the most vocal critics against Sufism are Salafis (even Siddiqui agreed to this). It presents Sufis as a sectarian group and tries to convey that they always were a minority in Islamic history which was at best tolerated. This is in contradiction to what many scholars say (look at my edits above). Your use to terms like 'sect'. Your changing "some" into "most" changes the tone of the article. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The term "sect" is usually considered derogative. It cannot be denied that sufism is an old tradition in Islam, whether you consider it "unislamic" or not. It is definitely more neutral to state that people hold a view, than that they believe it. Etcetera. For now I'm reverting. Please try to work towards consensus, and don't apply large scale changes without consensus. Edit wars are not the solution. Thank you. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My point can be summarised as "The majority of the people opposing Sufism are Salafis.". Pakiguy's contention is that this is not true. I have provided two points of evidence to back my claim which are verifiable (the fact that both the anti sufi sites quoted are Salafi in their view - ascertained by their high praise for Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab - the founder of Wahabism/Salafism and the endorsement of Sufism by various mainstream muslim sites such as sunnipath.org (the credentials of the people teaching there are available and verifiable on the site) and sunnah.org). Pakiguy has not (to my knowledge) backed his claim that mainstream muslims reject sufism with verifiable sources. Thans for your mediation Lambiam. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is futile as it has come to the situation 'you are wrong, i am right'. nobody can help that. Sect is not derogatory (Sunni is a sect too and i am one). 'It's not a fact that's it's a mainstream opinion.' No!. It is a mainstream fact . Sufism is correct is just an opinion of the sect that practices it.

I would like to see how you refute the claims I made about the Azhar university. I would like you to show me a non salafi site (or text) that pronounces Sufism as fundamentally outside Islam (or deviant). Sunni is a sect but Sufi is not. Imam Ghazzali was a Sufi and a Shaf'i scholar (and therefore a sunni) for example. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i would have respected lambiam's point had he changed the 'beieve' to 'hold the view' rather than simply reverting it back to its biased version. The websites mentioned by nkv are incorrect, biased, taken out of context and cannot be accepted as proofs.

The quote by Suyuti which I've mentioned above seems quite unequivocal in it's support for the Sufis. Perhaps you could provide the correct "context" since you're so sure that it's out of context. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

When i made the changes my aim was to make it neutral, i did not remove anything. But as i see nkvs aim is to promote sufism here.

My aim is to present what I am convinced is the truth. I have backed my claims while you have repeatedly shot down whatever I've said without any proof. If you counter my examples of the Azhar university and the quotes above with something concrete, I'd be willing to reconsider my views. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I reject it, but dont have all the time to keep making the changes. A moral act on the part of lambiam would be to change the language what he was talking about in the article rather than reverting it back to its biased state.

Why do you bring "morals" into this? It's just a matter of arriving at a consensus. I gave you evidence. You disagree with my proofs. Bring evidence which backs your viewpoints. We'll discuss it, arrive at a conclusion, edit the article to reflect our agreements and leave it at that. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But i am fine if you guys want to leave it like that...I will just add the disputed tag...and forget it forever.

An article cannot remain disputed forever. The tag will be removed if there is nothing to back your reasons for calling it disputed. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way when nkv said '(although I might be wrong)'....yes you are sooo wrong.Pakiguy 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. I was working late and tired. I probably read between the lines and formed a wrong opinion about you. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Just because Abdul Wahab sees Ibn Tayymiah as his source doesn't associate Ibn Tayymiah with him, it only associates him with Ibn Tayymiah. It's like interpreting "a tree is green" to meaning "green is a tree". So if a link has praising Ibn Tayymiah, that doesn't associate it with Abdul Wahhab, so you're calling of allahuakbar.net as a Salafi site is incorrect. You claimed that this site "It's a Wahabi site as can be seen by it's praise for Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab", it's not praising him, it's attempting to get rid of jahil misjudgements regarding him. For example, a common claim against Wahab by his haters is " 'anyone who does not join the Wahhabi movement is a Kafir", the second link is refuting this mischaractirization of him.

Just because they are sympethetic to Abdul Wahab and his reformist ideas doesn't make them Salafi, I'd like to see a single quote by brother Ubaydullah where he says either "I am Salafi" or "my website is a collection of Salafi opinions". This simply isn't the case and you have no right to slander the brother just because you found a page (which I doubt you've read anything from) about Wahab. He uses Sunni sources (of all four madhabs) amongst the scholars he quotes on his site, as well as Salafi scholars.

2) Ibn Tayymiah's association with a Sufi order is disputable. But if in fact you are calling him a Sufi, then they're is no reason you should remove sites that give his opinions of fellow Sufis (who dubbed as heretic).

3) Just as you can show lots of traditional scholars who praise Sufis, I can similarily bring numerous traditional scholars who express disdain for many forms of Sufisim, and similarily contemporary scholars who show disdain for a number of Sufi ideas. The problem isn't that you're unable to bring opinions of traditional scholars, it's that you are only allowing the opinions of those traditional scholars you agree with on the page, in furthering your own POV while removing links to websites which provide other scholars and their POVs. If you're going to have a page filled with information that supports Sufis like Rumi, than there is no just reason for you to remove POV's that oppose your own, at least not on Wikipedia, maybe with your wife and children, but not to a joint attempt at creating a NPOV encyclopedia.

4) I never said I have anything against Sufism, or Sufis in general, so long as they stay within the bounds created by the Quran and Sunnah, there is no problem with their claims to Islam. On the other hand, I have a problem with dictatorial members of Wikipedia who feel only their opinion should be allowed on a Wikipedia page that isn't meant for THEIR opinion but for a NPOV which can only be brought about through the presentation of BOTH opinions.

5) I'm a Hanafi Sunni, and you're telling me traditional Muslims consider him devient? The only people I've seen ranting about Ibn Abdul Wahhab are Shias, every Sunni I've met and talked to who knew a thing about Ibn Abdul Wahhab besides the slander that is propogated against him found him as a respectable scholar, just like many other contemporary Sunni scholars. I haven't heard any negative comments on Abdul Wahhab from traditional Sunni Muslims except those who perform Tawassul through rocks in a graveyard (which Ibn Tayymiah, not a Wahabi, and many other SUNNI scholars have dubbed as heretical). Ibn Abdul Wahhab wasn't some "devient" who came along and just pulled the opinion of Tawasul being haram out of his ass, many prominent scholars before and after him have regarded tawassul as a devient practice. So if anyone is worthy of being dubbed a devient, it should be those who perform tawasul and propogate it. You said you could bring many scholars to agree with your POV that Suffism is allowed, can you bring the same amount of prominent Orthodox Scholars who call Shaykh Wahab a "devient" as you've slandered them to beleiveing?

See: [22]

So from all the above that I'm done finally ranting about :P I find no reason that a differing point of view regarding Sufism should be allowed on the Sufism page, and I find you're removal of sites like allahuakbar as an unfair attempt to further your own ideas and not one aimed for the good of common understanding. Perhaps if you actually read one of Abdul Wahhab's writings, you wouldn't be locking your mind in this cage and stabbing every idea that got near as "devient" according to Sunni scholars who you probably haven't even heard of and would be pulling off of shianews.com... --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've spent more than a month on this argument and can see that it's not going to end. I haven't read your entire comment (it's rather long). I don't think I have any more energy to discuss this. Sunni muslims have not endorsed EVERY sufi there ever was. There were deviants and they've been denounced. IF you feel that the article is biassed in it's current state, feel free to edit and correct it. Peace. --Nkv 10:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My main qualm was with your removal of two links that provide a differing point of view. Since I'm feeling free to edit and correct it, I'll simply re-add those two links you removed that were previously added by someone else. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 11:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Tag

Sufism as a science/way on its own is something that cannot be disputed as there are many practitioners of Sufism, just like there are of scientology, cannibalism or mainstream religions. However, associating Sufism to a mainstream religion Islam is a point of view and not something widely accepted. So either this be made into an article not associating with Islam or the tag be reinstated. Killbillsbrowser 17:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a point of view held by some people (notable the Salafis). I know you don't agree with that and we discussed this with a moderator for a long time here. Unless you have credible sources to show why mainstream traditional muslims don't consider 'authentic' Sufism as part of Islam, the article is not IMHO disputed. Please don't rehash all the old arguments. Everyone has spent a lot of time on them. --Nkv 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

KillX... You cannot take the article as a hostage because of your POV. Please discuss first and do not force your points based on no source. -- Szvest 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes i understand that proofs provided by you were credible just because they were provided by you and the other proofs were not because you did not like them. But i dont think it works that way. Sufficient proof was given against it. Killbillsbrowser 17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the case of Azhar is sufficient proof that sufism is part of traditional Islam. Neither you nor Pakiguy has countered the point. --Nkv 17:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll cut/paste it from the controversy page here for quick reference.

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. And 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-Jamaa). There is no objection to printing and circulating it.

So, Azhar approves of Sufism as being part of "the faith of the \orthodox Sunni community". Now, please show me a traditional source that says otherwise. --Nkv 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy

According to Idries Shah, in the chapter “The Philosopher's stone” of his book Sufism, Sufism is closely related to alchemy.

Is this a correct statement, or is Idries Shah not seen as an authority in this matter? Are there other sources that confirm this statement? I can’t find reference to alchemy in the page about Sufism, nor the other way around. Wiki-uk 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Idries Shah is not (as far as I know) considered an authority on the traditional Islamic science of Tasawwuf. His writings discuss the "Universal Sufism" idea that divorces it from Islam. In that sense, I don't know if there's any relation. Some traditional Sufi texts use alchemical imagery to discuss the transmutation of base desires into noble attributes. As for the actual conversion of base metals into gold, I don't know. --Nkv 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] khayyam

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam is not a sufi text.khayyam did not believe in God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.218.29.6 (talk • contribs) 08:32, September 29, 2006 (UTC).

Omar Khayyam was not a sufi.Instead of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam I suggest the walled garden by sanai,a prominent suffi book of the Persian literature which had a great influence on Rumi.see sanai

Sorry for reverting you changes. Actually, both deserve their place there. Refer to Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam#Translations . -- Szvest 23:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SUFI MUSIC

what is sufi music? how different is it from normal music. is shubha mudgal a sufi singer?

What is "normal" music? Sufi music is quite varied. For Qawwali music, you can visit this page. To listen to Turkish "Tasavvuf music", which is more in the tradition of Qur'an singing, here is an online link.

Shubha Mudgal's first album was a collection of Sufi songs, and so is her new album The Awakening. But she also incorporates other genres in her work.

--Lambiam ^Talk 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.T.O. Shahmaghsoudi school: spam?

Since late May numerous edits have been made and new articles created presenting the Oveyssi school as a venerable traditional order with an unbroken line of succession of Sufi masters extending back to the days of Muhammad, represented today by the Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi Sufi school, run from California but with a presence in many places. This has somewhat the appearance of what is called a "walled garden" on Wikipedia (no relation to Sanai's The Walled Garden of Truth). The first edits were made anonymously on May 26 from an AOL account.[23] Most later ones were by Adam255·(contributions).

Affected articles (including redirect pages) are: Abolfazl Angha*, Angha*, February 4, Ghotbeddin*, Hazrat Pir*, Jalaleddin*, Jalaleddin Ali Mir Abolfazl Angha*, Kubrawiya, List of Iranians, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of Muslim writers and poets, List of Persian poets and authors, List of Sufis, Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi*, Maktab Tarighe Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi*, Mir Ghotbeddin Mohammad Angha*, Mohammad Angha*, M.T.O. Shahmaghsoudi*, Nader Angha*, November 17, Oveyssi*, Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi*, Oveyssi-Shahmaghsoudi*, Sadegh Angha*, Salaheddin Ali Nader Shah Angha*, Salman the Persian, School of Islamic Sufism*, September 30, 2005, September 30, September 4, Shah Maghsoud*, Shah Maghsoud Sadegh Angha*, Shahmaghsoudi*, Sufism, Tamarkoz*, Tariqah, and Uwais al-Qarni.

The articles or redirects marked with an asterisk were all created by Adam255.

Most of the added information is unsourced and unverifiable, and reads as uncritical advertisement of the M.T.O. Shahmaghsoudi school, or as being inserted for no other reason than to bolster the claim that this school harkens back to a 1400-year old tradition. For all I can see, this is as much a commercial as a spiritual enterprise.

Before I consider putting this up for deletion, I'd like to ask: are there any "established" editors here (preferably having been active before May 2006) who can perhaps vouch for the legitimacy of these edits and the encyclopedic value of the new articles, or provide other relevant information?

--Lambiam ^Talk 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right, to the extent that this article ought to be tagged for NPOV - which I would do if I could work out how. Look at the sections Modern Sufism (ALL these names are Oveyssi!!) Later, Sufi Links again all seem to refer to Oveyssi sources. Gwaka Lumpa 12:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Guys, I’m based in Germany and I found a lot sources regarding Oveyssi here in the University Library, e.g. Sufism by Dr. Ronald Grisell (1983) ISBN 0-89496-03805. If you know Farsi, there are much more literature to find. If you can read it, I will send you a list of that. People who research and wrote about MTO:

- Professor Udo Steinbach, who is the director of German institute for Middle East Studies

- Professor Dr. Brown from South West Missouri State University

- Professor Lynn Wilcox from Sacramento University

- Dr. Yoshimichi Maeda from Japan, he wrote a book about MTO 1971 and the book has been published in Germany under the name “Sahar” on the year 1978.

- and so forth...

I have read some books from this lineage. There is one thing, which I can not understand. Is this an Encyclopedia or is this a democratic Society, which has to be voted by majority?

Why do you not research and proof Adam255 work instead to search for people for deleting these articles? It costs you just a little effort but nothing else.

Maybe is Adam255 a researcher or something like that and found out, that till now no body has written this information in Wikipedia and so he does that and worked on this. By the way I don’t think that the Adam255is the only person, who knows or write about MTO. Moreover did you ask Adam255 himself?

One point more, the origin of MTO is not from California, it is actually from that country, in which the Sufism and the majority of famous Sufis in the world come from. Guess where?! The root lays in Persia (today Iran). The Land of Faridodin Attar, Ghazali, Khayam, Hafez, Sohrowardi and Moulana Jalaledin ….

They knew the Sufism before us and before we even hear about it in US or Europe. Thank you --Andre Hofmann 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Following an examination of this article prompted by Lambiam's comments, I have tagged this article. The extreme slant towards Oveyssi, which many other sources do not even mention, changes this from an encyclopedia article into an advert for the M.T.O. Shahmaghsoudi cult. Also disturbing is a comparison with external links from several months ago and the current edit. Most of the earlier ones have gone, despite the fact that this is a means by which a person can verify for themselves what a range of other sources have to say about a topic. If I had the time to do it I would endeavour to find when these links were deleted, as it may be that their deletion protects particular viewpoints. Gwaka Lumpa 12:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sufism Portal

I just set up the Sufism Portal. Join in fixing up the portal here: Portal:Sufism. Essentially, this should be a means for readers to access the different articles without having to read through tons of material --Barastert 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] number of followers

It would be nice to know how many sufi followers are their in the world. Chaldean 05:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You won't find such numbers since the term "sufi follower" is not properly defined. Also, people don't become "Sufi followers". That assumes that "Sufi" is some kind of variant of Islam which a person can take a profess. That's inaccurate. It's as misleading as to say "Fiqh follower". --Nkv 10:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links cleanup

The external links section has way too many links to tariqas. I'm going to get rid of them unless the sites have siginificant information about Sufism, and are not just advertisements for the tariqa. (The specific tariqa articles have the links to the tariqa websites). --Barastert 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So I culled the links section. Now, we should try to populate it with links ABOUT Sufism in general, preferablly independent academic-ish sites rather than tariqa websites --Barastert 22:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely there is room for both - many of the most knowledgable writing about Sufism is by those directly involved in it. I agree it should not read like advertising, which is my point in giving this article an NPOV tag, but, come on, no censorship of those involved in the activity! Gwaka Lumpa 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, maybe I did too much, but if you allow some then everyone and their mothers add the link to their tariqa website, so it ends up just becoming a useless link dump. I suggest that we only include links to tariqa sites if it is a link to a page which gives some relevant information about sufism, rather than to the homepage. Does this sound reasonable? --Barastert 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing copyvio

the material on this page [24] has been replicated in the article, and represents a copyvio per the copyright notice on the website's main page. thus, i have removed it (a few of the attributions are a little off, i remember finding a discrepancy when checking through `Ajluni's work). ITAQALLAH 12:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender and Sufism

I couldn't help but notice that the article has absolutely nothing to say about gender relations or the place of women in Sufism. This seems like an important and interesting issue, particularly in light of the statement that the main goal is to let go of all notions of duality... does this apply to notions of female/male duality as well? If there's anyone here who is knowledgeable on the subject, it would be great to include this kind of information. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badly written edits

Hi West Bank Boy. I've noted the following:

Removing content without explanation! Removing references to "The Principles of Sufism" and Ahmad ibn 'Ajiba.
Replacing Islam w/ Islami!
Adding honourific titles such as PBUP. This is inappropriate according to Manual of style.
You are adding your own analysis to the article by saying The Sufi scholar who wrote these thought are far from being close to Prophet Mohammed or Allah, even the truth of Islam. Please read Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
Using bad English while editing (i.e. replacing came with camed).
Your edit summaries are inappropriate! Here, you are accusing editors of corrupting the article. I therefore must remind you of WP:AGF.
Be aware of WP:3RR. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Ichazo

I reluctantly add another facet to this, already, complicated discussion. Oscar Ichazo, founder of the Arica School, claims that Sufism is a very ancient esoteric tradition predating Islam, that he has been initiated at the highest level into the 9 true sects, that each has 9 levels and that Islam represents the lowest order of one of these sects. With the permission of the leaders of these 9 sects, he has created a zikr crystalising the essence of all 9 sects which is performed within the Arica School. I realise this could be contencious and have included it here rather than editing the main page. I look forward to your opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arturodekko (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Korean Sufism

I again removed the POV and original content spam that is being repeatedly posted regarding "Korean Sufism." I'd be happy to take a look at the original content for this portion of the article if the person who posts it repeatedly would be so kind as to provide some citations. Until then, out it goes. David Traver 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I will, of course, provide the citations and other sources mentioned; it would help if I could see the article taken out to provide these statements. Where can I find this??Unicorn144 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Categories: B-Class Islam-related articles | Unknown-importance Islam-related articles