Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazar ill'al-murd

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazar ill'al-murd

Nazar ill'al-murd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google brings up no legitimate hits for the phrase "Nazar ill'al-murd" - just this article and mirror copies of it. Article lists only one source (from the Encyclopedia Iranica) which doesn't even address this topic, but instead discusses pedophilia in poetry. metaspheres 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 06:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a good reason why you get no hits other than this article when you search on this phrase: One of the Arabic words is misspelled. The preposition إلى ila only has one l. The article's author must have confused it with a different Arabic word, the conjunction إلا illa. The phrase in standard transliteration from Arabic would be nazar ila al-murd. The word murd meaning 'beardless youth' is Persian, and the phrase is a mixture of two languages.

If the article isn't deleted, please spell the word right! The world has been slow to catch onto the concept of standard transliteration of Arabic, and it keeps causing information screwups like this.

I hate to break it to you, but "nazar ila al-murd" only brings up one Google hit, and "al-murd" only brings up mirror copies of the Wikipedia article. Neither look to be verifiable at all. metaspheres 15:2, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Googling on 'sufi.murd' and 'sufi.beardless' seems to show that this is a legitimate topic in Sufism. I don't think I can properly evaluate those sources, though. Suggest a rename per anon above, if sources are properly added. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep The charge is spurious. Quite aside from the fact that a cursory search subtracting "wikipedia" from the search field will yield several useful links, there is a clear scholarly source in "Paidika" volume 3 issue 4 (1995) on p.13: "Love imagery in Persian Sufi poetry usually flows from this mystical, symbolic appreciation of love's spiritual power. In some works, however, the imagery refers also to specific practices, code named 'nazar ill'al-murd' or 'contemplation of the unbearded,' namely, the unbearded boy." There are others in the literature who discuss nazar (also rendered as "gazing") at length, though it is not always rendered in its complete form, the "al-murd" being either left out or translated into English. Haiduc 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or cite sources and check spelling.The theme exists, is real but the article is insufficient Alf photoman 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point about citing sources, I shall do that forthwith. As for the spelling, that is how it is spelled in the literature. Very often here is no "right way" to transliterate one language into another, different scholars take different approaches. Haiduc 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is mostly original research. For instance, the reference from Iranica ignores this part: "PEDOPHILIA In Persian love lyrics, however, one can hardly find the kind of homosexual relationship that is understood in the modern West; love is a one-sided and asymmetrical affair. As a rule, it is between an adult male and a boy or youth. Therefore, it should be characterized more properly as pedophilia, and its physical aspect as pederasty, rather than described under the more nebulous concept of homosexual love." [1] Perhaps you should rename this article to Pedophilia in Persian poetry. This is the English Wikipedia, by the way, so covering this stuff up with Arabic or Persian names seems a bit disingenuous to me. Pedophilia is pedophilia no matter how one tries to spin it. Pure whitewashing. metaspheres 09:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep please calm down, metaspheres. the phrase's meaning is quite clearly explained in the article. re 'or' you yourself checked the citation! it exists, if you think it should be clarified do so, but please be reasonable about it. also you overlooked this [2] on the 1st or 2nd page of google. granted the correct transliteration isn't much help [3] tho obviously, it isn't made up. clearly it needs to be sourced properly etc, this is being done. most importantly a lack of google hits (think about it!) tells us nothing about a term from such a 'relatively' obscure area.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but but it's a bit difficult to keep "calm" when I see someone trying to whitewash obvious pedophilia. There is nothing in the article from Iranica which supports the Arabic phrase used in the article's title. Not one iota. A I said, the article from Iranica is discussing several different issues. This article focuses on the pedophilia part, yet the article title is something else. This article should be deleted. Haiduc, who I assume created this article, can then create a new article called Pedophilia in Persian love poetry or something like that. But don't whitewash this crap or try to hide the fact that it's pedophilia. metaspheres 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a problem here, but it has to do with the multiple uses to which the terms "pedophilia" and "pederasty" have been put. The current accepted definition of pedophilia in the US is that it refers to a longstanding sexual relationship with a child thirteen and under. At the same time, in Europe, it is often used to indicate a predilection for falling in love with children, even if no relationship comes out of it, regardless of the age of the child. Pederasty (see article) however is academically defined as a man's love relationship with an adolescent boy whether or not sexuality actually occurs, though some still use it in the limited sense offered by several dictionaries, "anal sex with a child", a definition that is not in use in academia. As far as nazar is concerned, usually, only anti-Sufi polemicists suggested that it was a hidden path to sodomy, while scholars did and do treat it along the same lines as the philosophical pederasty described by Plato and others (with, at times disbelief in the West that the Moslems could "come upon it by themselves" without first having been inspired by the selfsame Greeks). So the idea of whitewash is itself spurious. And I will second Bsnoball's admonition that one should not rely on Google for academic research of this nature. Haiduc 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Virtually everything you just stated is original research. You can say what you want, but even the Iranica article calls a spade a spade. Academic definition of "pederasty"? Give me a break. There is one definition of pederasty and if you claim otherwise, I want to see the evidence. Iranica is as scholarly a source as one can find and the article is pretty damning of what you're claiming above, and even goes so far as to disconnect this "pedophile love poetry" from homosexuality. Anyone can read the article for themselves and I guarantee that most will not support your bizarre assertions. metaspheres 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You seem to be basing your argument, including your accusation of "original research" on your unfamiliarity with the extensive academic work on the subject of pederasty, and of nazar in particular. There are abundant sources of information on this topic if it interests you, and they have been cited. Please make use of them. Haiduc 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and MER-C. DragonRouge 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google on "Nazar murd Sufi -Wikipedia" and a few English hits show up. Even if this is only about Islamic pedophilia and pederasty, it should be kept if notable and verifiable. As argued by others above, it's not any more about that than Plato's Symposium is just about homosexuality. --Richard 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article conforms to Wiki guidelines, which are that it should be verifiable (it lists sources for each potentially contentious statement), should not be original research (again, it's based on sources, not on OR), and it should adopt a neutral point of view (it seems quite non-polemical to me). The subject-matter causes a strong emotional reaction, but we shouldn't allow that to guide our decisions - Wiki is meant to be inclusive. 202.178.112.81 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (Sorry - meant to sign in and sign as PiCo 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Article appears to have valid content. If the name is mis-spelt, move it. Can see no justification for deletion. --AliceJMarkham 05:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is more than just the name of the article, but the content itself, which is concerned entirely with pedophilia and pederasty. If the factuality of this information is not provided, then why should it be kept? Is Wikipedia here to provide a forum for pedophiles and pederasts?? metaspheres 06:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is cited, obviously real, and I fail to see why the fact that it is about pederasty and/or paedophilia means it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Also, I do not like metaspheres' implication that Haiduc is a paedophile because of his edits, that leads to bad faith and has nothing to do with an AfD anyway. Stop making an emotional argument. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT on the talk page Metaspheres (talk · contribs) has gone so far as to directly accuse unspecified other users of attempting to turn wp into "a forum sympathetic to pedophiles and pederasts" [4]. have placed appropriate warning template on users talk page.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I made no comments directed towards anyone, so do not make false accusations. You will be blocked for doing so. If you have any problems with me or any other user, take it to the proper channel. metaspheres 12:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dev920's comment. Certain user's squeamishness in relation to articles they view as pedophilic/pedarastic topics is not a reason to delete an article. Rename if necessary, but I see no reason to delete. Jeffpw 12:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not squeamish. But let's see if Haiduc or anyone else who edits the pedophile/pederasty articles most often attempts to whitewash the issue and erase all references to the obvious (and sourced) pedophilia bits. Then I want to see what you have to say about "squeamishness". metaspheres 12:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Metaspheres, rather than engaging in what appears to be some kind of a crusade by making generalized charges of "whitewashing" it would be more helpful if you could address specific issues. As for the nomenclature preferred by the Iranica article, we are not locked into it since we have many other sources that we are working with and which seem to use the terms differently, and in a fashion more consistent with accepted academic use. Haiduc 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dev920. This is not a subject that is in dispute among experts - only among those that want to deny the historicity of such behaviour. Tuviya 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Delete I speak Persian and the word "Murd" does not mean beardless youth. Actually the word Murd means dead and is from the same Indo-European as latin Morte. See my comments on the talk page about Mahmud and Ayaz as well. For example Shams Tabrizi advised his son to avoid hashish and sodomy, two great vices. Sufi mysticism includes a tradition of approaching

the contemplation of God through focusing on the face (especially) of a beautiful boy, the shaahed.  :::: But to claim that this equals pedestary or homosexuality is seriously flawed. Once place where the image of a beautiful young boy comes from is the Surah Ar-Rahman of the Qur'an (a text btw which condemns homosexuality as a great sin). Of course there is a lot of homo-sexual scholars who are biased and have power in the academia. But they can not even show one example of explicit homosexual act in sufism or Persian poetry. The contemplation of the beauty of the youth to achieve spiritual divinity did not have any sexual connotation and even this practice was condemned by Rumi. --alidoostzadeh 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Comment Why was it condemned if not for its dangerously erotic aspect. And we are told that the transliteration "-murd" is related to "amrad," as in "amrad kaneh," a Persian word relating to a Persian institution, if I am not mistaken. But it is not our prerogative to declare or deny the pederastic nature of these relations and traditions. This has already been done by scholars qualified to do so and we are here documenting their published research and conclusions. And to denigrate these individuals, male and female, of various nationalities and various orientations, as a gay cabal is to introduce bigotry and prejudice into the discussion. Haiduc 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

a Gay scholar or clost gay (like the British person mentioned in this article by the name of Burton) can not be taken as neutral source. Furthermore the word Murd (dead) is not related to amrad. Look up any Persian dictionary and there is no such a word as amrad. I speak Persian. And we have no word by the pronounciation of "kaneh" either. I am not sure where you are getting these ideas and words from. Do you speak Persian? If not then you are citing a source. Your source then does not speak Persian. And finally the article does not have a single quote or single book or single text from any sufic text alluding to any physical homosexual behavior. And yes sufism has had its enemies and one way to absolutely trash it was that sufis practiced aldultery, homosexuality, smoked hashish and all sorts of labels. --alidoostzadeh 05:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And let me add that Persian poetry of Hafez or Rumi can be intrepreted thousands of ways. Communitss in Iran think of Hafez as a communist. Liberals as a liberal and winde-drinker. Conservative religious figures as a cleric reading the Quran. Zoroastrian and Zoroastrian wannabe's as anti-Islamic hidden Zoroastrianism. And finally of course, a Gay scholar would interpret his verses as gay. But the fact is that there is not a single verse of Persian poetry from any of the famous Persian poets that have any homosexual or pedopholia verses. The issue is simple. The emotional relationship between two males, specially one being a spiritual mentor to the other is manifolds greater than the emotional love felt between a husband and wife. As per the youth image, it comes from the Qur'an and youthfull beauty was something that reflected the divine beauty in some sufi circles. The Qur'an states: And round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls. And when thou lookest, it is there thou wilt see a Bliss and a Realm Magnificent."[5]. Note the spiritual image of the Qur'an was taken by some sufi circles. There is also another symbolic quranic image about "houris" (a feminine creature of extreme beauty) which actually has deeper symbolic meaning according to sufi interpretations of the Qura'n.

Bottom line is that there is not one verse in any of the famous Persian poets that alludes to any sexual act and if someone wants to prove the contrary then they need to bring the actual Persian verses since so far I noticed words that do not exist in Persian. All the google searches about this subject have only brought other wikipedia articles. --alidoostzadeh 05:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not fortunate enough to speak Persian, though I would love to. However, others who do have written on this: "Some of the famous love relationships celebrated by classical poets were between kings and male slaves. The beloved could also be the slave of another more powerful person. Many erotic Persian love poems, in which the lover describes the secret and sporadic nocturnal visits of the beloved, refer to such situations. Outside the royal court, homosexuality and homoerotic expressions were tolerated in numerous public places, from monasteries and seminaries to taverns, military camps, bathhouses and coffee houses. In the early Safavid era (1501-1723), male houses of prostitution (amard khaneh) were legally recognized and paid taxes. Bathhouses and coffee houses were also common locations for illicit [homosexual] sex...."[6] And once again, I will not accept your disqualification of "gay scholars" because in that case I will disqualify "straight scholars" and then where would we be?! Haiduc 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's rich, referencing a website called "Global Gayz"! Real rich. Sorry, but see WP:RS. And just so you know, don't try to make this a gay issue. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, no matter how hard you might try to do so. metaspheres 10:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• in the lead the phrase "Nazar ill'al-murd" is clearly stated as being arabic, the phrase "Shahed-bazi" is in persian. i have no idead wether either of these is true, but all the above about persian 'amrad' etc is irrelevant to the article as it stands. otherwise can we please leave out the opinions about homosexuality & debate sources? haiduc is correct in pointing out that you can't just ignore scholarship based on claims about the author. if you wish to establish bias in a particular author you will have to provide justifications based on that authors writing. tho arguably the para about burton shld go, absurdly generalised ('easterners'), & if he spells out that interpretation, then the quote shld to.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to WP:NOR. Do a search for this "shahed bazi" and the few hits (not from Wikipedia) that you find only connect it to homosexuality in Persian literature, not pederasty or pedophilia! The article is mostly original research, it's not that hard to understand. Wikipedia is not here for POV pushing of any kind. From what I can read, the homosexual scholars in question are not even talking about pederasty or anything about men having sex with children! It's bad enough that the pederasty article is far, far from NPOV and makes it seem like a harmless practice! Unfortunately I see this shit all the time on Wikipedia, which is one of the reasons why people with a history of having been sexually abused tend to avoid this place like the plague! And again, this shit has nothing to do with "LGBT topics"! This is unbelievable. metaspheres 10:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but reference from Global Gay! is not a valid reference. Or else I would have to write an article for the global heterosexual. Now don't get me wrong, of course homosexual behavior has existed in every society. But we are here talking about sufism and sufi poetry. Sufi poets like Rumi and Shams very harshly criticize homosexual behavior and sodomy and drugs. Yet anti-sufis (wahabites) in order to disown sufism have made all sorts of remarks about it. Some of the worst literature has been written about Ismai'li sects from Sunnis. They claim ismaili's freely have sex in massive orgies and etc. And btw I speak enough Arabic to know that Al-Murd is not word in Arabic. The word Al-Murid though means student and perhaps this is a story about sufi master and his student. Nothing homosexual and etc. about it. The fact is there is not a single evience of one verse in sufic Persian poetry referring to any homosexual and pederasty behavior. --alidoostzadeh 00:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been a degradation of Wikipedia principles in the foregoing discussion that must be resolved before we can go any further.

1. The persistent attempts to demean sources attached to queers studies or the gay community must cease. They are no more appropriate than attempts to disqualify sources on the basis of the skin color of the writer.
2. The repeated efforts to confuse age-structured homosexuality with a mental dysfunction having criminal overtones is nothing but a slur and ignores all the preceding academic study (history, anthropolgy, philosophy, sexology, etc.) which has identified pederastic practices as a traditional form of same-sex desire (which like any desire can have normative or transgressive aspects).
3. The consistent sexualization of same-sex desire in Sufi practice in order to "prove" its irrelevance to Sufism is a blatant straw man argument which ignores previous scholarship which clearly demonstrates the existence of a tradition of chaste (or "philosophical" or "pedagogical", as it has been dubbed) pederasty which consists of a relationship between a man and a boy premised on the unconsummated desire of the man.
4. The editors arguing against the substance of this article are basing their comments on their personal knowledge base, be it linguistic or cultural or historic. That is not a recognized foundation for discussion in this project. Please cite here the arguments of scholars in the field who support your contention, as I have, and let's see if we can integrate their points of view into the article. That is how the Wikipedia game is played, not through emotional outbursts or personal attacks. Regards, Haiduc 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly quoting a Gay scholar on homosexuality in Persian literature is like quoting David Duke on Hitler. There is an agenda behind it. It is non-neutral POV. Secondly the gay scholar you quote does not know Persian well enough obviously or else he would know how to pronounce Persian terms. Thirdly I can quote Dr. Franklin Lewis who has written the most important book on Rumi and clearly shows that Rumi (who is the ultimate Sufi) condemns homosexuality as does Shams condemn sodomy and hashish (in the Maqalaat). The word pedastry should not be used as in www.dictionary.com (which is more reliable than wikipedia) this term refers to actual sexual abuse on a child. Where the sufi practice was to actually divinity in the youthfullness and I quoted the Qur'an here. And finally Persian literature and sufi literature should be explained by Sufis. Not by Wahabists, Gays, and other people from other religions who might have a bent against sufism. There is absolutely nothing sexual about the emotional love felt between two man in Persian literature. It has to do with a master and disciple relationship where the disciple believes that the Master's command is God's command. Also Professor Lewis Franklin [7] has written the most comprehensive book on Rumi and his words are much more reliable than someone writing in a Gay magazine (which is non-scholarly to begin with). Also personally I do not see how an article whose title does not make sense is valid in wikipedia.--alidoostzadeh 05:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Ali makes a lot of sense.Azerbaijani 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Ali doostzadeh. (Marmoulak 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC))
• Delete - per Ali doostzadeh as well.--Nightryder84 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article appears properly sourced and NPOV. Due to the number of osurces which refer to it, the topic appears to be notable. -Will Beback · † · 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Frankly I think there is little hope in the article surviving. First, because the article is primarily about pederasty, the cultural attitudes of the primary english speaking audience will not allow it. Secondly, add to that the utter condemnation of anything homosexual by the english speaking muslims that will object. Also, there seems to be a dispute as to how it should be correctly named. I vote keep because the article content seems more or less accurate, it seems well cited, and it seems NPOV. Also, perhaps an article that honestly discusses pederasty in Muslim culture may eventually expose the truth about pederasty in roman Catholic culture. Atom 19:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand how a topic whose name does not make any sense in either Arabic or Persian can be kept! As per your second sentence, if you do a google search on the topic name, you will only get wikipedia and sites that copy & paste wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh 04:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That statement is false. See this link and this link as well as the first reference on the article page. Since the term is thus in use, you have no authority to contest it, unless you wish to bring properly cited evidence that the Sufi practice of boy contemplation has a more common Arabic name. On the other hand, if you wish we could use the Persian term of "Shahid bazi" which may be more familiar to you, and which has an equally valid pedigree (and is more frequently encountered on the web). But then of course "nazar ill'al-murd" will have to be treated in the article as an alternate, Arabic, term. Haiduc 04:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you said Murd is related to amrad and etc.. Murd means beardless in Arabic. Thus the whole concept is that of contemplating youth as a divine sign of God. There is no sexual basis on it and the stuff from a Gay british person of the 19th century is totally invalid. The whole concept of nightgale, flower, candle and moth in Persian poetry have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality and homosexuality. Anne Marrie Schimmel is the major scholar on Persian literature and she has written on this symbolism and there is absolutely none of the intrepretation that the homosexual Burton has madeup. Any terms that are related to sexuality and specially homosexuality and child abuse and pederasty must be removed from this article as they have no support in relation with sufism. They are all allegations from Burton who was a 19th century British homosexual whereas major scholars of Persian literature like Arberry, Schimmel[8] have described these terms. As per the practice of nazar illa-al-murd although there is no sexuality involved, rumi who was a sufi totally repudiated it. Also the picture from Jami's work did not show up directly from the website. SO please provide the correct link. --alidoostzadeh 07:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The arguments of the user Haiduc look very convincing to me. Besides that, the person, who has stated this deletion-campaign is obviously driven by his personal opinion regarding pederasty (which is not necessarily illegal in many countries) and attempts to "save" the history of his Muslim brethren. Fulcher 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again I asked for a single source that shows pedestary in Persian Sufic poetry. Now I will bring some reliable sources. Lewis Franklin (Rumi Past, Present and East and West, pg 320): Shams al-Din counseled the young Sultan Valad (Rumi's son) to avoid Hashish and sodomy, and condemned Owhad al-Din Kermani for his practice of Shahed-Bazi in this case his attenton to beautiful boys, in the Hellenstic tradition of the ephebe. Shams and Rumi both condemened the excesses of Sufi behavior, as did other Sufis, and were opposed to libertinism. Rumi held a very unfavorable opinion of Owhad al-Din, believing that Owhad's relationship with the boys in his circle was not chase: Shaykh Owhad al-Din left a bad legacy in the world..

Now I have quoted the most important Sufi in history yet some people want to attach this practice to sufism. Note also pedestary is different than shahedbaazi as I have explained already. Sorry guys you can not quote some British 19th century Gay scholar who ridicolously sees the Moth and Candle and Nightgale and Flower in Persian poetry as sexual. --alidoostzadeh 16:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You want evidence of pederasty among the Sufi? Why do you not read the uncensored and unwesternized history of Sufism? Instead of acknowledging the complex debates engaged in by the mystics and their critics, you delete from articles _and from your own user page_ whatever passages make you feel uncomfortable about your ancestors. Excuse me, but that kind of behavior does not belong here. What did the critics say about the Sufis? Here:

1. "But they are in depravity the most elevated of men, as you see without doubt
   They have taken beardless boys as their aim unabashedly, thus coveting perdition."
   And called them their beginnings -- of dishonor, evil and disgrace. ---Hasan al-Badri al-Hijazi.
2. "The Sufis of the age and time, the Sufis of the wine-press and the eating-tray.
   They have outdone the people of Lot by adding the beating of drums to fornication." ---Ahmad al-Murshidi

I am not interested in your focusing on the Persians, this article discusses the Sufis and the proper references have been given. Be forewarned that your repeated removal of Burton is a disruption of Wikipedia and if it does not cease it will be dealt with accordingly. Haiduc 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like my Rumi evidence did some damage to your attacks and distortion about sufism. As per the two quotes you brought, they are not by Sufis. Burton who lived in the last century and was a homosexual with no credibility in Persian literature. But Professor Franklin is a expert in Persian literature at the University of Chicago [9] and has written the most comprehensive book about Rumi in any language. Professor Franklin says: We know that (some) Sufis sometimes used the dervish cloak to hide antinomian behavior and libertine excess, for authors sympathetic to Sufism, such as Sa'adi, Owhadi of Margheh and Ibn Jowzi all condemn it. Shams counsels the young Sultan Valad to avoid Hashish and sodomy, two great vices.. Thus the practice of some antimonian sufis does not represent sufism in general and if there was one person that represents sufism it is Rumi and Shams. Also I have asked three times to show the exact link where the Jami picture in this article is taken from and in which one of the 7 chapters of the haft awrang is the story mentioned. Note Jami has three chapters on Salaman and Absal, Lili o Majnoon and Yusuf and Zuleikha in the 7 chapters of the Haft (7) Awrang. The other 4 chapters deal with matters that are not about love. And one poem specially chastizes any sort of lust. Note the two quotes you brought are also from not Sufis obviously and the teaming up of Wahabites with Gays is amusing. The fact is real sufism as exemplified by Rumi does not condone even shahedbazi (which is different than pedestary) just like real Christianity condemns homosexuality and pedestary. Now if some priests act in that manner it does not mean that the official church condones it. So your generalization to sufism when the most notable sufi of all ages, Jalal al-dIn Rumi and his mentor Shams condemn Awhad ad-din Kermani is actually academic dishonesty. And finally the moth and candle, and the nightingale and flower are just Persian symbols of love and have nothing to do with any sort of sexual relationship. You are imposinv western values on Sufi literature. --alidoostzadeh 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Pedestary"? Wutz that? ;-) Fulcher 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the sort of topic I would like to even engange in but I will defend sufism from people who seem to be experts in such terms. --alidoostzadeh 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Looks like my Rumi evidence did some damage..." Rubbish. But your contribution of a quote is a step in the right direction. Please be so kind as to include it in the article. I have no intention whatsoever of deleting it, it does not contradict my agenda. No information on this topic, pro or con, contradicts my agenda. The only thing that contradicts my agenda is editors on a crusade who are out to impose their point of view by removing properly sourced material that makes them uncomfortable, like your persistent vandalism of the Burton quote. And by the way, I noticed that you inserted your Rumi reference at the very top of the article. As my parents used to say to me when I was a kid and barged ahead, "The donkey goes first." Please do not disrupt the article to make a point. That reference too is welcome, but only if properly placed. As for the Jami info, please go into the site here and follow the links. The program they use does not permit direct entry. The relevant section of the Haft Awrang is "Chain of Gold". Thank you for picking up this faulty reference, I will have to provide this info in the image pages too (I was not familiar with proper referencing when I posted those pictures). Haiduc 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Every fields has its experts. In terms of Persian Sufi poetry it is Lewis Franklin and Anne Marrie Schimmel as they have published a lot in this arena. Not some british gay person from the 19th century or political writers. Also let me add Ehsan Yarshater is not a scholar of Persrian poetry and his training is linguistics. Thus you either quote scholars of Persian poetry or else it seems it is just intrepretations specially from sites like gay world and etc. As per Rumi, he is the most well known Sufi in the east and West. My sources like Franklin and Ann Marie Schimmel are from scholars of Persian poetry. Thus Rumi and Shams warning admonition of sodomy and hashish are very relavent to this article and since Rumi is the most well known sufi poet in the world, his statement should be given prominence. As per Jami his Haft Awrang is here: [10]. Show me the verses. The manuscript could be about another poet whose work was included in that art work as well. Also there is absolutely no hint of any sex feelings even in the picture or pederasty. --alidoostzadeh 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Another great link: [11]. Mevlana(Rumi) condemns sodomy and effeminate behavior in numerous places in the Mathnawi. He said, "The (true) sufi [Sûfî] is the one who becomes a seeker of purity [Safwat]; not from (wearing) garments of wool [Sûf] and sewing (patches) and sodomy. With these vile people, sufism [Sûfiyî] has become stitching and sodomy [al-liwâTa] and that is all" (V:363-64). This contrast between purity and sodomy would appear to echo one of the passages in the Qur'an which mentions the Divine punishment of the people to whom the Prophet Lot was sent. When he confronted them ("Would you commit this abomination with you eyes open? Must you approach men with lust instead of women?"), they responded with sarcasm by urging that Lot and his followers be expelled, "For they are a people who would stay pure" (Qur'an 27:54-58). Note the most prominent sufi in the world was against deviant practices. Thus the article is doing a great injustice against sufism by trying to connect a practice (shahed bazi) (which in itself was not sexual) to sufism. My suggestion for some people is to stop misrepresnting sufism. --alidoostzadeh 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

please ali, discuss content of the article on the article's talk page. & keep out the homophobic comments, they don't help your case at all.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing main stream sufism which clearly condemns homosexuality. And when we discuss sufi literature we refer to authorities like franklin and not homosexual sites. And when were looking at the most exemplary and notable sufi in the world, we are talking about Rumi. I have not seen you guys quote one scholar in Persian literature here. It is just couple of Gay people and some non-scholars who have an axe to grind against sufism. (like wahabites or others). Whereas the Rumi quotes from Rumi himself are crystal clear. --alidoostzadeh 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I just perused through the article and it simply resembles some sort of Frankenstein sewn together from wildest pieces of information out there. A few Google hits? Is this a joke? Considering the gravity of the subject matter? I am not a historian, but I can see that some of the sources are being stretched to the breaking point to prove I don't know what. Since when is homosexuality=pedophilia? The notions in the article are so confused that it might as well be arguing that Pyramids were built by Martians. Half the article is about quotes on how Islam condemned pedophilia. Condamnation of an act doesn't prove its existence nor its proportions. If the question was if there has been homosexuality or pedophilia in Islamic countries over the ages, then the answer is obviously yes. Just like every part of the world. And it has also been condemned by every religion on those places as well. I just cannot see how exactly this connects with a particular spiritual school of thought. The only quote I can find, and that based on an interpretation of the text, is a poem. And reading it, I honestly cannot understand how it can be interpreted anywhere near to referring to pedophilia except having read it as such, knowing it beforehand. I mean, is this it? One half-interpreted poem? This proves that there were major currents of pedophilia in Sufism? I can prove that Atlantis really existed with more ease! The gravity of the subject matter implies that there will be serious and extensive sources to back up the obscure claims of the article. I mean, what exactly is it about anyways? Homosexuality? Pedophilia? Eroticism? Yoga? Homosexuality is Islamic countries? Sufism? Isn't anyone aware that these are not connected with each other? We gotta turn off the electricity of this Frankestein, otherwise it would be zooming in Wikipedia as some kind of zombie knocking everything around it! Baristarim 08:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean, this is not even a pro-gay or anti-gay issue. I am atheist, so it is not like it is going to derange me by its nature. But I have also read Sufist literature, and I have a lot of respect for it. I suppose that anything can be true in this world, however sewing up unrelated information to create some sort of thesis is not right, and also breaks WP:OR. It is not even clear how most of those sources cited even refer to currents of pedophilia in Sufism. There are mentions of Yoga, Eroticism, Homosexuality in the Islamic world etc. How are these even related between each other, let alone with Sufism?Baristarim 08:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per alidoostzadeh and Baristarim. --Mardavich 08:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete this is nonsense. per ali --Rayis 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - everything has been said already. Tājik 15:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.