Talk:Idries Shah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Idries Shah article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] al-Hashimi

Is it worth linking al-Hashimi in the introduction to the Hashemite wiki page? EricT (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Have done this. EricT (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sufis by nationality

"Good Olfactory" has created the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sufis_by_nationality and changed the category from "Sufis" to "Indian Sufis". Is this okay with you, given that though born in India, Idries Shah worked and lived in both the East and West? EricT (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invertebrate Sufism

Not surprisingly, this article has led to opinions from both defenders and critics of Idries Shah here. People may be interested to know that a long time ago, when I wrote an article describing Gurdjieff as a "Sufi-inspired scholar", James Moore responded with an article in which he referred to "the invertebrate Sufism of Idries Shah". People may wish to look at the geocities article on this website:

http://www.geocities.com/metaco8nitron/moore.html

I have not scrutinised the article in detail, but I can see that it is critical of Shah.I wonder whether this was by James Moore?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does say "by James Moore" at the top, and I am fairly sure that's who wrote it. Jayen466 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
James Moore ?
Lunarian (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. His personal website actually has a link to the article, at the above address, which would imply that it is hosted there with the author's knowledge. See [1], [2]. Jayen466 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

James Moore is not discerning about sufis. Anyone who takes Iranian academic Seyyed Hossein Nasr as the real Sufi teacher (see his tired and emotional article above) is obviously completely upside down in relation to reality. --Wool Bridge (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

???
Lunarian (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graves controversy

The desperate last letter of Graves to Shah is transcribed In 'Between Moon and Moon' Selected Letters of Robert Graves (Hutchinson 1984) followed by a note from the editor Paul O'Prey [[3]] regarding the controversy. It says that in 1978 Arberry's Cambridge manuscript was shown to be a forgery. By this time Graves was too ill to renew the controversy.

Generally speaking the mishaps of Omar Ali Shah (who was probably later disconnected from Idries Shah) are not related to the work of Idries Shah. Arberry's pupils and Bennett's disciples or descendants are confused on this issue.

--Wool Bridge (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any ascpect of the present article wording that you feel needs improving? Jayen466 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about changing wording, but references yes. The reference for example, to the Sufi Studies East and West is missing [4] It would be good to give a better idea of this symposium and book. I liked the 'Idries Shah, Reviews and Information' booklets that were available in the early 1980s. I have some of these and was wondering if they could be incorporated. I could scan them and them to you if interested. I wanted to see references to early work on Magic (Secret Lore of Magic and Oriental Magic). Jayen466 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)There is the travelogue 'Destination Mecca' which he wrote in the 50s. This contains the only interview and photograph of the Faqir of Ipi for example. There could be a reference to O M Burke's 'Among the Dervishes' which has several dialogues and interviews with and about Idries Shah.

There is too much in the controversy section about Bennett and disgruntled Gurdjieff people etc. and not enough about the substance of Idries Shah's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wool Bridge (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC) --Wool Bridge (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The book is referred to; it wouldn't be appropriate to include an amazon link. We could add it to the literature though (if it isn't in there already), with ISBN, which allows easy identification for those interested. To bring more on the book without engaging in WP:OR, we need to find a WP:RS that we can cite. The same really applies to adding more content on Shah and his teaching; we need to identify external sources that we can summarise. We can't write our own summary of Shah's work (again, the issue is WP:OR). Academic sources are generally preferred, but notable writers like Mrs Lessing would qualify as well, basically anything published by a reputable publisher. The use of self-published sources and primary sources is generally deprecated, especially for matters that could be seen as contentious. I am not familiar with the Reviews and Information booklets; could you check who published them? Thanks, Jayen466 17:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (I also put a welcome on your talk page; if you check through the links available there, you can learn more about Wikipedia.)
Regarding the reviews and info, what I've seen are mostly photocopied news clippings circulated via The Society for Sufi Studies and available for a time via Octagon for researchers, mostly praising Shah. Several of them have been scanned and uploaded to the Shah-related yahoo! group 'Friends of Fidelity':
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/welcomeHomeFriends/
EricT (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like it was self-published then. We'd be better off quoting genuine external assessments, such as book reviews in the papers etc. (I believe he had a number of those, some very positive), religious scholars etc. Jayen466 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also included were photocopies of magazine articles by Shah-friendly reviewers and writers.
EricT (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, that is something one could look at, if it's verifiable. The following academic source might be usable one way or the other:

Idries Shah and Omar Ali-Shah
The Sufi movements of Idries and Omar-Ali Shah have given some prominence to psychology in their teachings. In the United States, Shah's early deputy was Stanford University psychology professor Robert Ornstein. Shah met Ornstein in the 1960s and realised that he would be an ideal partner in the endeavour to propagate his teachings since Ornstein could cast Shah's Sufi materials into the idiom of the psycho-therapeutic community. Ornstein's book, The Psychology of Consciousness (1972), met with an enthusiastic reception in the academic psychology community since it coincided with the rising interest in studying bio-feedback and other techniques for shifting moods and awareness. Ornstein has continued to contribute books in this field over the years.
The reinterpretation or translation, if you will, of Sufi teachings into contemporary psychological discourses may reflect what Dale Eickelman and Jon Anderson term a 'reintellectualisation' of Islamic discourse through presenting Islamic doctrine and discourse in accessible, vernacular terms even if this contributes to basic reconfigurations of doctrine and practice. These scholars indicate that Islamic discourse has not only moved to the vernacular and become more accessible to significantly wider publics; it has also become framed in styles of reasoning and forms of argument that draw on wider, less exclusive or erudite bodies of knowledge, including those of applied science and engineering. While this thesis was mainly formulated with respect to mass education in Muslim societies, a further dimension would include the global transformation of Sufi discourse, which is now being articulated in terms accessible to contemporary Americans.

– Sufism in Europe and North America. Contributors: David Westerlund - editor. Publisher: RoutledgeCurzon. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 2004. Page Number: 54.

Seems to make some worthwhile points. Jayen466 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews and Information

The Reviews and Information pamphlets that were distributed by Octagon and the Society for Sufi Studies in the early 80's consisted entirely of newspaper reviews, magazine cut-outs and clippings and court circulars etc. There was nothing made up in these. These are what should be quoted in the main article not the hostile drivel by James Moore.--Wool Bridge (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)