Talk:Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Balkhi-Rumi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Balkhi-Rumi article.
Article policies
Good article Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Balkhi-Rumi was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Archives:

Contents

[edit] This Article Lacks Valid Historical References / Requires Major Cleanup

I was directed by Google to this Wiki article on Rumi. It sounds more like a conspiracy theory than an article on a historical figure. Seems like certain contributors are hoping to change history by providing irrelevant, inaccurate, and unverifiable information on Wikipedia. Editors should be taking a neutral point of view in these articles and focus on facts backed up by historical references.

I find the language use in this article appauling. The article forces the reader to go through paragraphs on "New Persian Language" (which translates to "Dari" anyways) to find out what language Rumi's work is written in. Or paragraphs on some narrow point of view attempting to trace Rumi as a Tajik before getting to a one liner on the fact that he was born in Balkh (now Afghanistan). Of course, there should be a section on his life but please use historically verifiable sources.

I suggest filtering all the noise and highlight "Rumi the poet", not "Rumi the Persian poet", "Rumi the Tajik poet", "Rumi the Indian poet", or "Rumi the Chinese poet"!

Sincerely, WN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.142.4 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is sourced by the most relevant references (Encyclopedia of Islam, Franklin Lews, Ann Marry Schimmel). These are all well known Rumi scholars. Both Vakhsh and Balkh are sourced and mention. Leading scholars of Rumi Franklin and Schimmel are mentioned. If the information is inaccurate and unverifiable, then put a citation tag. Also, there are only two sentences about the New Persian language. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions to the Article Discussions

The language politics in the introduction clutter up the article and should be saved for the arguments in Persian and Dari Persian. Can't we keep it short and stay on topic with something like:

"His works were in Early New Persian, known then as Dari Persian" - This is both historically accurate, neutral and does not negate the influence of the post-Islamic conquest development of Dari Persian in Khorasan and Transoxiana.

Having the article sound like the language that Rumi used to write owed nothing to do with the revival in Khorasan and Transoxiana after it fell out of use in the formerly more powerful West Persia (though I know this is not what you are saying, this is just what it sounds like), is bound to be seen as Iranian chauvinism and cause problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondo Libero (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We should mention the revival of Persian literature in Sistan, Khorasan (Eastern current Iran) and Transoxiana. I agree some changes need to be made, but we should mention it was the predominant literary language of all of Iran by the 10th/11th century, although it was understood by people beforehand. I don't think One and half short sentence will hurt. (Origin in Fars but understood, its literature started reviliatized in Eastern Iran, Transoxia, became predominant literary languagage). We can probably fit it all in one sentence. Since Rumi's work is one of the seven most important work, and since many people in the West are interested in Rumi, writing a sentence about the language of his work (which many people do not know about) is useful information. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll use this post to reply as the other one is getting a bit long! Here is a draft:

"Rumi's works were composed in Early Modern Persian, (then known as Dari Persian), which has it's linguistic origins in the Fars Province of modern-day Iran. After Pahlavi Persian died out in West Persia due to Arabization following the Muslim Conquests, the Persian cultural center moved to Khorasan and Transoxiana, where Persian literary culture was revived in the form of Dari during the 9th century. In the 9th and 10th centuries, Dari spread to West Persia and by the 11th century became a predominant literary language in the Islamic world.

I think we should leave the exact defining of these regions to their respective articles, but with Khorasan a link to the post-Islamic 'Greater Khorasan' should be used--Mondo Libero (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would change it slightly to make it shorter even: "I would change it slightly to make it briefer:

“Rumi's works were composed in new Persian (Dari-Persian), a widely understood vernacular of Middle Persian, which had its origin in Fars province in Iran. The New Persian literary reinassaince(8th/9th century) started in areas of Eastern Iran and Central Asia, and by the 10th/11th century, it overtook Arabic and Middle Persian (mainly used by Zoroastrians) as the literary and cultural language of Western Iran.” --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I would add a few words here and there:
“Rumi's works were composed in Early New Persian(1) (Dari-Persian), a widely understood vernacular of Middle Persian, which had its linguistic(2) origin in the Fars Province of modern Iran(3). The New Persian literary renaissance (In the 8th/9th century) started in areas of Khorasan and Transoxiana(4), due to the Arabization of West Persia(5), and by the 10th/11th century, it overtook Arabic(6) as the literary and cultural language in the Persian Islamic world.(7)
(1)'New Persian' rings bells in many peoples heads which refer primarily to the Iranian-Tehrani dialect, which is odd when put next to the historical term 'Dari Persian' in brackets
(2)I think that is the linguistic origin needs to be expressed as using just 'origin' can easily be misinterpreted
(3)If 'Iran' and 'Province' are going to be used in an English article I think the specification of modern Iran (as there is talk in the article of Greater Iran) needs to be pointed out to avoid the ambiguity, or alternatively, 'Iran' and 'Province' can be changed with 'Persia' and 'Region'
(4)Consistency in terms used; it can be confusing for a reader who does not know these intricacies with the switching between different terms
(5)I think that it is important to give some context for people who may not be knowledgeable on the Arab Conquests
(6)Arabic was definitely the clear literary and cultural language of West Persia at this point and the only real challenge for Dari to overcome
(7)I think this gives the achievement the credit that is deserved and emphasizes that culturally Persian regions were now all linked by a common language.


Here is a draft for the introduction of the article I'm working on. I am trying to streamline it while keeping all the current sources in there, paraphrasing and playing with words to make the tone of the article more neutral while trying to emphasize the points we talked about and creating a better flow, there are some notes at the end:
Modern scholars now believe that Rumi was probably born in 1207 CE in Wakhsh (In modern day Tajikistan), while traditional sources claim he was born in Balkh (In modern day Afghanistan, then in the Turco-Persian Khwarezm Empire). Both these cities were at the time included in the Greater Persian cultural sphere of Khorasan and Transoxiana. His possible birthplaces and native tongue both indicate a cultural Persian heritage. Following the Mongol invasions of Central Asia, Rumi travelled west with his family and eventually settled in Konya (In modern day Turkey, then in the Seljuq Empire), where he lived most of his life and composed his most famous works. His works were composed in Early New Persian (Dari Persian), a widely understood vernacular of Middle Persian, which had its linguistic origin in the Fars Province of modern Iran. A Dari literary renaissance (In the 8th/9th century) started in regions of Khorasan and Transoxiana, fueled by the Arabization of West Persia. By the 10th/11th century, it overtook Arabic as the literary and cultural language in the Persian Islamic world. Rumi died in 1273 CE in Konya and was buried in what is now known as the Mevlana Museum. Following his death, his followers founded the Mevlevi Order, also known as the Whirling Dervishes, who are known for their famous ceremony called the sema.
Rumi's original works are widely read by Iranians, Afghans and Tajiks, with translations of his works very popular in Turkic, South Asian, Arab and Western countries. The influence of his poetry can be seen even today in Persian, Urdu, Bengali and Turkish literatures, and with his growing exposure in the West he was named "The most popular poet in America" by BBC News.
  • Shown the difference as to modern and traditional views of his birth place, emphasizing Wakhsh
  • Emphasized the Persian culture of the Khwarezm Empire so people don't mistake the empires regions as being culturally Turkic
  • Paraphrased your quote about Khorasan as a region of Greater Iran, using 'Greater Persia'. I think we can get away with this as the translation of اران بزرگ into English is now accepted as both Greater Persia or Greater Iran. I think that the use of Greater Persia will draw less complaints as it is viewed as quite an inclusive term.
  • As the boundaries between Transoxiana and Khorasan differ from source to source, I think it is good to use both as it is possible for Wakhsh to be included in Transoxiana, and the use of a region that generally not related with modern Iran will help add to the neutrality of the article.
  • Structured the introduction more chronologically, but I've tried not to explain things that require more detail that are described in the 'Life' section
  • Added a brief history of the post-Islamic conquest development of Dari Persian, acknowledging the linguistic roots in Fars. Instead of saying it was just a prominent literary language of Greater Persia by the 11th century, I have used 'The Islamic World', I think this does more justice to just how much was achieved.
  • Concluded the chronological introduction of Rumi's life and said a bit on the Whirling Dervishes.
  • Given readers a glimpse of Rumi's impact and modern popularity, which can possibly be expanded on in separate section of the article.
  • I haven't put in all the sources from the old article just yet cause then it would be a pain to read and edit in this box, but I think it would be quite easy to re-align the current sources used in a rephrased version of the introduction. I'd love to hear your thoughts and see any revisions you might have to this idea
I like your proposal. Let me study it and I'll get back to you. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please use good Sources

Turkey is a country that is founded on the supremacy of Turkish race and language. Mustafa Kamal, the founder of modern Turkey promoted, propagated and encouraged the theory of Sun language which said that all languages of the world is derived from Turkish (please search in yahoo and you will see for yourself).

That did not stop there recently under the auspices of Turkish embassy in the US, Turkish academics and a few misinformed Americans organized a seminar about the Turkishness of the original inhabitants of North America, the Red Indians.

To prove this bizarre theory one of the academics cited shared vocabulary between the two, and quoted Atash is being a Turkish word for fire, which apparently is also a word for fire in Red Indian languages.

But anyone with little knowledge of Persian knows that Atash is a pure Persian word, but as we Kurds have learned much to the detriment of our culture, heritage and language, the Turks don’t stop at that, and I give you an example.

I was visiting a friend who worked in a scholarly bookshop in London that specializes in Arabic language books, when a Turkish man came up to us and asked a bout a book that says Muhammad the Prophet of Islam is a Turk !!!

The ultra nationalistic notions which sadly nearly every Turk seem to have been ingrained in their psyche by Mustafa Kamal, have deluded them into believing that all things and living beings are Turkish.

It also made Turks less knowledged about the history of the world and gave them very ostentatious and extravagant ideas about themselves that really don’t fit the reality and does not correspond to their modest contribution to human civilization and history.

Another good example of that is the way they treated Greek civilization and its contribution to every strand of human knowledge which is never mentioned in children text books in Turkey.

What Mawlana has described about the manners and roughness and intolerance of Turks, to prove this ask any Kurd in North Kurdistan, (East and Southeast of Anatolia) about how brutal Turkey has been with one of the original inhabitant of this region.

For the past 80 years Turkey, with all instruments of the state have brutally suppressed any manifestation of Kurdish culture and language.

The one striking example of this is the way Turkey dealt with the rising Kurdish struggle to achieve their just rights, is when Turkey during the rein of Tansu Ciller suddenly embraced Newroz (the Kurdish and Persian New Year) and declared it to be a Turkish celebration, which prior to that date 1996 Turks only knew that Kurds celebrate Newroz.

To state otherwise or to say that Turkey has un-banned Kurdish language and allowed Kurdish to be taught is complete and utter lie, just say the word Kurdistan in Turkey and see the reaction of the Turks.



On the background of Rumi, we should use scholars that have studied Rumi: Franklin and Schimmel. That is Wikipedia policy on WP:OR where it states that scholars and experts in the field should be used. Since the two books by Franklin and Schimmel are biographies on Rumi, they should be used. That is books that are not written by experts on Rumi are not to be used in the article.

That is a very good point and thanks for your comment. I would also add: WP:Attribution and the attribution Faq: [[1]]. It says: "Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology.". So those two scholars Franklin and Schimmel who have written basically the only biographies on Rumi are sufficient. Of course Rumi's son himself Sultan Walad says he does not know Turkish/Greek well (he says it three times) which means the family was Persian. His son has about 300 verses in Greek and Turkish and about 30000+ in Persian. Franklin also has noted this: "Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(pg 239) “Sultan Valad did not feel confident about his command of Turkish”.
Sultan Walad admits to his poor knowledge of Greek and Turkish(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000. pg 239:”Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish).
For example in his Ebteda-Nama, Sultan Walad admits twice in Persian after some of the lines in Greek/Turkish(Masnavi-ye Waladi, Ensha’e Baha’ al-Din b. Mawlana Jalal al-Din Muhammad b. Hussayn-e Balkhi, Manshur beh Mowlavi, ed. Jajal al-Din oma’I (Tehran: Eqbal, 1316/1937)):

بگذر از گفت ترکی و رومی

که از این اصطلاح محرومی

گوی از پارسی و تازی

که در این دو همی خوش تازی

Translation:

Let go of the languages of Greek (Rumi) and Turkish (Turki) Because you lack knowledge in these two, Thus speak in Persian and Arabic, Since in these two, you recite very well. And also elsewhere in Ghazal in his Diwan, he writes:: If I knew Turkish, I would have brought one to a thousand. But when you listen to Persian, I tell the secrets much better(Sultan Walad, ”Mowlavi-ye Digar:Shamel-e Ghazzaliyat, Qasayed, Qete’at, Tarkibat, Ash’ar-eTorki, Ashar-e Arabi, Mosammat, Robbi’yyat” Tehran, Sana’i, 1984. pg 556: ترکچه اگر بیلیدم بر سروزی بک ایدیدم طتچه اگر دیلرسز گویم اسرار علا).

He also says: If I had known Turkish, I would have told you, the secrets that God had imparted on Me(Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, "Early Mystics in Turkish Literature", Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff, Routledge, 2006, pg 253_). According to Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, the Turkish poems are: Written in a very crude and primitive manner and with a very defective and rudimentary versification replete with zihaf (pronouncing long vowels short} and imalā (pronouncing a short vowel long). Also according to Mehmed Fuad Koprulu: Sultan Walad’s motivation in writing Turkish poetry, just as it was with composing and reciting Persian poetry, was to raise the religious consciousness of the people of Anatolia, to guide them and instill in them a sense of the greatness of Mawlana and The fact he occasionally resorted to Turkish derives from his fear that a large majority who did not undesrand Persian, would be deprived of these teaching[1].

So given the self-admitted fact that Rumi's son did not Greek/Turkish well, then Rumi and his family is obviously not Greek/Turkish. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some people are "intentionally" deleting everything related "Seljuq Turkish Empire" and "Turkish Heritage" in this article

Some people here are "intentionally" deleting everything related to Turkish/ Seljuq Turkish culture from this article...They are constantly refering "Sultanate of Rum", Could you please tell me "what is Sultanate of Rum?" It's correct and full name is "The Seljuq Turkish Sultanate of Rum/Anatolia". Rumi lived and produced his work under the "Seljuq TURKISH Sultanate of Rum/Anatolia". This makes him a "Seljuq Turkish" poet/philosopher...or, "Persian-descendant Seljuq Turkish" or "Persian-Turkish". Let's think about the following example: Think of a Japanese family who migrated to USA and their child became a famous writer/poet...People would refer him as "American writer/poet" or "Japanese-American writer/poet" or "Japanese descendant-American writer/poet"...Hence, you cannot simply "try" to delete all the keywords including "Turkish" and "Seljuq" from the article...I know that you will now say "Oh, then why he wrote most of his work in Persian, not in Turkish?" The answer is that simple: "Because Persian was the "lingua franca" of the Seljuq Turkish Empire...This is because in the Empire, Turkish people had conquered all those lands but the Turkish people were the "governing class" and some of the people living in those lands were not knowing/speaking "Turkish"; hence instead of forcing them to change their language, they were "tolerable" enough to let their language be continue/survive in the Empire...In the European history there are many non-ethnically German authors, or philosophers who had written their works in German since in their period it was the "lingua franca" of their field...Does this make them "German"? Or, most of the science papers were published/written in Latin, does this makes their authors "Latin/Roman" ? No.

I simple cannot comprehend what is wrong with refering to Konya as a "Turkish" city? People are even deleting this and writing "Anatolia" instead. Anyways, I have no time to waste in this issue. It is just "wrong" to try to remove/delete every keyword which has "Turkish" in it...

Mevlana Celaleddin-i Rumi was a Seljuq poet/philosopher who had lived most of his life in Seljuq TURKISH Empire, in the city Konya under the Seljuq TURKISH Sultanate of Rum. And Since, TURKISH people have founded OTTOMAN Empire and now the Modern Republic of TURKEY after the Seljuq TURKISH Empire, his tomb is in now Republic of TURKEY. TURKEY welcomes everyone to come and visit the tomb of this amazing poet and philosopher Mevlana Celaleddin-i Rumi. Konya had "never" been a Persian city during and after Rumi's lifetime. It has been always a Turkish city during and after his lifetime. And it will always be a Turkish city forever. Hence Rumi's tomb will be always located in a TURKISH country, and Turkish people welcomes everyone to come and visit it. Thank you...

-Nathan

--nathanca (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi you are converting modern nationality to the distance past. The Seljuqs called their empire Rum not Turkey. At least that was the name of their land. Konya at that time would be a city of Rum under the Seljuqids of Rum (ethnically Turks but culturally Persianate). Besides Seljuq was not some sort of citizenship(Seljuqian?) for Rumi to become a Seljuqian poet/philosopher. So if anything, Rumi has taken the name Rumi (Greek) because the land was called Rum (Greece) and not Turkey or Seljuqi at that time. Also your argument would not be valid based on the fact that if a Greek poet writes in Greek under the Seljuqs, then it would mean he was a Seljuq writer. That doesn't make sense since Seljuqs were the family of ruling class and Rumi was not a Seljuq. The Seljuq empire are mentioned throughout the article.
But culturally the Seljuqs were culturally more Persians than Turkish but ethnically they were Turkish in the fatherline although heavily mixed with many other groups (many married even Christian princesses). Note the Seljuqs were enemies of Qaramanlu who wanted to excise Persian from the court and were of Turkomen origin. Where-as the Seljuqs of Rum, I believe if we take the words of Rumi's son, did not have any sort of ethnic Turkish feeling. For example Rumi's son praises the Seljuq Ruler Sultan Masud for putting the revolts of "Turks" down and dispersing the "Turks", by which he means the Qaramanlu rebellion. What is necessary about the Seljuqs is already explained in the Seljuq article. So to put adjectives like Turkish Seljuq empire or Persianate-cultured Turkish Seljuq empire is probably not necessary.
Also as explained above, Rumi's son admits not knowing Turkish well. Also Rumi not only wrote in Persian, but he also preached in Persian (see his 7 collected sermons). That is why he was giving Friday Khutba (which is not poetry but every day conversation) in Persian, his students recorded it and it is in Persian, which shows it was common language between him and his students. Note his discourses (Fihi Ma Fihi) which were also recorded by his students, again in Persian because it was the language he was conversing with his students. So he did not just write in Persian but spoke everyday Persian to his students. Where-as there are verses by his son admitting his poor knowledge of Greek/Turkish (which I agree were the main languages alongside Armenian, but Greek was probably the predominant one and Muslims were a minority in Anatolia at the time of Rumi).

And Persian was widespread as Rumi's son says: فارسی گو که جمله دریابند گرچه زین غافلاند و در خوابند "Farsi goo keh jomleh daryaaband"(Say in Persian so everyone can understand) and Rumi mentions this too when he switches from several Arabic verses to Persian in a single poem: اخلائی اخلائی زبان پارسی گویم که نبود شرط در حلقه شکر خوردن بتنهائی

Yes Rumi's tomb is in Turkey but it does not mean Konya at that time was a "Turkish" city. There was large number of immigrants from Khorasans and besides Turkomens, there were Christians (Armenians, Greeks), Kurds and Jews and etc. Note Rumi's biggest praise and influence was for Sanai and Attar and also it shows that he read the Shahnameh as he mentions Esfandyar, Rostam and etc. and even praises them on the same line as the fourth Caliph. Please see the above post on Sultan Walad.

If you can have such a claim: "::Yes Rumi's tomb is in Turkey but it does not mean Konya at that time was a "Turkish" city. There was large number of immigrants from Khorasans and besides Turkomens, there were Christians (Armenians, Greeks), Kurds and Jews and etc." One can also safely and in the same manner claim that "Tehran was and have never been a "Persian" city...Or, Iran/Persia have never been a "Persian" country since there were and have been Jews,Christians, Assyrians,Kurds, Arabs, Azeris, Turkomans... So, it was not only Persians who lived there....Hence Tehran has never been a "Persian" City& Iran has never been a "Persian" country" See, it is such an ill-posed argument...Anyways, you can claim or say whatever you want and believe in your "manufactured" so-called "facts"/"History"

Hi the problem is not a math problem to be well-posed or ill-posed. Persian has several meanings: geographic, ethnicity, language and etc. So you are partially right, Tehran is not exclusively a Persian city, but Persian predominates as the main language. But Tehran is a multi-cultural city and that is a strong point of it. On Konya, my hunch would be Greek and Turkish both were present, but Persian was also there since Rumi not only wrote but spoke in Persian to his followers and they have recorded his sermons and discources (see his non-poetry works). So I never said "Konya was never a Turkish city", I said that at that time, the geographical designation : Turkey was not used. Konya was a city under the Seljuqs of Rum (Turks who to a large extent adopted Persianate culutre), but to use a modern geographic designation "Turkey" when it did not exist back then is not factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.149.56 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The article talks about his Persian origin

Hi,

I am curious. The article talks about his Persian heritage. As far as I know, he was of Turkish origin

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.153.83 (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Then read the sources and talkpage. --24.168.149.56 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


dear friend mawlena himself prove this idea in his poets that he was a persian and he was proud of it and also the people who impressed him a lot were persian such az ATTAR and SHAMSE TABRIZI he just migrate to yurkey because of the attack of monguls. so hi was not a turkish at all.AIDA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.15.34.212 (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mevlana

Mevlana is not Persian.He is a Turkish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasaleyte (talk • contribs) 12:02, March 30, 2008 (UTC)

His mother tongue was Persian. For example this one is in the praise of Greeks in comparison to Turks, from the book of Aflaki: There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks. When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times. But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!. Plus his son clearly states that I do not "Turkish and Greek" well. That is Rumi's family spoke Persian and that is why his own son three time mentions he does not know Turkish/Greek well, despite living in Anatolia. Thus the spoken language of the family was Persian. Rumi's Jum'a (friday prayers) sermons are also in Persian even in Anatolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.149.56 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

you are all wrong. mevlana was anglo-american. and konya was a japanese city. feel free to rewrite the history --81.210.156.129 (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (romulus)

[edit] article needs major clarification: Rumi's relationship to whirling dervishes and their origins

The article is inconsistent with regard to whether Rumi, his son, or another source is responsible for the origins of whirling dervishes.

Early on, it states that his son and followers started the group after Rumi's death. Midway through, it states that he met whirling dervishes during his lifetime. Later, it maintains that Rumi founded the dervishes.

These are fairly major inconsistencies, since all three cannot be true. It must be clarified and made consistent throughout. Cesca1910 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sunni

Hazrat Rumi was Sunni Scholar and there is not at all Doubt regarding it.The Person who is editing Otherwise in this regard must Stop.Shabiha (t) 10:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I have added Info based on Neutral sources and references that he is Sunni.Now reverting it is just NON Neutral.Shabiha (t) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir, there is a great deal of doubt regarding it, your biased claims notwithstanding. The sources you provided do not prove that Rumi was Sunni, not in the least. Indeed, one of them never even mentions the word Sunni. Please stop changing the article to reflect your POV. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There are Numerous claims citing him as Popular Sufi and founder of Mevlevi Order Such as It was from these Sufi thoughts that the Mevlevi Sufi Order of the Whirling Dervishes came into being which became as one branch of the vast Sufi traditions of Islam.[2] This Popular Sunni Sufi Order not Shia Order.The Orders are recognized by Founders himself.MoreOver I could not found a Single Neutral source claiming him as Shia but on the Other hand his Sufi Lineage and order are directly Proving it See Mevlevi Order.Nowhere it Claims that he belong to Shia branch.Commonly it is written with Sufis that he was a Sufi only but As shias are less in numbers among Muslims so Special Mentioning is found everwhere if Person belong to shia school.
  • Also Check this Earlier discussion Where Not Even a Single source could Confirm that he was a Shia but Majority agreed on him that he was Sunni. They Only dicussed that his Poetry was nfluenced by Shiite.So it must be Clear to You Now that Hazrat RUMI was NOT AT ALL A SHIA .

It is not my POV but just your POV which is not accepting NPOV.Please come here with sources if You dont have in support of Your shiite then stay away Inserting shiite.Shabiha (t) 07:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You should provide neutral source that state that Rumi was Sunni, or his infobox will stay as it is. Nasrulana (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See this site stating that Rumi was as hanafi: http://mystics.infomideast.com/page2.html If you want I can provide other sources as well. But I think that reference to both Sunni and Shia should be removed as Rumi really did not belong to any orthodox school, rather he charted his own course. A quotation of his comes to mind: As to my homeland it is not Khurasan, nor any other place in the East or the West, and as to my creed I am neither a Jew, nor a Zoroastrian, not even a Muslim as this term is generally understood.(Rumi)--Shahab (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I Support total removing of any School of Muslims If there are not Substantial evidences and Neutral Proofs to Suggest that he was a Shia.

Please say some thing on this Issue.Shabiha (t) 14:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is another references to Rumi being Sunni: Shiʻism: Doctrines, Thought, and Spirituality By Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr; Page 7. That said I want to clarify a point. It is highly probable that Rumi had a Sunni heritage, his father was a Khalifa of the Kubrawi order, which is related to the Suhrawadi, a clearly Sunni order(Also see Arberry's Discourses of Rumi). But certain writings of Rumi have tended to give a Shiite impression to some scholars and it is also said that names of the Twelvers are inscribed on his mausoleum in Konya (although this must be seen in the background of religious tolerance between Shiite and Sunni sufis existing at that time). The point however is that the real genius of Rumi lies in his living in the experience of God and in potraying it though his all embracing poetry . This is the only unnamed school to which he really belongs. My suggestion, as I said before, is to remove the reference to Shiite in schools of thought and not replace it with anything. If anyone has an objection please reply.--Shahab (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thanx shahab for sources now I agree with u. I am replacing it accordingly.Shabiha (t) 22:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a quote, or more clear citation from Seyyed Hossein Nasr as to Rumi not being Shi'a. Nasr is a reliable source, unlike the webpages cited and quoted above. Thank you, Shahab. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. You can see a limited preview of the book Shiʻism: Doctrines, Thought, and Spirituality on books.google.com. See page 7. Also see the Introduction to Discourses on Rumi by Arberry. If that doesn't satisfy you then you are indeed hard to please.--Shahab (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Universality

The quotations indicating that Rumi was a follower of the way of the Prophet are misplaced. They more properly belong in the Rumi and orthodox Islam section (where the issue already has quotations supporting it). This section is about the philosophical universalim of Rumi which is meant to show how Rumi's poetry embraces all humanity. I fail to see what the object of merging the contents of the two sections is, unless it be in reinforcing that Rumi was a devout Muslim, which is already covered in the latter section. This gives an indication of pushing an idea repeatedly.--Shahab (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one wants to discuss this I will go ahead and remove the quotations. Moreover I think that even in the orthodox Islam section instead of overloading it with quotations we should introduce secondary sources. Direct quotations are primary sources which are open to interpretation and should be backed up by secondary sources as per wikipedia policy. (Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.)--Shahab (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)