Talk:Nazar ila'l-murd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 How many Raabi'as? 2 Mahmud and Ayaz 3 POV 4 Mediation 5 The way forward 6 wrong transcription 7 Murray

[edit] How many Raabi'as?

Pasha Abd, forgive my reversal of your edit, but please look at this link which has the following:

[Shayban al Ubulli] also said: One day, Rabi'a saw Rabah [al-Qaysi] kissing a young boy. "Do you love him?" she asked. "Yes," he said. To which she replied, "I did not imagine that there was room in your heart to love anything other than God, the Glorious and Mighty!" Rabah was overcome at this and fainted. When he awoke, he said, "On the contrary, this is a mercy that God Most High has put into the hearts of his slaves."

So that, apparently, they were indeed two separate personages with similar names. Wassalam, Haiduc 00:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry , Rabi'ah al-Adawiyah was called also Rabi'ah al-Qaysiyah on the associated article , that led me to error.Pasha 01:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahmud and Ayaz

I shall try to insert some information about Sultan Mahmud and Ayaz ,in fact some tales, because their relation evolved to a part of Sufi mythology and allegory , like this one in Masnavi of Rumi : "Mahmud asked Ayaz which of them is more beautiful , Ayaz said that he is more neautiful because in himself he sees the reflection of Sultan but Sultan is not so beatiful because should he look at his heart , he shall see the image of his slave Ayaz" which anyway is relevant to Sufi opinion , who do you think?Pasha 23:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Anything on their love from the point of view of the Sufi masters is valuable. If I find anything I will add it in. Haiduc 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

About Ayaz and Mahmud, to predicate such loaded words as 'romance' or 'homosexuality' or even 'homoeroticism' on the dynamic of that relationship is to impose and thus conflate modern concepts and understandings upon those of the past, where none existed, strictly speaking. In logic this is called making a fundamental category error. There was no physical or romantic attraction as such, and this can very easily be proven from the texts themselves. But rather that love between mahmud and ayaz was a combination of the 3 kinds of love with its strictly Platonic definition of love of beauty in its abstract sense. --alidoostzadeh 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali, forgive me for disagreeing with you, but you could not be farther away from the truth. The physical and romantic attraction was a given for every red-blooded man, an attraction that had to be controlled. If this love is Platonic, it is in the Phaedrus sense of Platonism. This from the Malik Ayaz article: "Now Mahmúd was a pious and God-fearing man, and he wrestled with his love for Ayáz so that he did not diverge by so much as a single step from the Path of the Law and the Way of Chivalry. One night, however, at a carousal, when the wine had begun to affect him and love to stir within him, he looked at the curls of Ayáz, and saw, as it were, ambergris rolling over the face of the moon, hyacinths twisted about the visage of the sun, ringlet upon ringlet like a coat of mail; link upon link like a chain; in every ringlet a thousand hearts and under every lock a hundred thousand souls. Thereupon love plucked the reins of self-restraint from the hands of his endurance, and lover-like he drew him to himself." Haiduc 04:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You did not finish the whole story. Finish reading the story in the the article you cite and you will see it proves my point. And that particular story is not from Rumi (who btw condemned homosexuality just like Shams did). Rumi even condemned the practice of Awhad-din Kermani and the sufi sect of Kermani. Because in the Awhad-din Kerami sufi sect, a young boy was brought to Sama' and was the reflection of the divine. Let me finish the story for you from the same link: Thereupon love plucked the reins of self-restraint from the hands of his endurance, and lover-like he drew him to himself. But the watchman of “Hath not God forbidden you to transgress against Him?” thrust forth his head from the collar of the Law, stood before Mahmúd, and said: “O Mahmúd, mingle not sin with love, nor mix the false with the true, for such a slip will raise the Realm of Love in revolt against thee, and thou wilt fall like thy first father from Love's Paradise, and remain afflicted in the world of Sin.” The ear of his fortunate nature being quick to hear, he hearkened to this announcement, and the tongue of his faith cried from his innermost soul, “We believe and we affirm.” Then, again, he feared lest the army of his self-control might be unable to withstand the evolutions of the locks of Ayáz, so, drawing a knife, he placed it in the hands of Ayáz, bidding him take it and cut off his curls. Ayáz took the knife from his hands with an obeisance, and, having enquired where he should cut them, was bidden to cut them in the middle. He therefore doubled back his locks to get the measurement, executed the King's command, and laid the two tresses before Mahmúd. It is said that this ready obedience became a fresh cause of love; and Mahmúd called for gold and jewels and gave to Ayáz beyond his usual custom and ordinary practice, after which he fell into a drunken sleep.

Note any hint of any sort of physical advance is seen as a sin against God (not something celeberated). Specially the quote: Hath not God forbidden you to transgress against Him?. The relationship between Mahmud and Ayaz as seen by Sufis was nothing except Platonic and abstract and there was absolutely no hint of any sort of physical advances. In a way it reflects an obediance slave's position towards his master.. sort of like disciple and spiritual master. And Mahmud despite being the physical king was the spiritual slave and learned wisdom from Ayyaz. --alidoostzadeh 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We are close to agreement I think. You had claimed that "There was no physical or romantic attraction as such" but obviously that attraction was very real yet held in check. That is the idealized chaste pederasty that Plato praised, and that Mahmud and Ayaz exemplified in their culture. And I am not the one to identify it as such, it has been done in the literature. Haiduc 05:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how we are in an agreement. The current article is equating emotional love with sexuality and in particular homosexuality and child abuse. Whereas the emotional love of two man can be strong in eastern culture than the love between a man and a women. Note in the quote above that I have narrated in full from the same article, homosexuality is considered a sin and is not condoned. But emotional love does not absolutely equate to homosexuality or pederasty (and btw pederasty denotes sexual behavior according to www.dictionary.com). The bottom line is that there is not a single verse from all of sufi literature that denotes any homosexual act. Seeing the divine in youth beauty which was a practice of some sufis (and even this practice was not condoned by Shams and Rumi) was not sexual in nature neither. --alidoostzadeh 05:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please examine the Pederasty article if you wish to see how the word is used in academic parlance today. And what we are talking about here is not all that gaff about "homosexuality and child abuse" but desire; in the case of Mahmud and Ayaz, the desire of a man for a boy, and the reciprocal devotion of the boy to the man. There is nothing abusive about it, and it has been praised for the past one thousand years all over Central Asia and the Middle East. But desire it is, and pederastic is what it is called in English today. Please do not introduce an unnecessary polemic where it does not belong. And you are absolutely right when you point out that Mahmud was the slave of Ayaz, but as you well know, and as Ayaz himself pointed out, it is in his heart that Mahmud is a slave - he is a slave to love. Is that not what Plato discussed in the Phaedrus and the Symposium? Haiduc 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is also not a place for original research. A spade is a spade, whether that spade is in academia or in the real world. And the definition of pederasty is very clear. And again, it is not for you to decide that such relationships are "not abusive". That's OR. I can bring in a ton of sources which show that pederasty is fucking abusive and that is clear and obvious rape. Do you really think you can try to whitewash this shit here and get away with it? metaspheres 10:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wait with bated breath for your copious evidence that the relationship of Mahmud and Ayaz was abusive. However, if it turns out that you are unable to do that, then please have the grace to spare all of us your invective and personal opinions.

As for your heated denouncement of pederasty, and your personal clarity on the subject, please realize that you are referring to a practice that has been valued differently by different cultures throughout history, some have praised it and some have blamed it. Thus articles on historical topics, such as this one, have to reflect that. In the present, if that is what is exercising you, it falls within the range of legitimate same-sex relations as long as laws are not broken, which they do not have to be in much of the world where teenagers are enfranchised to engage in sexual relationships. The fact that they are legal does not mean that they can not also be abusive, after all many marriages are abusive and marriage is certainly legal. As far as relationships which are illegal, they are illegal and may well be abusive, that is pretty obvious, is it not? Haiduc 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write above message. But let me say that comparing Islamic society to Greek society is wrong. In Greek sources about pre-Islamic Persia they found it strange that the Persians punished homosexuality as a sin (see Zoroastrian literature). And as you can the in the above case of Mahmud and Ayaz, not even once in all of Persian literature or Islamic literature do you find evidence that there was any sexual relationship. So words like pederasty should not be used since they have definitions outside of wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh 00:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the AfD page, I think it would be best if we all started documenting these views. I agree that we could develop further the section of criticisms of nazar, as you indicate yourself they were numerous and vehement. Again, I strongly suspect that our views are not at odds with each other but rather we are still working out a common language in which to discuss these matters. It is unfortunate that the available terminology has a number of alternative uses, but I hope you will come to agree that accepted academic use for the term "pederasty" is not what some dictionaries (by no means all) still show. As for the Persians in antiquity, they may have suppressed Greek pederasty in Ionia in order to curb the political power of the subject peoples, but would you mind explaining to me exactly what Bagoas was doing at the court of Darius, before he did the same thing at the court of Alexander? Haiduc 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but Bagoas is not even a Persian name. I know enough Old Persian to know that Bag means God in old Persian. Like Darius the first says: Baga vazraka Aura Mazada (A Great God is Ahuramaza). The word is cognate with Slavic Bogu and Sanskrit Bhaga (like the Bhaga Gita). Also there is the Greek Bagaios as well which is cognate and means Gods. Thus the Roman source which wrote this has probably made up this name and the Persian sources are replete with information about Darius III and none of them mention anything with this regard. Also please bring the alleged sources with the date of their composition. It seems to have been written at least 500 years after Darius III. I can quote a good amount of Greek and Romans sources who are totally suprised by the Persians attitude towards homosexual and this is because the Persians followed the divine Zoroastrian religion whereas Greeks and Romans were pagans without prophets at the time. As per homosexuality and Zoroastrianism, I would read [1] where it is consider a major sin that is against Ahuramazda's will. Thus the wrong intrepretation of emotional love between two men by some so called scholars and bringing it down to a sexual level might be due to the Greco-Roman influence on part of Western scholarship. For example Rumi and Shams loved each other more than they loved their families, wives and etc. But there was absolutely nothing sexual about this relationship. I don't want to make comparison to the platonic love since Greek society and Persian Zoroastrian/Islamic societies were totally different and some might interpolate erroneous ideas from there. --alidoostzadeh 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nazar_ill'al-murd for details as to the hellish POV seething throughout this article. Again, Wikipedia is not here to provide a forum sympathetic to pedophiles and pederasts. metaspheres 06:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

80% of the article gets deleted/replaced daily, yet no one's said a word to each other on the talk page for the past two weeks?

Mediation time, folks.

DanB†DanD 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a good course of action, but most of the content that had been added by Haiduc was either unsourced or pure original research, such as the inclusion of images and verses from Persian art and poetry that literally have nothing to do with this subject. This article is specifically about pedophilia/pederasty in fringe Sufi mysticism. Furthermore the article's title has not yet been properly sourced or corrected (it is apparently incorrect Arabic). There are a ton of similar problems in this vein that have been brought up here but not addressed by Haiduc or his friends.

As well, it should be clear that the subject of this article has nothing, and I literally mean nothing, to do with the subjects of homosexuality or homoeroticism. Thus, the constant addition of the LGBT category by Haiduc seems a bit disingenuous to me, as scholars have long sought to make clear the distinctions between pedophilia/pederasty and homosexuality. As I've said before, Wikipedia is not here to indulge in any of kind of original research. If certain individuals could stick to the facts and keep their bias in check, things would flow along much more smoothly. metaspheres 06:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly talking is better than pointless reverting, thank you both for breaking the logjam. There are a couple of simple points we may all be able to agree on. The name of the article, for starters. You metaspheres, believe it is incorrect. I, Haiduc, have absolutely no opinion on that. I can't have any, I am an ignorant ass, not having either Arabic or Persian. Everything I write here comes from what I read elsewhere. All I have to go on so far is an article in a peer-reviewed journal that uses the term "nazar ill'al-murd." You, metaspheres, claim it is incorrect. You may well be right, but I cannot take your word for it, I am in no position to judge. Please bring evidence for your position and I will be thrilled to include it in the article, or even to change the title, if it should turn out to be appropriate. Until then, please forgive me but the scholarly journal takes precedence over your opinion.

As for your insistence that homosexuality has nothing to do with pederasty, I am no authority, but if you would look into anthropological studies of homosexuality and their discussion of age-structured relationships you may see another side to that argument. Have you looked at the article on "homosexuality"?

Finally, your equating pedophilia and pederasty is understandable, since the terms have been used for everything under the sun. Nevertheless there is a scholarly convention, as well as a medical one. If you look into it you will discover that pedophilia ends more or less where pederasty begins. Of course there is overlap, human relations are notoriously messy, and the popular use of the terms totally confuses such distinctions, but in historical and anthropological and medical parlance they are very real and meaningful. This being an encyclopaedia and not the Daily Mail, we need to stick to those conventions. There is much more to be said but we should try to resolve these issues before we go any further, in my opinion. Regards, Haiduc 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have quoted from Franklin who is the major scholar on Rumi. And your intrepretations by Gay scholars who are not experts in Persian literature does not have scholarly caliber. If we are talking about sufism, then we quote scholars on sufism. Unless the scholars you mention read Persian literature, understand it and are experts in it, then they do not have the same veracity as someone like Schiemel and Franklin. --alidoostzadeh 09:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "My daddy can beat your daddy" situation. Scholars often disagree, thus we make room for everybody's opinion. In reality, the different points of view complelent each other. And neither you nor I are qualified to judge people whose work has already passed peer review. Haiduc 12:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again there are scholars who specialize in specific fields. The field of Persian poetry and sufism is very specified field. If your scholar's speciality is not in this field, then it does not hold the same weight as a scholar who has PhD in the field and now teaches it. --alidoostzadeh 06:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We have danced around this particular point a number of times. You cannot exclude bona fide scholarship (and material published in scholarly journals that has therefore passed peer review is what is accepted in Western science as bona fide scholarship, even if, like all scholarship it is in flux and quite possibly contested) from an article by claiming that your sources are more qualified. You include both, and you can certainly mention that so and so is professor wherever and is considered to be an authority on the topic - but you have to say by whom. What is so difficult to understand about that? Haiduc 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very simple. If you want to make accusation on sufism, we do not quote Gay scholars from journals. We quote scholars that are experts in sufism. And note the 200 old year scholar from Britian or the gayworld.com sites that you were quoting previously were not peer-reviewed. --alidoostzadeh 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually on Wikipedia, We quote any scholar who can provide insight. If you've got a problem with that, you might find another hobby. Nina Odell 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nina, while I am glad of any help towards resolving this, I think that both Ali and I need a gentler hand on the tiller here. It may be that nothing will work in communicating with him that scholarly views deserve respect, whether or not they come from the queer studies quarter. But we can at least try to reason this through. Hope springs eternal. If Ali could identify specific issues that he contests and if you could function as an impartial arbiter that might be best. Haiduc 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

NO thanks, I do not accept Nina as an arbitrator. Her tone was clear. --alidoostzadeh 02:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But we quote scholars relavent to the field. Don't we? --alidoostzadeh 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't rebut what I'm saying and reject me at the same time. Wikipedia quotes all credible and relevant sources, not just the ones that agree with a particular viewpoint. I'm not planning, on arbitrating, I plan on editing and adding references. That's what I mean by informal arbiter.

If I am writing about Bhuddism, I quote a scholar on Bhuddism. Right? I have no problems if this article quotes scholars in Persian literature and sufism. And there many many notable western academics. --alidoostzadeh 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Admitting past mistakes is extremely wise, and half the "battle". I can only act as an arbiter informally. There is also the Mediation Cabal and the Neutrality Project, if I or any of you need more help than I can give. I will admit some bias; I am extremely "inclusionary" when it comes to Wikipedia, and have championed several articles relating to both sexuality and religion.

I even championed an article on an extinct breed of Bulldog recently. I think what might need to happen here is just an understanding that no one is trying to paint this article as definitive of Sufism. Consider the number of people who will actually read this article, and why. Nina Odell 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On a more general note, my Buddhist sect gets called a cult on a more-or-less regular basis. However, it has 19 million world-wide followers and hundreds convert every day. In other words, Sufism will survive it's skeletons, as will Buddhism, as will Hinduism, as will Judaism, as will Christianity, as will...Nina Odell 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Note the idea proposed in this article is not part of Sufism, but a practice by some antimonian sufis and there is nothing sexual about it. If I was going to talk about Christianity I would not talk about David Koresh and if I was going to talk about Buddhism, I would not be talking about a guy smoking a Buddha? Right? --alidoostzadeh 03:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sufism will no more survive this skeleton than you or I will survive our own skeletons. For example, according to Khaled El-Rouayheb, Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 Chicago, 2005 p.39, "Given such warnings by prominent legal scholars and Sufi authors, one might suppose that the mystical contemplation of boys was confined to more 'unorthodox' or 'antinomian' Sufis. Nevertheless such a judgement has to be qualified. As has been pointed out by for example Michael Winter, the distinction between so called orthodox and unorthodox Sufis was not always so clearcut. [...] there were defenders of the mystical practice of adoring handsome boys in the early Ottoman Arab east, and some of these were well versed in religious law, and belonged to orders that are usually regarded as thoroughly orthodox." Haiduc 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe we "survive our skeletons", by the way. I also had no intent of using "skeletons" as a perjorative. I'm simply stating that all controversial aspects of all religions have a place on Wikipedia, including David Koresh, and including Buddhist monks who developed their own martial arts and used them to great harm. I'm not easily phased, I would suggest a reconsideration of my proposal. NinaOdell | Talk 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If by proposal you mean the suggestion that no one try to treat this as a defining characteristic of Sufism, consider it a fait accompli. It is simply one of many aspects of certain branches of Sufism at certain times, which was criticized by some (or most) and praised by others. I would even have agreed with Ali here about branding it "antinomian" until I dug up the passage from El-Rouayheb which challenges that categorization as facile. As for "not surving one's skeletons," my point was that a skeleton is integral to the body even if no longer visible, and there is no reason to attach a value judgement to it whatsoever. That's why these pedophilia advocates with their in-your-face ***PEDOPHILIA*** section at the top of the page are so tedious - here on one hand they are exercising themselves to protect Sufism from some imagined (and nonexistent in any scholar's mind) stain, and at the same time shooting themselves in the foot by asserting that a common Sufi practice was an example of pedophilia AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT!!! Give me a break. I certainly would have no objections if you wish to insert at some appropriate place in the article the fact that some moderns (and we have a good cite for that) see nazar as a form of pedophilia. But to beat your breast and scream it from the rooftops (or the treetops, as the case may be) is a waste of our time here. Haiduc 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the credentials of Khaled El-Rouayheb? He is not an expert on Sufism from what I gathered. And the sufi practice was neither Pedophilia and definitely not homosexuality. I know many sufi sects from Iran and Turkey and none of them practice such deviancy. Professor. Franklin is an authority on sufism and Persian literature. Khaled El-Rouayheb is not. --alidoostzadeh 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, boss. KER is "a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge." That from the copyright page of the book. As I already said long ago, this is not a battle where we pit our scholars against each other, or, if you will, not a zero sum game. Franklin has something to bring to the table, KER does too, and there will be others, I assure you. That's how this whole project works. Do you for an instant imagine that this is how the other articles are written, with editors attempting to exclude legitimate scholarly opinion which they do not like by claiming that their own source is "better" that the others' because they say so?! Be serious, please. And realize that while I and other editors are willing to work with you and accommodate your concerns (but not by succumbing to your whims but by being impartial) if you persist in refusing to "play by the rules" and continue to merely repeat the same tired old arguments so as to impose your view by fiat, you will merely be isolating yourself from the editing process. Haiduc 05:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So he is a postdoctoral fellow. But I asked if his speciality was sufism and you did not answer my question. If you can not find experts in sufism, then please do not impose your view. And I can easily retaliate on your attack on sufism by writing a good article on Zoroastrianism which will not be liked by some groups. So I am not fazed by any threats. And note evey portion of it will be sourced. So stop bashing sufism. Note you were wrong in the Mahmud and Ayaz case as well where the story shows that homosexuality is not condoned in that particular poem, but you failed to quote all of it. So I have reasons not to trust you quoting. Sufism is a branch of Islam(much like Kabbala is to Judaism) where homosexuality/Phedophila is not condoned and considered a sin. Thus the practice of some anti-monian sufis does not represent sufism in general. And note the discussion here is not about homosexuality, but contemplation on young boys as a mystical object in some sufi sects. The issue is not about homosexuality in Arab or Middle-eastern culture, but the issue is about some sufi sects and their relationship to that practice. I know dozens of sufi sects right now as well (Naqshbandi, Nematullahi, Qadiri, Raf'i,..), and none of them practice such deviancy. Note even the Iranica article which is written by a non-expert in sufism and persian literature writes: 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. I say why not let sufi doctrine represent itself? One should quote the sufi sources like Shams and Rumi directly and not intrepret them. Most sufi sects follow the Shar'ia of Islam which strictly forbids any sort of sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage. Unless you have scholars who are experts on sufism, their opinion is second hand and does not count. Note some priests in the catholic church acted in a way that was not condoned by the teachings of the catholic church. But these priests can not be the official representatives of the view of the catholic church. Same with some practices by anti-monian sufis. --alidoostzadeh 06:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with your approach. First of all, the vetting process is not done by the likes of you and me, it is done by bona fide publishers. El-Rouayheb is published by a major university press, the University of Chicago Press. (Your man is from UC too, isn't he?) Thus his work has been reviewed by scholars. Period. You and I are out of that discussion. So your disqualification of him for not being an expert on Sufism by your arbitrary standard fails the test. Please see Wiki rules on legitimate sources.

Second, your characterization of the discussion I report on as "my attack" is flawed since it is not mine and no one is attacking. So a "defense" is out of place here. Let's not polarize the situation.

Finally, as for your repeated conflation of homosexuality, pedophilia and deviancy, these are personal views that, right or wrong, I think you'd be well advised to leave out of the discussion. As you say, let's stick to Sufism, and its many sources. If you can leave aside the theorizing and just look at the concepts reported in the article one by one, examining their validity from the point of view of proper sourcing, let's do it. Anything else is really beyond our scope. Haiduc 12:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Again if your so called scholars are not experts in Sufism then I reserve the right to revert them. I have a PhD but it is not in the field of say biology. Thus if I write a book on biology, it is not a primary source. Thus if someone is evaluating sufism, they should present evidence either from the main sufi source itself directly, or scholars that are experts in the manner. --alidoostzadeh 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ali, it's not like you commenting on biology at all. El-Rouayheb may not be known as an expert of Sufism, but he is a member of a major university's divinity department, and so this is within his field. It's not necessary for scholars to study one particular topic throughout their lifetimes - for example experts on Catholicism might become interested in Gnosticism and start writing about it - perfectly acceptable. Anyway, I can't really see what you're arguing about. Haiduc isn't claiming that Sufism condones paedophilia or homosexuality, simply that Mahmud experienced, and repressed, homosexual and paedophilic desire (and yes those terms are compatible - think about it). This much is clear from the passage that you quoted. Furthermore, that certain Sufis may have taken this further and actually practiced pederasty. This doesn't mean that sufism condones these practices, simply that they have existed and thus that this is one understanding of the concept of Nazar ill'al-murd. Anyway, I hope that it helpful. 195.195.166.31 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The way forward

To anyone here willing to play by the rules, if you are still interested in working on this then I suggest we strengthen the article by removing anything indefensible and citing as necessary. If any other users persist in imposing capricious criteria we will simply have to refer the matter up the line. Haiduc 02:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your source scholar makes a good source. I wish I could find more sources online, but I've found only one and it's not scholarly. NinaOdell | Talk 13:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is fine, I have a bunch more books to go through. Feel free to look over the grammar and layout. And we should both extend thanks to Ali and his friends for pointing out the flaws and lacunae in this article. I actually find their criticism very useful and it is helping me focus on making this a more thorough documentation of this important aspect of Sufi life. Haiduc 13:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. I look forward to reading the finished article. I intend to read the general article on Sufism this morning as well - the topic is fascinating and enlightening.:)NinaOdell | Talk 14:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wrong transcription

It is

Naẓar [and here the Arabic was wrong too]

ila'

l-murd

not illa, not ill'al

it is written in Arabic ila al-murd, but the a of al is not pronounce,

hence ila'l-murd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murray

I have eliminated "Despite opposition from the clerics, the practice has survived in Islamic countries until only recent years, according to Murray and Roscoe in their work on Islamic homosexualities.^[1]"

Neither Murray, nor Roscoe have ever been to the Islamic World, nor do they speak any language mainly used by Muslims. If the reference is to an expert author that contributed to their book, you may put it back in amended form, but quoting a guy who has studied North and South American homosexuality himself, but writes about the whole world, we should not do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)