Talk:Sufism/Archive 1

message: "Sufi Whirling - the no-nosense way to divinity" looks to be in the same vein.  I've deleted it and placed it here:
::== Sufi Whirling - The no-nonsense way to divinity ==
::The ancient Indian Sufis (and modern Turkish Dervishes), practice the Whirling meditation. Sufi whirling is said to be one of the most ancient techniques, and one of the most forceful, synchronizing people with the raw primordial sources of existence. It is said to be so deep that even a single experience can make one totally different. To practice, spin around with eyes open, as if your inner being has become a centre and your whole body has become like a top.
Raw primordial forces and inner beings: nice stuff, but they do not belong in an encyclopedia.  Can't tell what it has to do with Syed Hussain, but I would not be surprised if there was a connection.  --Ardonik 03:09, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
More of the same ==Related topics== Dances of Universal Peace A system of spiritual practise through dance originally based on Sufi teaching but expanded to include all spiritual paths.Refdoc 23:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufi Whirling 

message: One of the things that always intrigued me about Sufi practices is the use of alcohol (which is frequently referenced in the works of Rumi, and other Sufi writers). Not only does it appear important to Sufi practice, but also doubly interesting considering the Muslim prohibition on the fermentation of fruit or grain, which appears to make Sufism at least partly heretical (but at the same time tolerated). I noticed there's no reference to the subject, but I don't have enough information on hand to write it right now. Anyone?
BTW - This is a discussion page.  There's no need to delete the question if you have an answer.  Feel free to add your information to the article itself.
: While different people will tell you different things about whether any Sufi has tolerated alcohol, I think most people would agree that the references to alcohol in Sufi literature are metaphorical. The state of intoxication is meant to represent the state of the follower when he or she is "intoxicated" with the love of the Divine. "Wine" often represents "Divine love", the "Cupbearer" (saqi) usually refers to God, or sometimes the spiritual guide. This metaphor has been extended quite further in many poems. You're right though,... there is alot more to say about this subject. --Katangoori 22:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol and the Sufi way 

message: 66.143.177.83 pasted a huge lecture by Nuh Ha Mim Keller in the middle of the page. I've removed it since it's huge and out of place (and maybe under copywright). If you want to read it, you can find it here. --Katangoori 17:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuh Ha Mim Lecture? 

message: Either in this article, or in a breakout article, there's need for a sober academic history of Sufism. I'm aware that this could be controversial, since I gather that some or all Sufi orders claim a chain of transmission back to Muhammad, while anti-Sufis would give the movement a much more limited history. Still, people who know nothing about the subject need more of a framework. 
Also, info on the objections of Salafis and the like to various Sufi or popular religious practices (such as the veneration of saints). Zora 09:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufi history needed 

message: The group 'Sanskriti O Biddya CharchaPit' is trying to promote itself by inserting a whole paragraph about it in the "Universal sufism" section. Google search for the group return nothing other than the Sufism article or wikimirrors of this page, the very promotional text that was inserted. Being from Chittagong, Bangladesh, where this group claims to be active, I can definitely say that this is a non-notable entity, trying to promote itself. Thanks. --Ragib 08:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown group promoting itself in Universal Sufism 

message: Unfinishedchaos just made some significant contributions on "The Traditional Islamic Schools of Thought and Sufism". I cannot tell how accurate they are, but they do need copyediting (tone, spelling) if they are to stay. Rl 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Another aspect that I miss in this article at present is the characterisation of sufism as the tolerant tradition within Islam. There are literally hundreds of news sources, as well as hundreds of books and hundreds of scholarly sources drawing attention to this aspect of sufism. Jayen466 13:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufism as tolerant Islam 

message: I'm not a member of Wikipedia or anything, but I'd suggest two things to better the article:
- Is it not possible to have an estimation of the overall number of Sufis (I mean, followers of Tasawwuf, not Sufis as accomplished saints) in the world? It'd also be nice to have a short overview of the repartition of the Sufis in the world. To my knowledge Sufism is very much developped in India-Pakistan-Bangladesh, Iran, the Indonesian Java island, Sudan and Sub-Saharan Islamic Africa, central Asia, the Maghreb and some parts of the Arab Middle East. The article should shortly explain the what extent to which Sufism was popular. It may be that the majority of Muslims are still affiliated with a Sufi order. The article should maybe have a section added to, that would briefly list the different main Sufi movements and the extent to which they differ or are close to one another (like, have the different Sufi schools gone very different ways or is there a clear unity and consensus in the teachings of the various tariqas?)
- I find the image of the heart and Allah written on it aweful. It is terribly un-artistic and I don't think the Qadiri Al-Muntahi order actually represents the mystical idea of Allah in the heart of the believer in such a way... In my opinion, a piece of beautiful Arabic calligraphy of the name of Allah or another exemple of Islamic/Sufi plastic art would be better.
Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your first question, there is no source I know of that gives us the amount of individuals associated with a Sufi order, and Wikipedia depends on outside sources, not WP:original research. To add to that, Sufism's influence does not come through one joining an order as much as it does through the literature, music, and other influences it spreads on the local inhabitants. Second, I don't really like the heart either, and I haven't taken the time to look at its origin or anything. Time will tell what we'll do with it. I do suggest you get an account so you can help us out. It's easy! I'll walk you through all the steps. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some numbers and pictures needed 

message: "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi was heavily criticized by orthodox theological scholars in Pakistan and abroad. Shahi's books were banned by the Government of Pakistan."
This would be true for pakistani sufism in an article on Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi... but I don't believe that something so specific tells us much about the criticism against sufism. I suppose that the following might be something regarding sufism vs wahabbis .  And perhaps the following would add other criticisms on sufism  Faro0485 (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms in Islam 

message: * Is this a "useful link"?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful links 

message: Isn't there scholarship regarding growth of sufism and the decline of islam? I recall Malek Bennabi's "Islam In Society And History" mentioning the decline of islam thanks to the maraboutism of the 11th century. And Neil Tysons lecture regarding Al Ghazali (him being one of the most influencial person to infuse sufism into the mainstream)   Faro0485 (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason al-Ghazzali introduced its practice into mainstream Sunni Islam is because he said it was an essential component of Islam, not a heresy foreign to Islam as some scholars had thought. It had originally grown from the practice of Muslims. Likewise, Ismaili Imams also introduced Sufism into Ismailism. It's like saying, "Isn't there scholarship regarding the growth of feminism and the decline of human rights?" --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have to disagree with you there, as Neil Tyson also makes a mention regarding this .  Whether there is any scholarship regarding the rise of feminism and the decline of human rights... that's for another article. Faro0485 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghazzali promoted Sufism within Islam as, during part of his life, he was a Sufi.  One individual alone, however, isn't indicative of the breadth of Muslim scholarship.  All views should be presented, without any sides being taken within the article.  Some Muslims believe Sufism is a part of Islam, but there are many scholars and historians who hold is as something foreign.  The article should reflect this, though due to the article's length at this point (I'm afraid to even start working on this one) a lot of restructuring might be in order first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth of sufism - decline of Islam 

message: From the article:
"The precepts prescribed by the Torah number 613 only; those dictated by the intellect are innumerable."
"This was precisely the argument used by the Sufis against their adversaries, the Ulamas. The arrangement of the book seems to have been inspired by Sufism. Its ten sections correspond to the ten stages through which the Sufi had to pass in order to attain that true and passionate love of God which is the aim and goal of all ethical self-discipline."
Does that mean that the book that got finalized between 200BC and 200AD was actually influenced by a religion born at least 400 years later? Or is the sufi movement older than islam? Or did I misinterpret the text? At least provide a source - maybe (even I) get it when reading the source. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.131.216 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is referring to the ten gates, or chapters in Kitab al-Hidāya ilā Fara'id al-Qulūb (Chovot HaLevavot), not the Torah. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chovot_HaLevavot#Organization_and_influences 24.38.217.61 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufi impact on the torah???? 

message: Deobandis are not anti-Sufis. All the founders of this movement were affiliated with turuq, mostly the Chishti tariqa. This is common knowledge. Please remove the misleading information from the main page listing them as anti-tasawwuf. Note that Wahhabis often criticize Deobandis, such Shaykh Ashraf Thanvi, for believing in wahdat al-wujud. See: http://www.ahya.org/tjonline/eng/03/7wahdat.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.15.144 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Deobandis and Sufism 

message: After some review, I noticed that quite a bit of the content within this article consists of apologetics on behalf of Sufism.  While it is not the purpose of any article here to attack or slander its subject, it is also not the purpose of any article to promote its subject.  The underlying point of much of the more obvious POV-pushing within the article is that Sufism is "non-quantifiable" and complicated, and any criticism of it is born from the critic simply not understanding.  This is not only inappropriate, but clearly false.  There have been many critics of Sufism who were educated and informed on the beliefs of Sufis, and still held critical views.  The article should not be tipped in either direction, and should simply present all the viewpoints on a controversial movement without trashing it or painting a rosy picture of it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe worth checking out lead section. EricT (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi David. It would help if you could provide details of specific objections. And with respect, the Salafi point of view is a minority point of view, so we have to be careful not to give it undue weight. Esowteric+Talk 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: David.Baratheon (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The blatant POV and apologetics within the article 

message: I'd would apprecate an elaboration on Sufism in India. I know that Sufi Saints are revered in many parts of India. Often it appears that its supporters do not consider it a manifestation of Islam alone (many Hindus revere Sufi Saints), but as a system or "school" for the attainment of wisdom and spiritual enlightenment with strong historical (rather than theological) links to Islam. Perhaps this may explain why some consider Sufism a widely accepted part of Islam while others consider Sufis heretical.
Kabir, for instance, is considered a "Sufi Saint" in India (he has a page on Wikipedia as well) and is popularly referred to in Indian culture (his "dohae" in particular). He finds no mention in this article. I am not an expert on Sufism, Kabir or Indian Culture and while I may be able to get support (citations) for changes to the main article about Kabir, I would prefer attention from an expert since this does pertain to religion and people are sensitive to comments related to religion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh.jaywant (talk • contribs) 08:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many others who were much more orthodox in their Islam, such as Nizamuddin Auliya, who are also revered by Hindus. A Sufi being revered by another faith doesn't make them less of a Muslim. There is a similar situation in Turkey where Muslims do special things for ancient Christian saints. --Afghana [talk] 09:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I feel such a subject deserves its own article (Sufism in India) and probably a section here as well, as particularly with the strong Persian influence in Indian culture and philosophy it is a topic which I am sure there is much one could base an article around. Peter Deer (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: You can read Sufi Saints of South Asia. I have also initiated a proposal to shift the entire article to Sufism in India--Shahab (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufism in India - Kabir? 

message: Sufism#Criticism_within_Islam. This section is about the unfortunate events surrounding Shahi, an not criticism of Sufism in general. Criticism of Sufism (or even Shahi) would be more along the lines of 'orthodox Muslims rejected ______ part of Shahi's teachings', not that orthodox Muslims abused the human rights of Shahi.VR talk 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: A recent edit was made to the article:
Sufism is generally understood to be the inner, mystical dimension of Islam. However not all Sufi orders adhere to the tradition of Islam, and fall outside of the category if Islam.{ref name=Godlas}
The words shown in bold were added to the text, then removed by User:Ogress with the edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by Lifewater000; Rv "minor" edit that is highly polemical, POV and takfirism!"
You might argue over the wording or where to best place such words, but Dr. Alan Godlas has said things along these lines in the cited reference work. See Source: Dr. Alan Godlas, Sufism -- Sufis -- Sufi Orders Sufism, the West, and Modernity here, portions of which have been reproduced below:
Islamic Sufi Orders in the West
"The common denominator of the Islamic Sufi Orders now established in the West is the avowed adherence to Islam and specifically to the Shari'ah, although the interpreter of the Shari'ah for a particular order may be the shaykh of that order. (In a few of these orders the shaykh may on occasion have non-Muslim disciples.)"
Quasi-Islamic Sufi Organizations and Orders
"In most of these organizations, although the shaykh himself or herself adhered or adheres to the Shari'a, the practice of Islam was not made a condition for receiving instructions on following the Sufi path. In some instances the shaykh may have identified him or herself as a Muslim and on other other occasions may have identified him or herself as a member or another faith. Also in some of these organizations, on some occasions the shaykh may have not observed the shari'a in the manner that is normative for Sunni's and/or Shi'is. Hence in these organizations, significant numbers of aspirants are Muslims and significant numbers are non-Muslims."
Non-Islamic Sufi Organizations and Schools in the West
In addition to the various Islamic Sufi orders that now have centers in the West, a number of non-Islamic Sufi organizations have arisen in the West. These groups teach various Sufi doctrines and practices but -- in contrast to nearly all Sufi orders in the Muslim world -- have disconnected their teachings from Islam. Hence followers of these groups are generally not Muslims. Adherents of such schools often assert that Sufism pre-dates Islam and thus in prinicipal is universal and independent of it.
Thanks, Esowteric | Talk 10:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned with undue weight. Sufism is quintessentially a Muslim movement, even if sometimes antinomian. The Meher Babaists, Inayat Khanists and Idries Shahists comprise a cup of water in the vast ocean that is Sufism... even among ORGANISED sufi orders, they are barely a drop. Perhaps a rephrasing would reduce its emphasis? "However, some Western movements explicitly define themselves as non-Muslim." Otherwise it sounds like anti-Sufi propaganda from Wahhabis/Deobandis. Ogress smash! 00:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the rewording, but should the " Adherents of such schools often assert that Sufism pre-dates Islam and thus in prinicipal (source typo?) is universal and independent of it." assertion be included or elaborated upon? - Nuβiατεch Talk/contrib 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufism and Islam (20 June 2009 edit) 

message: Rajendrakgupta previously added some external links that were reverted by a bot and then by me. These books were later added to "Additional reading" and I reverted the edit as self-serving. However, if the books are worthy of inclusion, please add them to the list again.
# Gupta R.K. Yogis in Silence-The Great Sufi Masters, 2001 
# Gupta R.K. Sufism Beyond Religion, 2004, 
# Gupta R.K. The Science and Philosophy of Spirituality, 2006, 
Thanks, Esowteric | Talk 10:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rajendrakgupta: external links and additional reading 

message: This rather awkward material was recently introduced into the Wikipedia article on Sufism in the section 'Perception outside Islam': Sufism#Perception_outside_Islam
 
"Others have criticised the non-Muslim perception of Sufis as 'peace-loving meditative seekers of the divine.' Professor Andrew G. Bostom has argued that Sufism has been linked integrally to the Muslim institution of jihad war since the 11th century C.E. He writes [in a well-referenced article entitled "Sufi Jihad?"]:
 
"'Consistent with this nexus between Sufism and orthodox Islam, Sufis have supported (fervently) the corollary institution of dhimmitude, replete with all its oppressive and humiliating regulations for non-Muslims.'" 
Further articles:
Iraqi Insurgents Turn To Small But Deadly Weapon (mention of Naqshbandi): 
 
U.S. Sees New Threat In Iraq From Sufi Sect: 
 
U.S. admits Threat from Naqshabandiya Army (with pix): 
 
Let's hope we don't all get tarred with the same brush and that moderate Sufis and commentators distance themselves from this.
Regards, Esowteric | Talk 09:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it appear that this material has been removed?  Most of it is from well-known and reputable media sources (I don't think the Wordpress link would be acceptable though). MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Militant "Sufis" in the news: a worrying trend 

message: A massive suspected copyvio (about theosophy) was added by Manzarakbar on Wed 5 August 2009. Replaced with last clean version by User:Esowteric.
The edits closely paraphrased content at:
* source (a bit of the text)
* google page cache (the whole text). Esowteric+Talk 16:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio reverted 

message: I added a ref for the fact that in Persian language these things are called "صوفی‌گری". The reference is Dehxoda's loghatnameh. I am sure one does not need references for this kind of edits, but the editor who removed this piece is in a compaign of al-ification of wikipedia and removing Persian (empire, language, culture, ...) from wikipedia. So, if the other editors wish may remove the ref and leave the Persian word without reference as any non-illetertate reader can find out about it.Note the accompanying poem in Dehkhoda's entry makes it clear that "صوفی‌گری" is not insulting.Xashaiar (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "صوفی‌گری" is used in some modern Persian texts, but it is mostly derogatory and is not as common as "تصوّف", even in Persian language. Referring to a dictionary (like Dehkhoda's loghatnameh) is meaningless in this case (ideally, you can find all Persian words in a dictionary, but finding a word in a dictionary doesn't mean that it's the most common and most appropriate word for that concept, in that language). All the major Persian encyclopedias use "تصوّف" for the corresponding entry (example: ). Alefbe (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No OR. What you say is original research and in fact folk etymology. That's not allowed here. Dehkhoda states Sufigari=Tasavof and has not made any illiterate statement that the word is derogatory. Looking at a dictionary is the only way to find out the Persian equivalent to words. If there was any negative meaning in Sufigari, the authority Dehkhoda would state that. What reliable sources say is what matters not your OR. Your OR is not even correct: if you were concerned about "the common word in Persian language" you would have used "Erfan" (which is most common for these things but unfortunately a wrong designation) so in terms of "most common" first comes Erfan, then Sufigari, and then Tasawof.Xashaiar (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Erfan" has a more general meaning and is not equivalent with Sufism (it is equivalent with Mysticism). Alefbe (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  a marginal note 

message: This is very much PoV. It doesn't flow with the surrounding text. Could it be a vandalistic insertion? 65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. I think that POV content, which as you say doesn't flow with the rest of the text, can be ditched. An IP user added it earlier today but the edit was hidden by subsequent edits. Esowteric+Talk 19:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "According to the true teachings of Islam there is no sufism and it is a new branch extracted by some scholars." from the article 

message: There is no mention of Gjakova and Prizren in Kosovo as centers of Sufism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bektashi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Frash%C3%ABri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saadi_(poet)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mentions of kosovo 

message: This whole article must be referred to an independent authority since it seems to present sufism as an offshoot of islam, whereas it could well be agreed that the sufi movement/revolution was all about a simple and spirtual way of life away from the prescriptive nature of religion.
Anand Dixit. UK.
* If you go to tell a Sufi that he is not a Muslim, you are likely to get very angry rebuke - Skysmith (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific on what particularly seems to give this impression? Peter Deer (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Can someone who knows something about Sufism have a look at these edits? Note that the added text occurs quite a few times on other websites, according to Google. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, have reverted the "strange edit". In wrong place, unsourced, found elsewhere on web. Esowteric+Talk 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange edits 

message: There is an ongoing edit war in the Sufi Sheikhs -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi sub-section of the article. Could we please discuss this issue here? Thanks. Esowteric+Talk 10:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm well previously, I did try to add information, cited to Dawn.com, about why Gohar Shahi and his followers are opposed- but this was reverted without explanation. So to get feedback on it, I made a section "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi" in the talk page, but I didn't get any response. Anyway, recently I have noticed that User: Nasiryounus made a contribution to the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi section mentioning a little more about why Gohar Shahi is so controversial (Because his followers believe him to be the Imam Mehdi, Messiah and Kalki Avatar) and mentioning the dispute over his alleged death. I personally thought that it gave readers a little more insight into Gohar Shahi and thought that it was reasonable information to add. I found it strange that it was getting reverted so much. However, I also understand that this page is primarily about Sufism so, if the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi section does not discuss Gohar Shahi's controversy in great detail, it's not a problem. However I think that the main points of the paragraph that has been written should be mentioned, as this seems necessary for the reader to understand the situation surrounding Gohar Shahi more. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I Beleive that information in this section are completed. No need to add further!--Falconkhe (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Feel free, JN. Esowteric+Talk 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

text: That's funny.  When I read Gohar Shahi, he seems to state "All ye who love me, devalue not my greatness by putting me on Wikipedia pages where I do not belong!"  --Sarabseth (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: We were listing Goharshahi in the company of Ibn Arabi and Mansoor. WP:Due weight is established by prevalence in reliable sources. There are more than 2,000 books that mention Ibn Arabi, vs. less than 20 mentioning Goharshahi. In terms of coverage in reliable sources, Goharshahi is not in the same ballpark as Ibn Arabi or the others listed in that section. Note that this does not say anything about Goharshahi's qualities as a sufi and a saint, which may very well be of the highest, but simply reflects the preoccupations of published literature, which we are required to mirror. --JN466 14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. JN, what you have said makes sense- since Gohar Shahi is relatively newer compared to the Sufi's of 1000 years ago, there is, of course, less mention of him in literature. Also, some people will say that Gohar Shahi's teachings relate closely to Sufism but is not exactly the same. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.Nasiryounus (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, JN. Thanks for your help. Esowteric+Talk 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree to JN but JN should also consider this conspiracies against HH Gohar Shahi and attempts by Govt of Pakistan to remove the message and followers of GS has left no stone unturned used all resources available to Govt (MFI & Younus is a part of that conspiracy). I request to consider this.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sarabseth. This article is about Sufism not about conspiracies against any personality. I suggest Falconkhe make another article which may as well be a stub, which talks about what you've mentioned (conspiracies etc), keeping in mind that you must use reputable and relevant sources. Happy editing :) - Nasiryounus|Talk 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufi Sheikhs -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi sub-section edit war 

message: Substituted at 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment