Talk:Inayat Khan

message: I've tried to clean up the language and make this more neutral. It is but a stub, but perhaps someone will provide more content without making it sound like a fundraising brochure. Alex756
The summary description at the upper right corner of the article formerly listed Inayat's title as Pir of the Dances of Universal Peace. This was not accurate. I have corrected it to say Pir-O-Murshid of The Sufi Order of the West. That order which Inayat founded has successors today but is not still in existence, i.e. there is no current name for it; least of all Dances of Universal peace, which were invented by someone else nearly 5 decades after Inayat's death.Ramseyman (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I revised the life section to reflect the fundamental issues more clearly (7up 05:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Revision 

message: * If "Hazrat" is an honorific such as "Sir", "Rev" etc, then I believe policy indicates a rename to Inayat Khan. Regards, David Kernow 11:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I moved the talk page as the main page has been moved already. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: According to the HIK's own writings and the 6 biographies I have read of his life, HIK could hardly be characterized as "a devout Muslim" who "followed the Sharia".  He made no pilgrimage to Mecca, nor is there any indication that he ever observed Ramadan while in the West (1910-1927); the only reference to his observance is as a child in India.  His first major book was called "The Unity of Religious Ideals."  When asked what his religion was, he would say, "All".  In addition, the quotation of his remarks about Protestantism and Islam in this setting is extremely misleading.  These remarks are taken quite out of context, making it sound as though HIK is criticizing a religious faith.  As he writes in the Complete Sayings: "Those who criticize the faith of another do not understand the meaning of religion." Asatar Bair 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HIK's relation to Islam misleading

message: Would somebody who knows about this gent and his family please fix the name and link for his son in the article Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke? (Or, if appropriate, just delete the relevant sentence in that article). --kingboyk (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inayat Khan and Ora Ray Baker had four children: Noor, Vilayat, Hidayat, and Khairunnisa. David Ray Harper was the son of Khairunnisa (a.k.a. Claire Ray Harper). David married Celia Margaret Brooke (daughter of Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke). David and Celia had a daughter, Sura-un-Nissa Dorée des Anges Brooke Harper.  Geneall  mistakenly names David Ray Harper "Inayat Khan" as son of Hazrat Inayat Khan.  See Sufi Remembrance Project  and Khairunnisa's We Rubies Four .Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  His son 

message: There exists an article about Inayat Khan's wife, Pirani Ameena Begum, which I have nominated for deletion. As there is no link from this article to the one on Pirani Ameena Begum I thought I should post this note here so that any editors that want to participate in that AfD discussion will be aware of it. --Crusio (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pirani Ameena Begum]] 

message: Another editor removed all the "Hazrat" honorifics (except in the name or author of books and external link titles), which is fine.
However, as most people know him in his writing capacity as "Hazrat Inayat Khan", I've restored the first mention of his name in the lede to the full version. Esowteric+Talk 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazrat Inayat Khan 

message: I left a note on the talk page of a contributor who recently left several tags at the head of this article.
When instantiated two of those tags tell readers to look on the talk page for a fuller explanation
of why the tags were placed.  I asked the tag placer if they had plans to place that explanation.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some tags require an accompanying talk page explanation 

message: As it stands, the music section of this article only has a few song recordings linked to it. Khan was a music lover. He wrote many works on and studied music for half of his lifetime. This doesn't do his passion for music justice. In my Music and the Environment class, which focuses on the different ways we think about music and its relationship to nature and society, we read The Book of Music and NAture which contains an excerpt entitled THe MUsic of the Spheres by Inayat Khan. It does a great job of tying Khan's background in music with how he perceives the world through a Sufist's lense. I think something from this article needs to be added to the music section to provide some context. Iyanu.corniel15 (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to the Music Section 

message: There has been considerable criticism of this man too. Some of it  well-sourced. I added one small such item some time ago to give just a bit of balance to this article. Will add more if it is removed again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: An undated contextless quote of the single word "crackpot" from an espionage service of the colonial power dominating India during Khan's life, presumably from some sort of internal memo, is not any sort of criticism.  It's simply repeating name-calling from the notes of racist late-Imperial government officials.You could make the phrase "well-sourced" both bold and italic and it wouldn't result in this having anything to do with bringing editorial balance to the article, scraping up just any nasty thing that was ever said about the guy even in secret.  If you have access to a copy of the cited book and it's really the high-quality objective source you're representing it as, put some elbow grease into actually learning enough about the subject of the article to find a salient theological or other material criticism of him.There are many changes which could improve this article, but this "crackpot" thing and vague claims from dead spies that he did a poor job of raising his children—one of them apparently a World War II heroine who died in the service of the British governmental organ casting the aspersions?—are not improvements. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 09:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The personal opinions of Wikipedians do not change articles. Reliable sources do. I will reword this for you, though the word "crackpot" is what is in the source. Her biographer is considered very reliable and the book itself is extensively and excellently sourced. There is quite a bit more about this man in that book, and elsewhere, that tells of the controversial side of his personality, especially as regards his family (which he deserted) and friendships. Important information. The article now reads as if this man was perfect. Nobody is, and what reliable sources tell us about a person belongs in his description on Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Arbitrary. First we discuss, then we change. The cited source is a reliable and respected biography, is correctedly cited and deals quite a bit with this man. See the rest of this section, and do not remove this due to any personal opinion  displeasure. There is much more criicism of this man to be ckited, but I thought this bried sentence would do. None of those harsh terms were in the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Quote: "According to the code breaker, Leo Marks, who claimed to have spoken to one of Khan's SOE trainers, she was regarded as eccentric. He described her as a ‘potty Princess’, the daughter of a ‘crackpot father’, who preached a message of ‘love and forgiveness’ and instilled in Noor an aversion to lying."
Lahiri, S., 2007. Clandestine Mobilities and Shifting Embodiments: Noor‐un‐nisa Inayat Khan and the Special Operations Executive, 1940–44. Gender & History, 19(2), pp.305-323.
This quote, even in its entirety, would only be due for inclusion on Noor's page. On Inayat Khan's page, it would be wholly undue. And even so, the slur "crackpot father" would not be appropriate for inclusion on an encyclopedia.
I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitrary. First we discuss, then we change. The cited source is a reliable and respected biography, is correctedly cited and deals quite a bit with this man. See the rest of this section, and do not remove this due to any personal opinion  displeasure. There is much more criicism of this man to be ckited, but I thought this bried sentence would do. None of those harsh terms were in the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing criticism section

message: That section had been removed by FIVE different editors (myself, , , , ) and one IP (68.107.181.155). In every case it was restored by you, who originally added it. It is clearly against consensus to restore it. Please self-revert. Srnec (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed due to various personal opinions, not because of any organized consensus. Personal opinions are not what make up Wikipedia articles. Free free to start an RfC if you want that! Otherwise it is a well-references and relevant part of this bio and stays. This is not an Inayat Khan Fan Page meant to portray the man as perfect, flawless. Nobody is. Several other editors have worked on the wording of the criticism section, not just I. There is lots more serious criticism readily available thanks to other reliable sources. Perhaps much more should be added rather that the whole section being censured? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections to the addition of serious criticism. What we have now is just silly. And an "unoragnized" consensus is even more damning than an organized one. It means that no less than six readers have seen that section and, independently, concluded that it was worthless. I am removing it. You can start an RFC if you wish. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree with that conclusion. I don't know what I removed but I agree with the unorganised consent. Also very curious to see if there is a tool in Wikipedia to track changes to a part of an article such as the section in question? Thanks. هیوا (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 3 

message: Hazrat Inayat Khan was the first sufi-master to bring sufism to the West in 1910, yet he never claimed to represent a "Western Sufism". On the contrary, his intention was clearly to unite East and West. It would be right to call him a representative of "Universal Sufism", this term including East and West. The equation of "Universal Sufism" with "Western Sufism", like it is suggested here and elsewhere, is wrong and misleading (see the article on "Western Sufism", of which Inayat Khan is claimed to be the representative). It is limiting the masters teaching to the "West". Today the teaching of Hazrat Inayat Khan is very much alive in western and eastern countries.
This article here about Inayat Khan himself does not speak of "Western Sufism", but there is a prominent link in the mid of the text, where, without exception, Inayat Khans disciples and teachers are summarized under "Western Sufism". Lordring (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Sufism is not Universal Sufism