Talk:Sufism/Archive 2

message: A recent edit added the following: 
Sufism has been explained by different people in different ways. Sufism is, in fact, the purification of our baser instincts, heart and soul as prescribed in the Holy Quran by Allah: "But those will prosper who purify themselves." (87:14)
Coming in the opening paragraph, as it does, it sounds like a definition of Sufism.  Meaning that it is the consensus definition of editors who have worked on this page.
I would like to ask:
1) Whose definition is this?
2) Does it pass the consensus test?
Sarabseth 10:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph: definition of Sufism 

message: An anon editor did a drive-by on the article, slapping a POV tag at the top without giving any reason or justification. I'll agree that this article is both a sprawling mess and somewhat adulatory of Sufis, but any critics should be willing to argue for the tag and discuss changes in talk. I am guessing that the anon was a Salafi, as he linkspammed the Salafi article. Zora 08:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the reason/justification is given in the first section of this talk page, titled "extremely biased article".  Same anon editor. GTBacchus 08:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV tag 

message: User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! 
: Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles 

message: On the subject of Non-Islamic Sufi orders:
There are sufi orders in the West (and the East as well) that can be classified as "non-islamic," in the sense that they view themselves as members of EVERY religion and not just Islam. Take the Sufi Ruhaniat International (a Western Sufi order) for example, both leaders and followers come from numerous traditions. In fact if you look at the main page of their website there is this statement, "If invited to offer prayers in a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or a temple, the Sufi is ready to do so, knowing that all people worship the same God, the Only Being, no matter what Name they use." Thus a Sufi in this tradition may come from a specific background, but in following this path will consider themselves to be a member of all religions. Regardless of the statements of others in this discussion, I am not sure how a statement such as this, from a known Sufi order, could possibly be construed to mean that all Sufis are Muslim only. 
Further, Hazrat Inayat Khan, from whom many western orders trace their lineage, was schooled in Islam, Hinduism and Parsi before entering the Chishti Order of Sufism (he came from India, not the Middle East). The Ruhaniat trace their lineage from Hazrat Inayat Khan through Samuel Lewis ("Sufi Sam") to the Present day. Samuel Lewis came from a Jewish background, studied the Bible and Koran intensely and acheived high levels of initiation Budhism, Zen and Sufism. He was devoted to teaching Sufism as a "universal religion." Thus the Sufis in the Ruhaniat believe themselves to be members of a universal religion. Current leaders and members today are shcooled in Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Budhist, Zen, Zorastrian (and more) practices. If you ask Pir Shabda Kahn (the current leader of the Ruhaniat) whether he is Muslim, he will say, "yes." If you ask him whether he is Christian he will say, "yes." If asked whether he is Jewish, "yes." Buddhist, "yes." And so on. This is one modern example, but it is more or less true for most other western Sufi orders, and is true of at least some Sufi orders in the east (especially in India, see writings about the Chishti Order). 
Lastly, many older and more traditionally Islamic Sufi orders have embraced western Sufis as brothers and sisters (Sufi Ruhaniat International has ties to groups in Morocco, Turkey and Syria). If these orders had a serious problem with Ruhaniat teachings (namely that one musn't be a practicing Muslim to be Sufi) then these bonds would probably not exist.
On the subject of Gnosticism, Sufism and relationship to other mystical traditions:
No one, as far as I understand, has proven a direct connection with Christian Gnosticism (except a connection between modern Sufis and modern Gnostics). It is possible that members of each movement heard about each other and responded accordingly. For example, some have said that St. Francis encountered Sufism when on crusade, but this is to my knowledge completely unsubstantiated. Having said that, Sufism is a mystical tradition and shares certain core philosphies with all other mystical traditions (for a good treaties on the subject read: Aldous Huxley's Perrenial Philosphy), that includes Christian Gnosticism. 
On the Subject of Sufism predating Islam:
People have stated that Sufism predates Islam. This is probably true in so far as mysticism predates Islam. Thus, people of mystical bent embraced Islam when it first formed and were probably the "first" Sufis. To say that Sufism, in particular, did or didn't predate Islam is probably impossible to establish; mainly because no one is sure where the word "Sufi" even came from. To define "Sufis" as some group that existed before Islam requires that some group called "Sufis" existed before Islam, or that some recognizable group that became "Sufis" existed before Islam. However, the word "Sufi" probably became attached to those who practiced Islamic mysticism some time after they embraced Islam (though the word itself may be older) and it is hard to track down what these groups may have been before they were "Sufi". So it depends on whether one is focused on those who practiced mysticism in the Middle East actually defining themselves as Sufi (to make matters worse some Sufis will say that they are not Sufi), or whether one is focused on the essence of the philosophy itself. Therefore there may be many different answers to this question. I believe much of the current idea that Sufism predates Islam stems from the writings of Idries Shah. It is unclear what he meant by his statements on the matter, but it is quite likely he meant to provoke discussion, particularly on what it actually means to be "Sufi."
A disclaimer and two asides:
Disclaimer: I am a practicing Sufi with the Ruhaniat, and I don't consider myself as solely Muslim. Thus the above statements uses known facts (from the Sufi Ruhaniat International website, and the writings of some of those mentioned in the second aside), and is informed by personal experiences and teachings that I have received. And a note my putting words in Pir Shabda Kahn's mouth, I do know him personally and so have some idea of what he might say if asked those questions.
First aside: Sufis have, in known history, been hard to classify. Ancient scribes have had as much problem describing Sufis as Wikipedia members are having here. Part of this comes from the fact that Sufism is a very diverse and diffuse religion, that does not have easily definable ancient and standing doctrines or traditions. Much of Sufi thought and practice are passed from Teacher to Student through a direct experience rather than in writing (though there is much Sufi writing). Thus Sufism can, in many ways, be thought of as an Oral tradition and can be expected to change and evolve in much the same way. Further, there is no Pope or central Church that defines Sufism. If you ask a thousand Sufis what Sufism is you are likely to get a thousand different answers (at least in particulars). Thus, I find this discussion about trying create an encyclopedic entry for Sufism very interesting. The attempt to clear up biased language that seems to promote Sufism over other religions or that is confusing or doesn't make sense to the average reader should continue (as this is part of Wikipedian philosophy). However, I would urge people to be careful about making too quick of judgements about content. Sufism has never been a single or unified movement, and trying to hammer it into a monolithic definition, such as it IS or ISN'T Islamic, is missing the point.
Second aside: Please do not rely solely on internet sources for your material or facts. There is much heated discussion in the air about who is right and who is not, and there is a lot of information on sufism that is NOT on the web. Having said that I would reccomend reading some modern teachers and practicioners to get a feel for the history of some curent lineages of Sufism (this list is by no means complete). As with all texts, read critically.
Writings in the Western Sufi tradition (as derived from the Chishti order): Pir Hazrat Inayat Kahn, Pir Valayat Inayat Kahn (Inayat Kahn's son, and head of the Sufi Order), Samuel Lewis
A controversial figure (according to some): Idries Shah
The alternatives (according to some): Henry Corbin, Sayyed Hossein Nasr, Annamarie Schimmel
Also much current western Sufism is influenced by the (more ancient) writings of these people: Jalahuddin Rumi, Ibn Arabi, Hafiz, Kabir, also work on the life of Moinadin Chishti
:about sufi orders , well this is a misconception  ( only in the west ) that sufis dont accept non-muslaims as students . There have been gazallions of sufis in India & Africa ( at that time predominantly non-muslim ) who tought non-muslims . People like Data Gunj Buksh ( Lahore-Pakistan ) , Moinuddin Chisti ( Ajmer-India ), & Baba Farid ( Multan-Pakistan ) have tought millions ( yes millions!! ) of Hindus in their life times . Thats why I had changed Islamic/non-Islamic with traditional/non-traditional .
:The gonstic paragraph was most probably added by somebody who wasent aware of both sufism & gnosticism .I have removed it .Farhansher 04:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Non-Islamic Sufi orders, Sufism and Gnosticism, Mysticism and Sufism in general 

message: Tasavvof is not the root of the word Sufi , but Sufi is the root of the word Tasavvof , the root of the word Sufi itself is a matter of much debate some common opinions include its derivation from Safaa (purity) ( an unlikely one etymologically but in accordance with the nature of Sufism which emphasises on purity of heart , soul etc) , its derivation from Suf meaning a woolen cloth , or even its derivation from Ashab i Soffeh , a certain group of companions of Mohammad .Some even consider the possibility of its derivation from the Greek Sophia which is most unlikey...
>False. Sufi is derived from the word "Suf" which means wool because Sufis wear wool clothing.
:What do you mean, "false"? The poster above you detailed at least four possibilities for the root of the word Sufi. While it is commonly accepted that Suf most likely derives from the woolen clothing, let us not completely discount the fact that there are other possibilities. Avengerx 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The root of the word Sufi 

message: In Sufism, the material from S.R. Sharda should probably read "According to S.R. Sharda in ...". However, it has been deleted by Roctour (see edit diff).
Should that material stay removed, or be re-inserted, or can alternative sources be found to provide alternative points of view or to refute this material? Esowteric+Talk 11:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.R. Sharda text and reference removed 6 February 2010 

message: While editing various articles relating to Islamic subjects, I have picked up the notion that titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat are not to be used (just like honorifics like PBUH or R.A.).  I cannot find any Wikipedia style/policy document which discusses this.  (WP:MOSISLAM discusses only honorifics, and not titles of this sort.)
Will appreciate it very much if anyone can point me in the right direction.
If there isn't any Wikipedia style document per se which addresses this, would appreciate feedback on whether generally not using titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat as part of names is the convention Wikipedia seems to use in practice, even if it isn't written down anywhere?
In case anyone is interested in taking a look at the context of my question, please see Madurai Maqbara‎ (edits starting 15:04, 5 February 2010) and Talk:Madurai Maqbara, section titled "Qazi, Qadi, Imam, etc".
Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Islamic titles 

message: Since 8 February, user BeUnknown has been making personal attacks on me on this Talk page (see Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films).
Today, in what can only be described as an act of stalking, he/she (henceforth, I'll just go with he, for convenience) followed me to Talk:Madurai_Maqbara and tried to attack me there.
The tone and content of his comments at Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films speak for themselves, and afford sufficient insight into his personality and character, so there's no need for me to respond to the ad hominem attacks per se.  What I do want to point out is his consistent record, during the short time he has been active on Wikipedia, of jumping in half cocked, without any real idea of the facts, and committing hopelessly hilarious howlers. It's hard to take BeUnknown seriously when you consider this record:
First, he added the Spiritual Circle link to Sufism without having any idea what it really represented.  (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 19:58, 8 February 2010)
Then, he declared that "Sufi Films has a film called Spiritual Circles”, when it’s just a proposed project, not a completed film.  (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 21.57, 8 February 2010, and mine of 00:35, 9 February 2010)
Then, he decided that “Sufi Films” is a non-profit organization, without any factual basis whatsoever.  (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 22:00, 8 February 2010, and mine of 00:27, 9 February 2010)
Then, he accused me of having “modified these talk pages” and removing statements I had made earlier, which is absolutely untrue.  (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 07:50, 15 February 2010, and mine of 12:29, 15 February 2010)
Then, he claimed to have reported me to an administrator (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 20:02, 15 February 2010).  Actually, the person he reported me to is not an administrator at all (see User_talk:Madhero88#Requesting you for Adminship and the outcome of the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Madhero88).
Then he went to Talk:Madurai_Maqbara to launch another ad hominem attack on me and ended up attacking another editor instead, because he did not take the trouble to try and figure out who was actually responsible for the content he picked to attack.
That adds up to 6 separate embarrassing howlers in just 12 days.  
Apart from ad hominem attacks, and hilarious howlers, BeUnknown specializes in completely refusing to engage on specifics, imperiously dismissing reasoned comments rather than responding in any meaningful way.
On 11:17, 13 February 2010, I deleted a passage, with this detailed explanation:
::Newer production companies and directors are beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility. Most notably Sufi Films with Director James McConnell also Director Simon Broughton for Sufi Soul – The Mystic Music of Islam, to name a few in a growing field. Films in the Sufi genre are also being featured at a number of newer film festivals devoted to the genre, such as the World Sufi Festival 
::Not clear what some of this means.  For example, what does it mean to “emphasize a Sufi sensibility”?  Or what is a film “in the Sufi genre”?   
::Furthermore, if a director with one completed film about a Sufi Sheikh is the most notable example of this trend (of newer production companies and directors beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility), it doesn’t seem to be much of a trend.
::However, the bigger problem is that “Newer production companies and directors are beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility” is a subjective opinion, not an objective statement of fact.  As such, it belongs in a WP article only if supported by expert opinion.  Without such a citation, it constitutes “original research”, and must regretfully be removed.
He reversed the edit, attacked me personally (calling me, among other things, "A pimple nose sixteen year old with no expertise"), but offered not one single word to rebut or refute my argument. 
When I refuted his claim that Sufi Films is a non-profit organization, and his scurrilous allegation that I had deleted past entries from this Talk page, he did not respond at all, not even to apologize in the latter instance, despite the fact that he had falsely impugned my integrity.
I request other editors to look at the Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films discussion, and mediate this dispute between us, and offer whatever criticisms are warranted of either his behavior or mine.
Thanks for your time and effort! --Sarabseth (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  response to BeUnknown's attacks on me 

message: Hi, regarding the long-running content disputes over articles and pages relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, I have opened an WP:RFC. Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and associated pages 

message: This whole sub-section (from the heading "Early Definitions" through "...descriptions if not the very earliest.") is clearly misplaced in the introduction to the article.
It should probably be moved to some later point (somewhere in section 3, perhaps?).  
Also, two comments on the actual content:
-- The amount of detail provided about Nahjul al-Balagha is distracting in this article.  If it isn't already incorporated in the Nahj al-Balagha article, it should be inserted there.  The Sufism article should just include a wikilink to that article, instead of this wealth of detail.  (Perhaps this is what Esowteric means in his edit summary of 16:17, 14 March 2010: "This is not really the place for this long POV quote, though.")
-- The long quoted dialog (starting "al-Ala said to Emir al-mu'minin") certainly seems relevant, but it is not self-explanatory.  It needs a little commentary to bring out the relevance.  --Sarabseth (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I agree that the lead of the article is unduly weighted by this quote, apart from the fact that I feel we should not quote at this length. And the WP:LEDE is there to provide a summary of the article content. I mention WP:NPOV because this is an article about Sufism and toward the end of the quote it reads "According to the Shi'ah Ulama, all these sects are on the wrong path and out of the fold of Islam." I just feel that this is the wrong place to put forward this point of view at such length. I could be wrong, I'm just one voice. Esowteric+Talk 19:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I'm just one voice".  Yes, and so is Lilac Cotton/24.116.112.7 (who would appear to be one and the same).  --Sarabseth (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Definitions: edits of March 14 

message: This is way too long for this article.  He has his own WP article; it is not necessary to go into so much detail here.  I feel this section should only highlight his role in Sufism, and not go into other details. (I would fix it myself, but I can't play on WP till I finish my taxes!) --Sarabseth (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly added "Ali ibn Abi Talib" section 

message: I would like someone to start a paragraph and heading on Sufi demographics please. I think many people would value this addition to the article. Are there any volunteers?  Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request please anyone? 

message: The Etymology section contains this sentence: "The early Sufi orders considered the wearing of this cloak an imitation of Isa."
Does Isa refer to Jesus?  Shouldn't it be explained who it refers to, and why they are associated with a cloak?  --Sarabseth (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: this is now redundant since the material in question was removed. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isa 

message: There is nothing on demographics in this page. Can we have a section devoted to demographics please? Including which countries contain the most Sufis. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a section for this.  Please don't add new sections with the same request.  --Sarabseth (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Is there a map of countries or regions with significant Sufi populations? Noloop (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map? 

message: http://www.saltanat.org provides daily sohbets on Sufism. It is a critically important source for the seeker of truth. Please include it in the links section. Thank you.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seekers of truth can, no doubt, find the website on their own.  Providing critically important sources for the seeker of truth is not the purpose of this, or any other, WP article.  --Sarabseth (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approve important link 

message: No mention of Nasrudin?  How important a figure is he, within Sufism?
23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nasrudin? 

message: What is Sufism's view on the 4 Caliphs, the 4 Sunni Imams of the Mazhabs, and the 12 to 14 Shia Imams? Should a small sub-section be made about this? Verycuriousboy (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make a small section on Sufism's beliefs about the Caliphs, 4 Sunni Imams, and Shia Imams? 

message: This article currently reads:
:"According to Idries Shah, the Sufi philosophy is universal in nature, its roots predating the arising of Islam and the other modern-day religions; likewise, some Muslims consider Sufism outside the sphere of Islam."
I question whether these fringe views, particularly the first, belong in the introduction (and the second could be better-sourced.)98.203.142.210 (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say it's a fringe view? Who is Idries Shah? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe views in introduction 

message: In continuation to the above discussion, I believe that some text must be added (maybe in the chapter of the "Basic views") about the Neo-platonic influence in the Sufism's methodology, and doctrine. Below is a draft written as a proposal, any help or suggestion is valuable:
:The basis of the Sufi doctrine according to many modern researchers as well as older scholars is Neoplatonic. This influence can be traced back in the doctrinal Platonic concepts of the “Allegory of the Cave” in the “Republic” (514 A - 521 B), the "ladder of ascent" in the “Symposium” (209 E-212 C), and in more expanded form in the Neoplatonic manuscripts such as that of Plotinus' Enneads (any number of refs, there are tens about).
:::(below is a short analysis of the Neoplatonic influence on the basic views of Sufism, taken by the "Neoplatonism and Contemporary Thought (Studies in Neoplatonism : Ancient and Modern)" book of R. Blaine Harris, State University of New York Press, 2001, p.321. There are many other studies saying approx. the same but this I believe is the more comprehensive)
:According to them this influence is visible in the structural methodology of the basic philosophical views of Sufism, where the so-called “Self-realization ethic” doesn't take mysticism as metaphysics, but as a doctrine of salvation by “the inward way”, and the “way of unity”. This corroborates with the concept of the way (“tariqa”) in the sufic literature, in which the mystic is referred to the traveller (“salik”) of the mystical path while its mysticism is a series of phenomenological transformations through stations (“maqamat”), due to external efforts, and the intentional state (“ahwal”) due to degrees of authentic exposures. In its teleological view Sufism also follows the Neoplatonic doctrine in which gnosis (“ma rifa”) is explained not in terms of knowledge (“ilm”) of concepts nor sense data, but as a series of revelations (“kashfha”) where the mystic's entire world-respective, is sequentially modified until mystical union is achieved.(ref) --79.167.76.189 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a detailed analysis about the Neo-platonic influence in the basic views of Sufism in its methodology, and doctrine