Talk:Sufism/archive 3

message: I have insufficient direct knowledge of Sufism to start major editing here, but it is clear from a quick perusal of the article that there is no mention of the formerly widespread practice of nazar, the "contemplation of the beardless." Is that the intention of the editors, or is it an accidental omission? Haiduc 13:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: there are many such omissions, please add whatever you can, if it becomes too much, we can always create spin-off articles for the excess. Sam Spade 16:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well never heard of these . Can you explain a bit .Secondly sufism as a whole can incorporate a lot of practices , there are some that are specfic to one region , others htat are specfic to one order . The things that are given here are those that are practiced in a lot of different places by many different orders . F.a.y.تبادله خيال     /c 19:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This practice existed at least in Persia , Turkey and some Arab countries as far as I know , in the article on pederasty in Sufi Outlook section it is discussed briefly , I think it is a good idea to initiate an article about it and then according to other editors opinion add information here.My opinion about Nazar is that due to social inhibitions , young boys were considered attractive , it was common and not restricted to those with sexual orientations different from average , some Sufis proposed the idea that every kind of love can be used to reach divine love and so the practice came into being , yet it should be noted that all referenes to a male beloved by male Sufi poets are not forms of nazar , this is the mistake of scholars with a prejudice that a spiritual love between tow persons can not exist.I would be glad if you initiate the article and shall work on it.I do not disagree that writing a section here is also good.Pasha 00:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well an excellent site on Nazar , but to the opposite sex , it contains also an interesting argument , I think for anyone interested in Sufism it is realy worth a read : Pasha 12:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above post was not necassarily for editorial ends.Pasha 12:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazar ill'al-murd 

message: PHILTAR (Philosophy of Theology and Religion at the Division of Religion and Philosophy of St Martin's College) has a very useful Graphical illustration of the Sufi schools. 
The chart shows only Sunni Sufi orders based on a more abstract chart , granted that most Sufi orders are Sunni , there are other old/traditional Sufi orders which are not.For example Ahl-e Haqq, Nimatullahi and Bektashi.
So removed the phrase as it seemed contradictory to NPOV policy.The link (i.e map of oreder) exists in External links sction , which seems to me appropriate.Pasha 18:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Sufi orders 

message: I wrote Sufism#Influences, have a look. Sam Spade 01:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, thank you! Sam Spade 13:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took your advise ;) Pasha 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The influences I have heard of are monastries & wool from christianity , poetry , art & love of nature from persia , music & a lot of nature love from india & philosophies that heve been influenced by Zoroastrianism ,  Neoplatonism & may be kabbalah . Other than that , the section gives a huge list of influences , that I am not able to understand . Like I dont think sufis have been that much in contact with taoism , & transmigration (not reincarnation)can be found in Hadeeth . Animism , Shamanism , Gnosticism , Hermeticism ,  panvitalism .....I am not able to see these effects .  Vedic religions might have an effect, but can you explain where . The only similarity I see is chakra/lataif , & lataif were there long before contact with vedic religions . Also there are many differences between the description of chakra  position, color, function ) & lataif . Farhansher 10:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think there is a need of a separate article on Sufi poetry . Farhansher 10:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Sufi poetry is indeed worth a separate article , as for influences we just list what people have said and also mentioned the criticism of their ideas by renowned people , so I guess it is almost OK.Pasha 10:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences

message: Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: Many of the links are critical of sufism (renouncing it as a form of reprehensible innovation). Many others are justifications. Mixing them like this is sort of messy IMHO. Perhaps we should make a "criticism of sufism" section in the external links one and put them there? --Nkv 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Can someone, preferably someone living in India, contribute a short section on how/why Sufism has come to assume a position of eminence in cultural circles in India over the last year or so?
I visited India in Dec 2004 and again in Dec 2005, and I was really struck by this change.  There has been a virtual explosion of interest in Sufism and Sufi music, and every cultural forum worth the name has jumped on the bandwagon. Sarabseth 02:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufism in INdia today 

message: Here is a portion of Alhizb Al-kabir (the big Hizb) (Arabic:  الحزب الكبير) , it deals with fear, God was talking in the majority of the Ayats to Moses his brother Aron and their mother (once in (20:77)). They are in this specific order. They are somtimes part of the Ayat (verse):
Draw near, and fear not. Verily, you are of those who are secure. (28:31)
"Fear you not. You have escaped from the people who are wrong-doers." (28:25)
Fearing (or fear) neither to be overtaken [by Pharaoh] nor being afraid (of drowning in the sea)." (20:77) (to Moses's mother)
"Fear not! Surely, you will have the upper hand. (20:68)
"Fear not, verily! I am with you both, hearing and seeing. (20:46)
Fear not, verily! The Messengers fear not in front of Me. (27:10)
And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear. (24:55)
And has made them safe from fear. (106:4)
(Then the Sufi prays): Allah (God) please secure and shelter us from all fear.....
--The Brain 17:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alhizb Al-kabir 

message: I merged tekke and khaneqah, as agreed by the editors involved, and redirected them both to khanqah, as that is the form of the word that gets the most hits on Google. By the time I had thrown out all the information that I couldn't verify, there was little left. More detail and more pictures would be nice. Just be sure that the pictures are public domain or creative commons, and that there are references for any text added. Let's try to get all orders and all countries represented. Zora 09:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help out at [[Khanqah]] 

message: I don't know Arabic. Are the Ahl al-Suffa ("People of the Veranda") from the "etymology" section the same as the Ahl as-Suffa ("People of the Shed") from the "origins" section? Thanks, ntennis 06:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahl al-Suffa vs. Ahl as-Suffa 

message: Various people have been adding links. But they don't just add them under external links, no. They add them under special categories indicating that these links deserve special treatment. Not fair, not organized. 
I started by mushing all the links together. As I have time, I'll click through, weed out dead or junk links, and try to organize them. I'd suggest something like Academic links (not proselytizing) and then links organized by various Sufi tariqahs. If there's still so many links, it might be a good idea to move the links for the various tariqahs to the articles for those tariqahs. The proliferation of links looks like competition for followers and attention to me, and it's NOT OK. WP is not a link farm. 
If someone else who is ruthless and a non-Sufi wants to start weeding, that's fine with me. I'd just like to see it done. Zora 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reclassify the links under a couple of headings. It might not be perfect but it'll be start. Gimme a day or two --Nkv 14:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Just out of interest, why is this article in this particular category?  Is it a valid placement or vandalism? Vashti 21:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Nazar is the reason for the category. I'm not too sure about it's accuracy or even facticity but haven't had time to research and edit/delete it. --Nkv 05:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Pederasty? 

message: In response to a spam tag placed at the top of the links section, I reorganized the existing links, corrected some bad links, and generally tried to sort out the mess.  I deleted one link that had no apparent relationship to the article.  I will leave it to those more knowledgeable than me to determine what else may or may not be related to the article.  I did not see, however, much in the way of overt commercial spam.  Therefore, I removed the spam tag from the article.  David Traver 02:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam tag in links section

message: ( I have inserted my comments in between yours. I don't agree with whatever you've said so I'll call a third party to moderate this. I don't want to get into a revert war). It would also be a good idea if you could register under a username. It's hard to keep track of things this way. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that they are [Salafi] websites because of their praise for Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. No other parties credit him as a "scholar". As for "nothing wrong in there", I disagree. "Nothing wrong in there according to Salafi ideologies" would be more accurate. You have quoted two sites which are openly Salafi in their inclinations and opinions. If you can quote one that is not, I'm willing to think about it. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope. It is a [Salafi] position that sufism is a [Bid'a]. Please refer  for a list of what the classical position is. Also, I'd recommend you read "Place of Tasawwuf is traditional Islam" (google for it). --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Who is "people"? There are millions of mainstream muslims who are not sufis who are not called Salafis by anyone. Can you substantiate this --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope. People who deem themselves beyond the Sharia are denounced as deviants by classical scholarship (eg. Abu Hilman). My reasons for qss and allahuakbar.net being salafi are based on their high regard and esteem for [Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab]. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, Hanafi and Shaf'i are not equal to Salafi in any way. The former two are almost as old as Islam itself (Imam Abu Hanifa was a Tabiee and Imam Shafi'i was 2 generations later). The Salafi movement on the other hand was founded by Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahhab and is around 200 years old. Please don't equate them. 
As for their opinions, please refer the sunnah.org link which I posted above. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And my concern is to inform people that Sufism was indeed a part of Islam from it's earliest times and that there were pretenders who corrupted the practice and that the Salafi movement is vehemently against any Sufi practice. If you can provide me with a non Salafi website that criticises sufism, I'd be willing to rethink this whole matter. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're being unreasonable here. You claim that it's an misguided innovation and try to justify it. I say that it's called an innovation by the Salafi followers and that this fact should be mentioned. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're equating wildly different groups. The Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ahmed Ghulam was a mujaddid, the Qadiyannis believe that he was a prophet (or the Mahdi). The Druze believe in a different book and pray a different number of times. They are not the same. Sufism cannot be equated to this. Please read "The place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam". --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I applaud your sense of responsibilty but 
1. You've got your facts wrong
2. This is an encyclopaedia. Not a Da'wa outfit. So state everything clearly. It's a fact that the Salafis are the ones who hold Sufism to be an innovation. --Nkv 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: viewpoints 

message: I respectfully offer my services to mediate this dispute.  If you wish to have me do this, I would like to suggest that the first step is to outline the disputed issues.  When the parties agree that the outline properly sets out the major disputes, then the interested parties would take positions on each outlined item, and submit appropriately supported wiki article segments explaining their position on each disputed item.  This outlining and subsequent collaborative work could be done in a new article entitled for example, Sufism, controversy and debate
I would not be a judge or final arbiter.  Instead, I would help the parties organize and fill in the essential arguments. While this was underway, I would verify that the supporting authorities actually contain the facts alleged if asked to do so by a party.  That is, if asked, I would check specific citations and explain if I discovered difficulties.  Then, I would help the parties to organize the final result into a final article.  All of this would be very helpful to Wiki users, who would benefit from the thorough exposition of the controversies.  Future users would also be able to link to the final product as desired in their other Islam or Sufi related works.
The quid pro quo for my donated services would be the agreement among all concerned to assert their positions in good faith, and with zeal. I promise to be neutral.  I know none of the individuals involved in this dispute, and I am neither Muslim nor Sufi.  I would work to provide a final product that fairly sets forth every major element of the dispute from all relevant perspectives.  We would work together to produce a final product by July 1st, 2006.  That product would have no disputed elements.  As a result, the neutrality and factual accuracy tag in the Sufism article would be removed while we work. If we fail, the tag returns as a lasting symbol of either our incompetence or bad faith. David Traver 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all to mr.nkv i dont need to give you proofs and what you think is correct need not be here on wikipedia. My aim is not to prove sufism wrong here, my aim is to bring a neutral point of view. Mr Traver i have no issues with you being an arbiter. I have only two comments - first do you think your interest in Sufism can enable you a neutral standpoint and second i dont understand why mr. nkv is not willing to this - all i want is if there is a statement in the article, there should be sufis believe or sufis have the opinion or sufi view is instead of there is or muslims believe. Again, as for the statement, only salafis or mostly salafis believe sufism is a deviant sect is absolutely incorrect so it cannot be there, i am a living proof myself alongwith millions more of that. I would request you to please compare my version with one that was reverted by lambiam and then try tell me what is that is not neutral there, we can talk about that. as for the dispute tag on this article i am absolutely happy to make it permanent, there is no rule that every article has to be undisputedPakiguy 04:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I be interested in Sufism and still have a neutral point of view on issues regarding Sufism?  Certainly yes.  I have interests in Dressage and own horses, but I have no favorite breed of horse. I look at the Prajnaparamita Sutras with great interest, but I am not a Buddhist.  I enjoy the the Tao Te Ching but I am not a Taoist. I read the Holy Koran (as best as one can do with an English interpretation,) but I am not a Muslim.  Neutrality does not require ignorance.  The real question is: could you maintain the open mind that I could be neutral?  I suspect the answer is yes, or you would not have asked the question. David Traver 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I respect that and the only reason i asked is because i would trust your answer to my question as being an honest one and that i do. So, i have no issues you mediating. I would request you to compare my version and the one reverted by lambiam, so that a neutral view on the modifications i made in the text could be understood. Pakiguy 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I believe there are more issues at hand than the one you have indicated.  That is why I suggested that they be outlined as a first step. Perhaps you would agree that this is not a one-dimensional question, and a thorough exploration of all the relevant disputes would serve to prevent further controversies regarding this article, and related articles. David Traver 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I received a message on my talk page at User talk:David Traver from Nkv that he will not be available for the next month due to his marriage.  As a result, I would like to suggest that I take his statements and use them for the initial outline of the new article. Sufism, controversy and debate.  Others are, of course, free to modify the outline by adding additional or contrary additional outline items, and/or factually-based argument. While this process goes on, I will remove the tag at the top of the Sufism article. Is that acceptable to you, Pakiguy?David Traver 13:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have created the article Sufism, controversy and debate as discussed above.  Please revert the Sufism article as you described, and remove the tag from the Sufism article.  I look forward to your work on the new Sufism, controversy and debate article. David Traver 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello everyone. I notice a large section starting "contrary to popular misconception, sufism is a separate religion ..." at the top of the article that provides no sources. I don't think the attempt to NPOV this article has succeeded. I've detailed my opinions on the Sufism, controversy and debate article. --Nkv 04:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mediation]] offer