Talk:Rumi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comments

Can you create a disambiguation page for Rumi so that there can also be a way to find Rumi the Japanese hip-hop artist, when searching for the string Rumi? Seriozha (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

HE IS NOT A SHIA

It is common knowledge that he is a sunni, and in this page a while back he has been referred to sunni before, who follows the Hanafi school of thought. It was not until the 15th century, when the Safavid empire took over Persia that Iran became mainly Shia (Afghanistan still remains a majority Sunni). SO PLEASE REMOVE SHIITE FROM THIS. RUMI is a SUNNI, who follows the Hanafi school of thought.Xtremownage —Preceding comment was added at 02:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

More on Rumi and Islam

First of all, it is indeed strange that Mawlana Rumi is listed as belonging to the Shiite sect. Even Shia scholars only venture to say that he was 'spiritually' a shia, but not not in jurisprudence.

Second, Mawlana's commitment to Islam cannot be questioned. Here is a poem in Ibrahim Gamard's translation proving that he was no 'univeral' mystic beyond the confines of orthodoxy:

"The Light of Muhammad [1] has become a thousand branches (of knowledge), a thousand, so that both this world and the next have been seized from end to end. If Muhammad rips the veil open from a single such branch, thousands of monks and priests will tear the string of false belief from around their waists." [2]

In the translator's notes:

[1] This refers to the Sufi doctrine about the spiritual influence of the Prophet, which continues in each generation…

[2] In the traditional Muslim state, the “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews) had a protected status (they could freely practice their own religion and enforce their own religious law, were exempt from military service, and were to be protected from attack), in exchange for which they paid an annual tax. In addition, they wore a cord around the waist to identify them, which they broke off when converting to Islam.

Excerpted from Ibrahim Gamard’s “Rumi and Islam: Selections from His Stories, Poems, and Discourses”, pp. 176-177 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.176.170 (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Shiite??

I find it strange that Shiism is listed as an influence on the Maulana, while it is known that he was a Sunni? Persia first Shiite state was established after 1500, while the Maulana lived long before that. The article should either state that he was a Sunni, or Sunnism should also be listed as an influence, because he was a Hanafi, wasn't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.75.200 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Style

I have skimmed through this article, and feel that while it is of a good quality overall, sections of it are too full of polemic for a wikipedia article. - this is particularly the case in the 'Rumi and orthodox islam' section. I Suggest that those who are experts in some sense on this topic go through this, and try and rework this section to represent a more general academic view, giving appropriate space (without authorial criticism) for conflicting views. User:HyDeckar 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have researched the claim made in this article about Rumi, in reference to the statement made in this article in the Rumi and orthodox islam section:

But this poem is not in the earliest manuscripts and so probably is not a genuine Rumi poem. R. A. Nicholson first published a translation of this line in 1898, but he admitted that, "The original text does not occur in any of the editions or MSS used by me" (p. 281)

This statemnet is not factual in anyway, that line does exist in Molana's Ghazaliat from the original divan shams tabriz that nicholson had in his personal possession, secondly Nicholson never admits that that specific peom does not occure, if you read his comment on poem #XXXI on page 281 he first expalins the quatrain containing the exerpt ("I am not a Christian, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, or a Muslim") and then makes reference to a "counterpart" to this poem which is similar and is echoed in a poem by emerson,this second poem which he claims he does not have and doesnt occure in any of the editions.He then eludes to two cites where this SECOND poem can be found in english :Dabistan, Vol. I. p clxvi and in german , Von Himmer, Shone Redekunste Persiens p.191. Please do not take a random sentence cut and paste it where it benfits your argument, and provide the proper references or read more carefully before making such an assumtion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.79.232 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please remove "Khorasan" in the first paragraph

Khorasan doesnt exist anymore, so I dont see the significance of mentioning it in his bio. He was from Afghanistan and thats the only important thing to state

Khorasan still exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khorasan , what did you mean by " desn't exist anymore " ?!! blown up perhaps?!! Even if it " didn't exist now " , it didn't mean that we should change history and " remove " the name of the area! Javdan

who died and made you the king of this thread?? lmao....wow

Well It seems lack of education is just one of your problems! Javdan

yes ur being very mature "agha javdan"...

Homoeroticism in Rumi

Perhaps I've missed any relevant material, but I haven't seen mention of the rather homosexual overtones within Rumi's tomes of poetry. They were certainly a contentious issue then and now. --AWF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.154.26 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

can you point to any specific examples?

Why didn't you sign? -homo-eroticism reputation of Rumi

See here for reasons why people say this: http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=399&discussionID=348092

http://www.amazon.com/History-Gay-Literature-Male-Tradition/dp/product-description/0300072015

http://rumi.tribe.net/thread/f2df274e-19c6-460f-b3ad-28b8c7ff698c

http://www.khamush.com/bio.htm

http://www.gaytoday.com/pressroom/ReadPR.asp?id=56

http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/masters/Rumi/Life-Rumi.asp

Why are people afraid of homo-eroticism in Rumi??? Arbol25 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Remember that Wikipedia is not edited by experts. Rumi is not popular in the USA. He is not read or discussed in American schools and his books are not prominent in libraries or book stores. Still, fans of Rumi write that he is one of the most popular poets among Americans. There is nothing academic about the claim. The source of the claim is just as unreliable. It's like sourcing Youtube. So, enter the info. of his possible homoeroticism, but keep in mind that you'll need to return every day to enter the same info. because the uneducated will always change the entry to suit their preferences.

Rumi as a perfect human

The notion of the perfect human is so much higher than the level rumi reached... Though he was an amazing man, one who has reached very high levels of humanity and spirituality (much more than normal people)... he was still far far far away from being a perfect human or an Infallible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.97.51.112 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

LOL Rumi was a good Muslim...May Allah bless him. BUt he was nowhere near to being the perfect person. Prophet Muhammad pbuh is the best of all humans.

Persian literature or another literatures

Because Movlavi(Rumi) books are in Persian, it must be arranged in Persian literature category. How do you arrange him in other literature categories when all his books are in Persian. If you want to arrange him in another literature, first please go to literature page and declare a new definition for literature satisfy your claim. The second think I must say is that for Movlavi(Rumi), language and tribe was not important. He believe idea is important not language, as he says
ای بسا هندو و ترک هم زبان
ای بسا دو ترک چون بيگانگان
پس زبان محرمی خود دیگراست
هم دلی از هم زبانی بهتر است

There are many Turks and Hindu understand each other well(have the same language)
There are so many couples of Turks that don't understand each other.(don't have a common language)
So the language of mutual understanding is something else
Having common ideas is more important than having the same language.

I know atleast he once talks about language and he says:

پارسی گو، گرچه تازی خوشتر است
عشق را خود صد زبان ديگر است

Speak Persian, though Arabic is nicer
The language of love(I mean عشق in Persian) is another

I know my translation is full of error. I apolagize for this bad translation. If you know Persian and English perfectly. I'll be glad to fix them.

--Soroush83 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"No language can be superior to another. Just like no nation can be superior to another. Take time to read on the development of the Turkish language and see how the Republic of Turkey respects all languages and nations in the world. Just like what the Mevlevi Order followed. And thanks to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk"
--Atalana 22:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ... I guess that's why Kurds, Armenians and Greeks have such a good time in Turkey, right?! Tājik 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

- (Personal attack removed) Visit Turkey, if you can bear it without getting sick in the stomach from jealousy, to see how Armenians, Greeks, Jews, and Kurds live much much more freely than the Azeris, Kurds, and Arabs of your country. - Ur

Maybe because of Ataturk you can’t find name of Kurds in Turkey constituting. At least no body call azaries in Iran “Mountain Fars”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.77.31 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And don't remove from the article a person who is currently a highly influential Dede in the Mevlana Order. And remember Mevlana had to flee the Persian Empire due to the protection from the Mongolians and he found peace in the Seljuk Empire which is a Turkish Empire, a breeding ground for the Ottoman Empire both economically and socially. He settled in Konya and gave the world an important way of thinking Sufisim. Yes by race he can be Persian if it is that important but due to his influence to the Turkish Society we regard just like one of us. Just like Rumi would have expected to be.

And remember Tājik get a life!

Atalana 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

@ Ur: there are actually no Azeris, Kurds, or Arabs in my country ... and, for your information, I have been in Turkey once. Really nice country with nice people ... but the Kurdish- and Armenian problem is still there. And believe me: Kurds have certainly a better life in fundamentalist Iran (I guess that's the country you think I am from) than in secular, anti-Kurdish Turkey. Just check the latest news Tājik 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right, lecture us then how your country is so democratic, that maybe Turkey can learn some lessons from it. (Personal attack removed) Your portrayal of Kurds, Armenians, and Greeks not having good time there is a big lie. Not all Kurds support the separatists and their teroristic tactics in Turkey. I am a Kurd and live very happily in Turkey. Plus, Turkey has made and is making strides in resolving some of the problematic issues. BTW, your "latest news" dates 7-8 years back, and somehow you presuppose (or would have us believe) that it is all the fault of Turks and their army, not looking at the issue of terrorism... -Ur

@ Atalanta: I have not deleted of Marcan Dede, I have moved it to the bottom of the article. So not place his name on top of the list, because there are other, more important personalities linked to Rumi and his works. Btw: the Seljuqs were not a "Turkish Empire", but a Sunni Muslim Empire that traced it's origin to the Turkic Oghuz tribes of Central Asia ... among others (they also claimed to be descendants of the prophet, and direct descendants of the Iranian Sassanid Shahs). The Seljuqs were not the beginning of the Turkic history in Anatolia, but the Beyliqs of Karaman - they were the first kingdom to pomote Turkish language an a unique Turkish national identity in Anatolia. The Seljuqs were Persianate - in language, culture, and identity. Tājik 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"...the Seljuqs were not a Turkish Empire." Please stop playing with words, and read some objective history. Why is it that you cannot stomach certain historical facts. Just because the Seljuqs spoke Persian and embraced certain elements of Persian culture, it does not make them non-Turks. Well... if it will make you feel good, then be my guest...-Ur

I didn't say any language or culture is superior to another. I just told some poems of Movlavi(Rumi) that shows his idea about language. Of course movlavi is Persian and his main works are Persian as well. I think I'd better not to discuss here in this way. If you have any reliable citation that says movlavi is not Persian, then we can discuss them.--Soroush83 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks--Soroush83 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

@ Ur: funny that suddenly you do not regard language as the main deffinition for ethnicity. Because in all other articles, Turks persist that "whoever spoke a Turkic language was also a Turk": see Timurids, for example, or Golden Horde. These peoples were Mongols in ethnicity, yet, Turkish nationalists continue to call them "Turks" ... only becazse these peoples were (partly) Turkic in language. Just take a look at this POV site: List of Turkic states. You should also pay attention to this historical quote about the Seljuqs:

• "... From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears: namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation, forsooth, which has neither directed its heart nor entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by sword, pillage, and fire. ..." - Pope Urban II, Proclamation at Clermont, 1095

Not even the contemporaries of the Seljuqs considered them "Turks" ... you see that?

Tājik 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean I suddenly do not regard language as the main definition for ethnicity? I never claimed such a thing, and I don't care about what others say. (Personal attack removed) As far as the ethnicity of Seljuqs, my friend you either do not know what you are talking about or deluding yourself just like those "nationalistic Turks" you are talking about, only this time you are a "Persian nationalist." The seljuqs were the Turks who made it possible for other Turks (for better or worse) to settle in anatolia. Please read history written by non-nationalistic scholars such as the Western scholars, perhaps. Another thing is that you speak about the Mongols. The Turks and the Mongols are closely related races, my friend. Chengiz Khan's army mainly consisted of Turks.

Also you are quoting from Urban II. Obviously, I am startled. There are many versions of Urban II's speech. Here is a website which, if you read, mentions six versions of the speech. The website starts with this:

"In 1094 or 1095, Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, sent to the pope, Urban II, and asked for aid from the west against the Seljuq Turks, who taken nearly all of Asia Minor from him. At the council of Clermont Urban addressed a great crowd and urged all to go to the aid of the Greeks and to recover Palestine from the rule of the Muslims. The acts of the council have not been preserved, but we have five accounts of the speech of Urban which were written by men who were present and heard him."

if you already did not visit it:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

Lastly, I am just shocked how some people can object to even what the historians established as hard facts. (Personal attack removed) the Ottomans also used the Persian language extensively, they loved the Persian language. So what do you say maybe they were also, hmmm, Persians? :))) The bad news is that they used the Arabic language also (not to mention the Turkish), and in fact, they adapted more of Arabic culture then the Persian. So don't tell the Arabs, ok?:)) -Ur

I had Turk history class last year and I just have this: Quoted From: PHP. Mohammad Oztupcho a professor of Turkish language and history in UCLA University Until 1360 most of people were speaking Farsi in mid and east part of turkey and specially in gonia. Turks they were migrating to Anatolia more and more but still main language in Maktabs and bazaar and between city people was Farsi. Around 1360 a king (or governor ) gonia decliner punishment for anybody speak Farsi after a time specially in bazaar and Maktabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asheemak (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes by Rumi

1. Does Wikiquotes have quotes by Rumi? If so, can someone who knows how add a link or box? If not, what about adding a quote section here until it gets so unwieldy we should move it to Wikiquotes? :)

Yes, it does, and it's linked waaay at the bottom.DBlomgren 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm looking for a French translation of the quote below. If anyone knows of one, let me know. I see the article has links to translations in English and Swedish.
2. The argument about whether Rumi was Turkish or Persian is so ironic. See the quote below.

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there. When the soul lies down in that grass, the world is too full to talk about. Ideas, language, even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense." – Rumi

DBlomgren 04:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumi's portrayal as a Persian Philosopher

I find it very discriminative to categorazie a man of such values to humanity just as ethnic Persian based on his birthplace and language of his literature.

This is an insult to the people whom Rumi lived with for the most of his life.

Remember that Persian was the language of arts of his time, and men of learning, including the Ottoman Sultans of later era wrote only in Persian instead of Turkish. That fact does not make them Persian. It is only normal to assume that modern day Iranians indocrinated with poisonous racism; whom even claim the Safavids (who only knew Turkish language) to be Persian, to claim the racial elements crucial for the long term existence of their vile regime. They are no different or better than the Turkish Grey Wolves. Racism only pollutes the history.

Please remove the Persian racial references as there is no room for 20th century petty nationalism in the article of a man who embraced all of humanity. Cruist22 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I totally agree, but -seriously-, seeing the unbelievable portrayal of Rumî as a "Persian Philosopher" in an extremely chauvinistic way, offends Turks deeply, who embraces and accepts Rumî as their own, respectively and understandably. It is known that Persian was the language of intellectuals at that time, and various writers and philosophers from all around the region was writing in Persian, and Rumî was no different than those. There still is no consensus on his origins, but there is a sole fact that Rumî lived, worked, wrote, and died in Anatolia, namely Konya. His life story, interactions with the native Turks and "native" command on Turkish language is quite known in numerous stories and writings survived to date. Only the name "Rumî" indicates that he was "originally" from Anatolia, that's what the name stands for. I still do agree that his nationality should not be that important with the messages he is still giving to the entire humanity, but naming White color as Black, is not necessarily right way to do that by no means. Naming Rumî as a Persian philosopher, is not only an alleged thesis, but "wrong" by all means. Depayens 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would read the book by franklin which describes his origin in fairly detail and it is from Vakhsh in Tajikistan. So the name "Rumi" does not denote the fact that he was from Anatolia! He was born in Vakhsh in Tajikistan as he and his father's work have referred to it. Franklin is the top scholar on Rumi and his book is the most detailed biography of Rumi. Intellectuals wrote in Arabic but Persian was the language of the heart and culture. He had many interactions with Greeks, Persians and etc as well.. For example this one is in the praise of Greeks in comparison to Turks, from the book of Aflaki: There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks. When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times. But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!. Plus his son clearly states that I do not "Turkish and Greek" well. Thus the spoken language of the family was Persian. Rumi's Jum'a (friday prayers) sermons are also in Persian even in Anatolia. Also Anatolia was majority Greek at that time Rumi and Rum actually means Greek in Islamic languages. Rumi is a universal figure but he was born in Vakhsh Tajikistan and the fact that his son clearly states that he does not know Turkish well is sufficient. The Macronical poetry (half Greek, half Turkish, half Persian) of Rumi is about 250 verses.

Rumi

He was not from Rum, he moved to Rum later in life.Azerbaijani 02:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rumi is a TURKISH man

Although Rumi has written all his assays in Persian Language,he in his MESNEVI in all the 6 volumes he always has stated that he was a TURKISH man. This is very clear. By his time some of the thinkers were writing their assays in ARABIC or in Persian languages. But this does not show that RUMI was an Persian...He was born in HORASAN in that time Horasan was in MAVERAUNNEHIR,in two rivers,this area was West Turkistan...It has no relation with Persia at all.

And Rumi lived in Konya a TURKISH city, that time this city was under the SELJUK RULE. SELJUKS were TURKISH ...No relation with Persia...

So please lets be honest, after Rumi`s Death his followers and his sons built the MEVLEVI TARIQAT. Still Mevlevis make their SEMAS in KONYA...

So Rumi was a real TURKISH MAN. He was not a Persian. But he has used only Persian Language.Since Persian and Arabic languages were assumed the languages of literature of that time.

Well then, what about Mustafa Kemal Attaturk's disdain towards dervishes, whom he viewed as an example of the backwardness of Ottoman culture that needed to be "modernized" if the Turks (and Arabs) were not to be steamrollered by European colonialism during the era of the Great War? Surely this guru is a great guy and an example of the early flowering of Ottoman culture, but to posit him as Turkish in the modern sense seems somewhat misplaced. However, if this ostensible national adoption is reflective of greater tolerance by the current Turkish regime, and in particular by its military, then so be it. Modern Turkey has, to its credit, always sought to be a secular state, unfortunately even going to extremes of religious and ethnic persecution to achieve it, something it continues to be in major denial about. Nonetheless, this is, as with the legacy of Nasser in Egypt, a powerful countertrend to Islamic fundamentalism that needs to be noted. Tom Cod 04:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

IF Rumi is Turkish, sing his poems in Turkish if you can! or maybe he was a turk Who hated his own language and prefered Persian!, claim something of yourself and believe the fact that everyone who dies in Turkey is not necessarily a Turk! Sasan 10:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that Eqbal Lahoori was not a Tajik and was not Persian but a persian writer? Do you know that Bedil Dehlawi was a Mongol but a persian speaking mongol? do you know that the mongolians kings and emperors took persian into India?

many Persians actually wrote in Arabic. they are well known. Do you know Mandequl Tair?

Rumi was a turk but a persian speaker turk. actually the Ottoman turks were the first turks who replaced Persian with Turkish as official languages so it is odd if a turk wrote in Persian as it was official languages in central Asia for a long time, also in India.

I don't know what it can mean for you if Iqbal Lahuri (not Eqbal!) wrote persian to justify you! but I hope you are wise enough to know that Rumi talks about Rostam( Iranian Hero and he calls him as his nationalistic symbol SHIRE KHODA HO ROSTAME DASTANAM AREZOOST = I wish to be comrades of Rostam (as nationalistic element) and Ali (as a religious one),also he claims Parsi language and identity in some of his poems very directly!, as well as Iranian and Perisan/Tajik Elements in whole his poems while Iqbal and Dehlawi themselves confessed they were attracked to Persians as non Persians ( read Iqbal poems when he Praises Persian Youthes as a non Persian EY JAVANE AJAM JANE MANO JANE SOHMA meaning Persian Youthes(people), whom my life would be for their way...)...... Again to all Turkish Friends: whoever dies in Turkey is not necessary a Turk! ps: I saw one claiming Rumi as a turk calling his book Mesnavi!, My Advice let's learn the name of his book first then claim him!!!! (Masnawi or Masnavi)195.146.46.15 18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Most people think that Rumî means Rum etnicity (which means Greek etnicity in Turkish) but in fact Rum is the name of Anatolia in those times, and Rumî means that the person who lives in Anatolia. We know that the language used in literature in those times is Arabic+Persion+Turkish mixture. Ottoman Turkish was a language which also the mix of those three languages used in literature and by goverment only.Not the language ordinary people spoken. We know that he lived before the Ottoman Empire, the times of Great Seljuq Empire. Savatage (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Proof of Turkishness

To prove someone's ethnicity, I guess that the best source is his own words. I'm trying to find the original (probably in Masnawi) verses, but the following Turkish and English translation is written by Rumi himself: "Yabanci degil, sizin köyün halkindan/Bir dostum, semtinizde bir yer arayan/ Düşman da görünse çehrem, olamam düşman/Acemce söylesem de Türküm aslen."

In English: Not a foreigner, I'm from your village/I'm a friend, who seeks a place in your town/Even if my face seems hostile, I can't be your enemy/Even though I talk in Persian, I am a Turk." The original poem should be referred, indeed. 85.97.182.41 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Emre (http://istanbulian.blogspot.com)

Sorry but Rumi has no such Turkish poem and you need to bring the original Persian. He has a poem that says نگار من ترک است و گرچه من ترک نیستم ..اما میدانم که به ترکی هست آب سو.(you are a Turkish moon, I, although I am not Turk, know that much, that in Turkish the word water is su)(Ann Marrie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, pg 196). Plus Rumi's son explicitly says he does not know Turkish/Greek well and he knows Persian and Arabic well. Also Rumi compares himself to Roman, Hindu, Turk, Zang and etc. These have symbolic meaning in Persian poetry. I am sometimes Turk, sometimes Hindu, sometimes Rumi(Roman/Greek) and sometimes Negro..(Ann Marrie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, pg 196). The symbols Turk, Hindu, Roman, Negro(Zang) in Persian poetry does not denote ethnicity but has multiple layers of meaning which is explained in that book. To show that Rumi is not a turk is best to quote his non-poetical works which is compiled by Aflaki. For example this one is in the praise of Greeks in comparison to Turks, from the book of Aflaki: There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks. When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times. But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!. Note by this satement along it shows Rumi was neither Greek or Turk. That is why his son also says he does not know Turkish or Greek well but is at ease with Persian. In His Masnavi and Diwan he also disapproves of plunderance of Oguz tribes and he has described Turks as cheshm-tang (narrow eyed) given the fact that original Turks were not of caucasoid stock. I would read Franklin's book which is the most up to date on Rumi's biography and also in Aflaki. Rumi's family actually comes from Vakhsh in Tajikistan. --24.168.149.56 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

21 February 2007 Bothi 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Rumi's name is Rumi because majority were Greeks. Seljuqs were Persianized thoroughly. But if this is sufficient we have direct statement from Rumi's son that he did not know Turkish and Greek well and he is more comfortable in Arabic and Persian. (Despite being born in modern Turkey). Plus Rumi's fathers work contains archaic Persian words and thus proves he was actually from Vakhsh as proposed by Franklin. By the way Khorasan is different than Mawa-an-Nahr. --alidoostzadeh 01:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Rumi's name is Rumi because majority were Greeks". It is not correct. Look at old maps: You will see Anatolia as "Turchia", because majority was Turkish, or "Diyar-ı Rum", "Sultanate of Rum" meaning that lands of Rome. Fatih has also the name "Kayser-i Rum", (Ceasar of Rome). Rum means Anatolia, and Rumi is equivalent to saying Turkish. Rum indicates these lands are former Roman Empire. Also, Ottoman Empire is the successor of Roman Empire. (This is information on what Rumi means, not about Mevlana, himself.Paparokan 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Rumi as a language is used for Greek. When Mowlana's son talks about not knowing Rumi and Turkish languages well, he means Greek by Rumi. Also Turkey is a modern name, the old name is Ottoman empire in the west. Iranians called it Rome during the Safavid era. Rumi's name comes from the fact that he migrated from Khorasan(Born in Vakhsh in Tajikistan and migrated to Balkh in Afghanistan) and from Balkh to Rum (Greece). --alidoostzadeh 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong again. See Halil Inalcık book "Tarihçilerin Kutbu", page 156.

Rumi is equivalent to Anatolian, or Turkish. Ottoman Empire was given the name of Rumi in India, Indonesia, Arabia. Name for Anatolia is Biladurrum in Arabic languages. Rumi also means Anatolian Turkish muskeeters in Indian Babur Empire in 1500's. India is conquered by these Rumi soldiers. Rumi's second meaning is Anatolian, or Turkish(from Turkey). Rumi in Mowlana' name does not refer to benig Greek, but refer to being Anatolian. In West Ottoman Empire was knowns as Turkey, it is a very old name. (See the map on Balkan Wars, also there are older maps in which Anatolia is called Turkey.) In summary, Turkey was known as Turkey in West, and Rum in East in history. Paparokan 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact is Ottomans did not used Turkey. --alidoostzadeh 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, yes.Paparokan 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

yes he is turkish. in one of his poems he describes himself as turkish.

Then what about BEDIL DEHLAWI who is of a mongolian but wrote in Persian? What about Eqbal Lahoori who was an Indian-Pakistani and wrote in Persian? We have hundreds of writers whore wrote in Persian but ethnically they had not anything to do with Persian Ethnic group or with Tajiks. Rumi clearly is from Turkic background not Tajik. actually the Mongols took Persian into India. peopel have worked on this subjict. the contribution of the Turkic people in the sread of Persian language is a known one. Mahmud Ghazna was Turk but he had four thousand persian poets around him.

بيگانه مي گوئيد مرا زين كويم درشهر شما خانه ي خود مي جويم دشمن نيم ارچند كه دشمن رويم اصلم ترك است اگر چه هندي گويم

Those are the lines refered at the beginning. Of course this doesn't mean anything in itself but bearing in mind that he wrote in Chagatai he was probably of Turkic descent. I don't think Persians of the time could speak Turkish, because Turkish has been an inferior language as compared to Persian. DRCMN --85.101.41.155 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He didn't write Chagatay. Plus you forgot these lines:

اي تُرک ِ ماه‌چهره، چه گردد که صبح، تو آيي به حجره‌ي ِ من و گويي که: گـُل برو! تو ماه ِ ترکي و من گرچه ترک نيستم، دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو آب ِ حيات ِ تو گر از اين بنده تيره شد، تُرکي مکن به کُشتَنَم‌ام اي تُرک ِ تُرک‌خو! توجه کنيد: من گرچه ترک نيستم ولي دانم اين قدر که ترکي است آب سو.. پس ايشان ميگويند ترک نيستند. يا اينجا خود را هندو خوانده است: هندوي ساقي دل خويشم که بزم ساخت تا ترک غم نتازد کامروز طوي نيست or this: گه تركم و گه هندو گه رومي گه زنگي از نقش تو است اي جان اقرارم و آنكارم

Also he has Greek poems. To show he was Iranian, it is sufficient to note that his son clearly states that "I do not know Turkish well"

گذر از گفت ترکي و رومي چون از آن اصطلاح محرومي ليک از پارسي گوي و از تازي چونکه در هر دو خوش همي تازي

I had Turk history class last year and I just have this: Quoted From: PHP. Mohammad Oztupcho a professor of Turkish language and history in UCLA University Until 1360 most of people were speaking Farsi in mid and east part of turkey and specially in gonia. Turks they were migrating to Anatolia more and more but still main language in Maktabs and bazaar and between city people was Farsi. Around 1360 a king (or governor ) gonia decliner punishment for anybody speak Farsi after a time specially in bazaar and Maktabs.

QA 1: if he was Turk why he didn't write just one line in Turkish? QA 2: you Turk guys have you ever tried to read even one Turkish letter form 1400 or 1500? I believe even you guys cannot understand one line of it. For a fares speaker reading Turkish letter form 1400 is a lot easier than reading Kurdish or even Arabic. I speak Azari and Farsi and Kurdish. For me all of Turkish languages between 1300~ 1600 is like Farsi with different ending. Exactly the way poem writers in republic Azerbaijan are writing poems. Example: “ az dareh kharabatio man ke garche mastamoo masrooram vali oghlam ourum” If You know farsi and azari you can see just last two word are Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asheemak (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant he had some lines in Chagatai just like he had some Greek verses. And what I was saying was that if he spoke Chagatai he could be of Turkic descent because it would be weird if an iranian spoke Chagatay at that time. Well, it seems you don't believe that he had Chagatai lines, it was in Shefik Can's "Fundamentals of Rumi's Thought". I don't think Shefik Can just made up the verses. The book is not with me, i can't write the verses here. One last thing, I am not Turkish. --DRCMN 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Chagatay is heir to Uzbek which is very easten turkic.. Rumi has about 50 verses of greek/200 verses of western turkic. But these are macronical and attributed. His son says that he doesn't known Greek/Turkish well which shows the mothertongue language of the family was persian.(“Rumi’s mother tongue was Persian, but he had learned during his stay in Konya, enough Turkish and Greek to use it, now and then, in his verse”(Annemarie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, SUNY Press, 1993. pg 193))“Sultan Valad (Rumi's son) elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000pg 239) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.149.56 (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok,Schimmel is a strong reference to me. And I know Turks claim almost every successful figure to be Turkish. But those lines in Shefik Can's book confuses my mind. I can speak the language what you call the "western turkic", the lines are not similar to that one. I will find and put them here. DRCMN--85.96.18.207 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

They are western Turkic of that time (when the Seljuqs just entered). It is of course not today's Turkish. Rumi's son , Sultan Walad has about 1% of his poetry in Greek (Rumi) and Turkish. He admits he doesn't know turkish well:T ürkche bilseyd üm ben eyed üm size - Sirlarin kim tanridan de ğdi (If I knew Turkish, I would tell my secrets that God has revealed. And similarly: Gozar az goft-e Rumi o Torki - Chon az aan Estelaah Mahroomi (Forget about Greek and Turkish - since you do not know these languages well - Lik az Paarsi gooy o Taazi (Thus speak of Persian and Arabic) - Chonkeh dar har khosh hami taazi (because you horse rides these well (meaning he is acquainted with it)). --24.168.149.56 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

It looks like this page needs some major re-formatting work. There are multiple sections for references, footnotes, and bibliographies, as an example. Any volunteers for a cleanup effort? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.255.168 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

He was Persian

The word Tajik should be removed from the introduction because he was Iranian-Persian. Tajik's are Persians living in Tajikistan and other parts of Central Asia. In Rumi's time Balkh was still apart of Iran. Also, His name should not be written in Turkish because that is irrelevent. He was not Turkic, he did not speak Turkish and never once wrote a word in Turkish. Dariush4444 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish spelling should be mentioned, because nowadays, most of his followers live in Turkey. The term "Tajik" is mentioned in Rumi's poetry and was the common name given to Persian during his life-time. Tājik 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He was born in Balkh, Afghanistan. He was a Central Asian Persian = Tajik. Therefore, he was not Iranian-Persian.

Balkh was an Iranian City of the time, and Tajik means Persians.

Tājīk (Persian: تاجيک; UniPers: Tâjik; Tajik: Тоҷик) is a term generally applied to Persian-speaking peoples of Iranian origin living east of Iran. The traditional Tajik homelands are in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan. Alternative names for the Tajiks are Fārsī (Persian), Fārsīwān (Persian-speaking), and Dīhgān (literally "village settlers", in a wider sense "urban"; in contrast to "nomadic" or "tribal" — only used in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan).[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks Sasan 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Tājīk" is a word of Turko-Mongol origin and means (literally) Non-Turk. It has the same root as the word Tat which is used by Turkic-speakers for the Persian-speaking population of the Caucasus. In a historical context, it is synonymous with Iranian[9] and particularly with Persian. Since the Turko-Mongol conquest of Central Asia, Persian-speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and all the way to Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kashmir and India have been identified as Tājīks. The term is mainly used against and as opposed to "Turk" and "Mongol".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks Sasan 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rumi was Afghan. He was born in an Afghan city, and he is of Afghan parents. He was a sunni Muslim, and his poetry is in Dari. Man I'm sick of all these persians trying to claim everything. Get a damn identity and stop trying to steal other peoples

Well First of all I bet you are a Pashtun,( the majority of people calling themselves "Afghan" in the land also the main ethnicity of Pakistanis) who mostly can't undrestand a single word of Rumi's Poem! and you claim him!!!, by the way, Afghanistan is a modern country made out of british colony and to your surprise it was taken from Iran! Secondly, Dari is Persian (instead of being sick of something educate yourself please!) Dari (Persian: دری) is the official name for the Persian language in Afghanistan, popularly and locally known as Farsi. "Dari" is an abbreviation of Darbārī, meaning "royal court", a reference to the classic style of Persian and to the court language of Sassanids.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari_(Afghanistan) Thirdly, People of Rumi's time was whole Sunni in Iran and as a result in Balkh not only Rumi himself other Persian Poems like Khayaam, Attar ,.......... whole were Sunni. Fourthly The word "Afghan" never existed in the time of Rumi as a NON IRANIAN identity, it's a modern word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_name_Afghan, so it's very obvious if Rumi could ever hear you, calling him an Afghan, I bet he would be shocked! , fifthly, Land isn't important, it's people who are important, in today Kharezm, mongolic races live , but less than 800 years ago it was Iranians who lived there ( mostly Killed by Mongols) so it doesn't mean every heritage in Khawarzm is a mongoic one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarezm, so Pashtuns can't claim Persian/Tajik scholars because simply they have immigrated to the land or reproduced a lot and they are a majority of the land! Rumi was and is a Human not a Land....... Finally, I suggest you to use a better language in educational webistes, we Iranians/Tajiks/Persians/Iranic people ......... all have a glorious identity and we are not talking about a matter if we don't posses knowladge about it. thanks. Sasan 10:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mawlana Balkhi was a Tajik/Persian not an Afghan. Afghans are only pashtuns and during Rumi's time their was no Pashtuns(afghans) in Khorasan. Pashtuns started migrating to Khorasan in the 19th century, By the way, I am a Tajik from Balkh and I am not an Afghan

--Anoshirawan 23:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

no actually ur an idiot...and no one really cares about u. this article is about rumi...he was afghan...because it is well known that persians are not religious Muslims...so no way could rumi be Iranian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.105.187 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

I thought he is usually called Molavi in Farsi. Does anyone know? Frail Elf 05:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He is known as "Molavi" in the Tehran dialect. But that is not the correct Persian transliteration. The correct pronounciation is Mawlānā and Mawlawī. Tājik 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If he is known as Rumi, shouldn't that be the title? Are the naming conventions different for the personal names? deniz^T_C 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, why don't we move it to Rumi? deniz^T_C 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because that's only a nickname. Accross the Persian-speaking world, he is known as "Mowlana", and his real name was "Jalal ud-Din". Tājik 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But this is English wikipedia, so it should be moved. deniz^T_C 21:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think so. The word "Rumi" should be a redirection. The current name is OK. Tājik 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind so much but are you not going against the rules, conventions? deniz^T_C 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add Mawlānā and Mawlawī in the lead.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? You go ahead and add it, if you want to. The discussion was about Rumi. I was saying that the tittle should be Rumi, as (according to the article) it is how he is known to the English speaking world. The current name should be a redirect. Mawlānā can also be a redirect, if not already so. The lead should be something like this:

"Mawlānā Jalāl-ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī [2] (Persian: مولانا جلال الدین محمد رومی, Turkish: Mevlânâ Celâleddin Mehmed Rumi), known to the English-speaking world as Rumi, also known as Mawlānā Jalāl-ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī (Persian: محمد بلخى), ...",

if you don't want to put Rumi right at the beginning. Anyway the tittle should be Rumi. deniz^T_C 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mevlânâ was a sunni (hanefî) muslim. In Islam and sunni belief there is a term called "vatan-ı aslî" roughly translated as hometown or homeland. Since Hazret-i Mevlânâ lived in Konya for almost all of his life till he left this world and also buried there, his vatan-ı aslî or hometown is Konya and homeland is Turkiye. All the ethnic/racial arguments are irrelevant and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castabal (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I nominated this article as a good article but we should improve to reach Good article criteria.

These are my suggestions:

1. Pictures:
   1. Without tag:File:Rmmtk.jpg: This picture doesn't have any tag.
   2. Without Help:Image page#Fair use rationale#fair use ratioal: File:Higherself.jpg, File:Rdance.jpg, File:Tavern1.jpg, File:Rumi concert nazeri.gif

I corrected the images. The problem of all of them has been solved except File:Rmmtk.jpg--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Citation needed:Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi#Major works
2. Verification needed: Refresh the dead sites like [1]
3. Lead: I think a pragraph should be added about his position as religious scholar and Sufitic superiority in sufistic orders and among Muslims.
4. Structure:
   1. We can divide his life in 3 parts or at least 2 parts. From his birth to achieve Konya. In Konya before Shams and after him.
   2. position in current world which includes International Rumi Year as well as attention of Orientalists and other westerners to him. I mean his position among westerners.
5. broad in coverage:His position among westerners

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This needs team working:

1. Who checks lingual aspect?
2. Who tries to complete it by adding Orientalist and westerners viewpoint?
3. Who checks references and refresh them by adding new one instead of dead links?
4. Who add references wherever it is necessary.
5. Who works on its structure and wikification?

# Who adds tags and fair use rationals to pictures?

I can help in refereshing the references. Don't you think it was better to resolve the above issues first and then nominate it for a good article?(Arash the Archer 06:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

I guess they won't review this article until next week and we can improve it until then. I wanted to attract others to help with improving this article and I believe it's completely possible. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the images' copyright tags.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahram Nazeri in Oscars

As far as I remember Shahram Nazeri did not perform in 2007 Oscars. I think we should remove this part.(Arash the Archer 05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Is it sourced? I don't remember him performing in 2007 Oscars either. --Mardavich 08:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

no he didn't perform in oscar !!!! but he performed around in LA in disney hall " shabeh rumi" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asheemak (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rumi is also not among the most popular poets in the USA, but this doesn't seem to keep such an outlandish claim from appearing. Rumi is not taught in American schools and he is not a top-seller, despite the claims of Internet-wired Islamists. Look at Amazon book sales, for example. You'll notice that while the top-selling poets in the USA (Shakespeare, Robert Frost, Jewel, Donald Hall, etc.) sell far more books that Rumi. But, because a few personal websites claim that Rumi is the most famous poet in the USA, people post it on Wikipedia as a fact.

Actually this fact is in mainstream magazines and not internet magazines! See the book by franklin

Persian (Tājīk)

I can't understand the Tājīk in parenthesis which is linked to Tājīk ethnicity. How do we know for sure he was ethnically Tājīk. We only know he was born in Balkh but still doesn't prove he is Tājīk unless a DNA test or something is done. Even if we can prove that he was Tājīk; It is the first time that I see the ethnicity of a person is mentioned in the first sentence. Moreover none of other encyclopedias use this term. The other confusion is about the word Persian. Persian can refer to Persian (Ethnicity), Persian (language), and residents of the country of Persia(Iran). I think to much emphasis on ethnicity will bring racism issues, therefore here we should say Rumi was a Persian … (As it is done in many reliable sources) and Wikilink Persian to Iran or Persian Empire or Greater Iran as the name of the country he was from not his ethnicity.(Arash the Archer 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

This term Tajik was what ethnic Persians and/or Persian-speakers were called during that era in Balkh and the rest of Central Asia, especially by Turks. And today ethnic Persians and/or Persian-speakers in that region are also called Tajik. Tajik is not a race and there is no DNA test for it since they are a mix of Bactrians, Sogdians, Parnians, and Scythians with sometimes a slight Turkic admixture, especially in Central Asia. Tajik is a cultural/linguistic term that generally applies to Persians and/Persians of Central Asian and in general east of modern Iran. See the article Tajiks. Rumi's ethnicity was Persian and the link will take you to the Persian people article which explains that Persians are an ethic group. SIt is not about ethnicity, or nationalism, it is simply stating his ethnic background with relation to his time and also to today as would any biography. So both terms should stay, it makes no sense to remove either one. --Behnam 05:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Behnam. I think you should add this to Tajik if it is well sourced so no one else get confused like me.(Arash the Archer 13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

The term Tajik is fully justified. If anything, it should be used exclusively. I am a Tajik myself and I am disgusted that Iranians stake a claim to someone that is not theirs. Rumi was a Tajik, not an Iranian. That point needs to be made very clear. If you just write Persian, most people will think of Iranians, as the terms Iranians and Persians (regrettably) are used more or less synonymously in the West. However, Tajiks and Iranians are not the same people. Tajiks are not Iranians. The Iranians themselves consider Tajiks to be a foreign people. Consider the current situation of the many Tajik refugees (from Afghanistan) living in Iran. The Iranian government and population consider them foreigners and do not treat them as compatriots in any way. Far from it. The Iranians take every chance to humiliate and exploit them. I leave it up to you to read more about the mistreatment and abuse of the Tajik people in Iran. You can find plenty of articles on the web. My point is very clear though. The fact that Rumi is presented as an Iranian misrepresents his background. He was a Tajik. End of story. (User: Tajik 4 Ever)

During Rumi's time the word Tajik never existed, Tajik was what turkic people called Persians, also today people of Afghanistan(minority of Persians/Tajiks there, not the majority of pashtuns!) and Tajikistan are emphasized by Iranians as different poeple, becuase of their mixture with mongolic poeple something that just began during Rumi's time and mongols where cleansing the area out of Persians or Mixing with them. these are very obvious facts and let's not be dogmatic about it. also let's thank God he sang in persian(farsi) so remains no doubt that he is a Persian/Tajik! or as you know, Arabs and Turks are always ready to claim Persian/Tajik scholars as they do about Avicenna, Biruni, .......... !!!

Where is my article?!!!!!!! btw, again Tajik is what turks call Persians................

Some images

I put tags on some images and asked one of Wiki admins to check them. This is his answer:In re your question -- File:Rumi concert nazeri.gif seems fine. The other three, File:Higherself.jpg, File:Rdance.jpg and File:Tavern1.jpg need to make a Wikipedia:Fair use claim or be deleted, as we do not accpet "non-commercial" or "educational use only" content here. Jkelly 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I think we don't need numerous images and we can deleted some of them. but if you insist on keeping them, we can add fair use tag.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed these pictures.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A review on references

I took a glance at the references and here are my observasions:

• The flowing references are not reliable:
  • 5 is a travel agency site  Done
  • 9, 25 is a shopping website.  Done
  • 16 is a personal home page. Done
• 12 is not clear “The Mysteries of the Universe and Rumi's Discoveries on the Majestic Path of Love”  Done
• 18 ,23,27 are dead. Done
• 31,33, are not English and corresponding information is not correct(Nazeri in Oscars). They should be deleted. Done
• I couldn't verify the reliability of 1017 they seem to be weak. Done

I will try to find better references but I am not a persistant Wikipedian and I ask everyone to help.(Arash the Archer 16:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Failed GA

I am failing this article for GA. There is a lot of excellent material here, and I think it can reach GA without a great deal of extra work, but there are a few problems.

1. References. There are several unreferenced sections, and a few "citation needed" cleanup tags. The tags need to be fixed, and references found for the others. Examples:
   1. Under "Life", the first five paragraphs have only one reference.
   2. "Teachings of Rumi" is largely unreferenced
2. In addition, the problems mentioned above by Arash the Archer are not yet addressed; I checked two or three of his comments and those problems still exist. Done
3. Fair use. There are pictures which do not have adequate fair use rationales. See Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale for more on what a rationale has to include; File:Higherself.jpg, for example, has a rationale but not one that meets the requirements. File:Rumi museum.jpg also appears to have a copyright issue.
4. Generally, the whole "Life" section is not written in a neutral tone. For example, in the "Life" section, there is this sentence: "Attar immediately recognized Rumi's spiritual eminence." As it stands this has the article endorsing Rumi's spiritual eminence, which is a subjective judgement. It would be OK to include this as a direct quote from a source that states this. Alternatively you could rephrase it as something like "Attar is supposed to have immediately recognized Rumi's spiritual eminence." Another example would be the meeting with Shams Tabrizi: a voice appearing to Rumi is something that should be described not as necessarily happening, but as the way it is related to have happened. E.g. 'A voice is said to have come, "What will you give in return?"' And of course this would need to be sourced too. The third paragraph of the "Teachings" section uses a style like this. It would also be possible to summarize and simply give references, though if the direct quotes add value they are fine. However, this neutrality problem does show up in the later sections too. I can give additional examples if you would like me to.
5. A minor point: is it "Masnavi" or "Mathnavi"? It would be best to be consistent, even if you do mention alternative spellings. Done

Issues that would not prevent GA:

1. There has been quite a bit of editing going on, including some significant additions -- are the editors here comfortable that the article is fairly stable? If you think there's more that can be done, by all means add it and renominate it when it's stable. I wouldn't fail it at this point just for this issue as there does not appear to be edit-warring.
2. A copyedit question: what is meant by "local dialogue" in the lead? Should it be "dialect"?

If you would have any questions, I will keep this page on my watchlist for a while, or you can post a note at my talk page. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links section....

... is way too long. Please delete and keep a small subset of these. You may also could consider using some of the material in these websites as sources for this article, where appropriate. Form more info see WP:EL ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumi, an islamized Greek

The name "Rumi" comes from the "rome" and "roman", initially meaning the citizen of the Roman Empire, but in eastern roman (and later otoman) region came to mean "greek orthodox". Large greek and other populations were by force islamized under the otoman, arab or persian rule. This is why the modern citizens of turkey do not have the mongolic characteristics of the central Asia populations who speak turanic languages.

Rumi knew very well the orthodox dogma and the greek language and wrote several poems in greek with arabic alphabet. See the bibliography in the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Greek_language —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Georgar (talk • contribs) 11:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

You should stop spewing your greek propaganda. Rumi means 'someone from the roman land' in persian because he was lived in anatolia which at that time was known as 'land of the romans'. The islamization of anatolia was done by sufi orders, many greeks who were persecuted by the byzantine empire were relieved from the pressures of the corrupt byzantine administrators in anatolia. Some 2.5 million Turks immigrated to anatolia from central asia, the turks in central asia at that time did not look different from the turks in Turkey now. Infact the turks mixed with many tribes who were already living in central asia like the tocharians and persians. Rumi was not influenced by orthodox religion at all, there is no similarity between his message and orthodox christianity. Rumi's message is the same as other sufi masters. Orrin_73

Molana Rumi wrote 99% of his works in Persian and 1% Arabic, He wrote both in Arabic and Persian, he was a Persian poet,a full blooded Persian, not turkish, and he did not know turkish and could not speak a word in turkish, some turks consider him turkish, but this claim is false. he was persian because he was born in a persian country and spoke persian as native language.he dont became turkish only because he lived mostly in a turkish country and died there.If you are a kurd and have lived most of your life in Europe or America and if you die there you are still a kurd and your blood is still kurdish. You are wrong, Rumi was ethnically persian but lived most of his live in Konya in western Turkey. If Rumi was unable to speak Turkish, how in the world did he communicate with the people in Konya!!!!! Rumi spoke Turkish but he wrote his poems in persian which was common at that time, even the Ottoman sultans wrote their poems in Persian.Orrin_73

There were no Turkish-speaking cities in Anatolia back then. Arabic and Persian were the language of the elite and the leading cities, the ordinary people who were the majority in the Rumi Seljuq Sultanate spoke dialects of Greek and Mesopotamian languages. Turkish was only spoken by Turkic nomads or by Turkic slaves and servants of the Seljuqs (the Seljuqs were themselvs eithnically Turks; but they had become Persianized and used Persian as their vernacular). The first Turkic speaking city in Anatolia was the capital of the Karamanoğlu who lived some 200 years after Rumi.

There were Turkish cities in anatolia back then and Konya was the capital of the Anatolian seldjuks. The language of the people in Konya was Turkish. At the time of Rumi there were more then 2 million Turks living in Anatolia. Turks made half the popuation in Anatolia, the main Turkish groups were Turkmens and Yoruks. The ruling Seldjuk dynasty belonged to the Turkmens. Karamanoglu Mehmet bey declared Turkish as the language of the bureaucracy that was persian until then. Orrin_73

Jalal ad-Din Al Rumi is not the same as Ibn Al Rumi

Ibn al Rumi is another poet; he died in 283 AH (896 AD), about 2 centuries earlier. He was born in Baghdad and he had clear and distinguishable Byzantine ancestry. His name was Ali Ibn Abbas Ibn Guraige, Guraige being the Arabized form of Gregory.

Hence, I deleted the part in the introduction where it says "sometimes shortened to Ibn Al Rumi) as it refers to someone else. --Maha Odeh 07:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I search "Rumi"?

I cannot navigate to this article by searching "Rumi." Considering the myriad spellings of all the other parts of the poet's name, this would seem the one reliable search phrase.

Words for the wind 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See Rumi, which redirects to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra CD with Madonna, etc

I'm not familiar with the subject, so I can't contribute editorially, but is this the Rumi whose poetry was recorded by Deepak Chopra in the late 90's under the CD name "A Gift of Love"? The CD was commercially very successful and featured numerous celebrity readers (Demi Moore, Martin Sheen, Goldie Hawn, Madonna, etc). If this is the same Rumi then the article should probably mention that fact. Manning 05:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

May Mowlana himself forgive us!

It is a shame that despite all what HE said, there are still people trying to offer HIM by force a passport from afghanistan, iran or even turkey. HE was born in balkh (now afghanistan), wrote in persian (now spoken mainly in iran), died in konya (now in turkey). why should we try to bother him with silly stuff like nationality , etc... we all know that: in watan mesro aragho shamm nist... please stop vandalism. a joke at the end: mowlana has, as attar predicted, set the world in fire. for those great hearts fire of love and humanity-oriented worries, for those intellectually poor people fire of possession and exclusive ownership of famous things.

Mowlana forgive us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.24.247 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He was born in Balkh(an Iranian city in Greater Khorasan) not Afghanistan.

The Persian language is spoken in Afghanistan Uzbekistan and Tajikistan also not only Iran.

Konya was a greek city and turkey or turks didnt even exist in antolia during rumi's lifetime. --Anoshirawan 05:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, haven't you heard of the the Battle of Manzikert of 1071? Or of the Anatolian Turkish Beyliks of 11th century? I removed the "nationality" info from the lead. I agree with the user above. Baristarim 05:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He was a Persian Poet and this has been proven so stop removing it.--Anoshirawan 07:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Identity issues back than were not so clear-cut back in the day, unlike today at least where every carries some sort of a passport of some kind. I am not saying he didn't have Persian culture or anything, but pinning down the whole thing into a simple issue of nationality doesn't do justice to the article, that's all. He was Muslim if anything, and religion was what mattered the most back in the day. Look at his name, and you will see the mix Rumi was. He had no nationality for crying out loud, look at his works! :) I didn't remove anything however, I just moved Muslim before all the other attributes, I don't see why that should be a problem. Baristarim 07:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

footnote 11

footnote 11 gives the impression that it refers to the poem, but the text of the article is also very reminiscent of Barks: see Coleman Barks, The Essential Rumi: New Expanded Edition (HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), p.xx: 'On the night of December 5, 1248, as Rumi and Shams were talking, Shams was called to the back door. He went out, never to be seen again. Most likely he was murdered with the connivance of Rumi's son, Allaedin; if so, Shams indeed gave his head for the privilege of mystical friendship.' Were we lucky enough to have Dr Barks write our present article? Richardson mcphillips1 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition

To anon:

Would you mind reading your latest silly addition to the Rumi page? Now it reads "...Iranian poet Persian (Tajik) poet, jurist, theologian...". You might be under the impression that Iranian/Persian is not mentioned there, but Persian is already mentioned, so why are you duplicating Iranian and Persian in a way which makes it very stupid to read? Does the phrase "Iranian poet Persian (Tajik) poet.." make sense to you? Can you please revert yourself and read carefully what you are modifying? Thank you. Baristarim 08:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Extra Picture

There are two pictures of Rumi's tomb. There only needs to be one and put it in the right section.

International Rumi Year

The article has an anachronism: "Upon a proposal by Culture and Tourism Ministry of Turkey, the year 2007 was proposed as the 'International Rumi Year' to UNESCO, but has not yet been confirmed." Was this confirmed? If you know, please fix. Alpheus 07:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Khorasan

Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.(most important biography work on Rumi) “How is it that a Persian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considered in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in Central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere, in which is now Turkey, some 1500 miles to the west?”(pg 9)

(Parsi-Dari-Language) This is what Professor. Gilbert Lazard, a famous Iranologist and also the writer of Persian grammer states: "The language known as New Persian, which usually called at this period by the name of Dari or Parsi-Dari,can be classified linguistically as a continuation of Middle Persian, the official religious and literary language of Sassanian Iran, itself a continuation of Old Persian, the language of the Achaemenids. Unlike the other languages and dialects, ancient and modern, of the Iranian group such as Avestan, Parthian, Soghdian, Kurdish, Pashto, etc., Old Middle and New Persian represent one and the same language at three states of its history. It had its origin in Fars (the true Persian country from the historical point of view and is differentiated by dialectical features, still easily recognizable from the dialect prevailing in north-western and eastern Iran".(Lazard, Gilbert 1975, “The Rise of the New Persian Language” in Frye, R. N., The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, pp. 595-632, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali doostzadeh (talk • contribs) 03:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in use of language + Neutrality + Persian Language

I think it would be best if the use of language is historical and not modern. For example, from a previous edit:

"Rumi encountered one of the most famous mystic Persian poets, Attar, in Iran's city of Nishapur, located in the province of Khorāsān."

At the time there was no autonomous state of Iran or province of Khorasan. However, if it is absolutely necessary to refer to the modern location of somewhere (which really in this particular context, it isn't), it should be clearly marked as the modern political location, while also supplying the historical political location. An example of this is how I have modified the introduction to the article:

"Rumi was born in Balkh (in present-day Afghanistan), then a city of the Turkic Khwarezmian Empire, and died in Konya (in present-day Turkey), then a city of the Great Seljuq Empire."

In regards to this, while it can be mentioned that Rumi's early life was spent in the Khorasan region of the Khwarezmian Empire, it should not be worded as such as it gives the impression that Khorasan was independent of the Khwarezmian Empire.

As for the neutrality of this article, there is a clear attempt to try and 'Iranify', so to speak, Rumi. What I am talking about is epitomized in the unsourced opinion piece "The Iranian Poet". While it is perfectly reasonable to talk about the effects that Rumi has had on the cultural development of modern states (which infact I think should constitute it's own column in this article), it is against the ideals of Wikipedia, and more importantly Rumi himself, to try and pidgeonhole Rumi and characterize him as an 'Iranian', as this provides a dishonest, politically motivated and revisionist view to anyone who may be uneducated on Rumi looking for information on Wikipedia. Rumi was not Iranian, Afghanistani, Tajikistani or Turkish, as these states were not yet in existence, he was if anything Khwarezmian. Contributions that Rumi's literature has made to the cultures of these modern states should not try to emphasize a 'belonging' of Rumi to any one of these states, but as the rules state, be neutral, and where possible sourced.

I don't think that the politics regarding the evolution of Dari/Farsi/Pahlavi/Persian should be brought into this article. However, the language used by Rumi was contemporarily referred to as 'Dari Persian', and is clearly more related to the modern eastern dialects of Persian spoken in Afghanistan and Tajikistan as opposed to the western dialects spoken in Iran, especially the international standard Tehrani dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondo Libero (talk • contribs) 04:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument sounds similar to another user and for a new user, you sure seem to know about the "ideals of Wikipedia". Anyhow, you do not need a political state to define geographical areas. Khorasan/Iran have been used by Ghaznawids, Samanids, Seljuqids and etc even before Khwarzmshahs. They are geographical designations used for a long time even before these dyansties. Just because Egypt was taken over by the Persian Empire, it does not mean Egypt did not exist as a geographical designation. There are lots of texts that prove it and Franklin, Lewis, the greatest Rumi expert who has written the most authoritative book on Rumi uses Khorasan and Greater Iran. He is known as the highest Rumi expert in the World. They are historical designations and not modern. Indeed calling that whole area as Khwarzmia is not historical or correct. I have sourced it and if there is another designation, just source it. Secondly, just because the center of the Shah was from Khwarazam (ancient Chorasmia) it does not make Rumi Chorasmian, since Chorasmia is not really Wakhsh or Balkh were Rumi was born. Third modern Persian is a development of Middle Persian which goes back to Old Persian, all have roots in Fars. So you can't delete sourced information, from a major linguistic like Lazard. Unsourced opinion pieces can be removed. As I have explained Persian/Iranian have existed as a cultural and geographical phenomenon and of course many dynasties have used these designations for their land. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case the geographical area is itself poorly defined and the Khwarzemian Empire is a more accurate description; it refers to the cultural, political and linguistic identity of the region at the time and does not have political overtones as Khorasan does today which compromise the neutrality of the overall article.

As for my comment on Wikipedia ideals, the ones that I referred to specifically are there on most pages: No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability

As for the modern designations, I was referring specifically to cities being called "Iranian" or "Afghanistani" ect, not Khorasan, and regarding calling Rumi Khwarezmian, that was meant to be ironic and show how ridiculous it is to designate him nationality of a modern state. Obviously it worked.

"The Iranian Poet" is unsourced if you look at the site it is taken from, it is just an opinion piece and has no place in this article. Aside from that there are the revisionist overtones that compromise the neutrality of the overall article. As for 'Persian/Iranian', they have only recently become so closely intertwined due to efforts of Iranian historical and cultural revisionism, and now both carry significant political overtones when referring to classical writers. Which again, compromises neutrality.

These are my main proposed changes, which I have now sourced:

1.

Rumi was born in Balkh (in present-day Afghanistan), then a city in the Khorasan region of the Turkic Khwarezmian Empire, and died in Konya (in present-day Turkey), then a city of the Great Seljuq Empire. His works were written in Persian, a language that has its linguistic origins in present-day Fars Provice in Iran, but was re-developed in the geographical regions of Khorasan and Transoxiana, becoming known as Dari Persian, after the decline of Persian in the west due to the Muslim Conquests and the prevelence of Arabic.

Making clear that the development of Dari Persian took place in Khorasan and Transoxiana, though the linguistic origins of Dari Persian are indeed in Fars (which is what your source says, not that it developed there after the Muslim Conquests). Rewording the part on Balkh, so as it does not imply that Khorasan was autonomous and recognizes that at the time it was part of the Khwarezmian Empire.

2.

When the Mongols invaded Central Asia sometime between 1215 and 1220, his father with his whole family and a group of disciples set out westwards. On the road to Anatolia, Rumi encountered one of the most famous mystic Persian poets, Attar, in the city of Nishapur, in the geographical region of Khorasan.

As I mentioned, there was no state of Iran the time or autonomous province of Khorasan, so I think for the sake of neutrality that it should be referred to specifically as the region due to the political overtones calling it a 'province' has.

3.

Jalalludin Mohammad, the Persian Sufi poet and Mystic was born in Balkh - in the north-eastern provinces of Persia(Iran), present day Afghanistan – 800 years ago. He is also known as "Rumi", "Balkhi", “Mevlana”, "Mowlavi", "Molavi", "Mowlana", "Molana" and "Maulana". He was the son of Baha'u-'d-Din, who decided to leave Balkh when Mevlana was about 5. The family traveled to Baghdad, to Mecca on pilgrimage, and to Damascus. They eventually settled at Konya (in present day Turkey). In Konya, Mevlana lived the rest of his life.

This should be removed because it is already covered in the life of Rumi section, and again due to the political undertones carried by falsely implying that there was a state called Persia or Iran (or indeed that Persia and Iran are so easily interchangeable) which compromise neutrality.

4.

"The Iranian Poet" section to be completely removed as it a politically motivated, unsourced piece. However, I think there should be another heading like "Cultural Impacts" with subheadings for various modern states.

On a last note, I think if it is really that important for the controversies surrounding his geopolitical status to be discussed, it should not be littered throughout the article, but instead confined to one section.

I think these changes bring this article more in line with Wikipedia's rules, and as recommended by Siba I won't make any further edits until I get replies here--Mondo Libero

No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability.Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.[2]. “How is it that a Persian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considered in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in Central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere, in which is now Turkey, some 1500 miles to the west?”(pg 9). You do not need a political state to define geographical areas. Khorasan/Iran have been used by Ghaznawids, Samanids, Seljuqids and etc even before Khwarzmshahs. Abu Rayhan Biruni for example defines the area of Iranshahr and Khorasan is part of it. You also need exact sentence for the other quotes. Since the first state that declared Dari-Persian as their official language was the Saffarids and then the Samanids originally from Balkh. Finally, Rumi was not born under the Khwarzmian empire. I quote Franklin which is the authoritative source on Rumi's life and is considered the final say currently on Rumi's life. "Baha al-din (Rumi's father) may have been born in Balk but at least between June 1204 and 1210 (Shavval 600 and 607), during which time Rumi was born, Baha al-Din resided in Vakhsh. Vakhsh, rather than Balkh, was the permanent based of Baha al-Din and his family until Rumi was five year old". Vakhsh was taken over by the Khwarizmshah dynasty after 1210. So Rumi wasn't born under the Khwarizmshahs and indeed his family considered Khwarizmshahs as devious (per Aflaki and Sepahsalar and Sultan Walad). --alidoostzadeh (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a history major and never have any of my teachers suggested that there was "no state of Iran the time of Khwarezmians". It is well-documented that Khwarezmians called themselves "Shah of Iran", and their land "Iran".--Earthist (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In your source they are being referred to specifically as geographical regions, and if there no problem with referring to Konya in it's political designation as part of the Seljuk Empire, then why should it be a problem to refer to Balkh that way? The area Konya rests on has long been known as Anatolia and Asia Minor, however I don't see you rushing to refer to it as such. If it is applicable to have Konya defined by it's political state at the time, then it is just as valid to have Balkh defined by it's political state at the time.

Regarding quotes of my sources:

"Under Arab rule, Arabic became the principal language for administration and religion. The substitution of Arabic for Middle Persian was facilitated by the translation of Persian classics into Arabic. Arabic became the main vehicle of Persian high culture, and remained such will into the eleventh century. Parsi declined and was kept alive mainly by the Zoroastrian priesthood in western Iran. The Arab conquests however, helped make Dari rather than Arabic the most commmon spoken language in Khurasan and the lands beyond the Oxus River. Paradoxically, Arab and Islamic domination created a Persian cultural region in areas never before unified by Persian speech. A new Persian evolved out of this complex linguistic situation. In the ninth century the Tahirid governors of Khurasan began to have the old Persian language written in Arabic script rather than in pahlavi characters. At the same time, eastern lords in the small principalities began to patronize a local court poetry in an elevated form of Dari. The new poetry was inspired by Arabic verse forms, so that Iranian patrons who did not understand Arabic could comprehend and enjoy the presentation of an elevated and difnified poetry in the manner of Baghdad. This new poetry flourished in regions where the influence of Abbasid Arabic culture was attenuated and where it had no competition from the surviving tradition of Middle Persian literary classics cultivated for religious purposes as in Western Iran."

"In the western regions, including Iraq, Syria and Egypt, and the lands of the far Islamic west including North Africa and Spain, Arabic became the predominant language of both high literary culture and spoken discourse."

During Abbassid rule, Fars (and modern-day western Iran) was included in the Iraq region (as Iraq was still seen as west Persia), and also in the post-Abbassid system while the Buyids had their capital in Baghdad. This is only described in books I have right now in terms of geo-political maps, but I'll head to the library and find books that covers this in writing later in the week.

Here is my proposed change for the first part of the article, which for the most part is improving the style in which it is written (repetition being a particular problem), but also to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's standards, these include 1. Neutralizing language (Substituting language which in the contexts used can today carry negative connotations that have the potential to (and by looking here, already have) cause offense and drag the article into a nationalist battleground, for more neutral, descriptive language). 2. Correcting language falsely implying that modern Persian developed in Fars, while acknowledging that the linguistic family has it's roots in Fars.

Rumi was born either in Balkh, (In modern-day Afghanistan, then a city of the Turkic Khwarezm Empire) according to traditional sources, or in Wakhsh, (In modern-day Tajikistan) according to some modern scholars (both which were in the cultural spheres of Khorasan and Transoxiana), and died in Konya (In modern-day Turkey, then a city of the Great Seljuq Empire). His works were written in Dari Persian, a language that has its linguistic origins in the Fars Province of modern-day Iran, which was re-developed in the geographical regions of Khorasan, Transoxiana and Sijistan from the 9th century onwards, after the decline of Pahlavi Persian in west Persia due to the prevalence of Arabic brought by the Muslim Conquests, and especially the reforms by Abd al-Malik. He lived most of his life under the Seljuq Empire, where he produced his works., which are widely read in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and also in translation, especially in Turkey, Azerbaijan, The United States, Pakistan, and India. After his death, his followers founded the Mowlawīyah, better known by the English term "Whirling Dervishes", who perform their worship in the music and dance ceremony known as the samāʿ.

Rumi's importance is generally considered to transcend national and ethnic borders, however he has been known to be used by some people to promote nationalist agendas, ironically in contrast to the views espoused by him in his works. Throughout the centuries he has had a significant influence on [Persian literature|Persian]], Urdu, Bengali and Turkish literatures. His poems have been translated into a great wealth of languages, in various formats, and he has been described by BBC News as "The most popular poet in America".

"His birthplace and native language/local dialect indicates a Persian heritage." has been (hopefully temporarily) omitted as you have not provided any sentences from this source as you indicated was necessary, and especially as this is a rather bold claim backed by only one source, which has not been shown. Due to the magnitude of this claim I think it is appropriate to have it corroborated by other scholars if it is to be phrased as it is, and if that is not possible it should phrased in a way that makes clear that this view is uncorroborated..--Mondo Libero (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Earthist: I would love to see some of this 'well documented evidence'.--Mondo Libero (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rumi and Iran"

I think this is a wonderful idea, though that it should be seperate from the 'Legacy' section and put into a new 'Cultural Impact' section (or something similar). This way articles can be added for the cultural impact that Rumi's works have had on other countries such as Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan to name a few (though the list is potentially endless).

However, I do have a gripe that the source material being used in the current Rumi and Iran section is still a copy of an opinion piece published only by some guy on his website, where he cites no sources. As I have said I think that this is a great idea and opens up room for positive expansion on the article, but if it is to be done properly it must be in accordance with Wikipedia rules: ie. With cited (and where necessary, corroborated) sources, written with the appropriate level of style.

Due to breaking the rules of Wikipedia, the content of that section should for now be removed, and if possible, filled in with some sourced effects of Rumi on Iranian culture to get it going properly

These sub-sections under the potentially new 'Cultural Impact' section will also serve as a way for people of different backgrounds to express their views on their connection with him without cluttering up the main article regarding his life and works.

Please tell me I'm not the only one that thinks this is a good idea?--Mondo Libero (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

>> In the end, you can't remove sourced info and I have done an extensive study on Rumi's background, and have collected all the negatives and positives. Even if some countries want to cast doubt about his four roots (grandfather,grandmother on father/mother side)), ultimately, the fact is that he is a Persian through culture and heritage. That is what makes a person not DNA/genetics although Rumi himself has described Turkic racial features and they are all similar to Yaquts/Kazakhs rather than modern Anatolian Turkic-speakers.

Again, I am not trying to portray Rumi as a Turk as you seem to be implicitly accusing me of. Your use of Persian in the context you have explained it is fully justified, however to avoid confrontations about his 'ethnicity' as have been had already, I think it is important that it is specified that this identification as 'Persian' is in culture and heritage, not in ethnicity, which in my opinion, and evidently in many other people's opinions, is not being made very clear.

Franklin is sourced and can't be removed

It is obvious for me that you are a former user, not of European descent. But nevertheless, that is no problem. Since you are civil. You are making several invalid assumptions and also deleted an important sentence from an important quote. 1) First you can’t remove Persian from Khorasan, greater Iran and Persian cultural sphere. These are sourced and are used by the scholar who wrote the most important biography on Rumi since Rumi. They are not sourced from just anyone, but the greatest biographer on Rumi and Professor of Persian literature in the University of Chicago. The book is requirement for any modern Rumi scholar and has been translated to every language in the Middle East. Anyone that studies Rumi seriously has the book on their desk. So we write our materials based on scholarly sources, not what you think is not neutral! So taste of Wikipedia users is not relevant. "Neutralizing language " is your own OR, which is not acceptable. I do not consider your opinion neutral. Also Rumi was not born under Khwarzmian Shahs, because the area Rumi was born, that is Wakhsh, came under Khwarizmshah in 1210. This was brought from Franklin. It is the opinion of all modern scholars on Rumi. Furthermore, his family fled to Samarqand which the Khwarizmshah took in 1212. Also the Khwarizmshah were not in Balkh even if we assume Rumi was born in balkh (at least up to 1207). The area of Khorasan was just falling under their rule, so Rumi was not born on them. So that part is pure OR. So there is no point to mention Khwarizmshah until the place where Rumi’s family considered them devious and actually fled their rule and if you feel. Specially since modern scholars believe he was born in Wakhsh which was not their rule. The fact that Iranshahr has been used by even Abu Rayhan Biruni, himself a native Iranian Chorasmian is sufficient to use greater Iran. Abu Rayhan considers Khorasan as part of Iranshahr. So that is both sources from primary sources as well as the fact that Rumi was not born under Khwarizmshah. Iran/Iranshahr have been used throughout the centuries in Persian literature. The Samanid domain is called Iran by Rudaki the poet. This is even earlier than Khwarizmshah, so geographical designations do not wither. Richard Frye is another person who uses this terminology.

2) Of course his birthplace/native language indicates Persian heritage is based on Franklin who calls him Persian boy and Persian culture sphere. It is of course based on many sources. Elsewhere, Franklin also mentions that Rumi had Persian heritage and Iranian character, and this was not mentioned in a political brochure by a certain country (Turkey). Sultan Walad, Rumi's son, for example did not know Turkish/Greek well and he its admits several times. Rumi’s opinion on Turks as a whole group is given by Aflaki:’’ There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi(its Greek title) Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks.

When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times.

But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!" ---‘’

For example in his Ebteda-Nama, Sultan Walad admits twice in Persian after some of the lines of Greek/Turkish: بگذر از گفت ترکی و رومی که از این اصطلاح محرومی گوی از پارسی و تازی که در این دو همی خوش تازی Translation: Let go of the languages of Greek (Rumi) and Turkish (Turki) Because you lack knowledge in these two, Thus speak in Persian and Arabic, Since in these two, you recite very well.

So Rumi had a Persian heritage and Culture. He puts Persian heroes Rustam and Esfandyar in the same line as the fourth Caliph, Hazrat Ali. Say his ethnicity was 1/4 Persian, 1/4 Arab, 1/4 Turk, 1/4 Chinese, I have not done a DNA test. But culturally Persian is sourced and will stay. I do not like to bring above quotes and 20 more or so which I have collected incase such a discussion arises. Persian was the cultural language and Rumi lives through the Persian language.

3) Modern Persian by the 10th/11th century (before Rumi) was already present in western Iran. It is true that the Saffarids of Sistan (in modern Iran), then the subsequent Samanids and then subsequet dynasties gave it big boost in Khorasan, Transoxia and etc. This is mention by Gilbert Lazard. "Until this time literary activity in Persia had been confined to Eastern Iran. It began in such regions as Sistan, Khurasan, and Transoxia and penetrated gradually into western Iran. Toward the end of the 4th/10th century, several poets writing in Persian were to be found at the court of Qabus b. Vushmgir, amir of Gurgan, and in the entrouge of Sahib Ismail b. Abbad at Ray. It was not until the following century, however, that Persian literature was to become the main form of expression of the Iranian territories as a whole". Lapidus, Ira, 2002, A Brief History of Islamic Societies, pg 127 You did not mention what she said:The development of the new Persian was conditioned by two factors. One was the linguistic situation in eastern Iran just prior to the Arab conquest. In late Sassanian times, Parsi (Pahlavi) or Middle Persian was the official religious and literary language of the empire. Dari was the dialect version of this language spoken throughout much of Iran.”

No one claimed new Persian literature started developing in Fars. The language had its origin in Fars. This is mention by Gilbert Lazard. "Until this time literary activity in Persia had been confined to Eastern Iran. It began in such regions as Sistan, Khurasan, and Transoxia and penetrated gradullay into western Iran. Toward the end of the 4th/10th century, several poets writing in Persian were to be found at the court of Qabus b. Vushmgir, amir of Gurgan, and in the entrouge of Sahib Ismail b. Abbad at Ray. It was not until the following century, however, that Persian literature was to become the main form of expression of the Iranian territories as a whole". So already by the time of Rumi, it was the main form of expression in all Iranian lands. Note Avicenna in Hamadan already produced major works in Persian. Note your source also says:

So Dari Persian was known, but its literature developed from the East in Sistan and then Khorasan. By the 10th century. So both the fact that Dari Persian was understood throughout Iran and by the 10th/11th century, it was the main form of expression in Iranian territories as a whole needs to be mentioned. Sure, Arabic was primarily culture vehicle in Western Iran until the 10th century or so, but by the time of Rumi, it was not so.

In the end, you can't remove sourced info and I have done an extensive study on Rumi's background, and have collected all the negatives and positives. Even if some countries want to cast doubt about his four roots (grandfather,grandmother on father/mother side)), ultimately, the fact is that he is a Persian through culture and heritage. That is what makes a person not DNA/genetics although Rumi himself has described Turkic racial features and they are all similar to Yaquts/Kazakhs rather than modern Anatolian Turkic-speakers.. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not happy with getting me unjustly banned once? I have proven to the ban admin adequately my identity, and it is not of the user I was banned for supposedly being, if you have a problem with that, please take it up with him as it is a personal attack on me to accuse me of being a user banned for grievous misconduct.

>>First you can’t remove Persian from Khorasan, greater Iran and Persian cultural sphere. These are sourced and are used by the scholar who wrote the most important biography on Rumi since Rumi. They are not sourced from just anyone, but the greatest biographer on Rumi and Professor of Persian literature in the University of Chicago.

This is your opinion and you are failing to take into account the background of the writer. As someone in a post-doc position I'd think you of all people should understand the need of critique and corroboration, and especially the examining of conditions in which certain language (in this case vocabulary) is used.

>> Also Rumi was not born under Khwarzmian Shahs, because the area Rumi was born, that is Wakhsh, came under Khwarizmshah in 1210. This was brought from Franklin. It is the opinion of all modern scholars on Rumi. Furthermore, his family fled to Samarqand which the Khwarizmshah took in 1212. So there is no point to mention Khwarizmshah until the place where Rumi’s family considered them devious and actually fled their rule.

I didn't put in my edit that he was, I wrote that it was uncertain as to where he was born, and gave the two most popular theories, their modern and contemporary places as well as the geographical regions. Calling Greater Khorasan (post-Islamic Khorasan) specifically 'Persian' is innacurate, as the borders of the Sassanid Khorasan province did not spread as far as the post-Islamic borders.

>> The fact that Iranshahr has been used by even Abu Rayhan Biruni, himself a native Iranian Chorasmian is sufficient to use greater Iran. Abu Rayhan considers Khorasan as part of Iranshahr. So that is both sources from primary sources as well as the fact that Rumi was not born under Khwarizmshah.

Again, I never said he was, I just said that one of the cities he was reported to have been born in was then a city of the Khwarezmian Empire, which is true.

>> 2) Of course his birthplace/native language indicates Persian heritage is based on Franklin who calls him Persian boy and Persian culture sphere. Elsewhere he also mentions that Rumi had Persian heritage and Iranian character, and this was not mentioned in a political brochure by a certain country (Turkey). Sultan Walad, Rumi's son, for example did not know Turkish/Greek well and he its admits several times.

What does he base these pre-suppositions on? What evidence is there that Rumi was a 'Persian' (that is, a descendent of people from Fars)? None.

Rumi’s opinion on Turks as a whole group is given by Aflaki:’’ There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks.

Who said anything about him being Turkish? If you think that using 'Turkic' before Khwarezmian implies that I am calling Rumi a Turk, that is far from it. It is being used for the purpose of people who have no knowledge on the area and it's history. Would you be more comfortable with 'Turco-Persian'? I didn't think this would be a problem as there were no problems about referring to the Seljuq Empire as Seljuqs.

>>Modern Persian by the 10th/11th century (before Rumi) was already present in western Iran. It is true that the Saffarids of Sistan (in modern Iran), then the subsequent Samanids and then subsequet dynasties gave it big boost in Khorasan, Transoxia and etc. This is mention by Gilbert Lazard. "Until this time literary activity in Persia had been confined to Eastern Iran. It began in such regions as Sistan, Khurasan, and Transoxia and penetrated gradually into western Iran. Toward the end of the 4th/10th century, several poets writing in Persian were to be found at the court of Qabus b. Vushmgir, amir of Gurgan, and in the entrouge of Sahib Ismail b. Abbad at Ray. It was not until the following century, however, that Persian literature was to become the main form of expression of the Iranian territories as a whole".

I've not disputed this at all, what was the point of bringing it up?

>>“The development of the new Persian was conditioned by two factors. One was the linguistic situation in eastern Iran just prior to the Arab conquest. In late Sassanian times, Parsi (Pahlavi) or Middle Persian was the official religious and literary language of the empire. Dari was the dialect version of this language spoken throughout much of Iran.”

This is my bad, in England it was 6am when I copied that out into notepad (while I was mistakenly banned)

>> No one claimed new Persian literature started developing in Fars. The language had its origin in Fars. This is mention by Gilbert Lazard. "Until this time literary activity in Persia had been confined to Eastern Iran. It began in such regions as Sistan, Khurasan, and Transoxia and penetrated gradullay into western Iran. Toward the end of the 4th/10th century, several poets writing in Persian were to be found at the court of Qabus b. Vushmgir, amir of Gurgan, and in the entrouge of Sahib Ismail b. Abbad at Ray. It was not until the following century, however, that Persian literature was to become the main form of expression of the Iranian territories as a whole". So already by the time of Rumi, it was the main form of expression in all Iranian lands. Note Avicenna in Hamadan already produced major works in Persian. Note your source also says:

So Dari Persian was known, but its literature developed from the East. By the 10th century. So both the fact that Dari Persian was understood throughout Iran and by the 10th/11th century, it was the main form of expression in Iranian territories as a whole needs to be mentioned.

Your wording made it seem like that, and I think that is hard to deny even for you. I am willing to accept however that this was not your intention. I think you have misinterpreted my remarks about the use of Arabic in West Persia; they refer specifically to the era that Dari Persian began to develop, I should have made this more clear--Mondo Libero (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

>> In the end, you can't remove sourced info and I have done an extensive study on Rumi's background, and have collected all the negatives and positives. Even if some countries want to cast doubt about his four roots (grandfather,grandmother on father/mother side)), ultimately, the fact is that he is a Persian through culture and heritage. That is what makes a person not DNA/genetics although Rumi himself has described Turkic racial features and they are all similar to Yaquts/Kazakhs rather than modern Anatolian Turkic-speakers..

I have not doubted Rumi's cultural heritage as Persian; in fact I fully agree! My gripe is that you are not making that distinction in the article, and it is very easy to misinterpret as calling him an ethnic Persian (from Fars), which culminates in the wars seen above.--Mondo Libero (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1) I will assume good faith. For me it was surprising to see a guy with Perfect English come along and talk about Rumi, since several day before, it was mentioned in a different page about "political state" and etc. It could have been a rare coincidence. Since these debates will help other users one day, fine. Again we need to source all documents and we can't remove reliable sources. Professor. Franklin Lewis by the way is not Iranian. Persian cultural sphere is sourced. That Rumi was born in Balkh is not upheld by modern scholars. The majority favor Wakhsh which was taken by Khwarizmshah at 1210 (after Rumi was born). That the Khwarizmshah controlled Balkh at the time and exact date Rumi was born is uncertain. The Khwarizmshah were entering Khorasan at the time Rumi was born. What is certain is the family did not like the Khwarizmshah, and they fled to Samarqand until the Khwarizmshah took it over in 1212. So the only certainty is that in 1212 is when the family came under the rule of Khwarizmshah. They fled to Samarqand from wakhsh in 1210, when Khwarizmshah took it over. Rumi and his students have lots of negetative feelings about them, which lends credance that the Khwarizmshah were considered invaders. Afterwards, they migrated from the domain of the Khwarizmshah, since they considered them devious and sought protection in Anatolia. C.E. Bosworth, "Turkish Expansion towards the west" in UNESCO HISTORY OF HUMANITY, Volume IV, titled "From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century", UNESCO Publishing / Routledge, p. 391: "While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as law, theology and science, the culture of the Seljuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in the early adoption of Persian epic names by the Seljuq Rulers (Qubad, Kay Khusraw and so on) and in the use of Persian as a literary language (Turkish must have been essentially a vehicle for every days speech at this time). The process of Persianization accelerated in the thirteenth century with the presence in Konya of two of the most distinguished refugees fleeing before the Mongols, Baha al-din Walad and his son Mawlana Jalal al-din Rumi, whose Mathnawi, composed in Konya, constitutes one of the crowing glories of classical Persian literature."

Also since that area was later controlled by Khwarizmshah, it does not mean much. It was also controlled by Seljuqs, Samanids, Ghurids, Ghaznavids , Sassanids and host of other. So the Khwarizmshah should not need to be mentioned with regards to when Rumi was born, since the area was probably under Ghurid rule in Balkh and/or was being contested at that exat time. Wakhsh though definitely was not under the rule of Khwarizmshah and this is the main place where scholars agree Rumi was born. We can mention Khwarizmshah when we discuss their attack on Samarqand and Rumi/Rumi's father negative views on them which was the reason they fled. Rumi’s family preferred the Saljuqs. Also there are lots of adjectives like Persianate Seljuqs or Khwarizmshahs and etc. But I am not using those adjectives. For example when I will describe the despise of Rumi’s family for the Khwarizmshahs, I am not going to put the adjectives either.

2) "Persian" does not mean descendant of people from Fars. That was 2500 years ago. I will assume good faith. Persian by the time of Rumi was spread throughout many other territories and anyone whose native language is a form of Persian is considered a Persian ethnically. That is one of the definitions of Persian. [3]. For example Abu Rayhan Biruni, in the 10th century, a native Chorasmian speaker (Iranian language but not standard Persian Dari) states: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree". Now Khwarizm was even more distant than Khorasan from Fars. Annemarie Schimmel: “Rumi’s mother tongue was Persian, but he had learned during his stay in Konya, enough Turkish and Greek to use it, now and then, in his verse”. Franklin:“How is it that a Persian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considered in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in Central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere, in which is now Turkey, some 1500 miles to the west?”(pg 9). There are many native Persians in Central Asia and they are called "Tajiks", they are not from Fars. In fact Wakhsh is Tajik. Balkh on the other hand is Uzbek and Tajik, but Uzbek history starts from the Mongol era. Persian culture/heritage also does not mean Rumi was 100% pure person from Fars province (if such a being exists). Middle/Dari Persian (Western Iranian language) replaced eastern Iranian dialects like Sogdian, Bactrian and etc. So by the time of say Samanids, who were natives of Balkh, Persian was their language. 3) Ultimately, one cannot remove sources that are written by scholars who know the field. That is specialist sources like Franklin which is the Rumi bible is key. 4) I agree emphasize the universality of Rumi. I will work on reducing nationalistic context (which I do not like for a poet such as Rumi), but I can not remove sourced information. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look back I actually changed what you asked after your clarifications on use (Persian cultural spheres, referring to Khwarezm as specifically Turkic which gave you the impression I was implying that Rumi was of Turkic culture). This is all radically different from the information on the page, and I think we should focus our efforts on improving the article instead of going back and forth. I apologize if I have come across as rude, I completely mistook your use of terminology and I understand your use of these terms now.

However, there are people who are not as civil as me! As you can see in discussion here before, not specifically stating how sensitive terms to this subject are used can result in chaos! While I am in pretty much total agreement in the way you are using this terms, I feel that the way you have explained them to me has to at least in some capacity be reflected in the article to avoid further misunderstandings like this!

Also, what do you think about my idea of minimizing the whole language bit? This is another very sensitive issue that flares up when misinterpreted so I really think it should be written as neutrally as possible, and I think that using both the modern term to refer to the language in that period of time and the contemporary name of the language should definitely help with this.

Apologizes for all the misunderstandings!--Mondo Libero (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also apologize for any misunderstanding. It was just about two days ago, someone mentioned Rumi in a dispute about geographical terminology. The point was that Iran/Khorasan as a geographic region were continously used even if there was no political state centered at modern iran. Other poets have used too, such as Nizami when addressing the Shirwanshah or the Seljuqids. It is just that some people think Iran as a geographical entity was first used in the Safavid era after the demise of Sassanids. This is not true, since geographical designation is not the same as political entity. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)