Talk:Rumi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This Article Lacks Valid Historical References / Requires Major Cleanup

I was directed by Google to this Wiki article on Rumi. It sounds more like a conspiracy theory than an article on a historical figure. Seems like certain contributors are hoping to change history by providing irrelevant, inaccurate, and unverifiable information on Wikipedia. Editors should be taking a neutral point of view in these articles and focus on facts backed up by historical references.

I find the language use in this article appauling. The article forces the reader to go through paragraphs on "New Persian Language" (which translates to "Dari" anyways) to find out what language Rumi's work is written in. Or paragraphs on some narrow point of view attempting to trace Rumi as a Tajik before getting to a one liner on the fact that he was born in Balkh (now Afghanistan). Of course, there should be a section on his life but please use historically verifiable sources.

I suggest filtering all the noise and highlight "Rumi the poet", not "Rumi the Persian poet", "Rumi the Tajik poet", "Rumi the Indian poet", or "Rumi the Chinese poet"!

Sincerely, WN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.142.4 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is sourced by the most relevant references (Encyclopedia of Islam, Franklin Lews, Ann Marry Schimmel). These are all well known Rumi scholars. Both Vakhsh and Balkh are sourced and mention. Leading scholars of Rumi Franklin and Schimmel are mentioned. If the information is inaccurate and unverifiable, then put a citation tag. Also, there are only two sentences about the New Persian language. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maulana is an Afghan

I inivite you to come and see his home school an village in Balkh province of Afghanistan to prove his an Afghan The language politics in the introduction clutter up the article and should be saved for the arguments in Persian and Dari Persian. Can't we keep it short and stay on topic with something like:

"His works were in Early New Persian, known then as Dari Persian" - This is both historically accurate, neutral and does not negate the influence of the post-Islamic conquest development of Dari Persian in Khorasan and Transoxiana.

Having the article sound like the language that Rumi used to write owed nothing to do with the revival in Khorasan and Transoxiana after it fell out of use in the formerly more powerful West Persia (though I know this is not what you are saying, this is just what it sounds like), is bound to be seen as Iranian chauvinism and cause problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondo Libero (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We should mention the revival of Persian literature in Sistan, Khorasan (Eastern current Iran) and Transoxiana. I agree some changes need to be made, but we should mention it was the predominant literary language of all of Iran by the 10th/11th century, although it was understood by people beforehand. I don't think One and half short sentence will hurt. (Origin in Fars but understood, its literature started reviliatized in Eastern Iran, Transoxia, became predominant literary languagage). We can probably fit it all in one sentence. Since Rumi's work is one of the seven most important work, and since many people in the West are interested in Rumi, writing a sentence about the language of his work (which many people do not know about) is useful information. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll use this post to reply as the other one is getting a bit long! Here is a draft:

"Rumi's works were composed in Early Modern Persian, (then known as Dari Persian), which has it's linguistic origins in the Fars Province of modern-day Iran. After Pahlavi Persian died out in West Persia due to Arabization following the Muslim Conquests, the Persian cultural center moved to Khorasan and Transoxiana, where Persian literary culture was revived in the form of Dari during the 9th century. In the 9th and 10th centuries, Dari spread to West Persia and by the 11th century became a predominant literary language in the Islamic world.

I think we should leave the exact defining of these regions to their respective articles, but with Khorasan a link to the post-Islamic 'Greater Khorasan' should be used--Mondo Libero (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would change it slightly to make it shorter even: "I would change it slightly to make it briefer:

“Rumi's works were composed in new Persian (Dari-Persian), a widely understood vernacular of Middle Persian, which had its origin in Fars province in Iran. The New Persian literary reinassaince(8th/9th century) started in areas of Eastern Iran and Central Asia, and by the 10th/11th century, it overtook Arabic and Middle Persian (mainly used by Zoroastrians) as the literary and cultural language of Western Iran.” --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I would add a few words here and there:

“Rumi's works were composed in Early New Persian(1) (Dari-Persian), a widely understood vernacular of Middle Persian, which had its linguistic(2) origin in the Fars Province of modern Iran(3). The New Persian literary renaissance (In the 8th/9th century) started in areas of Khorasan and Transoxiana(4), due to the Arabization of West Persia(5), and by the 10th/11th century, it overtook Arabic(6) as the literary and cultural language in the Persian Islamic world.(7)

(1)'New Persian' rings bells in many peoples heads which refer primarily to the Iranian-Tehrani dialect, which is odd when put next to the historical term 'Dari Persian' in brackets

(2)I think that is the linguistic origin needs to be expressed as using just 'origin' can easily be misinterpreted

(3)If 'Iran' and 'Province' are going to be used in an English article I think the specification of modern Iran (as there is talk in the article of Greater Iran) needs to be pointed out to avoid the ambiguity, or alternatively, 'Iran' and 'Province' can be changed with 'Persia' and 'Region'

(4)Consistency in terms used; it can be confusing for a reader who does not know these intricacies with the switching between different terms

(5)I think that it is important to give some context for people who may not be knowledgeable on the Arab Conquests

(6)Arabic was definitely the clear literary and cultural language of West Persia at this point and the only real challenge for Dari to overcome

(7)I think this gives the achievement the credit that is deserved and emphasizes that culturally Persian regions were now all linked by a common language.

Here is a draft for the introduction of the article I'm working on. I am trying to streamline it while keeping all the current sources in there, paraphrasing and playing with words to make the tone of the article more neutral while trying to emphasize the points we talked about and creating a better flow, there are some notes at the end:

Modern scholars now believe that Rumi was probably born in 1207 CE in Wakhsh (In modern day Tajikistan), while traditional sources claim he was born in Balkh (In modern day Afghanistan, then in the Turco-Persian Khwarezm Empire). Both these cities were at the time included in the Greater Persian cultural sphere of Khorasan and Transoxiana. His possible birthplaces and native tongue both indicate a cultural Persian heritage. Following the Mongol invasions of Central Asia, Rumi travelled west with his family and eventually settled in Konya (In modern day Turkey, then in the Seljuq Empire), where he lived most of his life and composed his most famous works. His works were composed in Early New Persian (Dari Persian), a widely understood vernacular of Middle Persian, which had its linguistic origin in the Fars Province of modern Iran. A Dari literary renaissance (In the 8th/9th century) started in regions of Khorasan and Transoxiana, fueled by the Arabization of West Persia. By the 10th/11th century, it overtook Arabic as the literary and cultural language in the Persian Islamic world. Rumi died in 1273 CE in Konya and was buried in what is now known as the Mevlana Museum. Following his death, his followers founded the Mevlevi Order, also known as the Whirling Dervishes, who are known for their famous ceremony called the sema.

Rumi's original works are widely read by Iranians, Afghans and Tajiks, with translations of his works very popular in Turkic, South Asian, Arab and Western countries. The influence of his poetry can be seen even today in Persian, Urdu, Bengali and Turkish literatures, and with his growing exposure in the West he was named "The most popular poet in America" by BBC News.

• Shown the difference as to modern and traditional views of his birth place, emphasizing Wakhsh
• Emphasized the Persian culture of the Khwarezm Empire so people don't mistake the empires regions as being culturally Turkic
• Paraphrased your quote about Khorasan as a region of Greater Iran, using 'Greater Persia'. I think we can get away with this as the translation of اران بزرگ into English is now accepted as both Greater Persia or Greater Iran. I think that the use of Greater Persia will draw less complaints as it is viewed as quite an inclusive term.
• As the boundaries between Transoxiana and Khorasan differ from source to source, I think it is good to use both as it is possible for Wakhsh to be included in Transoxiana, and the use of a region that generally not related with modern Iran will help add to the neutrality of the article.
• Structured the introduction more chronologically, but I've tried not to explain things that require more detail that are described in the 'Life' section
• Added a brief history of the post-Islamic conquest development of Dari Persian, acknowledging the linguistic roots in Fars. Instead of saying it was just a prominent literary language of Greater Persia by the 11th century, I have used 'The Islamic World', I think this does more justice to just how much was achieved.
• Concluded the chronological introduction of Rumi's life and said a bit on the Whirling Dervishes.
• Given readers a glimpse of Rumi's impact and modern popularity, which can possibly be expanded on in separate section of the article.
• I haven't put in all the sources from the old article just yet cause then it would be a pain to read and edit in this box, but I think it would be quite easy to re-align the current sources used in a rephrased version of the introduction. I'd love to hear your thoughts and see any revisions you might have to this idea

I like your proposal. Let me study it and I'll get back to you. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use good Sources

Turkey is a country that is founded on the supremacy of Turkish race and language. Mustafa Kamal, the founder of modern Turkey promoted, propagated and encouraged the theory of Sun language which said that all languages of the world is derived from Turkish (please search in yahoo and you will see for yourself).

That did not stop there recently under the auspices of Turkish embassy in the US, Turkish academics and a few misinformed Americans organized a seminar about the Turkishness of the original inhabitants of North America, the Red Indians.

To prove this bizarre theory one of the academics cited shared vocabulary between the two, and quoted Atash is being a Turkish word for fire, which apparently is also a word for fire in Red Indian languages.

But anyone with little knowledge of Persian knows that Atash is a pure Persian word, but as we Kurds have learned much to the detriment of our culture, heritage and language, the Turks don’t stop at that, and I give you an example.

I was visiting a friend who worked in a scholarly bookshop in London that specializes in Arabic language books, when a Turkish man came up to us and asked a bout a book that says Muhammad the Prophet of Islam is a Turk !!!

The ultra nationalistic notions which sadly nearly every Turk seem to have been ingrained in their psyche by Mustafa Kamal, have deluded them into believing that all things and living beings are Turkish.

It also made Turks less knowledged about the history of the world and gave them very ostentatious and extravagant ideas about themselves that really don’t fit the reality and does not correspond to their modest contribution to human civilization and history.

Another good example of that is the way they treated Greek civilization and its contribution to every strand of human knowledge which is never mentioned in children text books in Turkey.

What Mawlana has described about the manners and roughness and intolerance of Turks, to prove this ask any Kurd in North Kurdistan, (East and Southeast of Anatolia) about how brutal Turkey has been with one of the original inhabitant of this region.

For the past 80 years Turkey, with all instruments of the state have brutally suppressed any manifestation of Kurdish culture and language.

The one striking example of this is the way Turkey dealt with the rising Kurdish struggle to achieve their just rights, is when Turkey during the rein of Tansu Ciller suddenly embraced Newroz (the Kurdish and Persian New Year) and declared it to be a Turkish celebration, which prior to that date 1996 Turks only knew that Kurds celebrate Newroz.

To state otherwise or to say that Turkey has un-banned Kurdish language and allowed Kurdish to be taught is complete and utter lie, just say the word Kurdistan in Turkey and see the reaction of the Turks.

On the background of Rumi, we should use scholars that have studied Rumi: Franklin and Schimmel. That is Wikipedia policy on WP:OR where it states that scholars and experts in the field should be used. Since the two books by Franklin and Schimmel are biographies on Rumi, they should be used. That is books that are not written by experts on Rumi are not to be used in the article.

That is a very good point and thanks for your comment. I would also add: WP:Attribution and the attribution Faq: [[1]]. It says: "Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology.". So those two scholars Franklin and Schimmel who have written basically the only biographies on Rumi are sufficient. Of course Rumi's son himself Sultan Walad says he does not know Turkish/Greek well (he says it three times) which means the family was Persian. His son has about 300 verses in Greek and Turkish and about 30000+ in Persian. Franklin also has noted this: "Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(pg 239) “Sultan Valad did not feel confident about his command of Turkish”.

Sultan Walad admits to his poor knowledge of Greek and Turkish(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000. pg 239:”Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish).

For example in his Ebteda-Nama, Sultan Walad admits twice in Persian after some of the lines in Greek/Turkish(Masnavi-ye Waladi, Ensha’e Baha’ al-Din b. Mawlana Jalal al-Din Muhammad b. Hussayn-e Balkhi, Manshur beh Mowlavi, ed. Jajal al-Din oma’I (Tehran: Eqbal, 1316/1937)):

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. And also elsewhere in Ghazal in his Diwan, he writes:: If I knew Turkish, I would have brought one to a thousand. But when you listen to Persian, I tell the secrets much better(Sultan Walad, ”Mowlavi-ye Digar:Shamel-e Ghazzaliyat, Qasayed, Qete’at, Tarkibat, Ash’ar-eTorki, Ashar-e Arabi, Mosammat, Robbi’yyat” Tehran, Sana’i, 1984. pg 556: ترکچه اگر بیلیدم بر سروزی بک ایدیدم طتچه اگر دیلرسز گویم اسرار علا).

He also says: If I had known Turkish, I would have told you, the secrets that God had imparted on Me(Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, "Early Mystics in Turkish Literature", Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff, Routledge, 2006, pg 253_). According to Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, the Turkish poems are: Written in a very crude and primitive manner and with a very defective and rudimentary versification replete with zihaf (pronouncing long vowels short} and imalā (pronouncing a short vowel long). Also according to Mehmed Fuad Koprulu: Sultan Walad’s motivation in writing Turkish poetry, just as it was with composing and reciting Persian poetry, was to raise the religious consciousness of the people of Anatolia, to guide them and instill in them a sense of the greatness of Mawlana and The fact he occasionally resorted to Turkish derives from his fear that a large majority who did not undesrand Persian, would be deprived of these teaching.

So given the self-admitted fact that Rumi's son did not Greek/Turkish well, then Rumi and his family is obviously not Greek/Turkish. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people are "intentionally" deleting everything related "Seljuq Turkish Empire" and "Turkish Heritage" in this article

Some people here are "intentionally" deleting everything related to Turkish/ Seljuq Turkish culture from this article...They are constantly refering "Sultanate of Rum", Could you please tell me "what is Sultanate of Rum?" It's correct and full name is "The Seljuq Turkish Sultanate of Rum/Anatolia". Rumi lived and produced his work under the "Seljuq TURKISH Sultanate of Rum/Anatolia". This makes him a "Seljuq Turkish" poet/philosopher...or, "Persian-descendant Seljuq Turkish" or "Persian-Turkish". Let's think about the following example: Think of a Japanese family who migrated to USA and their child became a famous writer/poet...People would refer him as "American writer/poet" or "Japanese-American writer/poet" or "Japanese descendant-American writer/poet"...Hence, you cannot simply "try" to delete all the keywords including "Turkish" and "Seljuq" from the article...I know that you will now say "Oh, then why he wrote most of his work in Persian, not in Turkish?" The answer is that simple: "Because Persian was the "lingua franca" of the Seljuq Turkish Empire...This is because in the Empire, Turkish people had conquered all those lands but the Turkish people were the "governing class" and some of the people living in those lands were not knowing/speaking "Turkish"; hence instead of forcing them to change their language, they were "tolerable" enough to let their language be continue/survive in the Empire...In the European history there are many non-ethnically German authors, or philosophers who had written their works in German since in their period it was the "lingua franca" of their field...Does this make them "German"? Or, most of the science papers were published/written in Latin, does this makes their authors "Latin/Roman" ? No.

I simple cannot comprehend what is wrong with refering to Konya as a "Turkish" city? People are even deleting this and writing "Anatolia" instead. Anyways, I have no time to waste in this issue. It is just "wrong" to try to remove/delete every keyword which has "Turkish" in it...

Mevlana Celaleddin-i Rumi was a Seljuq poet/philosopher who had lived most of his life in Seljuq TURKISH Empire, in the city Konya under the Seljuq TURKISH Sultanate of Rum. And Since, TURKISH people have founded OTTOMAN Empire and now the Modern Republic of TURKEY after the Seljuq TURKISH Empire, his tomb is in now Republic of TURKEY. TURKEY welcomes everyone to come and visit the tomb of this amazing poet and philosopher Mevlana Celaleddin-i Rumi. Konya had "never" been a Persian city during and after Rumi's lifetime. It has been always a Turkish city during and after his lifetime. And it will always be a Turkish city forever. Hence Rumi's tomb will be always located in a TURKISH country, and Turkish people welcomes everyone to come and visit it. Thank you...

-Nathan

--nathanca (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi you are converting modern nationality to the distance past. The Seljuqs called their empire Rum not Turkey. At least that was the name of their land. Konya at that time would be a city of Rum under the Seljuqids of Rum (ethnically Turks but culturally Persianate). Besides Seljuq was not some sort of citizenship(Seljuqian?) for Rumi to become a Seljuqian poet/philosopher. So if anything, Rumi has taken the name Rumi (Greek) because the land was called Rum (Greece) and not Turkey or Seljuqi at that time. Also your argument would not be valid based on the fact that if a Greek poet writes in Greek under the Seljuqs, then it would mean he was a Seljuq writer. That doesn't make sense since Seljuqs were the family of ruling class and Rumi was not a Seljuq. The Seljuq empire are mentioned throughout the article.

But culturally the Seljuqs were culturally more Persians than Turkish but ethnically they were Turkish in the fatherline although heavily mixed with many other groups (many married even Christian princesses). Note the Seljuqs were enemies of Qaramanlu who wanted to excise Persian from the court and were of Turkomen origin. Where-as the Seljuqs of Rum, I believe if we take the words of Rumi's son, did not have any sort of ethnic Turkish feeling. For example Rumi's son praises the Seljuq Ruler Sultan Masud for putting the revolts of "Turks" down and dispersing the "Turks", by which he means the Qaramanlu rebellion. What is necessary about the Seljuqs is already explained in the Seljuq article. So to put adjectives like Turkish Seljuq empire or Persianate-cultured Turkish Seljuq empire is probably not necessary.

Also as explained above, Rumi's son admits not knowing Turkish well. Also Rumi not only wrote in Persian, but he also preached in Persian (see his 7 collected sermons). That is why he was giving Friday Khutba (which is not poetry but every day conversation) in Persian, his students recorded it and it is in Persian, which shows it was common language between him and his students. Note his discourses (Fihi Ma Fihi) which were also recorded by his students, again in Persian because it was the language he was conversing with his students. So he did not just write in Persian but spoke everyday Persian to his students. Where-as there are verses by his son admitting his poor knowledge of Greek/Turkish (which I agree were the main languages alongside Armenian, but Greek was probably the predominant one and Muslims were a minority in Anatolia at the time of Rumi).

And Persian was widespread as Rumi's son says: فارسی گو که جمله دریابند گرچه زین غافلاند و در خوابند "Farsi goo keh jomleh daryaaband"(Say in Persian so everyone can understand) and Rumi mentions this too when he switches from several Arabic verses to Persian in a single poem: اخلائی اخلائی زبان پارسی گویم که نبود شرط در حلقه شکر خوردن بتنهائی

Yes Rumi's tomb is in Turkey but it does not mean Konya at that time was a "Turkish" city. There was large number of immigrants from Khorasans and besides Turkomens, there were Christians (Armenians, Greeks), Kurds and Jews and etc. Note Rumi's biggest praise and influence was for Sanai and Attar and also it shows that he read the Shahnameh as he mentions Esfandyar, Rostam and etc. and even praises them on the same line as the fourth Caliph. Please see the above post on Sultan Walad.

If you can have such a claim: "::Yes Rumi's tomb is in Turkey but it does not mean Konya at that time was a "Turkish" city. There was large number of immigrants from Khorasans and besides Turkomens, there were Christians (Armenians, Greeks), Kurds and Jews and etc." One can also safely and in the same manner claim that "Tehran was and have never been a "Persian" city...Or, Iran/Persia have never been a "Persian" country since there were and have been Jews,Christians, Assyrians,Kurds, Arabs, Azeris, Turkomans... So, it was not only Persians who lived there....Hence Tehran has never been a "Persian" City& Iran has never been a "Persian" country" See, it is such an ill-posed argument...Anyways, you can claim or say whatever you want and believe in your "manufactured" so-called "facts"/"History"

Hi the problem is not a math problem to be well-posed or ill-posed. Persian has several meanings: geographic, ethnicity, language and etc. So you are partially right, Tehran is not exclusively a Persian city, but Persian predominates as the main language. But Tehran is a multi-cultural city and that is a strong point of it. On Konya, my hunch would be Greek and Turkish both were present, but Persian was also there since Rumi not only wrote but spoke in Persian to his followers and they have recorded his sermons and discources (see his non-poetry works). So I never said "Konya was never a Turkish city", I said that at that time, the geographical designation : Turkey was not used. Konya was a city under the Seljuqs of Rum (Turks who to a large extent adopted Persianate culutre), but to use a modern geographic designation "Turkey" when it did not exist back then is not factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.149.56 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article talks about his Persian origin

Hi,

I am curious. The article talks about his Persian heritage. As far as I know, he was of Turkish origin

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.153.83 (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Then read the sources and talkpage. --24.168.149.56 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

dear friend mawlena himself prove this idea in his poets that he was a persian and he was proud of it and also the people who impressed him a lot were persian such az ATTAR and SHAMSE TABRIZI he just migrate to yurkey because of the attack of monguls. so hi was not a turkish at all.AIDA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.15.34.212 (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He was born in Balkh and that makes him an Afghan (or a Khorasani or Khwarazmi) like many other great Sufis. Rolec Dubbing (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To remove the contentious issue which has been an edit war as long as I can remember, I have replaced the "country" of his birth and death with their time-appropriate names, leaving the modern locations in brackets when appropriate. Please, let's move on from this issue. Naming the place of his birth as one country or another is totally anachronistic. Talk about his cultural issues and values elsewhere, not in edit wars. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally support the above. This edit war has been dragging on for quite a while. Even discussing it has proved futile as each side has a fixed argument (born in modern Afgahanistan, part of a Persian based dynasty at that time, died in modern Turkey.) Its not helpful to just keep repeating the same pattern again and again. We should just use time-appropriate names as that probably is the best solution.--Shahab (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think that if we remove the historical places, people will just start edit warring again. Let's leave the names of the historical empires in which he was born and died and leave the sparring in the text. It might seem overkill, but based on the relentless and often brutal war of words on this talk page, I think we're best served making a firm decision. Even when it's seemingly silly. :-) ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 07:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Khwarezm Shahs were rulers of Persia, so it might be better to just say "Balkh, Persia." Even better, why don't we say something similar to this version? Khoikhoi 08:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's going to just set off edit wars. In fact, that's exactly why people come and then change it to Turkey or Iran and then swap it out. It's factual and accurate; leave the clarifications (modern Iran, modern Turkey) in the text (there's an entire section devoted to the issue). ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well all I can say is that I hope this version stays, and someone doesn't change it back. Khoikhoi 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

so he prefers persian(due to widespread use of persian) when talks/writes, does it mean he is persian? i am also trying to write here in english so people can understand my point, does it mean i am an englishman or american? please add your source before you claim nonsense.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.236.54.14 (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

mevlana

Mevlana is not Persian.He is a Turkish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasaleyte (talk • contribs) 12:02, March 30, 2008 (UTC)

His mother tongue was Persian. 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. That is Rumi's family spoke Persian and that is why his own son three time mentions he does not know Turkish/Greek well, despite living in Anatolia. Thus the spoken language of the family was Persian. Rumi's Jum'a (friday prayers) sermons are also in Persian even in Anatolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.149.56 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

you are all wrong. mevlana was anglo-american. and konya was a japanese city. feel free to rewrite the history --81.210.156.129 (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (romulus)

Some people cannot stand facts! logic! = whoever dies in Konya is Turkish doesn't matter where he was from.... . Darius II —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.139.220.61 (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Migod, can we not just please take the drama out of this page and agree to write something other than TURK/PERSIAN. How about "of Persian origin" who resided in Saljuuqi Anatolia? There has to be some kind of intermediate form. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

article needs major clarification: Rumi's relationship to whirling dervishes and their origins

The article is inconsistent with regard to whether Rumi, his son, or another source is responsible for the origins of whirling dervishes.

Early on, it states that his son and followers started the group after Rumi's death. Midway through, it states that he met whirling dervishes during his lifetime. Later, it maintains that Rumi founded the dervishes.

These are fairly major inconsistencies, since all three cannot be true. It must be clarified and made consistent throughout. Cesca1910 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First, we must define the terms "Whirling Dervishes" This is an epithet given to the Mevlevi sufis by the British, because of their whirling prayer practice. Dervishes (sufis) that whirl existed before Rumi. The "Whirling Dervishes" as in Mevlevi Sufis were nominally founded by Rumi and formalized by his son Sultan Walad. The Whirling Prayer (Sema) that we see today was not formalized until the leadership Pir Adel Celebi II (D 1422) Depending on your perspective the "Whirling Dervishes" could be considered to have been founded by: Rumi; Sultan Walad; Pir Adel Chelebi II, or the British.Dharps (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunni

Hazrat Rumi was Sunni Scholar and there is not at all Doubt regarding it.The Person who is editing Otherwise in this regard must Stop.Shabiha ^(t) 10:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I have added Info based on Neutral sources and references that he is Sunni.Now reverting it is just NON Neutral.Shabiha ^(t) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir, there is a great deal of doubt regarding it, your biased claims notwithstanding. The sources you provided do not prove that Rumi was Sunni, not in the least. Indeed, one of them never even mentions the word Sunni. Please stop changing the article to reflect your POV. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are Numerous claims citing him as Popular Sufi and founder of Mevlevi Order Such as It was from these Sufi thoughts that the Mevlevi Sufi Order of the Whirling Dervishes came into being which became as one branch of the vast Sufi traditions of Islam. This Popular Sunni Sufi Order not Shia Order.The Orders are recognized by Founders himself.MoreOver I could not found a Single Neutral source claiming him as Shia but on the Other hand his Sufi Lineage and order are directly Proving it See Mevlevi Order.Nowhere it Claims that he belong to Shia branch.Commonly it is written with Sufis that he was a Sufi only but As shias are less in numbers among Muslims so Special Mentioning is found everwhere if Person belong to shia school.

• Also Check this Earlier discussion Where Not Even a Single source could Confirm that he was a Shia but Majority agreed on him that he was Sunni. They Only dicussed that his Poetry was nfluenced by Shiite.So it must be Clear to You Now that Hazrat RUMI was NOT AT ALL A SHIA .

It is not my POV but just your POV which is not accepting NPOV.Please come here with sources if You dont have in support of Your shiite then stay away Inserting shiite.Shabiha ^(t) 07:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You should provide neutral source that state that Rumi was Sunni, or his infobox will stay as it is. Nasrulana (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See this site stating that Rumi was as hanafi: http://mystics.infomideast.com/page2.html If you want I can provide other sources as well. But I think that reference to both Sunni and Shia should be removed as Rumi really did not belong to any orthodox school, rather he charted his own course. A quotation of his comes to mind: As to my homeland it is not Khurasan, nor any other place in the East or the West, and as to my creed I am neither a Jew, nor a Zoroastrian, not even a Muslim as this term is generally understood.(Rumi)--Shahab (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I Support total removing of any School of Muslims If there are not Substantial evidences and Neutral Proofs to Suggest that he was a Shia.

Please say some thing on this Issue.Shabiha ^(t) 14:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is another references to Rumi being Sunni: Shiʻism: Doctrines, Thought, and Spirituality By Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr; Page 7. That said I want to clarify a point. It is highly probable that Rumi had a Sunni heritage, his father was a Khalifa of the Kubrawi order, which is related to the Suhrawadi, a clearly Sunni order(Also see Arberry's Discourses of Rumi). But certain writings of Rumi have tended to give a Shiite impression to some scholars and it is also said that names of the Twelvers are inscribed on his mausoleum in Konya (although this must be seen in the background of religious tolerance between Shiite and Sunni sufis existing at that time). The point however is that the real genius of Rumi lies in his living in the experience of God and in potraying it though his all embracing poetry . This is the only unnamed school to which he really belongs. My suggestion, as I said before, is to remove the reference to Shiite in schools of thought and not replace it with anything. If anyone has an objection please reply.--Shahab (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

thanx shahab for sources now I agree with u. I am replacing it accordingly.Shabiha ^(t) 22:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a quote, or more clear citation from Seyyed Hossein Nasr as to Rumi not being Shi'a. Nasr is a reliable source, unlike the webpages cited and quoted above. Thank you, Shahab. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. You can see a limited preview of the book Shiʻism: Doctrines, Thought, and Spirituality on books.google.com. See page 7. Also see the Introduction to Discourses on Rumi by Arberry. If that doesn't satisfy you then you are indeed hard to please.--Shahab (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how you people cant put yourself in the position to decide if he was Sunni or Shi'a, Mowlana was a free man he never associated himself with any sect,he was far beyond these ideas. "Conventional opinion is the ruin of our souls."-Rumi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir mousavi (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Universality

The quotations indicating that Rumi was a follower of the way of the Prophet are misplaced. They more properly belong in the Rumi and orthodox Islam section (where the issue already has quotations supporting it). This section is about the philosophical universalim of Rumi which is meant to show how Rumi's poetry embraces all humanity. I fail to see what the object of merging the contents of the two sections is, unless it be in reinforcing that Rumi was a devout Muslim, which is already covered in the latter section. This gives an indication of pushing an idea repeatedly.--Shahab (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one wants to discuss this I will go ahead and remove the quotations. Moreover I think that even in the orthodox Islam section instead of overloading it with quotations we should introduce secondary sources. Direct quotations are primary sources which are open to interpretation and should be backed up by secondary sources as per wikipedia policy. (Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.)--Shahab (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

This article has way too many external links. Per WP:EL, "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." I think that only the helpful/useful external links should be kept -- all others should be deleted. Khoikhoi 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mevlevi Order

I read somewhere that the Mevlevi order did not come about until one hundred years after the death of Maulana. This makes it impossible for Sultan Walad to have founded it, instead it is traced to a younger grandson. Also I read that the Mevlevi are a stray, illegitimate and/or deteriorated form of Sufism with no connection to the authentic tradition that Rumi was a part of. If anyone is interested I could dig up the references.

Nov 10 2008 Yes, please cite the reference. You are mistaken. Husamuddin Celebi was assigned leadership by Mevlana and took over when Mevlana Died. Sultan Walad assumed leadership when Husammaddin passed, shaping a more formal order. This is not in dispute by scholars or the International Mevlana foundation. Perhaps you are thinking of the formalization of Sema by Pir Adel Chelebi II (d 1422). As for the Mevlevi Order presently being "stray": The traditional "Order" is strong if small, although there are organizations calling themselves "Mevlevi" with no affiliation with the Order as it exists under the leadership of the family of Mevlana.Dharps (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Rolec Dubbing (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people think that at the time this world famous poet was born, the word and the nation of Iran did not exist, but this is a false opinion because the name Iran has been the name of the country in 3000 years.Its one of the oldest country names still in use.But the westen name of Iran until 1935 was Persia then the western world governments decided to call the country by its native name (Iran) which has been used by Iranians since 3000 years ago. So this great poet dont predate Iran and at the time he was born the countrys name was Iran.

Persia and Iran, Persian and Iranian are synonyms but i decided to change the term persian to iranian.

Please cite your sources. Khoikhoi 20:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Iranian

Cilbup, you can't just delete sources, see WP:V. If you want to say that he was Iranian, cite reliable sources of your own. Also see WP:3RR. Khoikhoi 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) We go with what the sources say here, as everywhere. If there are quality sources claiming that Rumi was Iranian, then the article should say he was Iranian. If, as is currently the case, the sources of the article say that he was Persian, then the article should say that he was Persian. I personally prefer Persian in any event, since the term Iranian is at the same time ambiguous and imprecise. It may mean "citizen of present-day Iran" or "inhabitant of the region currently known as Iran". The term Iranic peoples is sometimes used to avoid this confusion, but probably should give way to the correct and more precise term "Persian". siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, we also go by consensus... which is that the use of "Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey" and other modern-day terminology provokes edit wars. This is why his places of birth and death are listed the way they are. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To : emily zilch or nahed sarvy, read this lined very good u seem to be very ignorang of irans history

You are not iranian and you dont know the least about the history of iran, the word and the nation of iran has existed since 3000 years ago, thats why in shahnameh, the national epic of iran, which is writen 1100 years ago the name iran is mentioned more than 1500 times, and you say rumi or mowlana predates iran and he livd before iran? rumi lived 800 years ago, iran and the name iran has existed for 3000 years. but the western name of iran until 1935 was persia until western world decided to call the country by its native name WHICH HAS BEEN USED BY IRANIANS FOR 3000 YEARS.Do u understand NOW???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilbup (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RUMI OR MOWLANA WAS IRANIAN AND BELONGS TO IRAN, AND YOU ARE SAYING HE LIVED BEFORE IRAN AND HE WAS NOT IRANIAN, HAHAHA, YOU ARE AN IGNORANT OF THE HISTORY OF IRAN

To : emily zilch or nahed sarvy

Search for shahnameh on the net, shahnameh is the national epic of Iran, it was writen for 1100 years ago, in this epic the word iran is mentioned 1500 times to refer to the country.Why did you say mowlana or rumi was not iranian and why did u say he lived before iran? u should learn more about the history of iran.but Now u know that iran as a name and as a nation has existed for 3000 year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilbup (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

show me the references of this paragraph ?

"It was his meeting with the dervish Shams-e Tabrizi on 15 November 1244 that completely changed Rumi's life. Shams had traveled throughout the Middle East searching and praying for someone who could "endure my company". A voice said to him, "What will you give in return?" Shams replied, "My head!" The voice then said, "The one you seek is Jalal ud-Din of Konya." On the night of 5 December 1248, as Rumi and Shams were talking, Shams was called to the back door. He went out, never to be seen again. It is believed that Shams was murdered with the connivance of Rumi's son, 'Ala' ud-Din; if so, Shams indeed gave his head for the privilege of mystical friendship." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ompj (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Come, Come........

The poem beginning in English "Come, Come whoever you are..." is not a poem by Mevlana Rumi. As such it should be stricken from the WikiPedia Rumi page. See an interview with Sefik Can Efendi the great Mathnawi scholar of the Mevlevi http://www.semazen.net/eng/roportaj_detay.php?id=46 which reads: Q: Sir, is the quatrain (rubai) "Come! Come again! Whoever, whatever you may be, come!" understood by contemporary people, right? A: This quatrain does not belong to Mevlana, and this is already known by everyone. The library official at the dergah, the Mevlevi dervish lodge, the late Necati Bey, had seen this quatrain written in old calligraphy on a sheet. Without searching for the its origin, he spread the rumor everywhere that it was a Mevlana quatrain. Whereas, this quatrain is introduced as belonging to someone else in an anthology called "Harabat," that was prepared by Ziya Pasha. I saw that in another handwritten quatrain as well; nevertheless, because Mevlana has many quatrains like this one, and even some more enthusiastic ones, it might also be accepted as a Mevlana quatrain. This is not very important. The main problem is about those who are unaware of the spirit of this quatrain and take it on the surface, in addition to those who created this situation.

Or see http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/corrections_popular.html 84. Nevit Ergin (translated from Golpinarli's Turkish translation), "Crazy As We Are," 1992, p. 1. Comment: This is one of the most frequently quoted poems attributed to Rumi, but is not authenticated as his (and it is also not in the earliest manuscripts of the quatrains attributed to him). It is found in the same form in the quatrains of Bâbâ Afzaluddîn Kâshânî (died 1274-- Rumi died 1273) and is related to a similar quatrain attributed to Abu Sa`îd ibn Abi 'l-Khayr, died 1048 (see "Nobody, Son of Nobody: Poems of Shaikh Abu-Saeed Abil-Kheir," renditions by Vraje Abramian, 2001, p. 4, c). It is one among the most frequently quoted poems by Turkish Mevlevis (the "Whirling Dervishes") themselves (who have long assumed it to be a Rumi poem), from a Turkish translation of the original Persian.Dharps (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is way too long. Some information could/should be moved into other sections. Tājik (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Prose works of Rumi

These should be elaborated on, since they are very important in understanding Rumi's philosophy. Of course he is known primarily for his poetry but still the prose works are highly elegant. The Fihi ma Fih is a work recorded by his students when Rumi was giving lectures. --GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).-Shahab (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maulana jalaledin mohamad Balkhi is an Afghan

maulana was born in balkh province of Afghanistan and it,s a fact. please don,t waste your time to say he,s an Iranian poet or a Turkey!it,s very clear that we deal with a enormous cultural invasion so Iran and turkey wants to use these situations of Afghanistan to prove their benefits but who love Maulana and his poems must say or write that. Maulana one of the greatest poets of the world was born in balkh province of Afghanistan. thise sentences will end the claims of Iranian and turkish and all people around the world .hosinmokhtary@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosinmokhtary (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was born in contemporary Afghanistan, we note that in the introduction. The nations known as Afghanistan, Iran, and so forth are (relatively) new nations. Both Afghanistan, Iran, and other nations, share their heritage in the Persian empire and culture. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PI, but I think the user meant something different. Going by the historical meaning of the word "Afghan", Mowlana was - of course - not an Afghan. See Afghan for more information. Afghanistan as a modern nation was created in 1919, 700 years after Mowlana. Tajik (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maulana is born in Balkh which is a province of Afghnistan. Please edit the parts where it is being claimed that he is an Iranian. Yosuf-Haydary 04april2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosuf-haydary (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It never states even once that he is Iranian from what I can see. It states he is Persian: Tajiks for example are considered Persian. The modern states of Afghanistan and Iran did not exist at this time, so we must base this on ethnic or linguistic definitions. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How ironic!!!!!, this debate is contrary to the very teachings of Rumi, why do we need to associate him where he came from or where died, his words are what is most important and everything else is not relevant,,,,,afghan,,,iranian or turkish, does not matter,,,,,,Saalim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.112.88 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way Pashtun Ismailiyya, Iran as a country did exist back then, but of course its borders have changed over time. Balkh was part of the Iranian nation back then and would have been no different to a person from Shiraz or Esfahan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from such useless troll-like pointers, if there's an official claim against his 'citizenship', it should be quoted with solid references rather than expressing your own point-of-view. Thanks.hameed (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana is a Turk. He has Turk culture. He lived in Konya and died in Konya.He isnt İranian or Afgan.We think.. Mevlana is Turk. Because Mevlana's grandmother is turkish princes of Harzemşah family. her name's Melika-i Cihan Emetullah SultanBABP (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on! Is it honestly that difficult to say that he was an ethnic Persian, born in either Vakhsh or Balkh (located in what is today either Afghanistan or Tajikistan), who spent a large portion of his life in Turkey? Szfski (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is as ridiculous as at the Nasrudin article. Good grief, it's an encyclopedia folks. Peter Deer (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana Jelaleddin Rumi is TURKISH and he is also a component of TURKISH culture. Rumi was born in Baklh. At that time Khwarezmian Empire was in power. Khwarezmian Empire was also a TURKISH State. Then Rumi came to Konya. There was Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in Konya and it was a Turkish State. Rumi wrote his masterpieces with Persian as in that the language of literature was Persian. So that he is not an Afghan nor Iranian. He is TURKISH. Listentotheney (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) You come on. mevlana is TURK. This is real. You must accept. mevlana say, "My ethnic group is Turk." You look Mevlana's statements. And this is not as ridiculous as at the Nasrettin article.BABP (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana was a Turk. It is not important where Mevlana was born. He was born in Belh and he wrote in Persian. Thats true. But that does not make him Persian. He known Turkish. He tried to write in Turkish but he failed. Because he used aruz... Mevlana had Turkish culture, he lived Turk city..BABP (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana is neither Iranian nor Turk. Why do you argue about it? He is universal and is a part of world culture. Butterflyeffective (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We are TURK. We must protect our values. Otherwise other ethnic groups claim to our values and culture. For example; Iranians. Iranians says; "Mevlana is İranian". That's not true. Mevlana is TURK. BABP (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We accept RUMI is a global but according to same information RUMI is a Persian.We defend that RUMI is not persian, he is TURK. He is piece of TURKISH culture and he always lived in TURKISH land, but he wrote his masterpiece with Persian.We are arguing this subject because we want to defends our culture(Listentotheney (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)).

You must supply reliable sources for your claims. Please have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. Regards--Shahab (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

During the period of Seljuk state.Konya has its most brilliant years.Rumi is also very happy to live there to be in a Turkish state.This happiness made him write his best works in Konya.He wrote his works in Persian not in Turkish and as Iranians did not want to share such a great person, they think that he is an Iranian.However, realities are obvious.The works whick make Rumi as real Rumi was written in Anatolia.Moreover, the ideas of Rumi under the title of Mevleviyeh was only systematized in Anatolia not in Iran or in another country.Rumi said in his Masnavi and rubais that is Turk. (Listentotheney (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

What are your proofs related with Turkishness and culture of Turk at Masnavi and rubai.You have to explain. (Butterflyeffective (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

The works of Rumi demonstrate that he is influenced from Turk culture.Especially in Masnavi he used a lot of Turk proverbs.The meanings of that proverbs are true and logical.To succeed this, he must be know the meanings of the proverbs.That is, he succeeds that bringing up in Turk culture.For example; As you saw, so you shall reap and he said in his rubais “ Aslem Turk-est egerci hinduyuyum”. (Listentotheney (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Why did Rumi writte in persian not in Tukish! Because languages are born grove develop and die like humans.If Rumi had writte his Masnavi in Turkish, his poems would be ineffective like 13.century poets and he wouldn't be able to Rumi who lighten the world with his works.And Masnavi which has been translated into different world languages wouldn't be one of the immortal perfections of all times.According the 13.of century Persia was a rich language.therefore Rumi wrote Masnavi in a Turkish language.(Listentotheney (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Mevlana’s father was Bahaeddin Veled who was also known in his life time as the”Sultan of the Scholars”. His mother was Mümine Hatun, the daughter of Rükneddin, who was the Emir of Behl. So Mümine hatun was Turk and Bahaeddin Veled was Turk.. Also Sultanü’l - Ulema and his family who arrived at Karaman in 1222, stayed there for 7 years. There, Mevlana married Gevher Hatun who was the daughter of Şerefeddin Lala. The marriage gave Mevlana two sons named Sultan Veled and Alaeddin Çelebi.So Gevher Hatun was Turk..He wrote in Persian. Thats true. But that does not make him Persian. He known Turkish. He tried to write in Turkish but he failed.... .Mevlana died on Sunday, December 17,1273 in Konya. So Konya is Turkish City. Iranians, Afgans and the other must understand!!!! MEVLANA IS TURK...BABP (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mevlana says:“Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem” So he says: I am a Turk...He likes Turks.. Turks were praised by Mevlana. BABP (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Obviously you have not read the archives and talkpages and have repeated some stuff that has been been responded to multiple times. New users should read the archives.

2) Rumi did not just write in Persian. He spoke in Persian and all of his sermons (Fihi ma Fihi) recorded by his students are in Persian. The Fihi Ma Fihi is in an informal Persian and best proof that Rumi spoke Persian in everyday affairs. Had he spoke Turkish in everyday affairs, then his lectures would have been recorded in Turkish. But they are in informal Persian. These lectures were recorded by his students while Rumi was preaching are in Persian and are in everyday informal (not written but spoken) Persian. So that puts an end to the theory that "he wrote Persian because it was more beautiful". Obviously the propents of this theory have not read Fihi ma Fih or the Seven Sermons (Friday sermons again in Persian recorded by his students). Also his recorded conversations with Shams are in Persian (and some in Arabic), but never Turkish. So you have: A) His conversations with his students all in Persian. B) His friday sermons all in Persian. C) His conversations with Shams, primarily and overwhelmingly in Persian. 3) As per the verse you claim. Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su"

تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم

دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو

Professional Translation: “You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, know that much, that much, that in Turkish the word for water is su”(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196)

Turk, Hindu.. have very different (mainly symbolic) meaning in Persian poetry and show opposites.

Here is another one for example:

گه تركم و گه هندو گه رومی و گه زنگی از نقش تو است ای جان اقرارم و انكارم

Gah torkam, Gah Hendu, Gah Rumi, Gah Zangi Az Naqsh tost ay del, Eqraaram o Enkaaram

Translation:

“I am sometimes Turk, sometimes Hindu, sometimes Rumi and sometimes Negro, O Soul, from your image is my approval and denial”

So these imageries are not a proof of background. Turk vs Hindu, and Rumi vs Black are faviorate symbols of Persian poetry.

The verse you brought says "Agarcheh hendu gooyam" . Assuming authentic, it means "I speak in Hindu".. Now we know Rumi did not speak in Hindu. However Turk as opposed to Hindu is a constrast of climates, colors, lifestyle, kings vs desolates and etc in Persian poetry.

4)

The connection of Rumi's mother to the Khwarizmshah empire is seen as legendary hagiography and not factual due to both chronological reasons as well as textual reasons. Scholars reject it and it was designed to simply connect him to royalty. In reality, the grandmother of Rumi is a simple woman as demonstrated by Baha al-Din's Ma'arif. I would read the articles in Encyclopedia of Islam on Rumi as well as the book of Franklin. These are the secondary sources acceptable in Wikipedia.

5) Although Hindu, Turk, Rumi (Roman) and Black are faviorate symbols of Persian poetry and even "Rumi" is called Rumi, if you look at Aflaki, there are also some comments about Turks. Here is an anectode from Rumi quoted by Aflaki (pg 503) about Tukrs vs Greeks. Note he is not putting Turks downs or praising Greeks (in my opinion) but just making an observation: "Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. When God—He is sublime and exalted—ordered the creation of the world of sovereignty (‘alam-e molk’), first He created unaware-infidels, and He conferred on them long life and great strength so they would strive like hired laborers in building the terrestrial world. And they built up many cities and fortresses on mountain peaks and places on top of a hill such that after generations had passed these constructions were a model for those who came later. Then divine predestination saw to it that little by little these constructions would become completely destroyed and desolate, and be eradicated. God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. And they are still doing so, and day by day until the Resurrection they will continue to destroy in this manner. In the end, the destruction of the city of Konya will also be at the hands of wicked Turks devoid of mercy.’ And this being the case, it turned out just as Mowlana said. " (pg 503) See: Shams al-Din Ahmad al_Afkali, Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn, ed. Tahsin Yazici, 2 vols, Tehran, Donyaayeh Ketab, 1983. English translation: Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002.

Here are some quotes from Rumi: "“God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished.”" “Oh ignorant Turk! Give up (tark) this idea and undertaking. Take back your Turks (torkan) to your lady (tarkan) as quickly as possible. Otherwise, you will not escape with your life.” “Majd al-Din, why did you let out a shout and release your quarry from your gullet? A Turk who is a recent disciple is able to bear the burden, but you divulge the matter. Many things like this occur to abdals to God.” “Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. “

Note I only brought these for demonstrations. The Diwan Shams overall contains a positive usage of the word Turk, the Mathnawi seems somewhat neutral towards negative, but the Manaqib Aflaki seems negative. The reason is that Diwan Shams is a mystical book and the imagery of Turk in Persian mysticism has been positive (along with that of "Rum/Rumi"(Greeks)).

6)

Rumi's son on multiple occassions has attested that his Turkish is very poor.. yet his son was born in Anatolia but he claims little knowledge of Greek and Turkish. This is described in this article: [2]

According to Franklin: “Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 239)

“Sultan Valad did not feel confident about his command of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 240)

Sultan Walad actually admits the fact that his knowledge of Turkish and Greek is rudimentary four times. For example in the Ibtedanama, Sultan Walad states:

بگذر از گفت ترکی و رومی که از این اصطلاح محرومی گوی از پارسی و از تازی که در این هر دوخوش همیتازی

Translation: Abandon the speech of Turkish and Greek Since you are deprived of these expressions Instead speak Persian and Arabic Because you are well versed in these two Sultan Walad, Masnaviyeh Waladi, Ensha’ Baha al-Din b. Mowlana Jalal al-Din Mohammad b. Hosayn-e Balkhi, Mashur beh Mowalana, ed. Jalal al-Din Homa’I (Tehran:Eqbal, 1316) (pp 393-4)

His son admits 3-4 times that he has very poor command of Greek and Turkish.

7) A complete response to the arguments you have and could have is given here: [3] Wikipedia works by standards of Western scholars. Schimmel and Franklin are the top Rumi scholars and they have called Rumi a Persian and Persian poet. That is sufficient. It is unfortunate that the same arguments get repeated again and again. It is extremly tiring that instead of reading the archives some new user always comes to make the same repetative arguments. The fact is Rumi is known because of his Persian poetry. No one is going to examine his corpse for DNA evidence.

8)

Wikipedia works by WP:weight and WP:RS. Western scholars in general and Rumi Western scholars in particular (like Franklin and Schimmel) affirm Rumi's heritage and background as a Persian. So that is what counts and not endless polemics that is constantly repeated.

Encyclopedia of Islam is also another weighty source. GoshtaspLohraspi

1) Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000. 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? (p. 9)

2) Annemarie Schimmel, “The Mystery of Numbers”, Oxford University Press,1993. Pg 49: “A beautiful symbol of the duality that appears through creation was invented by the great Persian mystical poet Jalal al-Din Rumi, who compares God's creative word kun (written in Arabic KN) with a twisted rope of 2 threads (which in English twine, in German Zwirn¸both words derived from the root “two”)”. 3) Ritter, H.; Bausani, A. "ḎJ̲alāl al- Dīn Rūmī b. Bahāʾ al-Dīn Sulṭān al-ʿulamāʾ Walad b. Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad Ḵh̲aṭībī ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. Excerpt: "known by the sobriquet Mawlānā (Mevlânâ), Persian poet and founder of the Mawlawiyya order of dervishes" 4) Julia Scott Meisami, Forward to Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2008 (revised edition) 5) John Renard,"Historical dictionary of Sufism", Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. pg 155: "Perhaps the most famous Sufi who is known to many Muslims even today by his title alone is the seventh/13th century Persian mystic Rumi" 6) Frederick Hadland Davis , "The Persian Mystics. Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí", Adamant Media Corporation (November 30, 2005) , ISBN-10: 1402157681

But if you are interested in this matter, read here:[4]. However from Wikipedia's point of view, the most comprehensive books on Rumi are those written by Rumi scholars and amongst them, the book fo Franklin currently stands out as the most detailed and objective biography of Rumi in any language. And he is a Professor of University of Chicago. The Encyclopedia of Islam is also another weighty source. GoshtaspLohraspi

mevlana jalaluddin RUMI is TURK.He isn t IRANIAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Listentotheney (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that's what I call reasoning!94.183.126.215 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumi's homeland-Balkh region-has the native population of Tājīks who were called "Persian" at the time. I can give many sources to prove that Tājīks are the native inhabitants of Balkh region. Both "Persian" and "Tājīk" must be used as the ETHNICITY of Rumi to AVOID CONFUSION (even though Tājīks are part of Persian people, but they are called Tājīk today). Those who deny this fact, they seem as if they are stealing the cultural heritage of the native population of the region and this is totally unacceptable. Artacoana 11:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Turkish banknote

Two days ago, I added a short sentence mentioning the fact that Rumi was depicted on the reverse of the Turkish 5000 lira banknotes of 1981-1994. — The edit was blindly reverted by Nepaheshgar (edit summary: irrelevant).

In my opinion, the fact that the Turkish government considers Rumi as having enough symbolic significance to depict him in its currency is interesting to our readership, and worthy of mention in a single, short sentence.

In general, a government's decision to showcase an individual as a symbol of a country's culture and historical heritage (for that is what the banknote depiction connotes) is quite interesting. This is especially true in the case of Turkey, which up to that time had not depicted specific persons in its currency (with the exceptions of Ataturk & İsmet İnönü, the Republic's presidents). When the Turkish Bank decided to depict individuals, from all possible candidates they chose four: the author of the national anthem, Mehmed II, Sinan and Rumi. – To be honest, I cannot understand why this fact wouldn't belong in the article, especially when just above of where I introduced the sentence a mention of MySpace is deemed worthy of inclusion. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is extremely noteworthy. I will support you if you put it in. The reason you were reverted is because there are many edits done in bad faith to try to change Rumi's ethnicity, Nepaheshgar is a good editor and meant no harm. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I reintroduced the sentence at the same time I wrote the above comment. I know I should have waited for this discussion to take place, but sometimes blind reverts reduce my patience. My apologies. - Regards, Ev (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am against all this banknote stuff. Please stop this and try to understand "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia". According to Examples your banknotes appear to "belong to trivia section", and according to WP:TRIV "Trivia sections should be avoided." I strongly oppose your addition of picture of banknotes to Wikipedia. Please remove what you added.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, do you ever read the links you provide ? As its title implies, the Trivia sections guideline deals with the creation of separate trivia sections whithin articles, like the trivia section in our article on Pretoria. Of course those sections should be avoided. – Notice however that I did not add to this article a "Trivia" section with a "list of miscellaneous facts", but only a single noteworthy fact (whose relevance I argue above), and to the section I deemed appropriate. Moreover, the "Example" section of the Trivia sections guideline you are citing clearly states that "[t]he facts themselves are not the issue here: the problem is with their organization" (emphasis mine). - Ev (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand my point. Banknote provides no or unimportant information. That's it. If you click around in the page I posted you see kind of definition: "Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important." and I wrongly assumed that after seeing some examples you will understand that mentioning banknotes should be avoided. Also regarding your last sentence: no body is saying that there is no banknote with picture of Rumi on it, but I am saying SO WHAST?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, those examples you wanted me to see are interesting facts that are all currently mentioned in the article in question. The whole point of that "Example" section is to indicate how to organize noteworthy information within articles, instead of listing it randomly in a trivia section. – If you are comparing a mention of the banknote in this article with those facts about James Monroe, it is quite evident that the banknote should be mentioned here.

In any case, above I argue that, far from being unimportant information, mentioning the banknote helps to convey to our readership the significance attributed to Rumi in modern Turkey. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion that's not significant at all.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's significant either. But it's fine as an image with a caption. That said, the image shouldn't be in the middle of the page by itself. It should be embedded with a paragraph like all the other images, so I moved it to the right of the next paragraph. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, the articles on the following individuals currently mention similar depictions in currency:

• George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant & Benjamin Franklin.
• Except for Elizabeth II, all other 29 individuals included in Category:People illustrated on sterling banknotes mention those depictions, including: Alexander Graham Bell, Robert Burns, Charles Dickens, Michael Faraday, Alexander Fleming, David Livingstone, Isaac Newton, Florence Nightingale, Robert I of Scotland, Walter Scott, Adam Smith, George Stephenson, Robert Louis Stevenson, the Duke of Wellington, Christopher Wren and the featured articles on Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Charles Darwin. In the case of William Shakespeare, the mention is done in the "Memorials to William Shakespeare" sub-article.
• Some examples of literary figures: Antoine de Saint Exupéry (France), Banjo Paterson (Australia), Selma Lagerlöf (Swedish Nobel Prize), Elias Lönnrot (Finland), Taras Shevchenko (Ukraine), Mihai Eminescu (Romania), Henryk Sienkiewicz (Polish Nobel Prize), Turlough Carolan (Ireland), Annette von Droste-Hülshoff (Germany), Marko Marulić and Ivan Gundulić (Croatia), Jonathan Swift and the featured articles on James Joyce & William Butler Yeats.

These examples demonstrate that, in general, Wikipedia deems such depictions noteworthy. In view of this clearly attested general practice and my argumentation above, exactly why would that not be the case here ? Why would Rumi's depiction in Turkish currency be deemed "irrelevant" or "not significant at all" for this article ? - Ev (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the mention, which had been removed without explanation by 89.165.6.109 in October 2009 (dif). - Best, Ev (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud! Are the Persians and Turks fighting over Mowlānā/Mevlana again? Everybody just calm down and take a breath. It's just a banknote Xashaiar. Szfski (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the mention, which had been removed without any meaningful explanation by 188.158.12.85 (dif. Edit summary: there is no need to put turkish lira.). - Best, Ev (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

hi - I came in here for info on Rumi and thought I would check out the discussion page as well.. ""Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important" - was said about the banknote thing.. "important" is subjective, for me.. someone new to Rumi, I would think that he is important enough to be on a bank note is significant as it reflects his standing in the eyes of a certain nation. I would not dismiss this as unimportant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Persian poet info-box

Please change the Persian poet info-box to a standard infobox like William Shakespeare's article. Let's stop claiming people as this or that for nationalistic reasons. Just write a biography of them with their lives and accomplisments and works. EasternAryan (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell the tale in Persian so that all may understand it, Even though they lack insight and are (spiritually) sleep. Sultan Walad سلطان ولد —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reduce the number of sources citing Rumi's ethnicity

"Rumi... was a 13th-century Persian[1][4][5][6][7][8][9] poet". Should there really be nine sources citing the fact that Rumi was Persian? It is obvious to anyone who has studied Rumi and his life that he was Persian. Some people dispute this fact (and they are wrong). It is quite common that a fact that is disputed by some people (even if they are uneducated about the topic) to have many sources citing it in a Wikipedia articles. But this trend is getting out of hand. Having nine footnotes following a word (especially a word in the middle of a sentence) really reduces the readability of the sentence. What is gained from having so many sources cited? Nothing at all. The number of sources citing a fact doesn't make the fact any more or less true. I could find over 50 sources citing that Rumi was Persian. Should we cite them in the article? It's true that some POV editors will be less likely to remove a fact if it has nine sources following it, but those nine sources could be cited in the Discussion page in order to establish consensus. Surely a fact that has a consensus of support cannot be removed; any attempt to do so will quickly be reverted. Ironically, those that keep citing sources to facts such as this one, are those that most zealous about readers knowing the fact. However, the addition of so many footnotes reduces the sentences readability, reducing its clarity. Are readers more likely to believe a fact if it has nine footnotes? Perhaps the number of footnotes has some persuasive effect, but our role here is not to try to write a persuasive or convincing article, rather an informative, clear, and concise article. If we tailor the format or tone of the article in order to make it more persuasive we will compromise important things: in this case, readability and clarity. Where should we draw the line on the number of footnotes? There should be only one footnote following a fact in the middle of the sentence, preferably the most authoritative and reliable source being chosen for citation.Agha Nader (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any readability issue however they can collected more like in Scythians where a footnote covers many sources. So two three footnotes can have three sources each (3x3=9)...Each of the footnotes provide valuable information. However the article should be ip protected permanently as 95% of ip contributions are edits designed to change historical facts. Once the article is permanently ip protected the next logical solution would be to transform the 9 footnotes into either 2 or 3 footnotes with each footnote covering 3 sources or so..

Is Persian in this sense referring to an ethnicity, or to a language, or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.241.235 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

False (Non-Authentic) Quotes Attributed to Mowlana Rumi

The quote thats used on Rumi's Universality section is not composed by Rumi, though its attribute to him. I am quoting from Rumi & Islam: Poems and Selections, by Ibrahim Gamard, Page Xiii (Introduction section).

"I traversed the lands of the Cross and the Christians, but he wasn't on the cross. I travelled to the temple of idols, to the ancient temple, but, there wasn't even a tinge evident within it.... I looked into my heart, and I saw Him in that place, He wasn't in any other place."[3]

"Even if you are an unbeliever or Zoroastrian fire worshipper or an idol worshipper, return. ..... The Sufis court of ours is not a court of despair. Even if you have broken your repentance a hundred times, return"[4]

Both the above quotes are not composed by Rumi. As I looked into sources [3] and [4] of the book's Notes, this is mentioned:

[3] First Translated by Nicholson in 1898, Selected Poems from the Divani Shamsi Tabriz, no XVII, ppg 71-73. This poem doesnot occur in the earliest manuscripts of the Divan and is no longer considered to be authentic by scholars. Nicholson mentioned that this poem occured in only one manuscript which is dated over 170 years after Rumi's death.

[4] This quatrian does not exist in the earliest manuscript of Rumi's Divan, but is found in manuscript of another poet Baba Afzaluddin Kashani (died 1274), it has long been attributed to Aby Said ibin Abi Khayr (died 1048), for which see Abramain, Nobody, Son of Nobody:Poems of Shaikh Abu Saeed Abil Kheir (Prescott, Arizona: Hohm Press, 2001), p 4.

Someone should remove that quote, or add a criticism note. -- Thanks. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the 1st quote... "I traversed the lands of Cross..". as that's considered fabricated/false. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Date: May 2010

Problem: A few of this article's sections (Life, for example) are in desperate need of better grammar and clarity.

Random the Scrambled ^(?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 23:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is just a mess, mostly because of nationalistic POV etc. A real expert is needed, and the article needs to be based on scholarly works, not the personal POV of certain Wikipedians. Tajik (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What nationalistic POV? I see references to Encyclopedia of Islam, Schimmel, Franklin and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

dear Tajik, the accepted academic theory is that rumi is a Persian poet, mystic and was born in wakhsh Tajikistan which was then part of the larger province of balkh... If you put dispute section there instead of another tag,you are really helping pan turkist type nationalists.. You might want to keep the cleanup tag..and do some editing to clean it up.. However don't give an execuse to pan Turk type groups... specially since the information in this article is based on Franklin, schimmel , ei and etc.. Thanks your friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.9.79 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So doost aziz please get involved and fix anything you see fit, But don't give reasons for Turkish nationalists to dispute the main facts.. I know you understand.. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Protect?

Shouldn't this page be protected? I'm getting a bit tired of reverting every anonymous IP that tries to claim Rumi for some modern nation-state. The last numbskull even tried to say that the city of Vakhsh was in Afghanistan. Szfski (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection : 1 month JoJan (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Farhadus, 4 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The article claims that Rumi is from "Iranzamin". This is errouneous. Rumi came from Balkh located in Afghanistan.

Farhadus (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As a registered user you can make the change as soon as you are autoconfirmed, i.e. for most users on en.wiki, accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 legitimate edits. JoJan (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

JoJan, that is why this user used {{editsemiprotected}} to request the edit. Farhadus, do you have a source for that change? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems an endless edit war going on over the birthplace and "nationality" of the Rumi. That's why I semi-protected this article to let passions cool down. But I don't want to get involved in this edit war and that's why I didn't make the edit without a reference to a reliable source. JoJan (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 221.187.47.219, 11 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change "Rumi was born in Greater Iran (Iranzamin), in the province of Balkh and thus he is called Balkhi" to "Rumi was born in the Persian Empire, or present-day Balkh, Afghanistan. For this reason, he is often called Balkhi."

Rationale: The current sentence is historically inaccurate and thus non-scholarly.

The region where Rumi was born was not known as Iran at the time, but as the Persian Empire. Therefore, the best edit would be to write "Rumi was born in ... the Persian Empire, or present-day Afghanistan" which is in fact the most historically accurate description.

While one can argue that due to border changes, at the time of Rumi's birth, Balkh was within the Persian Empire, it should be pointed out that Rumi was neither ethnically or culturally Iranian as evidenced from his writing. On the contrary, he conformed with the ethnic groups compromising the Afghan people as suggested by his specific dialectical variant in writing the Persian language (upon close investigation, his Persian was closest to the "Dari" dialect of Persian as spoken in Afghanistan).

Thank you for listening to my appeal.

Sources

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Afghanistan http://www.mfa.gov.af/rumis.asp <-- Government article discussing Rumi's past, with evidence of Rumi's family history in Afghanistan.

Information about his writing approximating the Dali dialect http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/about_translations.html

Google maps confirming that it is present day Afghanistan http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=2Lk&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=balkhi&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

221.187.47.219 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

221.187.47.219 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Done per WP:BOLD, noting that his birthplace has been the subject of past disputes. I implemented this change because it was properly cited and uncontested. If someone more knowledgeable and with a conflicting source wishes to revert, I have no problem with that. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting information

Conflicting information? On the one hand the article states that "Rumi was born in the Persian Empire, or present-day Balkh, Afghanistan." In the same paragraph, it states that: "He was born in the village of Wakhsh, a small town located at the river Wakhsh in what is now Tajikistan." The place where Rumi was born cannot be both in present-day Afghanistan and what is now Tajikistan, can it?Rvlusa (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article seems to be a victim of the POV I-hate-other-countries edit warring that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Is it really that difficult to state which present day country his birthplace is in? Davidelit (Talk) 08:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.164.240.252, 16 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 1) Rumi is not Persian 2) Rumi is an Alevi 3) Semah is an Alevi rituel

78.164.240.252 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Muslim Sufi"

An anonymous IP has been editing this article despite several reverts to read that Rumi was a "Persian Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic." Am I right in reasoning that "Muslim... Sufi" is redundant and reverting these edits? I just wanted to get an idea of consensus before I continue to revert... Thanks, Lithoderm 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all people would be aware of Sufi's being Muslims... some might say they are not (LOL).. so while many might think it is redundant - it does assume a certain level of knowledge from readers which perhaps is beyond many of them. I would leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rumi's religious denomination

While it is true that Mowlawna praises the first two Caliphs in his couplets, it is also worth mentioning that he also writes highly of Ali.

Learn from Ali how to fight without your ego participating.

The lion who breaks the enemy's ranks is a minor hero compared to the lion who overcomes himself.

God's lion did nothing that didn't originate from his deep center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.97.19 (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dec 2010

My friend, if you knew anything about Molavi (Rumi, Melevi, or whatever other name you wish to give him) you would not waste your energy trying to give him a national identiy. Molavi was a mystic, a manof God and the only thing that mattered to him was to "lose his ego" and thus get closer to God. How Ironic that people like you use him to do the opposite! He would have found your attempts to use his presumed nationality to boost your own ego a sign of immaturity and lack of spiritual development. I make no apology if you find my comment offensive. In fact I am pleased if that is the case, since to make something better, something has to be destroyed. That was Molavi's philosophy which I adhere to and respect. Best wishes, Keivan (with no particular national prejudice) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K31van (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The above comment moved from the top of the page by Imc (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)