Talk:Sufism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opening Paragraph: definition of Sufism

A recent edit added the following: Sufism has been explained by different people in different ways. Sufism is, in fact, the purification of our baser instincts, heart and soul as prescribed in the Holy Quran by Allah: "But those will prosper who purify themselves." (87:14)

Coming in the opening paragraph, as it does, it sounds like a definition of Sufism. Meaning that it is the consensus definition of editors who have worked on this page.

I would like to ask: 1) Whose definition is this? 2) Does it pass the consensus test?

Sarabseth 10:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed POV tag

An anon editor did a drive-by on the article, slapping a POV tag at the top without giving any reason or justification. I'll agree that this article is both a sprawling mess and somewhat adulatory of Sufis, but any critics should be willing to argue for the tag and discuss changes in talk. I am guessing that the anon was a Salafi, as he linkspammed the Salafi article. Zora 08:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the reason/justification is given in the first section of this talk page, titled "extremely biased article". Same anon editor. GTBacchus 08:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that. I guess he's new enough that he didn't realize that he should add comments at the bottom, not at the top. I didn't look at the top. OK, I'll restore the tag. Zora 08:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

References to Gnosticism do not clarify but confuse

The matter-of-fact way that the concept of 'gnosis' and the class of 'gnostics' is tossed around in this article is misleading and does not serve to clarify the issue of sufism at all.

Many traditional Islamic resources, and even modern research, suggest a strong relationship between Sufism and gnostic ideas

Okay, I'd let this one slide, but only because the gnosticism article the link on this page points to attempts to describe the difficulty and disagreement in defining gnosticism as a movement.

However,

Some researchers consider Sufism a form of gnostic faith surrounded by a shell of Islamic concepts taken from Quran and Sunna

Is totally specious. I'd like to know who these 'researchers' are.

And as for,

Sufism par excellence is the science of gnosis which like many other sciences and philosophies has parallels in Islamic culture.

I'm not sure what this is even supposed to mean! Even if one could make the case that 'gnosis' (assuming that there is agreement about what it *is* in the first place) could be referred to as a 'science,' without completely discarding the generally-accepted meanings of both terms, I don't know why the author of this line would find only 'parallels' between it and Islamic culture. Indeed, many great scientific advances weren't merely paralleled in Muslim culture, but actually discovered by muslim scientists, so this is awkward at best.

I suggest this be omitted, along with:

Sufism is not the only Islamic sect that has gnostic ideas in its structure. There are also deep gnostic roots in Shiite thought, and those shared roots is the reason of some similarities between Sufism and Shiite thought.

This smacks of propangandizing by someone identifying with a modern gnostic sect.

On Non-Islamic Sufi orders, Sufism and Gnosticism, Mysticism and Sufism in general

On the subject of Non-Islamic Sufi orders:

There are sufi orders in the West (and the East as well) that can be classified as "non-islamic," in the sense that they view themselves as members of EVERY religion and not just Islam. Take the Sufi Ruhaniat International (a Western Sufi order) for example, both leaders and followers come from numerous traditions. In fact if you look at the main page of their website there is this statement, "If invited to offer prayers in a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or a temple, the Sufi is ready to do so, knowing that all people worship the same God, the Only Being, no matter what Name they use." Thus a Sufi in this tradition may come from a specific background, but in following this path will consider themselves to be a member of all religions. Regardless of the statements of others in this discussion, I am not sure how a statement such as this, from a known Sufi order, could possibly be construed to mean that all Sufis are Muslim only.

Further, Hazrat Inayat Khan, from whom many western orders trace their lineage, was schooled in Islam, Hinduism and Parsi before entering the Chishti Order of Sufism (he came from India, not the Middle East). The Ruhaniat trace their lineage from Hazrat Inayat Khan through Samuel Lewis ("Sufi Sam") to the Present day. Samuel Lewis came from a Jewish background, studied the Bible and Koran intensely and acheived high levels of initiation Budhism, Zen and Sufism. He was devoted to teaching Sufism as a "universal religion." Thus the Sufis in the Ruhaniat believe themselves to be members of a universal religion. Current leaders and members today are shcooled in Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Budhist, Zen, Zorastrian (and more) practices. If you ask Pir Shabda Kahn (the current leader of the Ruhaniat) whether he is Muslim, he will say, "yes." If you ask him whether he is Christian he will say, "yes." If asked whether he is Jewish, "yes." Buddhist, "yes." And so on. This is one modern example, but it is more or less true for most other western Sufi orders, and is true of at least some Sufi orders in the east (especially in India, see writings about the Chishti Order).

Lastly, many older and more traditionally Islamic Sufi orders have embraced western Sufis as brothers and sisters (Sufi Ruhaniat International has ties to groups in Morocco, Turkey and Syria). If these orders had a serious problem with Ruhaniat teachings (namely that one musn't be a practicing Muslim to be Sufi) then these bonds would probably not exist.

On the subject of Gnosticism, Sufism and relationship to other mystical traditions:

No one, as far as I understand, has proven a direct connection with Christian Gnosticism (except a connection between modern Sufis and modern Gnostics). It is possible that members of each movement heard about each other and responded accordingly. For example, some have said that St. Francis encountered Sufism when on crusade, but this is to my knowledge completely unsubstantiated. Having said that, Sufism is a mystical tradition and shares certain core philosphies with all other mystical traditions (for a good treaties on the subject read: Aldous Huxley's Perrenial Philosphy), that includes Christian Gnosticism.

On the Subject of Sufism predating Islam:

People have stated that Sufism predates Islam. This is probably true in so far as mysticism predates Islam. Thus, people of mystical bent embraced Islam when it first formed and were probably the "first" Sufis. To say that Sufism, in particular, did or didn't predate Islam is probably impossible to establish; mainly because no one is sure where the word "Sufi" even came from. To define "Sufis" as some group that existed before Islam requires that some group called "Sufis" existed before Islam, or that some recognizable group that became "Sufis" existed before Islam. However, the word "Sufi" probably became attached to those who practiced Islamic mysticism some time after they embraced Islam (though the word itself may be older) and it is hard to track down what these groups may have been before they were "Sufi". So it depends on whether one is focused on those who practiced mysticism in the Middle East actually defining themselves as Sufi (to make matters worse some Sufis will say that they are not Sufi), or whether one is focused on the essence of the philosophy itself. Therefore there may be many different answers to this question. I believe much of the current idea that Sufism predates Islam stems from the writings of Idries Shah. It is unclear what he meant by his statements on the matter, but it is quite likely he meant to provoke discussion, particularly on what it actually means to be "Sufi."

A disclaimer and two asides:

Disclaimer: I am a practicing Sufi with the Ruhaniat, and I don't consider myself as solely Muslim. Thus the above statements uses known facts (from the Sufi Ruhaniat International website, and the writings of some of those mentioned in the second aside), and is informed by personal experiences and teachings that I have received. And a note my putting words in Pir Shabda Kahn's mouth, I do know him personally and so have some idea of what he might say if asked those questions.

First aside: Sufis have, in known history, been hard to classify. Ancient scribes have had as much problem describing Sufis as Wikipedia members are having here. Part of this comes from the fact that Sufism is a very diverse and diffuse religion, that does not have easily definable ancient and standing doctrines or traditions. Much of Sufi thought and practice are passed from Teacher to Student through a direct experience rather than in writing (though there is much Sufi writing). Thus Sufism can, in many ways, be thought of as an Oral tradition and can be expected to change and evolve in much the same way. Further, there is no Pope or central Church that defines Sufism. If you ask a thousand Sufis what Sufism is you are likely to get a thousand different answers (at least in particulars). Thus, I find this discussion about trying create an encyclopedic entry for Sufism very interesting. The attempt to clear up biased language that seems to promote Sufism over other religions or that is confusing or doesn't make sense to the average reader should continue (as this is part of Wikipedian philosophy). However, I would urge people to be careful about making too quick of judgements about content. Sufism has never been a single or unified movement, and trying to hammer it into a monolithic definition, such as it IS or ISN'T Islamic, is missing the point.

Second aside: Please do not rely solely on internet sources for your material or facts. There is much heated discussion in the air about who is right and who is not, and there is a lot of information on sufism that is NOT on the web. Having said that I would reccomend reading some modern teachers and practicioners to get a feel for the history of some curent lineages of Sufism (this list is by no means complete). As with all texts, read critically.

Writings in the Western Sufi tradition (as derived from the Chishti order): Pir Hazrat Inayat Kahn, Pir Valayat Inayat Kahn (Inayat Kahn's son, and head of the Sufi Order), Samuel Lewis

A controversial figure (according to some): Idries Shah

The alternatives (according to some): Henry Corbin, Sayyed Hossein Nasr, Annamarie Schimmel

Also much current western Sufism is influenced by the (more ancient) writings of these people: Jalahuddin Rumi, Ibn Arabi, Hafiz, Kabir, also work on the life of Moinadin Chishti

about sufi orders , well this is a misconception ( only in the west ) that sufis dont accept non-muslaims as students . There have been gazallions of sufis in India & Africa ( at that time predominantly non-muslim ) who tought non-muslims . People like Data Gunj Buksh ( Lahore-Pakistan ) , Moinuddin Chisti ( Ajmer-India ), & Baba Farid ( Multan-Pakistan ) have tought millions ( yes millions!! ) of Hindus in their life times . Thats why I had changed Islamic/non-Islamic with traditional/non-traditional .

The gonstic paragraph was most probably added by somebody who wasent aware of both sufism & gnosticism .I have removed it .Farhansher 04:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The root of the word Sufi

Tasavvof is not the root of the word Sufi , but Sufi is the root of the word Tasavvof , the root of the word Sufi itself is a matter of much debate some common opinions include its derivation from Safaa (purity) ( an unlikely one etymologically but in accordance with the nature of Sufism which emphasises on purity of heart , soul etc) , its derivation from Suf meaning a woolen cloth , or even its derivation from Ashab i Soffeh , a certain group of companions of Mohammad .Some even consider the possibility of its derivation from the Greek Sophia which is most unlikey...

>False. Sufi is derived from the word "Suf" which means wool because Sufis wear wool clothing.

What do you mean, "false"? The poster above you detailed at least four possibilities for the root of the word Sufi. While it is commonly accepted that Suf most likely derives from the woolen clothing, let us not completely discount the fact that there are other possibilities. Avengerx 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

S.R. Sharda text and reference removed 6 February 2010

In Sufism, the material from S.R. Sharda should probably read "According to S.R. Sharda in ...". However, it has been deleted by Roctour (see edit diff).

Should that material stay removed, or be re-inserted, or can alternative sources be found to provide alternative points of view or to refute this material? Esowteric+Talk 11:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sufi Films

The following two comments are copied from User_talk:Sarabseth#Sufi_Films, and refer to a minor edit war between the two editors over the last 2 days:

Sufi FIlms has nothing to do with Sufism, you can't be serious. There are very few sources in the media promoting films with a Sufi sensibility. While you may disagree with Sufi Films gentle approach in making films that have a sufi sensibility, like the Sufi or Islamic practice of medical cupping or using meditation oils attars to reach the divine, you have no right to deprive others of this information or hinder the promotion of Sufi oriented media ecause you disagree. Furthermore, if you looked a little harded at the website and films already produced like the biography of Sheikh Nazim, clearly Sufi subject matter, then you may change your mind.

I do agree that the Spiritual Circle Network link is not what it, at first glance, appeared to be (Sufi) and thus it is being removed. I hope that satisfies your objections. I do intend to add other production, film and media companies to this site as they are a valuable resource under this category as is Quawali Music is to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.26.52 (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Anyone can give their company any name. If you look at their own website that you linked to in Sufism, it doesn't claim any Sufi content to their films, or anything resembling Sufi sensibility. There is just some roundabout stuff about correcting Western misconceptions about Islam. Vague talk of "gentle approach in making films" and "sufi sensibility" by you hardly justifies their inclusion in the Sufism article.

There may be other articles where including a link to Sufi Films may make sense, but nothing on their website justifies adding a link to Sufism.

Copying this discussion to Talk:Sufism, as well, which is where you should have posted your comment in the first place. And I'll leave it to other editors to adjudicate this issue, instead of reverting your edit. --Sarabseth (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

--Sarabseth (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

-- Copying two more comments from User_talk:Sarabseth#Sufi_Films. Will reply in a little while when I get back online.

Can I ask your particular expertise on what is Sufi. I'm serious, because I am at a loss as to why you would think a film company would deceive theri audience by calling what they do Sufi Films and not make Sufi Films. Sufi Films has a film called Spiritual Circles, it jumps off of the Sufi Hadra "circle" and explores the comminality of all spiritual paths that utilize circles to reach the Divine, this is from the Director. Historically Sufi's approach the masses with a subtle wisdom that seems to elude you. I would think anyone who really wants to see Sufism understood would be thrilled to see companies like this working in this genre of filmmaking. I hope you are not someone who has an agenda and are here to waste people's time who have practiced sufism for twenty or more years and are better able to determine what Sufi means and is. In short it is controling the ego, which seems to be the agenda. So please reflect a little and contemplate your motives and do not argue for sake of arguing. I really would like to know your credentials other than some interest in Sufi music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the site again, they have a film institute to train people to make Sufi oriented films. They have a stock footage house to preserve Sufi film and photos and they are non-profit. I intend to report this as vandalism if it continues. Peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

--Sarabseth (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, just to be clear, is BeUnknown the same editor as 97.123.26.52?

As for, "Can I ask your particular expertise on what is Sufi. (sic)", I am not aware that any special qualifications beyond common sense and reading comprehension are required for any editor to question the relevance of any included material or link.

A link to the Sufi Films website was added to this page. This seems to be a commercial website. The home page that was linked to exhorts readers to "be sure to visit the Sufi Films store and purchase our existing offerings and products." Although you say "they are non-profit", I did not find any such statement anywhere on their website. Their page titled NON-PROFIT seems to exist to market their services to non-profit organizations: "Learn how Sufi Films can help your non-profit deliver a message of hope and peace to a troubled world and utilize cross platform new media campaigns to help promote and support your noble efforts." It is probably also relevant that their website ends in .com and not .org, which is what non-profits use.

The name "Sufi Films" alone is hardly enough to warrant a link, and the content of the home page of that website does not seem to justify a link either. 97.123.26.52 fell back on soft focus talk about "gentle approach in making films" and "sufi sensibility". You are arguing that a filmmaker whose website lists only two films, one of which is about the basketball player Hakeem Olajuwon, merits inclusion in the Sufism article because the other film is about a Sufi Sheikh, and because he has one more film about Sufism (Spiritual Circles) that is not even mentioned on his own website.

Fine. Instead of making ad hominem attacks on me, why don't you simply let other editors adjudicate whether a link to Sufi Films is warranted on this page or not?

Both your comments -- and these two statements especially: "I would think anyone who really wants to see Sufism understood would be thrilled to see companies like this working in this genre of filmmaking." and "I hope you are not someone who has an agenda and are here to waste people's time who have practiced sufism for twenty or more years and are better able to determine what Sufi means and is." -- suggest that you are very far from being a NPOV editor on this page.

And do try to refrain from gratuitously threatening other editors. It serves no useful purpose. I have been active on Wikipedia for almost 5 years, and my editing record speaks for itself. If you think you have a valid case to make against me for vandalism, do please go ahead and report me. --Sarabseth (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The non-profit status of Sufi Films is not the only fact about them that BeUnknown seems to have got wrong. He said: "Sufi Films has a film called Spiritual Circles, it jumps off of the Sufi Hadra "circle" and explores the comminality of all spiritual paths that utilize circles to reach the Divine, this is from the Director." However, the Sufi Films website describes this (under "In Development") as a proposed project, not a completed film. --Sarabseth (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted this passage today, for the reasons explained below:

Newer production companies and directors are beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility. Most notably Sufi Films with Director James McConnell also Director Simon Broughton for Sufi Soul – The Mystic Music of Islam, to name a few in a growing field. Films in the Sufi genre are also being featured at a number of newer film festivals devoted to the genre, such as the World Sufi Festival

Not clear what some of this means. For example, what does it mean to “emphasize a Sufi sensibility”? Or what is a film “in the Sufi genre”?

Furthermore, if a director with one completed film about a Sufi Sheikh is the most notable example of this trend (of newer production companies and directors beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility), it doesn’t seem to be much of a trend.

However, the bigger problem is that “Newer production companies and directors are beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility” is a subjective opinion, not an objective statement of fact. As such, it belongs in a WP article only if supported by expert opinion. Without such a citation, it constitutes “original research”, and must regretfully be removed. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"As for, "Can I ask your particular expertise on what is Sufi. (sic)", I am not aware that any special qualifications beyond common sense and reading comprehension are required for any editor to question the relevance of any included material or link."

If only you were questioning it and here to learn rather than boost your ego!

There is no dialogue, I have the distinct impression I am arguing with someone with no expertise and is sixteen years old.

This is a primary argument against and complaint of editors on Wikipedia. A pimple nose sixteen year old with no expertise on a given subject can interfere with a busy accomplished proven expert with a doctoral degree on the subject. While there should be no standard for who can contribute, Wikipedia desperately needs a standard for who can challenge expertise and edits to the subject matter. When someone with no experience who has unlimited time to waste challenging an edit because they have some bias or issue rooted in opinion, the real experts are chased away. Sufi Films is not Sufi? This young inexperienced person would have you believe that the owner of this site spent thousands of hours to up a website solely to deceive Wikipedia into believing it is Sufi at the expense of reaching their real audience. Unflipping believable. I must say - what an amazing display of stupidity and arrogance. This is a contest between a foolish person with unlimited time on their hands, apparantly with no expertise, against a person with years of training under a true Sufi master. When asked what their credentials are, as anticipated, nothing is offered accept it is my right. All self aggrandizing pomp and circumstance making a lay person feel important and on a level to challenge real accomplishment and knowledge.

I am constantly seeing these sorts of complaints about Wikipedia on the Internet and now understanding why. It is very frustrating that accomplished people can be challenged by teenagers.

This, I assume, young inexperienced person, who is here only to argue his/her uninformed POV, already agreed to leave this for others to decide - A mature decision that his/her ego would not permit him/her to accept for more than a few days. So now he/she is back exerting their own uninformed importance and interfering with important recognition in an area that desperately needs more entries, not less. There are so few voices in the media on this subject. They need to be encouraged.

The real sign of abuse here is the fact that there has been no effort to modify the entry, only completely remove the edit. That is not an invite for this non-expert to modify it – let someone with some knowledge do it. The experience of the director of Sufi Films is more notable than most persons in the field. He was responsible for starting the most successful genre of television in the past decade - I would suggest that is notable.

What do you do when people admitting no expertise take control of a subject and waste accomplish people’s time?

Is this person bucking for an admin position with Wikipedia and is building up the number of entries they make so they may apply?

Any suggestions on how to deal with someone that wishes to waste your time?

I am new here and the young man/woman is right - I registered my account in fear that this person will use my IP to do me harm. Seems he/she is already looking in that direction as they took time to investigate and match my IP. Is there a way to stop this foolishness? Have some constructive contributions on the subject from real experts. Or will I be warn down by a teenager who has nothing better to do resulting in critically important media efforts espousing Sufi perspectives in the media being destroyed before they even begin. It boggles the mind and the heart.

Is this why Wikipedia was developed, to give a voice to the unaccomplished and make them feel they are on the same level?

Can someone more experienced offer advice? I will try to read up on what to do, but my time is very limited.

Peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I see that User:Sarabseth has modified these talk pages and removed the protion where he/she will leave it to experts. Is this a violation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's absolute garbage. Ad hominem attacks are not enough? You have to make blatantly untrue statements? My previous comments are still there: "And I'll leave it to other editors to adjudicate this issue, instead of reverting your edit." on 21:39, 8 February 2010, and "Instead of making ad hominem attacks on me, why don't you simply let other editors adjudicate whether a link to Sufi Films is warranted on this page or not?" on 00:27, 9 February 2010. The history page clearly shows it was never removed and restored. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What amazes me is our dear friend has an objection to Sufi Films from a real Sufi while the following entry under IN MUSic does not seem off topic or non-Sufi.

"Madonna, on her 1994 record Bedtime Stories, sings a song called "Bedtime Story" that discusses achieving a high unconsciousness level. The video for the song shows an ecstatic Sufi ritual with many dervishes dancing, Arabic calligraphy and some other Sufi elements. In her 1998 song "Bittersweet", she recites Rumi's poem by the same name. In her 2001 Drowned World Tour, Madonna sang the song "Secret" showing rituals from many religions, including a Sufi dance."

This makes Madona a Sufi or is the best example of Sufi Music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Am only going to say one thing for now in response to all this nonsense: BeUnknown has not offered a single statement that's actually responsive to my 11:17, 13 February 2010 comment. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious to me this is not about scholarship, this is entertainment to you a sport, a means to feel important. If you are not a child you sure do act like one! I have contacted an admin as you previously agreed to yet are now ignoring to further entertain and amuze yourself. Get a life! Try to control your ego long enough to let an admin do their part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there nobody here who finds BeUnknown's comments objectionable and offensive, and contrary to all norms of Wikipedia etiquette? --Sarabseth (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with Islamic titles

While editing various articles relating to Islamic subjects, I have picked up the notion that titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat are not to be used (just like honorifics like PBUH or R.A.). I cannot find any Wikipedia style/policy document which discusses this. (WP:MOSISLAM discusses only honorifics, and not titles of this sort.)

Will appreciate it very much if anyone can point me in the right direction.

If there isn't any Wikipedia style document per se which addresses this, would appreciate feedback on whether generally not using titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat as part of names is the convention Wikipedia seems to use in practice, even if it isn't written down anywhere?

In case anyone is interested in taking a look at the context of my question, please see Madurai Maqbara‎ (edits starting 15:04, 5 February 2010) and Talk:Madurai Maqbara, section titled "Qazi, Qadi, Imam, etc".

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

response to BeUnknown's attacks on me

Since 8 February, user BeUnknown has been making personal attacks on me on this Talk page (see Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films).

Today, in what can only be described as an act of stalking, he/she (henceforth, I'll just go with he, for convenience) followed me to Talk:Madurai_Maqbara and tried to attack me there.

The tone and content of his comments at Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films speak for themselves, and afford sufficient insight into his personality and character, so there's no need for me to respond to the ad hominem attacks per se. What I do want to point out is his consistent record, during the short time he has been active on Wikipedia, of jumping in half cocked, without any real idea of the facts, and committing hopelessly hilarious howlers. It's hard to take BeUnknown seriously when you consider this record:

First, he added the Spiritual Circle link to Sufism without having any idea what it really represented. (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 19:58, 8 February 2010)

Then, he declared that "Sufi Films has a film called Spiritual Circles”, when it’s just a proposed project, not a completed film. (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 21.57, 8 February 2010, and mine of 00:35, 9 February 2010)

Then, he decided that “Sufi Films” is a non-profit organization, without any factual basis whatsoever. (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 22:00, 8 February 2010, and mine of 00:27, 9 February 2010)

Then, he accused me of having “modified these talk pages” and removing statements I had made earlier, which is absolutely untrue. (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 07:50, 15 February 2010, and mine of 12:29, 15 February 2010)

Then, he claimed to have reported me to an administrator (Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films, his comment of 20:02, 15 February 2010). Actually, the person he reported me to is not an administrator at all (see User_talk:Madhero88#Requesting you for Adminship and the outcome of the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Madhero88).

Then he went to Talk:Madurai_Maqbara to launch another ad hominem attack on me and ended up attacking another editor instead, because he did not take the trouble to try and figure out who was actually responsible for the content he picked to attack.

That adds up to 6 separate embarrassing howlers in just 12 days.

Apart from ad hominem attacks, and hilarious howlers, BeUnknown specializes in completely refusing to engage on specifics, imperiously dismissing reasoned comments rather than responding in any meaningful way.

On 11:17, 13 February 2010, I deleted a passage, with this detailed explanation:

Newer production companies and directors are beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility. Most notably Sufi Films with Director James McConnell also Director Simon Broughton for Sufi Soul – The Mystic Music of Islam, to name a few in a growing field. Films in the Sufi genre are also being featured at a number of newer film festivals devoted to the genre, such as the World Sufi Festival

Not clear what some of this means. For example, what does it mean to “emphasize a Sufi sensibility”? Or what is a film “in the Sufi genre”?

Furthermore, if a director with one completed film about a Sufi Sheikh is the most notable example of this trend (of newer production companies and directors beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility), it doesn’t seem to be much of a trend.

However, the bigger problem is that “Newer production companies and directors are beginning to populate the media landscape with films that emphasize a Sufi sensibility” is a subjective opinion, not an objective statement of fact. As such, it belongs in a WP article only if supported by expert opinion. Without such a citation, it constitutes “original research”, and must regretfully be removed.

He reversed the edit, attacked me personally (calling me, among other things, "A pimple nose sixteen year old with no expertise"), but offered not one single word to rebut or refute my argument.

When I refuted his claim that Sufi Films is a non-profit organization, and his scurrilous allegation that I had deleted past entries from this Talk page, he did not respond at all, not even to apologize in the latter instance, despite the fact that he had falsely impugned my integrity.

I request other editors to look at the Talk:Sufism#Sufi_Films discussion, and mediate this dispute between us, and offer whatever criticisms are warranted of either his behavior or mine.

Thanks for your time and effort! --Sarabseth (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The howler accuse others of howling.

It's clear I am new and have much to learn. What I can not understand is immediately attacking someone’s contribution without any inclination towards making the Wiki page on Sufism better for everyone. What astounded me was the first statement offered from Sarabseth for deleting my entire entry with a statement to the effect that "Sufi Films is not about Sufism", implying that the web designer spent hundreds of hours or more constructing a site to deceive a target audience and get one over on Wikipedia. I would think as a basic understanding, even for someone new like me, that editors would first and foremost have some knowledge of the subject matter and when having a knowledge about the subject matter would then work to discuss, debate, improve and come to a consensus on what is best.

But no, Sarabseth, cuts the entire contribution without any regard for other peoples time and effort, not to mention advanced expertise, and then introduces themselves along with their juvenal approach by stating Sufi Films has nothing to do with Sufism. HOW DO YOU TAKE ANYONE LIKE THIS SERIOUS? Moreover, not get angry and assume this person has a lot of time on their hands and willy nilly yanks busy peoples work and then engages them in not one disruption but another after another after another. When failing to make their first argument stick, it becomes a contest to find other arguments and they search the site for something to support their original claim. Sufi Films is not non-profit. If I ask the owner to provide the documents, will this fool shut up then? Why should anyone have to defend against such idiotic attacks.

Sarabseth has no perspective and displays very juvenile judgment. This has become a sporting contest and she, I assume a she, is angry because I hit the nail on the head. This is someone with a lot of time on their hands, has no consideration for others and takes general statements made about other people's statements concerning issues over Wikipedia policy of allowing anyone to edit without any expertise whatsoever and then assumes they are about her own pimple teenage face, not the generic face refrenced. Open contributions are one thing, but open destruction of entire contributions with no discussion - coming from someone who refuses to substantiate any authority on the subject and who clearly has no knowledge of the adopted subjects they have decided interest them most because they like the music, is absurd.

Sarabseth has claimed to be editing Wikipedia for five years; you would think there would be a little more consideration for new people and less arrogance. I have said it before and I'll repeat it now, this is someone bucking to become an editor and boost their own ego. It really is a shame because Wikipedia is an amazing service. Being new, that is still all clear. We are dealing with an angry person with several issues. If they do not want to be attacked for their foolish and inconsiderate actions, then they should learn some manners and respect, let alone some understanding of the subject matter.

With as little time here as I have had perhaps I am not best to offer advice. But a simple solution would be to require at least some amount of discussion before you kill someone else’s entire contribution or perhaps require that two or more established Wiki users approve all "major" edits. This would lighten the load of Admin’s having to address these juvenile arguments and keep serious users from having their time wasted by arrogant fools. I have my doctoral degree in Sufism – not that an advanced degree qualifies you as an expert on Sufism. I could go on . . . . .

I am open for constructive criticism and dialogue even from self proclaimed experts, but I find it impossible to waste my time with such arrogance. Yes I followed some links from Sufism to see the extent to which this low grade of academic thought extended on a subject near and dear.

Editors of other people's contributions should consider that people might not have the same amount of time on their hands as they do before engaging them in drawn out conflicts that were caused by their own arrogance and lack of consideration.

Join a debate team dear or learn how to bowl. Knocking down pins is not as harmful as knocking down people.

Peace!

What is really funny is she openly asked for help on Islamic titles and that brought me there to help. She simply did not like what I had to say because it bursts her ego and challeges her authority on anything Sufi let alone Islamic. The comments are sound and deserve full consideration, not more conflict. After an open invitation - it somehow turns into stalking. This person has serious issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 08:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

--BeUnknown —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

One case in point of attempting to be constructive - look at the response.

I do agree that the Spiritual Circle Network link is not what it, at first glance, appeared to be (Sufi) and thus it is being removed. I hope that satisfies your objections. I do intend to add other production, film and media companies to this site as they are a valuable resource under this category as is Quawali Music is to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.26.52 (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Anyone can give their company any name. If you look at their own website that you linked to in Sufism, it doesn't claim any Sufi content to their films, or anything resembling Sufi sensibility

Unflipping believable! How are busy people supposed to respond to that?

Last thought, I hope! Everything about Sufi Films is Sufi if you have the least bit of understanding about Sufism. Sufi historically use wisdom and subtle approaches to convey an understanding about life. Perhaps a hit them over the head with the Islamic law approach is what Sarabeth desires from Sufis. Just because the Director does not follow the pack and do a movie on Rumi with yet another whirling dervish does not mean the entire subject matter is not Sufi. This Director has several completed Sufi Films and only placed the one completed film that is still in circulation. The notation on the Store indicates very clearly all proceeds go to support the non-profit work. I mean, do I really need to continue? The movie on Attar, if you have the least bit of understanding, is all about Sufi's - read the Conference of the Birds. “Attar masterfully tells the reader many didactic short, sweet stories in captivating poetic style”. Where do you think the word ATTAR comes from. Sheeeesh!

Can we please ban Sarabeth from all things Sufi on Wikipedia – PLEASE!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Opps, one more thing. The use of the word notable seems to upset Sarabeth as do so many other minor issues she is using to win her argument. I do feel it good to address this particular concern and am not married to the word. Notable refers to the fact that this Director actually invented what is now called Reality Televison and gave up everything, including certain fame and fortune in pursuit of his path. I would suggest that to be notable. Furthermore, unlike other "Sufi" directors, this guy actually has formal training having worked with some of, perhaps the most famous documentary filmmakers of our time. Most other directors in this genre are filmmakers by default, learning as they go and pointing a camera at rather interesting events that have never been fimed. It really does not make them documentary filmmakers. There is some good work out there, but this genre needs help, not destructive edits that seem to be intendt on hiding these advances in filmmaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 08:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to know the solution to these sorts of situations. This situation is likened to a small child with a paper airplane in hand walking into a cockpit and informing the pilot that he does not know how to fly. The pilot is busy keeping the plane flying and now has to continually address this small child because there seemingly is no mechanism to remove the child from the flight deck. Now the child is playing with the controls. I think any serious person, accomplished person, would be really disturbed by this sort of behavior and situation. Why does Wikipedia not address these issues and put some controls on who can fly? When the pilot gets upset and concerned, the child screams, why are you attacking me!!! Pathetic. BeUnknown (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Following is From My Talk Page

Its good to see people who know sufism in wikipedia

Dear, I was really disturbed by user Sarabseth while writing articles about sufism in wikipedia. I don't know how to make him understand. I want it to be encylopedic but he comes with some different views. Kindly follow user sarabseth in maqbara, madurai maqbara related articles.-wasifwasif

Hikma - Wisdom

It is good to hear some wisdom on the heals of all the confusion. Thank you! No one understands Sufism, we all understand just another small level - it is endless knowledge. I am very busy but I see a real need for some input on pages related to Sufism. Even areas like hijama are poorly written. There is virtually nothing about khalwa (seclusion) with an ascertion made that seclusions are no longer practiced - not so.

Baraka la feeq,

BeUnknown (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs)

RFC: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and associated pages

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

• There is a no dispute whether Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi actually died, disappeared, or went into "occultation". We believe that he went into Occultation on 25th November 2001. The only organization HE founded was Anjuman Serfroshan-e-Islam and not MFI. Younus has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi, younus is using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi for his ill-deeds. Through,RAGS International, The Representative of Gohar Shahi & Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, younus and his companion are using Wikipedia for self promotion of his self-made teachings. So, my point of view is that Younus should stopped on this stage, he shouldn't allow to use wikipedia for his ill-deeds.--Falconkhe (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Definitions: edits of March 14

This whole sub-section (from the heading "Early Definitions" through "...descriptions if not the very earliest.") is clearly misplaced in the introduction to the article.

It should probably be moved to some later point (somewhere in section 3, perhaps?).

Also, two comments on the actual content:

-- The amount of detail provided about Nahjul al-Balagha is distracting in this article. If it isn't already incorporated in the Nahj al-Balagha article, it should be inserted there. The Sufism article should just include a wikilink to that article, instead of this wealth of detail. (Perhaps this is what Esowteric means in his edit summary of 16:17, 14 March 2010: "This is not really the place for this long POV quote, though.")

-- The long quoted dialog (starting "al-Ala said to Emir al-mu'minin") certainly seems relevant, but it is not self-explanatory. It needs a little commentary to bring out the relevance. --Sarabseth (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the lead of the article is unduly weighted by this quote, apart from the fact that I feel we should not quote at this length. And the WP:LEDE is there to provide a summary of the article content. I mention WP:NPOV because this is an article about Sufism and toward the end of the quote it reads "According to the Shi'ah Ulama, all these sects are on the wrong path and out of the fold of Islam." I just feel that this is the wrong place to put forward this point of view at such length. I could be wrong, I'm just one voice. Esowteric+Talk 19:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"I'm just one voice". Yes, and so is Lilac Cotton/24.116.112.7 (who would appear to be one and the same). --Sarabseth (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Newly added "Ali ibn Abi Talib" section

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

Edits by Iwanttoeditthissh

Reproducing below a comment that user Iwanttoeditthissh left on my Talk page under the heading "Stop patronizing", along with my reply:

I put some perfectly reasonable articles in Sufism which were part of the Sufi template. You said that me adding a Tariqah or sufi text section is 'pointless'. You said the same thing about me adding nasheed to the article but they are all part of Sufism. Could you explain yourself please besides saying its pointless or irrelevant?Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you should post Sufism related comments in Talk:Sufism, not here, so that the content is accessible to all editors of that article. I will copy these comments there, and encourage you to continue the discussion there if you wish, not here.

Any section you add needs to have some reasonable content to justify its inclusion. They may be part of Sufism, but the concepts, per se, are already accessible in the Sufism article. For example, the "Visitation" section already includes an internal link to Tariqah. Adding a section is justified only if there is some discussion of the concept of tariqah and its relevance to Sufism. Your sections were like place-markers with no meaningful content.

And perhaps it is relevant that I'm not the only editor who has reversed these edits of yours? --Sarabseth (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request please anyone?

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

Abul Hasan al-Shadhili

I am with Sarabseth on this revert. Abul Hasan al-Shadhili simply hasn't attracted the level of secondary source coverage that the other names in that short list have attracted (compare [1] vs [2] or [3] or [4]); there are many more notable (in terms of secondary sources coverage) sufis that we would have to mention first. Of course, this is no disrespect to Abul Hasan and his qualities as a sufi, but if we are to write an NPOV encyclopedic article that reflects the preoccupations of secondary sources, his name is not the first that the list of notable sufis should be expanded with. --JN466 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, having done another google books search, I take that back. If you just search for "al-Shadhili" + sufi, you do get google books matches in the same order of magnitude as the others: [5]. So I'll waive my initial reservations; perhaps al-Shadhili it is not a bad name to add after all. --JN466 21:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Shadhili fetches more in google than for one of the Sufi found in that list . But still google results cannot be a criteria to decide about a sufi. Wasifwasif (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The above are not google results, but google books results, i.e. mentions in properly published books. Mentions in published books are a reasonable benchmark of notability. --JN466 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

When you consider preeminent Sufis, I would respectfully submit that Abul Hasan al-Shadhili doesn't really measure up to iconic figures like Bayazid Bastami, Ibn Arabi, Junayd Baghdadi or Mansur al-Hallaj.

Further, I think that all of the following are much more eminent and influential than Abul Hasan al-Shadhili:

Lal Shahbaz Qalander

Moinuddin Chishti

Nizamuddin Auliya

Rumi

Wasifwasif's edit history at Maqbara and Madurai Maqbara (and the associated Talk pages) suggests that he may not exactly represent a neutral point of view in respect of Abul Hasan al-Shadhili. The Madurai Maqbara article focuses on three Sufi saints whom Wasifwasif appears to revere, and they belong to the Shadhiliyya order founded by Abul Hasan al-Shadhili. As such, adding Abul Hasan al-Shadhili to the "Preeminent Sufis" section seems to be an act of homage on his part.

I suggest that Abul Hasan al-Shadhili should not be added to the "Preeminent Sufis" section unless this is supported by an independent editor. --Sarabseth (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not that Abul hasan shadhili is preeminent since i revere Him. Your points to remove Shadhilis name doesn't seems to be neutral and its your point of view without any reference. Prove that, Shadhili is not a preeminent sufi, and shadhiliyya is not at all an order. Wasifwasif (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shadhiliya is a wide spread sufi order and Shadhili is well known for his hizbs. Its not ok to say that it should be removed. Shadhili is a pre eminent sufi for sure Amjath123 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Shadhiliyya is a wide spread Sufi order. And Shadhili may be well known for his hizbs. But every founder of a Sufi order is not currently included in the list of Preeminent Sufis. The real questions are:

--does he have close to the same stature as the other 4 people already on the list?

--is he more eminent than Lal Shahbaz Qalander, Moinuddin Chishti, Nizamuddin Auliya and Rumi? --Sarabseth (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My intention is not to defame any Sufi saint. I personally revere all the four listed here and even all other Sufi saints. But undoubtedly Yes. Shadhili is very much eminent than all the four listed here for his Sufi order being practiced in more than 70 countries and his Hizbs (as Amjath123 pointed above) are being recited by almost all sunni muslims irrespective of the sufi order they practice which has become a part of the daily deeds of muslims.Wasifwasif (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand my earlier statement that this issue is best addressed by editors with an objective and neutral rather than a reverential point of view?

And I fail to see how the fact of his hizbs "being recited by almost all sunni muslims irrespective of the sufi order they practice" qualifies him for inclusion in this section. Rumi, for example, is much more widely known, and has been the best-selling poet in the U.S. for many years. Yet he is not included in the section. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If this entry is to be restored, I think it needs to be completely rewritten, in the style of the other 4 entries. The other 4 entries focus on why the person in question is regarded as a preeminent Sufi; the entry for Abul Hasan al-Shadhili consists almost entirely of incidental biographical minutiae. --Sarabseth (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the entry should be rewritten, and sourced. I also agree that Qalander, Chishti, Rumi etc. (as well as Rabiya) may well be more iconic sufis, but I would suggest that can be remedied by adding sections on them as well. Someone at some point needs to look at the overall structure of this article (Rumi and Rabiya are already mentioned, after all) and come up with a concept of how to present the history of sufism and its notable indidviduals. Unfortunately, that won't be me in the foreseeable future. --JN466 15:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The entry I removed on June 12 is a perfect example, I think, of why editors who are too close to a subject emotionally should recuse themselves from edits pertaining to that particular subject.

I had already voiced concerns above, several times, about Wasifwasif's ability to be objective about Abul Hasan al-Shadhili, given his obvious veneration of the man. Despite being forewarned about the possibility of POV bias, he produced an entry that suffers from an inappropriately reverential tone and problematic content. For example, there is the repeated capitalization of the word "his" when referring to al-Shadhili, as well as the unsourced statement "Abul Hasan al-Shadhili the founder of Shadhiliyya sufi order is considered as the emperor of the world of Sufism for introducing Zikr Jahri". --Sarabseth (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find any sentence unsourced, go for "Citation needed". Don't simply delete mentionigg your POV. As JN has pointed out try add sections on them rather than simply deleting.

Nothing to be emotionally close on a subject. fact needs to be brought out.Wasifwasif (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Citation needed" is appropriate for a NPOV unsourced statement. Deletion is appropriate for a POV unsourced statement.

It is a fact that calling a saint who you obviously venerate "the emperor of the world of Sufism" is seriously POV. I googled that phrase to see if it might be a quotation from somewhere. Didn't find any other usage other than this article.

It is a fact that you repeatedly capitalized the word "his" in the entry you wrote up.

So I had indeed followed your prescription, and just brought out the facts.

Do you not understand that what you originally wrote suffers from an inappropriately reverential tone and problematic content? Instead of quoting JN to me, why didn't you follow his advice yourself? He said "I agree the entry should be rewritten"; you just restored the previous problematic version without making any attempt whatsoever to address the problems. That hardly seems to consistent with good faith editing. --Sarabseth (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents: as someone trying to learn more about the subject, I found this paragraph in particular too full of reverence for the subject to be informative. The article itself appears to thank Allah for Shadhili's actions: "and thank Allah for that which attracted Muslims towards his Sufi order." At the very least, perhaps someone reasonably knowledgeable could go through and remove such phrases. Later, someone else could consider going back and adding a statement about how many adherents Shadhilli drew to his order (with references). If that person could also spell out by what means, that would be helpful. Please remember us ignorant folk who have a loose grasp of what it means to "enjoy all permitted" or what "tariqush shukr" means (and why it's a significant title). I'm rather interested, and would like to see this article clarified.Aphzidos (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a slightly clumsy sentence, but perhaps it means "Shadhili taught his followers to ... thank Allah for that which attracted Muslims towards his Sufi order"? If so, it would be very helpful to know what "that which attracted Muslims towards his Sufi order" actually consists of. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The following parts of this section need attention:

"Shadhili taught his followers to enjoy all permitted (halal) and thank Allah for that which attracted Muslims towards his Sufi order." It's not clear exactly what this means. "enjoy all permitted (halal)" seems incomplete; the remaining part needs clarification.

"For this, Shadhiliyya is also called tariqush shukr." The meaning of tariqush shukr needs to be explained (see the comment of Aphzidos on July 1). (The link to shukr doesn't help too much, since it's not clear what the word meas in this context.]] --Sarabseth (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Isa

The Etymology section contains this sentence: "The early Sufi orders considered the wearing of this cloak an imitation of Isa."

Does Isa refer to Jesus? Shouldn't it be explained who it refers to, and why they are associated with a cloak? --Sarabseth (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: this is now redundant since the material in question was removed. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

There is nothing on demographics in this page. Can we have a section devoted to demographics please? Including which countries contain the most Sufis. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is already a section for this. Please don't add new sections with the same request. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Map?

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

Approve important link

http://www.saltanat.org provides daily sohbets on Sufism. It is a critically important source for the seeker of truth. Please include it in the links section. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seekers of truth can, no doubt, find the website on their own. Providing critically important sources for the seeker of truth is not the purpose of this, or any other, WP article. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nasrudin?

No mention of Nasrudin? How important a figure is he, within Sufism? 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdege (talk • contribs)

Make a small section on Sufism's beliefs about the Caliphs, 4 Sunni Imams, and Shia Imams?

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

Edits by Alamukht on Aug 14 and 15

Multiple edits made by this editor on Aug 14 with no explanation were reverted by me with the comment "too many unexplained deletions, plus the article gives undue prominence to the views of one scholar, Shafique Virani".

The same edits were made again on Aug 15 by Alamukht, saying "Content verifiable and academic".

That misses the point. One, the deletions are still unexplained. Two, the criticism was not that Shafique Virani is not a respectable academic. However, a Wikipedia article is supposed to represent primarily the prevailing consensus of scholars and experts about the topic. Individual opinions can certainly be added to the article, but need to be clearly identified as the opinion of one scholar among many, and are best introduced after the majority consensus is laid out. Alamukht entirely rewrote the lede based on the work of one scholar. The rest of the article was also peppered with that academic's views and opinions. This gives undue prominence to the views of one scholar. The article is "Sufism", not "Sufism, according to Shafique Virani". Let's keep it that way, please. --Sarabseth (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The intent was not to introduce bias into the page, but rather to update it with the results of cutting edge scholarship. It is a fact that the term "Sufism" subsumes within it an array of mystical traditions and is used with much less precision than the Arabic "tasawwuf". The term was coined by Orientalist scholars and this fact has been discussed by various academics, among whom I cited Shafique Virani. It is clear that you are very invested in this page and the Talk page displays a history of your reverting changes by other contributors in order to preserve the page as you would like to see it so I will not pursue this matter further. Shame though that the Wikipedia page for "Sufism", probably one of the world's most widely read sources because of the popularity of the site, does not contain the results of recent scholarship on this subject. -User:Alamukht

Leave ad hominem attacks out of it, please. I explained the rationale for my edits, which is a lot more than you did (despite making wholesale changes).

For the record, I didn't impute any intent to you. I only described the effect of your changes.

I'll repeat again: "cutting edge scholarship", by definition, is not yet the prevailing scholarly consensus. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the latter. The former, if included, must clearly be identified as such. I don't believe that's controversial. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fringe views in introduction

This article currently reads:

"According to Idries Shah, the Sufi philosophy is universal in nature, its roots predating the arising of Islam and the other modern-day religions; likewise, some Muslims consider Sufism outside the sphere of Islam."

I question whether these fringe views, particularly the first, belong in the introduction (and the second could be better-sourced.)98.203.142.210 (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say it's a fringe view? Who is Idries Shah? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology: edits by 62.38.117.20

On Jan 3, and again on Jan 4, 62.38.117.20 replaced the original content (which has stood for more than a year and a half in pretty much this form)

According to some sufis the lexical root of Sufi is variously traced to صُوف sūf "wool", referring either to the simple cloaks the early Muslim ascetics wore, or possibly to صَفا safā "purity". The two were combined by al-Rudhabari who said, "The Sufi is the one who wears wool on top of purity." The wool cloaks were sometimes a designation of their initiation into the Sufi order. Sufism is known as "Islamic Mysticism," in which Muslims seek to find divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God. Mysticism is defined as the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality, and the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).

Others suggest the origin of the word sufi is from Ashab as-suffa "Companions of the Porch", who were a group of impoverished Muslims during the time of Muhammad who spent much of their time on the veranda of Al-Masjid al-Nabawi, devoted to prayer and eager to memorize each new increment of the Qur'an as it was revealed.

by

According to the medieval Iranian scholar Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī the word sūfi, plural of sūfiya, is a derivation from the Greek word "sofia" or "sophia" (Greek σοφία) meaning wisdom ("sofi" -Greek σοφοί- = wise). The related traditional view for the Sufism's origin was transferred to the west by the Orientalist F. Hadland Davis, according to which during the 6th Century, a group of Neo-platonist philosophers forced to leave home by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian who closed the Academy and forbade the teaching of philosophy in Athens during the evangelism of the Greek mainland. They eventually took refuge to the royal Sassanid court, where they played a key role to the creation of the movement directly attributing it to the Neoplatonic Mysticism over the distinctive Neoplatonic system of emanation and return as a mystical depiction of the world.

According to others the lexical root of Sufi is variously traced to صُوف sūf "wool", referring either to the simple cloaks the early Muslim ascetics wore, or possibly to صَفا safā "purity". The two were combined by al-Rudhabari who said, "The Sufi is the one who wears wool on top of purity." The wool cloaks were sometimes a designation of their initiation into the Sufi order.

Sufism is known as "Islamic Mysticism," in which Muslims seek to find divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God. Mysticism is defined as the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality, and the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).

I think this has the following problems:
1) The views of one medieval Iranian scholar are given primacy over the mainstream traditional view.
2) After one sentence relating to the etymology of the word Sufism, the revision abruptly transitions into a purported account of the origin of Sufism as a movement, and then jumps back in the next paragraph to the etymological discussion.
3) The Neo-platonist discussion which constitutes the bulk of the first paragraph goes into minute details (about the actions of Justinian, for example) but it really doesn't make it clear at all what the group of Neo-platonist philosophers had to do with the origin of Sufism. The language of this discussion also seems overly technical, suited more for a philosophy journal than a Wikipedia article (e.g. "directly attributing it to the Neoplatonic Mysticism over the distinctive Neoplatonic system of emanation and return as a mystical depiction of the world".)

The original content seems far superior to the revision; I am accordingly, restoring it again(with the addition of the opening sentence of the revision). If the "Companions of the Porch" paragraph is suspect, it can be removed. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• 1. You say that you disagree in giving primacy to the Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī's explanation. Which theory must enjoy "primacy" is an issue and I am ready to discuss it. What you did is that you decided by yourself upon the issue without siting any source for that.

• 2. You say that this is only the view of one medieval Iranian scholar while what you call "mainstream view" is currently represented in the article by a single reference of another medieval scholar (al-Rudhabari) based upon a page of a site (http://www.livingislam.org/).

• 3. As you can see in the references given and in other sources, the Greek origin theory of the term is closely associated with the story of the group of philosophers from the Academy which makes worthwhile mentioning the story and the related philosophical influence they exercised in the movement.

• 4. You say that the added text seems overly technical, suited more for a philosophy journal than a Wikipedia article giving as example the half of a sentence ".. attributing it to the Neoplatonic Mysticism over the distinctive Neoplatonic system of emanation and return as a mystical depiction of the world(3 refs)". I don't agree with your characterization of the sentence as "overly technical", but in any case you seem to overlook that at the very end of the chapter there is a para absolutely unrelated with the chapter's title or the theories about the term, having to do exclusively with the philosophical aspects of the movement:

"Sufism is known as "Islamic Mysticism," in which Muslims seek to find divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God. Mysticism is defined as the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality, and the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).

• 5. The expression "according to others" without saying who, is considered a classical error in WP and is always being marked with the mark in every article that contains it. I don't understand why you insist on removing it. Also the assertion that the wool cloaks was a designation of the initiation into the order obviously needs a citation and also cannot understand why you disagree on that.

• 6. A theory is a theory, a fully referenced theory is a fully referenced theory, and an unreferenced theory (like that of the veranda guys you insist to restore) is an unreferenced theory.

Seeing at first your action to delete every single word I added including 5 references I thought that your edit was just a vandalism; having a closer look in your previous edits both in the article and mainly the talk page I realised that you possibly feel that every edit in the article must have your approval to stay. That's not bad since wp is based upon common efforts organized upon common accepted rules. It is bad when an editor tends to develop wp:ownership upon an article. Deleting fully sourced edits is often a typical wp:i don't like it response, which I hope is not your case.

Anyway, for the above 6 reason I believe the edits I made are enriching the contents without affecting the rest of the article's material (with the exception of the veranda theory which had been marked as unsourced since 2009), and accordingly I am restoring it.--79.167.79.237 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think some corrections are necessary to the current version of this section:

"The related traditional view for the Sufism's origin was transferred to the west by the Orientalist F. Hadland Davis, according to which during the 6th Century, a group of Neo-platonist philosophers forced to leave home by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian who closed the Academy and forbade the teaching of philosophy in Athens during the evangelism of the Greek mainland."
This sentence is incomplete. This group of Neo-platonist philosophers did what?

"They eventually took refuge to the royal Sassanid court, where they played a key role to the creation of the movement, directly attributing it to the Neoplatonic Mysticism."
I don't think it's enough to just say "they played a key role to the creation of the movement", without explaining anything about what that role was.
"directly attributing it to the Neoplatonic Mysticism" doesn't seem to make sense in the context; something is missing. Who is attributing what to Neoplatonic Mysticism? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I cannot understand why you believe is incomplete. Did you have an eye on the last six sources given? According to them (and many others) there is a clear neoplatonic background in the movement which is attributed to the role played by this group of people. I think it was more clearly given before, when the sentence "attributing it to the Neoplatonic Mysticism over the distinctive Neoplatonic system of emanation and return as a mystical depiction of the world" was present in the text (which had been directly taken by one of these sources). But in your previous msg you thought that this sentence was "overly technical, suited more for a philosophy journal than a Wikipedia article" and I consequently removed it. Now you say "This group of Neo-platonist philosophers did what?" and "without explaining anything about what that role was".

So the answer to your question is that the Neoplatonist philosophers exercised an influence in the movement by "directly attributing it to the Neoplatonic Mysticism over the distinctive Neoplatonic system of emanation and return as a mystical depiction of the world"(refs), the extend of which is better to be analysed in another chapter of the article on which I am ready to work with you and any other in expanding it. In any case if you think that the expressed meaning of the current text is weak please correct it.--79.167.76.189 (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"In any case if you think that the expressed meaning of the current text is weak please correct it." I can't, because I have no idea what the missing pieces are.

The incompleteness of the sentence has nothing to do with looking up sources. The sentence is grammatically incomplete. Specifically, the long clause, starting with "a group of Neo-platonist philosophers" is incomplete. The subject of the clause ("a group of Neo-platonist philosophers") is followed by what is structurally a long aside describing the circumstances under which they were forced to leave home(forced to leave home by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian who closed the Academy and forbade the teaching of philosophy in Athens during the evangelism of the Greek mainland), and the clause has no object. The object of the clause should be some statement about what this group of philosophers had to do with the origin of Sufism. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What they did is in the next sentence. That's the best I can do in shortening the now united sentences while better explaining what they did by reinserting the "technicalities". I am done for today.

The related traditional view for the Sufism's origin was transferred to the west by the Orientalist F. Hadland Davis, according to which during the 6th Century, a group of Neoplatonist philosophers were forced to leave home when the emperor Justinian closed the Academy and forbade the teaching of philosophy in Athens; by taking refuge to the Sassanid court, they played a key role in the development of the movement by correlating it to the Neoplatonic Mysticism over the distinctive Neoplatonic system of emanation and return as a mystical depiction of the world.

This still makes very little sense to me. It really doesn't explain -- in any way that an average reader can actually understand -- how the the Neoplatonist philosophers came to influence Sufism, and what that influence consisted of.

1) What does "by correlating it to the Neoplatonic Mysticism over the distinctive Neoplatonic system of emanation and return as a mystical depiction of the world" actually mean? Correlating what? If the "it" is supposed to be Sufism, "correlating Sufism to the Neoplatonic Mysticism over the distinctive Neoplatonic system of emanation and return as a mystical depiction of the world" sounds like the Neoplatonist philosophers were conducting a scholarly analysis after the fact, rather than they were influencing the development of Sufism. What is needed is perhaps a historical account of how the Neoplatonist philosophers influenced Sufism.

2) I see that "played a key role in the creation of the movement" has suddenly changed into "played a key role in the development of the movement" without any explanation. There's a very material difference. If development is accurate, then creation was seriously inaccurate. This does raise the question whether there are other as-yet-uncorrected inaccuracies.

3) They played a key role "by taking refuge to the Sassanid court"? Not "after" but "by". Why is where they took refuge relevant? What does the Sassanid court have to do with Sufism? There is no other reference to the Sassanid court in the article.

4) When exactly did Sufism arise? There is no mention in the article that Sufism was already extant in the 6th century. The article describes Uwais al-Qarni and Hasan Basri as "the first Sufis in the earliest generations of Islam". They were born in 594 A.D. and 642 A.D. respectively. If Sufism arose only in the 7th century, then how did these Neoplatonist philosophers come to influence Sufism? Presumably, their writings (or transmitted teachings) influenced some of the key early Sufis? If so, these linkages should be presented.

5) I am also troubled by the fact that the "History of Sufism" section does not contain any reference whatsoever to these Neoplatonist philosophers. If they really were a significant influence on either the creation or development of Sufism, one would think that over the years someone would have added a statement to that effect.

Anyway, I've done whatever I could to try and explain to you why I think this material has major issues in its present form. If you don't see it, there's really nothing else I can say to explain further. Perhaps someone else can help move the discussion forward? And if nobody else cares, hey, just keep on trucking! --Sarabseth (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't spent the rest of my wp:life trying to explain what I think is sufficiently explained over a never ending discussion. This single sentence has 11 refs covering almost every word of it. What I input is just what the refs say, nothing more, nothing less, check it. Did you read the text below? Do you have any objection or suggestion in putting it to the article? Do you think that the appropriate position is in the "Basic views" chapter? I strongly believe that a para must be added as to explain more thoroughly what constitutes this influence. There are tons of reliable books analysing the Neo-Platonic roots of the movement and currently the article don't say a word about it. I think that's not good encyclopaedically speaking, but also it's not good for the Sufism. The Neoplatonic roots doesn't reduce Sufism's value, to the contrary. If I may, I can't understand at all why from the start you were so opposed in mentioning it.--79.167.76.189 (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"This single sentence has 11 refs covering almost every word of it. What I input is just what the refs say, nothing more, nothing less, check it." That's totally absurd. Appending 11 references doesn't help a sentence to make sense. If you input just what the refs say, nothing more, nothing less, that's just a copy-and-paste job, and copying-and-pasting a sentence of technical prose from a reference (sans any context) is a lousy way to expand a wikipedia article.

"If I may, I can't understand at all why from the start you were so opposed in mentioning it." You have signally failed to understand my comments. I think I have made it abundantly clear that I am not opposed to mentioning it. I am only interested in the mention actually making sense to readers. I am only opposed to adding it to the article in a form that doesn't make sense. You don't seem to be able to understand that there are huge issues with effectively conveying whatever impenetrable meaning it is that you are trying to convey to readers.

I note that you didn't respond at all to the specific issues raised in points 3 and 4 of my last comment. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• 3.I will remove the "by" there by replacing it with a comma. Is that OK with you?
• 4.Do you really believe that Sufism had been aroused as a movement and had been finalised in its philosophy, method, and doctrine only by the personal work of Uwais al-Qarni and/or Hasan Basri? More specifically do you really believe that it is possible for anyone today to find the exact channels through which this esoteric influence had been exercised? Either by person or through writings? What we have is tons of studies saying that Sufism in its basic views, methodology and doctrine follows the typical views and logic of the neoplatonic doctrine, and that this is related to the presence of these neoplatonic philosophers in the area and specifically in the Sassanid court. And that its name, not roughly, but exactly means in their native language "wise men". This is what the refs given say this is what I put in. I don't know anything else, I cannot contact an original research, and I don't have the calibre to contact the researchers and ask them what you are asking me.

I am not trying to convey anything to the readers, I only find it strange to have so many old and modern *absolutely reliable and serious* studies explaining the neoplatonic roots of the movement and the way these had been implemented, and having an article in wp that fails to mention the word neoplatonism even for a single time. To me it is strange to see someone so strongly opposed to that by using every kind of excuses, first that is "convoluted", then that is grammatically imperfect, now asking questions that nobody today can really answer.

I never have discussed so much a single sentence of an article, and I never have put so many refs in one. I am indeed a little bit tired by it but not that much to accept the deletion of a fully and multiple sourced text just for saving my self from a nightmare. I am still waiting for your answer about the text below which I believe is necessary in order to explain to the reader what you also had asked, on what that influence was, in some detail.--79.167.68.41 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Do you really believe that Sufism had been aroused as a movement and had been finalised in its philosophy, method, and doctrine only by the personal work of Uwais al-Qarni and/or Hasan Basri?" Do you really believe I wrote anything anywhere to suggest that I believe this?

"I am not trying to convey anything to the readers..." That explains a lot, actually.

"by using every kind of excuses, first that is "convoluted", then that is grammatically imperfect..." From the beginning you have tried to make this personal by ascribing all kinds of pernicious motives to me. It's clear that English is not your first language, and that you don't understand some basic issues of English grammar. I didn't see any point in being rude to you about this. But after I spelled out in very simple terms exactly what the grammatical problem was with that sentence, for you to snipe that it was just some kind of excuse I concocted that the sentence was grammatically incorrect is not just misconceived, it's a totally stupid personal attack.

"I am indeed a little bit tired by it..." Perhaps that's because you insist on missing the point, and responding in ludicrous ways. Addressing grammatical solecisms by adding more references is a perfect example. (Complaining afterward about having to add so many references is even more priceless.)

"I am still waiting for your answer about the text below..." After this frustrating experience of trying to get you to understand perfectly simple things about what you are calling a single sentence, I have absolutely no intention of trying to engage with you on what would doubtless be another long and futile interaction. You go ahead and do what you like. Other editors will doubtless let you know what they think of any edits you make. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

First you answered to the first question but not to the second which is the essence of the very last issue you raised. But that's OK. I am indeed not a native English speaker and certainly I didn't try to hide it. So I can accept -in fact appreciate- any kind of suggestion or correction in my texts. But you have to admit that you never did one. And that your attitude contacting the text was from the very start rather hostile. You first didn't seem to have any problem with the original chapter representing little, badly, or entirely unreferenced theories about the name, such that of the impoverished veranda viewers seeing no reason to remove a theory marked as unsourced for two years. Then, when happened, you fully reverted down to the last word and ref my edit without discussing a word. When I protested for the removal of sourced text you opined that is just a theory of a medieval scholar. When I answered that the other view is also referenced to the view of another medieval scholar, you moved the objections over the philosophic technicalities the text contain related to the nature of the influence the people from Academy exerted. Next you objected on the grounds that the text are saying nothing about how that influence had been implemented. When I reminded you that I had removed any word about it due to your objections over the technicalities, you objected over grammatical imperfections, but when I called you to correct it, you declined it. When responding to your critics I made a series of grammatical adjustments, you opened a discussion over things which nobody could really answer. Only to go back to the grammatical imperfections when I answered that I don't and could not know more than what the refs say. Meanwhile, after you pointed on the lack of information over the nature of that influence, I proposed a text briefly analysing that influence on which (although three times asked), you refused to comment. This is my view of this interaction and I don't want to make any comment. The dialogue is at the top and anyone can read it.--79.167.75.36 (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"The dialogue is at the top and anyone can read it." Indeed! --Sarabseth (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad that we agree on something. Anyway I will welcome any critiques that include suggestions from you, now, and in the future.--79.167.75.36 (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a detailed analysis about the Neo-platonic influence in the basic views of Sufism in its methodology, and doctrine

In continuation to the above discussion, I believe that some text must be added (maybe in the chapter of the "Basic views") about the Neo-platonic influence in the Sufism's methodology, and doctrine. Below is a draft written as a proposal, any help or suggestion is valuable:

The basis of the Sufi doctrine according to many modern researchers as well as older scholars is Neoplatonic. This influence can be traced back in the doctrinal Platonic concepts of the “Allegory of the Cave” in the “Republic” (514 A - 521 B), the "ladder of ascent" in the “Symposium” (209 E-212 C), and in more expanded form in the Neoplatonic manuscripts such as that of Plotinus' Enneads (any number of refs, there are tens about).

(below is a short analysis of the Neoplatonic influence on the basic views of Sufism, taken by the "Neoplatonism and Contemporary Thought (Studies in Neoplatonism : Ancient and Modern)" book of R. Blaine Harris, State University of New York Press, 2001, p.321. There are many other studies saying approx. the same but this I believe is the more comprehensive)

According to them this influence is visible in the structural methodology of the basic philosophical views of Sufism, where the so-called “Self-realization ethic” doesn't take mysticism as metaphysics, but as a doctrine of salvation by “the inward way”, and the “way of unity”. This corroborates with the concept of the way (“tariqa”) in the sufic literature, in which the mystic is referred to the traveller (“salik”) of the mystical path while its mysticism is a series of phenomenological transformations through stations (“maqamat”), due to external efforts, and the intentional state (“ahwal”) due to degrees of authentic exposures. In its teleological view Sufism also follows the Neoplatonic doctrine in which gnosis (“ma rifa”) is explained not in terms of knowledge (“ilm”) of concepts nor sense data, but as a series of revelations (“kashfha”) where the mystic's entire world-respective, is sequentially modified until mystical union is achieved.(ref) --79.167.76.189 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

R.K. Gupta

Does R.K. Gupta warrant 4 entries in the "Additional reading" list? Is he a respected scholar or an authority on Sufism? The first three books are all published by B.R. Publishing Corporation, not exactly a well-known publisher. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

All these entries seem to have been added by the author himself, usually hiding behind an I.P. address:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sufism&action=historysubmit&diff=407628767&oldid=407126266

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sufism&action=historysubmit&diff=300958147&oldid=300030330

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sufism&action=historysubmit&diff=297320019&oldid=297296464

I am deleting the 4 entries, as well as the link to his own website he added today. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that this set of additional reading entries and the website appear unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Noteworthy Sufi teachers?

The article reads: "Other noteworthy Sufi teachers who were active in the West in recent years include Sidi Hamza al Qadiri al Boutshishi, Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, Dr. Nahid Angha (amongst the first Sufi women leaders of the present time), Dr. Shah Nazar Ali Kianfar, Nader Angha, Sheikh Abdullah Sirr-Dan Al-Jamal, Inayat Khan, Javad Nurbakhsh, Bulent Rauf, Irina Tweedie, Idries Shah and Muzaffer Ozak."

Several of these people do not seem to have WP articles. Do they pass the noteworthiness test? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been a recent flurry of red-linked additions to this section. As with many lists, there is a tendency to add one's favourites to the list. Guidelines for lists within articles in the MOS encourage editors to use prose style rather than lists [6]. Since these additions to the list make it increasingly problematic, I wonder whether we should either eliminate the section or convert it to prose style. Comments? Sunray (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the "noteworthy Sufi teachers" passage is from the "Contemporary Sufism" section, while the redlinked additions are to "Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars".

Hard to see how the latter list could be converted to prose style.--Sarabseth (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, I did refer to the wrong section. However, the problem of indiscriminate adding of Sufi scholars (or, for that matter, noteworthy teachers) still exists. What do you think we might do about it? Sunray (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

For a start, there were many people on the contemporary Sufi scholars list who clearly didn't belong, since they are not really Sufi scholars, but scholars in other areas. I've pruned the list somewhat, but still haven't looked at the WP articles in most cases.

Frankly, I'm not sure that such a list adds much value to the article, but would prefer not to delete the list without a wider consensus. It would be helpful if other people expressed their opinion.--Sarabseth (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know why Sarabseth removed Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi from added Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars. He wrote many works on sufism & founded the Barelvi movement. If you read his WP article one of his main interests is Tasawwuf which is Sufism.

His WP article says:

Ahmed Raza Khan Fazil-e-Barelvi --- was a Sunni Islamic scholar and sufi, whose works influenced the Barelvi movement of South Asia.[2] Raza Khan wrote on numerous topics, including law, religion, philosophy and the sciences.

He was a Sufi and a scholar, but there's nothing in his WP article to suggest that his area of scholarship was Sufism. The subsection called "Religious research" has no mention of Sufism (or anything related to it). You're asserting that he wrote many works on Sufism, but his WP article does not say anything like that. --Sarabseth (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)