Talk:Sufism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

Religion Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Chronological Archives
Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Topical Archives

[edit] Discussion subpage

/Controversy and debate

[edit] Too long?

This article is too long and certain sections are filled with Wahhabi/neo-Salafi nonsense. Somebody needs to remove their nonsense from the article. It is a fact that the majority of Muslims do not oppose Sufism/Tasawwuf, as most Madrassas in the Islamic world continue to teach the works of seminal Sufi personalities. This is an undeniable fact and it seems only biased Wahhabis, who see most Muslims as deviants, are unwilling to accept this.

Moreover, I suggest that the section "Sufi concepts" is removed entirely and replaced by a link to the main article "Sufi philosophy". "Sufi practices" should also be removed and its content perhaps moved to "Sufi philosophy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.177.96 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] India?

India is only mentioned three times in this whole article even though Hindustani religious thought and Mughal patronage (with certain important exceptions) were probably the impetus behind the continued development of Sufism in lands East of Iran (even as they were branded 'heretics' by more orthodox authorities in Islam). Some of the oldest Sufi orders and major schools of thought were born and practised in Hindustan and yet there is little mention of the syncretism between mystical Indian Buddhism and Hinduism that led to major Sufi texts and traditions. Sufi shrines in India --including Moinuddin Chisti's famous tomb-- continue to be visited and patronized by muslim as well as non-muslim North Indians.

Why don't you fix it?--Shahab (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viewpoints

I notice that you are adding content regarding the opinions of the Mujtahid Imams on Sufis. All your references so far (qss and allahuakbar) are Salafi websites. You can see that by their opinions on Mohammed Ibn Abdal Wahhab. If you have any non Salafi sources that state the same, please provide them. Otherwise, you can add a note saying that Salafis consider Sufis innovators. --Nkv 13:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction, Allahuakbar is not Salafi, it's an Orthodox Sunni website.

It is not. It's a Wahabi site as can be seen by it's praise for Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab (whom traditional muslims consider at best a deviant). I had already provided this link. Please refer the controversy archives. [allaahuakbar.net/scholars/ibn_abdul_wahhaab/index.htm].--Nkv 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And Salafis aren't the only ones who consider a lot of Sufis as innovaters, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tammiyah amongst a number of prominent Orthodox scholars wrote against a number of Sufi groups (he was around many years before the advent of Ibn Abd al-Wahab. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiya considered himself a Sufi of the Qadiri order. He denounced the people who disregarded the Sharia and still called themselves Sufis. He didn't criticise Tasawwuf as a science. I've provided links which detail this above. Please take a look. Also, Ibn Taymiyas positions formed the basis of Abdul Wahhab's Wahabi sect. I can show you (and have shown above) lots of traditional scholars who praise Sufis and Sufism. It was always considered a part of traditional Islam. Please add any more comments you have to the controversy subpage. It would make it easier to track. Thanks. --Nkv 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section

As a non-Sufi and a non-Muslim, I have created a section for the article entitled "Controversy." This section provides an appropriate place for exposition of the critical elements of controversy, such as innovation, to be set out for the reader in a systematic manner with appropriate links to related substantiating sources. At this point, discovering the controversial elements of Sufism from Wikipedia requires a great deal of study to find, and then review, several discussion pages. Forcing the reader to wade through multiple discussion pages to get to the heart of important controversy is a disservice to all Wiki users (including those who visit the article in the first instance with well-formed and long-standing points of view). The Controversy section also allows for quick removal of the neutrality/pov tag. A generalized neutrality/pov tag is inappropriate and misleading when applied like ketchup to the vast majority of other content in this article.

I apologize for the slight lag in time between discussing this new section on this page, and posting the changes on in the article.David Traver 15:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's quite agreeable and would solve this whole problem nicely.

There is however, another problem. The section which was added by Killbillsbrowser is as follows and is (from my knowledge and the sources I've stated is wrong and inaccurate).

Whereas many scholars like Abu Hanifa, Shafii, Ahmad and Ibn Taymiya consider them not following mainstream teachings of Islam, some scholars like Al-Ghazali, Suyuti etc have taken a lenient stance and labelled them as only misguided and of erroneous understanding.

I propose that this be changed to

Salafi scholars hold that opinion that Sufism is an innovation and was disapproved of by many classical scholars like Abu Hanifa, Shaf'i etc. (some more strongly than others) ([allaahuakbar.net/sufism/what_scholars_say_about_sufism.htm],[1]). Other Muslim scholars hold that Sufism has always been an integral part of the religion and that the classical scholars like the ones mentioned above approved of and recommeded it to their students ([2]).

and moved into the controversy section you added.

My reasons for this are

* From my knowledge of the issues, the Salafis are the ones who reject Sufism as a part of Islam. This should be clearly mentioned.

* Both the sites mentioned above (provided by Killbillsbrowser) are Salafi inclined.

I'd be grateful if you (David) and Killbillsbrowser could comment on this. Thanks much. --Nkv 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the quote is acceptable since other non-Salafi theologians also have issues with many aspects of Sufism. Although Salafis have extreme anti-Sufi views.

Siddiqui 16:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but definitely not the ones mentioned. I have broken up that paragraph in an above section detailing what the mentioned people have said about Sufism. Please take a look at that. There are some people (mostly Salafis in my experience) who hold Sufism to be an innovation. If you know of non Salafi people who consider Sufis deviants, perhaps we can strike out the Salafi from my version of the above paragraph and say that opinions differ. To make a point blank statment that Imam Ahmad considered sufis outside the pale of Islam while he himself used to visit one or that Imam Ghazzali considered them misguided (whereas in the Ihya - his greatest work which I'm studying right now he praises them), is plain wrong. --Nkv 16:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice replies. I suggest you place the desired language where you believe it fits best in the article. Then, others may respond in kind as they see the need for additions or revisions. David Traver 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a synopsis of what changes I make over here and then make them so that people can edit them. Thanks for all the trouble you're taking over this. --Nkv 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the paragraph which I quoted above into the controversy section. I have mentioned that some groups ('mostly (not wholly) Salafis - this part can be removed if Siddiqui thinks it's wrong) hold Sufism to be an innovation and quote traditional scholars to prove their point. Others say otherwise and quote classical scholars to strengthen their points. I don't think I've skipped anything which Killbillsbrowser added. Please let me know what you folks think and whether it's acceptable now. --Nkv 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of Pakiguy's edits slant the whole article towards the Salafi point of view which is what I was trying to present in an unbiassed way. Also, he asks to "see discussion" but there doesn't seem to be any by him. I don't have the time to fix it right now so I'll leave it and revisit it when I get back from my wikibreak in about 3 weeks. See you all then. --Nkv 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article was technically incorrect in many senses. I have made minor modifications so that it becomes clear that theses statements are opinions of the sufi sect and not general.

Your modifications are not minor. They slant the whole article towards an anti-sufi standpoint.

I meant minor in terms of quantity. They dont make the article anti-sufi. I dont understand how. Try to compare the version before and after and you will see that all i did was to make it clear that these views are presented as opinions of sufis and not as general facts to make this arcticle neutral. Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It makes the Sufism look like some kind of cult. Sufism is not a sect (like are the Shia or the Qadiyanis). They're people who emphasise Ihsan. For the purpose of argument, I'm defining an Islamic sect as a group that claims exclusivity (if you're not one of us, you're not muslim). The original Wahabis were a good example. None of the people of Tasawwuf that I've personally met or have read about do this. --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sufism is a sect and i do not agree with your definition of the sect that believe in exclusivity. However, it is indeed a sect that has a different set of beliefs and practices like the shia, sunni, qadiyani, ahmadi etc do. What i would not call sects are schools of thought like hanafi, shafi, maliki etc. Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed i agree with Siddiqui's statement. I come from a place where i guess salafis are a rare species.

I'd like to know where this is. Pakistan? --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most people here are hanafis and few are shafiis. The local imam of the masjid is also a hanafi scholar.

i didnt mean the country. well it is pakistan but i was referring to a city there.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sufism is no doubt abhorred by most mainstream muslims and is considered as a deviant sect that beleive in some 'magical' world and give up the regular lifestyle.

Training in Tasawwuf was part of the Islamic curriculum in most traditional Madrassas till about a generation ago.

You are again making wild claims here. The major islamic universities or institutions do not deal with sufism.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you agree that the university of Azhar is a major Islamic university. It's well known that Shaykn Ibn Ata'illah was a professor there. It's also well known that he's a Sufi of the Shahdilli order. Indeed one of the Khalifas of the order and has written books relating to the subject. Shaykh Nuh Keller's Reliance of the traveller is that from a classical work of Shaf'i Fiqh. It has a long and detailed section on Sufism and was approved of by Azhar as reflecting the views of the Orthodox muslim community. So, my claims are not exactly "wild". What do you think? --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of textbooks written by respected classical scholars (like Zainuddin Mallibari who was a student of Ibn Hajar Haytami for example) on the subject. It's been taught (and being taught) in almost all traditional madrassas where I come from (Kerala, India - we have a Shaf'i majority here).

you can make this statement, but not the earlier one. It could be that it is taught in most madrassas in the kerala, india, but not everwhere.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave you two examples of the scholars of Azhar endorsing Tasawwuf in modern times and in classical times. Prove them wrong. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally know quite a few people who have taken a Tariq from a Shaykh and none of them believe in a "magical world" or give up regular lifestyles. All of them are married, they have families and respectable jobs. Classical Sufis have been involved in all kinds of professions. Imam Shamil was a soldier, many of the Ba'alawi Sayyids were traders, Shaykh Ibn Ata'illah was a scholar etc. The ones you seem to be referring to (magical worlds, giving up normal life) are the deviants that have been exposed by people like Shaykh Ibn Taymiya. --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

well they do believe in some mystical facts. I know for sure that there is no heirarchy in islam, every person can get close to Allah without aid from anybody else. Also, the extreme reverence to individuals, which has no basis whatsoever, tantamounts to kufr. I ask questions why imam abu hanifa, one of greatest people that ever lived does not have a sufi order of his own then? or which order did he belong to? i mean to say i follow him in his jurisdiction as a hanafi and honour him much, but not as a shaykh or something like sufis do to their shaykh.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

People go to teachers to learn. If you don't know how to offer your 5 daily salats, you don't figure it out by asking Allah directly. You go to a teacher to learn. That's the function of the Sufi Shaykh. If you don't know how to get rid of subtle problems with yourself (like envy, pride etc.), you go to him and ask him how. There is no hierarchy but it's plainly clear in Islam that a person of knowledge is superior to one of ignorance. The shaykh has no authority to rewrite the Sharia and all classical scholars warn against Sufi claimants who consider themselves above the Sharia (Abu Hilman is an example). The "everyone can get close to Allah without help from anybody else" is the core of the Salafi argument. the Takfiri claim is another hallmark of the Salafis. They're very quick to do that. I can't answer your question about Imam Abu Hanifa but his statements on the Sufis and his association with Imam Ja'far Sadiq (check the sunnah.org link I provided above) show his opinions of them. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree to Nkv's statement that it is a salafi viewpoint, rather a mainstream muslim viewpoint. In fact the others are viewpoints of sufis.

You're wrong there. I could ask you to point me to a couple of non salafi references on the web which denounce real sufism as a deviation.

Can you point me to some non-sufi websites that say sufism is correct? This is a statement that does not make much sense. I dont know much about the web as there is lot of incorrect and misleading information(alongside with some correct). But, I can take you to scholars that are so not salafi that can tell you.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If I point you to any site that endorses Tasawwuf, you'll shoot it down as a pro-sufi site. If a site is non sufi, it won't have anything about Tasawwuf. That's the point I was making. Every site I've seen that's anti sufi is pro salafi (which can usually be ascertained by their views on Tawassul and their high amount of praise for Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab). If you know of others, please show them to me. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can point you to people who have Ijazas to teach Hanafi and Shaf'i Fiqh who embrace Sufism and follow a Tariq (sunnipath.com is an example).

yes i can show you such in my country too. I do not disagree to this. But, they adopted it, they cannot attribute it to mainstream islam, it was their choice. Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

They were taught it as part of their religious training as it was (till the advent of Salafism). --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As to your statement that "others are the viewpoints of the sufis", it's a nonsensical argument. It's like saying "anti-sufis hold opinions that are against Sufism". --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

i assume from your statements that you cannot accept the fact. it is a mainstream opinion whether you call it anti-sufi or whatever. This forum is not to argue what is correct or incorrect. The changes i made were only to make it sure that they become as neutral as possible rather than making it look like it is belief of everybody.Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fact that's it's a mainstream opinion. It's a fact that it's a Salafi opinion. From your talk here, I gather that you hold similar views (although I might be wrong). Your changes have not neutralised anything. It's slanted the article against Sufism. It's presented as a cult which has no relation to Islam. This is a Salafi view and that's what I'm trying to say.--Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in adding this to discussion- got caught up. Pakiguy 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to reconcile this though. I can give you online evidence (the links I've pasted above, "The place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam" etc.) which support my viewpoints (that sufism is part of Islam and it's mainly the Salafis that oppose it) but if you disagree, I can't do anything about it. In short, I give up.

i am sorry i have to disagree here. It is not just salafis that have this opinion. Salafis could have issues with others too, but mainstream muslims also have problems with sufism. Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is biassed and I don't have the time to battle to get it right anymore. Peace --Nkv 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was biased before. I guess now it is more neutral.

You guess wrong. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It clearly mentioned what is sufism, what is their opinion and then in the controversy section stated that there is criticism to sufism from mainstream islam. Some statement that were claims, i changed them to opinions. I guess that is being more neutral and less biased Pakiguy 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It moved out the fact that the most vocal critics against Sufism are Salafis (even Siddiqui agreed to this). It presents Sufis as a sectarian group and tries to convey that they always were a minority in Islamic history which was at best tolerated. This is in contradiction to what many scholars say (look at my edits above). Your use to terms like 'sect'. Your changing "some" into "most" changes the tone of the article. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The term "sect" is usually considered derogative. It cannot be denied that sufism is an old tradition in Islam, whether you consider it "unislamic" or not. It is definitely more neutral to state that people hold a view, than that they believe it. Etcetera. For now I'm reverting. Please try to work towards consensus, and don't apply large scale changes without consensus. Edit wars are not the solution. Thank you. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My point can be summarised as "The majority of the people opposing Sufism are Salafis.". Pakiguy's contention is that this is not true. I have provided two points of evidence to back my claim which are verifiable (the fact that both the anti sufi sites quoted are Salafi in their view - ascertained by their high praise for Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab - the founder of Wahabism/Salafism and the endorsement of Sufism by various mainstream muslim sites such as sunnipath.org (the credentials of the people teaching there are available and verifiable on the site) and sunnah.org). Pakiguy has not (to my knowledge) backed his claim that mainstream muslims reject sufism with verifiable sources. Thans for your mediation Lambiam. --Nkv 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is futile as it has come to the situation 'you are wrong, i am right'. nobody can help that. Sect is not derogatory (Sunni is a sect too and i am one). 'It's not a fact that's it's a mainstream opinion.' No!. It is a mainstream fact . Sufism is correct is just an opinion of the sect that practices it.

I would like to see how you refute the claims I made about the Azhar university. I would like you to show me a non salafi site (or text) that pronounces Sufism as fundamentally outside Islam (or deviant). Sunni is a sect but Sufi is not. Imam Ghazzali was a Sufi and a Shaf'i scholar (and therefore a sunni) for example. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i would have respected lambiam's point had he changed the 'beieve' to 'hold the view' rather than simply reverting it back to its biased version. The websites mentioned by nkv are incorrect, biased, taken out of context and cannot be accepted as proofs.

The quote by Suyuti which I've mentioned above seems quite unequivocal in it's support for the Sufis. Perhaps you could provide the correct "context" since you're so sure that it's out of context. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

When i made the changes my aim was to make it neutral, i did not remove anything. But as i see nkvs aim is to promote sufism here.

My aim is to present what I am convinced is the truth. I have backed my claims while you have repeatedly shot down whatever I've said without any proof. If you counter my examples of the Azhar university and the quotes above with something concrete, I'd be willing to reconsider my views. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I reject it, but dont have all the time to keep making the changes. A moral act on the part of lambiam would be to change the language what he was talking about in the article rather than reverting it back to its biased state.

Why do you bring "morals" into this? It's just a matter of arriving at a consensus. I gave you evidence. You disagree with my proofs. Bring evidence which backs your viewpoints. We'll discuss it, arrive at a conclusion, edit the article to reflect our agreements and leave it at that. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But i am fine if you guys want to leave it like that...I will just add the disputed tag...and forget it forever.

An article cannot remain disputed forever. The tag will be removed if there is nothing to back your reasons for calling it disputed. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way when nkv said '(although I might be wrong)'....yes you are sooo wrong.Pakiguy 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. I was working late and tired. I probably read between the lines and formed a wrong opinion about you. --Nkv 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Just because Abdul Wahab sees Ibn Tayymiah as his source doesn't associate Ibn Tayymiah with him, it only associates him with Ibn Tayymiah. It's like interpreting "a tree is green" to meaning "green is a tree". So if a link has praising Ibn Tayymiah, that doesn't associate it with Abdul Wahhab, so you're calling of allahuakbar.net as a Salafi site is incorrect. You claimed that this site "It's a Wahabi site as can be seen by it's praise for Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab", it's not praising him, it's attempting to get rid of jahil misjudgements regarding him. For example, a common claim against Wahab by his haters is " 'anyone who does not join the Wahhabi movement is a Kafir", the second link is refuting this mischaractirization of him.

Just because they are sympethetic to Abdul Wahab and his reformist ideas doesn't make them Salafi, I'd like to see a single quote by brother Ubaydullah where he says either "I am Salafi" or "my website is a collection of Salafi opinions". This simply isn't the case and you have no right to slander the brother just because you found a page (which I doubt you've read anything from) about Wahab. He uses Sunni sources (of all four madhabs) amongst the scholars he quotes on his site, as well as Salafi scholars.

2) Ibn Tayymiah's association with a Sufi order is disputable. But if in fact you are calling him a Sufi, then they're is no reason you should remove sites that give his opinions of fellow Sufis (who dubbed as heretic).

3) Just as you can show lots of traditional scholars who praise Sufis, I can similarily bring numerous traditional scholars who express disdain for many forms of Sufisim, and similarily contemporary scholars who show disdain for a number of Sufi ideas. The problem isn't that you're unable to bring opinions of traditional scholars, it's that you are only allowing the opinions of those traditional scholars you agree with on the page, in furthering your own POV while removing links to websites which provide other scholars and their POVs. If you're going to have a page filled with information that supports Sufis like Rumi, than there is no just reason for you to remove POV's that oppose your own, at least not on Wikipedia, maybe with your wife and children, but not to a joint attempt at creating a NPOV encyclopedia.

4) I never said I have anything against Sufism, or Sufis in general, so long as they stay within the bounds created by the Quran and Sunnah, there is no problem with their claims to Islam. On the other hand, I have a problem with dictatorial members of Wikipedia who feel only their opinion should be allowed on a Wikipedia page that isn't meant for THEIR opinion but for a NPOV which can only be brought about through the presentation of BOTH opinions.

5) I'm a Hanafi Sunni, and you're telling me traditional Muslims consider him devient? The only people I've seen ranting about Ibn Abdul Wahhab are Shias, every Sunni I've met and talked to who knew a thing about Ibn Abdul Wahhab besides the slander that is propogated against him found him as a respectable scholar, just like many other contemporary Sunni scholars. I haven't heard any negative comments on Abdul Wahhab from traditional Sunni Muslims except those who perform Tawassul through rocks in a graveyard (which Ibn Tayymiah, not a Wahabi, and many other SUNNI scholars have dubbed as heretical). Ibn Abdul Wahhab wasn't some "devient" who came along and just pulled the opinion of Tawasul being haram out of his ass, many prominent scholars before and after him have regarded tawassul as a devient practice. So if anyone is worthy of being dubbed a devient, it should be those who perform tawasul and propogate it. You said you could bring many scholars to agree with your POV that Suffism is allowed, can you bring the same amount of prominent Orthodox Scholars who call Shaykh Wahab a "devient" as you've slandered them to beleiveing?

See: [3]

So from all the above that I'm done finally ranting about :P I find no reason that a differing point of view regarding Sufism should be allowed on the Sufism page, and I find you're removal of sites like allahuakbar as an unfair attempt to further your own ideas and not one aimed for the good of common understanding. Perhaps if you actually read one of Abdul Wahhab's writings, you wouldn't be locking your mind in this cage and stabbing every idea that got near as "devient" according to Sunni scholars who you probably haven't even heard of and would be pulling off of shianews.com... --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've spent more than a month on this argument and can see that it's not going to end. I haven't read your entire comment (it's rather long). I don't think I have any more energy to discuss this. Sunni muslims have not endorsed EVERY sufi there ever was. There were deviants and they've been denounced. IF you feel that the article is biassed in it's current state, feel free to edit and correct it. Peace. --Nkv 10:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My main qualm was with your removal of two links that provide a differing point of view. Since I'm feeling free to edit and correct it, I'll simply re-add those two links you removed that were previously added by someone else. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 11:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Tag

Sufism as a science/way on its own is something that cannot be disputed as there are many practitioners of Sufism, just like there are of scientology, cannibalism or mainstream religions. However, associating Sufism to a mainstream religion Islam is a point of view and not something widely accepted. So either this be made into an article not associating with Islam or the tag be reinstated. Killbillsbrowser 17:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a point of view held by some people (notable the Salafis). I know you don't agree with that and we discussed this with a moderator for a long time here. Unless you have credible sources to show why mainstream traditional muslims don't consider 'authentic' Sufism as part of Islam, the article is not IMHO disputed. Please don't rehash all the old arguments. Everyone has spent a lot of time on them. --Nkv 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

KillX... You cannot take the article as a hostage because of your POV. Please discuss first and do not force your points based on no source. -- Szvest 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes i understand that proofs provided by you were credible just because they were provided by you and the other proofs were not because you did not like them. But i dont think it works that way. Sufficient proof was given against it. Killbillsbrowser 17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the case of Azhar is sufficient proof that sufism is part of traditional Islam. Neither you nor Pakiguy has countered the point. --Nkv 17:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll cut/paste it from the controversy page here for quick reference.

The Azhar University is the oldest center for Islamic learning. There is a book translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller called Reliance of the Traveller which contains a long and detailed section on Sufism quoting from various classical scholars (like Imam Nawawi, Mohammed Amin Kurdi, Imam Ghazzali etc.). Section w9.0 page 861. The book is the only translation of a classical Islam text that is approved of by the Azhar university. And they say in their authorisation letter (a scan of which is prepended to the book) we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and confirms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jamaa). There is no objection to printing and circulating it.

So, Azhar approves of Sufism as being part of "the faith of the \orthodox Sunni community". Now, please show me a traditional source that says otherwise. --Nkv 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just an imprimatur. You can find Talmuds from the middle ages with a Papal imprimatur; that doesn't mean Judiasm is a branch of Catholicism. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... on further research, sources confirm Sufism as being within Islam. I was thinking of Universal Sufism. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy

According to Idries Shah, in the chapter “The Philosopher's stone” of his book Sufism, Sufism is closely related to alchemy.

Is this a correct statement, or is Idries Shah not seen as an authority in this matter? Are there other sources that confirm this statement? I can’t find reference to alchemy in the page about Sufism, nor the other way around. Wiki-uk 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Idries Shah is not (as far as I know) considered an authority on the traditional Islamic science of Tasawwuf. His writings discuss the "Universal Sufism" idea that divorces it from Islam. In that sense, I don't know if there's any relation. Some traditional Sufi texts use alchemical imagery to discuss the transmutation of base desires into noble attributes. As for the actual conversion of base metals into gold, I don't know. --Nkv 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

the book that Wiki-uk is most likely talking about is ** The Sufis ISBN 0-385-07966-4 in the mentioned section Shah relates alchemy to sufism. Big difference. He also predates sufism to Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.206.17 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] khayyam

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam is not a sufi text.khayyam did not believe in God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.218.29.6 (talk • contribs) 08:32, September 29, 2006 (UTC).

Omar Khayyam was not a sufi.Instead of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam I suggest the walled garden by sanai,a prominent suffi book of the Persian literature which had a great influence on Rumi.see sanai

Sorry for reverting you changes. Actually, both deserve their place there. Refer to Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam#Translations . -- Szvest 23:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SUFI MUSIC

what is sufi music? how different is it from normal music. is shubha mudgal a sufi singer?

What is "normal" music? Sufi music is quite varied. For Qawwali music, you can visit this page. To listen to Turkish "Tasavvuf music", which is more in the tradition of Qur'an singing, here is an online link.

Shubha Mudgal's first album was a collection of Sufi songs, and so is her new album The Awakening. But she also incorporates other genres in her work.

--Lambiam ^Talk 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.T.O. Shahmaghsoudi school: spam?

Since late May numerous edits have been made and new articles created presenting the Oveyssi school as a venerable traditional order with an unbroken line of succession of Sufi masters extending back to the days of Muhammad, represented today by the Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi Sufi school, run from California but with a presence in many places. This has somewhat the appearance of what is called a "walled garden" on Wikipedia (no relation to Sanai's The Walled Garden of Truth). The first edits were made anonymously on May 26 from an AOL account.[4] Most later ones were by Adam255·(contributions).

Affected articles (including redirect pages) are: Abolfazl Angha*, Angha*, February 4, Ghotbeddin*, Hazrat Pir*, Jalaleddin*, Jalaleddin Ali Mir Abolfazl Angha*, Kubrawiya, List of Iranians, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of Muslim writers and poets, List of Persian poets and authors, List of Sufis, Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi*, Maktab Tarighe Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi*, Mir Ghotbeddin Mohammad Angha*, Mohammad Angha*, M.T.O. Shahmaghsoudi*, Nader Angha*, November 17, Oveyssi*, Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi*, Oveyssi-Shahmaghsoudi*, Sadegh Angha*, Salaheddin Ali Nader Shah Angha*, Salman the Persian, School of Islamic Sufism*, September 30, 2005, September 30, September 4, Shah Maghsoud*, Shah Maghsoud Sadegh Angha*, Shahmaghsoudi*, Sufism, Tamarkoz*, Tariqah, and Uwais al-Qarni.

The articles or redirects marked with an asterisk were all created by Adam255.

Most of the added information is unsourced and unverifiable, and reads as uncritical advertisement of the M.T.O. Shahmaghsoudi school, or as being inserted for no other reason than to bolster the claim that this school harkens back to a 1400-year old tradition. For all I can see, this is as much a commercial as a spiritual enterprise.

Before I consider putting this up for deletion, I'd like to ask: are there any "established" editors here (preferably having been active before May 2006) who can perhaps vouch for the legitimacy of these edits and the encyclopedic value of the new articles, or provide other relevant information?

--Lambiam ^Talk 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right, to the extent that this article ought to be tagged for NPOV - which I would do if I could work out how. Look at the sections Modern Sufism (ALL these names are Oveyssi!!) Later, Sufi Links again all seem to refer to Oveyssi sources. Gwaka Lumpa 12:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Guys, I’m based in Germany and I found a lot sources regarding Oveyssi here in the University Library, e.g. Sufism by Dr. Ronald Grisell (1983) ISBN 0-89496-03805. If you know Farsi, there are much more literature to find. If you can read it, I will send you a list of that. People who research and wrote about MTO:

- Professor Udo Steinbach, who is the director of German institute for Middle East Studies

- Professor Dr. Brown from South West Missouri State University

- Professor Lynn Wilcox from Sacramento University

- Dr. Yoshimichi Maeda from Japan, he wrote a book about MTO 1971 and the book has been published in Germany under the name “Sahar” on the year 1978.

- and so forth...

I have read some books from this lineage. There is one thing, which I can not understand. Is this an Encyclopedia or is this a democratic Society, which has to be voted by majority?

Why do you not research and proof Adam255 work instead to search for people for deleting these articles? It costs you just a little effort but nothing else.

Maybe is Adam255 a researcher or something like that and found out, that till now no body has written this information in Wikipedia and so he does that and worked on this. By the way I don’t think that the Adam255is the only person, who knows or write about MTO. Moreover did you ask Adam255 himself?

One point more, the origin of MTO is not from California, it is actually from that country, in which the Sufism and the majority of famous Sufis in the world come from. Guess where?! The root lays in Persia (today Iran). The Land of Faridodin Attar, Ghazali, Khayam, Hafez, Sohrowardi and Moulana Jalaledin ….

They knew the Sufism before us and before we even hear about it in US or Europe. Thank you --Andre Hofmann 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mosharifi 23:42, 30 December 2007 (GMT) says...

I disagree with the above belief that M.T.O. should be considered as spam in this article. They have a vast number of published books and articles supporting Sufism and conveying the concept of it.[5]. Bear in mind that this list is far from comprehensive: there are many more published in Farsi as well.

Having read most of these publications, I believe that M.T.O has ample references to this subject, compared to any other school of Sufism that I am aware of. I'd be interested to hear of a school that has more references to Sufism, but in the meantime, I disagree that M.T.O should be classed as spam.

Mo For more information about sufism in iran , you can visit this web site in persian: پایگاه هم اندیشی درویشان —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.104 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Following an examination of this article prompted by Lambiam's comments, I have tagged this article. The extreme slant towards Oveyssi, which many other sources do not even mention, changes this from an encyclopedia article into an advert for the M.T.O. Shahmaghsoudi cult. Also disturbing is a comparison with external links from several months ago and the current edit. Most of the earlier ones have gone, despite the fact that this is a means by which a person can verify for themselves what a range of other sources have to say about a topic. If I had the time to do it I would endeavour to find when these links were deleted, as it may be that their deletion protects particular viewpoints. Gwaka Lumpa 12:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sufism Portal

I just set up the Sufism Portal. Join in fixing up the portal here: Portal:Sufism. Essentially, this should be a means for readers to access the different articles without having to read through tons of material --Barastert 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] number of followers

It would be nice to know how many sufi followers are their in the world. Chaldean 05:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You won't find such numbers since the term "sufi follower" is not properly defined. Also, people don't become "Sufi followers". That assumes that "Sufi" is some kind of variant of Islam which a person can take a profess. That's inaccurate. It's as misleading as to say "Fiqh follower". --Nkv 10:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links cleanup

The external links section has way too many links to tariqas. I'm going to get rid of them unless the sites have siginificant information about Sufism, and are not just advertisements for the tariqa. (The specific tariqa articles have the links to the tariqa websites). --Barastert 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So I culled the links section. Now, we should try to populate it with links ABOUT Sufism in general, preferablly independent academic-ish sites rather than tariqa websites --Barastert 22:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely there is room for both - many of the most knowledgable writing about Sufism is by those directly involved in it. I agree it should not read like advertising, which is my point in giving this article an NPOV tag, but, come on, no censorship of those involved in the activity! Gwaka Lumpa 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, maybe I did too much, but if you allow some then everyone and their mothers add the link to their tariqa website, so it ends up just becoming a useless link dump. I suggest that we only include links to tariqa sites if it is a link to a page which gives some relevant information about sufism, rather than to the homepage. Does this sound reasonable? --Barastert 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing copyvio

the material on this page [6] has been replicated in the article, and represents a copyvio per the copyright notice on the website's main page. thus, i have removed it (a few of the attributions are a little off, i remember finding a discrepancy when checking through `Ajluni's work). ITAQALLAH 12:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender and Sufism

I couldn't help but notice that the article has absolutely nothing to say about gender relations or the place of women in Sufism. This seems like an important and interesting issue, particularly in light of the statement that the main goal is to let go of all notions of duality... does this apply to notions of female/male duality as well? If there's anyone here who is knowledgeable on the subject, it would be great to include this kind of information. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badly written edits

Hi West Bank Boy. I've noted the following:

Removing content without explanation! Removing references to "The Principles of Sufism" and Ahmad ibn 'Ajiba.
Replacing Islam w/ Islami!
Adding honourific titles such as PBUP. This is inappropriate according to Manual of style.
You are adding your own analysis to the article by saying The Sufi scholar who wrote these thought are far from being close to Prophet Mohammed or Allah, even the truth of Islam. Please read Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
Using bad English while editing (i.e. replacing came with camed).
Your edit summaries are inappropriate! Here, you are accusing editors of corrupting the article. I therefore must remind you of WP:AGF.
Be aware of WP:3RR. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Ichazo

I reluctantly add another facet to this, already, complicated discussion. Oscar Ichazo, founder of the Arica School, claims that Sufism is a very ancient esoteric tradition predating Islam, that he has been initiated at the highest level into the 9 true sects, that each has 9 levels and that Islam represents the lowest order of one of these sects. With the permission of the leaders of these 9 sects, he has created a zikr crystalising the essence of all 9 sects which is performed within the Arica School. I realise this could be contencious and have included it here rather than editing the main page. I look forward to your opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arturodekko (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Korean Sufism

I again removed the POV and original content spam that is being repeatedly posted regarding "Korean Sufism." I'd be happy to take a look at the original content for this portion of the article if the person who posts it repeatedly would be so kind as to provide some citations. Until then, out it goes. David Traver 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I will, of course, provide the citations and other sources mentioned; it would help if I could see the article taken out to provide these statements. Where can I find this??Unicorn144 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pir-o-Murshid Ali Khan

Can someone who knows about this subject see if the entry I stubbed here is worth expanding or keeping? I removed a lot of unencyclopedic info, but I have no idea if what remains is actually true. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Reversion

There are reasons for the recent reversion. First, the opening sentence that sufism is a practice within Islam implies that it is a traditional part of all Islam and is merely one of its practices. It is truer that it is a particular tradition that has its home within Islam, but does not apply to all Islam.

Second, this is an English language Encyclopedia and English language characters should be used. This is especially true with terms that are linked to articles. Try to use the term of the article linked to and the characters used in the titles of those articles. This keeps Wikipedia coherent. If you want to show another set of characters or more authentic spelling than the best English equivolent, then put the more authentic iliteration in parentheses. For example: Instead of writing [tariqa|ṭurūq]] consider writing it as tariqas (ṭurūq). One of the values of this is for English speaking researchers using Wikipedia. They should be able to cross reference terms between articles and do searches under the terms they already know. By putting these non-English forms in (even though they may be more authentic) researchers can't find what they're looking for or may think that one thing is something else. Tommytocker 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufism Template

Can some knowledgable person please take a look at the Modern Sufis section of the Sufism Template. I believe it contains some non notable Sufis.--Shahab 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you list the ones you find objectionable? We can excise them and start a discussion then. --Nkv 11:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Taqi Usmani, Muhammad al-Yaqoubi and Martin Lings. No disrespect intended to any one of them (particularly the last two) but I don't think that a scholar of Sufism equals a Sufi himself. Having said that I will admit that I have little knowledge on these personalities myself, and am basing my opinion on reading the relevant articles on wikipedia only. Cheers--Shahab 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Taqi Usmani but I believe the other two have taken a Baiyah with Shaykhs. The first is a Shahdilli as far as I know and the second from Shaykh Al-Alawi himself. --Nkv 10:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, Lings doesn't mention anything of that sort in A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century which is a biography of Shaikh Al Alawi by Lings. Anyway, my point was that, is taking a baiyah or becoming khalifa sufficient for inclusion in the category of modern sufis? If that's the norm then the other category of medieval Sufis will have to be expanded too. My suggestion is to keep only highly notable and influential Sufis in the template, which are recognized, the world over. So Taqi Usmani etc. must be removed. Please comment. Cheers--Shahab 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I would also like to remove the names of Mawlana Faizani, Ali Kalkancı, Abdesslam Yassine and Hamza Yusuf also from the template. No disrespected intended but these are people who (I believe) are Islamic scholars, not Sufi saints to the level of Rumi, Rabia etc which are mentioned in the Medieval Sufis section of the template. There should be a uniformity in the level of Sufis mentioned in the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shahab (talk • contribs) 11:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I have removed the names. Anyone who has legit concerns is welcome to discuss it here.--Shahab 10:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have only added Taqi usmani back, He is like the most important Sufi/Scholar in Pakistan. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 14:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about commenting a little late, But I believe Mawlana Faizani should still be included in the list. His influence in Afghanistan is tremendous even to this day and For proof of his status as 'sufi', simply read the book 'Before Taliban' published by University of California press. There is a whole section devoted to discussing his status as Afghanistan's "Last Sufi." Let me know yuor thoughts, thanks! --Abdullah_Tahir 14 Sept 2007

[edit] Recent vandalism

In the wee hours of this morning (August 1st, 2007) this anonymous user slid in a long series of complete rewrites to this article with no discussion at all, inserting some heavy bias and POV. Check the history to see the full extent of the damage. I did my best to restore the original version but it's late and I may have left some things out. For anybody reading this, please review the trashing of the old article done by the anon and my restoration for any discrepancies. Further watch over this article may be necesary to ensure this doesn't happen again. MezzoMezzo 05:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suficloob

i sufi i also immiggrant from turkey. i part of order of sufi called suficloob. in the club thei ban obese. i put that in article because true. plese not delete. my engglgish not good. 69.115.13.5 18:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Get real. One look at your edit history shows prior occurrences of silly vandalism. MezzoMezzo 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Why does this article contain a criticism section. This doesn't seem to be standard Wikipedia treatment of religious subjects. I note that neither the articles on sunni or shia contains such sections. Rune X2 08:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While the Sunni and Shia articles lack such a section, it actually is pretty standard in regard to organized religion articles. Personally I think such a section would help improve the Sunni and Shia articles too. MezzoMezzo 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suhrawardri Order

What happened to the Suhrawardri Order? It is one of the 4 Major orders; where is it?Unicorn144 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idries Shah

If you want this article to be more balanced, you would consider having a lot more about and from modern Sufism's figurehead, Idries Shah. Granted, there is short mention of him in the article and in the bibliography, but in the content of the article, it is clear that you have read little of Shah's works. What is presented so far amounts to labels, opinions, and boxes that people have applied to Sufism in the past, whereas the truth of Sufism goes far beyond these. For example, to call Sufism the mysticism of Islam is to imply that Sufism is Islam in content and/or origin, which is a certainly not the case; Islam is one of many exterior "clothings" that Sufism has adopted over history. It is not my place to elaborate further, but to direct your serious attention to the works of Idries Shah, and there is plenty to choose from for he has been a prolific writer on the subject. (Martin Lass - www.solarjourney.org)

Interesting. Can you provide references for this person's notability? MezzoMezzo 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes have a look at this website: http://www.octagonpress.com/ also: http://www.i-c-r.org.uk/ and http://www.idriesshah.com/ Wool Bridge (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that calling Indries Shah or any other modern day "Master" a "sufi" is asking for trouble. The Masters that seem to be undisputed such as Rumi and Attar spoke of Sufi "would bes" even in their time. Reading the comments on this talk page shows that little has changed, opinion and intellectual argument get in the way of truth. It could be argued that we get what we deserve and that fools are attracted to other fools. I would prefer that the subject always be listed as controversial and only the old Masters and their works be listed. Indries Shah's writings to my understanding go only part way to understanding a true Sufi. This may be out of wisdom on his part, I do not dispute whether he is a true Sufi or not. The so called "mystical" ways were nothing other than dialogue,easily understood by people who had attained a certain level, but to protect others of lower understanding. How to prove it? Only Master to student. All else is opinion only. It is a chicken and egg problem I'm afraid. Although there are appaling translations and interpretations the original works of the undisputed Masters are surely the only reference worth having.er...just for the record I'm female.Cookedgooses 11:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Rumi, there is an anecdote that goes something like this: When Rumi first started reciting his couplets, some people said, "Who does he think he is -- another Aesop?" JPLeonard 05:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement in this article that "Idries Shah advocated similar concepts to those of Inayat Khan" is completely wrong. Inayat Khan was a typical Indial guru figure indulging in pious propaganda. Idries Shah, the leading exponent of contemporary Sufism was interested in the soft sciences of psychology and sociology and their relationship to the diffusion of sufi thought and action. He was especially interested in teaching stories and his books bear no relation whatsoever to the utterings of Inayat Khan. Some of these gurus lifted material from Shah's work and peddled it as their own notably Bhagwan Rajneesh(Osho). Perhaps Inyat Khan did the same, hence the author of this article's error. Wool Bridge (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Sufism & Sufi Poetry

These two subsections seem to just be lists of names with little else in the way of content, and no citations for notability. Is that really necessary? Should they be removed? I don't see what they add to the article. MezzoMezzo 14:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Modern Sufism one is a bit random and could use some help, but the poetry section is a pretty good starting list of names for some of the most famous... but both sections could use some expansion for sure – cacahuate ^talk 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we'd be able to merge them both into one big section for "list of Sufis" with maybe subsections for poets, saints, etc.? MezzoMezzo 05:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to volunteer to expand on the Sufi Poetry section. Given the influence of the poetry (Hafiz and Rumi are still recited by memory in modern-day Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan), IMHO it is notable. The verses of Sufi poets also comprise the lyrics of classical Persian and Afghani music. Khabir786 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] S.A.W. annotations after the Prophet's name

With all respect, the SAW affix is a religious observance, and is as appropriate in an encyclopedic article as omitting vowels from the word 'God' (rendering it 'G-d'), in accordance with Jewish observance. I've removed the affix. palecur (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufi clothing

Is there a possibility of a section being created to discuss tpical Sufi clothing? Specifically, the type of robes worn by Sufi ascetics? I believe that it is called 'kafni' in some regions? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the "kafni". But don't the clothes of Sufis also tend to vary slightly depending on geography/culture? MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true. It is also possible that the 'kafni' is known by a different name in different branches/orders of Sufism. I am basically describing a knee-length one-piece robe, similar to a kurta I suppose. Do you think it is worth creating a section about Sufi styles of dress? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of Allah and relation to Muhammad and Ali

The article relates sufism to Islam but it does not cover why is Sufism mostly Islamic. The article needs to include sections of Importance/meaning of allah in sufism The article also should include section for why the lineage trace to Muhammad. The article also should include section foy why Ali is considered father of sufism. Why Sunni-Shia tariqas alike patron Ali? Basically what aspects of Muhammad and Ali 's lives relate to Sufism. Wikion (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources you could actually put the stuff in yourself. Be bold. Peter Deer (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need Arabic

Need Arabic spelling for sayr (journey), as in al-sayr ila Allah (the journey to God) or al-sayr fi Allah (and the journey in God). Badagnani (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be سير, as in سير و سلوك. Badagnani (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General vs. Specific

I have noticed a lot of elements in this article that may not be particular to all Sufis. I'll give an example. I found about about the "six subtleties" by reading the article here on Wikipedia, but I have met Sufis who have never heard of the concept. I'll give an analogy as well, obviously the history of the Tijaniyyah order is different from that of the Chisti. The practices of different Sufi groups often developed in different parts of the world separately from each other. My suggestion is that we use the sandbox and go through the article, removing anything which may not me about Sufism in general and merging it into the relevant article for the tariqah or other group it came from. As it is, the article is very long and possibly due in part to what I mentioned above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] influences section

These two lines make no sense to me?

Some of these perspectives originate from the synthesis of Persian civilization with Islam, an emphasis on spiritual aspects of Islam, and the incorporation of ideas and practices from other mysticisms into Islam.[citation needed]The same has been said of Buddhism and ancient Egyptian spiritual practices.[citation needed]

Can someone re-word or explain? I can then try to find a citation to support the claim via my university web library. Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] misplaced links

The following links were in additional readings, but they appear to be self-published so I've moved them here. Feedback welcome.

[7] [8] [9] Books by Abdul Qadir Jilani
[10] [11] Books by Ibn Arabi
[12] [13] [14] Books by Abdul Qadir Jilani

Renee (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism Section

I see no sources regarding the socialism section, and to me the whole notion seems rather fishy, especially considering Marx's antitheist attitude. I am strongly considering removing the entire section. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the fact that a couple of people who happen to be Sufis were fond of Socialism doesn't make it notable. Surely there have been pro-socialism members of pretty much every spiritual path – cacahuate ^talk 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

K good enough for me. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no direct connection. Though some have traced the Illuminist school to revolutionary action and ideas and Ernest Scott makes a connection to the French Revolution in 'The people of the Secret'--Wool Bridge (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC) OM Burke in Among the Dervishes asks if a Sufi can be a communist, to which it is replied 'Can a tree be piece of cheese?'.--Wool Bridge (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stub

Shouldn't a stub template for Sufism related article be created? It would help in classifying all Sufi related articles needing attention in one category. Currently all Sufism related articles are also marked Islam stubs.--Shahab (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea, given the number of articles related to Sufism. Are there any Wiki "how to" guides on designing stub tags? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any, I reckon you'd mostly just look at another stub template and model it after that. Peter Deer (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that there is some process for making a new stub template. I'll try to understand what it is. In the meantime I have created the category:Sufism stubs. Please add articles to it. Also are there any suggestions for what the stub template should look like.--Shahab (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created a stub template. Please add {{Sufism-stub}} at the end of any stub article. This will also add the article to the category [[Category:Sufism stubs]].--Shahab (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gettin' to work on it. Peter Deer (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.