Talk:Idries Shah/Archive 2

Footnote style

I find the long texts in the footnotes a little off-putting. Would it be possible to incorporate more of this information in the article itself, or dispense with it altogether? Also, we should not use abbreviations such as Op. cit. in the footnotes -- subsequent insertion of intervening footnotes can make it difficult to decide which is the cited work referred to. The title and author should always be named in full. Cheers, -- Jayen466 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why dispense with information ?

Or bend to every customer designed whim ?

The following also is information:

in reference to Kitab el-Luma :

" al-Sarrāj gives a tradition to the effect that the name of Ṣūfī was attached to men of exeptional piety before Islām "

reference is made to p. 22 of Kitāb al-Luma' R.A.Nicholson ed. London, 1914 by Margaret Smith in Studies in Early Mysticism (1931) Philo Press Reprint 1973 p. 160

In stead of whining about form would it not be better to look if the information presented is of relevance ?

Why for instance was the section on Psychology originally presented removed as spam ?

Do you really want to know something, or are you just playing around ?

Lunarian (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Op. Cit. and the like see WP:FN -- Jayen466 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Style In Controversy

In 1964 when Robert Graves was noted for his preface to Idries Shah's "The Sufis" he had already collaborated with William Sargant on his "Battle for the Mind" (1957) and was still deemed clever enough to be commisioned (1965) to rewrite Sargant's autobiography "The Unquiet Mind" (R.P.Graves:"Robert Graves and the White Goddess", Weidenfels and Nicolson London 1995, index s.v. Sargant).

The mind of the poor man must have rappidly deteriorated for -according to Moore in 1968 he was feeble enough to fall a helpless victim to the psychological pressure of the Shah brothers; presumably unfit to judge the critical comments appended to their joint translation of Khayyam's Rubayat.

Whatever the paparazzi value of Moore's "debunking" some attention must be given to the psychological angle. Sargant by himself is controversy enough, yet -as must be observed- he was still responsible to explaining the mechanics of indoctrination, brainwashing & thought control. "Battle for the Mind" has remained in print by courtesy of ISHK, under the responsability of Robert Ornstein.(coauthor with Claudio Naranjo of "On the Psychology of Meditation")

People studying Shah will perhaps remember Ornstein's influential "The Psychology of Conciousness" (1972) where the contribution of Shah was relevated against the forefront of psychological research -in casu the split-brain experiments by Roger Wolcott Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga.

The publication by Octagon in 1983 of "The Manipulated Mind, Brainwashing, Conditioning and Indoctrination" by Denise Winn further testifies to the genuine concern for mental health that Shah's contributions point to -though scattered over numerous works in an era when instant juxtaposition was slow if not unthinkable.

The onus of the approach is on social psychology (Joost Meerloo, Stanley Milgram etc.)

A further remark may be made on the pittyfull mental state of -according to Moore- Shah's helpless victims.

It breaks ones heart to see John Godolphin Bennett, who writes of himself as head of Military Intelligence "B" in Constantinople 1919-1921, forced to face the "ruffian" Shah on the authority of his friend Reggie Hoare ( Knowing Reggie to be a very cautious man, trained moreover in assessing information by many years in the Intelligence Service, I accepted his assurances ... Bennett in : "Witness, the autobiography of John G. Bennett).

Are we dealing with morons ?

At the end of his wits Bennet concluded his biography:

I am wholly convinced that there is a Providential Power at work in the world, but it cannot help us without our consent. I finish this new edition of Witness (1975) as I did the first by quoting Gurdjieff ': Two things have no limit: the stupidity of man and the mercy of God.

Lunarian (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point being --? -- Jayen466 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you should worry about. Lunarian (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe there is a point...

New ideas are the positive aspect of lateral thinking, but those who never use lateral thinking do not simply forego this positive aspect -they also incur a definite disadvantage. This disadvantage is the way such people can be manipulated, for their minds always follow a predictable high-probabilty pathway. (...)

The fanatic is effective because he sees everything according to a rigid pattern.

Edward de Bono in "The Use of Lateral Thinking" Jonathan Cape 1967

Nasreddin is a special case of lateral thinking, he comes with an introduction to contemporary history of the utmost importance.

It is doubtfull whether Wikipedia is the right forum to go into details. They may not be judged notable.

There was a time...

Lunarian (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical appraisal

Shah received considerable critical acclaim from various book critics, plus some determined criticism notably from Elwell-Sutton. I guess the article would benefit from some coverage of this. See e.g. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10797 (the article itself that this exchange relates to is linked on the page, but only available subject to a $3 charge). -- Jayen466 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

When Idries Shah started his famous introduction to Sufism with its highlight in 1964 – "The Sufis", with an introduction by Robert Graves (Doubleday) – there was as yet no sign of the internet, so he designed his work to be digested at the pace of studious reading. As his work unfolded, the reader willing to take his lead was guided in the experience of gathering original Sufi material. This passage is unsourced and does not seem to be saying anything of note. The first sentence applies to all books – they are all designed for "studious reading", internet or no. And the second sentence also just seems to be a puffed-up description of the experience of reading a book, any book. "The reader willing to take Prof. T. Rex's lead is guided in the experience of gathering information on the various families and suborders of dinosaurs (for an encyclopedia on dinosaurs, e.g.). Any suggestions? Shall we just lose the sentence? -- Jayen466 16:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Right you are.

Best lose it.

Lunarian (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Idries Shah's successor

A year before Idries Shah died, he had this to say to his son Tahir: 'Many more will ask who I left as my successor. They will hound you, asking for a name. It is important that you tell them that my successor is my printed work. My books form a complete course, a Path, and they succeed when I cannot be there.' -- Tahir Shah, 'In Arabian Nights', New York: Bantam Dell. pp. 215-6.

EricT (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Hope the wording is okay for you. Cheers, Jayen466 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Coupled with the fact that Idries Shah organized study groups led by deputies, doesn't this warrant him being described not only as an author but as a Sufi teacher like his brother Omar Ali-Shah?

EricT (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Jayen466 22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts, Jayen and Lunarian.

EricT (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Scale

Surely this article must by now have moved beyond 'Start Class' on the quality scale? EricT (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

al-Hashimi

Is it worth linking al-Hashimi in the introduction to the Hashemite wiki page? EricT (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Have done this. EricT (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sufis by nationality

"Good Olfactory" has created the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sufis_by_nationality and changed the category from "Sufis" to "Indian Sufis". Is this okay with you, given that though born in India, Idries Shah worked and lived in both the East and West? EricT (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Invertebrate Sufism

Not surprisingly, this article has led to opinions from both defenders and critics of Idries Shah here. People may be interested to know that a long time ago, when I wrote an article describing Gurdjieff as a "Sufi-inspired scholar", James Moore responded with an article in which he referred to "the invertebrate Sufism of Idries Shah". People may wish to look at the geocities article on this website: [1]

I have not scrutinised the article in detail, but I can see that it is critical of Shah.I wonder whether this was by James Moore?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does say "by James Moore" at the top, and I am fairly sure that's who wrote it. Jayen466 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

James Moore ?

Lunarian (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. His personal website actually has a link to the article, at the above address, which would imply that it is hosted there with the author's knowledge. See [2], [3]. Jayen466 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

James Moore is not discerning about sufis. Anyone who takes Iranian academic Seyyed Hossein Nasr as the real Sufi teacher (see his tired and emotional article above) is obviously completely upside down in relation to reality. --Wool Bridge (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

???

Lunarian (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Graves controversy

The desperate last letter of Graves to Shah is transcribed In 'Between Moon and Moon' Selected Letters of Robert Graves (Hutchinson 1984) followed by a note from the editor Paul O'Prey [[4]] regarding the controversy. It says that in 1978 Arberry's Cambridge manuscript was shown to be a forgery. By this time Graves was too ill to renew the controversy.

Generally speaking the mishaps of Omar Ali Shah (who was probably later disconnected from Idries Shah) are not related to the work of Idries Shah. Arberry's pupils and Bennett's disciples or descendants are confused on this issue.

--Wool Bridge (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any ascpect of the present article wording that you feel needs improving? Jayen466 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about changing wording, but references yes. The reference for example, to the Sufi Studies East and West is missing [5] It would be good to give a better idea of this symposium and book. I liked the 'Idries Shah, Reviews and Information' booklets that were available in the early 1980s. I have some of these and was wondering if they could be incorporated. I could scan them and them to you if interested. I wanted to see references to early work on Magic (Secret Lore of Magic and Oriental Magic). There is the travelogue 'Destination Mecca' which he wrote in the 50s. This contains the only interview and photograph of the Faqir of Ipi for example. There could be a reference to O M Burke's 'Among the Dervishes' which has several dialogues and interviews with and about Idries Shah.

There is too much in the controversy section about Bennett and disgruntled Gurdjieff people etc. and not enough about the substance of Idries Shah's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wool Bridge (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC) --Wool Bridge (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The book is referred to; it wouldn't be appropriate to include an amazon link. We could add it to the literature though (if it isn't in there already), with ISBN, which allows easy identification for those interested. To bring more on the book without engaging in WP:OR, we need to find a WP:RS that we can cite. The same really applies to adding more content on Shah and his teaching; we need to identify external sources that we can summarise. We can't write our own summary of Shah's work (again, the issue is WP:OR). Academic sources are generally preferred, but notable writers like Mrs Lessing would qualify as well, basically anything published by a reputable publisher. The use of self-published sources and primary sources is generally deprecated, especially for matters that could be seen as contentious. I am not familiar with the Reviews and Information booklets; could you check who published them? Thanks, Jayen466 17:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (I also put a welcome on your talk page; if you check through the links available there, you can learn more about Wikipedia.)

Regarding the reviews and info, what I've seen are mostly photocopied news clippings circulated via The Society for Sufi Studies and available for a time via Octagon for researchers, mostly praising Shah. Several of them have been scanned and uploaded to the Shah-related yahoo! group 'Friends of Fidelity':

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/welcomeHomeFriends/

EricT (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like it was self-published then. We'd be better off quoting genuine external assessments, such as book reviews in the papers etc. (I believe he had a number of those, some very positive), religious scholars etc. Jayen466 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also included were photocopies of magazine articles by Shah-friendly reviewers and writers.

EricT (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, that is something one could look at, if it's verifiable. The following academic source might be usable one way or the other:

Idries Shah and Omar Ali-Shah
The Sufi movements of Idries and Omar-Ali Shah have given some prominence to psychology in their teachings. In the United States, Shah's early deputy was Stanford University psychology professor Robert Ornstein. Shah met Ornstein in the 1960s and realised that he would be an ideal partner in the endeavour to propagate his teachings since Ornstein could cast Shah's Sufi materials into the idiom of the psycho-therapeutic community. Ornstein's book, The Psychology of Consciousness (1972), met with an enthusiastic reception in the academic psychology community since it coincided with the rising interest in studying bio-feedback and other techniques for shifting moods and awareness. Ornstein has continued to contribute books in this field over the years.
The reinterpretation or translation, if you will, of Sufi teachings into contemporary psychological discourses may reflect what Dale Eickelman and Jon Anderson term a 'reintellectualisation' of Islamic discourse through presenting Islamic doctrine and discourse in accessible, vernacular terms even if this contributes to basic reconfigurations of doctrine and practice. These scholars indicate that Islamic discourse has not only moved to the vernacular and become more accessible to significantly wider publics; it has also become framed in styles of reasoning and forms of argument that draw on wider, less exclusive or erudite bodies of knowledge, including those of applied science and engineering. While this thesis was mainly formulated with respect to mass education in Muslim societies, a further dimension would include the global transformation of Sufi discourse, which is now being articulated in terms accessible to contemporary Americans.

— Sufism in Europe and North America. Contributors: David Westerlund - editor. Publisher: RoutledgeCurzon. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 2004. Page Number: 54.

Seems to make some worthwhile points. Jayen466 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviews and Information

The Reviews and Information pamphlets that were distributed by Octagon and the Society for Sufi Studies in the early 80's consisted entirely of newspaper reviews, magazine cut-outs and clippings and court circulars etc. There was nothing made up in these. These are what should be quoted in the main article not the hostile drivel by James Moore.--Wool Bridge (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article seriously reads like a fluff piece. 99.10.15.98 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

One Pair of Eyes: Dreamwalkers

It's perhaps worth mentioning the documentary 'One Pair of Eyes: Dreamwalkers' presented by Idries Shah and aired on 19th Dec 1970 on UK BBC Television. EricT (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tahir Shah has now made this documentary available in full at YouTube. See the idriesshah999 YouTube channel. EricT (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Idries and Omar Ali-Shah: Paris group

I've recently come across a source-bare interview in which Catherine Hayter, interviewed by Edgardo Canton, talks about the early days in Paris under the joint direction of Idries and Omar Ali-Shah before they "agreed to disagree". If anyone has a reference to the original article (publication name, date, page numbers) that would be really, really useful. The Wikipedia articles on Idries Shah and Omar Ali-Shah are lacking mention of the disagreement, groups and exercises. EricT (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Read all about them in Fictions and Factions by Augy Hayter. Publisher: Tractus Books (Jul 2002) ISBN-10: 2909347141 ISBN-13: 978-2909347141 Sam Weller (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Alas for wikipedia purposes neither is a 'reliable source', being self-published. Regards, EricT (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an over-zealous interpretation to me, given the nature of the subject matter. Shah's Octagon output was self-published, so that's out too? Sam Weller (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't shoot me, Sam, I'm merely a messenger :) Even Idries Shah can only be used in Wikipedia if what he says has been confirmed in some reliable third-party publication that can be cited as a source reference. See WP:RS. And yes, that IS ironic ;) EricT (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've dropped the Hayter ref in for now. But as per WP:SPS, WP:QUEST and WP:SELFQUEST it is distinctly borderline. Hayter was a student of both Idries and Omar Ali-Shah; when the split between the brothers occurred, he chose to stay with OAS. I believe Hayter ran Tractus Books, which published both Omar Ali-Shah's books (edited by Hayter) and Hayter's own. I don't think Idries Shah ever commented in his books on the split between himself and his brother, so if you take a hardline approach, what you have here is the use of a self-published source to make a claim about a third party. I'd feel better if we had a bona fide source for this assertion, even though all of us may be agreed that what Hayter says is quite true. Jayen466 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On the positive side, Hayter's other work does have a few citations and contributions elsewhere. Jayen466 15:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the expert clarification, Jayen. Regards, EricT (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Halal

I take objection to the notorious halal meat scandal reference. The only source for this appears to be Moore who does not cite reference: it is an allegation. Other sources need be mentioned to verify. Not sources uncritically citing Moore whose thesis, where most critical phrasing is on various details in the same sense unsourced, reads like a personal vindictive.

It is a pitty also that various sources on psychology in relation to Shah mentioned in the footnotes have been erased.

The information in the article thus leans to strong bias.

note: We do not even know for a fact -except for Moore's say-so- that Idries Shah was on his father's mission, nor is this entirely relevant to the reason he deserves his entry on Wikipedia.

What one does not know does not hurt ?

Lunarian (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Casting doubt on Moore

The following would tend to contradict Moore's casting doubt on Shah and his family's claim to be Sayyids and his assertion that Jan Fishan Khan was a self-styled 'Nawab of Sardhana'. Saira Shah's writing in The Storyteller's Daughter would also contradict Moore.

"Ahmed Shah Sayyid (of Sardhana), Naweb

"Born 1st January 1835; succeeded in 1882. The family are Muswi or Mashadi Sayyids, descended from Hayat Ali Musa Raza, and originally residing at Paghman near Kabul. On account of services rendered to Alexander Barnes in his Kabul mission, and subsequently to the English in their retreat from Kabul, they were expelled from Kabul and settled at Sardhana. At the time of the Mutiny, the head of the family, Sayyid Muhammed Jan Fishan Khan Saheb, took the side of the Government atr once. When the Mutiny occurred at Meerut, he raised a body of horse, consisting of his followers and dependents, and officered by himself and his relatives; accompanied General Wilson's force to the Hindan; was present in both actions, and thence to Delhi, where he remained with the headquarters camp until the city was taken, when his men were employed to keep order in Delhi. For his eminent services the title of Naweb, with a suitable khilat, was conferred on him. And each of his successors have received the title of Naweb for life on succeeding to the estates."

Roper Lethbridge, The Golden Book of India, p13, Elibron Classics.

See google book search here.

EricT (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New official Idries Shah web site

The new official web site is now up-and-running for the writer, thinker and Sufi teacher, Idries Shah at: http://www.idriesshah.com/ (mirrored at http://www.idriesshah.org/ )

You'll find text, pdf, audio and video resources there, which may be useful to you as Wikipedia editors or interested parties.

There are also links to sites dedicated to other members of the Shah family featured in Wikipedia, including Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah, Saira Elizabeth Luiza Shah ( pen name: Morag Murray Abdullah), Amina Shah and Tahir Shah. EricT (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay

Re [6], I believe both, from reading the sources. See [7] (bottom third of page) and [8], the letter by Gordon Vereker, the Ambassador in Montevideo, quoted in the endnotes. I got hold of some of the Foreign Office records Moore mentions a while ago, but "FO, 371 Piece 52194" wasn't among them. Perhaps I'll try again. Jayen466 09:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Three of the papers I did get are online here, here and here. Jayen466 09:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting as examples of foreign office communication but it is not at all obvious from the letters that Idries Shah was in any way involved. They certainly are not proof of Moore's allegation concerning Idries Shah. Newspaper articles on the extent of the hahal meat scandal stating Idries Shah's involvement or notes from a diary pinpointing Idries Shah's involvement as his father's secretary would be far more explicit. The matter remains at hear-say and of doubtfull reference in an article vieing for prime status.

Lunarian (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Books by Idries Shah

Have created: Works by Idries Shah and Books by Idries Shah and linked the book articles to 'Books by ...' Esowteric (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Arkon Daraul: Secret Societies

I can't remember if the material on the Assassins by Arkon Daraul in The History of Secret Societies (assumed by many to be the work of Shah) was quoted and cited, but the lengthy text about the nine degrees of initiation seems to have been closely based on (pilfered?) from:

A Literary History of Persia: Volume 1, From the Earliest Times until Firdawsi , Edward Granville Browne, pp 10, 413-415, Cambridge University Press, 1920 (originally Unwin, 1902). See google book search Esowteric (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a snippet from google book search of The History of Secret Societies by Daraul, looking for "last degree" here. Almost the same text .... Esowteric (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think de Sacy, who is cited by Browne, appears to have covered all of this exhaustively in his Exposé de la réligion des druzes (unfortunately most of that is in tome 1, not the tome 2 which is searchable in amazon). De Sacy wrote in 1838, so this information was at any rate not new. The Daraul book is not mentioned in this article at present; it's not mentioned much in secondary sources, either; Moore mentions it in passing, and there is this and a couple more like it. JN466 13:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"The History of Secret Societies" by Arkon Daraul is an innocuous popularisation. Really, trust me. You are chasing elephants with a fly-swatter or more appropriately chasing flies with an elephant gun.

If you are really keen on encyclopedic progress check Moore's sources instead of bulls...ng your hats off.

Lunarian (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advocating the inclusion of such material, just leaving the info here for reference. Its only relevance is that Idries Shah cites the Arkon Daraul material himself on three or so occasions in his books. If he had written the material that he chooses to cite as authority, then that makes it a little more relevant. As for Moore, who sometimes gets it wrong, I agree that 16 inline citations to that work is a bit excessive. Sometimes though, like him or loath him, he's the only guy who mentions certain quite neutral, factual things you want to include in Shah family articles. Esowteric (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Esowteric (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

...certain quite neutral, factual things...such as ?

Please specify why, if he is the only guy, he is allowed not to give his references in detail and in a verifiable manner.

Please tell me where exactly (apart from Moore, who cites no reference, or in loc.cit. based on Moore) it is stated that Idries Shah was his father's secretary at the time implied by Moore.

It's not a joke.

Lunarian (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your anger, Lunarian, but perhaps it has escaped your notice that I have not once cited any of the negative things that Moore has to say about Idries Shah nor any of the Shah family. I have used him very sparingly, for example as the source of the statement in the article about Saira Elizabeth Luiza Shah that Ikbal Ali-Shah "had settled in England before the first world war" and also that he trained at medical school in Edinburgh. That's what I mean be neutral.

Maybe you could take the matter of Moore/reliable source to arbitration? Cheers, Esowteric (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral because you relied on this information as put forward in "My Khyber Mariage" ? ( which probably is where Moore got his own information )

Please do not take my concern for anger nor in any way as a personal vindictive.

But should we really not be concerned with the matter of Moore's reliabilty ?

In his text Moore ironically enough says that Shah "awaits judgement immeasureably beyond the competence of Religion Today" (which published his text in the first place). Talk about competence: they obviously failed to communicate to the author their concern (?) with the spelling of Anne Marie Scheme (one of Moore's expert correpondants- a half baked reference to Annemarie Schimmel?) nor with the absence of reliable reference to "Nasr's" (Sayyed Hossein Nasr ?) review of "The Sufis in Islamic Studies" 1964 (?) attributed to Idries Shah...if such reference were at all possible.

Arbitration ? Or Competence ?

Lunarian (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Merely that...

I take objection to: Like Shah's other books on the topic "The Sufis" was conspicuous for avoiding terminology that might have identified his interpretation of Sufism with traditional Islam.

Already the frontcover (1964) with the double print (red on blue) of a Mevlevi calligraphy (The Islanders) directed the prospective reader to a cultural heritage of which he may have been practically unaware but refered in the broadest sense to traditional Islam.

The very first footnote (see annotation "Outlook") directs to the following text:

Since Sufism is based upon the realisation of truth by the Sufis, its outlook cannot change, though its superficial projection may appear to change. Teaching methods differ in accordance with cultural conditions . In other systems, it is the outlook of the philosophical school which undergoes variation. this "has great significance in attesting to the ancient roots of the Sufi Way. It indicates that whereas in the progress of history the outlook of other philosophical doctrines has changed according to environments, the Sufi ideals have remained patent to the original form in adhering to the conception of a comprehensiveness without a frontier" (The Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah, "Islamic Sufism", London 1933 p.10)(...)

It was the Sirdar who concluded the preface to his own book as follows:

In conclusion, I particularly invite the reader's attention to the title of this book. Aware as I am that, in authentic and legitimate sense, there is no form of Sufism other than Islamic, I was compelled to use the adjective Islamic before Sufism, so that the uninitiated may not confuse it with such non-islamic movements which due to utter ignorance are styled Sufism; for a Sufi must of necessity be a moslim; and the universal application of the Sufi Thought is comprehensive in the same undoubted extent as is Islam. According to all correct doctrines, then , the Koran is the first and the last Textbook of Sufism, and the Prophet Mohammed the greatest Sufi of all times. Whosoever, therefor, does not subscribe to this idea, despite the fact that he may be following an Occult Way, is not a Sufi.

Against this reference alone the Koranic Verse of Light cited by Idries Shah in his Annotations to "The Sufis" retains its full traditional significance.

It is beyond the scope of this page to go in to closer detail, but it may already be conspicuous enough that the attributed avoidance exist only in the fancy of the "expert" cited in the article.

One can not regret enough the standard of research that allows the editor of Wikipedia to include any reference whatsoever as reliable. While a superficial check within the subject proper could have raised a red flag.

In this light we owe it to decency to reappraise Moore's dictum: Shah's is a Sufism without self-sacrifice, without self transcendence, without aspiration of gnosis, without tradition,without the Prophet, without the Qur'an, without Islam, without God. Merely that.

For every stance denied by Moore "Islamic Sufism" provides a complete chapter. The above is meant to show that a superficial approach can lead to ridiculous points of view.

"Religion Today" bears a tremendous responsability in not editing Moore's text carefully because if already the mere reference to factually reliable sources such as the books of the "debunked" authors is of an ashamedly inferior standard what about the personal vindictive for which alledgedly equally reliable private sources are invoked ?

Stress needs to be laid on the fact that there is no factual reliable source for any of Moore's slander except the gullabilty of self appointed experts.

Nevertheless reference to Moore remains dictated gospel to the unwitting Wiki editor.

Moore's Nasr's review of Shah's "The Sufis in Islamic Studies" (1964) is a prime example of intollerably bad reference. Is this a book review ? Certainly not as any even superficial examination of Shah's output reveals. An article? Where can we find it ? Was it not the responsability of "Religion Today" not to take such a thing at face value? Unless the editors were already gloatingly predetermined to water the seeds of personal invective ?

Apart from a chapter in "Afghanistan of the Afghans" Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah introduced Sufism in the Hibbert Journal, Vol 20 (1921-2) pp. 523-35. Already more than Moore's denigration of "Islamic Sufism" as only one inoccuous popularisation. Again face value is the general directive for editing "Religion Today".

A possibility to arrive at a personal check up was later denied the reader of the present article at a stage when the footnote with the specific reference to the Hibbert Journal was erased. Presumeably under the pretext that an article on Idries Shah need not include detail on his father. Whereas blatant invective is allowed to -wrongfully as the present communication shows- mingle unreliable "private" detail about the two.

Lunarian (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

...and merryly this.

...conspicuous for avoiding terminology that might have identified his interpretation of Sufsm with traditional Islam...

Untenable.

Idries Shah in The Sufis, The Background: 1 The Travelers and the Grapes:

Sufism is believed by its followers to be the inner ,"secret" teaching that is concealed within every religion; and because its bases are in every human mind already, the Sufi development must inevitably find its expression everywhere.The historical period of the teaching starts with the explosion of Islam from the desert into the static societies of the Near East (Octagon 1989, p25)

The groundwork for the wide diffusion of Sufic thought and action was laid by the masters of the classical period -which may be taken as the first eight hunderd years after the appearance of Islam- between about 700A.D. and 1500 A.D. (Octagon 1989, p27)

There was, too, a well-established belief among the general public that Mohammed had had a special relationship with other mystics,and that the devout and highly respected "Seekers of Truth" who surrounded him during hs lifetime might have been the recipients of an inner doctrine which he imparted in private. Mohammed, it will be remembered, did not claim to bring any new religion. He was continuing the monotheistic tradition which he stated was working long before his time. He inculcated respect for members of other faiths, and spoke of the importance of spiritual teachers of many kinds. The Koran itself was revealed by mystical methods, and provided many indications of mystical thinking.

In the religious sphere, the Koran maintains the unity of religions and the identical origin of each -"Every nation had a Warner." Islam accepted Moses, Jesus and others as inspired prophets. Further, the recognition of Mohammed's mission by numerous former Jews, Christians and Magians (including priests), some of whom had travelled to Arabia during his lifetime seeking a teacher, provided a further basis for the belief in a continuity of ancient, not localized, teaching, of which previous highly organized religions might be merely elaborations or popularizations.

This is why, in Sufi tradition, the "Chain of Transmission" of Sufi schools may reach back to the Prophet by one line, and to Elias by another. One of the most respected seventh-century Sufi masters -Uways, who died in 675- never met Mohammed, though he was living in Arabia at the same time and outlived him. Again, it is authoratively on record that the name "Sufi" was in use before the declaration of his prophetic mission by Mohammed. (Kitab el-Luma). It is essential to grasp this sense of continuity of inner teaching, and also the belief in the evolution of society, if the Sufis are to be understood to any real extent. (Octagon 1989, pp31-32)

Need it to be further refered to Chapters on Saadi of Shiraz, Rumi, Ibn Arabi, Al Ghazali, Shahabudin Shurawardi (Wilberforce Clarke's translation of Awarif el-Maarif in chpt: The Book of the Derwishes), Data Ganj Bakhsh ( el-Hujwiri, Kashf el-Mahjub in chpt The Derwish Orders) etc to bring home the point that Idries Shah did in no way dissociate Sufism from traditional Islam ?

In an important way Shah's discourse -which one Wiki editor describes as addressing intelectuals acquainted with psychology- continues the one of his father in Islamic Sufism.

In Chapter III of Islamic Sufism Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah (in 1933!) had this to say:

Science can afford to ignore metaphysics altogether, and may even believe it to be "a justified form of poetry", as Lange defined it, or "a legitimate play for grown-ups", as Nietszsche described it. But the religious expert who seeks to discover his personal status in the constitution of things cannot in view of the final aim of his struggle, be satisfied with what science may regard as a vital lie, a mere "as-if" to regulate thought and conduct. In so far as the ultimate nature of Reality is concerned nothing is at stake in the venture of science; in the religious venture the whole career of the ego as an assimilative personal center of life and expierience is at stake. Conduct, which involves a decision of the ultimate fate of the agent, cannot be based on illusions. A wrong concept misleads the understanding; a wrong deed degrades the whole man and may eventually demolish the structure of the human ego. The mere concept affects life only partially; the deed is dynamically related to reality and issues from a generally constant attitude of the whole man towards reality. No doubt the deed, i.e; the control of psychological and physiological processes with a view to tune up the ego for an immidiate contact with the ultimate Reality is, and cannot but be, individual in form and content; yet the deed, too, is liable to be socialized when others begin to live through it with a view to discover for themselves its efectiveness as a method of approaching the real. The evidence of religious experts in all ages and countries is that there are potential types of conciousness lying close to our normal conciousness. If these types of conciousness open up possibilities of life-giving and knowledge-yielding expierience the question of the possibility of religion as a form of higher expierience is a perfectly legitimate one and demands our serious attention. (Islamic Sufism, Delhi 1998, pp69-70)

The point however of extending at length Ikbal Ali Shah's view on the matter is that in his context he is explicit about his sources.

...higher religious life fixes its gaze on expieriences symbolic of those subtle movements of reality which seriously affect the destiny of the ego as a possible permanent element in the constitution of reality. If we look at the matter from this point of view modern psychology (1933 !) has not yet touched even the outer fringe of religious life, and is still far from the richness and variety of what is called religious expierience. In order to give you an idea of its richness and variety I quote here the substance of a passage from a great religious genius of the seventeenth century -Sheikh Ahmad of Sarhand- (Ahmad Sirhindi) whose fearless analytical criticism of contemporary Sufism resulted in the development of a new technique.(Islamic Sufism, Delhi 1998 p77)

Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi is an important Sheikh in the chain of transmission of the Naqshbandi order, known as al Mujaddid, the Reviver of the Sunna. After him the Naqshbandi became Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi. On the Naqshbandi chain in the Mirat Al-Muqasid and the Punjab tradition see Ikbal Ali Shah in Islamic Sufism chpt IV: The Naqshbundi Order. On Ahmad Sirhindi as a (controversial) orthodox teacher see M. Mujeeb The Indian Muslims (First Indian edition 1985 pp 243-247). His teaching centered on the supercession of wahdat al wujud as a stage by wahdat as shuhud. A teaching that remained central to Indian orthodox Islam. A point that can be studied in full through the translations of works by Shah Waliullah of Delhi edited by Octagon press.

Lunarian (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sufism and Islam

In reply to the above ("Merely that..." and "...and merryly this"), see Talk:Sufism#Sufism_and_Islam_(20_June_2009_edit) Thanks, Esowteric | Talk 10:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

One accepts Pr.Godlas statements as an addition to the above.

The point remains. The Naqshbandi are a Muslim Sufi order. Idries Shah did not dissociate Sufism from classical, traditional Islam.

Undoubtably his language and approach were modern and affected the projection of his method but not the essence as he himself stated on numerous occasions. See for instance: "Learning how to learn" where reference to classical Muslim teachers is direct. Sari i Saqati for instance is cited on several occasions. Sari i Saqati was Junaids teacher. Students of Sufism are pointedly aware of Junaids stance towards Al Hallaj. An orthodox stance affecting the projection (Shari'a as necessity to "witness" Reality in casu al Mujadiddi) but not the essence of spiritual attainement. This is one instance of a "problem" posed to the student of Sufism for which a rather more sustained effort in "learning how to learn" is needed than Wikipedia editors are called for to provide.

The need for correct information remains.

Lunarian (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Teachings

The first paragraph of the section "Teachings / Sufism as a form of universal wisdom" also needs to be rewritten in accordance with the correct approach i.e. 'that Shah did not claim that Sufism was not Islamic nor that it could not be grasped by studying the methods of the old masters'. In support of the contrary an editor refered to a secondary source (Muge Galin) which appears to confound the issue. al Badawi's quote : ... like waves that break... is taken from a more extensive one in Shah's "The Way of the Sufi: Part Eight, Letters and Lectures" in the same quote Badawi says ... when the Sufi way was first preached in the mosques.... This would be hard to follow if one was to consider that Sufism was not Islamic.

Introducing the Letters and lectures Section Idries Shah himself wrote:

...as in the waves-of-the-sea metaphor which Sufis so often use, Sufism is constantly renewed by succesive exemplar teachers.

These teachers do not only reinterpret past Sufi materials; they select, adapt, introduce, and in so doing enable the literary materials to continue a dynamic function.

Sufi students may or may not be encouraged to familiarize themselves with the traditional Classics of Sufism. It is the Sufi Guide, however, who indicates to each circle or pupil the curriculum: the pieces from the Classics, from letters and lectures, from traditional observances which apply to a particular phase of society, to a particular grouping, to a certain individual.

How does this rhyme with According to Shah (...) Sufism (...) could not be grasped by studying its past manifestations, or the methods of its old masters as stated in the article ?

Moreover the Letters and lectures section opens with:

Hence the Prophet (Peace and Blessings upon him !) has said :

"Speak to each according to his understanding"

as quoted by Idris ibn-Ashraf.

Ironically it is the next quote in the passage under criticism that again shows how Idries Shah dealt with the introduction of classical teachers.

Show a man to many camels' bones... attributed to Shah in a fabricated context one finds in The Dermis Probe attributed to Mirza Ashan of Tabriz and part of a collection throughout the work of memorable sayings (including: "Its the people who are God's family." by Mohammed the Prophet)

Ashan Tabrizi's quote figures on a page bearing the caption Salute to the Thief next to a quote from the Anwar-i-Suhaili and an anecdote about...Junaid Baghdadi.

Idries Shah noted the following on Junaid ( in the note section to the Dermis Probe):

Junaid of Baghdad (Abul-Qasim Junaid), ninth century. His Sufic name was Prince of the Group (Sayed el-Taifa). impeccable in formal scholarship, he was for this styled Peacock of the Learned (Taus el-Ulema)(...) Additional material in my " The Way of the Sufi " (London,Cape, 1968), p.165 ff., 246

Lunarian (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

1 July 2009 edits

Lunarian, I'm concerned at your recent edits to Idries Shah which added a mass of quotations and also removed a lot of sourced material. Esowteric | Talk 10:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest reverting to clean version prior to Lunarian's edits. Esowteric | Talk 11:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For some time now the article seems to float under the aegeis of Moore's debunking and more particularly under the misunderstanding his contribution has fostered with contemporary reviewers unfamiliar with the content of Shah's considerable work introducing -as he so often, if not always stressed- the preliminaries of Sufi study. The quothes are from three different books by Shah. They are meant to reflect the author's own point of view in the face of the many unsourced claims that are laid at his door -or should that be: at his grave-. The man is entitled to a word in his defence. Specially if the words are his own. Lunarian (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. We should not use primary sources to rebut criticism; it's WP:OR. It is also unnecessary, since those who have defended and praised Shah are given at least as much space in the article as his detractors. JN466 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Would not Shah's books be secondary sources on Sufi studies ?

And would they not adress critically the imaginative theories ejected in the course of the present description by editors who have no knowledge of or else -with full knowledge- distort their content ?

There seems to be an acknowledgement of Moore's often cited 'article' as a genuine source. It does not stand up to critical review.

Much secondary sources refered to in the article rely on easy acces (internet) to Moore without knowledge of the content of Shah's work: content and intent refering to Sufi Studies.

Why were the preceeding remarks on the alleged dissociation by Shah of Sufism from Islam put to discussion not answered ?

And how can they be adressed if the correct sources are eliminated: i.e. Shah's secondary sources on Sufism which he happens to be the author of ?

Please give an intelligent reply Jayen and Esowteric.

Not one hiding behind soi-disant Wikiformat.

The first paragraph of Teachings has been reverted to a serious flaw for which a quotation from The Sufis is allowed.

What is the reason for this selective proceeding ?

It is allright for some but not for others ?

(for the sake of reference: [9])

Lunarian (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Shah's writings are a primary source in this article. As for the passage from The Sufis, this is a passage that is quoted in a secondary source (Galin); thus the choice was not made by a Wikipedian. For us to go through Shah's works and quote what we feel is most representative or most important would be the equivalent of a hitherto unpublished analysis.

Now, as for some of the ways in which Shah was not Islamic – he made wine (of the literal, drinkable kind) in Langton Green, did not insist on his students converting to Islam or otherwise encourage it (unlike his brother, I believe), did not appear to encourage the observance of Islamic prayers, visits to mosques or to Mecca and so forth – in many ways, his style was very secular and, actually, English. I don't think the quoted secondary sources have that wrong when they point out the difference between his presentation and that of the more Islamic sufis. JN466 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please quothe your sources.

Caravan of Dreams contains excerpts from the story of his own Hajj, besides a collection of traditions attributed to Mohammed etc

A Perfumed Scorpion contains the eleven Rules of the Naqhsbandi Path etc

It is going to be a long Yes/No discussion.

On one side of the scales lie his books (of prohibited reference in an Encyclopedia) on the other side the (over-refered-to) aproximations of the 'specialists'

Lunarian (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to my knowledge, none of the "official" present-day Naqshbandis recognized Shah as their official representative; and vice versa, Shah may have considered them a fossilised rather than active Sufi group. Caravan of Dreams is quite unusual among Shah's works for quoting the Prophet; most of Shah's other books make scant reference to him. Of course Shah widely quotes Sufi sources – he is, after all, a Sufi, and Sufism was what he wrote about – but he made many efforts to distance himself from the more traditionally-minded contemporary Sufi orders. JN466 17:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Idries Shah in A Perfumed Scorpion(1978):

In Sufi training systems, there are rules which the members are expected to follow in that part of their development which comes within their own purview. The one which is most often quoted comes from the ancient teachings of the 'Masters of the Design' to which my own background is refered. I find that it has direct connexions with the conditions of the mind of people in both East and West today

...then follow the Eleven Rules of the Naqshbandiyya.

These rules were already explicitly stated by Shah in Oriental Magic(1958) and they formally coincide with the Naqshbandi Rules collected from their direct source in Pr.Godlas' pages.

(...) The Naqshbandi are associated with: reviving and updating the teachings periodically; being recognized as competent to interpret all forms of Sufism; being able to initiate into all orders; using ordinary clothes and entering into ordinary activities of the world, through which they carry on part of their work, and initiating methods which others often copy as the externals of cults

A perfumed Scorpion (contains the substance of lectures given by Idries Shah at universities in the United States under the aegis of the Institute of Human Knowledge and the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Farleigh Dickinson University), Harper & Row ed 1982 pp 85, 86

in the Perfumed Scorpion (op. cit. pp144,145) also:

There is a famous Sufi story which clearly sets forth the two levels of religion, the one of observance and social concern, and the other, of higher psychological import, generally called the Tale of Moses and the Sheperd, and written by the great 13th century Sufi Rumi...etc

Following secundary sources the Tale of Moses and the Sheperd can be read as a page of islamic religious literature at least if we may take Classical Islam: A sourcebook of religious literature edited and translated by Norman Calder, Jawid Mojaddedi and Andrew Rippin Routledge(2003),ed 2005 pg 257 as a source where the Tale ... figures among passages from Al-Ghazali, AL-Sarraj and Hujwiri, classical teachers often refered to by Shah. (among other in The Sufis, Thinkers of the East, Caravan of Dreams, Tales of the Derwishes, The Way of the Sufi, The Dermis Probe, ...)

...and not only refered to, often cited to illustrate a point in the teaching 'methods.

One notable classical method being of course the use of teaching stories often explained at lenght by Idries Shah ( in Perfumed Scorpion for example in the sections The Teaching Story - 1, 2 op. cit. pp 97ff)

Again:

How does this rhyme with:

According to Shah (Sufism) could not be grasped by studying its past manisfestations or the methods of its old masters as stated in the article?

This can only be answered with a quote explicitly stating exactly this contention.

I am sure no such statement exists in his many books on Sufism.

But if there are, here and now may be a good time to give their exact reference

Untill then the section teachings is seriously flawwed.

Sufism calls for respect for all religions, the way in which the present editors are sweeping Islam under the carpet is below standard, especially relating to the subject of the article.

PS, see also [10]

PPS, Ah yes...

Why Perfumed Scorpion ?

Whoever might perfume a scorpion will not thereby escape its sting

-Hadrat Bahaudin Naqshband, The Shah

(as opening A Perfumed Scorpion: The Way To The Way Harper & Row 1982)

Lunarian (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are aware of any reputable secondary sources that highlight other aspects of Shah's relationship to Islam, I am willing to look at them. But we cannot discuss here how the secondary literature is "wrong", based on our own analysis of Shah's work, if that disagrees with their findings. Our articles should be based on analyses in secondary sources, above all scholarly sources. Though to respond briefly to your points, I would mention the central importance that "time, place and people" have in Shah's oeuvre; how often he says that methods designed for other people, places and times (such as whirling) cannot fulfil any developmental function today; his emphasis that a contemporary Sufi is necessary to sort out which parts of historical teachings might still be functional today, and which should be excluded. For some of the many references to this in Shah's books, cf. Knowing How to Know, p. 276–285 ("Diseases of Learning"), p. 316–317 ("You and me", "Just as Useful"); cf. Shah's reference to the "grotesque versions of Sufism in the East" in Learning How To Learn, p. 50, and his subsequent comments on travel; also cf. pp. 165–172, ibidem ("Learning and Non-Learning", "Some Characteristics of Sufi Literature"); for further aspects of this topic area see Seeker After Truth, p. 101 ("Croaker"), p. 35 ("Museum Keeping"), pp. 26–29 ("Ancient Traditions", "The Mother of Opposition"). Regards, JN466 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this hearty reply.

But if you are that aware of the content of his work, you are also aware that just so many quotes can be found to the point that it is up to the teacher, the guide, to indicate what the individual pupil needs and that -as cited above- may or may not include classics and tradition.

You have as yet not given the direct quote where Shah dissociates Sufism from Islam.

Be that as it may.

We are now back to: Our articles should be based on analysis in secondary sources, above all scholarly ones

What a joke, if that means you consider Moore's contraption to be a "scholarly source".

But you honestly do not, do you ?

Did you actually succeed in making sense of his reference to Nasr on Shah's 'The Sufis in Islamic Studies' (1964)?

Or why we should accept Anne Marie Scheme as an expert on Sufism ?

Or if the notorious halal meat scandal actually happened ? (or what sources allow us to verify the ambiguous contents of the Foreign Office notes )

Or why his scholarship should allow us to verify that Idries Shah was his father's secretary during the stated period ?

Or more dramatically: what is so scholarly about the contention that Shah had no God, no religion...

You have Learning how to learn under hand, can you turn to the ultimate paragraphs of the book and honestly say with your eyes on them indeed here is a man with no religion, no God, no tradition..

You are aware that many of the secondary sources on Shah rely on Moore, i.e. refer to him as a scholarly source...

A sick joke.

The point is rather that many of the secondary sources on Sufi Studies since 1964 including Sayed Hossein Nasr, Henri Corbin e.a. do not contradict Shah's sources on Sufism (including -or especially- the islamic ones) and certainly do not criticize him as they are in no way involved with his specific project. (one can profitably compare the pages on Sufism in Classical Islam; a sourcebook on religious literature cited above with Shah's entries on al-Ghazali or Junayd to 'taste' some of this)

So,

How about that direct statement by Shah himself -all the sources are available including the contentious ones- that Sufism can not be grasped by studying its past manifestations or the methods of its old masters.

And above all, reference to Moore's 'Peer' reviewers...

Thanks again and no hard feelings.

Cheers to you

Lunarian (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's try to think in more practical terms. What would editors think of changing "Shah claimed that Sufism was a form of universal wisdom and that it was not Islamic, but predated Islam" to simply "Shah claimed that Sufism was a form of universal wisdom that predated Islam"?

Shah, to be sure, never takes an antagonistic stance towards Islam, as this passage might be read to imply; on occasion, he points out that Islam itself did not present itself as a new religion, but merely a renewal of the Jewish and Christian religions. JN466 10:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Great!

Except it is not Shah's claim.

Its a.o. al-Sarraj's view from more than 1.000 years back (Kitab al-Luma) which Shah (as quoted above) merely highlighted to substantiate his introductory narrative.(I already gave the loc. cit. in Nicholson (1914) of Shah's reference on this page once)

But Jay, forgive me my longwindedness (I'll depart from these pages soon enough)...

You attracted my attention to Learning and Non-Learning in Learning How to Learn pp165-172

...teachers may not need what is in books, but can use them for students, while students may not know but might well not profit from studying them as arbitrarily as they ordinarily do...(...) The Sufi usage of Hafiz's works is not at all the same as the ordinary translator's or reader's...

In a scholarly anthology of Persian Sufi poetry :"The Drunken Universe" (1987) Omega Publications New Lebanon by P.L.Wilson and N.Pourjavady a note is made: For the best translations of (Hafiz's) poems see Wilbeforce Clarke's very literal version (London, 1974) in concreto this refers to the 'monumental' fac-simile edited by Octagon (1974) as part of Shah's project of making Sufi sources available. On Wilbeforce Clarke and Sufi sources see Chapter: The Book of the Derwishes in The Sufis (1964)

Incidentally one of Clarke's notes to the Diwan-i-Hafiz (pg 384 in op.cit.)reads:Nabid,wine -a wine which Muslims are permitted to drink: it is made by putting grapes or dry dates in water to extract their sweetness and by suffering the liquor slightly to ferment till it acquires sharpness

So, keep healthy with it good friend.

Lunarian (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've revised the opening paragraph of the Teachings section, taking on board some of the points you made above. I've put "Shah emphasised" rather than "Shah claimed", because as you rightly point out, that idea predates Shah by a good few centuries, even though it seems to have been disregarded by some of the more traditional-minded and academic commentators. [11]. Regards, JN466 13:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to imagine what this article would be like without your sustained effort.

Indeed, glad it turned out this way.

I myself was about to argue that he 'emphasised' spiritual trappings. I was under the impression 'trappings' refered to 'traps' and 'trappers': 'ornaments as a sign of rank' my dictionarry tells me.

Shows how much you must take my word for it...

Better to trust you, Jay.

Even if you have to be shaken a bit :)!

Enjoy your summer,

Lunarian (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I love happy and amicable outcomes. Well done Lunarian and Jayen. Thanks for your efforts, Esowteric | Talk 11:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning: "Well, to my knowledge, none of the "official" present-day Naqshbandis recognized Shah as their official representative", the operative phrase is "to my knowledge". I don't get the impression from this - or from any of the other Shah family wikipedia pages - that relevant sources in the regions involved (Middle East, Central and South Asia) have been sought. There are numerous Naqshbandi schools in Pakistan and India that have a web presence, and it would be quite possible to solicit the help of their authors. Anecdotally, my brother met the sheikh of an Indian Naqshbandi group in the late 1970s who spoke highly of Shah, and I encountered a Pakistani dervish - dressed in shalwar kamis - on the London undeground in the 1980s who noticed I was reading "Learning How to Learn" and commented that he had an Urdu translation, which he commended very highly.

The Haqqanis may be the most high profile of the 'present-day Naqshbandis' but they still represent an offshoot of the Indian tradition (via Maulana Khalid, who was one of the khalifas of Ghulam Ali Dehlawi, and who took the Naqshbandiyya - or more accurately the 'Khalidiyya' - back to the Ottoman Empire). They cannot thus be seen as either "official" or definitive - they are merely one of a wide range of Naqshbandi groups that have branched off at one point of the 'chain' or another.

But even the Haqqanis make an indirect reference to Shah, on their web page about Abdullah Daghestani (http://www.naqshbandi.org/chain/39.htm), Sheikh Nazim's teacher. Here there is an account of J.G. Bennett's meeting with Daghestani in Damascus, at which Bennett was told:

"God has always sent Messengers to show the way out of such situations, and He has again done so in our present age. A Messenger is already on earth, and his identity known to many. Before long he will come to the West. Men have been chosen to prepare the way for him... It was shown to me that you are one of those chosen to prepare the way... The Messenger will come to your country and even to your house..."

Of all the people who came to Bennett's house, the one who best seems to fit this description is Shah.--Jsouttar (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deflections

The article has improved considerably since I last read it, and appears generally neutral and reliable, so congrats to the editors. A few observations.

As a response to the attacks on Shah, twenty-four scholars and writers, drawn from both East and West, compiled a Festschrift in honour of his services to Sufi studies (Sufi Studies, East and West, 1973)

What is the source for the statement that the 'festschrift' was a response to criticism? And is it irrelevant that Shah was accused of producing his own 'festschrift', from conception and commissioning the authors, through to marketing? I suggest deletion.

Some orientalists were hostile, in part because Shah presented classical Sufi writings as tools for self-development to be used by contemporary people, rather than as objects of historical study.

That's an opinion that Shah often uttered, and sourced here to a Shah follower. Did orientalists really say 'We object because Shah is popularizing our historical field of study'? Again, delete, or say the Shah camp claimed, etc. Another tactic was to claim that (unspecified) criticisms were pseudonymously written by Shah himself.

Moore (op cit) says:

"This article constitutes a footnote to L. P. Elwell-Sutton's magisterial 'Sufism & Pseudo-Sufism' (Encounter Vol. XLIV No. 5, May 1975, pp. 9-17)."

'Sufism & Pseudo-Sufism' ought then to be cited here. It might have been published in 1972, but it's a long time since I read it, and Encounter is not online. The correspondence was as long as the article, and dragged on for months. I think only Moore objected to Elwell-Sutton lumping together Gurdjieff and Shah, which E-S dismissed in an Author's reply. Moore's subsequent attacks on Shah were written as much to rally the Gurdjieffians, as to discredit Shah, IMO.

Sam Weller (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sam,

I would agree.

"Sufi Studies:East and West" was presented as Commemorating the 700 th anniversary of the death of Jalal ud Din Rumi (died 1273)

We are hardly to judge wether it was entirely fabricated.

I found the piece written by Reza Arasteh in it quite usefull for further study. 'His' work at least was not fabricated and was published years before by Brill, Leiden. Academic stuff.

Of others I was not at liberty to judge.

Reference to Arasteh in the context of "Sufi Studies..." has been omitted from footnote, Wikigod knows why...

First time I ever heard of Elwell-Sutton in reference to Sufi Studies was in the context of this article. Perhaps he was frustrated about not being mentioned in general reference elsewhere i.e. Henri Corbin e.a. and had to have his voice heard, no matter what.

Moore is a joke or a hoax or whatever, certainly not a scholarly source. I never understood how he was accepted in the first place.

As it stands this here is an article written for internet, using internet sources on the fringe.

We might as well be sorry for Belgian weather...

In general though I think it necessary that the information should be in relation to Shah's own work under his own name. Critics should have their own page, if they are notable enough. This for the sake of clear reference. I mean reference to follow up a study on.

"Critics should have their own page"? I don't think that is the way Wikipedia goes about things, Lunarian, and I'm not quite sure what you intend by this, except to then find that Shah's critics aren't notable enough to have their own article and hence they are not in a position to pass any comment (which is heading in the direction of WP:NOTCENSORED).

And if a critic has his/her own page for their criticism, then where on Earth do you put criticism of the critics :)? Which is not to say that I personally enjoy folk having a pop at Shah. Esowteric+Talk 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Need I intend anything, Eric ?

I am surely not the one who is going to be interested in making the articles, since I am already ... solidly entrenched in the Shah camp...perhaps.

And what is wrong with the notabilty critirion ?

Don't we all love to hate it ?

Cheers,

Lunarian (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sam, thanks for your kind comments.

To respond to your points, the source for the Festschrift sentence is the following paragraph in Shah's obituary in The Independent:

When in 1967 Graves published his new translation of Omar Khayym, challenging Edward Fitzgerald's refusal to treat the Persian Khayym as a Sufi poet, critics saw a chance to attack Shah, despite the fact that he had had no hand in Graves's version. Those interested in Sufism as a force in the modern world rallied to Shah's support and 24 of them, drawn from both East and West, compiled a Festschrift in his honour, Sufi Studies, East and West (1973).

As for the characterisation of Orientalists' objections, that is taken from the same article. I was not aware that Robert Cecil had been a pupil of Shah's, though I now note his presence as an author on ishkbooks e.g., so I'm sure you're right. I'll do a bit more research on this to see if there are alternative sources commenting on orientalists' stance. Sources commenting on Cecil's status might be useful too; I wasn't aware of any.

In particular, if you have any ideas as to where I might lay my hands on a copy of Elwell-Sutton's article, please let me know. Regards, JN466 11:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that Cecil (a professional historian who died 2 years before Shah) wrote, '... Graves published his new translation of Omar Khayym, ... critics saw a chance to attack Shah, despite the fact that he had had no hand in Graves's version.' Beryl Graves's response, cited here as evidence of her husband's implicit trust in Shah, was carefully worded, but expressed 'surprise' at the obit's smooth deflection of attention from the Shah family's responsibility for the hoax. Omar Ali-Shah claimed the literal translation (actually Heron-Allen's) was his, and asked Graves to improve it. Graves knew no Persian, but did so as a favour (from a hospital bed recovering from an op). Idries Shah was personally involved, promising to produce the ms.

I'll look for the Encounter article. Rawlinson's 8500-word entry on Idries Shah in his Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions is worth reading as a rare attempt to make sense of both the Elwell-Sutton/Moore and 'Shah school' versions of reality. Sam Weller (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I recall leafing through Rawlinson's book and reading that entry in a bookshop some ten years ago, though I don't remember much of it. It never occurred to me to use it as a source here, but I see it is quite well cited, was reviewed in the Times Higher Education supplement, and the author has a few journal publications. I'll try and get hold of it again. Cheers, --JN466 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And yes, like you say, Beryl Graves' letter has another dimension that had not occurred to me before; partly because I didn't know Cecil was associated with Shah. --JN466 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the Festschrift sentence and adjusted the quote from Beryl Graves' letter to follow her wording more closely. JN466 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And there no longer is going to be any mention at all of Sufi Studies East and West edited by Pr. L.F. Rushbrook Williams ISBN 0525211950 ? Despite the reviews of Adil Askari in Theoria to Theory, International Journal Of Science , Philosophy and Contemplative Religion Vol 10, No 3 (1976) pp. 249-254 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Ltd -or M. Bashir Dervish in Islamic Culture January 1977 pp 71-73, published by the Islamic Culture Board Hyderabad-India -or Pr Leonard Lewin in International Philosophical Quarterly,etc ?

Talk about balance

As for relevance...

Pr. Reza Arasteh was Director of Interdisciplinary Research at the Psychiatric Institute of Washington at the time when he contributed to the symposium under observation. He had by then written "Rumi the Persian, the Sufi" ISBN 9780415442558 prefaced by Erich Fromm. Final integration in adult personality Leiden Brill ed 1965 [12] etc...

His contribution was called "Psychology of the Sufi Way to Individuation" -a process he described as the transcendance of three stages into one single state 1)illumination of name (cultural self) 2)illumination of qualities 3)illumination of essence...

He had coresponded on the subject with Thomas Merton and this is where a social and cultural relevance needs to be accentuated, since this is the kind of context Idries Shah's work ( "The Sufis" 1964 a.o.) participated in. A relevance underlined and accesible in " Thomas Merton and the Sufis" ISBN 1887752072.

That is where we learn about Merton's study of Ibn Abbad of Ronda through the work of Miguel Asin Palacios.

Remember Asin Palacios from "The Sufis" ? ISBN 0863040209 Chpt V, The Secret Doctrine Pg 246 cites Palacios' words: "Recently publishing a doctoral thesis- Character and Origins of the ideas of the Blessed Raymond Lulle (Toulouse 1912) -its author, Mr. Probost, with completly infantile audacity, calls Menendez y Pelayo, Ribera and me liars and romantics for maintaining the Arab affiliation of the Lullian system. This inexpert youth does not know my study Psychology According to Mohiedin Abenarabi, published in actes du XIVme Congrès des Orientalistes seven years ago, in which I had demonstrated documentarily the copying of the allegory of the Lights" Even in those days- Idries Shah commented- before his studies of the illuminism of the Sufis were complete, Asin was ready and willing to produce documents to prove its point. ( the reference is to Palcios: Obras Escogidas, I, Madrid 1946 -let us add Pg 164, note 2 for completion, in: "Ibn Masarra y su escuela, origenes de la filosofia hispanomusumana" 1914)

One can read some of Shah's presentiment of his own critics in to this ( see also the introductory essay to "The Way of the Sufi")

What did the man say ? " Take what is in my hand" ?

Lunarian (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shah and his detractors

L.P Elwell-Sutton

Having read L.P Elwell-Sutton's allegedly "magisterial" work (Sufism and Pseudo-Sufism in Encounter), I can just picture him reading Shah's books; angrily scribbling down the errors he's detected; adding to his list of eulogies; beginning to froth at the mouth and rage, and determining to write a fierce rebuttal, like "Disconcerted of Milton Keynes" writing into the televison company to complain on "Have Your Say".

I think the grotesque and distinctly un-PC caricature of Idries Shah on the second page of the vindictive is quite appropriate, but for all the wrong reasons. Elwell-Sutton begins his critique by building up a sharp picture of charlatanism and disrepute, and though this rhetoric concerns figures centuries before Shah, when he then switches his gaze to talk of Shah, the idea is presumably that this shameful image or "straw man" fallacy that he's painted should rub off on Shah and some might, and wrongly, stick.

Yes, there's no denying that a handful of mistakes have been made in the books, and yes some of them look pretty basic. A more charitable interpretation would simply be that these occurred due to a simple lapse in concentration. Having worked to self-imposed and punishing schedules like Tahir and his father, this is easily done, though in this day and age, all we have to do is click edit, type and save (often several times over) and nobody is any the wiser.

It's possible that things such as Shah's misreading "bad ast" (it is wind) as "ba dast" (with the hand) might actually be the kind of play on words of which the Sufis were fond. Had I been Shah, and were this the case, and considering that such things would be lost on the vast majority of readers, I think I would have added an explanatory footnote. I think that Shah, too, would have been more careful about such things once he became aware of the opposition of folk like Elwell-Sutton. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The jury's out here regarding the possibly deliberate way in which a "mythology" has been built-up. Rawlinson's alternative explanation that this had a teaching role and that it was deliberately made to be deconstructible is worth considering, though in the end even Rawlinson made the odd mistake (such as speculating incorrectly that the real Leonard Lewin might be another of Shah's creations), and in the end he can only speculate.

The wheel's still in spin or the fat lady has yet to sing, as they say. I think Tahir might have the odd surprise twist to bring to the table in the next few months and years, in an informational rather than teaching role. Esowteric+Talk 13:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

James Moore

Without wishing to be un-PC and offend washer-women: as for James Moore's equally vexed contribution (Neo-Sufism: The Case Of Idries Shah), it's just more of the same. He's heard another dog barking, and he's going to join in (while the caravan moves on). His offering hardly deserves a footnote, in my personal opinion, though I have to set aside such dismissal when editing.

What's missing?

If there is something vital missing from Shah's projection as Elwell-Sutton proposes, then it is not God nor Islam imo, but for the vast majority of those enrolled on the correspondence course (and who take to heart Shah's insistence that adopting random exercises is to be avoided; etc; etc): it is perhaps mindfulness and exercises concerned with working on the Heart. It's my OR, of course, but that's how I see Idries Shah's Sufi Paradigm.

Having said that, perhaps this is merely a matter of there being more than one way to skin a cat? Some work on the heart; others work (or at other times there is work) on the nafs, to reveal the heart. Esowteric+Talk 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific " exercise concerned with working on the Heart " in mind ? Any a " real teacher " might conduct and oversee ? Shah in his writings never spoke of himself as a teacher, as you probably well know; nor is there such a thing as a correspondence course on these matters.

Your opinion is worthy of respect but should not stain the issue.

You remember perhaps the play on the word Kalb (Heart), KLB also carrying the meaning of dog : Beat the Heart (dog) and the neglectful behave  ? Shah thought this was the kind of advice you were bound to find on your path...

So, what is missing ?

Lunarian (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you mean QLB (heart) and KLB (dog). Nor did Shah himself claim to be the Qutub (et al). It all smacks of "plausible deniability" to me. Esowteric+Talk 10:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its ISBN 0863040209 "The Sufis" pg 116

" Chaucer's use of the phrase.. " ff.

I remain confused about your point though.

But have you thought of "Eating the blame" ?

When the cook of a Zen monastery once was so hasty he cut part of a snake in the vetgetables...

The followers of Fugai thought they had never tasted such good soup. But when the zen master himself found the snake's head in his bowl, he summond the cook. "What is this ?" he demanded, holding up the head of the snake.

"Oh, thank you, master," replied the cook, taking the morsel and eating it quickly"

It smacks of Koan

( in "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones" Paul Reps 1973 Pelican Books )

when in doubt about the link between Sufism and Zen turn to Toshihiko Izutsu (in particular ISBN 1883991048)

While you are picking the camel bones of the critics the caravan is defenitely moving on.

For a decent many without the "loose and informal chain of command where upper rungs quarantine the blame to the lower rungs"

Lunarian (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)