Talk:Kashf

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mysticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mysticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mysticism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MysticismWikipedia:WikiProject MysticismTemplate:WikiProject MysticismMysticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of POV statements[edit]

It may be fine to have a section on the page summing up any disputes with this concept, but I moved the following statements here until someone rewrites them in a more neutral tone. – cacahuate ^talk 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two points against the Sufi interpretation of kashf and tajalli. First, conceiving metaphysics by kashf is impossible, yet Sufis claim otherwise, contending against the truth. The fact is that whatever exists can be conceived of only within the realm of reason. Once man loses reason, he loses the ability to conceive of anything of its reality, and turns to hallucination and utter nonsense.

Secondly, any claim that the Divine essence can appear, whether in existence or beyond it, whether materially or transcendentally, is a flagrant lie. The Prophet and Messenger of Allah, Musa, peace be upon him, whom Allah had favoured with the privilege of speaking to him directly, was denied his request to see him, as indicated in the verse:

"And when Musa came at Our appointed time, and his Lord spoke to him, he said, 'My Lord, show (Yourself) to me that I may look to You.' He (Allah) said, 'You shall not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it remains in its place, then you shall see Me.' And when his Lord manifested Himself on the mountain, He made it level, and Musa fell down unconcious. And when he recovered he said, meaning, "Far removed are You from every imperfection, I repent to You, I am the first to believe."(7.143)

It is an essential fact, held unanimously by Sunni Muslim, that it is impossible for any creature to witness the Divine manifestations in this world as confirmed by the words of Allah:

"Eyes cannot reach Him, but He can reach everything the eyes of His creatures can reach and perceive of."(6.103)

why not you delete all the metaphysical articles contrary to any idea or concept. there is no pov in that article; if there was any, why din't you rewrite in place of deleting the article to make it too short for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NPOV for an answer. If you wish to add info about controversies, do it in a neutral tone, and back it up with references. Thanks! – cacahuate ^talk 04:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its mysticism not politics. you are not giving appropriate reson to delete the article major part. as this sufism is not a matter of fiqh or politics an neither its historical that you talk about pov. matters of mystisism are based on the views who hold them not by those who only try to interpret them from outside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in the article were written in a very non-neutral tone, were your personal point of view, and were not referenced, so I have not 1 but 3 reasons to delete them. This is an encyclopedia and it's important that we stick to certain guidelines. Also, on talk pages please do not create a new section for each new comment when it's part of an ongoing conversation, and please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks! – cacahuate ^talk 04:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay! please improve the article. Zikrullah 04:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for keeping a calm head! I'm sure the article will get improved soon – cacahuate ^talk 04:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

grammar error[edit]

I just fixed a little grammar error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.37.137 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]