Talk:Abdul Qadir Gilani

Article Shaikh Syed Abdul Razzaq Jilani
There is a discussion taking place to delete a related article called Shaikh Syed Abdul Razzaq Jilani. This article is about the son of Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani. Those who want to defend the article may do so at Articles for deletion/Shaikh Syed Abdul Razzaq Jilani. Editors are encouraged to defend the article using Wikipedia policies as the criteria for deletion is unjust and it may probably be due to the nominator's personal reasons or conflicts. Pixarh (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Biography
Born on 11 April, a few months a year [470 AH], corresponding to 1077 m, and there is disagreement in the place of his birth where there are stories of multiple, notably to say his birth in [Gillan (province) | Gilan]] in the northern Gilan Iraq, a historic village near the towns 40 kilometers south of Baghdad, as evidenced by historical studies of academic and adopted family Kilanyia Baghdad,  he grew Abdul Qadir in a family described by sources Balsalehh, it was his father Abu Saleh Musa known asceticism and the slogan was applying self-restraint and sponsorship good works and so it was for the title "lover of Jihad". . — Preceding unsigned comment added by د. عمار جمال الكندي (talk • contribs) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

كتاب جغرافية الباز الاشهب[ترمیم] السلام عليكم : يشرفني اهديكم الطبعة الرابعة من كتابي ، جغرافية الباز الأشهب ،قراءة ثانية في سيرة الشيخ عبد القادر الكيلاني وتحقيق محل ولادته وفق منهج البحث العلمي ، دراسة تاريخية ،وهو بالاصل رسالة ماجستير باشراف العلامة عماد عبد السلام رؤوف سنة 2001، الناشر المنظمة المغربية للتربية والثقافة والعلوم ، مدينة فاس ، المملكة المغربية ، 2014 ،وهذا رابط التنزيل المجاني المباشر، http://www.aljlees.com/7s3898203-3027.html (حقوق النشر والتوزيع والترجمة لكل مسلم ومسلمة) وهذا رابط الكتاب والمؤلف يخول كل مسلم ومسلمة ان يهديه لمن يحب وحقوق الطبع لكل مسلم وكذلك الترجمة تحياتي : دكتور جمال الدين فالح الكيلاني استاذ التاريخ والحضارة ببغداد موقعنا على الفيس بوك (د.جمال الدين فالح الكيلاني)

Sheikh mudasserhaleem bein attributed as a Sufi Sheikh is baseless and incorrect. The article is POV and has arguments and statements that have no proof. 68.69.58.146 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Qadiri order of Sufis has him as their Murshid. There are books on Tasawwuf written by him. Why do you say that he is not a Sufi Sheikh? --Nkv 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What happens at the tomb of nizamuddin in delhi now does not mean that nizamuddin himself endorsed that. People later on fabricate a lot of stuff, so they take him as murshid means nothing. read abdul qadir jilani's books (fatuhul Ghayb or gunitu-talibeen and like) and you will know what his aqida was. Also, there are incidents in this article without any proof. It deserves a disputed tag 68.233.38.154 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it deserves a disputed tag. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that he was a Sufi. I can't read his books since I don't have copies nor do I understand the language. Perhaps you could post some links as to why he shouldn't be regarded as a Sufi? Also, perhaps it's a good idea to register a username for yourself? It helps track discussions and archive them. --Nkv 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read all his books and have some with me. There is one thing for certain, he was not a Wahhabi because he never advocated suicide bombing on fellow muslims just for showing love to their prophet and his house.  When Wahhabis use the word Sufi, they mean someone who worships the grave and then claim that none of the Sufi saints are really a sufi.  What a stupid claim. Hassanfarooqi 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * you dont know the whole world - not even a small part of it Killbillsbrowser 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your ad hominem attacks are not helping at all. All I'm asking for is sources. --Nkv 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya Ghaus Al Saqlain!!
He is THE greatest of all Sufi Saints - or the "Saint of Saints" (Pir of Pirs). I don't think anyone can dispute that. His "Foot" is on the neck of all other Sufi's,Auliya's- (No one can be a true auliya/pir who doesn't consider this.). He is a True Friend of Allah(SWT). Only the ignorant and arrogant cannot digest these facts.

Descendant speaks out
He was my great X grandfather. He being labeled as a Sufi isnt right. HE is a muslim and never called himself as anything else. He lived his life as much as he could as the prophet lived his life. He did not create any biddath (new false laws).

lol have you read his books ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.72.135 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

here are some of the books fools : http://www.al-baz.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.72.135 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sufi is just an umbrella term for tazkiya nafs something which Surah A’laa refers to. It is a knowledge based on self purification of the soul. Sufi tariqas are all about an environment where like minded individuals can learn the noble character of the prophet ﷺ and develop that in our lives. Disrespecting and antagonising fellow believers for what theY understand and for what they dob not understand is time wasted indeed. If people want answers then research and get knowledge from a variety of sources available in this day and age. And for gods sake have adab no matter what type of Muslim you are. The world is in a bad place already due to intolerant ill mannered people, let that be a reference point for how not to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.15.15 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Another Jilani Descendant Speaks out
You are right my brother! Sheikh Jilani never called people to worship shrines or graves of other pious people. He was a strict Hanbali and he never intended to form a sufi order. Those who came after him made him god-like figure and called him all kind of names that fit only God, such as "Gouth al-thaqalain" (the helper of humans and jins). Also, they say about him, "Abdul Qadir al-Jilani mutasarrif bi-lakawni" (i.e. A. Q. Jilani is in control of the universes!). Such saying are absolute kufr, al-Jilani had never attributed these things to himself! Bring your proofs if you are truthful!
 * I don't know if you know Arabic or not but if you know, then read what Ghaus-e-Azam said in his famous Qasida Ghausia:


 * وَوَلاَّنِي عَلَى الأَقْطَابِ جَمْعاً


 * فَحُكْمِي نَافِذٌ فِي كُلِّ حَالِ


 * وَمَا مِنْهَا شُهُورٌ أَوْ دُهُورٌ


 * تَمُرُّ وَتَنْقَضِي إِلاَّ أَتَى لِي


 * وَتُخْبِرُنِي بِمَأ يَجْرِي وَيأْتِي


 * وَتُعْلِمُنِي فَأُقْصِرُ عَنْ جِدَالِ


 * بِلاَدُ اللَّهِ مُلْكِي تَحْتَ حُكْمِي


 * وَوَقْتِي قَبْلَ قَبْلِي قَدْ صَفا لِي


 * Shahrukh syed (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Nejdi Factor
Those who dispute that the Sheikh was a Sufi are a new minority sect in Islam financed by Saudi Arabian Royal family. They consider Sufism against Islam because it teaches non-violence and peace. They beleive in spreading their version of Islam thru sword and call themselves Salafies but are commonly known as Wahhabies or Nejdies (after Ibn Abdul Wahhab of Nejd). There are now two sects within this sect. One is follows the King and call itself Athari Salafi. The second follows Osama bin Ladin and is called Takfiri Salafi.

Fake descendants
Having the last name of Jilani does not make someone a descendant of the Shaikh. It just signifies that someone's ancestor has come from Jilan, or someone was a descendant of someone named Jilani. Maybe someone became a Muslim on the hand of Jilani. There are lots of Jilanies who are Shias and dead against the Shaikh. After the 1947 partition, many people changed their family name during the crossing. Even someone is a descendant of Shaikh, he can be a convert to Wahhabism. I have seen some Jilani converts to Christianity.Hassanfarooqi 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that both 'descendants' don't even know what a Sufi is, and just base their opinions on Wahhabi garbage that gets posted on the internet. A true Sufi is opposed to bidah just as much as any other Muslim, but Salafi blood-libel has blinded many people.

EDIT: It's also pretty clear that the 'Nejd Factor' guy doesn't know that much about Wahhabis either. Terrorism is not the goal or purpose of the Wahhabi sect, that's just what westerners think. It's more of a Protestant reform movement very similar in some ways to the one in Christianity. The terrorism is likely caused by the lack of emphasis Wahhabis place on religious authority and the revolutionary nature of the sect. Despite what it looks like now, Wahhabism is likely to become a much more liberal sect in the future, in the same way as modern-day Protestant Christians are nothing like their violent Puritan predecessors. 91.107.198.58 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Very obviously you have not read the history of Nejdi/Wahhabi movement. It started out with a pact between desert bandit Mohammed Ibn Saud and the rouge sheikh Mohammed Ibn Abdul-Wahhab.  This pact is known as the Pact of Two Mohammeds.  This unholy alliance took over the holy land with the help of British by butchering tens of thousands of people in the holy lands, and implementing their own version of Islam. Read books like "House of Saud" etc Hassanfarooqi (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Silly discussions
I find some of the discussions on here a little amusing - anonymous users with poor language skills claiming to be his descendants don't count as references. However, there are issues with the article. It's written from an extremely positive point of view, when it should just be neutral. Stories such as the man having a dream about Muhammad don't add anything to the article either; this is an informative biography about a historical religious figure, not his blog. In addition, there is an amount of controversy and criticism over his works and his followers and the article doesn't mention that. All articles on prominent figures, especially in the realm of organized religion, should include sections for opposing views. Despite the whining of some anonymous users - and i'm not trying to be rude, but most of what I see on this discussion page is whining - the article could use a tune-up. MezzoMezzo 21:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Persian Empire could never include Gilan. He was always referred as GILANI, neither Persian nor Iranian. Iranian government occupied Gilan almost 500 years after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.47 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies, but no Sufi or he himself indeed ever referred to him as a 'Persian', he was known as an Ajami (foreigner) by the people of Baghdad, and he spoke fluent Farsi, which let's face it, even Afghanistanis and Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and even Hindus speak quite well, doesnt make them Persian? Let's stay on topic please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.15.83 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad use of References
References posted one of them states a personal opinion of the author and should not be admitted, and I quote: "Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics: Volume 1. A - Art. Part 1. A - Algonquins By James Hastings, John A Selbie Published by Adamant Media Corporation, 2001. pg 10:"and he was probably of Persian origin"--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Claims of Origin
Many claim Abdulqadir Gilani to be of Persian origin, If so, why, I ask, isn't there one original manuscript by him in any museum or library public or private that has been written in the Persian language, instead we find them in the Arabic language only! Arab, Persian and Turkish cultures have the tradition of giving a nickname or second name in addition to the original name which can be a composite name as well, His complete name reads (Muhyi ad-Din, Abd al-Qadir) son of (Abu Salih, Musa, Jenki-Dost or Jangi-Dost) son of(Abdullah, al-Jili)...etc. His nickname (Muhyi ad-Din)(reviver of the faith),(محي الدين)comes before his original first name (Abd Al-Qadir). His father's nickname Jangi-Dost is a Persian name, having lived his life and died in Gilan,it means(brave warior),(المحارب الشجاع). His grandfather was the first of the blood line to be given the nickname (Al-Jili), (الجيلي),(the man from Gilan).The misunderstanding of this name format, the overlap of cultures in the area, along with the lack of accurate translation of the original Arabic scriptures, causes the inaccurate conclusions by foreign scholars and even local scholars who rely on the translated material as it is. If the origin of a person is determined by his name only (in this case nickname) disregarding all other facts, then I tell you dear readers, that most of the modern world is ruled by Arabs, including the United states of America, Iran and most of the far east, and Lebanon is populated by French people, and so on and so fourth. I will fortify my argument with references both Arabic (translated if possible) and English in the days to come, I ask anyone with access to such books to help me with this task, as they are hard to get in my part of the world. meanwhile I ask you to fairly reconsider some of the information posted on the page in question.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR,WP:RS and WP:Synthesis. There are also indications that Jangi-i-doost was not a nickname but the actual name of his grandfather.  There other things like Abdul Qadir Gilani being called 'ajam in different manuscripts.  Also if there are any authentic Arab writings ascribed to him, it is because Arabic was the main language of religion.  Look at Hallaj who had Zoroastrian ancestry but wrote in Arabic.  But in terms of wikipedia what counts is WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:verifiability and WP:synthesis.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having such geneologies madeup for Sufi saints are not uncommon. For example Hajji Bektash Wali was made into a Seyyed, same with Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili who probably was not a Seyyed, same with Jilani and etc.  In general actually, sometimes it is possible the title Seyyed was conferred on a person of high spiritual rank, just like the Prophet of Islam claimed that Salman is part of his Ahlul Bayt (Household).  More plausible obviously is that Jangidoost was a simple Zoroastrian and his son converted to Islam.  All the early references to being an 'ajam (not arab) about Jilani proves the point.   By the way "Seyyeds" in Iran (which Jilani is not one) are assimilated to the local culture and it is culture, not ancestry that is the key mark of identity.  For example, the last Shah of Iran had a mother who was Seyyed.  Or Ayatollah Khamenei is a Seyyed but no one considers these Arabs.  On the case of Jilani though, many scholars have now said he was not a Persian Seyyed.---Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange then, that Salman was also known MORE COMMONLY as Salman al-Farsi, not Syed Salman. Moreover, you're last statement "most scholars" is ridiculous. Which scholars? Shia scholars? Are they Ashariya, Ismaili, Kaysaniya, Druze, Nusayri, Naziri etc are they Iraqi ayatollahs or Persian ayatollahs? The mere fact that his full name was in fact ending with al-Hassani wal-Hussaini delivers the indication of his ancestry, not just the Syed title...

The title "sayed" is not a spiritual title, the meaning of the name in Arabic is Master, it was given, along with sharif which means pure in ancestry to desendants of Ali bin Abi Talib from his wife Fatima Al-Zahra to distingwish them from the rest of Quraish (the general tribe that ruled Mekka, and wer considered the masters or the most powerful tribe in Arabia), so to be a Sayed, is exclusif to Arabs from that specific bloodline. The title given to a woman from that bloodline is "Elwiah" (علوية), which indicates the belonging to the house of Ali bin Abi-Talib.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As of Gilan being of specific nationality or belonging to a certain race at that time, it belong to the Abasid Islamic Khilafa that streched from China, to the Atlantic Ocean, that does not make Afghanistan for example an Arab state, nor does it make every body residing in this wide spread country Muslim.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As the for the indication of the true name, you have to be knowlagable of Arabic language, to better choose sourses that are logical and neutral in their statments. Having seen the original geneology document, (the family tree) written (first hand), I think I can modestly and with no disrespct, say that I know about the subject better than an Encyclopedia written by some historian in Oxford who never set foot in the Middle East in general, in Iraq in particular, writing about a culture and a religion that he is a foreigner from, although his name indicates a christian middle eastern origen. You don't see Chinese historians quoting Arab authors writng encyclopedias about their historic figures !, because it just might be inaccurate.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The geneology was undisputed for the last 400 years, and was recognized especialy by the Ottoman Emipe as an official authoroty, and Muslim clericks from diferent sects as the public opinion,a fact from which reulted the statement of the desendants of that blood line as Head syndicate of the Ashraf (Sayeds)(Nakeeb Ashraf)(نقيب اشراف).--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that many Sufi Sheikhs claimed to be Ashraf is true, the example you mentioned (Hajji Bektash) is relativly reasant,as most of the claims regardless of authanticity. Abdulqadir Gilani was one of the founders (about 800 years ago) of the Sufi order, that was recognized as an order long after his death, but was baised on alot of his teachings that was spread by his student therefor credited to him. At the time of his life, and he lived at the capital Baghdad since age 18, it was almost considered treason to have claimed that title (sayed or sharif) because of the fear of the Abasid rulers of claimes of true Khilafa to a desendant of Ali Bin Abi-Talib, so fals claims at that time would have been foolish and suicidal.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "Ajami" as you mentioned indicates being from Iran in general in modern day Arab countries, but the word itself that was used in The Quran also meens "foreign, or foreigner", it was labled specificly to Persian people because Arabs had three main forein cultures that they wer exposed to, Persia, Rome, and Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia), therfore (A'ajami, Rumy, Habashi)respectivly, and he was foreign to Baghdad due to the fact that he was born in gilan, arriving at the mature age of 18,not having family or freinds in baghdad, he was considered an A'ajami foreiner.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that I don't have access to the sources of my research saddens me greatly, and I agree with the respecter Nepaheshgar about the providing of sources, therefore any personal thought although published, should be removed unless it is of no consiquense to the historic value and aithenticity of the artcle, for example explaining modern day tradition in certain places that is of relavence to the person, place or historic event the artcle is written about, that kind of input is subject to discution and aproval of the editors as well as readers. The fact that the sources are written in Arabic should not be a reason of dismissal, and I will try to find accurate translated versions if possible, if not, I'll quote the source in the Arabic text followed by the english translation, so it woul be easy for those interested to check up simply by using a dictionary. I will provide them as soon as possible, and I ask for the highly regarded readers and editors to aid in this task if possible.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear friend. Please read this: .  We cannot selectively quote primary sources(Arabic) in articles unless accompanied by researchers who have been reliably published in the area.  That is it violates WP:OR.  Wikipedia articles are written based on secondary sources as stated in WP:RS (specific section I mentioned).  There are Arabic sources that make him an 'ajam, for example they have called him 'ajam, and said he spent time in a tower which was later called tower of 'ajam..actually I think there is a whole thesis on this issue.  But I should add, that even if he was a Seyyed (which sources doubt), he is still an Iranian/Persian Seyyed and for example one does not consider Ayatollah Khamenei or Sistani an Arab just because he is a Seyyed.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear friends, Abdul Qadir Gilani was a Muslim Historical figure, if you are seeking knowledge, than his origin should not be an issue, but for the sake of truth and non other I have pursued this matter, as it is a page about the person himself in particular with a general referral to his heritage.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is such a story about the tower please state the source, if not you should remove it as you have mentioned above,(Synthesis of published material that advances a position) and the quote that has been stated "probably is...etc" is not reliable, even if it was from an Encyclopedia. As of the name ajam, I have explained with details what it meant, and you can verify it with aid of an Arabic - English dictionary, if you are not satisfied, an Arabic -Arabic dictionary will give you more details.
 * If there is a thesis about it, please state the name author and where was it published.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The respectable Ayatullah Khamenei, and the respectable Ayatullah Sistani especially, as he wares a black turban and with the name sayed must be of this specific bloodline, the black turban distinguishes the Sayed cleric from the other clerics, the black color of the turban is from the turban of the prophet Mohammad(P)that he used to ware in some special occasions.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have given the advice of using a dictionary, and I took my own advise in checking out the name genki dost, surprisingly, it turns out that the meaning is: world or universe (jenki) friendly (dost), (every body's friend), if I'm not mistaken, that discredits the tower story, correct me if I'm wrong, with sources.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will provide a reliable source as mentioned above shortly--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The tower is sourced. Ayatollah Sistani/Khamenei and etc. are not Arabs because culturally they are Iranian.  Jangi-Dost means battle-lover.  Universe is Jahan. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction about the name. The tower source wasn't there before, it was ubove the line with the tower comment, please quote the source for accuracy. As for the respectable Ayatullah Khamenei/Sistani, it is not my place to comment about that matter, but all I will say is that they could have an Arab origin and be an Iranian, although the latter never made statements about being of either, Iran is a country whereas Persian is an ethnicity, you can't become Persian unless you are born a Persian, while you can become Iranian by living there for a long time or by marriage...etc, which is exactly my point, you can't say Abdul Qadir GiIani is Persian just because he was born in Gilan, and disregard his ancestry. If you wer born in Europ, UK, for example, you would become a British citizen, you wouldn't be considered of Anglican or irish Origen, would you? You would be an Iranian (Persian, Kurd, Arab "Ahwaz"...etc) with a British citizenship.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The ancestry according to Wikipedia guidline should be mentioned from secondary sources only, by WP:RS. That is respectable scholars of major universities.  Arabic sources that conflict each other are primary sources and cannot be quoted.  Persian like Arabic is a cultural phenomenon or else most of Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and etc. are not Arabs but Arabicized.  For example Sudan or Egypt, Algeria (mostly berbers who are Arabicized) and etc.  So definition of Persian and Arab is fluid.  As per tower of 'Ajam it is in this source: "Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics: Volume 1. A - Art. Part 1. A - Algonquins By James Hastings, John A Selbie Published by Adamant Media Corporation, 2001. pg 10-11. ".  Exact quote: "One tradition makes him spend eleven years in a tower which ever since bears his name of Burj al'Ajam, 'the tower of the Persians'.".  As for the thesis on Gilani's background, it was done by a Muslim scholar but I do not remember the title unfortunately.  Overall it looks like the major concensus of Western academic scholars is that Gilani was of Persian ancestry and the Seyyedship was a later invention, and there is a good deal of primary sources that refers to him as an 'ajam rather than 'arab.  I am sure the Encyclopedia of Islam (printed by Leiden) mentions as well.  As per Khomeini/Sistani, these are ethnic Persians since Seyyeds in Iran speak Persian, follow Persian culture, poetry and their specific ancestry is not of concern.  Lots of Seyyeds do not even speak Arabic, which is a better definition for Arab.  So evenetually by many generations, they become Persians but it is true that portion of their ancestry could go to Arabia or where-ever.  Much like many Iranians who became Arabs in Iraq, and etc, due to linguistic Arabicization.  Indeed Iraq after the Islamic conquest had a large number of Iranian population, but now only Kurds remain of this Iranian population.  So the main marker of ethnicity is cultural background.  For "Seyyeds" specifically though (which Gilani was probably not one according to most sources), they are part of the group they were born with the additional title of Seyyed.  So Gilani according to your viewpoint would be a Persian of Seyyed (Persian emphasizing culture, background and Seyyed emphasizing ancestry) origin.  Being of Seyyed origin and being Arabs are two different things.  Gilani was from a predominatenly Persian-dialect speaking place like Gilan.  Iranian in the old sense also does not mean citizenship but Iranian peoples (Persians, Baluch, Kurds, Pashtuns, Ossetians..or Iranian speakers).  So anyhow we need to follow WP:RS and quote secondary sources.  In the subcontinent, the caste system is strong and has permeated Islam, and so identity has become based on ancestry and Seyyed might be a separate class.  In Iran, this phenomenon is much less (although still exists).  Seyyeds basically assimilate to the local culture and are not seen as Arabs.  Arabs are people from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan (irregardless of ancestry).  So there is difference between identity and ancestry.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear friend, again, I agree with Wikipedia's standards of sources, and again, I state that your source quotation being limited to: " One tradition makes him spend eleven years in a tower which ever since bears his name of Burj al'Ajam, 'the tower of the Persians", does not make it an accurate nor meaningful source quote, as it could be said about anyone, and you don't even mention the location of this tower!!!!--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As of the line of argument in which you stated that the above Arab countries are a mix of races, also true but the ruling majority are Arabs, and the official language is Arabic, therefor it's an Arab country, and all the above mentioned ethnicity are recognized as they are.
 * I don't think that your statement that being a Persian is a "cultural phenomenon" is far from accurate as most Persian poeple would disagree with you. Persian is a race, with it's own language, you can quote any Encyclopedia on that, Iran is not a race, but a mixture of races residing in Iran (the country) as you have stated above.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a Sayed is as I said previously and Arabs are not responsible if any other ethnicity or nations miss-use, miss-read or miss-understand Arabic terms. In your example ayatollah "Khumaini" spend most his life (if not born) in Najaf, then He went to France before going back ti Iran, I don't think that He was considered neither Iraqi nor French, so by bringing up these examples You are Backing up my case, for that I thank you.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The remark you made about Arabic sources conflicting each other is found in all other sources (English, Persian, Chinese,...etc), the conflict by it's self is not an issue, that's why there are researchers and scholars trying to find the most reliable source for this and that, or else they would all be weird poeple addicted to books for no reason, unless you have a certain reservations on Arabic sources in particular, then you would have a big problem because a part from local poetry, all other (non Arab) nations got a large portion of their knowledge, especially religion, from Arabic sources, or sources translated to Arabic from their original language (Greek for example).
 * To those who did not know, Arab ancestry was considered a science, and still is. It is one of the most accurate in the region, and it is considered insulting to lie about someone's ancestry, as well as a forbidden act, according to Islam. If a false claim was being made, at those days he might have been killed there and then, and no discussion would be made on this web site.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that Arabs also existed in Mesopotamia ( modern day Iraq), in addition to Hijaz (Modern day Saudi Arabia), Yemen and Sham (Modern day: Syria, Lebanon and Palestine). Arabs in Mesopotamia were Ghasasina and Manathira ( Ghassanids الغساسنة and Almnadhirp المناذرة), two different kingdoms, both embraced Christianity, and Ghassanids took Rome as an allie, whereas the Almnadhirp made alliance with Persia.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The source about 'Ajam Tower follows WP:RS and it is an entry about Gilani. And no the majority of Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Morrocans, Algerians, Sudanese are Arab due to culture not race or ancestry.  So Arabic is primarily a cultural phenomenon and so is Persian.  The definition of Arab today is anyone that speaks Arabic as a native language (this is a definition that Arab countries have reached a concensus about).  Anyhow, the academic scholars that have studied this issue have said Gilani was a Persian and he did not have Seyyed ancestry.  But even if he had Seyyed ancestry, it would still be Persian since that was the culture of the region at his time where he was born.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Since an accurate source about the tower could not be provided, I have done some research about it, and found that the original author of the source provided had no knowledge of the related history and relied on personal conclusions, it should be removed even from the encyclopedia it was published in. The reason is that Burj Al-Ajam (tower of Ajam) used to be a watch-tower placed on the Eastern wall of Baghdad, overlooking the road to Persia (land of Ajam) therefor the name Burj Al-Ajam. The Gate underneath the tower was called Bab-Al Azaj,(Bab = Gate, door), it was later called Bab Al-Sheikh (Sheikh AbdulQadir Gilani) Due to the proximity of the school to the gate. The Myth of the Sheikh's father spending time in the tower is a false one for it is a wach-tower in Baghdad, a place he never been to nor lived in.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I find you understanding of cultural phenomenons and ethnicity very interesting. A reminder that the term Sayed is from being of the blood line of either Hassan or Hussein, (Sadat Shabab Al Janna)something like masters of the youth of paradise, and the term was extremely miss used only in the last 100 - 150 years or so. The culture of the region as you stated was Islamic in general, and Islam prohibits the miss presentation of ancestry.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What you said was OR. The fact is burj-ajam is attributed to him in that source I brought and it follows WP:RS.  It explicitly states: "One tradition makes him spend eleven years in a tower which ever since bears his name of Burj al'Ajam, 'the tower of the Persians'.". ".  I brought the exact quote, book, page number etc.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll see about getting a non OR publication. The book you quoted is not accurate at all, it fails to state the location of the tower, and do you think that it makes sense to spend 11 years in a tower voluntarily for a Muslim man living Gilan with a family, a place at that time depending on trade, agriculture or herding for living, and not being mentioned or known for this superhuman task, only by your source written by someone who couldn't even state the full name correctly!!!!! I know it meets the criteria of Wikipedia as a source, but does it make sense to you? and would you consider another story if provided with a well documented source? my other source is a book called Baghdad, published around 1980, by the architect Dr. Ahmed Susa, a world class and famous architect. I don't have access to it now, I'll try to get the quote A S A P, maybe you can help me with that, after all you are very interrested in the subject.--A.H.Gaylani (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really ridiculous, he was always regarded as a Hassani and Hussaini Syed by all historians and Sufi lines. The above assertions of "majority of scholars" sounds like propogandic bias here, even the ludicrous assumption that his father (who's name wasn't Jangidost, but Abu Saleh Musa al Hassani) was a Zoroastrian?! By this account, then Ayatollah Khomeini is a Persian whose ancestors are from Kashmir (yep, his ancestors were from Kashmir, who alleged Syed origins of Imam Musa Kadim)....I can understand Persian national pride/anti Sufism, but this is ridiculous. There are even Somali Syeds! The majority of scholars and even travellers such as Richard Burton no less made mention of him and even included his Syed ancestry in their works. a couple of biased Shia ayatollah's do not in any way constitute the majority of scholars at all. a simple google search or records of his autobiographies, even by non Hanbali scholars, writers, Sufis, Alims, Imams, or even general historians mentions him as a Syed, without contention. Please refrain from speculative pondering here. A.H. Gaylani, well done for being the voice of reason here and following wikipedia verifiable criteria.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolution51 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that he was a descendent of the prophet muhammad (pbuh) from his mothers side. Has anyone else heard of this and can they confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.37.137 (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Our overzealous muslim in the Sub continent deified Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, and worshiped like a god. They thought him a redeemer or protege. How shameful for us we are crying out "Ya Ghous ul Azim pour some fortune in our house." Is this part of 5 cardinals of Islam? We thught Shaikh Sahib is just like a god, and we are supposed to respect or worship him. It is absolutely against the spirit of Islam. We do not believe in associators or spiritual men having goddly features. Islam rejects and censures panganisation of social life of Muslims. There is no divine humanly being in Islam, and we respect Sufi(s) for their teachings only. They are no means of seeking refuge or in no way they deserved to be god-fathers of Muslim societies.

Biography: possible copyright violation
I've removed a large section which was tagged as "original research". It came from Encyclopaedia Iranica and was a possible copyright violation.  Esowteric + Talk  13:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Don't remove valid information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdjsdkjsa2 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Authenticity of Al-Ghunya li-Talibi Tariq al-Haqq
Al-Ghunya li-Talibi Tariq al-Haqq is not a book of Shaykh Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani. It is not what I am saying but it is what Great Scholars of past said. See the references below. Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlavi said: هر گز نه ثابت شده که این تصنیف آنجناب است اگرچه انتساب بآنحصرت دارد 12 حاشیه بنراس Hazrat Allama Maulana Abdul Aziz said: ولا يغرنك و قوعه في غنية الطالبين الى الغوث اعظم عبد القادر جيلاني قدس سره العزيز غير صحيحة و الاحاديث المضوعه و فيها و افرة شرح شرح العقائد بالنبروس 455 و کوثر النبی از موصوفِ مذکورہ ترجمہ Maulana Abdul Hayy Lakhnowi wrote: ان الغنية ليس من تصانيف الشيخ محي الدين رضي الله عنه انه لم يثبت ان الغنية من تصانيف و ان اشتهر انتسابها اليه الرفع والتكميل في الجرح والتعديل For above reference, you can also go to http://www.aslein.net/archive/index.php/t-13478.html; http://www.islamicbook.ws/hadeth%5Calum/alrfa-waltkmil.html; or http://islamport.com/w/​mst/Web/3061/227.htm The Book Imam-ul-Auliya says:

فتاویٰ نظامیہ صفحہ 235 ج 2 مشمولہ جامع الفتاویٰ میں ہے کہ بڑے بڑے علمائے دین و مؤرخین نے لکھا ہے کہ یہ کتاب حضرت سیّد عبد القادر جیلانیؒ کی نہیں ہے۔ یہ کوئی اور عبد القادر ہے۔ اگر غنیۃ الطالبین سیّدنا غوثِ اعظمؓ کی تصنیف وہابیہ غیر مقلدین کو تسلیم ہے اور صرف اسی کے بل بوتے پر حضور غوثِ پاکؓ کا اپنا ہم مسلک سمجھتے ہیں تو پھر یہ سودا انہیں گھاٹا دے گا کیونکہ غنیۃ الطالبین ان کے مذہب یعنی وہابیہ کے بھی خلاف ہے۔ امام الاولیاء صفحہ 86 اور 87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrukh syed (talk • contribs) 10:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

هدية
هديتي لجنابكم الشريف : كتاب جغرافية الباز الاشهب في اثبات ولادة سيدنا وجدنا عبد القادر الكيلاني في جيلان العراق لا الطبرستان : وهذا رابط التنزيل http://www.aljlees.com/7s3898203-3027.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by وسام التونسي (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Kurd!
He was a Kurd, please change! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.109.111.248 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Can you point me to a good reference for this? I had a brief look but couldn't find that - just that there were Kurdish people living in the region where Gilani was born. Can we clear this up? Regards, Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
Recently a large amount of text was added to this article. It seems to have been copied from a number of blog sites such as http://ghous-azam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/sheikh-syed-abdul-qadir-jilani-ghous.html.

In addition to this being a copyright violation, the text is non encyclopedic and has been written in very poor English. It is also clearly a PoV.RookTaker (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried adding the tag {copyvio|http://ghous-azam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/sheikh-syed-abdul-qadir-jilani-ghous.html} but it doesn't seem to work on the section. How can I add the copyright violation tag for part of an article? RookTaker (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Improper use of language templates in the lead section
He was a Persian Sufi and his works are related to Islam, so his name in Persian and Arabic are enough. Why Turkish, Kurdish, Urdu, and Bengali are used? Is this WP or a dictionary of names?! --Zyma (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe because he is an important figure in the religious thought and culture of those communities. Urdu and Bengali, for example, are languages spoken or understood by about a third to half the Muslims on the planet and the sufi traditions in that region respect, invoke, and study his work, thoughts, and person.
 * &mdash; iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 01:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

School of thought
'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani is a Hanbali according to impartial academic sources such as:

"Abdul Kader Jilani is known to have lived in the twelfth century and to have been a preacher, a Sufi-master and a Hanbalite theologian—a theologian that adheres to the Hanbali school of law" Jenny Berglund, Teaching Islam, p. 104. ISBN: 3830972776

"For example, Ansari, 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, and Hujwiri were Hanbali" John Renard, The A to Z of Sufism. p 142. ISBN: 081086343X.

"Nevertheless, many Hanbalis were initiated into Sufi brotherhoods, and one, abd al-qadir al-Jilani..." Juan Eduardo Campo, Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 288. ISBN: 1438126964 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RookTaker (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

School of thought
'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani is a Hanbali according to impartial academic sources such as:

"Abdul Kader Jilani is known to have lived in the twelfth century and to have been a preacher, a Sufi-master and a Hanbalite theologian—a theologian that adheres to the Hanbali school of law" Jenny Berglund, Teaching Islam, p. 104. ISBN: 3830972776

"For example, Ansari, 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, and Hujwiri were Hanbali" John Renard, The A to Z of Sufism. p 142. ISBN: 081086343X.

"Nevertheless, many Hanbalis were initiated into Sufi brotherhoods, and one, abd al-qadir al-Jilani..." Juan Eduardo Campo, Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 288. ISBN: 1438126964 ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RookTaker (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Creed
Recently the page has started to be vandalized because of his dogma/creed, some users insist on deleting sourced content and adding their personal opinion based on original research. A neutral point of view can solve the problem, but where are the reliable sources that support the other opinion? This edit "here" is an original research. The cited source is a book written by Abdul Qadir Gilani himself, and it is not mentioned clearly/directly that he is Athari in creed.--Leopard72 (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, regarding your edit here, could you please let me know what is wrong with this source ? Anyway, there are several other sources that confirm this info. Take for example this source:

If this is not enough, I can show you other sources saying the same thing.--Leopard72 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's of poor quality, being published by an obscure figure and a national trade union center. Please see WP:SPS. If this is so certain, then I'm sure there a high quality WP:RS written about it in English. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I think you're right about the first source. The second source is not a self-published source – it's completely independent from Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya. Please see WP:NONENG.

Here is another source:

Note: A collection of two hundred anecdotes/stories about Shaikh 'Abd al -Qadir al-Jilani was compiled by the Yemen-born hagiographer 'Abd Allah b. As'ad al-Yafi'i (born in Yemen, settled at Mecca in 718/1318 and died there in 768/1367). Among the books he has authored: (Asna al-Mafakhir fi Manaqib 'Abd al-Qadir) and/or (Khulasat al-Mafakhir fi Manaqib al-Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir). As'ad al-Yafi'i (1298–1367) devoted his life to recording a various miracles of 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (1077–1166). So pivotal was al-Yafi'i in the consolidation of these lines of Sufi authority in Yemen that Trimingham identified the emergence of a distinct 'Yafi'iyya' branch of the Qādiriyya there. --Leopard72 (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The second source is questionable, "may God have mercy on him", not very historian and neutral like. Isn't Dr. Muhammad Bentaja a historian? What are his credentials? And the third source (what are his credentials?) simple says that x figure from 700 years ago claims that Gilani was Ash'ari, not that he himself agrees with it or something alike, it's missing context. Sure, non-English sources can be used, but WP:SPS still comes into play. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, these are the only sources I have come across at the moment. Hopefully, someone in the future will come along and provide better sources.--Leopard72 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it strange that you made an RFC on this, especially when you seemed to understand what was said. If you don't agree with this, then surely you have good reasons to do so and not due to WP:JDLI? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment
(Formerly an RfC) Hello, everyone! Firstly, please see the discussion in the above section entitled "Creed". I just have a simple question, are the sources mentioned above reliable or not? Thanks in advance for your time and consideration!--Leopard72 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? What was the point of our discussion then? They're not, I highly advise you to read WP:RS and WP:SPS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment There seems to be some misunderstanding of things. Even the editor who was proposing to add the material,, acknowledges later in the discussion that the sources aren't very good: Unfortunately, these are the only sources I have come across at the moment. Hopefully, someone in the future will come along and provide better sources. If sources used for something are of poor quality and it has been challenged, we don't just leave it in and "hope" someone does better at some point; we omit the material until and unless good quality sources actually are provided. Also, a question or dispute over source reliability doesn't generally require a full RfC; that is what the reliable sources noticeboard exists for, and a full-on RfC should normally only be used if consensus can't be reached with a discussion there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your prompt and detailed feedback. I wasn't aware of this issue and I'm very grateful that you brought it to my attention.--Leopard72 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++ ABDULQADIR WAS ATHARI ON THE MANHAJ AND AQEEDAH OF AHMAD IBN HANBAL AS CAN BE FOUND IN الذيل على الطبقات page 200.++++++++++++++++++++ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlewi (talk • contribs) 23:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:VER, WP:PST and WP:CITE. Also keep remarks like "Why are you even bothering without having any knowledge about the subject (you're not muslim)." to yourself, no one wants to hear it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Last Name
Gillani is a totally different word, I've read my whole life that's it's "Jillani جیلانی" and not Gilani, this should be corrected, or correct me if I'm wrong 103.82.120.146 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)