Talk:Esoteric interpretation of the Quran

Psychic interpretations?
This paragraph, interesting as it is, has such a tenuous connection to the subject of the article that I am tempted to remove it. J S Ayer (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also support the removal of this sub-headline because it seems it is explaining a specific doctrine. It does NOT contain much impartial scholarly information. Useful, objective statements in this paragraph can be absorbed in other sub-headlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.104.89.29 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed the "Psychic Interpretation" section. It was not clear what this section was meant to say -- wierd ideas of a weird New Age group perhaps? which in Wikipedia terms would be seen as Original Research--, 'psychic' and 'psychism' are fairly new words closely connected to New Age movement, they have no place in historically recognised interpretations of the Qur'an, I removed these coz Wikipedia articles should adopt a NPOV. Wikipedia is no place for promoting the ideas of a particular sect or whatever, and that with giving references! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.82.50.227 (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sufism and the Qur'an
Seyyed Hossein Nasr states:

One of the greatest living authorities on Rûmî in Persia today, Hâdî Hâ'irî, has shown in an unpublished work that some 6,000 verses of the Dîwân and the Mathnawî are practically direct translations of Qur'ânic verses into Persian poetry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Majority of Muslims respect Sufi interpretations"
I just now had to amend the article with this edit due to the very apparent academic dishonesty going on with the source. As the source makes clear, some mainstream Sunni theologians - the source only mentions four as examples - were willing to accept Sufi interpretations if certain prerequisites were met (the source doesn't name them). Nowhere does it mention the majority of Muslims or Sunnis or even scholars as accepting these interpretations, nor does it leave the open expression implying that all such interpretations are acceptable. The exclusion of Salafis especially in the parenthesis does make this appear to be, once again, an attempt to slander that movement in particular on Wikipedia articles of interest to Sufis and Shi'ites. Wikipedia is not a platform for pushing any point of view at all, and I hope that editors can remain mature and objective as we build articles on sensitive religious topics. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Later addition?"
I find that the following paragraphs from the Quranic esotericism section don't flow well with the rest of the text. They feel like a later addition to a text that was already well polished:

''However the Qur'an says about doing this (Sahih Int. Translation): "As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding." (from verse 3:7)''

''Only a few examples are given here. In 7:172 the Quran states:[8]''

''And when Your Lord summoned the descendants of Adam, and made them testify about themselves. "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we testify." Thus you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection we were unaware of this.''

''According to the above mentioned verse, before creation, God called the future humanity out of the loins of the not-yet-created Adam and addressed them with the words: "Am I not your Lord?", and they answered: "Yes, we witness it". In Islam, this "primordial covenant" is the metahistorical foundation between God and humankind.[9]''

The first paragraph breaks off from the style of the rest of the article (e.g. the way the Qur'an quote is introduced) and would need more explanation than just a "However" because, obviously, proponents of esoteric interpretations do not see this verse as a condemnation of esotericism.

Then the passage about Adam - it is not directly clear how this relates to esoteric interpretation.

Thus I suggest removing these paragraphs. 183.89.36.66 (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Esoteric interpretation of the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616082040/http://www.al-islam.org/quraninislam/2.htm to http://www.al-islam.org/quraninislam/2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202135455/http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/suftaf/suftaftawil.html to http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/suftaf/suftaftawil.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Quote in "Quranic esotericism" section
The following quote does not appear to be found in the link for reference 6.

"It is God who has sent down to you the book: In it are verses clear (muhkamat), they are the foundation of the book, others are unspecific (mutashabihat)."[6] (Quran 3:7)

Reference 6 links to http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOnlyMerlin (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)