Talk:Frithjof Schuon/Archive 2

STILL needing a criticism section
Anyone viewing the history of this page can easily see that non-neutral followers and admirers of Schuon are regularly removing any mention of criticism. Particularly as pertains to the "cult" and molestation accusations in Indiana. It's rare that I see a Wikipedia page so successfully controlled by a NPOV group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.182 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you and just reintroduced the section "criticism" as it was in 2015. Now we just need to wait and see how long it takes for Schuon's followers to delete it, on which ground and if any editor reacts --Nicovarelan (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Following from the discussion above on this topic under "Critical Narrowness", especially the last entry by Ashmoo: The text you have reintroduced follows his suggestion of having the criticism referring to specific events of Schuon's life woven into the biography. This is the best option, and it is the Wikipedia preference. The text you have added is factual and balanced, and it addresses a part of Schuon's biography which many internet readers are eager to look into, however unsavoury to his disciples. I also hope it will be retained.


 * An alternative would be to follow the style of the German article, which only gives a few lines to the biography and the largest part of the article to the teachings. This would probably be more in line with Schuon's teachings—"the anonymity of the philosopher" and so on—but then most readers are after the piquant details. Switching to that style would be a major redoing of the article, though, and would surely ruffle quite a few feathers.


 * Cheers, Desde la Torre (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Although English is not my mother tongue, I would like to collaborate a little to this talk page by giving my opinion about the recent insertion by Nicovarelan of a text proposed in 2015 by Desde la Torre, a subject which cannot be passed over in silence. I think this insertion matches rather well the WP fundamental principles, except for the following sentence: “Some articles and books posit a “dark side” of Schuon and his teachings, including Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World”. The words “dark side” have to be sourced (with page number) and I haven’t found them in Sedgwick’s book; where have they been found? Furthermore, one cannot write “some articles and books” without referencing them (with page numbers). Thank you for your clarifications. --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You're quite right. I couldn't remember where the exact wording came from, but I have adjusted it and given specific sources. Desde la Torre (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your changes Desde la Torre. New sentence: “Some articles and books, including Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World,[11] discuss this event and the related "primordial" practices of the Bloomington community, with mention of a “disturbing side” of Schuon and his teachings.[12] » The first part of the sentence (up to “community”) seems correct to me, but the second part gives the impression that it is Sedgwick who mentions the “disturbing side”. To prevent any misunderstanding, I would write something like this (in better English): “and H.U. sees a “disturbing side” in Schuon". That said, you certainly know that WP only accepts reliable sources and U. is not one of them. I don’t say that because he criticizes FS (so does Sedgwick), but because his motivations, his limits and his conclusions do not surpass that of a tabloid journalist, as one can easily see by reading the beginning of his article. He is a [deleted] and several of his “academic” papers testify this. A reliable source must have a minimum of detachment, intelligence and objectivity. In consequence, I would stop the sentence after “community”. May I know your opinion? Best regards,--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't call people names here—this is not the place; in fact, I would suggest you modify your previous comment to keep this thread cool, meaning dispassionate, and impersonal. If an author has the approval of an academic institution, that is enough for us at Wikipedia, regardless of the ideal of a reliable source (you can check the WP parameters here, WP:IRS). Actually this is one of the ways in which contributing to a public encyclopedia forces us to develop objective detachment, often against our own "better judgement" and preferences. Regarding the article editing, please go ahead your self, your English is obviously good. Desde la Torre (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Quoting Charles Upton:

"There is no question that [Schuon] involved himself in many things that were scandalous, and certainly deserve to be taken as such. His nude dance events are well known, and if these events were in fact the occasion for acts of pedophilia, which has ben charged against him, though never proved, then he may be rolling in hellfire at this very moment; in any case, his known actions were certainly scandalous enough from the point-of-view of Islam, the religion he professed.  On the other hand, his work as a philosopher is of crucial importance for an understanding of traditional religion and metaphysics in our time. Those who take Schuon as the equivalent of a prophet-- if not an avatar --see his teaching as effectively infallible, and his strange behavior as a mysterious expression of his Divine mission.  Others, who concentrate upon his transgressions, are of the understandable opinion that nothing written by such a man can be trusted. I belong to neither camp--and if this position earns me enemies on both sides of the Schuon controvesy, then so be it" (Dugin against Dugin 81)

Possible COI by user "Maude Murray"
Recent edits by may be a possible COI, as the real life Maude Murray is alleged to be the third "wife" of Schuon and is promoting a book on related, highly controversial matters.  Esowteric + Talk  12:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Can subject experts please help Maude Murray?
Hi, would like to have changes made to the Frithjof Schuon article. As she has a conflict of interest, I've advised her to suggest changes on this talk page, but she finds the technology taxing and has instead offered to communicate via email. Can any subject experts help here out, please?

See article history for past, reverted edits.

The following is copied from my talk page:

"I just wrote you a long explanation; but maybe lost it in technology. I'm 81 years old: this isn't easy! And sorry if I broke some rule: I had no idea what aha words meant! Maude Murray (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "Hi Maude, I'm sorry: Wikipedia editing is a steep learning curve and, as you say, it's not at all easy. If you want changes to be made at the Frithjof Schuon page, you could suggest those changes at the Frithjof Schuon talk page.  Esowteric + Talk  10:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "I have the hardest time using this talk page, and cannot find mentions when it seems I should only tap the word mention. Cant some nice human-being just send me an email: murraymaude57@gmail.com. Maude Murray (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Hi Maude, the issues you raise really need to be handled on your behalf by someone who has expert knowledge of Frithjof Schuon, and the best place to make contact with such as person is the Frithjof Schuon talk page. I'll copy your text (above) to that talk page and maybe other editors will be able to help you, perhaps by email. Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  10:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)."

Many thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  10:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia article has its own talk page, where you can discuss changes to the associated article. Here, on this talk page, you can suggest the changes you wish to make to the article on Frithjof Schuon.  Esowteric + Talk  13:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Mark Sedgwick
"What you people are doing here is against WP:NPOV anyhow." How? What have I done here? I find this to be a kind of personal attack. What does the source I added really say? Mosesheron (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It's up to you to decide whether it was a personal attack or not. You are not paraphrasing the source--you are bending its words. You are the one to cite it, you should explain how it says what you think it says about Sedgwick's book. Does it call the book "an academic work," or does it not? Kolekant (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That is not how one should behave in a content dispute I suppose. You should instead assess the merit of the content added. "What you people are doing...against WP:NPOV. What kind of language is this? Maybe as a non native speaker I messed up with the words I have used. But the source also says that the work "seems unbecoming for an academic work published by a respectable university press". I took the essence of it in writing the phrase. Anyway, other experienced editors will take care of this I suppose. Peace. Mosesheron (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead section
Nicovarelan, following WP’s recommendations, we should discuss this issue on this Talk Page.
 * Lead section, original text: Initiated by Sheikh Ahmad al-Alawī into the Sufi Shādhilī order, he founded the Tarīqa Maryamiyya. His teaching strongly emphasizes the universality of metaphysical doctrine, along with the necessity of practising one religion, and one alone;
 * Your changes: Initiated by Sheikh Ahmad al-Alawī into the Sufi Shādhilī order, he founded the Tarīqa Maryamiyya. His teachings, different from those of Ahmad al-Alawi, whom he hardly mentions in his books, strongly emphasizes the universality of metaphysical doctrine;
 * My arguments for the deletion of your change: you cannot add in the introduction something which is not in the article; if you add it in the article you must provide reliable sources; your own POV doesn't count on WP.
 * Your arguments: Indian dances and nudity are in the article, so what is the point to deny that FS never stuck to one religion. RG criticized him in 1950.M. Sedgwick is a scholar, so please avoid discussing that point. Cf.Une voie soufie dans le monde, p. 468. Also Aymard et Laude, FS Life and teachings, p. 47 for indian dances practices.
 * My comments : 1) everyone knows that “nudity” and “Indian dances” are not religions; there can therefore be no mixing of religions. There are Christian nuns who practice Indian dances in India and no one accuses them of syncretism. 2) You are correct when you say: “His teachings, different from those of Ahmad al-Alawi, whom he hardly mentions in his books”, but WP doesn't allow you to add this just because you know it. You have to provide a reliable source (see WP:RS) and add it in the article if you wish, but not in the lead, which is only a summary of the article. I thus delete your deletion and ask you to continue the discussion on this page. Thank you,--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Bonjour Les contradictions des derniers schuoniens m'étonneront toujours... Ce n'est pas assez que René Guénon dès 1950 et bien d'autres après aient dénoncé ce qu'ils connaissaient des errances de FS, il faut sans arrêt revenir à des arguments logiques basiques. Dans une civilisation traditionnelle, tout est rite "religieux" (au sens courant du terme, nous savons bien qu'il s'agit d'initiation), a fortiori s'agissant de la "danse" indienne, qui correspond par exemple à la 'imara ou hadra des soufis. Un musulman qui fait une danse indienne fait ce qu'on appelle du syncrétisme. Victor Danner et Whitall Perry se sont opposés à FS sur ce point, et ça leur a coûté cher. Libre à chacun de le faire mais c'est du syncrétisme et ça rend totalement faux l'affirmation selon laquelle FS insistait sur le fait de n'avoir qu'une seule religion. Je ne comprends même pas que vous batailliez là-dessus. Vous savez très bien que c'est le schuonisme des débuts et notamment TB qui insistaient là-dessus car ils étaient sous l'influence de RG. Par la suite, les schuoniens étant eux-mêmes de moins en moins à cheval sur la shar'ia, ils faisaient beaucoup moins la leçon aux autres sur l'orthodoxie. Quand au goût de FS pour le nudisme pratique et vécu dès 1965, prouvé par ses mémoires (et je ne parle pas du reste...), il est totalement incompatible avec l'islam (ou alors donnez-moi la source !) : on est donc encore dans du syncrétisme. En tous cas, il est très simple d'expliquer en quoi Ahmad al-Alawî n'a pas influencé FS qui lui a simplement pris ce qui l'arrangeait. Je vous suggère de l'intégrer vous-mêmes à l'article avec la source. Voici ce qu'il écrivait à un religieux tunisien dans son journal Al-Balâgh, réédition en deux volumes d’une sélection d’articles, Tanger, Alif, 1986, p. 302-303 : "Puisque notre tarîqa consiste à suivre les états intérieurs et extérieurs auxquels nous convie la noble Révélation [shar', de même racine que sharî'a], celui qui agit ainsi en fait partie, quand bien même il nous serait très hostile. Quant à celui auquel il ne paraît pas important d’essayer de se conformer à cela, et tout croyant a le devoir d’essayer d’y arriver, il doit être considéré comme extérieur à notre tarîqa, et quand bien même il nous témoignerait toutes les marques d’amour. Voilà ce que nous pratiquons comme voie menant à Dieu et nous espérons que tout croyant la suive." Fin de citation du cheikh. Et ces états, nul besoin de préciser qu'on les connaît au travers de l'exemple prophétique : il n'y a là rien à inventer. Vous noterez bien que ce que dit ce texte n'est pas qu'il faut en faire le maximum, mais simplement qu'on doit avoir conscience que le respect de la tradition, non pas selon son goût mais telle qu'elle est, est important, au lieu de considérer cela comme de la religion "horizontale" ou du soufisme "moyen". Maintenant faites comme bon vous semble : comme disait l'autre, il n'y a pas de droit supérieur à celui de la Vérité !Nicovarelan (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Nicovarelan

Une précision au cas où : si je parle de syncrétisme pour la nudité de FS, c'est parce que lui-même reliait cela à un rite supposé "primordial". Un simple nudiste des plages n'est lui bien sûr pas un syncrétiste. Vous ne pouvez pas être schuonien quand ca vous arrange (tout est traditionnel et sacré dans ce monde car il n'y a pas de domaine profane mais seulement un point de vue profane) et pas quand ça ne vous arrange pas (il existerait d innocentes danses profanes dans les traditions indiennes Nicovarelan (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , this is the English Wikipedia, you will need to communicate with your fellow editors in English. Zaathras (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, its not my mother tongue. I wont add anything. Mr Hamza Alaoui is a disciple of F Schuon who carefully quit everything problematic for his master on Wikipedia french and english. I didnt add anything but just quit two wrong affirmations. F Schuon, a muslim promoting Native indians dances was evidently a syncretist according to his own criteria. I suggest another editor, neutral, decide which version is correct. Nicovarelan (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nicovarelan, obviously you don't know what WP is or how it works. It is not a fault, but it is a fault not to make the effort to learn its principles when you have been warned several times that you are violating them. You also don't know that a discussion page is used to improve the article and not to expose your point of view on this or that person; WP wants sources, not opinions, nor unsourced certitudes. I'm reverting again your modification and, to go a bit in your direction within the limits allowed by an introduction, I'm replacing "teaching" with "writings", and deleting "one alone", which is not essential. As for the fact that FS's message is different from that of Sh. al-Alawî, this cannot be included in the introduction, as I have already told you, because the article does not mention it. If you revoke my change again without going through the Talk Page and without waiting for my answer, I will ask the administrators to block your account for vandalism. Regards, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Syncretism
Dear fellow editors This article needs at least some addition on syncretism to be something more than an hagiography and a bit historical. I suggest, just after this sentence of the article :

These gatherings were understood by disciples as a sharing in Schuon's personal insights and realization, not as part of the initiatic method he transmitted, centered on Islamic prayer and the dhikr.[34][35]

the following text :

On the contrary, many people inside and outside traditionalist circles consider such point of view and practices as a form of syncretism. René Guénon, in the late 1940’s « denounced the risks of falling into a sterile syncretism » according to Francesco Alfonso Leccese, professor in Islamic studies at the university of Calabria  (in Islam, Sufism, and the postmodern in the religious melting pot, part of Roberto Tottoli’ s Routledge Handbook of Islam in the west, London and New York, Routledge, 2022, p. 443). The same author states that Schuon « introduced Native American rituals into the spiritual practices of his community » in the late 1980’s (op. cit., p. 443). Mark Sedgwick, coordinator of the Arab and Islamic Studies Research Network (ICSRU) at Aarhus University and the leading authority on traditionalism, dealing with practices like Indian dances, painting icons of the Virgin or « (supposedly) sacred nakedness » stresses that the schuonian distinctions between ritual or non ritual practices intended to avoid syncretism « would satisfy few if any non-Guénonian Muslims » as « it is in no way a traditional distinction » and concludes in the samepaper: « The totality of [Schuon’s] followers practice contains sufficient non-Islamic elements to be described as ”new” » (quoted from « How Traditional Are the Traditionalists? The Case of the Guenonian Sufis », published in ARIES 22 (1999), pp. 3-24) Is it acceptable for all contributors ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicovarelan (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Nicovarelan, this is my first impression after having read your proposal.
 * 1. You propose to expand the paragraph that ends with “These gatherings were understood by disciples as a sharing in Schuon's personal insights and realization, not as part of the initiatic method he transmitted, centered on Islamic prayer and the dhikr.” It would be indeed in the spirit of WP to add here the POV of non-disciples. Please note that a partial criticism already precedes this same sentence: “leading some to accuse him of practising ritual nudity”.
 * 2. Sentence 1 of your proposal ("On the contrary..."). The word “many” cannot be retained (it is a personal POV); “people” must be replaced by “authors” (the only source accepted by WP). Thus: “On the contrary, some authors inside and outside traditionalist circles consider such point of view and practices as a form of syncretism.”
 * 3. Sentence 2 ("René Guénon..."). The section we are dealing with concerns events that took place after 1980. It is thus not justified, to my opinion, to include what Guénon would have said in the 1940s, in another context.
 * 4. Sentence 3 ("The same author..."). I think Leccese can be considered as a reliable source, which doesn’t mean that what he says corresponds always to the facts (namely “Schuon introduced Native American rituals into the spiritual practices of his community”). As you already know, I claim that FS's tariqa has never introduced Indian rites in its spiritual practices. And I can of course not agree with you when you establish a correspondence (8 May) between the Indian dances practiced by Indians and the hadra practiced by Sufis; it would be correct if by Indian dance one means the Sun Dance, but this dance, being a rite, has never been introduced in the tariqa as you know. And when you say (8 May) that a Muslim participating in an Indian dance is a syncretist, you certainly believe those dances contain rites; if it were the case, you would be right: may I ask you what rites you have witnessed? Considering that you know the tariqa much better than Leccese, I ask you this because if you admit that there were no rites, it would not be honest to use an accusation that you do not share in order to simply criticize FS. (I know that our POV's don't matter on WP, and the only reason I bring them up is to advance our discussion in order to reach a consensus.)
 * 5. Sentence 4 ("Mark Sedgwick..."). Your source (Mark Sedgwick, “How Traditional Are the Traditionalists?”) mentions on page 1: "This article… has in most respects been superseded by Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World"; so it cannot be used anymore. I take this opportunity to reproduce what Sedgwick says about his Against the Modern World on page viii of his preface: “some sections of this book depend more on guesswork than is usual”.
 * 6. The part that will be added to the existing paragraph must be proportionate to what its last sentence expresses, since it is this one that must be neutralized. This addition should therefore be considerably more synthetic than your initial proposal. I look forward to your comments. Regards, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Hamza Alaoui
 * Thank you for clarifying this discussion
 * 1 « leading… » : this is just an aspect, and schuonian disciples did their best (including with trials) to delegitimize the various accusers, so it is not sufficient to talk about mere accusations.
 * 2 Ok for « some authors » :
 * 3 It was for sure another context, but what Guénon wrote in that respect apply to all kind of syncretism. My POV is that it is also important to make it clear that the mentality which brought what happened in 1980 was there since the beginning. What is not a question of POV : the subject here is not this or that year but syncretism. Since Leccese uses the word, it is pertinent to quote his statement about Guénon. If not, we can also create a section “syncretism”.
 * I suggest to just put in the article :
 * According to Francesco Alfonso Leccese, professor in Islamic studies at the university of Calabria (in Islam, Sufism, and the postmodern in the religious melting pot, part of Roberto Tottoli’ s Routledge Handbook of Islam in the west, London and New York, Routledge, 2022, p. 443), Schuon « introduced Native American rituals into the spiritual practices of his community ».
 * And in a footnote here :
 * Even though the context of the late 40’s was different, the same author states that René Guénon already « denounced the risks of falling into a sterile syncretism » (ibid., p. 443).
 * 4, 5 and 6 You’ve previously said that my opinions had no importance, when I was saying just basic logical things, and now you want to know what I know ! Leccese and Sedgwick express on these matters exactly what everybody thinks.
 * Since the very minoritary POV of the Schuonians is exactly and fairly exposed in the previous sentences, let’s quote at least 2 honorable scholars. We can reduce the text if you want, but I don’t see why we should have to express very shortly what most people think when Schuonians have written most of the entire article. Your sentence : “The part that will be added to the existing paragraph must be proportionate to what its last sentence expresses, since it is this one that must be neutralized. This addition should therefore be considerably more synthetic than your initial proposal” is a wish and not a rule. This is not a casual matter : it is the fundamental contradiction of schuonism so it deserves at least a few lines. But again, if you prefer, we can create a new section, and then I can find much more quotations and scholarly grounded arguments.
 * I refuse your proposal. Sedgwick’s book does not contradicts on this point his previous article. It’s a scientific publication, so there is no ground to reject it. Your final statement is typical of what I said : Schuonians always try to introduce doubts about their opponents. What is in fact very clear is that MS had to quit many things that he knew were perfectly true, just to avoid trials from schuonian lawyers.
 * So I suggest to put here only his statement :
 * Mark Sedgwick, coordinator of the Arab and Islamic Studies Research Network (ICSRU) at Aarhus University, stresses that the schuonian distinctions between ritual and non ritual practices intended to avoid syncretism « would satisfy few if any non-Guénonian Muslims » as « it is in no way a traditional distinction » and concludes in the same paper: « The totality of [Schuon’s] followers practice contains sufficient non-Islamic elements to be described as ”new” » (quoted from « How Traditional Are the Traditionalists? The Case of the Guenonian Sufis », published in ARIES 22 (1999), pp. 3-24)
 * In the end, here is the text I propose:
 * On the contrary, some authors inside and outside traditionalist circles consider such point of view and practices as a form of syncretism. According to Francesco Alfonso Leccese, professor in Islamic studies at the university of Calabria (in Islam, Sufism, and the postmodern in the religious melting pot, part of Roberto Tottoli’ s Routledge Handbook of Islam in the west, London and New York, Routledge, 2022, p. 443), Schuon « introduced Native American rituals into the spiritual practices of his community ». Mark Sedgwick, coordinator of the Arab and Islamic Studies Research Network (ICSRU) at Aarhus University, stresses that the schuonian distinctions between ritual and non ritual practices intended to avoid syncretism « would satisfy few if any non-Guénonian Muslims » as « it is in no way a traditional distinction » and concludes in the samepaper: «  The totality of [Schuon’s] followers practice contains sufficient non-Islamic elements to be described as ”new” » (quoted from « How Traditional Are the Traditionalists? The Case of the Guenonian Sufis », published in ARIES 22 (1999), pp. 3-24)
 * With a footnote
 * Even though the context of the late 40’s was different, the same author states that René Guénon already « denounced the risks of falling into a sterile syncretism » (ibid., p. 443).
 * How does it feel ? Nicovarelan (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Or if you prefer :
 * On the contrary, some authors inside and outside traditionalist circles consider such point of view and practices as a form of syncretism. According to Francesco Alfonso Leccese, Schuon « introduced Native American rituals into the spiritual practices of his community (footnote 1)». Mark Sedgwick, stresses that the schuonian distinctions between ritual and non ritual practices intended to avoid syncretism « would satisfy few if any non-Guénonian Muslims » as « it is in no way a traditional distinction » (footnote 2) and concludes : « The totality of [Schuon’s] followers practice contains sufficient non-Islamic elements to be described as ”new” »
 * Footnote 1
 * Francesco Alfonso Leccese, professor in Islamic studies at the university of Calabria in Islam, Sufism, and the postmodern in the religious melting pot, part of Roberto Tottoli’ s Routledge Handbook of Islam in the west, London and New York, Routledge, 2022, p. 443. Even though the context of the late 40’s was different, the same author states that René Guénon already « denounced the risks of falling into a sterile syncretism » (ibid., p. 443).
 * Footnote 2
 * Mark Sedgwick, coordinator of the Arab and Islamic Studies Research Network (ICSRU) at Aarhus University, in « How Traditional Are the Traditionalists? The Case of the Guenonian Sufis », published in ARIES 22 (1999), pp. 3-24.
 * Is it short enough for you ? Nicovarelan (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Hamza Alaoui
 * I found also a very interesting article of the Lakota Times of july 1992, that you probably already know. It can be seen on this link :
 * https://magick-instinct.blogspot.com/2015/09/dossier-schuon.html
 * Let's leave the debate on what was exaclty going on at that time in Bloomington. Much more interesting is what the Indians themselves say in this article. I know that Schuonians think they understand the Indian tradition better than the Indians themselves (that's what the lawyer say here more or less), like they think they know sufism better than born muslim sufis. You will see easily in various parts of this article that Indians didn't really take it easy when they learned FS was re-enacting the coming of the White Buffalo Calf Woman. The word "sacred" is quoted here at least twice by the Lakota Times : how can Schuonian deny the ritual aspect of their practice, if Indians themselves affirm it ? Also, FS himself (or his lawyer) acknowledge in this article that "he smoke the Pipe and say a prayer for the Indians" : is this not a rite ? Or tell us what is exactly a rite. In the favourite book of Schuon on the matter (les rites secrets des Indiens sioux), J E Brown writes : "Describing the symbolism of sacred Pipe and its rite)
 * Do you think we could use here this article or its pictures ? Nicovarelan (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nicovarelan for your comments. Before continuing our discussion, I have a request: as I don’t (yet) have Routledge’s book, would you be so kind as to copy the entire sentence where Leccese says that Schuon « introduced Native American rituals into the spiritual practices of his community”? Could you also tell me what source he used to justify that statement? Thank you, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You would need the whole article.
 * I understood from previous debates that we cannot quote primary sources (like the famous Dossier Schuon or Maude Murray's blog or FS' own autobiography), so what if we cannot quote secondary sources because we supposedly know better the subject ?
 * Anyway, here are just a few lines : "In 1948 the turning point in Schuon’s thought gave rise to a sharp dispute with Guénon about the correct nature of a Traditional Sufi brotherhood. Guénon denounced the risks of falling into a sterile syncretism as in his opinion esoteric practice was complementary to an exoteric framework. He also thought that a European Traditional Sufi brotherhood should not differ from a Sufi brotherhood rooted in Islamic countries, just as European Islam should not differ from its original interpretation. On the contrary, Schuon paid less attention to the exoteric framework, focusing on the esoteric practice instead. Schuon’s departure from the model of a Traditional Sufi brotherhood became more evident in the 1960s, when he changed the name of his tariqa into ‘Alawiyya Maryamiyya – generally shortened to Maryamiyya – from Schuon’s visions of the Virgin Mary (in Arabic Maryam). This change was not perceived by Schuon’s followers as a departure from Islam, even though a short prayer to the Virgin Mary was added to the daily litany.3 During the 1960s and 1970s, various Maryamiyya zawiyas were present in Europe, Argentina, and the United States. The main American zawiya was established in 1967 in Bloomington, Indiana, by Victor Danner (1926–90), a professor of religious studies at Indiana University, which became an important center for the diffusion of Schuon’s Perennialism among a group of intellectuals and bestselling writers like Thomas Merton, Houston Smith, and Sayyed Hossein Nasr. In 1981 Schuon moved to Indiana, where a new Schuonian community of sixty to seventy disciples had settled at Inverness Farm. He lived there for the rest of his life and introduced Native American rituals into the spiritual practices of his community." Nicovarelan (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nicovarelan. I also asked you for Leccese’s source; maybe he didn’t mention any.
 * You express a lot of things in your different comments (maybe me too!), which is of course not a bad thing in itself, but which makes it difficult to have a structured progression of our discussion. I suggest that we stick to a single topic at a time so as not to go off in all directions. I propose to start with Leccese: Schuon “introduced Native American rituals into the spiritual practices of his community”. My remarks:
 * 7. As you probably know, FS wrote in January 1992 a text for his disciples where he says that “ Obviously, these Indian encounters are outside the practices of the Tarîqah - they are, in fact, part of our private life…”. (This comment can of course not be used in the article, I only quote it to clarify FS's position, which his critics seem to know better than he does.)
 * 8. Leccese’s sentence pretends that Indian rituals have been introduced into the spiritual practices (thus into the Muslim/Sufi individual or collective practices consisting of salah, wird, dhikr and khalwah). What Indian rituals is he talking about? FS's Indian Days end with the last movement of the hadrah, which is indeed a ritual, but not an Indian one. The only other sequence that might lead an uninformed observer to believe that it is a ritual is the Pipe Offering, but this sequence was created by SR, whereas the origin of a ritual is never a human invention, as you know; and never did SR or FS pretend it was a ritual. All other sequences are simple dances. If you agree with this, it would be unfair for you to use Leccese’s sentence. If you don’t agree, I am of course interested in knowing what rituals you (and Leccece's source) have in mind, and in what form these rites would have been introduced into the Sufi practices.
 * I would appreciate if you would just answer this topic so as not to complicate things. I'm not trying to be right at all costs, I'm just trying to be as close as possible to reality, whether it is in favour or against FS, and I hope that this will also be your aim. Regards, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You express a lot of things in your different comments (maybe me too!), which is of course not a bad thing in itself, but which makes it difficult to have a structured progression of our discussion. I suggest that we stick to a single topic at a time so as not to go off in all directions. I propose to start with Leccese: Schuon “introduced Native American rituals into the spiritual practices of his community”. My remarks:
 * 7. As you probably know, FS wrote in January 1992 a text for his disciples where he says that “ Obviously, these Indian encounters are outside the practices of the Tarîqah - they are, in fact, part of our private life…”. (This comment can of course not be used in the article, I only quote it to clarify FS's position, which his critics seem to know better than he does.)
 * 8. Leccese’s sentence pretends that Indian rituals have been introduced into the spiritual practices (thus into the Muslim/Sufi individual or collective practices consisting of salah, wird, dhikr and khalwah). What Indian rituals is he talking about? FS's Indian Days end with the last movement of the hadrah, which is indeed a ritual, but not an Indian one. The only other sequence that might lead an uninformed observer to believe that it is a ritual is the Pipe Offering, but this sequence was created by SR, whereas the origin of a ritual is never a human invention, as you know; and never did SR or FS pretend it was a ritual. All other sequences are simple dances. If you agree with this, it would be unfair for you to use Leccese’s sentence. If you don’t agree, I am of course interested in knowing what rituals you (and Leccece's source) have in mind, and in what form these rites would have been introduced into the Sufi practices.
 * I would appreciate if you would just answer this topic so as not to complicate things. I'm not trying to be right at all costs, I'm just trying to be as close as possible to reality, whether it is in favour or against FS, and I hope that this will also be your aim. Regards, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a primary source : obviously you don’t know what Wikipedia is supposed to be and what are it’s supposed rule, even though you’ve been warned ! Your strategy now is crystal clear : it is what French call : « embourbement ». You promote exactly the same « éléments de langage » as any schuonian since 1990, and you don’t care for historical reality, living in a parallel schuonian mental space. Personally, if I were to quote primary source, I would prefer all those who testified FS was a lier like C Glassé, M Murray, A Vitali, V Danner and many others, or all primary sources who had the chance not to know what happens in 1990 but criticized him when he was young for his syncretism and esthetism like R Guénon and M Valsan. My participation to this ridiculous exchange with someone who has no logical argument, uses only primary sources and absolutely no other author than schuonians, and reject official scholars quotation is over. I let someone else change the article according to one of the proposed versions or… accept your NPOV constant manipulation, I don’t really care. Good luck because each year there is a new book or article mentioning FS’ real double or triple life : what is on WP will soon be of no importance. And don’t forget to wait a bit and archive this discussion as you always do, so that nobody can see it later ! Nicovarelan (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)