Talk:Nafs

Merging with Lataif-e-sitta
Oppose: I oppose the intended merging of the article with Lataif-e-sitta as it may lead to the loss of clarity of the concept, resulting in the article becoming too confusing. --Doc sameer 00:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and also oppose the merge... I think this article could easily be expanded. See User talk:Cacahuate for background on the merge proposal – cacahuate   talk 03:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice
Hi,

I could change this language to be more "neutral" and still keep the information/elaboration, but I am not sure it is suitable for a the page (new to wiki postings). So, please advise if this sort of information/elaboration would be useful to the page or even allowed on the page. Thank you. Oriontriquetra 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

_________________________________

The word NAFS is usually translated as "ego" in English and only sometimes translated as "soul". Neither word seems related so it is natural to ask how they are both accurate translations.

The result of the pure SPIRIT (RUH) mixing with the material form (clay) or physical body RESULTS in the creation of the NAFS. NAFS is perfectly natural, the RESULT of two things mixing. Put salt in water and you get brine or brackish water. Great for cooking rice, not so great for drinking. If you say you want to drink brackish water, your friend might advise against it saying this is a bad drink (ego). If you want to boil rice in it, that same friend might say this is an excellent use (soul).

So, when two substances are really mixed up together and not separable, then the result is sometimes good and sometimes bad depending on many things like time, place, function and use.

This is a mixture that you cannot separate. So, bad actions or negative actions are called egotistical and good or positive actions are called soulful. But it is all a guess at the end of the day. A guess because, when drinking or cooking in salt water, can you see or taste what part is salt and what part is water?

Teachers are like a special viewing/tasting machines. They let you use them to "see/taste" EXACTLY what part of you is salt (material) and what part of you is water (spirit). In these situations of "hal" (transitory spiritual experineces) the guide will give you an opportunity to isolate the water (spirit/ruh) and get a good look/taste/feel for it so that you can eventually completely separate the salt from the water.

To elaborate further;

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_water

Water salinity based on dissolved salts in parts per thousand (‰) Fresh water Brackish water	Saline water Brine

< 0.5 ‰	0.5 - 30 ‰	30 - 50 ‰	> 50 ‰

Human beings are born as fresh water, become brackish in their teen years, saline in their twenties and often end up as brine.

To refine the previous analogy, the Guide operates a filter to help you distinguish the water from the salt.

If one does not have a Guide, then you can operate the filter yourself, the filter being the Shariat or the Law (in the Torah).

Without the Law (filter) or a Guide (professional operator) of the Law (filter), and if you really want to purify the water from the salt, you are forced to use your own, limited methods (ie no high tech filter or operator). So you might boil the water, capture the steam and then reduce the steam again to purified water.

In general, people and groups bicker over each other’s relative saltiness, when REALLY only the brine(rs) and the fresh water(ers) are easily discussed. The brackish(ers) and the saline(rs) have percentages that are always in flux, and so, whatever they say this minute might not hold true later, when there is more or less saltiness.

A Completed Man (insan e  kamel) has himself been purified of all salt elements. That is why it is very difficult to “taste” his teaching after the body dies. Also why the body is often trampled (killing the prophets etc). When the body dies, the last illusion of saltiness is gone from the scene. It is also why there is so much dispute over what the meaning of various teachings may be or might have been. Individuals who are salty attribute all sorts of saltiness to these Completed Men. They may even attribute saltiness to the filter. In turn, the Completed (Purified) Men understand the misconceptions and misperceptions of the masses because they once were salty as well.

________________________ SECOND ELABORATION________________________

Like being on that Persian Carpet that is as large as a soccor field. If you are standing at a certain point, you will trace a line in front of you and a line (or lines) behind you. But if you are suspended above the carpet, you see that the lines didn't "go forward" or "go backward", they were part of a lovely pattern. The higher you go, the more you appreciate the design and intricate patterns that the lines trace.

Refining the Nafs is the interplay between experience of repetitious pattern and ever new creation is similar to contemplating the transcendence and the imminence of Allah. On one hand Allah is completely known and knowable through the Names. On the other, the essence (zad?) is beyond any created being's ability to know. Like so many things in Islam, we cannot say that either is "the Truth", they are both True. It is our journey to experience this contradiction presented to the intellect.

1. At the coarse level, we are laying on the carpet and we see no pattern, no design, no "master work". The touch, smell and sight is so overwhelming to the senses that we have only the coarsest experience of the carpet.

2. If we manage to rise to our knees, we will see a pattern. We will see ourselves as part of the pattern and others as part of the pattern. We will see repetition, the carpet's repetition, our own repetition and others' repetition. This is the compare and contrast process. We might regret our previous, limited view of things.

3. If we manage to rise to our feet, we might get a glimpse of a "break in the pattern". We revise our previous assumptions that "this was repetitious and predictable". As we get higher, or moving here and there, perhaps jumping, we see more and more breaks. But we mix up the breaks and the patterns. Our eyes are not accustomed to this view so we are confused.

4. If we grow some wings to move higher, we see that it really was not a break at all. It was a non repeating form. A fractal form... organic form that was masquerading as a repeating pattern. We see that it really doesn't matter how we describe this carpet because the words don't match the beauty of the pattern/non pattern, fractal movement.

5. From a yet higher perspective, and better flying skills, the person is not "standing on the carpet" or "viewing the carpet from above, he is the carpet. And he sees that others are the carpet as well. What he thought were colored/dyed threads were actually other souls. He tries to look at "himself" but his threads are intertwined with all the other threads. So he cannot distinguish himself from "others".

6. He moves higher experiences himself as the "whole" carpet. But he can see the edge of the carpet and experiences that the carpet is constantly being added to. It is growing...as he is growing.

Finally, at the end, the man is in sync with the ever expanding creation. This is the only point that we can say that there is "movement". Prior to this, all movement was an illusion. Nothing had "moved" nothing had "changed", it was only the ability of the man to perceive that "moved" and "changed". At the same time, at the outer edges, there was continuous movement and continuous change, but it was out of the range, vision and experience of the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriontriquetra (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
If you are going to question the neutrality of this article you must justify the reasons for so doing on this page, otherwise the banner will be removed. rohita (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - why is there NPOV banner there without explanation? Either provide or rationale or delete the template. 78.86.172.161 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"If you are going to question the neutrality of this article you must justify the reasons for so doing on this page, otherwise the banner will be removed."

Why? This article is clearly Islam-biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.56.175 (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just added the tag and happened to notice there was already discussion here. Some sentences need to be rephrased to avoid implying that any of the doctrines mentioned are correct, and additional material needs to be added analyzing the concepts from secular and non-Islamic religious sources (if they have anything to say on the matter). -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove this tag. The issues seem a bit overplayed. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didnt find any serious issues either. It should be removed. Mosesheron (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"Uncited excerpts"
The References section contains the bulleted line: "Some of the uncited excerpts are translations from the Persian text Shahid ul Wojood, written two hundred years ago."

It would be better to identify the relevant text, putting it in quotes if it is verbatim, and referencing the book properly using a detailed cite book (or cite web if it's from a web page). "Written 200 years ago" is insufficient and the statement will also become outdated.

Is it from a translation which is still under copyright? If so and the content is verbatim, the work should be attributed (eg "According to xyz, ...") and the inline citation should be used repeatedly at the end of each quoted sentence. If a number of pages have been used and not just a range of pages, more than one named ref (eg "ShahidUlWojood123" (etc) may be required.  Esowteric + Talk  12:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of the text for the last six nafs came almost verbatim from:
 * which was not mentioned in Notes or References in the article.  Esowteric + Talk  14:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * which was not mentioned in Notes or References in the article.  Esowteric + Talk  14:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable, unverifiable source?
Here is the entry from an old edit, showing that the translations were by a fellow Wikipedian, Hassanfarooqi. He provides no further detail, hence we currently can't verify the source and have no reliable source for this material.  Esowteric + Talk  15:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only material left over from the above translation appears to be the section on "Characteristics of nafs" and "Abbas Bin Abdul Muttalib lays down three rules ..."  Esowteric + Talk  15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source can be found for "Characteristics of nafs" and "Abbas Bin Abdul Muttalib lays down three rules ...", I suggest that these be deleted.  Esowteric + Talk  15:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On the personality model
Since I have a disagreement here with, I think both of us would gain some insights from a third party opinion. I am cordially requesting a comment from you as you are a resource person on many aspects of Islam. I think you are capable of giving a neutral opinion in this regard because we have never interacted before. I am just a little familiar with your works. So this cannot be construed as canvassing. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mosesheron, thanks for the ping. May I know what the disagreement is all about, in short? I will accordingly skim throughout the article and its revisions and give my opinion. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  07:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the disagreement is all about, since we have not thoroughly discussed it yet. It is right now perhaps about the centrality of the model itself in Islamic thought, since they have disputed it in the edit summary. But I want know your opinion on the following: 1. Can we use that model in the article? 2. What is its place in Islamic thought in general? I mean the four dimensional personality model, comprising ruh, nafs, qalb and 'aql, which is what the model is actually about. 3. What is your opinion of the description that I have finally proposed (Is it acceptable as well as the diagram itself)?
 * Some info on the model that might be helpful to consider: 1. It is from a peer reviewed reliable source. (See full citation: Rothman, Abdallah; Coyle, Adrian (2018). "Toward a Framework for Islamic Psychology and Psychotherapy: An Islamic Model of the Soul". Journal of Religion & Health. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 57 (5): 1731–1744. doi:10.1007/s10943-018-0651-x) 2. It is an open access article. 3. My final proposition as a description of that model in the article is this: "A four dimensional model of human personality, consisting of ruh, nafs, qalb and 'aql". Thanks Mosesheron (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's not enough context at present. The model is clearly a partially theoretical one and its inception should be explained in the body - that quote that VenusFeuerFalle added is not great as a caption, but would be useful to have in the body. I'm also not sure it should be the main image, but would be more useful in a section explaining the relative position of nafs in the arrangement of metaphysical concepts, alongside the aforementioned quote. The model is also not just about nafs, or even just four concepts, but the whole notion of 'soul'. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If inner spiritual faculties are consisted of several elements, isnt it precisely because of this that we need a model to locate the place of individual faculties such as nafs. So what's the problem if it is used as the main image? How else are we going locate it individually? Asking for your opinion on this. Mosesheron (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a slightly complex diagram with lots of foreign terms that will not immediately assist the average casual English language reader; as such, it is not a particularly initial introduction to the concept of nafs. Understanding the relation of the concept to other concepts, in the opinion of certain scholars, is not the first objective of this page, which is to briefly and succinctly summarize the concept without overloading the reader with potentially confusing information. Either way, the body needs to explain the model properly; we can't just have it dumped onto the page without any connection being made to it in the prose. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Understanding the relation of the concept to other concepts, in the opinion of certain scholars, is not the first objective of this page, which is to briefly and succinctly summarize the concept without overloading the reader with potentially confusing information." But establishing such a relationship is important to understand the subject itself. All scholars who dealt with nafs necessarily said something about other components, because these subjects cannot be discussed individually, without establishing a relationship with similar notions. For its inclusion in the body, of course, why not. But you already know these articles have been in a poor state for long. Mosesheron (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with @Iskandar323 on "the body needs to explain the model properly; we can't just have it dumped onto the page without any connection being made to it in the prose." An average reader needs not to be overburdened. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  12:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That said, I think an explanation of the model in the body is more of an ideal to work towards, rather than an immediate barrier to the inclusion of the image. The source is a pretty rare example of peer-reviewed analytical scholarship into quite a niche space of Islamic thought, and it would be something good to incorporate into the article, regardless of the question of this particular image - though I've sort of come around to that too now due to its source. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)