Talk:Sufism/Archive 1

Untitled
I've deleted this phrase "This infinite tolerance is expressed in the most beautiful way" and have reworded it becasue it seems a little heavy on the preaching and doesn't seem to be as "balanced" as it can be.

Extremely biased article
This article on Sufism is extremely biased and it seems more like a booklet propogating Sufism instead of giving an encyclopaedic, accurate and un-biased view of Sufism, which is supposed to the encyclopeadia's concept. Moreover, the article is biased in favour of Sufis and it appears to have been copy-pasted from a pro-Sufi site, instead of giving historical facts. The history of the modern movement of Sufism itself is not given, and while Sufism is portrayed as a 'traditional school of Islam' in this article, the Salafi movement is portrayed as a 'sect'. Sections like 'The word Sufi' and the 'Sufi doctrines' are completely biased in favour of Sufism and it appears like the article conforms the doctrines of Sufism as if they were facts - thus trying to force the reader into accepting this highly biased view. This same article in Wikipedia can be found all around the net like http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6588/firststep.html and http://64.239.81.148/100_Steps.html. This is not even original.

When I tried to edit this article to make it into a more encyclopaedic version, adding History and Criticism sections and reforming the copyrighted sections of this article, my entry was deleted. I propose that this article be cut down to a un-biased version and that the copyrighted version of the article be deleted. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a centre of Sufi propoganda.

I have something to add about the biased nature of this article, most of the material this article represents seems to be the beliefs of a particular Sufi order/tradition represented as Sufism .But Sufism has a long and very complex history and there has been so many differint points of view through the ages , this article seems to simply ignore the majority of these different doctrines and practices.I do not think one can stablish a specific sufi cosmology at all.The system this article represents is not even a very common perpesctive.For example look at the works of Rumi or Attar and you will not find many of the doctrines state in the article there.

Definition/Introduction
Sufism is a Mystic school of thought that includes philosophers and muslims. Some famous examples of sufis who were not Muslims would make this opening statement more credible to the ignorant such as I. Alternately, or additionally, we'd like to know why sufism maintains itself so self-consciously as separate from Islam, when every historical detail shows that it is not. An opportunity for some Islamist casuistry here, and enlightenment for us. Are sufis heretics in Islam? Wetman 20:32, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Funny how this abuser Wetman refers to all Muslims as "Islamist" or "Muhammadan." The word is "Muslim." OneGuy 23:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, the first paragraph doesn't make any sense..."Includes carpenters and catholics" would make as much sense as that...--AstroNomer 05:30, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine?!
why is this article part of the alternative medicine series? really it makes no sense, it's the same as putting kabbalah and gnosticism under that heading... i think it should be dissociated. any opinions? Uri 14:32, 29 May 2004 (GMT)

I do not know anything about sufism, but if it is a current inside a religion, I agree it does not make sense inside "alternative medicine". We need somebody knowledgeable in Islam to take a look at this.--AstroNomer 05:30, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * In recent months, there has been a trend of alternative medicine series boxes getting attached to dozens of Wikipedia articles with very vague relations to AM. Given this trend and, since nothing in the article talks about medicine at all, I will just go ahead and remove it. If anyone disagrees with me, please give the reasoning here. Andris 13:38, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

True sufism is not a current inside a religion. It is its own entity that happens to enbody the essential aspects of religious aspiration, but without form or doctrine. To put sufism under the category of religion is like putting the sun under the category of plant. It is a relationship that only goes one way, the plant exists because of the sunlight, and it's life force comes from the sun so it could be put under the category of sun within some margin of accuracey, but in no way does the sun fit under the category of plant. As to the relation between sufism and medicine (or more accurately, healing) very few people have a deep enough understanding of sufism to make a judgement on the matter.

Word of Caution
The following text was added to the further reading list I have no clue who put it there or why, but I think this is not its proper place in an encylopedia. Also I am very suspicious about that Syed Hussain business all over the place. I have found absolutely no evidence that he is in any way a significant historical or contemporary Sufi master beuond a couple of promotional websites. His page here on Wikipedia I have listed for deletion as it is mainly gobbledigook rather than biography or similar. Refdoc 21:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Deleted Text A word of caution though before you start reading. It is quite debatable if intellectual knowledge is any better or worse if the quest be enlightenment. Going by the track record, looks like knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with it...mostly acting as a hinderance and puffing up the ego. Sufis are simple people who theorise less and do more. So all the tons of theory available pales before an ounce of simple living - The Sufi Way. Remember, knowing/reading/theorising all the intricacies of mysticism doesn't make you any better or worse than the average Joe on the street. As Syed Hussain aptly says, &#8220;Sufi mysticism&#8221;is neither a religion nor a philosophy. It&#8217;s neither occultism nor Belief System. Infact, Sufism is a science; a science of esotericism. To be a Sufi, does not depend on one&#8217;s creed, sex, dress, nationality, profession, status, and education or on the fact whether he is a layman or a monk or whether or not he performs particular rituals.

Sufi Whirling
"Sufi Whirling - the no-nosense way to divinity" looks to be in the same vein. I've deleted it and placed it here:

Raw primordial forces and inner beings: nice stuff, but they do not belong in an encyclopedia. Can't tell what it has to do with Syed Hussain, but I would not be surprised if there was a connection. --Ardonik 03:09, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

More of the same  ==Related topics== Dances of Universal Peace A system of spiritual practise through dance originally based on Sufi teaching but expanded to include all spiritual paths.Refdoc 23:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro sentence
"Sufism is a Mystic school of Islamic thought that includes philosophers and muslims." This really needs to be changed, but I'm not quite sure what to turn it into. The fact that it includes muslims is already indicated by it being a mystic school of Islamic thought. The separation of philosophers and muslims indicates they are not overlapping groups. It's just kind of a mess. It might be better to point to the geographic or historic origins of Sufism instead, which serves as a more appropriate introduction. Any ideas? KuriosD 00:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed some debate about this at the top of the page. That'll teach me to skim. Still, doesn't seem as if anyone's touched it in the past couple months. KuriosD 01:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To me, someone who has a family background in Sufism, it is Hinduism in the guise of Islamic thought.


 * Even when it is practised in parts of the world with no history of Hinduism, like Turkey, Central Asia, Arabia, etc.? &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Alcohol and the Sufi way
One of the things that always intrigued me about Sufi practices is the use of alcohol (which is frequently referenced in the works of Rumi, and other Sufi writers). Not only does it appear important to Sufi practice, but also doubly interesting considering the Muslim prohibition on the fermentation of fruit or grain, which appears to make Sufism at least partly heretical (but at the same time tolerated). I noticed there's no reference to the subject, but I don't have enough information on hand to write it right now. Anyone?

BTW - This is a discussion page. There's no need to delete the question if you have an answer. Feel free to add your information to the article itself.


 * While different people will tell you different things about whether any Sufi has tolerated alcohol, I think most people would agree that the references to alcohol in Sufi literature are metaphorical. The state of intoxication is meant to represent the state of the follower when he or she is "intoxicated" with the love of the Divine. "Wine" often represents "Divine love", the "Cupbearer" (saqi) usually refers to God, or sometimes the spiritual guide. This metaphor has been extended quite further in many poems. You're right though,... there is alot more to say about this subject. --Katangoori 22:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alcohol is considered forbidden (Haram) by all Sufis. In fact most celebrated Sufis were known to be giant scholars of Islam.

The reference to alcohol in the works of Rumi, and other Sufi writers is purely metaphorical. Not a single eveidence exists where a known and celebrated Sufi has been known to drink.

Sufism like other sciences has its own jargon and it is dangerous to interpret it as an outsider, that is the reason why one of the contemporary Sufi Sheikh Nuh Keller says that Orientalists have lost the message of Sufism knowing it through transalations from people ignorant of the science.

Refer to his articles on www.suhba.org

Nuh Ha Mim Lecture?
66.143.177.83 pasted a huge lecture by Nuh Ha Mim Keller in the middle of the page. I've removed it since it's huge and out of place (and maybe under copywright). If you want to read it, you can find it here. --Katangoori 17:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sufi history needed
Either in this article, or in a breakout article, there's need for a sober academic history of Sufism. I'm aware that this could be controversial, since I gather that some or all Sufi orders claim a chain of transmission back to Muhammad, while anti-Sufis would give the movement a much more limited history. Still, people who know nothing about the subject need more of a framework.

Also, info on the objections of Salafis and the like to various Sufi or popular religious practices (such as the veneration of saints). Zora 09:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"prophet Muhammad"
Let's not overdo the toning down of religiosity. One does not say "president Bush" or "prophet Jeremiah", but "President Bush" or "Prophet Jeremiah"; in the same way, it should be "Prophet Muhammad". Maybe the removal of the article "the" before the name will satisfy everyone. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:49, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, they'd say "the prophet, Jeremiah". An encyclopedia shouldn't be referring to Jeremiah as if "prophet" were a title the way President is. There's only one president of the United States. Muhammad is certainly the most important non-deity in Islam, but not unique in being a prophet (in a religion where even Jesus is a prophet). I would support Prophet Muhammad before I would Prophet Jeremiah, but I don't think either one is really appropriate in this format. It's not like Muhammad needs some extra capitalization to make him special. And, since the script of Islam is Arabic, it's not like this is some established rule. Kaz 00:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Actually, the encyclopedia should most probably just say "Muhammad"? &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:21, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're correct. Prophet Muhammad, though it's certainly respectful, is not really objective in any form, in this exact context. And, as I said, there's really only one Muhammad we're gonna be talking about here. Don't have to explain that we don't mean Sousse Chef Muhammad, or champion boxer Mohammad Ali.Kaz 17:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Even though I don't have a strong opinion on this, please see Pope John Paul II, where the side reverting to the use of "His Holiness" argued (and that's the current version) that this is "honorific style" title. Wikipedia should have the same standard for all religious figures OneGuy 14:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's just ridiculous. The idea that an objective media source would refer to the British PM as "the Right Honourable" borders on insane. In fact, those examples are all worse than Prophet Muhammad. At least he's clearly a prophet, in some sense. Even an atheist could agree. What if one doesn't think of the Pope as His Holiness? There are plenty of protestants who think he borders on unholy. And plenty of PMs sure the hell aren't honorable. It smacks of PoV, to me. Kaz 18:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For more on Wikipedia policy on "Honorific prefixes", please seeWikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), Honorific_prefixes.29) OneGuy 14:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Aside from the crack abuse replete in objective media using such honorifics in the first place...especially considering the healthy American disdain for such nonsense...the article doesn't clarify when we're to accept such nonsense. Perhaps the article on Satanism should refer to that being as His Unholy Dominance, and I can email Doug and see what honorifics key members of the Church of Subgenius would like to have. While we're at it, I think I wish to be referred to as He Who Wields the Most Wonderful Manhood. Kaz 19:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not an article. It's Wikipedia policy (supposedly). You will have to change the policy (discuss it on that above page). As I said above, if the Pope is to be called His Holiness on WIkipedia, and Al Sharpton, Reverend Al Sharpton, then the same rules should apply here. If these other pages are changed, I won't have an objections to it here OneGuy 20:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone inserted Pope as an example on that page after I posted the above. This issue should be discussed on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)) OneGuy 20:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you have an opinion on this topic, please join the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) OneGuy 22:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-Islamic Sufis...
|A quick Google of Non-Islamic Sufis

One can definitely be Sufi and yet not Muslim. In fact, the concept of being Sufi predates Muhammad.


 * "The Sufi Way consists of four stages. The first stage involves learning the morality and ethics of all religion, which is accomplished by studying Islam. Non-Islamic Sufis rely on other religions or the writings of Sufi saints to establish the foundation of morals and ethics. The second stage is the path of Sufism[...]"


 * "In addition to the various Islamic Sufi orders that now have centers in the West, a number of non-Islamic Sufi organizations have arisen in the West. These groups teach various Sufi doctrines and practices but -- in contrast to nearly all Sufi orders in the Muslim world -- have disconnected their teachings from Islam. Hence followers of these groups are generally not Muslims."

It's pretty clear that the text saying that Sufis are Muslims and/or philosophers should be restored.

And, by the way, in reply to the question of whether Sufis are heretics in Islam, remember that the Sunnis consider the Shi'ites to be heretics, and vice-versa, to the extent that they have a hard time not lynching each other on sight. It's not a mild sectarian difference like Catholic vs Orthodox. So, since Sufism within Islam spans both sects and even ideas exclusive to both, any given Sufi is definitely going to seem like a heretic to some Muslims. Kaz 19:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't see anything in the above quote that says the word "Sufi" was used before Islam. The word "Sufi" is intrinsically linked with Islam (even if similar pracites/beliefs existed before Islam). I suggest "non-Muslim" Sufis in the Wes should find a different word. Otherwise this would be like someone saying he is non-Christian "Baptist."  OneGuy 20:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, it's not up to encyclopedia writers to implement their spiritual theories in practice, only to record the facts as they actually are. If you follow the above links, you'll indeed find mention of the word pre-dating Islam. But there's no reason, considering what Sufism is, that it couldn't eschew Islam, which is why that does indeed happen. There is a significant number of non-Islamic Sufi groups out there, and a growing body of non-Islamic Sufi thought. Therefore the accurate definition is something akin to "Muslim or other spiritual philosophy", not simply "Muslim". Kaz 20:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I followed the first link. This is what I found:


 * While Sufism did not exist prior to Islam, Sufi doctrine contains many elements that go beyond the teaching of Mohammad. Islam is an external structure in which the individual exists while the internal quest for enlightenment belongs to a realm of Sufi knowledge.


 * The bold part just confirmed that I was right. The word Sufi didn't exist before Islam OneGuy 23:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you're cherry-picking a single claim which is about as unbiased as the Rabbis who claim that Jews for Jesus aren't really Jews. It's a protection of one's power and territory, not an honest assessment. Follow the dozens of links to non-Islamic Sufi sites, and you'll see them consistently say Sufism predates Islam, and explain why.


 * Or check this out:
 * | quick sufism pre-dates islam Google
 * | quicky sufism before islam Google
 * Of the thousand or so hits above, a minority are Muslims arguing, as they feel compelled to do automatically, that their religion created Sufism. The rest are generally historians and Sufis saying Sufism came first. Even if one will not take their arguments as solid proof, it certainly establishes a position equal to the counter-claims. Kaz 17:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in google search result. There are all kinds of unreliable sites on the internet. You need to show a reliable site (not an anti-Islamic site) that claims that the word "Sufism" was used before Islam OneGuy 21:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, we don't need to prove, however true it is, that Sufism predates Islam. You almost managed to reroute the debate to this specific detail, but on the actual page you're continuing to post a different false bit of information. You claim that it's an aspect of Islam, and that it might be referred to as "Islamic Spirituality". But the simple fact that many Sufi organizations exist which are not Muslim disproves this. When applied to Islam it's "Islamic Spirituality". But, overall, Sufism is a method, not a religion or a denomination. This is illustrated by the way a specific Sufi group or idea can be Shi'ite, Sunni, or some independent interpretation of Islam which violates the tenets of both. One can take the same principles, the same methodologies, and apply it to any religion.


 * Sufism is not, therefore, "Islamic Spirituality", and most certainly is not an aspect of Islam.


 * What's more, you have the same burden on the origins of Sufism as the many non-Islamic Sufis do. Until YOU prove, from some source not biased toward Islam, that Sufism did not predate Islam, the question is simply up in the air. Kaz 23:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since you have not posted any evidence to show that the word "Sufism" was used before Islam, it's correct to say that "Sufism" is Islamic Spirituality. If non-Islamic Sufi orders exist in the West that doesn't change this fact OneGuy 23:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you have note posted any evidence to show that the word "Sufism", and the concept of Sufism, did NOT exist before Islam, or that it in any way invented them, it is NOT correct to say that Sufism is Islamic Spirituality. Especially since the very existence of non-Sufi groups proves that "Sufism", as a whole, is not "Islamic Spirituality". Only the Islamic aspects of it are.Kaz 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Please take a class in basic logic. The one who makes a positive assertion must prove. You can't prove a negative. Since you have made a positive assertion that the word Sufism existed prior to Islam, post evidence for that assertion. Unless you do that, your claim is not worth anything OneGuy 00:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * See, that's what you get for only taking a basic logic course. In this case what we're facing is a situation in which there is no evidence in either direction. One can as readily say that you are taking a positive position. You are claiming, by your stance, that Sufism came after and from Islam. It is not up to me to prove a negative...that it did not come from Islam.


 * But, and this is akin to scientific method, so perhaps not natural ground for the Faithful, what we have here is a situation in which neither position is proven, ergo neither position is the default. Without hard evidence as to the origins of Sufism, its origins default to "unknown", not to "what the devout Muslim says".


 * You are attempting, in the article, to claim that Sufism is intrinsically part of Islam. But you have no evidence of this. But there is certainly plenty of hard evidence that Sufism is NOT inextricably intertwined with Islam, since there are plenty of non-Islamic Sufi groups.Kaz 03:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of evidence that the word "Sufism" did not exist prior to Islam, such as I posted above  Sufism did not exist prior to Islam . If you claim otherwise, you will have to provide evidence. I don't have that much problem with the current wording, but if you try to introduce any kind of claim without evidence, such as the claim that the word "Sufism" existed before Islam, it will be removed immediately OneGuy 05:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Umm...okay, so in the modern world Sufism has been adopted by people that have not first accepted Islam. The same has happened to Zen, Kabbalah, etc. But does that mean that Zen did not start as the Japanese Buddhist version of Dhyana Yoga or that Kabbalah can be described and explained has being something that did not start with Judaism? &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just went back and read the article. It has one sentence in the beginning. Maybe we should include more of what you quoted above:


 * "In addition to the various Islamic Sufi orders that now have centers in the West, a number of non-Islamic Sufi organizations have arisen in the West. These groups teach various Sufi doctrines and practices but -- in contrast to nearly all Sufi orders in the Muslim world -- have disconnected their teachings from Islam. Hence followers of these groups are generally not Muslims."


 * &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:03, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Many people believe that mysticism transcends words and creeds. There are any number of books on mysticism (like The Perennial Philosophy, IIRC) that argue this position. There's a strong strain of what you might call "hippie" mysticism that involves sampling various mystical traditions until you find one that feels good. At its worst, this sort of spiritual pursuit is self-indulgent and antinomian (IMHO). If words and creeds don't count, then neither do fussy little moral rules. I think this is where non-Islamic Sufism sometimes fits.


 * That's the worst possibly interpretation of the tendency. Having been a Zen Buddhist for forty years, I think I've seen it in operation . Perhaps we need to link the Sufi article to the article on mysticism -- which I now need to go inspect. Zora 01:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You go, girl! &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:49, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Sufism predates Islam, it's history has been undeniably linked with that of islam and its most famous students were (without any doubt) muslim. This debate is bordering on ridiculous. I agree whole-heartedly with the person above who mentioned Zen and Kabbalah... Just because a certain form of mysticism has been adopted by people of different religions does not invalidate the original connection between a given mysticism and its parent religion.

Using the possibility of Sufism predating Mohammed as validation of the original intro sentence is similarly silly... Whether the sentence was factually correct or not, it was ill-written and served as a poor introduction to sufism. "...includes muslims and philosophers."?! Continuing an unfortunate trend, the current introduction sentence is also quite atrocious (no offense to author intended).

"Sufism (Arabic &#1578;&#1589;&#1608;&#1601; tas&#803;awwuf) is the esoteric aspect of Islam, or other spiritual philosophy." What is the "...or other spiritual philosophy" supposed top mean? Is this to imply that sufism is also the esoteric aspect of "some" other spiritual philosophy? Or is some other spiritual philosophy also sufism?

Might I recommend something along the following lines. "Sufism (Arabic &#1578;&#1589;&#1608;&#1601; tas&#803;awwuf) is a system of esoteric philosophy commonly associated with Islam."

Granted, this doesn't tell the whole story, but unlike the other options, it has the benefit of not being utterly meaningless. Please do keep in mind that the overall intent of an encyclopedia article is to convey information simply and concisely.KuriosD 04:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Names of God/Wazifas?
I think Wikipedia should have an entry on the names of God (http://www.sufism.org/society/asma/) and/or wazifas (http://wahiduddin.net/words/99_pages/wazifa_practice.htm). This entry on Sufism should mention these Names in a little more detail than the current vague reference, and should link to the entry on wazifas or Names. I would do it myself, but I don't know as much as I'd like about the subject. Of course I might start a stub on wazifas anyway.
 * umm...please go ahead; Bismillah. But isn't the correct plural form Waza'ef. The other article might best be titled Islamic Names for God; with Asma and Asma-e-Husna being redirected to that page? &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Asma Al Husna (99 names) are a core belief of all schools of Sufism and yet there is no mention of them! This whole subject needs a thrashing from a qualified scholar.

Mevlana Rumi or Mevlana aka Rumi
The article says "the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Mevlana (also known as Rumi)".

Isn't Mevlana a title (translating roughly as spiritual teacher or master) and not part of his name? If so, the quoted text is like saying: "the famous physicist, Professor (also known as Einstein)".

Sarabseth


 * Mevlana is a title, but some people call him only mevlana b/c he was the founder of mevlevi order


 * Removed Arabian nights as there is no evidence that any sufis were associated with it.


 * Added a link for sayings of Imams on sufism.
 * .farhansher

But then Rumi was his name and Mevlana is what he was also known as.

I think "the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Rumi (also known as Mevlana)" makes much more sense than "the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Mevlana (also known as Rumi)", although "the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Mevlana Rumi" is probably best. Sarabseth 13:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed & done farhansher


 * His full name is Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi. He is called Rumi because when he became famous he lived in Anatolia which also was called Rum, because of the Romans who lived there before. --Mounir 28 June 2005 10:38 (UTC)

Actualy he is not known as Rumi in Iran but as Mowlana[title] Jalal al-Din Mohammad Balkhi, or simply Mowlana or Mowlavi , Balkhi refers to his birth place , Balkh, the Turkish people prefer to use Rumi/Anatolian as he spent most of his life in Rum/Anatolia.

Sufi psychology & Literature
Editted, modified & combined Sufi psychology & Literature. Under the literature heading, there was no info about the literature , only the same things about Sufi Psychology. Hope its appreciated .farhansher

The Traditional Islamic Schools of Thought and Sufism
Can someone please fix: "Thirdly, the term Sufism has had such a wide range of connotations attached to it, mostly emotive definitions rather than precising ones." I'm not sure what the right word should be in place of "precising". Sarabseth 20:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How's the change I made? &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:41, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Non-muslim Sufi Orders ???
There R links to so called "Non-mulsim Sufi orders". I mean what makes them "Non-muslim Sufi orders". R their shaykhs non-muslims, or were they started by some christian or athiest. All of their Shaykhs R muslims & they originated from some pre-existing muslim sufi orders. So what makes them non-muslim. Teaching non-muslims about sufism doesent make a sufi order non-muslim. Sufi teachers have been teaching Sufism to "all humans" since the very begining of Sufism. Cuz thats the main motto of sufis, love for all who exist. I have no idea what makes mevlevi order or sufi ruhaniat a non-muslim sufi order, while all the orders listed under muslim heading also teach sufism to people of all religion .farhansher


 * I think the idea is that there are now some "orders"/groups that approach sufism and its practices without the context of Islam. The same way that some people "practice" Zen outside of Buddhism. Traditional sufis always tell their potential members to first practice the zahir part of Islam (Shahada, regular prayers, etc.) before they start the journey on the path of spirituality. The "non-Muslim" orders don't even talk about or make it a requirement to practice Islam. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymus Users
69.113.103.32, U can always start a new article on Silsila Owaisia. I dont see any reason why every Sufism related topic should have information about Owaisia Order in it.

219.93.174.110, U hve added some links to non english sites. I dont think they R useful here .It would have been better if U started an article in your language & add the links there. This way they will be useful. U can write your own article or translate this one into your language.

And plz, create an account !!!

Hope that helps Farhansher

Mistaken Attribution to Rumi?
This religious tolerance is expressed in Sufism by the famous Sufi philosopher and poet Mevlana Rumi : "Come, come, whoever you are. Worshiper, Wanderer, Lover of Leaving; ours is not a caravan of despair. Though you have broken your vows a thousand times...Come, come again, Come."

I have read that this was written by Abu Sa`iid ibn Abi ‘l-Khayr, a person who lived considerably earlier than Rumi, and that it has been mistakenly attributed. See the opening pages of Abramian's "Nobody, Son of Nobody: Poems of Shaikh Abu Saeed Abil Kheir," Hohm Press, 2001.

Unknown group promoting itself in Universal Sufism
The group 'Sanskriti O Biddya CharchaPit' is trying to promote itself by inserting a whole paragraph about it in the "Universal sufism" section. Google search for the group return nothing other than the Sufism article or wikimirrors of this page, the very promotional text that was inserted. Being from Chittagong, Bangladesh, where this group claims to be active, I can definitely say that this is a non-notable entity, trying to promote itself. Thanks. --Ragib 08:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for the info. I didnt know much about Sufism in Bangladesh so I thought it must be important there. Thatswhy I left it as it is .Farhansher 17:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits
Unfinishedchaos just made some significant contributions on "The Traditional Islamic Schools of Thought and Sufism". I cannot tell how accurate they are, but they do need copyediting (tone, spelling) if they are to stay. Rl 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

i have added some research results about the roots of sufism, if they have any language mistakes ..plz correct them but don,r remove cause wikipedia is built essentially on the Democracy of Knowledge .--Unfinishedchaos 10:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

untitled comments
The fact of the matter is that Islam has attempted to put "Sufism" in writing which is not possible. The result has been all of this gibberish and bickering which is a waste of all our time.

.......

The fact and truth of Islam is that, like every other religion on this pale blue dot--its seminal thoughts are founded by a group of men ,whose only aims were to enslave and take whatever they wanted ,using a mythical being as their arbiter. It would be a true step forward into the future if people who are obviously intelligent enough to use a computer and the internet could perhaps "think" a little deeper into what they have been told is true......just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.53.209 (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is to define what Sufism/Tasawwuf is? Your wishful thinking or the teachings of the great Sufi masters? If you want to spread this nonsense, then go somewhere else. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a publishing place for your personal (and might I say absurdly ridiculous) opinions.

BTW, the half-scottish occultist Idris Shah had little understanding of authentic Sufism. It is often claimed that he was a Sufi master, however, this is a lie. For a detailed account of how Shah misrepresented his own credentials and genealogy, as well as the provenance of many of the works he proffered, please see the excellent paper entitled "Neo Sufism and Idries Shah" by James Moore at http://www.geocities.com/metaco8nitron/moore.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.12.139 (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, that isn't me, even though we both disagree with your edits. Also, I didn't see a reference. Anyway, I only reverted you twice, he reverted you the final time. -- Enzuru 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In his biased hatchet job, Moore pours scorn on the idea that "Idries Shah Sayed happens to be in the senior male fine of descent from the prophet Mohammed". This can perhaps be explained by the fact that Idries Shah was a Hashemite. "The Hashemites trace their ancestry from Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf (died c.510 AD), the great-grandfather of the Islamic prophet Muhammad [which sounds pretty senior and male, if you're into that sort of thing], although the definition today mainly refers to the descendants of the prophet's daughter, Fatimah."
 * Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite
 * In any case, for those who've actually read and worked with Idries Shah's writings, these works speak for themselves.
 * EricT (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to include the neo-'Sufi' ideas of Idris Shah on this page, then I suggest he or she should include these under "the non-traditional Sufi groups" heading or create a new one. Idris' thought does not represent authentic Sufism, nor even the Naqshbandi Tariqa (Shah Naqshband was a conservative Sunni Muslim while Idris wouldn't even fit most Suffis' description of a Muslim or a Sufi). Moreover, his ideas need to be described objectively, and cannot not be presented as ideas prevalent in mainstream Sufism. For the vast majority of Sufis in the Islamic world, Idris is merely a new-ageist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.12.139 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

84.215.12.139 writes in the article: "According to certain new-ageist groups and personalities, Sufi philosophy is rooted prior to the modern day religions and is universal in nature. However, mainstream Sufis vehemently reject the notion of Sufism without Islam."

This is pejorative, not NPV. It also fails to mention legitimate Universalist Sufis.

In any case, if we look at the essence of Sufism as a "Way of Being" (a perennial philosophy which predates Islam), any religion can be seen as simply a convenient vehicle. It could also be said that Being (which is an open concept or open system) does not require religion (which to some extent has become over the centuries a closed concept or closed system, a limiting paradigm). EricT (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is that not only is Universalist Sufism new (at least in it being recognized, I know they will argue it has always existed) it is a viewpoint that is a minority within the Sufi world and should not be given an unduly large voice. -- Enzuru 05:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The "new age" label needs a WP:RS to be included, removed pending such source being brought forth. Jayen 466 23:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be worth adding a mention of Hazrat Inayat Khan, Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan and Idries Shah in the section on Contemporary sufism. Could someone do a google books or google scholar search? Coleman Barks deserves a mention too, IMO. Jayen 466 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But even then, we need a firm distinction between mainstream contemporary Sufism, and that which is in stark contrast to past Sufism. This includes both universalist groups and groups which have become much more mainstream. We might also be tempted to give western Sufism more voice than it deserves, forgeting about the Bektashi in Albania and Chisti on the Subcontinent who don't necessarily fit into typical Islamic worldviews, as influential as they may be. -- Enzuru 08:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. For example, you'll find a lot more English-language news sources on Coleman Barks + sufism than you do on Bektashi + sufism; with scholarly sources, it's about even. Jayen 466 13:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sufism as tolerant Islam
Another aspect that I miss in this article at present is the characterisation of sufism as the tolerant tradition within Islam. There are literally hundreds of news sources, as well as hundreds of books and hundreds of scholarly sources drawing attention to this aspect of sufism. Jayen 466 13:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Sufism
This article should have a section on what is termed Jewish Sufism. The term may appear confusing: It does not refer to Jews who have adopted Sufi Islam. It does not refer to a Sufi Islamic outreach to Jews. Rather, it refers to a significant, yet not well known, form of Judaism in the middle ages which adopted a number of Sufi practices and methods into their form of halakhic (loyal to Jewish law), traditional Judaism. RK (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Some numbers and pictures needed
I'm not a member of Wikipedia or anything, but I'd suggest two things to better the article:

- Is it not possible to have an estimation of the overall number of Sufis (I mean, followers of Tasawwuf, not Sufis as accomplished saints) in the world? It'd also be nice to have a short overview of the repartition of the Sufis in the world. To my knowledge Sufism is very much developped in India-Pakistan-Bangladesh, Iran, the Indonesian Java island, Sudan and Sub-Saharan Islamic Africa, central Asia, the Maghreb and some parts of the Arab Middle East. The article should shortly explain the what extent to which Sufism was popular. It may be that the majority of Muslims are still affiliated with a Sufi order. The article should maybe have a section added to, that would briefly list the different main Sufi movements and the extent to which they differ or are close to one another (like, have the different Sufi schools gone very different ways or is there a clear unity and consensus in the teachings of the various tariqas?)

- I find the image of the heart and Allah written on it aweful. It is terribly un-artistic and I don't think the Qadiri Al-Muntahi order actually represents the mystical idea of Allah in the heart of the believer in such a way... In my opinion, a piece of beautiful Arabic calligraphy of the name of Allah or another exemple of Islamic/Sufi plastic art would be better.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, there is no source I know of that gives us the amount of individuals associated with a Sufi order, and Wikipedia depends on outside sources, not WP:original research. To add to that, Sufism's influence does not come through one joining an order as much as it does through the literature, music, and other influences it spreads on the local inhabitants. Second, I don't really like the heart either, and I haven't taken the time to look at its origin or anything. Time will tell what we'll do with it. I do suggest you get an account so you can help us out. It's easy! I'll walk you through all the steps. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  09:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Islamic positions on non-Islamic Sufi groups
[please forgive any breach of protocol here. I am not a regular contributor and just wanted to drop a note to those who might care] I am reading a book of Iranian poetry by a Sufi poet (Farid ud-Din Attar) and the foreward, written by the Iranian scholar Dick Davis, posits that Sufi teachings were largely fringe and at times even considered heretical. The Sufi heresiarch Hallaj was put to a gruesome death. This seems at odds with the opening statement ("Sufism [...] is generally understood to be the inner, mystical dimension of Islam.") and glaringly omitted in the origins section of the article. Since Davis' forward is my first contact with Sufi philosophy, I don't feel confident enough in his authority to make these changes to the article, but would like it if some of the more informed editors could look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.154.100 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sufism in general has found large acceptance within the Islamic world, and of course a significant opposition. Sometimes Western writers prefer to downplay the former and stress the latter, rather than give a balanced picture in order to show that Islam or any other religion is inherently corrupt and Sufis were spiritualists who did not want ritualism, which is far from the truth. For example, in Central Asia and South Asia, Sufism is so entrenched in Islam that virtually until modern times and the start of the Salafi dawah, no form of Islam in these areas were not Sufi in some way or another. One can easily cite times when it was widely accepted by the populace, and attacked by clerical institutions. During the rise of the Usuli school of Twelver Shi'a Islam in Iran, one of the big issues the extremely hierarchal Usuli institution had to face was the fact that Sufis were also very popular leaders with the populace, and they had authority that competed with that of the Usuli scholars. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Enzuru writes: "Most Sufis, in both history and modern day, are Muslim. Second, you don't have a source for your change, bring one and we can discuss this on the talk page."


 * So, even you admit that there are some Sufis and at least some followers who are not Muslim. EricT (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is correct, this is an new tradition. It should be noted that this is new, even in areas where Sufism mingled with other faiths such as Hinduism. -- Enzuru 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we address the imbalance in 'Islamic positions on non-Islamic Sufi groups' or do we add a new section 'Non-Islamic positions on Sufi groups'? Clearly, we need sources. Regards, EricT (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, the first source we cite, Dr. Godlas, says –
 * That's more or less what we had before this edit.
 * On the whole, I think the more cautious "generally understood" wording may be preferable, simply because there are muslims – at least according to Godlas – who don't feel it belongs in Islam. Thoughts? Jayen 466 18:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are Muslims who see Sufism outside of Islam, rather violently at times, and there are practitioners of Sufism who see their way as either Universal, or at least not of any single organized religious practice. The Scythian 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally understood somewhat gest the fact it is a fringe and modern position across, but using Dr. Godlas is a source is iffy, and should be taken lightly considering there are hundreds of sources from Britannica to Islamica that contradict it, affirming Sufism is entrenched in Islam and only recently has been separated, by both non-Muslims interested in spiritualism and restorationist Muslims such as the Salafi. Muslims who see Sufism outside of Islam, yes, they exist, and there are those who see it within Islam. Sufism is almost inseperable from historical Indian and Turkish Muslim tradition. Sufism has been historically tied with Islam, and while there have been contemporary movements to say it is outside of Islam, we have to note they are contemporary and do not reflect historical or even mainstream/traditional trends. -- Enzuru 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself "generally understood" would seem equitable and match what Alan Godlas has to say from a Muslim perspective. EricT (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we work that into the opening line? The Scythian 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, at least the first sentence of the Godlas quote. Jayen 466 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job incorporating the quote and citing the source. Thank you very much. The Scythian 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. The Scythian 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course these same people don't go along with Rumi, but some take Rumi to be a legitimate Sufi master. He says, of course (perhaps reflecting the Sufi's interest in essence rather than mere form): EricT (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent quote. The Scythian 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That quote would be wonderful, however, you cannot find any traditional source that interprets it as you do. Yes, contemporary sources understand it as you, however these are not traditional understandings, are new, and do not make up the huge amount of Sufi practitioners, most of whom can still be found in the Muslim world (in Pakistan, India, Albania, Iran, with only a small percentage in the West). This on Wikipedia is called original research and is against policy. That quote always and has been understood in the light of Sufi tradition, in which people make claims to belonging to no faith. You ignore Rumi's other poetry, of which praises Muhammad (AS) and is very deeply entrenched in Islam, far from these radical revisionists who make every faith in the world (including Islam) evil but other mystical or esoteric traditions some five thousand year conspiracy to save mankind from evil men on this pale blue dot. -- Enzuru 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe some of the modern-day "universalist" sufis also speak highly of the Prophet (AS); but their views still differ from those of many muslims. Of course, some historical sufis had the same problem; a number of them perished because they would not conform to prevailing views. As for Rumi himself, many sources report that his followers included Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims. Jayen 466 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course his followers included Jews and Christians, just like today when you go to India you will see Hindus visiting the graves of great Sufi leaders. That doesn't reflect who they were, it simply reflects how their teachings, as mysticism tends to do, touched across borders. That doesn't say anything for the Sufi tradition itself, which is entrenched in Islam but has a universal message, just like Islam does. -- Enzuru 03:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sufism is a CURRENT form of spiritual belief, as well as historical, and is therefore continually evolving. The notion that Sufism is related to Islam is not in question here, but only that it MUST be directly part of it as a religious notion is. One can practice Sufism as a part of their lifestyle, and not consider themselves a Muslim, and many do. Your own original research, and theoretical notion, reflects concepts perhaps more in line with those practitioners of Islam who follow the Salafist and Wahabist schools of thought. Rumi was most defiantly reflecting a Muslim notion and interpretation of both God, and the Islamic notion of God, but he NEVER limited himself to a strict and single view of God. He came from Muslim origins, but attempted to transcend such human concepts. Sufism is certainly a part of part of Islam, but not only regulated to it. The Scythian 22:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda confused why you infer I'm like a Salafi considering I'm on the opposite end of the Islamic spectrum from them. I truly believe mysticism goes beyond any religious borders or names. But it is neither you or I who decides whether Sufism is or is not limited to Islam. What we have to do is depend on how historically it has been understood, as well as the majority opinion. Giving leverage in language to a small minority of Western practitioners is not how the introduction should start off. If you and I were to write an article about mysticism in general I'm sure almost every single word would be agreed upon. -- Enzuru 03:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have any material to cite and can only speculate here, but I would agree that Sufism, like living language, is evolving (even Idries Shah's work could be transitional). We're all after pretty much the same thing -- extracting the marrow, and here we are arguing about the which particular bone to use. EricT (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

One needs to understand and trace the development of Sufism, and understand the context of Arabic and Persian cultural and poetic tradition, but even with these understandings, anything we try to piece together ourselves is original research and is against policy. However, I note a great many misconceptions come from individuals who live in the West, and have been introduced to Sufism by contemporary sources, that lack excessive scholarly analysis, without the context of culture or the context of faith. You are correct, Islamic spirituality in general goes beyond the names of Muslim or Hindu, as Guru Nanak once said. However, Sufism itself, its mysticism, has been entrenched in Islamic and Qur'anic tradition (which itself makes mystical claims to ascending historical religious tradition), and unless the entire Muslim world (aside from some fringe Muslims who have been on its tail all along) have been incorrect about Rumi and Sufi poetry, including students and followers of these Sufis themselves, Sufism is a product of Islam, and has been historically been part of Islam. I am not using this as an argument for Wikipedia, I am just pointing out issues I am seeing with how our discussion is turning out. -- Enzuru 22:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All well and good, Enzuru, but we must accurately represent the sources that we cite. Source 3 begins with the words, "Tasawwuf can be called the inwardness of Islam". The first source, Godlas, is already quoted above, he says, "Sufism or tasawwuf, as it is called in Arabic, is generally understood by scholars and Sufis to be the inner, mystical, or psycho-spiritual dimension of Islam." Both authors refer to Sufism as the inner dimension of Islam; neither of them refers to it as a mystical tradition within Islam. If we change the words, we have to add sources that back the new words up; otherwise we have to stay with the meaning our cited sources communicate. (Incidentally, the second source cited for this sentence in the lede seems a little extraneous; it does not directly support the preceding statement, as far as I can see.) Jayen 466</i> 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct, I should have changed the citations too. I'll try to get some sources detailing what I tried to change, in the meantime, feel free to revert the change until I give the proper sources. -- Enzuru 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okeydoke, I'll revert for now. I am quite sure you're correct though in asserting that there were (or are) other mystical traditions in Islam; it should be possible to find sources that present Sufism as one of these. Perhaps we'll have to give both views, in the end. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Enzuru, I do not believe anyone here is trying to state that Sufism is not related to Islam, but only that the very notion both derives and transcends very strict definitions of what organized religion is. In other words, a Muslim can be a Sufi, but a practitioner of Sufism, need not strictly be a Muslim. Does that make sense? The Scythian 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to apologize right off the bat, I get really hyped up and emotional over stupid things on Wikipedia. So I'm sorry if I sound like I'm on my period. Next, yes, what you say is correct, but the issue is it only became correct recently. Until recently there was no such thing as a Sufi outside of Islam (besides perhaps some weird fringe cases, after all, there was at least one Sufi pedophilia-oriented sect as well). In India, if you were Hindu and practiced some kind of Sufism, you weren't a Sufi, you may have been a Bhakti or something else. And I don't think the very notion of Sufism transcends organized religion anymore than Islam itself claims to transcend organized religion. I think Islam does make the claim to transcend that, and that is what deeply influenced what would become Sufism. But perhaps that is original research, so let me keep it simple by saying, while mysticism in general (which is very close across different faiths) crosses borders, Sufism itself doesn't traditionally. -- Enzuru 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While this does not necessarily contradict what you are saying, it does demonstrate that Sufism's facilitation of cross-denominational dialogue is not just a recent phenomenon. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 04:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I didn't emphasize it enough, but I stated several times (using India as my prime example) that it is amazingly important in cross-faith dialogue. To this day Hindus go to pray at the graves of Sufi saints, and Sufis taught Hindus and Hindus taught Sufis. But this doesn't make them synonymous. -- Enzuru 04:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I learned many things from a non-Muslim teacher in North America who may or may not be an official Sufi teacher but who subscribed to the ideals. I learned such 'silly' things such as one's common sense actually often does make sense and that my conscience is there for a reason; that teachers appear in your life sometimes for days, months and years and sometimes only for a moment. That metaphors are a powerful tool that provoke thought and a lifetime of learning. That sometimes you think you know a lot but you inevitably don't know much of anything. There's more to say but it can't be put in words or especially in writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.81.217 (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way Islam, you created it and you can have it and you do have it. The word "Sufism" is yours. The substance of the matter is not yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.81.217 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms in Islam
"Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi was heavily criticized by orthodox theological scholars in Pakistan and abroad. Shahi's books were banned by the Government of Pakistan." This would be true for pakistani sufism in an article on Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi... but I don't believe that something so specific tells us much about the criticism against sufism. I suppose that the following might be something regarding sufism vs wahabbis. And perhaps the following would add other criticisms on sufism Faro0485 (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Useful links

 * Is this a "useful link"?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Growth of sufism - decline of Islam
Isn't there scholarship regarding growth of sufism and the decline of islam? I recall Malek Bennabi's "Islam In Society And History" mentioning the decline of islam thanks to the maraboutism of the 11th century. And Neil Tysons lecture regarding Al Ghazali (him being one of the most influencial person to infuse sufism into the mainstream)  Faro0485 (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason al-Ghazzali introduced its practice into mainstream Sunni Islam is because he said it was an essential component of Islam, not a heresy foreign to Islam as some scholars had thought. It had originally grown from the practice of Muslims. Likewise, Ismaili Imams also introduced Sufism into Ismailism. It's like saying, "Isn't there scholarship regarding the growth of feminism and the decline of human rights?" -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  06:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree with you there, as Neil Tyson also makes a mention regarding this . Whether there is any scholarship regarding the rise of feminism and the decline of human rights... that's for another article. Faro0485 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ghazzali promoted Sufism within Islam as, during part of his life, he was a Sufi. One individual alone, however, isn't indicative of the breadth of Muslim scholarship.  All views should be presented, without any sides being taken within the article.  Some Muslims believe Sufism is a part of Islam, but there are many scholars and historians who hold is as something foreign.  The article should reflect this, though due to the article's length at this point (I'm afraid to even start working on this one) a lot of restructuring might be in order first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sufi impact on the torah????
From the article: "The precepts prescribed by the Torah number 613 only; those dictated by the intellect are innumerable."

"This was precisely the argument used by the Sufis against their adversaries, the Ulamas. The arrangement of the book seems to have been inspired by Sufism. Its ten sections correspond to the ten stages through which the Sufi had to pass in order to attain that true and passionate love of God which is the aim and goal of all ethical self-discipline."

Does that mean that the book that got finalized between 200BC and 200AD was actually influenced by a religion born at least 400 years later? Or is the sufi movement older than islam? Or did I misinterpret the text? At least provide a source - maybe (even I) get it when reading the source. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.131.216 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is referring to the ten gates, or chapters in Kitab al-Hidāya ilā Fara'id al-Qulūb (Chovot HaLevavot), not the Torah. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chovot_HaLevavot#Organization_and_influences 24.38.217.61 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

On Deobandis and Sufism
Deobandis are not anti-Sufis. All the founders of this movement were affiliated with turuq, mostly the Chishti tariqa. This is common knowledge. Please remove the misleading information from the main page listing them as anti-tasawwuf. Note that Wahhabis often criticize Deobandis, such Shaykh Ashraf Thanvi, for believing in wahdat al-wujud. See: http://www.ahya.org/tjonline/eng/03/7wahdat.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.15.144 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Sufi shaykhs-section is unsourced and superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.15.144 (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The blatant POV and apologetics within the article
After some review, I noticed that quite a bit of the content within this article consists of apologetics on behalf of Sufism. While it is not the purpose of any article here to attack or slander its subject, it is also not the purpose of any article to promote its subject. The underlying point of much of the more obvious POV-pushing within the article is that Sufism is "non-quantifiable" and complicated, and any criticism of it is born from the critic simply not understanding. This is not only inappropriate, but clearly false. There have been many critics of Sufism who were educated and informed on the beliefs of Sufis, and still held critical views. The article should not be tipped in either direction, and should simply present all the viewpoints on a controversial movement without trashing it or painting a rosy picture of it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a POV issue in the article, I believe someone forgot that the above advice said it has to be NPOV. The introduction to this article seems overly critical the Sufi tradition. Criticism is fine, but it does not belong in the introduction. The introduction should be made NPOV and SHORTER so that it is easily understandable to people not familiar with the subject and the debates it is involved in. Mamechishiki (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe worth checking out lead section. EricT (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am a salaafi and can I say how disgustingly biased the articles I have been reading are on wikipedia. What I have seen is not good. Salaafi Islam and sufism are two opposing ideologies that definitely have not been given fair and balanced treatment. Most of this stuff is clearly written by sufi's who are trying to make dawah (indoctrination) on people.David.Baratheon (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi David. It would help if you could provide details of specific objections. And with respect, the Salafi point of view is a minority point of view, so we have to be careful not to give it undue weight.  Esowteric + Talk  14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * David.Baratheon (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC), deleting large chunks of articles like Wahhabi and replacing it with your own bias (see neutral point of view), with no explanation in the edit summary and no prior discussion on the talk pages, is not going to help you here at Wikipedia.  Esowteric + Talk  17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think articles should be an honest mixture of opinion using citation. That's what scholarship is all about folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Cotton (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sufism in India - Kabir?
I'd would apprecate an elaboration on Sufism in India. I know that Sufi Saints are revered in many parts of India. Often it appears that its supporters do not consider it a manifestation of Islam alone (many Hindus revere Sufi Saints), but as a system or "school" for the attainment of wisdom and spiritual enlightenment with strong historical (rather than theological) links to Islam. Perhaps this may explain why some consider Sufism a widely accepted part of Islam while others consider Sufis heretical. Kabir, for instance, is considered a "Sufi Saint" in India (he has a page on Wikipedia as well) and is popularly referred to in Indian culture (his "dohae" in particular). He finds no mention in this article. I am not an expert on Sufism, Kabir or Indian Culture and while I may be able to get support (citations) for changes to the main article about Kabir, I would prefer attention from an expert since this does pertain to religion and people are sensitive to comments related to religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh.jaywant (talk • contribs) 08:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many others who were much more orthodox in their Islam, such as Nizamuddin Auliya, who are also revered by Hindus. A Sufi being revered by another faith doesn't make them less of a Muslim. There is a similar situation in Turkey where Muslims do special things for ancient Christian saints. -- Afghana <sup style = "color: gray;">[talk]  09:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC). Agreed, perhaps a better way to put it would be to suggest that it was (and is) an Islamic movement whose benefits were not restricted to Muslims; Which would in turn suggest that it has certain underlying secular values (I mean in addition to and not in derogation its Islamic values)! Obviously, I do not consider religious and secular values to be mutually exclusive. I agree that there are other historic (perhaps even contemporary)Islamic figures revered by other faiths (and the other way round) but this was one that came to my mind in this context. I am not into religious figures and so my knowledge is limited - Kabir comes to my mind because of the persistence in popular media of the secular value (in terms of dealing with matters common to humans in general rather than only Muslims) of his work as a Sufi. Saurabh.jaywant (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel such a subject deserves its own article (Sufism in India) and probably a section here as well, as particularly with the strong Persian influence in Indian culture and philosophy it is a topic which I am sure there is much one could base an article around. Peter Deer (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can read Sufi Saints of South Asia. I have also initiated a proposal to shift the entire article to Sufism in India--Shahab (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Sufism. This section is about the unfortunate events surrounding Shahi, an not criticism of Sufism in general. Criticism of Sufism (or even Shahi) would be more along the lines of 'orthodox Muslims rejected ______ part of Shahi's teachings', not that orthodox Muslims abused the human rights of Shahi.VR talk  19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sufism and Islam (20 June 2009 edit)
A recent edit was made to the article:

Sufism is generally understood to be the inner, mystical dimension of Islam. However not all Sufi orders adhere to the tradition of Islam, and fall outside of the category if Islam.{ref name=Godlas}

The words shown in bold were added to the text, then removed by User:Ogress with the edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by Lifewater000; Rv "minor" edit that is highly polemical, POV and takfirism!"

You might argue over the wording or where to best place such words, but Dr. Alan Godlas has said things along these lines in the cited reference work. See Source: Dr. Alan Godlas, Sufism -- Sufis -- Sufi Orders Sufism, the West, and Modernity here, portions of which have been reproduced below:

Islamic Sufi Orders in the West

"The common denominator of the Islamic Sufi Orders now established in the West is the avowed adherence to Islam and specifically to the Shari'ah, although the interpreter of the Shari'ah for a particular order may be the shaykh of that order. (In a few of these orders the shaykh may on occasion have non-Muslim disciples.)"

Quasi-Islamic Sufi Organizations and Orders

"In most of these organizations, although the shaykh himself or herself adhered or adheres to the Shari'a, the practice of Islam was not made a condition for receiving instructions on following the Sufi path. In some instances the shaykh may have identified him or herself as a Muslim and on other other occasions may have identified him or herself as a member or another faith. Also in some of these organizations, on some occasions the shaykh may have not observed the shari'a in the manner that is normative for Sunni's and/or Shi'is. Hence in these organizations, significant numbers of aspirants are Muslims and significant numbers are non-Muslims."

Non-Islamic Sufi Organizations and Schools in the West

In addition to the various Islamic Sufi orders that now have centers in the West, a number of non-Islamic Sufi organizations have arisen in the West. These groups teach various Sufi doctrines and practices but -- in contrast to nearly all Sufi orders in the Muslim world -- have disconnected their teachings from Islam. Hence followers of these groups are generally not Muslims. Adherents of such schools often assert that Sufism pre-dates Islam and thus in prinicipal is universal and independent of it.

Thanks,  Esowteric |  Talk  10:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned with undue weight. Sufism is quintessentially a Muslim movement, even if sometimes antinomian. The Meher Babaists, Inayat Khanists and Idries Shahists comprise a cup of water in the vast ocean that is Sufism... even among ORGANISED sufi orders, they are barely a drop. Perhaps a rephrasing would reduce its emphasis? "However, some Western movements explicitly define themselves as non-Muslim." Otherwise it sounds like anti-Sufi propaganda from Wahhabis/Deobandis.  Ogress  <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  00:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the rewording, but should the " Adherents of such schools often assert that Sufism pre-dates Islam and thus in prinicipal <tt>(source typo?)</tt> is universal and independent of it." assertion be included or elaborated upon? -  Nu&beta;i&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;ch  Talk/contrib 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sufism is mystical dimension of Islam!!!! As far as i have studied Sufi..it is beyond any religion..though maximum sufis were born in Muslim family..but they were beyond Islam, their preachings wre off any religion and they dint follow any such religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.64.81 (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Rajendrakgupta: external links and additional reading
Rajendrakgupta previously added some external links that were reverted by a bot and then by me. These books were later added to "Additional reading" and I reverted the edit as self-serving. However, if the books are worthy of inclusion, please add them to the list again.


 * 1) Gupta R.K. Yogis in Silence-The Great Sufi Masters, 2001 ISBN 8176461997
 * 2) Gupta R.K. Sufism Beyond Religion, 2004, ISBN 8176464112
 * 3) Gupta R.K. The Science and Philosophy of Spirituality, 2006, ISBN 8176465453

Thanks,  Esowteric |  Talk  10:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

✅ Have re-added these books to additional reading as from a google search the work looks interesting and the guy is legit. His web site is SufiSaints and there's bio at places like IndiaClub.  Esowteric |  Talk  10:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Militant "Sufis" in the news: a worrying trend
This rather awkward material was recently introduced into the Wikipedia article on Sufism in the section 'Perception outside Islam': Sufism "Others have criticised the non-Muslim perception of Sufis as 'peace-loving meditative seekers of the divine.' Professor Andrew G. Bostom has argued that Sufism has been linked integrally to the Muslim institution of jihad war since the 11th century C.E. He writes [in a well-referenced article entitled "Sufi Jihad?"]: "'Consistent with this nexus between Sufism and orthodox Islam, Sufis have supported (fervently) the corollary institution of dhimmitude, replete with all its oppressive and humiliating regulations for non-Muslims.'"

Further articles:

Iraqi Insurgents Turn To Small But Deadly Weapon (mention of Naqshbandi): U.S. Sees New Threat In Iraq From Sufi Sect: U.S. admits Threat from Naqshabandiya Army (with pix): Let's hope we don't all get tarred with the same brush and that moderate Sufis and commentators distance themselves from this.

Regards,  Esowteric |  Talk  09:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it appear that this material has been removed? Most of it is from well-known and reputable media sources (I don't think the Wordpress link would be acceptable though). MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio reverted
A massive suspected copyvio (about theosophy) was added by Manzarakbar on Wed 5 August 2009. Replaced with last clean version by User:Esowteric.

The edits closely paraphrased content at:
 * source (a bit of the text)
 * google page cache (the whole text).  Esowteric + Talk  16:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

a marginal note
I added a ref for the fact that in Persian language these things are called "صوفی‌گری". The reference is Dehxoda's loghatnameh. I am sure one does not need references for this kind of edits, but the editor who removed this piece is in a compaign of al-ification of wikipedia and removing Persian (empire, language, culture, ...) from wikipedia. So, if the other editors wish may remove the ref and leave the Persian word without reference as any non-illetertate reader can find out about it.Note the accompanying poem in Dehkhoda's entry makes it clear that "صوفی‌گری" is not insulting.Xashaiar (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "صوفی‌گری" is used in some modern Persian texts, but it is mostly derogatory and is not as common as "تصوّف", even in Persian language. Referring to a dictionary (like Dehkhoda's loghatnameh) is meaningless in this case (ideally, you can find all Persian words in a dictionary, but finding a word in a dictionary doesn't mean that it's the most common and most appropriate word for that concept, in that language). All the major Persian encyclopedias use "تصوّف" for the corresponding entry (example: ). Alefbe (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No OR. What you say is original research and in fact folk etymology. That's not allowed here. Dehkhoda states Sufigari=Tasavof and has not made any illiterate statement that the word is derogatory. Looking at a dictionary is the only way to find out the Persian equivalent to words. If there was any negative meaning in Sufigari, the authority Dehkhoda would state that. What reliable sources say is what matters not your OR. Your OR is not even correct: if you were concerned about "the common word in Persian language" you would have used "Erfan" (which is most common for these things but unfortunately a wrong designation) so in terms of "most common" first comes Erfan, then Sufigari, and then Tasawof.Xashaiar (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Erfan" has a more general meaning and is not equivalent with Sufism (it is equivalent with Mysticism). Alefbe (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"According to the true teachings of Islam there is no sufism and it is a new branch extracted by some scholars." from the article
This is very much PoV. It doesn't flow with the surrounding text. Could it be a vandalistic insertion? 65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the heads-up. I think that POV content, which as you say doesn't flow with the rest of the text, can be ditched. An IP user added it earlier today but the edit was hidden by subsequent edits.  Esowteric + Talk  19:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No mentions of kosovo
There is no mention of Gjakova and Prizren in Kosovo as centers of Sufism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bektashi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Frash%C3%ABri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saadi_(poet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi
Hi. I recently edited this article to add some information about Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, but it was reverted without explanation. I wanted to add that "A death certificate was issued in his name in November 2001. He is believed by some of his followers to simply have disappeared in occultation. For example, the organization Messiah Foundation International depicts him as a messianic figure who is to return, and this has been met with much opposition from authorities in the Pakistani government and orthodox scholars."

Dawn.com reported: "2005 – December 23: Five members of the Mehdi Foundation International were arrested in Wapda Town, Lahore, for putting up posters of their leader Riaz Gohar Shahi showing him as ‘Imam Mehdi’. The Anti-Terrorism Court sentenced each to five years of imprisonment under 295-A of PPC. Their prisoners’ records posted outside the cell falsely indicate that they had been sentenced under 295-C – the Blasphemy Law."

Is this appropriate to add in this article? Personally I think it would make it more clear exactly why the orthodox scholars in Pakistan oppose him and his followers. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Why is this person even mentioned in the article? In the pantheon of Sufi Sheikhs, he is a very minor figure, certainly not in the same league as the other 4.  There are literally dozens of Sufi Sheikhs more eminent than him who are not mentioned, so for him to be there -- and with such a long entry -- hardly seems fitting.  --Sarabseth (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, many believe this guy to be revolutionary. He has a following of masses, according to some websites. I think it's reasonable. And I certainly don't think comments such as 'Sufi Sheikhs more eminent than him' should be passed, as they can cause mischief and dispute with others who may be reading. Thanks. Nasiryounus (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well he seems to be a prominent modern figure, as his teachings supposedly promote divine love, tolerance and peace for people of all religions- though most people say his teachings relate to Sufism, which is why he has a section here. In addition his followers claim that he is the awaited messianic figure, which has caused a lot of controversy, particularly in Pakistan. I don't know how relevent the controversy surrounding him is to this article, however I think it would provide insight on Gohar Shahi. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Here's just a short list of Sufi sheikhs much more eminent and influential than Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi:

Bu Ali Shah Qalandar

Fariduddin Ganjshakar

Lal Shahbaz Qalander

Moinuddin Chishti

Nizamuddin Auliya

Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki

I fail to see how see how "many believe this guy to be revolutionary" or "Well he seems to be a prominent modern figure" justifies Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi's inclusion in this article when these 6 people are not included.

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi has his own wikipedia article. I don't think the entry for him on the Sufism page is warranted by his status as a Sufi Sheikh. --Sarabseth (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's certainly an option, yes. Thanks.  Esowteric + Talk  15:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, both Omirocksthisworld and Nasiryounus have very similar contribution histories, histories which suggest they may not be neutral editors in matters concerning Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.


 * Their contributions are almost entirely confined to articles relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, articles such as Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, The Representative of Gohar Shahi, Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi.


 * In other words, they appear to be very dedicated single issue editors. Such editors rarely represent an objective perspective, in my opinion.  --Sarabseth (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I'm hoping that Jayen466 (who is very experienced in subjects like new religious movements) will have a little time free from RL to offer some assistance.  Esowteric + Talk  16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution Sarabseth, however, I'd like to make it clear that I am actually a neutral editor. I've come to hear a lot about Gohar Shahi and latter and the majority of what I've read is usually negative propaganda, and what the organisation relating to Shahi seems to propagate exactly opposite to the negativity based upon them, thus, I decided to use Wikipedia as a way to clear everything relating to Shahi, the organisation related to him and the claims. I, however am nor pro or anti the mentioned. I aim to bring forth the correct information about Shahi, be it pro or anti his agenda or his organisation.

Thanks, and I certainly do appreciate your efforts in this article, Sufism. Nasiryounus (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments
This whole article must be referred to an independent authority since it seems to present sufism as an offshoot of islam, whereas it could well be agreed that the sufi movement/revolution was all about a simple and spirtual way of life away from the prescriptive nature of religion.

Anand Dixit. UK.


 * If you go to tell a Sufi that he is not a Muslim, you are likely to get very angry rebuke - Skysmith (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific on what particularly seems to give this impression? Peter Deer (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange edits
Can someone who knows something about Sufism have a look at these edits? Note that the added text occurs quite a few times on other websites, according to Google. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, have reverted the "strange edit". In wrong place, unsourced, found elsewhere on web.  Esowteric + Talk  09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sufi Sheikhs -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi sub-section edit war
There is an ongoing edit war in the Sufi Sheikhs -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi sub-section of the article. Could we please discuss this issue here? Thanks.  Esowteric + Talk  10:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any Edit War as the omairocktheworld/nasiryounus are trying to add some ficious information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.27.188 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some research on the topic regarding this said Sufi Sheikh -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, and what I read a few days ago on this page with, in this sub-section didn't mention that he had "disappeared" or, according to his believers, applied 'occultation', and I wanted to highlight this issue on the actual page which speaks about this man. It doesn't mention that he's believed to have disappeared, rather than died (which quite a minority believes). So, I've often edited this section of the article, and as a result someone repeatedly edits this section back from different IP addresses' and different IDs. If found constructive and better-written, I've no reservation if it is changed, but if the facts are totally removed, I don't think that would do any justice to readers, as they'd only be reading half the truth. Hope it gets resolved soon.Nasiryounus (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm well previously, I did try to add information, cited to Dawn.com, about why Gohar Shahi and his followers are opposed- but this was reverted without explanation. So to get feedback on it, I made a section "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi" in the talk page, but I didn't get any response. Anyway, recently I have noticed that User: Nasiryounus made a contribution to the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi section mentioning a little more about why Gohar Shahi is so controversial (Because his followers believe him to be the Imam Mehdi, Messiah and Kalki Avatar) and mentioning the dispute over his alleged death. I personally thought that it gave readers a little more insight into Gohar Shahi and thought that it was reasonable information to add. I found it strange that it was getting reverted so much. However, I also understand that this page is primarily about Sufism so, if the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi section does not discuss Gohar Shahi's controversy in great detail, it's not a problem. However I think that the main points of the paragraph that has been written should be mentioned, as this seems necessary for the reader to understand the situation surrounding Gohar Shahi more. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

[outdent] One of the editors, User talk:116.71.15.61 has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on another article.  Esowteric + Talk  10:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

By removing the contentious paragraph (which shouldn't carry the "Moon" ref, surely), the section is unbalanced. Perhaps the paragraph could be reinstated and reworded to restore balance? Have asked an experienced editor to look at this. See WP:Neutral point of view.  Esowteric + Talk  10:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I Beleive that information in this section are completed. No need to add further!--Falconkhe (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

... OR, we go along with Sarabseth's view that Gohar Shahi doesn't merit a section at all in this article. BTW, I reverted three attempted redirects from the Imam Mahdi! and variations to this guy's article.  Esowteric + Talk  15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder of we could get the page semi-protected, so that users can't hide behind IP addresses to get around WP:3RR?  Esowteric + Talk  16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of the question of balance within this subsection, I don't believe we should have a section on Goharshahi at all in this generic overview of Sufism. I might support a brief mention elsewhere in the article, e.g. in the contemporary sufism section; however, I first would like to see evidence of exceptional noteworthiness in reliable sources (e.g. regular mention in scholarly summaries of present-day sufism, frequent media mentions). -- JN 466  20:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * -- JN 466  20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free, JN.  Esowteric + Talk  20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free, JN.  Esowteric + Talk  20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gohar Shahi is a great Muslim, sufi saint. Gohar Shahi declares that "all kind of worship is fruitless without first purifying the heart". He does not propagate any specific religion, but he teaches and preaches the Divine Love and the way of entering into hearts. Gohar Shahi states "When a person's spiritual connection is established with God, then God guides that person towards the right path". Many seekers of the path see The Name of God written on their hearts during the meditative exercise. According to Gohar Shahi any word in any language that points towards God is worthy of respect and useful for attaining spiritual benefits. People of all religions love Gohar Shahi. He has cured many people with incurable diseases by his spiritual grace. --Falconkhe (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's funny. When I read Gohar Shahi, he seems to state "All ye who love me, devalue not my greatness by putting me on Wikipedia pages where I do not belong!"  --Sarabseth (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We were listing Goharshahi in the company of Ibn Arabi and Mansoor. WP:Due weight is established by prevalence in reliable sources. There are more than 2,000 books that mention Ibn Arabi, vs. less than 20 mentioning Goharshahi. In terms of coverage in reliable sources, Goharshahi is not in the same ballpark as Ibn Arabi or the others listed in that section. Note that this does not say anything about Goharshahi's qualities as a sufi and a saint, which may very well be of the highest, but simply reflects the preoccupations of published literature, which we are required to mirror. -- JN 466  14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. JN, what you have said makes sense- since Gohar Shahi is relatively newer compared to the Sufi's of 1000 years ago, there is, of course, less mention of him in literature. Also, some people will say that Gohar Shahi's teachings relate closely to Sufism but is not exactly the same. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I agree.Nasiryounus (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree, JN. Thanks for your help.  Esowteric + Talk  22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree to JN but JN should also consider this conspiracies against HH Gohar Shahi and attempts by Govt of Pakistan to remove the message and followers of GS has left no stone unturned used all resources available to Govt (MFI & Younus is a part of that conspiracy). I request to consider this.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to realize that whether or not Gohar Shahi was persecuted (by the Govt of Pakistan or anybody else) has no bearing on the relevance or irrelevance of the Gohar Shahi section in this article. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sarabseth. This article is about Sufism not about conspiracies against any personality. I suggest Falconkhe make another article which may as well be a stub, which talks about what you've mentioned (conspiracies etc), keeping in mind that you must use reputable and relevant sources. Happy editing :) -  Nasiryounus | Talk  19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)