Talk:Sufism/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sufism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724030211/http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/neosufism.htm to http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/neosufism.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naqshbandi.org/dhikr/difference.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121221021339/http://www.hayatidede.org/popups/about_sema.htm to http://www.hayatidede.org/popups/about_sema.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150327110031/http://www.yabahu.com/ to http://www.yabahu.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122031623/http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Faith-and-Ecstasy.html to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Faith-and-Ecstasy.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sufism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924014336/http://www.fonsvitae.com/sufism.html to http://www.fonsvitae.com/sufism.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sufism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://islamiceducationcenter.org/pdf/dhikr_and_the_wisdom_behind_it.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415182616/http://www.goharshahi.net/images/books_files/menar-e-noor_files/What%20is%20Remembrance%20and%20what%20is%20Contemplation.htm to http://goharshahi.net/images/books_files/menar-e-noor_files/What%20is%20Remembrance%20and%20what%20is%20Contemplation.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150609000104/http://www.sultan-bahoo.com/en/tafakkur-and-muraqbah-meditation-and-concentration.html to http://www.sultan-bahoo.com/en/tafakkur-and-muraqbah-meditation-and-concentration.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

mawla?
The lead links to mawla for the Sufi leaders or saints. But wali seems more relevant and detailed, and down the article there is a "main article:" link to it. It also says the plural form is ʾawliyāʾ, not mawla. So is there a reason to use this word and link to it? trespassers william (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like mawla was inserted in this revision, with a reference to Encyclopædia Britannica. EB however only speaks of a "friend of God" or "Sufi saint". I assume the editor in question misinterpreted EB's terminology and that it should indeed say wali as far as I know. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Shrine of Abdul Qadir Jilani..jpg

‎Formalization of doctrine
The repeated removal of a solitary paragraph by the writer and Sufi teacher, Idries Shah (which could perhaps be reworded) and concerning the pre-Islamic roots of Sufi ideas, gives undue weight to the admittedly prevalent belief that the Sufi Way began with, and is inextricably linked with Islam. Whether or not what Shah writes is the truth, this referenced source is verifiable.

The current revision states: "In the eleventh-century, Sufism, which had previously been a less "codified" trend in Islamic piety, began to be "ordered and crystallized" into orders which have continued until the present day. All these orders were founded by a major Islamic scholar, and some of the largest and most widespread included the Qadiriyya (after Abdul-Qadir Gilani [d. 1166]), the Rifa'iyya (after Ahmed al-Rifa'i [d. 1182]), the Chishtiyya (after Moinuddin Chishti [d. 1236]), the Shadiliyya (after Abul Hasan ash-Shadhili [d. 1258]), and the Naqshbandiyya (after Baha-ud-Din Naqshband Bukhari [d. 1389]).[57] Contrary to popular perception in the West,[58] however, neither the founders of these orders nor their followers ever considered themselves to be anything other than orthodox Sunni Muslims,[58] and in fact all of these orders were attached to one of the four orthodox legal schools of Sunni Islam.[59][60] Thus, the Qadiriyya order was Hanbali, with its founder, Abdul-Qadir Gilani, being a renowned Hanbali jurist; the Chishtiyya was Hanafi; the Shadiliyya order was Maliki; and the Naqshbandiyya order was Hanafi.[61] Thus, it is precisely because it is historically proven that "many of the most eminent defenders of Islamic orthodoxy, such as Abdul-Qadir Gilani, Ghazali, and the Sultan Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn (Saladin) were connected with Sufism"[62] that the popular studies of writers like Idries Shah are continuously disregarded by scholars as conveying the fallacious image that "Sufism" is somehow distinct from "Islam."[63][64][62][65]

And this is the counter-argument made on behalf of Shah: "Despite the foregoing, it is important to note statements by recognized figures from Sufi history which support the claim for pre-Islamic roots of Sufi ideas. Suhrawardi is reported to say that "this [Sufism] was a form of wisdom known to and practiced by a succession of sages including the mysterious ancient Hermes of Egypt." Ibn al-Farid "stresses that Sufism lies behind and before systematization; that 'our wine existed before what you call the grape and the vine' (the school and the system)..."[66]

There is no "formal doctrine". This may have been Hindus who interpreted The Quran pantheistically despite no support for it in The Quran. The Quran differantiates between creator and created. The sufis do not. Another thing is the "robe" feature. This one is woolen. The focus on robe, we see in other religions aswell. Not really Islam. It just generally has a conservative clothing style. Perplexingly enough Sufism is often wellspoken of, and though to be an "expert-Islam", while "ordinary" Islam, is "extremistic". This is very naive, since it seems indeed the difficult interpretations are indeed Sufi in origin. These seem to be people who have "locked interpretation", such as Al-Ghazali. A Ghazal is a poem of Rumi, such as "houris":

Houris by Rumi, translated by William C. Chittick

If anyone asks you about houris, show your face and say, “Like this.” If anyone speaks to you about the moon, rise up beyond the roof and say, “Like this.” When someone looks for a fairy princess, show your face to him. When someone talks of musk, let loose your tresses and say, “Like this.” If someone says to you, “How do clouds part from the moon?” Undo your robe, button by button, and say, “Like this.” If he asks you about the Messiah, “How could he bring the dead to life?” Kiss my lips before him and say, “Like this.” When someone says, “Tell me, what does it mean to be killed by love?” Show my soul to him and say, “Like this.” If someone in concern asks you about my state, Show him your eyebrow, bent over double, and say, “Like this.” The spirit breaks away from the body, then again it enters within. Come, show the deniers, enter the house and say, “Like this.” In whatever direction you hear the complaint of a lover, That is my story, all of it, by God, like this. I am the house of every angel, my breast has turned blue like the sky- Lift up your eyes and look with joy at heaven, like this. I told the secret of union with the Beloved to the east wind alone. Then, through the purity of its own mystery, the east wind whispered, “Like this.” Those are blind who say, “How can the servant reach God?” Place the candle of purity in the hand of each and say, “Like this.” I said, “How can the fragrance of Joseph go from one city to the next?” The fragrance of God blew from the world of his Essence and said, “Like this.” I said, “How can the fragrance of Joseph give sight back to the blind?” Your breeze came and gave light to my eye: “Like this.” Perhaps Shams al Din in Tabriz will show his generosity, and in his kindness display his good faith, like this.

Rumi, Diwan, ghazal #1827

Rumi is claimed a sufi-master, and clearly is far at odds with conventional Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:81AC:8D4F:BAB7:D7A3 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Shah's publications.
Idries Shah's publications on the subject of Sufism are as legitimate as any other authors. The repeated removal of quotes, references, and summaries sourced from his work to the page defies Wikipedia's guidlines.

It is not the case that because editors prefer a particular author's views on the the matter that they can therefore entirely exclude another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.196.235 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is probably going to sound condescending, although I do not mean it that way - the edits you have been making appear disruptive because you have not been properly citing your sources or properly incorporating your new material into the article - see WP:CITE for how to make citations - you added in the section "Terminology" that Sufism was a neoligism, but that is already noted in the "Etymology" section - you have deleted cited material without explanation and noted "Chittick's fantasy" without justification - edits that improve the article are welcome, but disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT is against Wikipedia policy - it would help if you took some time to properly source your edits and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and policies to prevent your edits from being reverted - again, I apologize if this seems condescending or patronizing, as my intention is to be helpful - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It actually sounds more like you haven't understood the Five Pillars of Wikipedia have a desire to elide over the actual matter and for some reason wish to censor pertinent information. Not very thoughtful.

The word 'Sufi' being a neologism is as relevant to terminology as it is to etymology.

You are correct that I'm learning how to cite correctly and so on - why not help with that instead of being territorial?

In peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.196.235 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - If you need help with your edits you might try Help desk or Teahouse - Epinoia (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Epinoia or should I say first passive aeon or spiritual entity forming part of a cosmic hierarchy (chuckle). Would it not be more accurate if it were stated 'Chittick speculates, theorises, believes, contends, writes, asserts that ... ' he's not exactly citing anyone himself and as with much else that is published here its not really provable as true or false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.196.235 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Claim that Sufism predated and inspired all religion
Hi User:Ellibrodellibro! By reverting multiple editors at least five times to restore your disputed text, you have violated WP:3RR. I suggest you undo your edit and seek consensus here, before you are reported on WP:3RRV and may be blocked. Your text also runs afoul of WP:DUE and WP:LEAD, by giving undue weight in the lead to a factually incorrect (see WP:V) and minor fringe view which isn't discussed in the body of the article. Really, there are a lot of problems with your edit... -sche (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - I agree that this should be removed from the article - it is not supported by scholarship - Idries Shah was a popularizer, but not a scholar - if this claim is part of Sufi tradition it should appear in the works of other authors, but as far as I know it originated with Shah (although I have not read everything!) - the article on Idries Shah notes that he "presented Sufism as a universal form of wisdom that predated Islam" - but also notes that he was "criticized by orientalists who questioned his credentials and background" - all in all, it seems pretty sketchy - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a new editor, so I think it only right to leave a gentle warning on their own talk page, mentioning that they need to see this talk page, and that consensus is required before inserting such material. Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  11:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - I believe User:Ellibrodellibro is the new account for IP User:86.2.196.235 who first posted this material - see section above Talk:Sufism - Epinoia (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello sche, Epinoia and Esowteric, thank you for your feedback.

This is going to be a bit of a dilemma. Would the following be an agreeable compromise?

''Controversially it has also been described as having preceded and inspired all religion.

I'd like to add that currently, although I hope it is not your intention, that you are all coming across as a bit proprietorial, and aiming to shoo away a newcomer rather than improve the quality of the page for readers. Ellibrodellibro (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ellibrodellibro, please remember to sign your posts - see the "Sign your posts on talk pages" notice in the bar at the bottom of the edit page. Your charge of page ownership is false (and remember to refrain from personal attacks WP:5P4). Why is it so important to you to have your content added to the article? If you say "Controversially it has also been described..." you need to provide a citation supporting the controversy. The problem with Shah's claim is that it is made by only one person, unsupported by other sources or by Sufi tradition or by the History of religion; therefore, it can be considered fringe WP:FRINGE. The article Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia makes no mention of Sufism, proto-Sufism or any Sufi-like sect. Shah's claim is unsupportable. Excluding this claim is not censorship. See What Wikipedia is not. If you can find other reliable sources that support the claim that Sufism predated and inspired all religion, please provide them - Epinoia (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Epinoia - Sorry you see that line as a 'personal attack' it isn't. It is a statement of how you're 'coming across'.

Presenting escalating to ANI as though it is predetermined that whatever is decided will go in the initiating editor's favour is a misrepresentation, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of the process. I would much rather that we reach some kind of compromise, but I am not intimidated in the slightest by the prospect of utilising dispute resolution, requesting input from less invested editors, ANI, or precipitous predictions of temporary or life-long bans that no individual editor is empowered to apply.

'Why is it so important to you to have your content added to the article?' It is apparently important to Wikipedia that articles are neutral and accurate, supposedly it is not an exclusive club that editors have to somehow prove themselves worthy of joining.

'Controversially it has also been described...' it's not really necessary to look at the editing history of the page from its inception to see that there is clearly 'controversy' among editors regarding citations to Shah, more with some than others it seems, but I did, a glance at this talk page can only reinforce that perception. Quite happy to drop it, but what do you suggest instead?

'The problem with Shah's claim is that it is made by only one person, unsupported by other sources ...' there are a plethora of assertions on this page, and across wikipedia, that cite only one source, are they to be excluded too? There are at least three Sufis who have asserted sufism's precedence and more who have at least alluded to it. The history of religion is a huge subject, I doubt that any editor has read all of it and could confidently assert what all of it does or does not include, but the page is attempting to address Sufism and its history, not the history of religion. The fact that no mention is made of such in other articles which may or may not be works in progress and the veracity of which is unknown is also no justification for exclusion.

'If you can find other reliable sources ...'

'Idries Shah states that Sufism is universal in nature, its roots predating the rise of Islam and Christianity.[182] He quotes Suhrawardi as saying that "this [Sufism] was a form of wisdom known to and practiced by a succession of sages including the mysterious ancient Hermes of Egypt.", and that Ibn al-Farid "stresses that Sufism lies behind and before systematization; that 'our wine existed before what you call the grape and the vine' (the school and the system)..."[183] Shah's views have however been rejected by modern scholars.[49] Such modern trends of neo-Sufis in Western countries allow non-Muslims to receive "instructions on following the Sufi path", not without opposition by Muslims who consider such instruction outside the sphere of Islam.[184][185]' Wikipedia 14/01/19.

If Controversially it has also been described as having preceded and inspired all religion is an unacceptable compromise, what do you suggest? Ellibrodellibro (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - to say that Sufism predates Islam and Christianity is very different from saying that it predated and inspired all religion. For me it would be fine to add something like, "Idries Shah popularized the idea that Sufism has ancient roots predating Islam and Christianity." and add supporting citations from Suhrawardi (Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi or Shahab al-Din Abu Hafs Umar Suhrawardi?) and Ibn al-Farid. But you would need consensus from other editors.
 * You are correct that there are "assertions...across wikipedia, that cite only one source" but they are reliable sources (see WP:RELIABLE). The quote you provided notes, "Shah's views have however been rejected by modern scholars.", so Shah is not a completely reliable source - he may be reliable spiritually or philosophically, but not historically, and this is an historical claim. - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Epinoia. The '... quote provided ...' is copied from the main body of the article's text. The assertion 'Shah's views have however been rejected by modern scholars.' which is cited, adds to the neutrality of the piece. It doesn't confirm that the author '... is not a completely reliable source ...' He may be '... reliable spiritually or philosophically ...' and he may not, he does however fit the guidelines on sources that can be cited and therefore can be summarised and cited, which is the case as the 'quote provided' shows. I'm not entirely sure what you actually mean when you write '... but not historically, and this is an historical claim.' Could you please clarify? Thanks for drawing attention to WP:RELIABLE, which is a helpful and informative page, overall it seems to justify his inclusion, not his exclusion. Would the phrase (for reinsertion in the lead) 'Controversially it has also been described as having preceded and inspired monotheistic religion' with the citations provided above, which already include sources other than Shah, be acceptable? Thanks again. Ellibrodellibro (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Idries Shah's views are fringe. He is not a historian or scholar and is driven by perennialist thought, so his views should be taken as opinionated and subjective. Such a theory has been rejected by scholars and academics and therefore constitutes WP:fringe. It certainly does not belong in the lede, but I don't mind it in the main body. There is already a section for it here Sufism. The pseudo-sufism of Idries Shah has been discussed in detail already. Any additional information could be added there. Weraldonio (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ellibrodellibro, Webster defines historical as "actual, authentic, factual, important in history" - Oxford defines it as "with reference to past events; a historically accurate picture of the time." - I don't have a problem citing Shah, only with presenting his views as fact - if you say "Controversially..." you need to give citations supporting the controversy (among scholars and not among Wikipedia editors) - the quote from Suhrawardi says, "a form of wisdom known to and practiced by a succession of sages including the mysterious ancient Hermes of Egypt", it doesn't say anything about inspiring monotheistic religion - there is no evidence anywhere that Sufism inspired monotheistic religion, no religious scholars have said that Sufism was an influence on Abraham or Moses - except for a couple of unsupported assertions, there is no evidence that Sufism predated Islam - so there is no scholarly support for the claim - it is already stated in the article that "Idries Shah states that Sufism is universal in nature, its roots predating the rise of Islam and Christianity." so why don't we leave it at that? Adding more would be a duplication of existing information - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Werldonio. It seems contradictory to contend that a particular author may not be cited whilst at the same time holding that said author can be cited?

That one author or authors assert a particular point of view and others argue another doesn't justify the exclusion of either, indeed in the context of an encyclopedia it is generally accepted that alternative points of view should be included?

That Idries Shah has been labelled a pseudo-sufi by either an editor or another author doesn't actually mean that said author is such, it means that it has been claimed by some that it is the case, what is actually true or not true is beyond the remit of an editor? Additionally the body of the paragraph to which you refer also includes the assertion that the label has been rejected as well as asserted, which again seems to be correct for this particular context. Also it seems inaccurate to argue that a few lines equates to a subject having been discussed in detail. Indeed as it stands the paragraph (which could possibily be improved upon) in question lends weight to the contention that this subject Sufism is in itself controversial? Thanks again Ellibrodellibro (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what you mean by historical Epinoia. And thank you again for allowing that Shah can be cited. The sentence that is being proposed Controversially it has been described … makes no claim that what is being asserted is a fact, … it has been described as … just as the sentence The geographer describes countries and cities. (apologies wiktionary) makes no claim as to the accuracy of how said countries and cities are described, and again in this context fits with the notion that content and style should be neutral? Commencing with the word Controversially ... again fits with the notion of neutral content & style and why it is said to be so can be discerned by the reader should they be tempted to read further into the article, especially the Neo-Sufism and Perception Outside Islam sections, (both of which could possibiliy be improved upon) and which could perhaps additionally be cited in a see below manner?

I'm not sure that the undeniable fact that it is evidently contentious among wiki-editors should be entirely ignored, in part because it may be increasingly the case that readers examine the editing history of pages in order to get a sense of the ethos behind its creation as well as of its reliability and  the word Contraversial ... could serve a dual purpose here, i.e that it is controversiall among authors and wiki-editors?

To me, and perhaps to others, Suhrawardi's reference to Hermes who was a pagan appears to back the lines original form ... and inspired all religion as paganism preceded the monotheistic religions? Also if you accept the line ... its roots predating the rise of Islam and Christianity it again appears contridictory to hold that ... preceded the monotheistic religions is unaceptable? And again if you allow that Shah can be cited in the main body of the text why is it that this may not be the case in the lead? Especially as his work is already cited in it?

Finally – most of the initial information in the lead is expanded on and repeated within the main body of the text so it again seems a contradition to state that a short summation of significant information should be excluded? Thanks again for your feedback Ellibrodellibro (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think further discussion on this topic will be beneficial - we have a concensus not to include this material in the lead WP:CON - "The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus." - everything has been said and we seem to be going over the same material - so I move to close the discussion - Epinoia (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * With respect, two involved editors' views prevailing over another opposing and involved editor's views, and the absence of commentary by anyone else in this or the previous talk page section does not really amount to a consensus, perfect or otherwise. However, I'm not sure if continuing this conversation will lead in useful directions, and a request for comment from uninvolved editors might be difficult or unforthcoming, as some knowledge of Sufism is needed – and in particular of Idries Shah's projection in the West, where designations like "neo-Sufism" are used in a pejorative and dismissive sense, Shah not being a professional scholar, and many denying that he was a Sufi teacher, "in their opinion". Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  13:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - actually three editors are opposed, -sche, Esowteric, and Epinoia, but concensus in not a head count (and Wikipedia is not a democracy!) - however I agree with you that continuing the conversation will not lead in useful directions - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Epinoia and Esowteric. Epinoia I concur with Esoweteric in regard to the remarks concerning what does and does not amount to a consensus. I can't agree that everything has been said though and it does at least seem that the questions and concessions offered are not being engaged with.

I'm a little confused as to your remarks regarding the opposition of three editors because as far as I can see -sche hasn't made a contribution to this particular conversation, Esowteric has just made his first direct contribution (regarding consensus) Werldonio has yet to respond and you are presumably Epinoia ...

As a new editor I don't have enough experience, as yet, to determine whether Esowteric's assertions regarding  un-involved editors are accurate. If it is likely to be the case that such will be unhelpful, and we truly can't come to a consensus or concession, then escalating to dispute resolution would be the next logical step?

However I'd still like to have another attempt at finding some-kind of common ground.

Would it help to re-frame this discourse in the light of knowing that Shah quotes from and expands on the majority of the Sufis featured in the prominent Sufis list in the main body of the article and reiterates and expounds on what they said and did in English, for an English language audience, material that would other wise be unavailable to the majority of such an audience, (this being the English language portion of Wikipedia seems to have some relevance here) and that he takes no issue with Sufism's intimate relationship with Islam, indeed highlights it where it has been fruitful? If such is persuasive in any way, would the following compromise be agreeable?

 ... and represents "the main manifestation and the most important and central crystallization of mystical practice in Islam. {8} It has also controversially been claimed that it preceded and inspired all religion                                                                                                      [9] ...  possibly with citation 9 edited in some way? Thanks again Ellibrodellibro (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Jumping in late into this discussion. Per WP:FRINGE, we can't source to Shah's works for a general statement like that, unless we can show that the assertion has a modicum of acceptance among historians and is a subject of genuine scholarly controversy, which it doesn't and isn't based on my readings. On the other hand, it's fine to mention his views in the section of popular perceptions of Sufism outside Islam, and in fact the article already does that. Here's another RS on the topic. Among other things, it states "Despite Shah’s fame and impact on the Western public, he has attracted almost no scholarly interest.... Shah did not give an academically accurate presentation of Sufism." Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton. I think if a closer look is taken at WP Fringe it's discernible that the argument used here for exclusion could be described as cherry picking or omitting evidence. It's not the case for instance that cited assertions must have a modicum of acceptance among historians or that they must be a subject of genuine scholarly controversy to be included. When you say … based on your readings … do you mean of Mark Sedgewick alone? I ask because he does show more than a modicum of bias, passing over the content of; The Way of the Sufi, Sufi Thought and Action, Special Illumination, The World of the Sufi, Neglected Aspects of Sufi Study, and World Tales, as well as offering a good deal of essentially un-provable (as either true or false) ad hominin, and disputable, in the same way, biographical information. That isn't to say that mention of his critique should be excluded, indeed NPOV shows that it is admissible, and it could be argued that this particular article (Sedgewick's) actually shows ...genuine scholarly controversy, at least among scholars, or with a particular scholar, and which appears par for the course in regard to publications that address a subject that is in itself controversial. As you remark there is mention of the debated assertion within … the section of popular perceptions of Sufism outside Islam however the title of the section in question directly challenges and contradicts the assertion, as have Sufis, Ghazali for instance, and prior assertions within the article, that Islam and Sufism are not exclusive of each other. Additionally the line ...the main manifestation and the most important and central crystallization of" mystical practice in Islam.[8][9] Practitioners … in the first paragraph of the lead, leaves citation 9 inexplicably detached from what comes before and surely needs explanation within the text; something akin to Controversially it has also been claimed that Sufism preceded and inspired all religion perhaps with additional citation or tidying of the current citiation? Thanks again. Ellibrodellibro (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ellibrodellibro, in spite of any citations or arguments you can provide, your assertion that, "Sufism preceded and inspired ALL religion" is absurd. Did it precede and inspire the religions of Native Peoples of North America? Did it it precede and inspire the religions of the Aztecs, Mayans or Incas? Did it precede and inspire the religions of the Indigenous Australians or the South Sea Islanders? Even the Neanderthals have shown evidence of religious beliefs in their burials, so can you claim with certainty that Sufism "preceded and inspired" Neanderthal religion? As no one knows when exactly religion began, the statement, "Sufism preceded and inspired all religion" is patentley false, ridiculous and unverifiable. In accordance with the guidlelines, "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable." Please let this go. - Epinoia (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What's missing here is a policy-based argument for inclusion (WP:ONUS). There's a good rule of thumb in the parent policy WP:UNDUE. If we have at least one RS supporting the factuality of Shah's assertion, we can discuss including it among factual statements in consideration of WP:WEIGHT. If we have a RS that describes this as a "controversy" with broader relevance than the popular reception of Sufism in the West, we can discuss putting something about it in the lead. Until we do, there's strictly speaking nothing to discuss, because we aren't here to exchange our personal views on the topic. As it happens, I've read some other historians besides Sedgewick, and I haven't come across one who supports the assertion you proposed to include. It appears that Sedgewick, who's better read on the topic than I am, hasn't either. Eperoton (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Epinoia, The thing is that you've redacted the proposed sentence and thereby introduced a variation of the straw-man argument (a common rhetorical fallacy) also I'm not sure what you mean when you state … your assertion … it is in fact an author's assertion. The actual proposed assertion in question, is It has CONTREVERSIALLY been ClAIMED that …, or It has CONTREVERSIALLY been DISCRIBED as … either clearly qualifies what follows and is distinct from a sentence that begins and ends as you have articulated. Did sufism precede and inspire all of the religions that you've mentioned? The answer is, who knows? Certainty not myself, but such is beyond the remit of any editor or encyclopedia, as in a subject such as Sufism what is factually true or not true about the actual subject is beyond their ability to determine. What can be determined is has x author, or does y publication state a or b and if there are alternative narratives between such even when opposed to one another they are admissible. Indeed omitting alternative narratives from articles undermines the overriding goal of '...from a neutral point of view...', additionally the assertion in question is verifiable (it has been published & cited) and is not original research. If you still object to the … precedes all religion … portion of the sentence, would you consider a return to … preceded and inspired monotheistic religion or perhaps … preceded and inspired Islam. As to your request to Please let this go I'm afraid not, if we cannot come to a genuine consensus then the next step would be dispute resolution & arbitration. Thanks again Ellibrodellibro (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton. It can equally be argued that what's missing here is a policy-based argument (actual argument as opposed to a reference were justifications for said argument might be found) for the proposed sentence's exclusion. There are a variety of good rules of thumb within the policies you mention: could you be a bit more specific? (the burden of proof is yours here). Can you confirm that you're saying that Shah is not a reliable source and that the sufis he cites are not reliable sources, (sorry it's not entirely clear to me). I'm not sure but the rest of what you've written looks like an example of the excluded middle (a rhetorical fallacy) based loosely on what precedes it, so probably best to address that first (as in can you clarify what you mean, sorry it genuinely isn't making sense to me). I would point out however that historians, or any other type of specialist, have no defacto authority over wider subjects, and that the argument from authority is also a rhetorical fallacy. I can assure that I've expressed none of my personal views on the topic; are you? Thanks again Ellibrodellibro (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ellibrodellibro, you have never provided a reliable citation with author, title, publisher, date, page number, isbn, etc. that asserts "Sufism preceded and inspired all religion" WP:CITE WP:VERIFY (I did revisit The Sufis which is the work you first mentioned (although you never provided a full citation, I looked it up for you) when you said that Sufism "is as old as Adam and is the essence of all religions monotheistic or not" (January 5, 2019), but I could not find such a statement in the book - the closest was Shah's reference to a work on the dervishes by Col. Clarke (1891) which says "The seed of Sufism was sown in the time of Adam, germed in the time of Noah, budded in the time of Abraham, began to develop in the time of Moses, reached maturity in the time of Jesus, produced pure wine in the time of Muhammad" - (he paraphrases this in The Way of the Sufi as well) - but that's not the same as saying that Sufism predated and inspired all religion, monotheistic or not - and even Shah speaks of the "religious history legend" that starts with Adam - even Shah regarded it as a "legend," not fact) - (and we do not know how reliable Col. Clarke is).
 * To say "preceded and inspired monotheistic religion" you would have to provide citations from reliable sources that Sufism preceded and inspired Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Atenism, and any other monotheistic religion, otherwise it is original research WP:NOR. To say "preceded and inspired Islam" would need citations from reliable sources (again WP:NOR) - the furthest back Suhrawardi traces Sufism, or, more properly, Sufi wisdom, is Hermes Trismegistus, (and we don't know how reliable Suhrawardi is), but as there are no reliable dates for Hermes Trismegistus (he seems to be unknown before the 1st century), it is impossible to make reliable claims based on him, and even Suhrawardi does not say that Hermes Trismegistus or Sufism "inspired" Islam. There may be a prisca theologia type tradition that Sufi wisdom goes back to Adam, but if so it is a minor tradition, and perhaps limited to the Suhrawardi Order, as I have never encountered such a tradition in any work on Sufism other than Shah (although I have not read every book on Sufism, but if it was an important tradition it would have appeared in the works of other authors).
 * Idries Shah's position is well noted in the article (he is mentioned 4 times in the article and 6 times in the references), but it is also noted (both in the article on Sufism and the in article on Idries Shah) that Shah is an unreliable source - as such, this statement does not belong in the lead for the many many reasons stated by other editors in the above discussions.
 * "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable...is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines."
 * "Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
 * Wikipedia considers a statement inaccurate when:


 * It contains unlikely information, without providing suitable references;
 * It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify;
 * It is cited to sources that are old, out of date, or have since been called into question.
 * - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Epinoia. I'm not convinced that you are unaware that the citation you have taken the trouble to check was not created by me, or that you have forgotten that it has been stated at least three times that the citation for the proposed sentence is in need of further work. Neither am I persuaded that you have missed the assertion that the sentence in question is a proposition and that you have been invited to contribute alternatives to it. It is also hard to believe that you do not know what a straw-man argument is or that you are un-familiar with the difference between a declarative and speculative sentence. Additionally it is hard at accept that you are ignorant of the centuries long controversy over which came first – religion or mysticism. Further it is hard to credit that you truly contend that because you have not read of such before that it is inadmissible or that you are not cognizant of the notion that if third-party authors publish either negative or positive views in regard to a particular author both are admissible and neither can be known to be certain. It is also problematic to accept that you are blind to the fact that the many, many reasons offered by mostly yourself have been met with counter arguments that in most cases you have failed to acknowledge or address. It is also challenging to swallow your apparent refusal to except that Wikipedia's aims include a neutral point of view and it is held that publishing juxtaposition is inherent to encyclopedias. What it is far easier to believe is that you are obfuscating, constantly moving the goal posts for admission, and holding what you wish to censor to a higher standard of proof than that which you wish to admit, that you have a clear editorial bias, and are willing to misrepresent and misdirect in order to defend it. All of which, I assume will be of interest to dispute resolution & arbitration. Having said that I will ask you again if you would kindly assist in the creating of a sentence that asserts something along the lines of Controversially it has been asserted by a number of Sufis that to assert that it is the product of religion is to put the cart before the horse. ? Many thanks Ellibrodellibro (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - you still have not provided citations from reliable sources for "Sufism preceded and inspired all religion," "preceded and inspired monotheistic religion," or "preceded and inspired Islam." And please remember to refrain from personal attacks WP:5P4. I did previously suggest an alternative of something like, "Idries Shah popularized the idea that Sufism has ancient roots predating Islam and Christianity." But you would need consensus from other editors to add it to the lead. In any event, citations from a reliable sources must be provided. - Epinoia (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Epinoia. You have again provided a 'red-herring' response and evaded answering any questions relating to a number of editorial inconsistencies. It is unfortunate that you interpret pertinent queries as personal attacks as they are self evidently not. It also seems apparent that other editors involved have no interest in discussing the issue and moving toward any kind of consensus. It is regrettable that your stance, and the apparent indifference of others, leaves no option other than to escalate. Many thanks. Ellibrodellibro (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - Ellibrodellibro, you still have not provided citations from reliable sources. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear. See WP:VERIFY WP:CITE and other guidelines - "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles...must be verifiable." "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged." "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable...is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines." "Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - Epinoia (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Epinoia. You have again failed to address questions regarding editorial inconsistencies in interpretation and application of the guidelines, and are repeating an unwillingness to do so. No additional editors appear to be interested in contributing in any way to reaching a consensus, it is regrettable that the current situation leaves no option other than to escalate. Many thanks Ellibrodellibro (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not uninterested as much as in agreement with Epinoia on the necessity of basing any further discussion on sources that conform to WP's reliability standards. Eperoton (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton. See above, especially You have again failed to address questions regarding editorial inconsistencies in interpretation and application of the guidelines ... Many thanks Ellibrodellibro (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, Shah and pre-modern authors like al-Ghazali and Suhrawardi are not considered reliable in the context where we present historical facts. When their views on the history of Sufism don't have a significant level of acceptance in modern scholarship, we have to present those views in an appropriately contextualized way, as we do for creationism in the article on Universe. For the other part of your message, the key part of WP:ONUS is "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Eperoton (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton. Historical facts? Likewise I would be astonished if you are unaware that what is and is not considered to be a fact in the subject of history is often disputed and that in the context of a encyclopedia facts that juxtapose or contradict each other are admissible. Additionally, again, it is not within the remit of individual editors to decide which authors are and are not reliable. It is also tricky to argue with a contention that is affirming the consequent (another rhetorical fallacy) and that includes a false analogy (an additional rhetorical fallacy). From my point of view it is yourself that wishes to and has been including disputed and biased content, I look forward to seeing a sound argument for its continued inclusion. Many thanks Ellibrodellibro (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In my view, the perennialist perspective would be worth mentioning in the lede – it's one facet of sufism today. There are plenty of sources other than Shah that make the same point (Nassr, Westerlund, etc.) How about everybody here works together to find them? --Andreas JN 466 15:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Andreas Jayen466. I'm all for working together toward the inclusion of such an assertion. Thanks again Ellibrodellibro (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the lead should have a sentence or two on Neo-Sufism in general and Sufism in the West in particular, of which Shah's writing are part. Per NPOV, the rationale should be to look at the body of RSs on the topic and determine a balanced way to condense it, not about searching for sources to support an editorial choice to highlight a particular doctrine. I was planning to do that carefully when I got to working on this article more broadly. I'm not aware that Nasr supports the historicity of the doctrine in question. In his chapter on Sufism in The Cambridge History of Iran, he traces the origins of Sufism to the Quran and Muhammad. Eperoton (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We're in agreement then, and, that there's something missing in the lead then. As for Nassr, see for example : "The Sufi is one who seeks to transcend the world of forms, to journey from multiplicity to Unity, from the particular to the Universal. He leaves the many for the One and through this very process is granted the vision of the One in the many. For him all forms become transparent, including religious forms, thus revealing to him their unique origin. Sufism or Islamic gnosis is the most universal affirmation of that perennial wisdom which stands at the heart of Islam and in fact of all religion as such. It is this supreme doctrine of Unity—which is itself unique (al-tawhid wahid)—that the Sufis call the 'religion of love' and to which Ibn 'Arabi refers in his well-known verses in the Tarjuman al-ashwaq. This love is not merely sentiment or emotions, it is the realized aspect of gnosis. It is a transcendent knowledge that reveals the inner unity of religions. ..."
 * Citation template:
 * Similarly, Westerlund notes, summarising the views of Martin Lings and other perennialists: Islam can make special claims to universalism because it restores the primordial religion; and because Sufism lays stress on the connection between Islam and other religions, it can serve as a bridge between East and West. ... Sufism is conceived of as pre-Islamic and has always existed. However, one important branch of Sufism is found within Islam.
 * Citation template:
 * Both Nassr and Westerlund are academic sources that fully comply with WP:RS. More in this vein can easily be found by looking through Google Books, for example. Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Jayen466. How about it everyone? Controversially it has also been asserted ...? or perhaps It has also been asserted ...? Thanks again. Ellibrodellibro (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - just to be clear, no one objected to including neo-Sufism in the lead - the difficulty was that Ellibrodellibro repeatedly added the claim, "Sufism predated and inspired all religion" without a citation - he claimed it was from Idries Shaw, but was unable to provide a citation even from Shaw - as there is already a section in the article dealing with neo-Sufism, any new material should be added to that section - anything added to the lead should be a summary of that section, not adding new material as per MOS:LEAD - and the lead already exceeds the four paragraphs recommended by MOS:LEAD, so anything added to the lead should be brief - also, the term "neo-Sufism" was first used for Sufis in the 19th century who reaffirmed their connection to Islam (http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/focus/essay1010_surfism_modern_world.html), which is different from the modern usage for the universalist Sufis who distance themselves from Islam and claim descent from an independent wisdom tradition, prisca theologia or perennial philosophy - as there is a lot of material here, perhaps "Neo-Sufism" as a universalist movement apart from Islam and mixed with Western esotericism, deserves its own article where a fuller explanation can be given - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Epinoia. Could you clarify whether you contend that a sentence positioned within the lede, that introduces the view expounded by Nassr and Westerlund (including citations), in regard to Sufism, as referenced above by Adreas JN466, sufficiently meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion or not? Thanks again Ellibrodellibro (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - both Westerlund and Nasr appear to be credible sources, so I don't have a problem with properly cited material - although statements about Sufism preceding other religions may require contextualization as proposed by Eperton - notice the quote from Westerlund's book says, "Sufism is conceived of as pre-Islamic and has always existed" - "conceived of" is different from saying that it actually is pre-Islamic - the Perennial Philosophy idea of a common origin of all religions is ethnocentric as it was formulated before the knowledge of the Inca, Aztecs, Mayans and other peoples; it was meant to apply only to Classical European and Near or Middle Eastern religions (not even to the ancient Celtic and Norse religions of Europe) - Nasr's statement of that "perennial wisdom which stands at the heart of Islam and in fact of all religion as such" is clearly ethnocentric and unprovable (stating a theory as fact) and could be challenged (unlesss by "as such" he means all religions comparable to Islam, but it's still a pretty sketchy statement for a scholar to make) - so any claim of the primacy of Sufism needs to be contextualized (for example, the Caananites and Cathaginians reputedly sacrificed children in a furnace, did those religions originate with the Sufi "religion of love"? How do they fit into the Perennial Philosopy?) - the books by Westerlund and Nasr weren't published when I studied Sufism at university, so the modern idea of Sufism independent of Islam seems to have gained some traction - whether of not putting this in the lead puts undue weight on minor idea WP:UNDUE is for others to decide - but as I mentioned, the idea of a non-Islamic, universalist Sufism may deserve its own article separate from Islamic Sufism - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - ps; this isn't the place to debate the validity of the Perennial Philosophy, but to contextualize claims based on the Perennial Philosophy I did remember this reference, "The perennial position is now 'largely dismissed by scholars,' [McMahan, David L. (2008), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195183276 p. 269] most scholars using a contextualist approach, which takes the cultural and historical context into consideration." [Moore, Peter (2005), Mysticism (further considerations), in Jones, Lindsay, MacMillan Encyclopdia of Religion, MacMillan pp. 6356–6357] - Epinoia (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Epinoia. So a sentence construction that commenced Sufism has also been described as ... or Sufism has also been conceived as ... would presumably also be admissible? Thanks again Ellibrodellibro (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - it's usually best to avoid the passive voice, "has also been described" - you might try something like, "Modern universalist neo-Sufis have popularized the idea that Sufism descends from an ancient wisdom tradition that pre-dates Islam." [Westerlund] [Nasr] - the terms neo-Sufism and universalism are supported by citations by Witteveen and Elwell-Sutton in the "Traditional and Neo-Sufi groups" section - this may be too watered-dwon for you, but it's better to have an acceptable, supportable sentence than a contentious, unsupportable one - but that's just my suggestion, others may have differing opinions - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the quotes, . So, in his philosophical/spiritual essays Nasr writes that Sufism is "the most universal affirmation of that perennial wisdom...", which is rather different from the formulations proposed by Ellibrodellibro, and Westerlund describes Lings' views. I think that, regardless of specific wording, there are currently two distinct proposals under discussions: 1) including the perennialist perspective among general characterizations of Sufism in the lead, and 2) including a descriptive statement about the role of Sufism in the West.


 * For the first proposal, I don't see how it would be WP:DUE, in view of the quotes provided by Epinoia on current academic prominence of perennialism, which agrees with my reading of scholarly literature on Islam. Nasr does allude in passing to "perennial truths" in his commissioned chapter I mentioned, but that's as much of it as I've seen in academic reference works. However, I concur with Epinoia that we could develop some of the content we currently have in the article on "neo-Sufism" further in a contextualized and well-sourced manner.


 * For the second proposal, I'll let myself be inspired by your positive attitude and will take time this weekend to review a few entries on Sufism in academic encyclopedias to get an idea of due weight for various modern developments. I'll share my impressions here. The bar is high -- we currently devote exactly one sentence in the lead to the vast and varied socio-political influences of Sufism through the entire Islamic history. Eperoton (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton. So a sentence such as It has also been described as being in alignment with the perennial view that each of the world's religious traditions share a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown, cited as mentioned previously, would concur with Wikipedia's guidelines and is admissable in the lede? Thanks again. Ellibrodellibro (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, it might be appropriate to say (in the article body) that "Some [neo-]Sufis believe that Sufism [...]" (e.g.: is, or is in alignment with, a perennial truth that all religions share, whatever wording the sources support). The lead should summarize the article body, so such a statement only belongs in the lead if there is content in the body to justify it. More likely, the lead should only have a more general statement summarizing the existence of neo-Sufi movements (I seem to be in agreement with Eperoton on that). (The lead must not say in Wiki-voice that Sufism did predate or inspire all religion, since that is flatly contradicted by most references—indeed probably all references that would be reliable for such a claim about historical sequence. But some references which would not be reliable for claims about history may still be reliable for claims about what some neo-Sufis believe, for example.) -sche (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks -sche. I don't see why - the proposed sentence stands on its own merits and would scan if attached as the final statement of the initial paragraph. If it is genuinely thought that it needs to be expanded on within the main body of the text then perhaps the introduction of a fresh contents category under the heading of Sufi Commentary on Scholars or something akin to it could be created and additional explanation could be published there. Thanks again. Ellibrodellibro (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ellibrodellibro, I still don't understand why it is so important to you to have this claim of perennialism (a largely dismissed philosophy) added to the lead. It is not a major tenet of Sufism and is even a minor part of modern neo-Sufism. As there is a section on modern neo-Sufism, details of modern neo-Sufism, such as the perennialist view, should be presented in that section and the lead should provide a summary, not a detailed explanation WP:LEAD. It may be your opinion that it is important, but you have not provided a reason to justify the inclusion of a minor belief in the lead.
 * When asked why it was important to be included in the lead you replied, "It is apparently important to Wikipedia that articles are neutral and accurate" - well, let's look at that:
 * "Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (WP:NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. WP:OPINION
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. WP:WEIGHT
 * "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WP:ONUS
 * "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." WP:NOTEVERYTHING
 * "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." WP:IINFO
 * "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article." MOS:LEADREL
 * - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we not refer to such views as being held by "Neo-Sufis", thus dismissing them as some sort of misguided revisionists, as do the likes of Laurence Paul Elwell-Sutton, James Moore and Mark Sedgwick who merit little more than a stub article at Wikipedia, or a footnote in the pages of history?

Setting aside Idries Shah:

"Hossein Nasr ... is an Iranian professor emeritus of Islamic studies at George Washington University,[2] and an Islamic philosopher."

"David Westerlund is Professor of the Study of Religions at Södertörn University College, Stockholm."

Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The Universalist Sufi, Hazrat Inayat Khan also writes "... Others do not reject as incredible the Semitic tradition that Sufism's foundation is to be attributed to the teachings of Abraham. But the greater number consider that it arose contemporary to the teaching of Zoroaster. Every age of the world has seen awakened souls, and as it is impossible to limit wisdom to any one period or place, so it is impossible to date the origin of Sufism."  Esowteric + Talk  19:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Esowteric, perennialist views of Sufism such as Nasr's "perennial wisdom which stands at the heart of Islam and in fact of all religion as such" appear to be modern - Shah cites Suhrawardi (12th century) as saying that Sufism has ancient roots, but that is different from asserting perennialism - I don't know of any Sufi orders outside of modern neo-Sufism that assert a perennialist view - it was never mentioned when I studied Sufism at university (although that was before Nasr and Westerlund) - I'm not arguing here, I am genuinely interested in learning - are there any Sufi orders that have historically held a perennialist or universalist view? It seems, from my reading, that Western Sufism originated in the 19th century with Theosophists travelling to the east in search of ascended masters and the Theosophical idea of an ancient wisdom tradition was added to Sufism (by, for example, Englishman Col. Clarke's 1891 book on Sufism that Indries Shah refers to). My research at this point has not been extensive, so if I have formed a false impression, I would like to be corrected and pointed in the right direction - Weterlund notes, "No religious movement arises from a vacuum" so every religion can claim ancient roots of some kind, but to claim a linear descent from ancient origins is different from perennialism or universalism, which is the issue here - (again, I am not agruing or trying to start a fight, but seeking context - and it is not your job to educate me, but any guidance you could provide would be appreciated) - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Epinoia. It's interesting; the repeated use of strawman arguements - ... a detailed explanation in the lede ... is not what is being proposed as the published record of this conversation shows. The repeated conflation between the proposed statement and neo-sufism, is also interesting, as it's so close to give a dog a bad name and kick it or the use of one idea as an ad-hominin in regard to another idea. If it's important to you that any sentence that sums up what is being suggested for inclusion is followed by another that states ... is not a major tenet of Sufism with a citation or two to back it then I've no objections ... Badgering for details of personal motivations beyond this is Wikipedia and this is what contributing editors have been invited to do, is again of interest; such could also be asked of an editor who spends such much time attempting to censor valid contributions and where Wikipedia's guidelines are presented as though they don't also apply to whichever editor is articulating them. Your replies to Esowteric are notable in that while it can be said that Nasr is a modern era writer (the majority of article's cited authors are) the same can't truly be said of what he's asserting in regard to the perennial aspect of the subject. The query regarding whether any Sufi orders (widely dismissed as spiritually defunct yet useful social institutions) is of note but also seems moot in the sense that as collections of people they're problematic in regard to citation. Thanks again. Ellibrodellibro (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Friday Evening Qawali at Dargah Salim Chisti, Fatehpur Sikri, UP, India.theora.ogv

Lead expansion proposal
Hello again, everyone. My homework from the ongoing discussion has been to review entries on Sufism in academic encyclopedias in order to determine an NPOV WP:PROPORTION for the subtopics of Sufism in the modern era and Sufism in the West for a possible lead expansion. I reviewed all the encyclopedias I could access with prominent publishers and/or authors, counting any material about developments from 1800 on as relating to the modern era. This includes a wide variety of subjects besides Sufism in West: decline and development Sufi orders, their role in anti-colonial struggle and national politics, endurance of Sufi shrine pilgrimages, characterization by Orientalists, suppression by secularists, criticism by Islamic modernists, persecution by Wahhabis and influence on literature and popular culture. My very rough percentage estimates are as follows:


 * 1) Sufism inThe Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Subentry "SūFī THOUGHT AND PRACTICE" (Chittick): modern era: 15%; in the West: 10%
 * 2) Sufism inThe Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Subentry "SūFī ORDERS" (Voll): modern era: 50%; in the West: 5%
 * 3) Tasawwuf in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed. Long multi-author article (>30K words). The proportion on the modern era (19th century on) is too much trouble to calculate exactly, since there are separate sub-articles for different regions, but it's at least a third. I don't see anything about Sufism in the West.
 * 4) Sufism in Britannica (Schimmel): modern era <%5
 * 5) Sufism Encyclopedia of Religion, MacMillan, 2nd ed (Awn): Modern era: 10%; in the West: none
 * 6) Tasawwuf in Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslims World, MacMillan (Ernst): modern era: 20%, in the west: 5%
 * 7) Tariqa in Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslims World, MacMillan (Ernst): modern era: 50%, in the west: 10%
 * 8) Sufism in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought (Radtke): modern era 10%, in the West: none

Conclusion: The relative weight given by different authors to these subjects varies greatly, but it seems clear that devoting a sentence or two to the modern era in the lead would not be undue. On the other hand, devoting even half of that to Sufism in the West would be pushing it, and the perrenialist school is just one manifestation of Sufism in the West.

Proposal: Despite a relative decline of Sufi orders in the modern era and criticism of some aspects of Sufism by modernist thinkers and conservative Salafists, Sufism has continued to play an important role in the Islamic world, and has also influenced various forms of spirituality in the West. We currently have very inadequate coverage of some of these topics in the article body. Per MOS:LEADREL, I'll try to remedy that shortly by expanding the article, but this should not prevent us from ensuring that the lead on its own meets WP:PROPORTION. Eperoton (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - Support - this seems to be an excellent suggestion - thank you Eperoton for all your work - Epinoia (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - Support - thanks for your time and effort, Eperoton, Epinoia and Jayen466.  Esowteric + Talk  13:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable. I appreciate you making such a deep dive through so many references. -sche (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton. That looks like quite an effort. Thanks again Ellibrodellibro (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Great, sounds like we have a consensus for this addition. Thanks for the constructive and informative discussion, everyone. Eperoton (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Neo-Sufism"
I'm about to make some hopefully uncontroversial additions to the article, but I wanted to comment here on one issue. Our current coverage of "neo-Sufism" is problematic in two respects. First, this term is used in the literature in at least two very different ways. Fazlur Rahman introduced it to describe early modern efforts to "remove the more ecstatic and pantheistic elements of the Ṣūfī tradition and to create more reform-oriented Ṣūfī organizations and practices", while "scholars like Mark Sedgwick have employed it to designate deconfessionalized Western Sufism". Secondly, equating "neo-Sufism" with "pseudo-Sufism" as we currently do is very tendentious, especially given that the latter term is based on the "Sufism & Pseudo-Sufism" article which is a polemic against Idries Shah with vague allusions to other movements that "discourage informed enquiry and expert assessment" and "call for veneration of the personality of a Master", which can not be connected to deconfessionalized Western Sufism without major WP:SYNTH. I think we should cover "neo-Sufism" under Terminology to clarify the usage, and collect the other material on Sedgwick's kind of neo-Sufism under the section on Sufism in the West. Eperoton (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Intro Suggestions
Hello, I think some things in the intro are superfluous:

- Overuse of multilingual technical terms e.g. in 2nd paragraph ("sessions (majalis) in meeting places known as zawiyas, khanqahs or tekke"
 * It is good practice now in academic religious studies to use the terms the religion uses for itself, to avoid unintentional mistranslation ('orders' for 'tariqas' is a good example: they are not like Christian orders which is where the term originates, and what it unavoidably connotes at some level). See The insider/outsider problem in religious studies, ed. McCutcheon. But there may be too many terms given here, I agree. Eteb3 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

- and don't they meet mainly in... mosques?)


 * No, generally the mosque has not been used for 'sufi' gatherings; indeed it has often been avoided. Mosques are places of commonality ('jaami3'), of the public minimum (ht Sherman Jackson), whereas sufism is concerned with particularity, one's private relationship with the Divine. It's counterproductive to impose one spirituality on everyone, so people go from the unity of salah in the mosque (no Muslim prays three rak'ahs at fajr, for instance) to the particularity of their tariqa elsewhere (a kaleidoscope of options). Eteb3 (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

- Hadith quoting (giving the impression that there's one hadith that supports sufism);
 * I don't get that impression - it's mentioned as 'a hadith' - but you could add a 'for example' for clarity. Eteb3 (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

- Off-handed sectarian axe-grinding: "the forced conversion of Iran from majority Sunni to Shia" (compare with Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam), and "there also developed certain strands of Sufi practice within the ambit of Shia Islam during the late medieval period": are we really saying there was no "inward dimension" in Shiism before the late medieval? Is that an undisputed fact?


 * I too feel that the Safivid phrasing is tendentious. But I read the article as saying there was no sufism in Shiism until that point, not that there was no inward dimension. "Sufism" and "inward dimension of Islam" are not equivalent terms. Eteb3 (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

More relevant for the intro would be discussing the scale of the phenomenon and its relationship with orthodoxy, e.g. something like those passages:

"Historically, Sufism became "an incredibly important part of Islam" and "one of the most widespread and omnipresent aspects of Muslim life" in Islamic civilization from the early medieval period onwards,[57][67] when it began to permeate nearly all major aspects of Sunni Islamic life in regions stretching from India and Iraq to the Balkans and Senegal.[51]"

"The rise of Islamic civilization coincides strongly with the spread of Sufi philosophy in Islam. The spread of Sufism has been considered a definitive factor in the spread of Islam, [...]"

"''Existing in both Sunni and Shia Islam, Sufism is not a distinct sect, as is sometimes erroneously assumed, but a method of approaching or a way of understanding the religion, which strives to take the regular practice of the religion to the "supererogatory level" through simultaneously "fulfilling ... [the obligatory] religious duties"[5] [...]''

"In the modern world, the classical interpretation of Sunni orthodoxy, which sees in Sufism an essential dimension of Islam alongside the disciplines of jurisprudence and theology, [...]"

Thanks to all the editors :) 180.183.74.61 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There are some good points made here. Why not register an account and start performing these edits, backed by sound sources? Sourcing is the key and some of the assertions (particularly the Safavid conversion of Iran stuff) are not brilliantly sourced, using old-style Wikipedia sourcing ("Bentley, 2008" type of stuff, which is hardly helpful). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My take would be that the intro is just too long, and is anyway rehashed further down the article. I've put other comments below some of the OP's paragraphs - sorry that breaks page policy a little, but hopefully the clearest way. Eteb3 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are multiple problem with the lead, among them is the meandering opening sentence, where the word mysticism and its variants are repeated four times. The preoccupation with the Sunni/Shia angle in general, and the role of Ali in the silsilas in particular, does not reflect brief summaries of Sufism found in RSs, and so highlighting it in the lead is undue. I would recommend collecting several short treatments of the topic in academic encyclopedias and rewriting the lead based on the relative weight given there to the various aspects of Sufism. Eperoton (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sufi etymology
The word Sufi stems from "Suhuf Ibrahim" (Scrolls of Ibrahim) but since they became pantheistic in India, they are now pantheist, and "strayed" as The Quran would say, the type of straying often includes sectarianism of criticized kind in media, and related sectarian leaders, mostly to the sunni sect, but in less part others.
 * The word 'sufi' is famous for its difficult etymology: Muslim scholars of the very highest rank differ on the question, and this is often the topic of the very first class delivered in a course on the subject with a handful of competing etymologies canvassed. This suggested etymology from 'suhuf' seems highly unlikely under the Arabic triliteral system. Besides which, this comment is tendentious. Eteb3 (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"Sufi" comes from wool, that might be a symbol for Hindu. It was originally sufis who emphasised the "Hijab", which is not a correct word for this headwear, but then it was close to "Hindu", and might even indicate a hindu prostitute. The sects who follow the sufis are known for poor interpretation of Islam. They interpret the Quran to be pantheistic (as hinduism), something it negates many many times. Is Leader Abu-Bakr was a sufi, his name might also symbolize hindu. Hindus have many idols, and idols are again forbidden in The Quran. "If there was many gods there would be chaos". - Quran. This should be general knowledge about the sects and sectarian "Jihad". It has nothing to do with Islam, that is monotheistic (ALLAH has no sharika (company))". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:D56F:6F1E:77CF:E433 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bias
Clearly some editors are attributing negative terminology to Sufism.

We see this due to edits that do not add information, however they utilize pre-existing information and re-write it in negative undertones. It clearly seeks to create a bad image rather than display information as is. An example; Instead of informing readers that intercession is apart of some Sufi rites (just as it is in Shia rites and Sunnite rites (in the Qiyama)), it words it by saying “they call upon him and expect him to listen.”

Furthermore the editor explains that Muhammad is God on earth via displaying His (God’s) attributes.

Which is false. Sufi’s believe (just as Sunnis & Shias do) that Muhammad was perfect in creation due to his leading of a perfect religion (according to Muslims). Only the Salafi branch of Sunnism believes that Muhammad was bewitched and forgetful. No other branches claim such things. JasonMoore (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for New WikiProject
At WikiProject Council, I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject  - WikiProject Mysticism. Since Sufism is defined as Islamic mysticism, I wonder whether any one reading or contributing to this article would be interested in joining such a WikiProject? Vorbee (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Strong Support I have seen thousands of article dadicated to Sufism so there must be wikiproject Sufism Majun e Baqi (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if the WikiProject Mysticism has now been started, so I wonder whether any would like to add a tag to the top of this article saying that this article would be of interest to  WikiProject Mysticism. Vorbee (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead is full of quotes
The first paragraph of the lead is currently full of quotes that probably leaves the reader confused. Can we come up with a single definition of Sufism?VR talk  03:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Different orders of Sufism
There are different orders of Sufism - Naqshbandi, Suhrawardi, Mevlevi, for example. This article would be improved if it had a sub-heading "Orders of Sufism" and then listed some of the Sufi orders. Vorbee (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an existing section, "Major Sufi orders" for notable orders.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sufism
The concept of Sufism is the pure description of Islam. From the very beginning Sufism has given the real definition of Islam. Being a Muslim is not an easy deal, to come to this path you have to sacrifice many of your wishes which are related to this world. And Sufism gives the lesson of sacrifice to be a Muslim, a real lover of the Creator. Wildflower&#39;s Bud (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sufism is specifically Sunni mysticism not shiite mysticism and this should be clarified
Hi I think it should be important to clarify that Sufism should be described on this page as specifically Sunni mysticism not shiite mysticism. Shiites have their own concept of mysticism in the concept of Walayah and I think this should be clarified. Sufism aka Sufiya aka tasawuf is based on Islamic sunni sharia law and all the early Sufis who founded Sufism were Sunni. I think it's important to make such a distinction.

As stated Shiites have their own type of 'inner islam' in Walayah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walayah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.199.31 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Modern Mysticism & The Death of Capitalist Slavery
Earth's Gabriel Clone Goes Global & Milky Way Spiral

For those seeking Oneness With God, Universal Being, True Reality, the end of Semitic Rivalry & World Conquest through World Peace through Understanding, God's eyes weeps for Afghanistan no more.

For out of endless misery, comes world peace.. in the finest Sufi traditions & parliamentary procedure.

For those of us who claim oneness with Islam, by blood or Spirit, all submitting to THE God, the One & Only, the Rational Mind cannot but submit to God's voice speaking to all of us through our conscience, the heart & soul of all of us.

This perfect marriage of Mind & Soul, uniting all the world in God's Infinite Love, simply cannot be achieved by war & the endless hatred it engenders, leading to countless more.

Nor can one rule over one's dominion by brute force, injustice. For this produces Civil War. The despot is at war with his own people, leading to rebellion, endless hatred, leading to endless more.

So, what IS the answer? The mind & soul, the body of the sultan must BECOME the mind & soul of we, the people, the body politic, every individual, an echo of God; living together in perfect harmony with all; the perfected manifestations of universe, which is God; paradise realized. The ultimate destination of all existence.

Upon this peak, the highest plain of consciousness, Ultimate Oneness with God, all differences of whatever kind, disappear forever. The love of The All for The All.

it is this Supreme Faith in eternal union that sustains us. No more widows & orphans anywhere in the world, as science & technology takes flight to the stars: Earth's Gabriel realized through world unity, as we ancestors of angels join the heavenly interstellar host.

All our science has begun to catch up with Unevitable Evolutionary Convergence, bloodless revolution: the merger of all souls by Modern Mysticism & The Death of Capitalist Slavery, in utter devotion to The All: Allah, THE God.

It is science, irrefutable, universal truth, that unites all people of EVERY distant Sun.

Fact, universal truth, JUSTIFIES all faiths. GOD, immortal matter energy, converging into Oneness by evolution, is erring ever less erringly towards Infinite Perfection, God by definition.

It is the reasonPrince Harry wed Meagan, the reason Chairman President Shi proclaims China shall not be bullied.

All of this mysticism finally makes sense through Einstein's famous equation. You ARE the universe, immortal energy, ALL manifestations erring towards infinite petfection, as energy ...

Just as sure as you are E equals M times C squared.

Wherever animals struggle to rise above the law of the jungle. However near or far their star.

All united by this secret now revealed, as God says to us, through science:

"Do you want to know a secret? I made you out of Me."

"Go tell it on the mountain top, forever free!"

- YouMe 2603:8000:AA41:D900:EDBF:471:5F8E:384E (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)