The Sufism article in the English Wikipedia has sparked a lively disagreement between several individuals. [1] As method of mediation and discussion, this article explores the essence of the essential disagreements.
The majority of the above paragraphs violate Wikipedia standards in that they contain original content without supporting authorities. See Wikipedia:No original research. The arguments will carry significantly more authority and meet Wikipedida standards when they are supported by the established writings of others. David Traver 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I just got back from my vacation and see that the article on sufism has really large section starting "contrary to popular misconception...". I think the mediation is not complete and that the article is still NPOV. Almost all my points above have been substantiated with references from the net. None of the refutations have any references except for one the first section. I have looked through the links and they provide further proof for my initial statement that most of the people who are against Sufism are of a Wahabi/Salafi mentality. I have detailed this below.
[ [18]] Yusif Hijazi's article was published in an openly wahabi magazine called Nidaul Islam. It has been refuted here[ [19]].
the next two links are from Islamawareness.com which don't seem too sure of themselves. They denounce Sufism as a deviation in the two links which are presented above but praise it in this one [ [20]]. I quote.
The third category consists of recommended innovations such as building hostels ... the reciting of wirds (def: Reliance of the Traveller w20) by those with a Sufi path, ...
I have already provided details on why the QSS site is Salafi in nature in my original comments.
If you look at the islamonline.com link provided above, it actually supports Sufism and claims that it is a part of Islam. It denounces the "flower power" variety that claims that Sufism is above the Sharia.
So, none of my points have been actuall disproved apart from a "No, you're wrong". Some of the statements made are wrong too. eg. Mirza Ahmed Ghulam of Qadiyan. He was declared a deviant by the majority of the scholars after the rise of the Ahmadiyya sect. No one (to my knowledge) has declared Imam Ghazzali, Imam Suyuti, Imam Nawwawi etc. as deviants and what they say about Sufism is clear from the sunnah.org which I posted above (multiple times). As for the claim that scholars changed their views after graduating form places like Azhar, this is debunked by their support for the "Reliance of the Traveller" which contains a long and detailed section on Sufism. Statements like 'anyone who doesn't agree with the Kitab-Al-Tawheed" has big time issues' is a personal attack and unjustified. Notable scholars of modern times denounce Abdul Wahhab as a deviant. I can give you sources if you want. People who support him are Salafis in their beliefs and practices. I'm still at a loss to understand how such a large section on how Sufism is separate from Islam came into the original article on the top of it even after we initiated this discussion. It's got no citatins, it belongs in the controversy section and has no business being up there when a separate article to discuss the controversies was being created. -- Nkv 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
KillBillsBrowser-- I was very busy with my proposal defense and now will be going on a vacation. So i could not follow this up. But today i read what nkv has to say. I was totally shocked when i read a website he had quoted [ [21]]. It talks about the Grand Mufti of Mecca. There is no such position as Grand Mufti of Makkah. I have lived in that country. I know there is a grand mufti of the kingdom and i know all of them by name. Second i thought maybe he is a mufti of the haram(sacred mosque) in makkah, so i called up to confirm it. To my utter disbelief, there was no person by this name ever a mufti in the haram of makkah.
Then i went to the website again and started reading other articles and i came upon the article [ [24]].It is next to blasphemous to speak against Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyah. I have now totally understood what kinds of proofs are being brought up by nkv and people like him.
David, thanks for your mediation, but now i think it is beyond your capabilities to mediate it as it has come to a stage when the basic roots of Islam are being attacked. I did not imagine that nkv would belong to such factions. I am adding the controversial tag on the sufi article now and am not willing to discuss it any further considering the lies and fabrications that are being brought up as proofs. It is better to leave the tag as it is. Killbillsbrowser 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Sufism Category:Islam-related controversies
Once we get enough material here, we can distill it to get a decent article and move that back to the main article page. Is that acceptable? The page has been unedited for a while now. Once David gets back from his vacation, we can arrive at some kind of consensus.
I'm back from Guatemala, where I visted in preparation for an adoption. Upon return I see that there are some changes here. I would like to suggest that the parties work hard to supply some meaningful substantiation for their positions. As it is, a proper article could not be written with the materials provided because of too much original content and insufficient citations for each of the diverse positions.
For example, Killbillsbrowser has not provided a single citation or authority so far in this discussion. His or her work is all original content, which violates Wiki principles. It was my hope that the parities who wished to argue for specific positions would provide meaningful support for their arguments. I hope that in the next week or so the proponents of various positions will come forward with the materials needed to put together a useful encyclopedia article. I look forward to all of the good faith effort that will be needed to put forward all positions in the light most favorable to each of your beliefs.
Without your good faith effort the alleged impasse will not not really be an impasse at all, but rather, a unhelpful form of intransience. This would result results in unfairness to readers of the Sufism article. David Traver 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sufism is a somewhat controversial subject today. For didactic convenience, the perspectives on Sufism as a part of Islam will be mentioned first and after that, the non muslim groups who claim to be Sufi adherents.
Sufism was traditionally considered the systematisation of the spiritual component of Islam. It dealt with matters of the heart (just as Fiqh dealt with the body and Aqida dealt with the intellect). Many of the greatest Islamic scholars wrote treatises on the subject (eg. Al-Ghazali's ihya ulum-aldeen (احياء علوم الدين), Imam Nawawi's Bustan al-Arifeen etc.). Many of the traditional scholars who were part of famous Islamic insitutions (eg. Al-Azhar) like Ibn Ata'illah were Sufi masters. Even today, many of the traditional Islamic universities like Al-Azhar endorse Sufism as a part of the religion of Islam [1]. Many of the famous Islamic scholars have praised Sufis and their practices. For a list, please refer scholars on sufism.
However, Sufism emphasises non quantifiable matters (like states of the heart). The authors of various Sufi treatises often used allegorical language which couldn't be read by an unknowledgeable person to describe these states (eg. likened some states to intoxication which is forbidden in Islam). This usage of indirect language and the existence of interpretations by people who had no training in Islam or Sufism led to doubts being cast over the validity of Sufism as a part of Islam. Also, some groups emerged that considered themselves above the Sharia and dicussed Sufism as a method of bypassing the rules of Islam in order to attain salvation directly. This was disapproved of by traditional scholars. An example of such a deviant sufi was Abu Hilman. One of the most vocal critics of such deviations from the Islamic creed was Ibn Taymiya.
For a detailed article on how Sufism was part of traditional Islam and how mistakes crept into the field, please refer Place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam.
Sufism has been criticised as being non Islamic in nature. The adherents of the Salafi school form the majority of muslims opposed to Tasawwuf. They hold that Sufism was always held to be an innovation even by the earliest scholars ([allaahuakbar.net/sufism/index.htm], [26]). Some of their main criticisms are listed below.
The use of the title Sufi by many groups to refer to themselves and their use of traditional sufi masters (notably Jalaluddin Rumi) as sources of inspiration as well as the existence of interpretations of classical Sufis texts by people who have no grounding in traditional Islamic sciences has created a group of non Islamic sufis. These are considered by traditional Islamic scholars as beyond the pale of the religion ( [31], [32]).
we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and confirms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a)
Please discuss this section in a separate one before major edits are made. It will be easier to track changes that way IMHO. -- Nkv 07:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Nkv, It appears the other parties to this discussion have decided not to participate further. You may wish to wait a few days to see if they come back with the well-supported substance we all hope to see. If they do not return, you may wish to then integrate your most recent work into the main Sufism article. Also, once this project ends, you may wish to integrate all of this discussion into the Sufism discussion page, so readers can see the effort that was made. David Traver 14:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The Sufism article in the English Wikipedia has sparked a lively disagreement between several individuals. [1] As method of mediation and discussion, this article explores the essence of the essential disagreements.
The majority of the above paragraphs violate Wikipedia standards in that they contain original content without supporting authorities. See Wikipedia:No original research. The arguments will carry significantly more authority and meet Wikipedida standards when they are supported by the established writings of others. David Traver 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I just got back from my vacation and see that the article on sufism has really large section starting "contrary to popular misconception...". I think the mediation is not complete and that the article is still NPOV. Almost all my points above have been substantiated with references from the net. None of the refutations have any references except for one the first section. I have looked through the links and they provide further proof for my initial statement that most of the people who are against Sufism are of a Wahabi/Salafi mentality. I have detailed this below.
[ [18]] Yusif Hijazi's article was published in an openly wahabi magazine called Nidaul Islam. It has been refuted here[ [19]].
the next two links are from Islamawareness.com which don't seem too sure of themselves. They denounce Sufism as a deviation in the two links which are presented above but praise it in this one [ [20]]. I quote.
The third category consists of recommended innovations such as building hostels ... the reciting of wirds (def: Reliance of the Traveller w20) by those with a Sufi path, ...
I have already provided details on why the QSS site is Salafi in nature in my original comments.
If you look at the islamonline.com link provided above, it actually supports Sufism and claims that it is a part of Islam. It denounces the "flower power" variety that claims that Sufism is above the Sharia.
So, none of my points have been actuall disproved apart from a "No, you're wrong". Some of the statements made are wrong too. eg. Mirza Ahmed Ghulam of Qadiyan. He was declared a deviant by the majority of the scholars after the rise of the Ahmadiyya sect. No one (to my knowledge) has declared Imam Ghazzali, Imam Suyuti, Imam Nawwawi etc. as deviants and what they say about Sufism is clear from the sunnah.org which I posted above (multiple times). As for the claim that scholars changed their views after graduating form places like Azhar, this is debunked by their support for the "Reliance of the Traveller" which contains a long and detailed section on Sufism. Statements like 'anyone who doesn't agree with the Kitab-Al-Tawheed" has big time issues' is a personal attack and unjustified. Notable scholars of modern times denounce Abdul Wahhab as a deviant. I can give you sources if you want. People who support him are Salafis in their beliefs and practices. I'm still at a loss to understand how such a large section on how Sufism is separate from Islam came into the original article on the top of it even after we initiated this discussion. It's got no citatins, it belongs in the controversy section and has no business being up there when a separate article to discuss the controversies was being created. -- Nkv 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
KillBillsBrowser-- I was very busy with my proposal defense and now will be going on a vacation. So i could not follow this up. But today i read what nkv has to say. I was totally shocked when i read a website he had quoted [ [21]]. It talks about the Grand Mufti of Mecca. There is no such position as Grand Mufti of Makkah. I have lived in that country. I know there is a grand mufti of the kingdom and i know all of them by name. Second i thought maybe he is a mufti of the haram(sacred mosque) in makkah, so i called up to confirm it. To my utter disbelief, there was no person by this name ever a mufti in the haram of makkah.
Then i went to the website again and started reading other articles and i came upon the article [ [24]].It is next to blasphemous to speak against Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyah. I have now totally understood what kinds of proofs are being brought up by nkv and people like him.
David, thanks for your mediation, but now i think it is beyond your capabilities to mediate it as it has come to a stage when the basic roots of Islam are being attacked. I did not imagine that nkv would belong to such factions. I am adding the controversial tag on the sufi article now and am not willing to discuss it any further considering the lies and fabrications that are being brought up as proofs. It is better to leave the tag as it is. Killbillsbrowser 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Sufism Category:Islam-related controversies
Once we get enough material here, we can distill it to get a decent article and move that back to the main article page. Is that acceptable? The page has been unedited for a while now. Once David gets back from his vacation, we can arrive at some kind of consensus.
I'm back from Guatemala, where I visted in preparation for an adoption. Upon return I see that there are some changes here. I would like to suggest that the parties work hard to supply some meaningful substantiation for their positions. As it is, a proper article could not be written with the materials provided because of too much original content and insufficient citations for each of the diverse positions.
For example, Killbillsbrowser has not provided a single citation or authority so far in this discussion. His or her work is all original content, which violates Wiki principles. It was my hope that the parities who wished to argue for specific positions would provide meaningful support for their arguments. I hope that in the next week or so the proponents of various positions will come forward with the materials needed to put together a useful encyclopedia article. I look forward to all of the good faith effort that will be needed to put forward all positions in the light most favorable to each of your beliefs.
Without your good faith effort the alleged impasse will not not really be an impasse at all, but rather, a unhelpful form of intransience. This would result results in unfairness to readers of the Sufism article. David Traver 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sufism is a somewhat controversial subject today. For didactic convenience, the perspectives on Sufism as a part of Islam will be mentioned first and after that, the non muslim groups who claim to be Sufi adherents.
Sufism was traditionally considered the systematisation of the spiritual component of Islam. It dealt with matters of the heart (just as Fiqh dealt with the body and Aqida dealt with the intellect). Many of the greatest Islamic scholars wrote treatises on the subject (eg. Al-Ghazali's ihya ulum-aldeen (احياء علوم الدين), Imam Nawawi's Bustan al-Arifeen etc.). Many of the traditional scholars who were part of famous Islamic insitutions (eg. Al-Azhar) like Ibn Ata'illah were Sufi masters. Even today, many of the traditional Islamic universities like Al-Azhar endorse Sufism as a part of the religion of Islam [1]. Many of the famous Islamic scholars have praised Sufis and their practices. For a list, please refer scholars on sufism.
However, Sufism emphasises non quantifiable matters (like states of the heart). The authors of various Sufi treatises often used allegorical language which couldn't be read by an unknowledgeable person to describe these states (eg. likened some states to intoxication which is forbidden in Islam). This usage of indirect language and the existence of interpretations by people who had no training in Islam or Sufism led to doubts being cast over the validity of Sufism as a part of Islam. Also, some groups emerged that considered themselves above the Sharia and dicussed Sufism as a method of bypassing the rules of Islam in order to attain salvation directly. This was disapproved of by traditional scholars. An example of such a deviant sufi was Abu Hilman. One of the most vocal critics of such deviations from the Islamic creed was Ibn Taymiya.
For a detailed article on how Sufism was part of traditional Islam and how mistakes crept into the field, please refer Place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam.
Sufism has been criticised as being non Islamic in nature. The adherents of the Salafi school form the majority of muslims opposed to Tasawwuf. They hold that Sufism was always held to be an innovation even by the earliest scholars ([allaahuakbar.net/sufism/index.htm], [26]). Some of their main criticisms are listed below.
The use of the title Sufi by many groups to refer to themselves and their use of traditional sufi masters (notably Jalaluddin Rumi) as sources of inspiration as well as the existence of interpretations of classical Sufis texts by people who have no grounding in traditional Islamic sciences has created a group of non Islamic sufis. These are considered by traditional Islamic scholars as beyond the pale of the religion ( [31], [32]).
we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and confirms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a)
Please discuss this section in a separate one before major edits are made. It will be easier to track changes that way IMHO. -- Nkv 07:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Nkv, It appears the other parties to this discussion have decided not to participate further. You may wish to wait a few days to see if they come back with the well-supported substance we all hope to see. If they do not return, you may wish to then integrate your most recent work into the main Sufism article. Also, once this project ends, you may wish to integrate all of this discussion into the Sufism discussion page, so readers can see the effort that was made. David Traver 14:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)