Talk:Sufism

Proposed Merge: Langar khana and Langar (Sufism)

It has been proposed that the article Langar khana be merged into the article Langar (Sufism). If you would like to express support for, or object to the merge, then you are encouraged to do so at the talk page for Langar (Sufism). Jay ^(Talk) 06:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

New "Similarities with other religions" section

To put it bluntly, there have been recent efforts to push a fairly obvious "Sufism is linked to Hinduism"-type POV narrative on this article, largely by burying the page in a barrage of new material and sources. While there may be some merit in outlining the similarities between Sufism and other forms of mysticism with which it came into close contact on the Indian subcontinent, the process of selecting and adding this material needs to be careful and considerate, not conducted like slinging mud at a wall and seeing what sticks. It would be best if further additions of this type could be discussed on the basis of there merit prior to being added. I will likewise be analyzing the material that has already been added on the basis of its merit, and provide feedback on the sources here along with notifications about the deletion of any of the material. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

All information here I have taken from reliable sources and have given citation and I have written all the materials in NPOV format. You can check them out. 103.230.107.37 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: https://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol4-n1/introduction-irfan-murtadha-mutahhari/brief-history https://www.umass.edu/gso/rumi/rumi5.htm https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=bHg2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA54&dq=abu+hashem+al+kufi&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwitoe7CiLb1AhWvUWwGHRd_D0gQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=abu%20hashem%20al%20kufi&f=false 103.230.105.25 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, is there a point you are trying to make with these sources? The first is some sort of blog, so we can forget about that. The journal source is a good secondary, reliable source, but what are you trying to use it to show? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: You have deleted the reference about abu hashem al kufi, the first one to use the word sufi. So I am giving you reliable sources about it. And you have said al biruni's reference about reincarnation as vough, how it could be? And abu Bakar Zakaria is a notable acedemic person in Bangladesh and saudi arabia and also the book from which i cited written by him About Hunduism, see here bn:আবু বকর মুহাম্মাদ জাকারিয়া, use google translate. 103.230.104.50 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria is a self-promoting Youtube video cleric who either appears to have not clearly notable or authoritative as a source on the subject of Islamic history. Since they have no Wikipedia profile, it is unclear if they meet WP:NACADEMIC. I have left the part about Al-Biruni in because he is one of the great scholars of the golden age, so if he indeed wrote about this in his history of India, it would indeed be worth including, but from a scholarly source, not Zakaria. I have re-included the content on Abu Hashem al-Kufi and other early Sufis (under origins), as that journal piece is good. (Thanks!) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323:https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Hindu%E2%80%93Islamic_relations&diff=1065915072&oldid=1065914554 the second source is nothing but the immediate english translation of Biruni's original book, you can not ignore or deny it as reliable source. 103.230.104.50 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the passage that you are talking about. But al-Buruni does not say anything clear on the subject, only that, theoretically, for those that believe "that God is immanent in the whole world", souls entering into other beings would be of no consequence. That is all. It does not say any Sufis believe anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323:You will find proof about "sufi" similarities clearly mentioned in this translation. Check out last passages of chapter V, VII, page 57,58 and 87, 88. 103.230.107.27 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see the reference to Sufism in chapter V, though not in the others. Having read through the whole of chapter V, I can see the value of including it in a contextualised form. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for sharing the link to the book by the way. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Check out page 87 and 88 also for chapter 7. 103.230.104.18 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Care and sensitivity is required

I removed a section stating in summary that there is a "western understanding" of Sufism that is apparently "incorrect understanding." But not only do they not describe what the "understanding" is, but they also pin the blame on "Western understanding" as if the entire West believes the same monolithic idea or is a monolith itself. Or that some Western organization has openly declared such an "understanding" which it did not. The citation's quote explains further that there is a contested idea within the Muslim majority world, not just in some Western academic world, that debates whether Islam and Sufism are intertwined or not. But what does that even mean? It is meaningless. Such vague and meaningless statements are not at all encyclopedic and seems more like a personal bias someone has. Sufis are indeed Muslim and it's very dangerous to suggest that either the "west" or "east" has such-and-such understanding on something that the citation author admits that it is highly contested in the Muslim majority world itself. Further to suggest that Sufi and Islam are exactly the same is additionally offensive and sensitivity must be shown to this fact. They are two different words for a reason with many competing ideas and traditions throughout Islamic history, even the mere existence of competing Sufi orders should be more than enough to dispel the crazy idea that total uniformity or an opposite "correct Eastern understanding" even exists to say "oh you said otherwise? Well that is not the correct understanding."

It would be like some author suggesting that Arminianism and Anglicanism are the same thing (they are two different words, two different traditions/thoughts even if there are many similarities and overlap and they are BOTH Christian) or--that Anglicanism IS Christianity as it always was throughout the past (Anglicanism is Christianity but not the only kind or tradition or school of thought nor does is it something that oppose Christianity because Anglicans consider themselves Christian as Sufis consider themselves Muslim)--or that the "Eastern understanding of Anglicanism is bad" suggesting monolithic "east" and monolithic "west." That's essentially what the quote + citation was suggesting.

These are highly biased and offensive ways to Muslims, to Sufis, to Western scholars of Islam as well. Sensitivity and care must be taken to avoid bias and introducing a debate that not only has no proper context but even the authors in that citation admit is "highly contested." — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 00:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The original quote, including the point about orientalists in the 18th and 19th centuries favouring the translation of esoteric texts over chronicling of lived practice is not at all problematic, however, and has been restored (in a 100% different form, based on the actual quotation) in the section on 'perceptions outside Islam'. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"It had been variously described as..."

Does this section seem a little repetitious to anyone else? It's basically just saying that Sufism is Islam's mystical tradition in every possible way.

If these subtle distinctions are actually significant, I apologize. It just reads oddly to me. 2603:7081:1603:A300:2462:26D6:EA74:20B6 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)