Talk:Inayat Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I've tried to clean up the language and make this more neutral. It is but a stub, but perhaps someone will provide more content without making it sound like a fundraising brochure. Alex756

The summary description at the upper right corner of the article formerly listed Inayat's title as Pir of the Dances of Universal Peace. This was not accurate. I have corrected it to say Pir-O-Murshid of The Sufi Order of the West. That order which Inayat founded has successors today but is not still in existence, i.e. there is no current name for it; least of all Dances of Universal peace, which were invented by someone else nearly 5 decades after Inayat's death.Ramseyman (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split[edit]

I split this article into this one and one about Universal Sufism specifically, since it makes a lot more sense to me that way :) --Lance 29 June 2005 00:01 (UTC)

Life Revision[edit]

I revised the life section to reflect the fundamental issues more clearly (7up 05:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Result[edit]

I moved the talk page as the main page has been moved already. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HIK's relation to Islam misleading[edit]

According to the HIK's own writings and the 6 biographies I have read of his life, HIK could hardly be characterized as "a devout Muslim" who "followed the Sharia". He made no pilgrimage to Mecca, nor is there any indication that he ever observed Ramadan while in the West (1910-1927); the only reference to his observance is as a child in India. His first major book was called "The Unity of Religious Ideals." When asked what his religion was, he would say, "All". In addition, the quotation of his remarks about Protestantism and Islam in this setting is extremely misleading. These remarks are taken quite out of context, making it sound as though HIK is criticizing a religious faith. As he writes in the Complete Sayings: "Those who criticize the faith of another do not understand the meaning of religion." Asatar Bair 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with the above.

Moreover, the lines that were written saying Inayat Khan was "keenly aware of the Euro-American prejudice against Islam in his time. He therefore made the controversial decision to present Sufism without specifically focusing on its connection to Islam" might be taken to imply that Khan obfuscated the relationship of Sufism to Islam for tactical reasons, ie, overcome prejudice. In fact, the Sufism that Inayat Khan brought to the West is not strictly Islamic, and perhaps not literally Islamic at all, inasmuch as there appears not to be a single Islamic requirement to be met by a follower of this Western form of Sufism. In short, it is not crypto-Islamic, as might be inferred, although it is quite compatible with the spirit of Islam. Zaidsmith (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these quotes were added by someone who really does not understand the scope of HIK's teachings.

His son[edit]

Would somebody who knows about this gent and his family please fix the name and link for his son in the article Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke? (Or, if appropriate, just delete the relevant sentence in that article). --kingboyk (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Khan and Ora Ray Baker had four children: Noor, Vilayat, Hidayat, and Khairunnisa. David Ray Harper was the son of Khairunnisa (a.k.a. Claire Ray Harper). David married Celia Margaret Brooke (daughter of Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke). David and Celia had a daughter, Sura-un-Nissa Dorée des Anges Brooke Harper. Geneall [1] mistakenly names David Ray Harper "Inayat Khan" as son of Hazrat Inayat Khan. See Sufi Remembrance Project [2] and Khairunnisa's We Rubies Four [3].Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pirani Ameena Begum[edit]

There exists an article about Inayat Khan's wife, Pirani Ameena Begum, which I have nominated for deletion. As there is no link from this article to the one on Pirani Ameena Begum I thought I should post this note here so that any editors that want to participate in that AfD discussion will be aware of it. --Crusio (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Inayat Khan[edit]

Another editor removed all the "Hazrat" honorifics (except in the name or author of books and external link titles), which is fine.

However, as most people know him in his writing capacity as "Hazrat Inayat Khan", I've restored the first mention of his name in the lede to the full version. Esowteric+Talk 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links Additions[edit]

The external links need to be more representative, and there is a big warning message about adding more. Nevertheless, the Sufi Order International and the Sufi Ruhaniat Society ought to be listed along with the Sufi Movement since together they constitute the major schools for in depth study of Inayat Khan's teachings. Aqilbr (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following ELs because of WP:EL concerns -- especially WP:UNDUE as alluded to in the comment above, and links to these groups probably shouldn't be here at all (but would be fine on an article about the particular group). Some of the links might be appropriate as inline references, though, so I am pasting them all (as they were) here in case somebody would like to work them in:
Novaseminary (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some tags require an accompanying talk page explanation[edit]

I left a note on the talk page of a contributor who recently left several tags at the head of this article. When instantiated two of those tags tell readers to look on the talk page for a fuller explanation of why the tags were placed. I asked the tag placer if they had plans to place that explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iyanu.corniel15 (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)== Siting Khan's "Music of the Spheres" excerpt from his book, The Mysticism of Sound and Music ==[reply]

I would like to add something in the page under the Books subheading that lists Khan's The Mysticism of Sound and Music because it perfectly ties in Khan's Sufist ideology and his love and dedication to music. These are the two most important and well known aspects of Khan's identity so I believe it is important to have this book in the list of sources on Khan. I recognize that this is his own work and one doesn't normally cite the subject in order to describe the subject. However, in this case, I believe it is best to read some of Khan's own words in order to get a better sense of why music and Sufism go hand in hand for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyanu.corniel15 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the Music Section[edit]

As it stands, the music section of this article only has a few song recordings linked to it. Khan was a music lover. He wrote many works on and studied music for half of his lifetime. This doesn't do his passion for music justice. In my Music and the Environment class, which focuses on the different ways we think about music and its relationship to nature and society, we read The Book of Music and NAture which contains an excerpt entitled THe MUsic of the Spheres by Inayat Khan. It does a great job of tying Khan's background in music with how he perceives the world through a Sufist's lense. I think something from this article needs to be added to the music section to provide some context. Iyanu.corniel15 (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

There has been considerable criticism of this man too. Some of it well-sourced. I added one small such item some time ago to give just a bit of balance to this article. Will add more if it is removed again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An undated contextless quote of the single word "crackpot" from an espionage service of the colonial power dominating India during Khan's life, presumably from some sort of internal memo, is not any sort of criticism. It's simply repeating name-calling from the notes of racist late-Imperial government officials.

You could make the phrase "well-sourced" both bold and italic and it wouldn't result in this having anything to do with bringing editorial balance to the article, scraping up just any nasty thing that was ever said about the guy even in secret. If you have access to a copy of the cited book and it's really the high-quality objective source you're representing it as, put some elbow grease into actually learning enough about the subject of the article to find a salient theological or other material criticism of him.

There are many changes which could improve this article, but this "crackpot" thing and vague claims from dead spies that he did a poor job of raising his children—one of them apparently a World War II heroine who died in the service of the British governmental organ casting the aspersions?—are not improvements. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 09:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The personal opinions of Wikipedians do not change articles. Reliable sources do. I will reword this for you, though the word "crackpot" is what is in the source. Her biographer is considered very reliable and the book itself is extensively and excellently sourced. There is quite a bit more about this man in that book, and elsewhere, that tells of the controversial side of his personality, especially as regards his family (which he deserted) and friendships. Important information. The article now reads as if this man was perfect. Nobody is, and what reliable sources tell us about a person belongs in his description on Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing criticism section[edit]

Quote: "According to the code breaker, Leo Marks, who claimed to have spoken to one of Khan's SOE trainers, she was regarded as eccentric. He described her as a ‘potty Princess’, the daughter of a ‘crackpot father’, who preached a message of ‘love and forgiveness’ and instilled in Noor an aversion to lying." Lahiri, S., 2007. Clandestine Mobilities and Shifting Embodiments: Noor‐un‐nisa Inayat Khan and the Special Operations Executive, 1940–44. Gender & History, 19(2), pp.305-323. This quote, even in its entirety, would only be due for inclusion on Noor's page. On Inayat Khan's page, it would be wholly undue. And even so, the slur "crackpot father" would not be appropriate for inclusion on an encyclopedia. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary. First we discuss, then we change. The cited source is a reliable and respected biography, is correctedly cited and deals quite a bit with this man. See the rest of this section, and do not remove this due to any personal opinion displeasure. There is much more criicism of this man to be ckited, but I thought this bried sentence would do. None of those harsh terms were in the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed source regarding Ancestry[edit]

Inayat-Khan was of Turko-Mongol stock, not of Pashtun stock. The citation given does not mention Pashtun ancestry.

Criticism (2)[edit]

This reversal today is not acceptable. Not only is an edit war started with it, with no discussion here, but the cited source once more has been falsified as if the citation contained anything even remotely representing the wording added now again. It does not. I will write to the reversing editor and ask h to talk here. As long as the cited source has been falsified, it is urgent to restore legitimate working. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source cited: Reading Noor's files, Marks discovered that her instructor described her father as a 'crackpot' and head of a mystic sect who had founded the House of Blessing in Paris where Noor spent her childhood. They all agreed at Beaulieu that the 'crackpot father' was responsible for her eccentric ... [there is more in that book about his having damaged all his children - I do not have it handy today].

Stable text which coincides with the citation: SOE instructors investigating the family background of his daughter Noor had very negative things to say about Inayat Khan and saw his influence on his children as detrimental to them.

New text placed immediately before same citation: After Inayat Khan’s death, when his daughter Noor Inayat Khan was being trained in espionage by the Special Operations Executive in Beaulieu, Hampshire, her instructor ridiculed the spiritual training Inayat Khan had given her, disapprovingly observing that he had taught her never to lie

No resemblance to cited source --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, here is the full quote: Shrabani Basu, Spy Princess (Thrupp, UK: Sutton Publishing, 2006), pp. 92-93
"Reading Noor's files, Marks discovered that her instructor described her father as a 'crackpot' and head of a mystic sect who had founded the House of Blessing in Paris where Noor spent her childhood. They all agreed at Beaulieu that the 'crackpot father' was responsible for her eccentric behavior.
'Do you know what the bastard taught her? That the worst sin she could commit was to lie about anything,' the instructor told Marks helpfully. He also told Marks about an incident that underlined just how unpredictable and ingenuous Noor could be. Once when Beaulieu had sent her on a radio exercise, and she was cycling towards her safe house to practice transmitting, a policeman stopped her and asked what she was doing. 'I'm training to be an agent,' she said. 'Here's my radio - want me to show it to you?' She then removed it from its hiding place and invited him to try it."
How does this contradict the current version? User: MirMughal
Please indent your comments, like we all do. It's not diffucult and its considerate. It's also a Wikipedia guideline.
Relevant to this article (which is not about his daughter) is only this part: "her instructor described her father as a 'crackpot' and head of a mystic sect who had founded the House of Blessing in Paris where Noor spent her childhood. They all agreed at Beaulieu that the 'crackpot father' was responsible for her eccentric behavior.'Do you know what the bastard taught her? That the worst sin she could commit was to lie about anything,'"
None of that supports adding "when his daughter Noor Inayat Khan was being trained in espionage by the Special Operations Executive in Beaulieu, Hampshire, her instructor ridiculed the spiritual training Inayat Khan had given her [as if that was done in her presence!]" and you have skipped the part about his influence on the rest of his children and how he neglected them for his career. The entry can be reworded accurately, with a relevant mention of lying, but the comments of the British gov't about his negative influence on all his children must be included.
We don't do fan-type bio articles which censure any and all negative traits and present someone as 100% flawless.
We also don't argue via article text to defend someone against criticism because we like them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote does not support your conclusion nor does the new text contain bias. It still presents a reason for criticism. Your comment is bizarre for several reasons. Firstly, the new text does not state it was done in her presence. Secondly, when was Noor's family background investigated according to the cited source? Thirdly, where does the source mention a detrimental effect on his other children? Finally, nothing in the new text is untrue or biased, rather it elaborates on a previously inaccurate section. It is all relevant since being taught not to lie was part of her spiritual training. Could you explain how a personal opinion is stated in the next text? Also, if I had some sort of bias like you claim I could have simply removed the criticism section as well. No, I was correcting a weak section and bolstering it, not flattering a historical figure. --AhmetSanjar (talk

Hello SergeWoodzing (talk). Since you still seem unhappy with my summary of the paragraph from Basu's book, here is another draft. To avoid the criticism that I am interpreting the instructor's remarks I have given them in quotes, exactly as spoken. I trust this will satisfy your concerns:
After Inayat Khan’s death, when his daughter Noor Inayat Khan was being trained in espionage by the Special Operations Executive in Beaulieu, Hampshire, her instructor attributed her "eccentric behavior" to the influence of Inayat Khan, whom he described as a "crackpot." Specifically, he criticized Inayat Khan for allegedly teaching her that "the worst sin she could commit was to lie about anything." ~~Mirmughal (talk)
Better! For that part I suggest (some of the details are not needed):
After Inayat Khan’s death, when his daughter Noor Inayat Khan was being trained in espionage by the SOE, her instructor internally attributed her "eccentric behavior" to the influence of Inayat Khan, whom he described as a "crackpot." The fact that she had been taught by her father never to lie was particularly problematic for her training.
If you cannot find the book's criticism of the father in regard to his adverse influence on all his children, I will try to get it again from the library where I had it then and provide page numbers. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism 3[edit]

@SergeWoodzing: That section had been removed by FIVE different editors (myself, Drgitanes, هیوا, I.am.a.qwerty, Struthious Bandersnatch) and one IP (68.107.181.155). In every case it was restored by you, who originally added it. It is clearly against consensus to restore it. Please self-revert. Srnec (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed due to various personal opinions, not because of any organized consensus. Personal opinions are not what make up Wikipedia articles. Free free to start an RfC if you want that! Otherwise it is a well-references and relevant part of this bio and stays. This is not an Inayat Khan Fan Page meant to portray the man as perfect, flawless. Nobody is. Several other editors have worked on the wording of the criticism section, not just I. There is lots more serious criticism readily available thanks to other reliable sources. Perhaps much more should be added rather that the whole section being censured? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the addition of serious criticism. What we have now is just silly. And an "unoragnized" consensus is even more damning than an organized one. It means that no less than six readers have seen that section and, independently, concluded that it was worthless. I am removing it. You can start an RFC if you wish. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with that conclusion. I don't know what I removed but I agree with the unorganised consent. Also very curious to see if there is a tool in Wikipedia to track changes to a part of an article such as the section in question? Thanks. هیوا (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sufism is not Universal Sufism[edit]

Hazrat Inayat Khan was the first sufi-master to bring sufism to the West in 1910, yet he never claimed to represent a "Western Sufism". On the contrary, his intention was clearly to unite East and West. It would be right to call him a representative of "Universal Sufism", this term including East and West. The equation of "Universal Sufism" with "Western Sufism", like it is suggested here and elsewhere, is wrong and misleading (see the article on "Western Sufism", of which Inayat Khan is claimed to be the representative). It is limiting the masters teaching to the "West". Today the teaching of Hazrat Inayat Khan is very much alive in western and eastern countries.

This article here about Inayat Khan himself does not speak of "Western Sufism", but there is a prominent link in the mid of the text, where, without exception, Inayat Khans disciples and teachers are summarized under "Western Sufism". Lordring (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inayat_Khan&oldid=1209632091"