Talk:Rumi

Maulana jalaledin mohamad Balkhi is an Afghan

maulana was born in balkh province of Afghanistan and it,s a fact. please don,t waste your time to say he,s an Iranian poet or a Turkey!it,s very clear that we deal with a enormous cultural invasion so Iran and turkey wants to use these situations of Afghanistan to prove their benefits but who love Maulana and his poems must say or write that. Maulana one of the greatest poets of the world was born in balkh province of Afghanistan. thise sentences will end the claims of Iranian and turkish and all people around the world .hosinmokhtary@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosinmokhtary (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was born in contemporary Afghanistan, we note that in the introduction. The nations known as Afghanistan, Iran, and so forth are (relatively) new nations. Both Afghanistan, Iran, and other nations, share their heritage in the Persian empire and culture. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PI, but I think the user meant something different. Going by the historical meaning of the word "Afghan", Mowlana was - of course - not an Afghan. See Afghan for more information. Afghanistan as a modern nation was created in 1919, 700 years after Mowlana. Tajik (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maulana is born in Balkh which is a province of Afghnistan. Please edit the parts where it is being claimed that he is an Iranian. Yosuf-Haydary 04april2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosuf-haydary (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It never states even once that he is Iranian from what I can see. It states he is Persian: Tajiks for example are considered Persian. The modern states of Afghanistan and Iran did not exist at this time, so we must base this on ethnic or linguistic definitions. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How ironic!!!!!, this debate is contrary to the very teachings of Rumi, why do we need to associate him where he came from or where died, his words are what is most important and everything else is not relevant,,,,,afghan,,,iranian or turkish, does not matter,,,,,,Saalim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.112.88 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way Pashtun Ismailiyya, Iran as a country did exist back then, but of course its borders have changed over time. Balkh was part of the Iranian nation back then and would have been no different to a person from Shiraz or Esfahan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from such useless troll-like pointers, if there's an official claim against his 'citizenship', it should be quoted with solid references rather than expressing your own point-of-view. Thanks.hameed (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana is a Turk. He has Turk culture. He lived in Konya and died in Konya.He isnt İranian or Afgan.We think.. Mevlana is Turk. Because Mevlana's grandmother is turkish princes of Harzemşah family. her name's Melika-i Cihan Emetullah SultanBABP (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on! Is it honestly that difficult to say that he was an ethnic Persian, born in either Vakhsh or Balkh (located in what is today either Afghanistan or Tajikistan), who spent a large portion of his life in Turkey? Szfski (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is as ridiculous as at the Nasrudin article. Good grief, it's an encyclopedia folks. Peter Deer (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana Jelaleddin Rumi is TURKISH and he is also a component of TURKISH culture. Rumi was born in Baklh. At that time Khwarezmian Empire was in power. Khwarezmian Empire was also a TURKISH State. Then Rumi came to Konya. There was Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in Konya and it was a Turkish State. Rumi wrote his masterpieces with Persian as in that the language of literature was Persian. So that he is not an Afghan nor Iranian. He is TURKISH. Listentotheney (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) You come on. mevlana is TURK. This is real. You must accept. mevlana say, "My ethnic group is Turk." You look Mevlana's statements. And this is not as ridiculous as at the Nasrettin article.BABP (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana was a Turk. It is not important where Mevlana was born. He was born in Belh and he wrote in Persian. Thats true. But that does not make him Persian. He known Turkish. He tried to write in Turkish but he failed. Because he used aruz... Mevlana had Turkish culture, he lived Turk city..BABP (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana is neither Iranian nor Turk. Why do you argue about it? He is universal and is a part of world culture. Butterflyeffective (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We are TURK. We must protect our values. Otherwise other ethnic groups claim to our values and culture. For example; Iranians. Iranians says; "Mevlana is İranian". That's not true. Mevlana is TURK. BABP (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We accept RUMI is a global but according to same information RUMI is a Persian.We defend that RUMI is not persian, he is TURK. He is piece of TURKISH culture and he always lived in TURKISH land, but he wrote his masterpiece with Persian.We are arguing this subject because we want to defends our culture(Listentotheney (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)).

You must supply reliable sources for your claims. Please have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. Regards--Shahab (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

During the period of Seljuk state.Konya has its most brilliant years.Rumi is also very happy to live there to be in a Turkish state.This happiness made him write his best works in Konya.He wrote his works in Persian not in Turkish and as Iranians did not want to share such a great person, they think that he is an Iranian.However, realities are obvious.The works whick make Rumi as real Rumi was written in Anatolia.Moreover, the ideas of Rumi under the title of Mevleviyeh was only systematized in Anatolia not in Iran or in another country.Rumi said in his Masnavi and rubais that is Turk. (Listentotheney (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

What are your proofs related with Turkishness and culture of Turk at Masnavi and rubai.You have to explain. (Butterflyeffective (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

The works of Rumi demonstrate that he is influenced from Turk culture.Especially in Masnavi he used a lot of Turk proverbs.The meanings of that proverbs are true and logical.To succeed this, he must be know the meanings of the proverbs.That is, he succeeds that bringing up in Turk culture.For example; As you saw, so you shall reap and he said in his rubais “ Aslem Turk-est egerci hinduyuyum”. (Listentotheney (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Why did Rumi writte in persian not in Tukish! Because languages are born grove develop and die like humans.If Rumi had writte his Masnavi in Turkish, his poems would be ineffective like 13.century poets and he wouldn't be able to Rumi who lighten the world with his works.And Masnavi which has been translated into different world languages wouldn't be one of the immortal perfections of all times.According the 13.of century Persia was a rich language.therefore Rumi wrote Masnavi in a Turkish language.(Listentotheney (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Mevlana’s father was Bahaeddin Veled who was also known in his life time as the”Sultan of the Scholars”. His mother was Mümine Hatun, the daughter of Rükneddin, who was the Emir of Behl. So Mümine hatun was Turk and Bahaeddin Veled was Turk.. Also Sultanü’l - Ulema and his family who arrived at Karaman in 1222, stayed there for 7 years. There, Mevlana married Gevher Hatun who was the daughter of Şerefeddin Lala. The marriage gave Mevlana two sons named Sultan Veled and Alaeddin Çelebi.So Gevher Hatun was Turk..He wrote in Persian. Thats true. But that does not make him Persian. He known Turkish. He tried to write in Turkish but he failed.... .Mevlana died on Sunday, December 17,1273 in Konya. So Konya is Turkish City. Iranians, Afgans and the other must understand!!!! MEVLANA IS TURK...BABP (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mevlana says:“Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem” So he says: I am a Turk...He likes Turks.. Turks were praised by Mevlana. BABP (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Obviously you have not read the archives and talkpages and have repeated some stuff that has been been responded to multiple times. New users should read the archives.

2) Rumi did not just write in Persian. He spoke in Persian and all of his sermons (Fihi ma Fihi) recorded by his students are in Persian. The Fihi Ma Fihi is in an informal Persian and best proof that Rumi spoke Persian in everyday affairs. Had he spoke Turkish in everyday affairs, then his lectures would have been recorded in Turkish. But they are in informal Persian. These lectures were recorded by his students while Rumi was preaching are in Persian and are in everyday informal (not written but spoken) Persian. So that puts an end to the theory that "he wrote Persian because it was more beautiful". Obviously the propents of this theory have not read Fihi ma Fih or the Seven Sermons (Friday sermons again in Persian recorded by his students). Also his recorded conversations with Shams are in Persian (and some in Arabic), but never Turkish. So you have: A) His conversations with his students all in Persian. B) His friday sermons all in Persian. C) His conversations with Shams, primarily and overwhelmingly in Persian. 3) As per the verse you claim. Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su"

تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم

دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو

Professional Translation: “You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, know that much, that much, that in Turkish the word for water is su”(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196)

Turk, Hindu.. have very different (mainly symbolic) meaning in Persian poetry and show opposites.

Here is another one for example:

گه تركم و گه هندو گه رومی و گه زنگی از نقش تو است ای جان اقرارم و انكارم

Gah torkam, Gah Hendu, Gah Rumi, Gah Zangi Az Naqsh tost ay del, Eqraaram o Enkaaram

Translation:

“I am sometimes Turk, sometimes Hindu, sometimes Rumi and sometimes Negro, O Soul, from your image is my approval and denial”

So these imageries are not a proof of background. Turk vs Hindu, and Rumi vs Black are faviorate symbols of Persian poetry.

The verse you brought says "Agarcheh hendu gooyam" . Assuming authentic, it means "I speak in Hindu".. Now we know Rumi did not speak in Hindu. However Turk as opposed to Hindu is a constrast of climates, colors, lifestyle, kings vs desolates and etc in Persian poetry.

4)

The connection of Rumi's mother to the Khwarizmshah empire is seen as legendary hagiography and not factual due to both chronological reasons as well as textual reasons. Scholars reject it and it was designed to simply connect him to royalty. In reality, the grandmother of Rumi is a simple woman as demonstrated by Baha al-Din's Ma'arif. I would read the articles in Encyclopedia of Islam on Rumi as well as the book of Franklin. These are the secondary sources acceptable in Wikipedia.

5) Although Hindu, Turk, Rumi (Roman) and Black are faviorate symbols of Persian poetry and even "Rumi" is called Rumi, if you look at Aflaki, there are also some comments about Turks. Here is an anectode from Rumi quoted by Aflaki (pg 503) about Tukrs vs Greeks. Note he is not putting Turks downs or praising Greeks (in my opinion) but just making an observation: "Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. When God—He is sublime and exalted—ordered the creation of the world of sovereignty (‘alam-e molk’), first He created unaware-infidels, and He conferred on them long life and great strength so they would strive like hired laborers in building the terrestrial world. And they built up many cities and fortresses on mountain peaks and places on top of a hill such that after generations had passed these constructions were a model for those who came later. Then divine predestination saw to it that little by little these constructions would become completely destroyed and desolate, and be eradicated. God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. And they are still doing so, and day by day until the Resurrection they will continue to destroy in this manner. In the end, the destruction of the city of Konya will also be at the hands of wicked Turks devoid of mercy.’ And this being the case, it turned out just as Mowlana said. " (pg 503) See: Shams al-Din Ahmad al_Afkali, Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn, ed. Tahsin Yazici, 2 vols, Tehran, Donyaayeh Ketab, 1983. English translation: Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002.

Here are some quotes from Rumi: "“God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished.”" “Oh ignorant Turk! Give up (tark) this idea and undertaking. Take back your Turks (torkan) to your lady (tarkan) as quickly as possible. Otherwise, you will not escape with your life.” “Majd al-Din, why did you let out a shout and release your quarry from your gullet? A Turk who is a recent disciple is able to bear the burden, but you divulge the matter. Many things like this occur to abdals to God.” “Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. “

Note I only brought these for demonstrations. The Diwan Shams overall contains a positive usage of the word Turk, the Mathnawi seems somewhat neutral towards negative, but the Manaqib Aflaki seems negative. The reason is that Diwan Shams is a mystical book and the imagery of Turk in Persian mysticism has been positive (along with that of "Rum/Rumi"(Greeks)).

6)

Rumi's son on multiple occassions has attested that his Turkish is very poor.. yet his son was born in Anatolia but he claims little knowledge of Greek and Turkish. This is described in this article: [1]

According to Franklin: “Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 239)

“Sultan Valad did not feel confident about his command of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 240)

Sultan Walad actually admits the fact that his knowledge of Turkish and Greek is rudimentary four times. For example in the Ibtedanama, Sultan Walad states:

بگذر از گفت ترکی و رومی که از این اصطلاح محرومی گوی از پارسی و از تازی که در این هر دوخوش همیتازی

Translation: Abandon the speech of Turkish and Greek Since you are deprived of these expressions Instead speak Persian and Arabic Because you are well versed in these two Sultan Walad, Masnaviyeh Waladi, Ensha’ Baha al-Din b. Mowlana Jalal al-Din Mohammad b. Hosayn-e Balkhi, Mashur beh Mowalana, ed. Jalal al-Din Homa’I (Tehran:Eqbal, 1316) (pp 393-4)

His son admits 3-4 times that he has very poor command of Greek and Turkish.

7) A complete response to the arguments you have and could have is given here: [2] Wikipedia works by standards of Western scholars. Schimmel and Franklin are the top Rumi scholars and they have called Rumi a Persian and Persian poet. That is sufficient. It is unfortunate that the same arguments get repeated again and again. It is extremly tiring that instead of reading the archives some new user always comes to make the same repetative arguments. The fact is Rumi is known because of his Persian poetry. No one is going to examine his corpse for DNA evidence.

8)

Wikipedia works by WP:weight and WP:RS. Western scholars in general and Rumi Western scholars in particular (like Franklin and Schimmel) affirm Rumi's heritage and background as a Persian. So that is what counts and not endless polemics that is constantly repeated.

Encyclopedia of Islam is also another weighty source. GoshtaspLohraspi

1) Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000. How is it that a Persian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considered in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in Central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere, in which is now Turkey, some 1500 miles to the west? (p. 9)

2) Annemarie Schimmel, “The Mystery of Numbers”, Oxford University Press,1993. Pg 49: “A beautiful symbol of the duality that appears through creation was invented by the great Persian mystical poet Jalal al-Din Rumi, who compares God's creative word kun (written in Arabic KN) with a twisted rope of 2 threads (which in English twine, in German Zwirn¸both words derived from the root “two”)”. 3) Ritter, H.; Bausani, A. "ḎJ̲alāl al- Dīn Rūmī b. Bahāʾ al-Dīn Sulṭān al-ʿulamāʾ Walad b. Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad Ḵh̲aṭībī ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. Excerpt: "known by the sobriquet Mawlānā (Mevlânâ), Persian poet and founder of the Mawlawiyya order of dervishes" 4) Julia Scott Meisami, Forward to Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2008 (revised edition) 5) John Renard,"Historical dictionary of Sufism", Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. pg 155: "Perhaps the most famous Sufi who is known to many Muslims even today by his title alone is the seventh/13th century Persian mystic Rumi" 6) Frederick Hadland Davis , "The Persian Mystics. Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí", Adamant Media Corporation (November 30, 2005) , ISBN-10: 1402157681

But if you are interested in this matter, read here:[3]. However from Wikipedia's point of view, the most comprehensive books on Rumi are those written by Rumi scholars and amongst them, the book fo Franklin currently stands out as the most detailed and objective biography of Rumi in any language. And he is a Professor of University of Chicago. The Encyclopedia of Islam is also another weighty source. GoshtaspLohraspi

mevlana jalaluddin RUMI is TURK.He isn t IRANIAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Listentotheney (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that's what I call reasoning!94.183.126.215 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumi's homeland-Balkh region-has the native population of Tājīks who were called "Persian" at the time. I can give many sources to prove that Tājīks are the native inhabitants of Balkh region. Both "Persian" and "Tājīk" must be used as the ETHNICITY of Rumi to AVOID CONFUSION (even though Tājīks are part of Persian people, but they are called Tājīk today). Those who deny this fact, they seem as if they are stealing the cultural heritage of the native population of the region and this is totally unacceptable. Artacoana 11:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Turkish banknote

Two days ago, I added a short sentence mentioning the fact that Rumi was depicted on the reverse of the Turkish 5000 lira banknotes of 1981-1994. — The edit was blindly reverted by Nepaheshgar (edit summary: irrelevant).

In my opinion, the fact that the Turkish government considers Rumi as having enough symbolic significance to depict him in its currency is interesting to our readership, and worthy of mention in a single, short sentence.

In general, a government's decision to showcase an individual as a symbol of a country's culture and historical heritage (for that is what the banknote depiction connotes) is quite interesting. This is especially true in the case of Turkey, which up to that time had not depicted specific persons in its currency (with the exceptions of Ataturk & İsmet İnönü, the Republic's presidents). When the Turkish Bank decided to depict individuals, from all possible candidates they chose four: the author of the national anthem, Mehmed II, Sinan and Rumi. – To be honest, I cannot understand why this fact wouldn't belong in the article, especially when just above of where I introduced the sentence a mention of MySpace is deemed worthy of inclusion. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is extremely noteworthy. I will support you if you put it in. The reason you were reverted is because there are many edits done in bad faith to try to change Rumi's ethnicity, Nepaheshgar is a good editor and meant no harm. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I reintroduced the sentence at the same time I wrote the above comment. I know I should have waited for this discussion to take place, but sometimes blind reverts reduce my patience. My apologies. - Regards, Ev (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am against all this banknote stuff. Please stop this and try to understand "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia". According to Examples your banknotes appear to "belong to trivia section", and according to WP:TRIV "Trivia sections should be avoided." I strongly oppose your addition of picture of banknotes to Wikipedia. Please remove what you added.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, do you ever read the links you provide ? As its title implies, the Trivia sections guideline deals with the creation of separate trivia sections whithin articles, like the trivia section in our article on Pretoria. Of course those sections should be avoided. – Notice however that I did not add to this article a "Trivia" section with a "list of miscellaneous facts", but only a single noteworthy fact (whose relevance I argue above), and to the section I deemed appropriate. Moreover, the "Example" section of the Trivia sections guideline you are citing clearly states that "[t]he facts themselves are not the issue here: the problem is with their organization" (emphasis mine). - Ev (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand my point. Banknote provides no or unimportant information. That's it. If you click around in the page I posted you see kind of definition: "Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important." and I wrongly assumed that after seeing some examples you will understand that mentioning banknotes should be avoided. Also regarding your last sentence: no body is saying that there is no banknote with picture of Rumi on it, but I am saying SO WHAST?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, those examples you wanted me to see are interesting facts that are all currently mentioned in the article in question. The whole point of that "Example" section is to indicate how to organize noteworthy information within articles, instead of listing it randomly in a trivia section. – If you are comparing a mention of the banknote in this article with those facts about James Monroe, it is quite evident that the banknote should be mentioned here.

In any case, above I argue that, far from being unimportant information, mentioning the banknote helps to convey to our readership the significance attributed to Rumi in modern Turkey. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion that's not significant at all.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's significant either. But it's fine as an image with a caption. That said, the image shouldn't be in the middle of the page by itself. It should be embedded with a paragraph like all the other images, so I moved it to the right of the next paragraph. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, the articles on the following individuals currently mention similar depictions in currency:

• George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant & Benjamin Franklin.
• Except for Elizabeth II, all other 29 individuals included in Category:People illustrated on sterling banknotes mention those depictions, including: Alexander Graham Bell, Robert Burns, Charles Dickens, Michael Faraday, Alexander Fleming, David Livingstone, Isaac Newton, Florence Nightingale, Robert I of Scotland, Walter Scott, Adam Smith, George Stephenson, Robert Louis Stevenson, the Duke of Wellington, Christopher Wren and the featured articles on Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Charles Darwin. In the case of William Shakespeare, the mention is done in the "Memorials to William Shakespeare" sub-article.
• Some examples of literary figures: Antoine de Saint Exupéry (France), Banjo Paterson (Australia), Selma Lagerlöf (Swedish Nobel Prize), Elias Lönnrot (Finland), Taras Shevchenko (Ukraine), Mihai Eminescu (Romania), Henryk Sienkiewicz (Polish Nobel Prize), Turlough Carolan (Ireland), Annette von Droste-Hülshoff (Germany), Marko Marulić and Ivan Gundulić (Croatia), Jonathan Swift and the featured articles on James Joyce & William Butler Yeats.

These examples demonstrate that, in general, Wikipedia deems such depictions noteworthy. In view of this clearly attested general practice and my argumentation above, exactly why would that not be the case here ? Why would Rumi's depiction in Turkish currency be deemed "irrelevant" or "not significant at all" for this article ? - Ev (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the mention, which had been removed without explanation by 89.165.6.109 in October 2009 (dif). - Best, Ev (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud! Are the Persians and Turks fighting over Mowlānā/Mevlana again? Everybody just calm down and take a breath. It's just a banknote Xashaiar. Szfski (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the mention, which had been removed without any meaningful explanation by 188.158.12.85 (dif. Edit summary: there is no need to put turkish lira.). - Best, Ev (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

hi - I came in here for info on Rumi and thought I would check out the discussion page as well.. ""Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important" - was said about the banknote thing.. "important" is subjective, for me.. someone new to Rumi, I would think that he is important enough to be on a bank note is significant as it reflects his standing in the eyes of a certain nation. I would not dismiss this as unimportant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Prose works of Rumi

These should be elaborated on, since they are very important in understanding Rumi's philosophy. Of course he is known primarily for his poetry but still the prose works are highly elegant. The Fihi ma Fih is a work recorded by his students when Rumi was giving lectures. --GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).-Shahab (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity subpage

The debate on Rumi's ethnicity, whether he was Persian, Turkish, Tajik, Afghan or belongs to humanity has been raging on for a long time on this page now. The same old arguments are repeated by newbies, and no constructive decision has resulted. Little effort has been made towards taking this article towards FA and the energy of the contributors is being spent towards deciding on the "vital" question of ethnicity. I propose that first of all a subpage Talk:Rumi/Ethnicity be created where this debate can be continued. The main talk page should be reserved for discussing other improvements to the article. (A similar approach has been taken on a number of other wikipedia articles). Secondly, if no consensus is forthcoming then a request for comment be filed. I am willing to take the lead if no one objects.-Shahab (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good one. However, the debate on his ethnicity is usually done by some new wikipedia users who have no handle on sources and comeup with some slogans. In reality Fraklin, and Schimmel are top Rumi scholars of the world and their words are final. The article can use improvement though in terms of Rumi's philosophy. I suggest the new edition of Franklin be used to expand upon these. Thank you.--GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rumi's philosophy? He wasn't a philosopher in the traditional sense. The ideas espoused by him are not strictly his own but really the dominant Sufi ideas of his period(and I say this after having written nearly 95% of the philosophic outlook section of the article.) Rumi was not a traditional philosopher, not the kind Ghazali was anyway. His real genius lay in experiencing the inexpressible and yet expressing it through his poetry. (What's notable and missing though, is the extent of Rumi's impact on philosophy.) Anyway that is besides the point. My question is: Should we create an ethnicity subpage where everyone wishing to debate Rumi's ethnicity can do it to their heart's content. This would allow this page to focus on other issues and bring some balance.-Shahab (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

About the subpage you suggested, Wikipedia is not really a forum. See WP:forum. People that have really fringe claims or reasonable claims, can make an external link based on scholarly sources and put it at end of the article. For example he is what I think is a decent article: [4] and it is linked as an external link. Even nationalist Turkish scholars like Talat. S. Halman: “Baha ad-din (Rumi’s Father) and his family eventually settled in Konya, ancient Iconium, in central Anatolia. They brought with them their traditional Persian cultural and linguistic background and found in Konya a firmly entrenched penchant for Persian culture. In terms of Rumi’s cultural orientation – including language, literary heritage, mythology, philosophy, and Sufi legacy –the Iranians have indeed a strongly justifiable claim. All of these are more than sufficient to characterize Rumi as a prominent figure of Persian cultural history”(Rapture and Revolution, page 266). Other opinions as external links are welcomed by readers are not here in wikipedia for forum talk or to give citations to their on WP:OR. However the article follows top Rumi scholars like Franklin and Schimmel. --GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know he is not a traditional philosopher. But by philosophy in general I meant his "ideas, thoughts, spiritual path" and in one words what he calls the identity ("Andisheh"). The book of Franklin is really a must and the most comprehensive book on Rumi and should be used to expand this article. Good luck on that journey!--GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Instead of making a subpage for debating Rumi's ethnicity how about making a subpage seperately of the archived discussions of his ethnicity. Any new reader who has an objection can then be directed to it so can then read up before cluttering up this page with the same old repeated arguments. A similar approach was taken on Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi regarding the controversy of Mahatma vs Mohandas. Or alternatively, a FAQ on the lines of Talk:0.999... can be put up on the top of the page.-Shahab (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming there are no objections forthcoming I am adding a consensus notice on the top of the page. This will help new readers realize that for their objections to be taken seriously, they must be accompanied by reliable sources.-Shahab (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to create something that does not exist? The phenomena that we are observing here are called "Claims", and not actually "Debate". There are many random claims which nobody cares about, like the claims that Beethoven was black and not a Frisian just because he had curly hairs. Rumi was an ethnic Tajiki born in balkh, he spoke Persian and wrote in Persian which is crucial in understanding and interpreting his mindset. He was a citizen of the Seljuk empire in his later years, not because he liked to be there, but because of the Mongol invasion of his homeland which we would better call it generally "Khorasan". If you ask me, Rumi himself did not care about his ethnicity, anybody who is acquainted with his ideas should know that. He truly belonged to the whole "World". and which culture influenced Rumi the most? There are two major figures who influenced him during his life: Shams-i Tabrizi and Attar of Nishapur.حضرت محمود (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

-_-

can someone create a wikipage for

"Persian scholars/poets/scientists being claimed by enthusiast Turk nationals" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumi said these words; Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem (I may speak Persian but Im a Turk) can you explain me why Rumi said these words? read some of his books and find out the truth, its really funny that most people are ensured that Rumi was Persian while he said different things about this ancestry. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Persian poet info-box

Please change the Persian poet info-box to a standard infobox like William Shakespeare's article. Let's stop claiming people as this or that for nationalistic reasons. Just write a biography of them with their lives and accomplisments and works. EasternAryan (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Persian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian PersianPersian Persian Persian

Tell the tale in Persian so that all may understand it, Even though they lack insight and are (spiritually) sleep. Sultan Walad سلطان ولد —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reduce the number of sources citing Rumi's ethnicity

"Rumi... was a 13th-century Persian[1][4][5][6][7][8][9] poet". Should there really be nine sources citing the fact that Rumi was Persian? It is obvious to anyone who has studied Rumi and his life that he was Persian. Some people dispute this fact (and they are wrong). It is quite common that a fact that is disputed by some people (even if they are uneducated about the topic) to have many sources citing it in a Wikipedia articles. But this trend is getting out of hand. Having nine footnotes following a word (especially a word in the middle of a sentence) really reduces the readability of the sentence. What is gained from having so many sources cited? Nothing at all. The number of sources citing a fact doesn't make the fact any more or less true. I could find over 50 sources citing that Rumi was Persian. Should we cite them in the article? It's true that some POV editors will be less likely to remove a fact if it has nine sources following it, but those nine sources could be cited in the Discussion page in order to establish consensus. Surely a fact that has a consensus of support cannot be removed; any attempt to do so will quickly be reverted. Ironically, those that keep citing sources to facts such as this one, are those that most zealous about readers knowing the fact. However, the addition of so many footnotes reduces the sentences readability, reducing its clarity. Are readers more likely to believe a fact if it has nine footnotes? Perhaps the number of footnotes has some persuasive effect, but our role here is not to try to write a persuasive or convincing article, rather an informative, clear, and concise article. If we tailor the format or tone of the article in order to make it more persuasive we will compromise important things: in this case, readability and clarity. Where should we draw the line on the number of footnotes? There should be only one footnote following a fact in the middle of the sentence, preferably the most authoritative and reliable source being chosen for citation.Agha Nader (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any readability issue however they can collected more like in Scythians where a footnote covers many sources. So two three footnotes can have three sources each (3x3=9)...Each of the footnotes provide valuable information. However the article should be ip protected permanently as 95% of ip contributions are edits designed to change historical facts. Once the article is permanently ip protected the next logical solution would be to transform the 9 footnotes into either 2 or 3 footnotes with each footnote covering 3 sources or so..

Is Persian in this sense referring to an ethnicity, or to a language, or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.241.235 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

False (Non-Authentic) Quotes Attributed to Mowlana Rumi

The quote thats used on Rumi's Universality section is not composed by Rumi, though its attribute to him. I am quoting from Rumi & Islam: Poems and Selections, by Ibrahim Gamard, Page Xiii (Introduction section).

"I traversed the lands of the Cross and the Christians, but he wasn't on the cross. I travelled to the temple of idols, to the ancient temple, but, there wasn't even a tinge evident within it.... I looked into my heart, and I saw Him in that place, He wasn't in any other place."[3]

"Even if you are an unbeliever or Zoroastrian fire worshipper or an idol worshipper, return. ..... The Sufis court of ours is not a court of despair. Even if you have broken your repentance a hundred times, return"[4]

Both the above quotes are not composed by Rumi. As I looked into sources [3] and [4] of the book's Notes, this is mentioned:

[3] First Translated by Nicholson in 1898, Selected Poems from the Divani Shamsi Tabriz, no XVII, ppg 71-73. This poem doesnot occur in the earliest manuscripts of the Divan and is no longer considered to be authentic by scholars. Nicholson mentioned that this poem occured in only one manuscript which is dated over 170 years after Rumi's death.

[4] This quatrian does not exist in the earliest manuscript of Rumi's Divan, but is found in manuscript of another poet Baba Afzaluddin Kashani (died 1274), it has long been attributed to Aby Said ibin Abi Khayr (died 1048), for which see Abramain, Nobody, Son of Nobody:Poems of Shaikh Abu Saeed Abil Kheir (Prescott, Arizona: Hohm Press, 2001), p 4.

Someone should remove that quote, or add a criticism note. -- Thanks. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the 1st quote... "I traversed the lands of Cross..". as that's considered fabricated/false. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Date: May 2010

Problem: A few of this article's sections (Life, for example) are in desperate need of better grammar and clarity.

Random the Scrambled ^(?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 23:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is just a mess, mostly because of nationalistic POV etc. A real expert is needed, and the article needs to be based on scholarly works, not the personal POV of certain Wikipedians. Tajik (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What nationalistic POV? I see references to Encyclopedia of Islam, Schimmel, Franklin and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

dear Tajik, the accepted academic theory is that rumi is a Persian poet, mystic and was born in wakhsh Tajikistan which was then part of the larger province of balkh... If you put dispute section there instead of another tag,you are really helping pan turkist type nationalists.. You might want to keep the cleanup tag..and do some editing to clean it up.. However don't give an execuse to pan Turk type groups... specially since the information in this article is based on Franklin, schimmel , ei and etc.. Thanks your friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.9.79 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So doost aziz please get involved and fix anything you see fit, But don't give reasons for Turkish nationalists to dispute the main facts.. I know you understand.. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Protect?

Shouldn't this page be protected? I'm getting a bit tired of reverting every anonymous IP that tries to claim Rumi for some modern nation-state. The last numbskull even tried to say that the city of Vakhsh was in Afghanistan. Szfski (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection : 1 month JoJan (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Farhadus, 4 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The article claims that Rumi is from "Iranzamin". This is errouneous. Rumi came from Balkh located in Afghanistan.

Farhadus (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As a registered user you can make the change as soon as you are autoconfirmed, i.e. for most users on en.wiki, accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 legitimate edits. JoJan (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

JoJan, that is why this user used {{editsemiprotected}} to request the edit. Farhadus, do you have a source for that change? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems an endless edit war going on over the birthplace and "nationality" of the Rumi. That's why I semi-protected this article to let passions cool down. But I don't want to get involved in this edit war and that's why I didn't make the edit without a reference to a reliable source. JoJan (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 221.187.47.219, 11 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change "Rumi was born in Greater Iran (Iranzamin), in the province of Balkh and thus he is called Balkhi" to "Rumi was born in the Persian Empire, or present-day Balkh, Afghanistan. For this reason, he is often called Balkhi."

Rationale: The current sentence is historically inaccurate and thus non-scholarly.

The region where Rumi was born was not known as Iran at the time, but as the Persian Empire. Therefore, the best edit would be to write "Rumi was born in ... the Persian Empire, or present-day Afghanistan" which is in fact the most historically accurate description.

While one can argue that due to border changes, at the time of Rumi's birth, Balkh was within the Persian Empire, it should be pointed out that Rumi was neither ethnically or culturally Iranian as evidenced from his writing. On the contrary, he conformed with the ethnic groups compromising the Afghan people as suggested by his specific dialectical variant in writing the Persian language (upon close investigation, his Persian was closest to the "Dari" dialect of Persian as spoken in Afghanistan).

Thank you for listening to my appeal.

Sources

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Afghanistan http://www.mfa.gov.af/rumis.asp <-- Government article discussing Rumi's past, with evidence of Rumi's family history in Afghanistan.

Information about his writing approximating the Dali dialect http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/about_translations.html

Google maps confirming that it is present day Afghanistan http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=2Lk&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=balkhi&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

221.187.47.219 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

221.187.47.219 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done per WP:BOLD, noting that his birthplace has been the subject of past disputes. I implemented this change because it was properly cited and uncontested. If someone more knowledgeable and with a conflicting source wishes to revert, I have no problem with that. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting information

Conflicting information? On the one hand the article states that "Rumi was born in the Persian Empire, or present-day Balkh, Afghanistan." In the same paragraph, it states that: "He was born in the village of Wakhsh, a small town located at the river Wakhsh in what is now Tajikistan." The place where Rumi was born cannot be both in present-day Afghanistan and what is now Tajikistan, can it?Rvlusa (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article seems to be a victim of the POV I-hate-other-countries edit warring that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Is it really that difficult to state which present day country his birthplace is in? Davidelit (Talk) 08:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.164.240.252, 16 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 1) Rumi is not Persian 2) Rumi is an Alevi 3) Semah is an Alevi rituel

78.164.240.252 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Muslim Sufi"

An anonymous IP has been editing this article despite several reverts to read that Rumi was a "Persian Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic." Am I right in reasoning that "Muslim... Sufi" is redundant and reverting these edits? I just wanted to get an idea of consensus before I continue to revert... Thanks, Lithoderm 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all people would be aware of Sufi's being Muslims... some might say they are not (LOL).. so while many might think it is redundant - it does assume a certain level of knowledge from readers which perhaps is beyond many of them. I would leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rumi's religious denomination

While it is true that Mowlawna praises the first two Caliphs in his couplets, it is also worth mentioning that he also writes highly of Ali.

Learn from Ali how to fight without your ego participating.

The lion who breaks the enemy's ranks is a minor hero compared to the lion who overcomes himself.

God's lion did nothing that didn't originate from his deep center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.97.19 (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dec 2010

My friend, if you knew anything about Molavi (Rumi, Melevi, or whatever other name you wish to give him) you would not waste your energy trying to give him a national identiy. Molavi was a mystic, a manof God and the only thing that mattered to him was to "lose his ego" and thus get closer to God. How Ironic that people like you use him to do the opposite! He would have found your attempts to use his presumed nationality to boost your own ego a sign of immaturity and lack of spiritual development. I make no apology if you find my comment offensive. In fact I am pleased if that is the case, since to make something better, something has to be destroyed. That was Molavi's philosophy which I adhere to and respect. Best wishes, Keivan (with no particular national prejudice) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K31van (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The above comment moved from the top of the page by Imc (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Both Persian and Tajik must be used as the ethnicity of Rumi

Rumi's homeland-Balkh region-has the native population of Tājīks who were called "Persian" at the time. I can give many sources to prove that Tājīks are the native inhabitants of Balkh region. Both "Persian" and "Tājīk" must be used as the ETHNICITY of Rumi to AVOID CONFUSION (even though Tājīks are part of Persian people, but they are called Tājīk today). Those who deny this fact, they seem as if they are stealing the cultural heritage of the native population of the region and this is totally unacceptable. Artacoana 11:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Decisions in Wikipedia is just based on reliable sources, not idea of users. Sources say Rumi was a Persian. --Aliwiki (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Persian propaganda place???

Is this page is for persian propaganda?When reading the page that is strongly attracting our attention!I think By this way persians are showing disrespecting,betraying and mistreating Muhammad Rumi's philosophy!Shame on them!Also nationalism is forbidden in Islam!And look to [5]--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dont mind them mate just let it go, we know better than that, Mevlana his family owns a website on the net and they have the truth on their website, Mevlana himself stated many times in his books that he is a Turk and not Persian, he said these famous words: Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem (I may speak Persian but Im a Turk)

Many people accept Mevlana as Persian because he wrote in Persian which was the literature language at that time, many sources are based on this. By the way Mevlana did know Greek and Turkish, he also wrote in the Oghuz Turkish language and Urdu. If you wish any sources visit www.mevlana.net this website is owned by his family. Redman19 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Hindi" is not Persian, it means Hindi (Indian). And Mawlana has no Indian poems. Rather the play Hindu vs Turk is an old Persian symbolism of light vs dark, and has no ethnic affiliation.

Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su" تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو To Maah-i Torki o man Agar Tork nistam Daanam man in Qadar keh Beh Torki ast, 'aab Su Professional Translation: You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). The imagery of Turk, Rumi, Hindu and Zang is common in Persian poetry and has been used by many poets. Unfortunately, I doubt any of the people that wrote the comments above have any idea of these. For a detailed article on Rumi's ethnicity, see [6] where this symbolism is also explained among many other features. Here is an anectode from Rumi quoted by Aflaki (pg 503) about Tukrs vs Greeks. Note he is not putting Turks downs or praising Greeks (in my opinion) but just making an observation: "Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. When God—He is sublime and exalted—ordered the creation of the world of sovereignty (‘alam-e molk’), first He created unaware-infidels, and He conferred on them long life and great strength so they would strive like hired laborers in building the terrestrial world. And they built up many cities and fortresses on mountain peaks and places on top of a hill such that after generations had passed these constructions were a model for those who came later. Then divine predestination saw to it that little by little these constructions would become completely destroyed and desolate, and be eradicated. God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. And they are still doing so, and day by day until the Resurrection they will continue to destroy in this manner. In the end, the destruction of the city of Konya will also be at the hands of wicked Turks devoid of mercy.’ And this being the case, it turned out just as Mowlana said. " (pg 503) See: Shams al-Din Ahmad al_Afkali, Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn, ed. Tahsin Yazici, 2 vols, Tehran, Donyaayeh Ketab, 1983. English translation: Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002.--96.241.114.129 (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I already explained before Rumi is often mistaken for Persian because he wrote his poems in Persian, Persian was the literature language at the time, many Ottoman sultans also wrote their poems in Persian this doesnt make them Persian right? what Rumi ment by "Hindi" was a language that was hard to understand for many people, in other words this is a reference to the Persian language because he wrote in Persian, UNESCO accepted Rumi as a part of Turkish culture, why are you Iranians still trying to claim him with your Persian propaganda? Rumi was born in Khorasan, this place was mainly inhabited by Turkish tribes (Turkmen) in the time when Rumi was born, there are still many Turks in Iran and present day Afghanistan.

Again some quotes of Rumi: Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem = I may write/speak Persian, but Im still a Turk. Turk gibi cevik ol, Acem (Farsi) gibi miymintilik etme = Be fast as a Turk not slow as a Persian.

Visit www.mevlana.net, you can find the info I just wrote here on there, the real truth is written there, that is the only website on the internet that is owned by his own family.

Even Hamid Baqaee the director of Iranian Cultural and Heritage Organisation (ICHTO) and the Islamic Republic’s vice president called the renowned 13th century "Persian" mystic Poet, Rumi, a ‘Turkish intellectual’. Redman19 (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Without proper understanding of Persian language , translating the sentences is giving wrong information . In Persian poem , because of the physical appearance of Anatolian people was white , and of Indian people was dark , the poet tended to use them as contrast in poem . Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem , that means I'm white but using dark words !! hinduguyem: Hendi (Indian)+ guyam (taking) = I'm talking (in) Hendi : Did he ever talked in Indian?!! Overall that means "I'm Pessimistic in words , but Optimistic in heart" --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The first poem of yours states: "Speaking Hindu" not speaking Persian. Hindu and Turk were used as a symbols of Persian poetry, and have no ethnic value here.. "Torki Kon" means to move around, where-as being 'Ajam (Tajik) means to be settled. Also the site you brought has no academic value and you are mistaken. Rumi's Friday sermons, his lectures to his students (which were takens as notes by his students) are also in Persian. This shows it was his everyday language. Also you are selectively quoting Rumi. "You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su"(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). As per the website you brought, much more than that has been analyzed here: [7] As per Hameed Baqai, that is what Turkish newspapers reported by this was denined by Iranian media. Plus we do not quote Hameed Baqai, but Ann Marrie Schimmel and Lewis Franklin who are the top known Rumi scholars.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources I gave you were provided by his own grandson, I dont think his own grandson is mistaken about his own roots and that of Rumi right? have you ever been in Konya? you can read this all yourself in the Mevlana Museum. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)"

Her ne kadar Farsça söylesem de, aslım Türktür benim. <<< again Rumi clearly states here that he is a Turk, why? you know what aslim means? origins, you can read it yourself in the Mevlana Museum, see it with your own eyes. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"I have proved many times with documents that Mevlana was a Kaşgar Turk and his family used to speak the Hakani dialect, which belongs to Central Asian languages,” said İsmail Yakıt, the head of the Philosophy and Religious Sciences Department at Süleyman Demirel University in Isparta. He said one of the clear proofs of this argument was Mevlana’s son, Sultan Veled, who was born after Mevlana’s family had moved to Karaman.

“Sultan Veled was born after his family had moved to Karaman. While the whole of Central Asia was speaking the Anatolian dialect, Mevlana was writing in the Hakani dialect,” he said, adding that the Persian language Mevlana had used was actually Anatolian Persian. He said Anatolian Persian language was used by elite people of the region and was also the mother tongue of the Selçuk state." 188.202.146.57 (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Rumi's grandson is not alive. You might be talking about his 20th descendant which is not important what he states, since Wikipedia works based on scholars and not here-say. Wikipedia works by using modern Western scholarly sources and experts like Schimmel and Franklin ae clear that Rumi is Persian. As per the verse you brought, sorry your making up a verse. Because Rumi never said those verses and you cannot find it. Rumi wrote his poetry in Persian and he uses the opposition of Hindu and Turk. Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su" تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو To Maah-i Torki o man Agar Tork nistam Daanam man in Qadar keh Beh Torki ast, 'aab Su Professional Translation by Schimmel: You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). So why ignore this line? Rumi's Friday sermons, his lectures to his students (which were takens as notes by his students) are also in Persian. This shows it was his everyday language. Also you are selectively quoting Rumi. "You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su"(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). Mowlana never wrote in a "Hakani dialect" nor did he anything to do with Kasghar!.. He was born in Wakhsh Tajikistan according to modern sources and he has some mixed Persian-Greek and Persian-Turkish poetry(total Greek/Turkish is less than 1% of his work). Sultan Valad also admits he does not know Turkish well. There is no such thing as "Anatolian Persian" because the Persian of Rumi is understandable to the educated Persian speaker today. I don't need to come to Konya, cause I can read Rumi's work in original Persian. There must have been numerous Turkish dialects at the time, and living in Anatolia, Sultan Valad and Rumi were exposed to these dialects just like they were exposed to Greek. However, even Sultan Valad(Rumi's son) admits he does not know Turkish well. Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000. pg 239:”Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish " For example in his Ebteda-Nama, Sultan Walad admits twice in Persian after some of the lines in Greek/Turkish. Here is a verse from Sultan Walad (Rumi's son): بگذر از گفت ترکی و رومی که از این اصطلاح محرومی گوی از پارسی و تازی که در این دو همی خوش تازی Translation: "Let go of the languages of Greek (Rumi) and Turkish (Turki) Because you lack knowledge in these two, Thus speak in Persian and Arabic, Since in these two, you recite very well." And also elsewhere in Ghazal in his Diwan, he writes:: If I knew Turkish, I would have brought one to a thousand. But when you listen to Persian, I tell the secrets much better" "Sultan Walad, ”Mowlavi-ye Digar:Shamel-e Ghazzaliyat, Qasayed, Qete’at, Tarkibat, Ash’ar-eTorki, Ashar-e Arabi, Mosammat, Robbi’yyat” Tehran, Sana’i, 1984. pg 556: ترکچه اگر بیلیدم بر سروزی بک ایدیدم طتچه اگر دیلرسز گویم اسرار علا". This shows the family was not Turkish or else Sultan Walad would not admit that his knowledge of Turkish is poor. --96.241.114.129 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Rumis own words

‘ASLIM TÜRKTÜR BENİM’ Mevlana’nın neredeyse tüm yazmalarında bulunan rubaisi şöyle: “Yabancı bellemeyin beni, ben de bu ildenim, Sizin vatanınızda kendi yurdumu aramaktayım, Her ne kadar düşman gibi görünsem de, düşman değilim, Her ne kadar Farsça söylesem de, aslım Türktür benim.” the sentence in bold is sometimes written as hinduguyem, this is a reference to Farsça (Persian) not Hindi, both sentences have the same meaning.

@Response: A) All the response to your arguments here: [8] B) Rumi has no such a poem..Hindu Guyam = speak Indian not Persian. So you have mistranlated Rumi's poem into Turkish. Hindu and Turks are symbols of contrast in Persian poetry and do not take ethnic values. As noted by Kafardar when quoting the Turkish scholar Golpiranli and such ethnonyms in the works of Rumi:"Golpiranli rightly insists that ethnonym were deployed allegorically and metaphortically in classical Islamic literatures, which operated on the basis of a staple set of images and their well recognized contextual associations by readers; there, "turk" had both a negativeand positive connocation. In fact, the two dimensions could be blended: the "Turk" was "cruel" and hence, at the same time, the "beautiful beloved"( Kafadar 2007:23). And also noted by de Bruijn: “In such imagery the link to ethnic characteristics is hardly relevant, so that it may be used together with features of another ethnic type in the characterization of a single person, e.g., when Neẓāmi describes the princess of Hend as āhu-ye Tork-čašm-e Hendu-zād (“a gazelle with Turkish eyes, of Indian blood” (de Burijn 2003).

Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su" تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو To Maah-i Torki o man Agar Tork nistam Daanam man in Qadar keh Beh Torki ast, 'aab Su

Professional Translation by Schimmel: You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). So why ignore this line? He also states: ""Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. When God—He is sublime and exalted—ordered the creation of the world of sovereignty (‘alam-e molk’), first He created unaware-infidels, and He conferred on them long life and great strength so they would strive like hired laborers in building the terrestrial world. And they built up many cities and fortresses on mountain peaks and places on top of a hill such that after generations had passed these constructions were a model for those who came later. Then divine predestination saw to it that little by little these constructions would become completely destroyed and desolate, and be eradicated. God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. And they are still doing so, and day by day until the Resurrection they will continue to destroy in this manner. In the end, the destruction of the city of Konya will also be at the hands of wicked Turks devoid of mercy.’ And this being the case, it turned out just as Mowlana said. ""(See: Shams al-Din Ahmad al_Afkali, Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn, ed. Tahsin Yazici, 2 vols, Tehran, Donyaayeh Ketab, 1983. English translation: Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002). As noted Annemarie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, SUNY Press, 1993, p. 193: "Rumi's mother tongue was Persian, but he had learned during his stay in Konya, enough Turkish and Greek to use it, now and then, in his verse". A complete response is also available here: [9][10]. The problem with the Turkish nationalistic reading of Rumi (which brings about full of contradiction has he has also considered himself Rumi (Greek), Zang (black..)" is the lack of understanding of Persian poetry and the non-ethnic metaphor meanings of Hindu/Hindu, Rum, Turk, Zang, and Habash. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by WP:RS not WP:OR. So Franklin and Schimmel get the final words.