Jump to content

Talk:Said Nursî

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

Criticism Section and Sources

[edit]

A new section was added to the article entitled "Criticism". The sources for this section consists of:

Frankly speaking, the above sources are questionable as the above websites are clearly promotional in nature. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources.

Additionally, We read the following quote in this section: "Said Nursi's attempts at revitalizing Islam have also been criticized for compromising the fragile modernization efforts of the early Republic of Turkey" and the source given is "A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition. I.B.Tauris. pp. 210–211. ISBN 978-1-85043-416-0."

However, after reading the given source, I noticed no evidence to support this statement. What was present in the text were instances of Nursi being imprisoned for praying in Arabic and pamphleteering.

The last claim being made is that Mustafa Sabri Efendi criticised Nursi. Since this is disputed the text of the article should reflect this.

It should also be noted that almost all the references in this section are from Turkish sources. It would be strongly preferable to find sources in the English language given that this is an English encyclopedia.

Further, none of the claims have come from secondary sources. As per Wikipidea guidelines, we need to use reliable secondary sources particularly for a criticism section. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources.

As a final point, whilst it is useful to add a genuine section on criticism, these should be provided from reliable sources. Very little of this section fits in as a reliable source.

I have re-written the section in line for the above reasons. RookTaker (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going through them. I agree that a lot of the sources were bad; in fact, this whole article is poorly sourced. However, a lot of your edits are POV, such as the sentence "During his life, Nursi had plenty of secular critics who were ready to argue that devout Muslims made bad citizens". That's not a criticism of Nursî; it is a talking point. Furthermore, qualifying people as "anti-Capitalist writer" and capitalizing "Prophet" point to POV in some of the edits. Let's keep the article well-sourced and neutral. Even furthermore, the whole point of the Criticism section is to... list criticism. That's why the words "accuse" and "charge" are used instead of "Said Nursî is a liar!". While sensitivity is good and helps prevent POV, the words used also do that. Ithinkicahn (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made one of the sources into a proper cite template (the dead link one). There's plenty of work to do on the rest as well. Ithinkicahn (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the only reason I added the initial sentences was to try and provide references from secondary sources as per Wikipedia guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources). The sentences I added were:
"During his life, Nursi had plenty of secular critics who were ready to argue that devout Muslims made bad citizens"
This has been taken word for word from Ian S. Markham, Suendam Birinci Pirim, An Introduction to Said Nursi: Life, Thought and Writings, p 60. ISBN: 1409407713. Please see here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xtpM-ae-P6QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=An+Introduction+to+Said+Nursi:+Life,+Thought+and+Writings&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1o3rUvuNNKuX7Qav5YG4Aw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=An%20Introduction%20to%20Said%20Nursi%3A%20Life%2C%20Thought%20and%20Writings&f=false)
Likewise, the sentence "Nursi was subsequently persecuted by the secularist state for having invested in religious revival." has been taken word for word from Gerhard Böwering, Patricia Crone, Mahan Mirza, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, p 482. ISBN: 0691134847.
i.e. These are secondary sources without any original research and are therefore reliable.
On the other hand, all the references that you have provided are primary sources and original research (please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). Whilst the claims might be true, it is not reliable to base an encyclopedia on non academic controversial websites such as www.19.org etc...
I defined Ihsan Eliacik as "anti-Capitalist" as this is the way he is described in the economist magazine. Please read (http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2013/07/turkish-politics). I found very little about this man in the English language. Why is he notable? Why should his views on Nursi matter? The only description I could find of any worth was from the Economist Magazine which is why I referred to him as "anti-Capitalist". How else would you describe him?
I have no doubt that Nursi was criticised by a significant number of people (including secular Turkish authors) and would be happy to add this to the article. What you need to do however is add from reliable academic secondary sources. There are a number of books on Nursi available in the English language and I am sure that if you were to look hard enough you would find reliable criticisms. What we cannot do however is add the above sources as they are frankly inadequate.RookTaker (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't for word for word borrowings from books and other sources. Language that might be in books is often not appropriate for Wikipedia, as it is not encyclopedic, such as "During his life, Nursi had plenty of secular critics who were ready to argue that devout Muslims made bad citizens." That is definitely not encyclopedic language. I guarantee you I can find many other secondary sources that say opposite of what those say; just because something is in a secondary source does not mean it is a reliable source in every single sentence that is in it. And "Certain Shi'a groups criticise Nursi for believing in supernatural events" also seems to be to lessen the criticisms as Shi'a, since you made a point to mention that twice (both in the original sentence "In recent years a number of claims have been made against Nursi by non-Sunni authors" and this one).
I would not describe Ihsan Eliacik as "anti-capitalist" just because an Economist article referred to him that way. There is no indication that that is his main or only aim in life, and it seems to be based on a single passing remark. The only thing that adjective is doing in this Wikipedia article is to try to lessen his opinion, and I know you knew that when you added it. And how would you explain your capitalization of "Prophet" in the article? Also, you have removed the cleaned up references that I have made. Furthermore, you have changed "A book by the former Sheikh ul-Islam (supreme religious authority) of the Ottoman Empire Mustafa Sabri Efendi, titled Nurculuk Hakkında, was published in 1964," into "According to some, the former Sheikh ul-Islam (supreme religious authority) of the Ottoman Empire Mustafa Sabri Efendi wrote a book entitled". What was the point of that? The book was published.
"In recent years a number of claims have been made against Nursi by non-Sunni authors." is also not a fair change. Sunni people are also among the criticisms; have you even seen the source by the theologian Abdülaziz Bayındır? I have left in your "Others" have doubted the authenticity part, since the source didn't indicate that they were a follower of Nursi. Ithinkicahn (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you stated that "I guarantee you I can find many other secondary sources that say opposite of what those say". I think you are probably right and this is what we should add to the article based on Wikipedia recommendations. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Here we read, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
The references you have provided so far are all primary sources and have been interpreted by you. This is not suitable for an encyclopedia.
There are a number of academic books on Nursi available such as:
  • Said Nursi: Makers of Islamic Civilization by Colin Turner and Hasan Horkuc (Oxford Press). ISBN: 1845117743
  • The Qur'an Revealed: A Critical Analysis of Said Nursi's Epistles of Light (Gerlach Press). ISBN: 3940924288
The latter seems to be useful in providing criticism of Nursi. If you genuinely want to add a reliable criticism section on Nursi then please add evidences from academic secondary sources such as the above.
As mentioned earlier, www.19.org is a polemic site of the non-Sunni Qur'anist movement. Edip Yuksel is a believer in the "number 19 miracle" of the Qur'an. This is not a secondary academic source but a primary source from a very controversial writer.
Likewise, http://www.islamkutuphanesi.com/ is a polemic shi'a site. If you are to add this as a source, then it should be explained as such.
As mentioned previously I found very little about Ihsan Eliacik in the English language. Why is he notable? Why should his views on Nursi matter? The only description I could find of any worth was from the Economist Magazine which is why I referred to him as "anti-Capitalist". How else would you describe him?
Additionally, the book Nurculuk Hakkında was published 10 years after Sabri's death. It has been attributed to him but not everyone agrees that the book was genuinely written by him.
On reflection, the "references" provided are so poor that we should remove the entire section until something reliable can be found. We seem to be going round in circles so I would suggest getting support from other Wikipedians. There is a Wikipedia page with lists of people who can provide assistance here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance) and if you are ok with the idea I can choose somebody to help us. Until then I will remove the section entirely.RookTaker (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has pointed out that the so-called book by Sabri Efendi has been even called a hoax by critics of Nursi, so I'm deleting that part. The rest of the criticisms are well-sourced. Edip Yüksel is a well-known writer and intellectual in Turkey and abroad, and Abdülaziz Bayındır is a well-respected theologian in Turkey as well. No reason to delete theirs and other criticisms though. Ithinkicahn (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the "Original Research" tag to this section as it is entirely your research and has not been backed up by any secondary sources. As mentioned previously, this section is extremely weak as it fails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and really ought to be removed. To avoid conflict I have left it in here so as to give you time to find reliable secondary sources as you mentioned above that you could "find many other secondary sources that say opposite of what those say". Please do so before removing the tags. If you disagree with this, then we can go down the route of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and get some clarity from there. RookTaker (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over 6 months since the criticism section was first added and not a single reliable secondary source has been provided. Instead, all the "sources" refer to unreliable polemic sites such as www.19.org and fails WP:RS. As such, I have removed the section entirely. RookTaker (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some reliable sources should be there. However, For example, "Anti-Capitalist" writer Ihsan Eliacik is a controversial figure and has been criticizing everybody but himself. Also he is the leader of so called "Anti-Capitalist Muslims", which makes him a kind of rival of Nursi. Yakamoz51 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Movement or Islamic Movement

[edit]

There seems to be a dispute regarding the use of the phrase "faith movement" instead on "Islamic movement". I used the sentence "Nursi inspired a faith movement" instead of "Nursi inspired an Islamic movement" as this is the way Nursi's movement has been described in a number of reliable secondary sources. Examples of this include:

  • "Said Nursi was an ethnic Kurd who authored several volumes of of exegisis on the Kuran known as Risale-i nur {epistle of light}. Nurculuk starting with the 1950's, became the most powerful text-based faith movement in Turkey." Omer Taspinar, Kurdish Nationalism and Political Islam in Turkey: Kemalist Identity in Transition (Middle East Studies: History, Politics & Law), p. 228. ISBN: 041594998X
  • "The internal organization of the "faith movement" of the nurcu is a diffuse one which..." Şerif Mardin, Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey: The Case of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, p. 23. ISBN: 0887069967.
  • "Nursi inspired a faith movement that has played a vital role in the revival of Islam in Turkey." Sukran Vahide, Islam in Modern Turkey: An Intellectual Biography of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, p. 425. ISBN:
  • "Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, whose treaties on Islamic faith and morality have shaped an important faith movement..." Gürkan Çelik, The Gülen Movement: Building Social Cohesion Through Dialogue and Education, p. 47. ISBN: 9059723694.

As such, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that the phrase "faith movement" is a more accurate description of his movements. If you believe that the phrase Islamic movement should be used then please provide reliable evidence. RookTaker (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a faith movement for Christians? Was it a faith movement for Jews? Obviously not; the purpose is to inform exactly, not to make ambiguous comments. Ithinkicahn (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nursi's movement has been described as a "faith movement" by a number of secondary sources (see above). This is why it is an accurate way to describe his movement. If you feel that his movement should be described as an "Islamic movement" then please provide evidence from reliable secondary sources as per wikipedia guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BURDEN#Burden_of_evidence. RookTaker (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, there are several reference to that Said Nursi is a Sunni Muslim. So, I think when you say "faith movement" it will not make any ambiguity, Unless a reader, read only that sentence. Yakamoz51 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're insisting on the more ambiguous "faith movement". I have provided multiple sources for "Islamic movement", which is also the more naturally specific term. Anything other than that serves to ambiguate the matter, especially in the lede. This is not a contentious issue; it's obvious, and has a place in the lede, whose purpose is to quickly inform and summarize the article. The sources were already included in the article, but here:
Ithinkicahn (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - we therefore see the use of both the terms "Faith Movement" (as per the sources I provided above) and "Islamic Movement" (as per the sources you have provided). The phrase "Islamic Movement" is often used as a synonym for Islamism or political Islam. Nursi was certainly against the use of violence and Islamism. We read for example:
"New Said forbade himself any political engagement. He found it harmful to have any political agenda while trying to serve the Qur'an." [Gerhard Böwering, Patricia Crone, Mahan Mirza, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, p. 482. ISBN: 0691134847]
"Nursi rejected political radicalism. and focused his energy on articulating a religious worldview and moral code compatible with the modern world." [Constantine Arvanitopoulos, Turkey’s Accession to the European Union: An Unusual Candidacy, p 189. ISBN: 1317986466]
"Said Nursi (1877-1960) was an advocate of a form of Islam strongly committed to non-violence and constructive engagement with the West and Christianity." [Ian Markham, İbrahim Özdemir, Globalization, Ethics and Islam: The Case of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, ISBN: 0754650154]
Perhaps it would therefore be more appropriate to use the sentence "Nursi inspired an apolitical Islamic movement" to distinguish his movement from those movements that adhere to violence and extremism. What are your thoughts? RookTaker (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed "faith" to "religious". In the context of the lede (as it is currently worded) it is obvious that it is Islamic. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophy?

[edit]

I see that my edit has been reverted so that this article perpetuates the false notion that Said Nursi has some association with the so-called theosophy of Helena Blavatsky. There is absolutely no evidence for this. The English word "theosophy" has been used by scholars to translate the Arabic word "hikmah" or "hikmat," as in the transcendent theosophy (al-hikmat al-muta'āliyah) of Mulla Sadra. The Akbariyya school that began with Ibn 'Arabi has also been called theosophical Sufism but, again, this has nothing to do with the late 19th century occultist movement started by Blavatsky.

I am going to fix this false association again, because I have seen no evidence for it. If someone can demonstrate the influence of Blavatskian theosophy on Nursi, fine, but I think this is either a simple misunderstanding or an ill-intended effort to tarnish his reputation. Spelare108 (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Onel5969's fault. They've since declared they won't engage in such edits.
@Spelare108: although we don't go with editor interpretation or knowledge but with cited sources, you do appear more familiar with this topic than me. Would Transcendent theosophy be a better link? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson:

No, because Transcendent theosophy refers specifically to the school of Mulla Sadra, and I'm not sure Said Nursi knew of him. The appropriate reference would be to theosophical (aka philosophical) Sufism, exemplified by the Akbariyya school that followed Ibn Arabi and the Illuminationist (ishraqi) school of Suhrawardi. Said Nursi definitely read and was influenced by these authors, giving him some affinity with Mulla Sadra's transcendent theosophy without direct contact. Spelare108 (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to remove ALL references to theosophy. It’s just an error that has crept in apparently because of a translation error. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Train Wreck

[edit]

Parts of this article are written from a biased opinion, and on the whole it appears to be a bit of a train wreck. I can't make heads or tails of half of the information in the "Teachings and Movement" section. Can anyone help whoever wrote this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.76.181 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)<diff>[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Said_Nursî&oldid=1231178679"