| Revision as of 12:08, 27 June 2006 editNkv (talk | contribs)861 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:09, 27 June 2006 edit undoNkv (talk | contribs)861 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| : The Qadiri order of Sufis has him as their Murshid. There are books on Tasawwuf written by him. Why do you say that he is not a Sufi Sheikh? --] 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | : The Qadiri order of Sufis has him as their Murshid. There are books on Tasawwuf written by him. Why do you say that he is not a Sufi Sheikh? --] 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :: What happens at the tomb of nizamuddin in delhi now does not mean that nizamuddin himself endorsed that. People later on fabricate a lot of stuff, so they take him as murshid means nothing. read abdul qadir jilani's books (fatuhul Ghayb or gunitu-talibeen and like) and you will know what his aqida was. Also, there are incidents in this article without any proof. It deserves a disputed tag ] 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | :: What happens at the tomb of nizamuddin in delhi now does not mean that nizamuddin himself endorsed that. People later on fabricate a lot of stuff, so they take him as murshid means nothing. read abdul qadir jilani's books (fatuhul Ghayb or gunitu-talibeen and like) and you will know what his aqida was. Also, there are incidents in this article without any proof. It deserves a disputed tag ] 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I don't think it deserves a disputed tag. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that he was a Sufi. I can't read his books since I don't have copies nor do I understand the language. Perhaps you could post some links as to why he shouldn't be regarded as a Sufi? --] 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ::: I don't think it deserves a disputed tag. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that he was a Sufi. I can't read his books since I don't have copies nor do I understand the language. Perhaps you could post some links as to why he shouldn't be regarded as a Sufi? Also, perhaps it's a good idea to register a username for yourself? It helps track discussions and archive them. --] 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:09, 27 June 2006
Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani bein attributed as a Sufi Sheikh is baseless and incorrect. The article is POV and has arguments and statements that have no proof. 68.69.58.146 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Qadiri order of Sufis has him as their Murshid. There are books on Tasawwuf written by him. Why do you say that he is not a Sufi Sheikh? --Nkv 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- What happens at the tomb of nizamuddin in delhi now does not mean that nizamuddin himself endorsed that. People later on fabricate a lot of stuff, so they take him as murshid means nothing. read abdul qadir jilani's books (fatuhul Ghayb or gunitu-talibeen and like) and you will know what his aqida was. Also, there are incidents in this article without any proof. It deserves a disputed tag 68.233.38.154 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it deserves a disputed tag. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that he was a Sufi. I can't read his books since I don't have copies nor do I understand the language. Perhaps you could post some links as to why he shouldn't be regarded as a Sufi? Also, perhaps it's a good idea to register a username for yourself? It helps track discussions and archive them. --Nkv 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- What happens at the tomb of nizamuddin in delhi now does not mean that nizamuddin himself endorsed that. People later on fabricate a lot of stuff, so they take him as murshid means nothing. read abdul qadir jilani's books (fatuhul Ghayb or gunitu-talibeen and like) and you will know what his aqida was. Also, there are incidents in this article without any proof. It deserves a disputed tag 68.233.38.154 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)