Talk:Rumi

Would it be possible to include a transliteration of the words in the picture of Shams-e Tabrizi? And since there is no dispute over the fact that Rumi wrote in the Persian language, I would hope that such a transliteration would reflect the vowels of Persian--as opposed to those of Arabic.

Biography B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

Rumi received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Headline

Headline of this Article must be "Mevlana/Rumi" It is absolutely not objective to claim that Mevlana was 100% Persian. In fact that's Bullshit. He was born, lived , died and was buried in the middle of the turkish empire, his literature is important to ALL cultures in that region, so stating, thar he was Persian is PROPAGANDA-BULLSHIT ! WHO WROTE THIS ARTICE ??? AHMEDINEDJAD or someone else crazy iranian ?????? And by the way, there ist no "â" in the turkish alphabet !!! It is simply "Mevlana" So don't change it to the wrong again !!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.143.76.166 (talk • contribs) .

Rumi Yesterday and Today

It is still arguable whether Rumi was Persian or not, but what I suppose has been overlooked in this dispute is that Mevlana or Rumi's family today is Turkish. They reside in Turkey, control Mevlana's offical website [1], and consider themselves to be Turkish. Secondly, the article states that his birth place and usage of Persian indicate he was Persian. Forgive the usage of the maxim but Jesus being born in a barn doesn't make him cow, nor a child that barks a wolf.

We mention his birthplace and language as indicators yet we don't mention his name or the roots of his family - the fact that he is known as Rumi and where the word is derivied from and where his father comes from.

Rumi is believed to be a Turkic word that means foreigner or a foreigner on Islamic lands, but that is its current modern usage, today. Rumi was actually a Turkic title that meant "enlightened traveller from a Seljuk province" - similar to the word "celebi" and was bestowed on such people.

As for most modern day Turks not being able to read Mevlana's poetry - most modern day Turks cannot read old Ottoman poetry of the Ottoman king Suleyman the Magnificent - this doesn't mean that there is no connection between Mevlana and Turkic roots. I am sure the Turkic people of Mevlana's day - who would have heard the poetry - will have understood him. This type of argument just shows that one is ignorant of the development and changes in the Turkish language from its beginnings in the 7th Century BC to today and the languages it adopted along the way from its occupation throught the Seljuk and Ottoman periods of Turkish domination in that region.

I know many Turkish people that criticise the Turks and are yet Turkish. Turkic tribes have been each others worst enemies someimes. Simply the fact that Mevlana criticised Turks in writing does not mean he could not be one - in fact it could mean that as a Turkic person living under a Turkic Empire he was best experienced to criticise - but all we are really doing in the former is assuming and placng a modern sense of Arabic nationalism on a man by implying that one would not criticse his own race. Either way, Mevlana saw humans as one entire family - and would be laughing at Iranians (who are not even the Persians they are trying so had to associate with) that are so adamant to get the label Persian beside his name.

Mevlana was a part of the Seljuk Empire, and as such was inspired by it. Whether he was Persian, Greek or Turkic, makes no difference. That should be inherent in the article. 82.145.231.189 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi and Turkey

Rumi is "a Turk"?[2]--Zereshk 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that he is regarded as a religious figure in Turkey. I think it would be more accurate to say he is as well a philosopher. No single sect of Islam in Turkey relates to him.Olympos 17:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live in Turkey, but the impression I get is that the religious movement(s) still in existence there do pay homage to him; and not simply as a philosopher, but more as a theologian and wali. Aside from the general public, there are the remnants of the Mevlevi order. I assume they're in accord with their original precepts, and would thus come under the umbrella of mainstream Islam. - User:Ashu8845

Some of the paragraphs of this article are systemically being deleted without declaring a reason. I put the article back in the original form as much as possible. User:ErdemTuzun

"Rumi was a Persian and not a Turk, and all of his poetry is in Perisan. In fact, Turkish people cannot read and understand any of his poetry, unless they read a Turkish translation of Rumi's works, or they study and learn the Persian language at a high level. However, he lived most of his life in Konya which is in present-day Turkey, but at the time of his life, there was not even a country called Turkey, nor was present-day Turkey a 'Turkish land'."

I removed this paragraph and carried to the discussion page because it contains wrong informations and logical fallacies.

First of all, nationality is a relatively new concept. In 13th century, this concept was obviously not even a matter of discussion and people were not carrying identity cards on which their nationalities had been scripted. So, actually, while we are talking about the nation or ethnicity of an old age person, most of the time we are just making estimates. In Rumi's case there is no way of knowing exactly what ethnicity he belonged to. Actually, territories involving present Iran were controlled centuries for several Turkic dynasties like Safavids or Qajars and Turkic and Persian people lived side by side and surely mixed, complicating the estimation of Rumi's ethnicity.

Secondly, Rumi was born in a Turkic country and lived and died in another Turkic country. While we are talking about the countries of people in their biographies, we are not only mentioning the country they were born in but also the country they lived most of their time and made their greatest contributions. For example in many biographies Einstein is presented as Germany born Jewish American scientist. Rumi's position is just the same. Of course there was no Turkey that time as there was no Iran. But there were Persian and Turkish people living in different locations of Asia. In this article the word turkish does not point a citizenship of country but a certain ethnicity.

It is true that Rumi was writing in Persian and Turkish people can not understand his poems unless it is translated. However, Persian was the official language for science and art in all Islamic countries. All prominent Turkish artists and scientists have written their works in either Arabic or Persian. It is very similar to the fact that Latin language was the official language for artists and scientists in Europe and regardless of their ethnicities they were producing their works in Latin.

For these reasons, I added the deleted paragraphs to the article and of course all of these paragraphs are open to modification and refinement.

Finally, controversial issues should be solved by discussions carried on this page rather than blindly deleting things that we don't like to read. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here". User:ErdemTuzun

If what you say is true, then perhaps you can tell us why all the major encyclopedia of the wrold (Britannica, Americana, etc.) describe Rumi as Persian and not a Turk, or your interesting designation of "Turkish/Persian"?!

Furthermore, if you actually could read his poetry, you would see that in a number of places, both in his Mathnavi as well as Divan Shams, he refers to his ethnicity, but almost in all cases, he is trying to teach you that the label doesn't matter. Somehow I have a feeling you have not even read any of his poetry and you are only going by your Pan-Turkish chauvinism and trying to 'claim' Rumi as Turkish or part-Turkish.

It is true that at that time the Persian language was more popular, and it is also true that some Turks (and others) wrote _some_ of their works in Persian. But in such cases, they _also_ have works in their own native language. One example would be the great poet Qatran from Tabriz. He has poetry in both Persian and Turkish. Another example is Iqbal Lahuri who has poetry in Persian and in Urdu (his native language). There are a number of other examples ... many examples in fact. But there is not any example where one would not produce any works at all in his native language. Do you know of _ANY_ works by Rumi in Turkish?

Furthermore, if you study the poetry of the great poets of the Khorasan territory (the Greater Khorasan is where Rumi was born in, Blakh was part of the Khorasan province), many of them complain about the Turkish encroachments to their land. For example, Nasser Khosrow, also from Balkh, in his poetry says, and I am just translating and paraphrasing, "now khorasan has become a land of the Turks -- a free man (aazaadeh, in Persian) and a base (low) man ("doon" in Persian) do not fit in one place -- that a bunch of homeless and uncultured rascals (referring to the Turks) -- today have become Khans and Khatuns (Turkish titles of eminence for men and women) in this land.".

There are plenty of examples and evidences like the above that show that people disliked the Turks because they abused people and they were uncultivated and often violent, rogue and unfair in their practices.

In fact, many people left that land BECAUSE OF the Turks, and Rumi's family was no exception. If you study the history accurately, you will see that his family left Blakh years BEFORE the Mongol invasion, and they did not leave to avoid the Mongols -- unless his family possessed a very good crystal ball that could inform them about the future!

For you to claim that up to this date in human history everybody has been misinformed and wrong to call Rumi "Rumi the Persian", including all the major encyclopedia of the world, is quite astonishing and remarkable. So for centuries and centuries all academicians, including the two great Rumi experts from England and Germany where wrong to call him a Persian, and suddenly in year 2003 you are educating the world about his 'true' cultural identity?

You claim to be an educated man. Let us keep the centries-old tradition of intellectual integrity and honesty in the academia alive and don't allow our personal prejudices and biases to interfere with facts.

Rumi was a Persian. Also, even if somehow miraculously you manage to convince the world that he was anything else, the fact remains that there is only one people on earth who can truly understand, feel and enjoy his poetry, and that people is none other than the Persians. There are too many subtlties in the Persian language, and in particular, in Persian poetry, that a translation, no matter how masterfully done, will never come even close to the original. I myself have read his poetry, together with the works of many other great poets, since my early teens; and I am no exception among Iranians. Even before I could read them by myself I have been told stories from the Mathnavi as children's stories. When many other peoples of the world rent a movie to watch after dinner, many Persians go the the wonderful treasury of Persian Literature after dinner.

Finally, you are also wrong in saying there was "no Iran" at that time. Iran's history, geography, language, culture, calendar and traditions go back to much longer than that; but naturally, in such a long history there have been many ups and downs. If one truly understands the Persian language, one would CLEARLY see that even the very name of Khorasan is made up of parts that is relative to Iran. I won't even mention the long long list of works before and after Rumi's time that contain "Iran" all over the work.

I am afraid, after reading what you have written, I am left with the impression that you are either allowing chauvinistic biases and prejudices overcome your good conscience, or you are honest about what you say but you are simply misinformed.

Sincerely,

Keyvan Partovi.

P.S. You also removed the part where I had mentioned Rumi's two major works. Really, essentiantially these two works are what the world knows him by, one is the Mathnavi and the other is Divan Shams, without even offering any reason why you removed that part. It indicated (correctly, I might add) that these two works are two of the greatest works of all of Persian Literature and Poetry. I can only think of one reason why you would want to deprive the article from such important and correct information.

Dear Partovi,

First of all, I want to assure you that I did not insist on writing that Turkish/Persian phrase as a result of any kind of nationalistic chauvinism. I have always been an opposer of this kind of thinking. Actually, it is my anti-nationalistic ideas that forced me to try to change this article. When I saw the phrase Turkish in one of the older versions of this article printed and then observed that it has been deleted, I thought that it was some chauvinistic person that has committed this action. This is why I insistingly tried to change this article.

I have read several important works of Rumi and I think that I know his ideas quite well. I also agree that it is not good to label a person like Rumi, with this kind of nationalistic discussions. This is why I decided to put a more general title as Turkish/Persian, which symbolises the international feature of Rumi, which does not recognise any boundaries. If I had deleted the name Persian and replaced it with Turkish, then this would make me chauvinistic.

If you were able to read Turkish encyclopedias, you would see that he is mentioned as neither Persian or Turkish. Usually his nationality is not mentioned or just expressed as Anatolian (which is also wrong for me).

I also tried to modify this article to draw people's attention to another important problem. It is true that many important encyclopedias refer not only Rumi but also many people living in the same area as Persian. There is also an ongoing discussion about the ethnicity of Avicenna, for instance. I will ask the same question again. How in the world can a present time person know the nationality or ethnicity of a middle age person? Even by the current genetic technology, this would be impossible, since after several centuries of intermarriages, genetic features of people living in Near Asia are quite identical to eachother. Now, we are living in a more nationalism based and dominated world and possibly the scholars feel themselves urged to label people of the past with some kind of ethnicity without necessarily having enough information about this.

For me this was a good opportunity to make this point by using this article as an example. The fact that some mistake has been done by previous people does not mean that we should repeat it. In my opinion, we should not write something that we don't know exactly. In these kinds of articles, the best strategy would be to only write the birth and death places of these important people and also mention which dynasty, empire or country was controlling the area back then. But since it is difficult to change the old traditions and readers would always expect to see some nationality or ethnicity coined to a person's biography, I decided to put that ambigous phrase to draw the attention of readers on this topic. Besides, big encyclopedias can also make big mistakes. For example, I remember reading in some important encyclopedias that Turkish people are Chinese and in present Turkey death penalties are executed by impaling people on a wooden rod. It is sad to see that encyclopedia authors are also human beings and they are under the influence of political biases.

Additionally, as I tried to point out by Albert Einstein example, people's countries are not only considered by their birth country but also the country that they have produced their work. As an another example, Nobel Prize Winner Ahmed Zewail who has been born in Egypt but has made his scientific contributions in USA is usually being mentioned as Egyptian American. Examples can be increased of course.

The fact that past time Iran people did not like the invading Turkish people does not prove that there were no prominent Turkish scholars or poets at this time. Additionally, I am well aware that Iran existed throughout centuries and played a very important part in history. I wrote this as an answer to your mentioning that since there was no Turkey (as a country) at that time, there were no Turkish people.

I sincerely apologize for deleting some of your sentences. But I really did not know I was deleting some important information too. You have right to complain about this. Surely, these sentences should be added to the article appropriately. But you also deleted some of my sentences about the birth place of Rumi, while you were changing the paragraph. I am also sorry to evoke such hard feelings but I always though that what I did was completely suitable for Rumi's teachings. By changing the ethnicity phrase, I tried to emphasize that his presence should not be the game of excessively nationalistic people. User:ErdemTuzun

-My dear Keyvan Partovi: Firstly, I accept that Rumi is most likely Persian and it should be indicated as such. However, your style and some of your claims are culpable! You claim that Rumi escaped not the Mongols but the Turks?! Is this the reason why he immigrated to Anatolia which was under Turkish Selchuq Dynasty? Does this make sense to you? (You can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Turks).

Also, you imply that Turks were uncultivated, rude etc!? It is sad that we seem to complain about nationalism but we are the ones committing it with our sometimes almost hate-filled writings. I don't think this is very healthy.

Secondly, If we claim to inherit Rumi's heritage, why do we behave so "unRumi?" Rumi is so great of a person that he is beyond anybody or any country to "own" him, much less to involve him in such a discussion. I think what Hz. Ibrahiym said renders this situation perfectly: "He then who follows my (ways) is of me."

Love, User:Lugalbanda

Rumi and Afghanistan

Interestingly enough, Afghanis will consider him as one of theirs. Much of the Afghani classical music will make use of his texts - similar as in Iran and probably Turkey. In Afghanistan he is usually called Jalal Al-Din-e Balkhi. This obviously widens the debate above. I suggest re-editing along these lines. Refdoc 00:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At the time of Rumi there was not even a country (nor a culture) by the name of Afghan/Afghanistan. In the ENTIRE works of Rumi you can't even find one instance of the word "Afghan" (by itself or in any combination). Blakh, the birthplace of Rumi, was part of the greated Khorasan province of Iran. Much of the territory of the country Afghanistan today, was (and is) a part of the greater Khorasan territory. There is no "Afghani literature" or if there is, it sure as hell ain't in the Persian language. Just because some Afghans claim the old Persian poets of the greater Khorasan territory as "Afghans" doesn't make them Afghans. In fact, the only "Afghans" who can even attempt to read such literature are the ones who have learned the Persian language at a high level.

Also, I am well familiar with afghani music and their lyrics. More than any classical Persian poet, they have used lyrics from Saadi (from Shiraz) in their songs, and not from Rumi. In fact, I can't even think of one from Rumi that I have heard in the context of Afghani songs. If they have started using Rumi now, it probably is deliberate. Afghans also insist on calling the Persian langauge "Dari", but the funny thing is that even the word "Dari" is taken right out of the Persian language and literature.

Let's not "contribute" to a subject we don't know about. --K1 06:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cut from article page contribution by unknown contributor : Just like the previous paragraphs, the final paragraph of this article is flawed and does not reflect credible information about recent historical events.Firstly, the Turkish Government does not make important decisions concerning its cultural heritage based on how "profitable" they may become by attracting tourists. Mevlana has always been one of the very many highly valued elements in Turkish history. I am not sure what he wants to say, but i think it is better here than on teh actual article. Refdoc 18:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Afghanistan and Rumi : It is odd that this matter has to come up again and again in so many guises. But I think it was wrong to delete the references to Afghanistan and Afghan culture. The Persians of old have split up into 3 countries ( at least) - more if one counts the Turkic countries of Centralasia, most with sizeable Farsi/Tajik speaking minorities. Nations develop, split and merge and while there is continuity in many ways there is also change. Just like any German will - rightly - consider Mozart and Beethoven as German composers, so will - equally rightly - an Austrian lay claim to the same heritage. Austria is considered a truely separate entity only really since the begin/middle of the 20th century - would it now be right to speak of "There is no Austrian culture! Mozart and Beethiven ar Germans and nothing else !" ? Similarly - and here we come close to the other dispute on this page re his "Turkishness" have a look at Haendel - no German would hesitate to call him one of the most significant German composers, while English people would be quite astonished to be told he is not one of "theirs". In that sense todays Afghanistan is just as justifiedly inheritor of the great Persian poets of old as Iran or indeed Tajikistan.

Further - the notion that people can not appreciate him if they are not Persian is a bit silly. Appreciation is highly individual and simply impossible to compare.

With this explanation I will try and re-insert the deleted references to Afghanistan Refdoc 18:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here, as well as in the previous article about the original race or "nationality" of Rumi or any other historical figure. To start with, today's "Afghanistan" and "Iran" are simply boundries creating a nation. Historically, and even today, from a cultural, lingusitic, and even ethnic aspect, most people who live in the country "Iran" and a sizeable number of poeple living in the country "Afghanistan" are Iranian--linguistically they speak near identical languages--Dari, which is a Persian dialect. Pashtun is an Iranian language from the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European languages. Ethnically, it is less clear cut nowadays, as people have mixed and invaders from the Arab and Turkic nomadic areas outside the Iranian plateau have settled in the areas and mixed in with the Iranian races (Persians, Bactrians, Balkhis, Tajiks, Baluchis, Kurds, etc) creating the ethinicities that are present today.

During the time of Rumi and about 900-1200 AD, the areas of Balkh, Azarbaijan, and western region of modern-day Turkey were predominantly Iranian-speaking people (note, not Persian speaking, but Iranian speaking). In Balkh, they were Tajik and Persian, and Turkic tribes after successive invasions settled and mixed in. This is why you see central asian features and Turkic languages in some areas there. Similarly, in Azarbaijan, whose name is even a Persian name meaning Fire-foundation of life (reference role of fire in Zoroastrian religion). Azarbaijan population pre-900-1000AD was majority Iranian speaking, speaking the Iranian languages of Taleshi and Tati, which are today spoken only in the remote villages of Azarbaijan. After successive Turkic invasions by the Seljuks, the Ugurs etc, and after forced language conversions in some instances, the population mixed with Turkic people and the language in the major cities changed to Turkic languages, with Iranian languages receeding to the remote villages as it is today. It is a similar situation in the Caucusus, where you see poeple who are Iranian speaking (Ossetians and Alanians) in remote mountains in the north Caucusus, while the rest of the fertile areas are Turkic speaking in Azarbaijan. The Ossetians withdrew to the mountains as successive waves of invasions form Turkic tribes and then Russians forced them to withdraw. Similarly in western areas of modern day Turkey, where the population was actually Armenian, Kurd (Iranian) and Persians speakers, among others. With the invasion of the Seljuks and Ottomans, these areas changed to Turkish speaking within a few centuries. This does not mean that all the population is Turkic ethnically, since the Turkic nomadic invaders did not kill everyone (except Gengis Khan, who decimated the Iranian population).

In any case, at the time of Rumi and most of the scholars of the time, the areas were predominantly Iranian, if not Persian, ethnically, and Persian was the lingua franca. Balkh certainly was Tajik, and the eastern part of the Turkey was a mix of Armenian, Persian, and Kurdish, with Turkic tribes only starting to trickle in.

It is certainly possible that Rumi might have been from one of the minority Turkic tribes of the time, but given the demographics ethnically and linguistically, it is a remote possibility. Also, given that he has left no trace of any work in any Turkic language or any reference to his Turkic ancestery (given the massive migrations happening at the time, it would have been reasonable to mention it), it is even more remote that he could have been either a native Turkic speaker, or of a Turkic ethnicity.

In any case, I think it is irrelevant nowadays who is from where 1000 years ago. I simply want to state some historical arguments that are more based on evidence that the two arguments given above. Both of the arguments confuse the three notions of nationaism, language, and ethnicity. When one of them refers to Turksih, it is not clear if he is talking about the Turkish nation as it is today, the Turkic race and ethnicities, or the Turkic language group. Similarly, "Iranian" could refer to the current Iranian nation/country, but it could also refer to the Iranian language group (of which Persina is only one of many) or the Iranian (Arian) race.

To make an analogy: Consider the ancient Egyptian civilizations. If one were to call them Arab civilizations today, simply because the poeple that live there speak arabic nowadays, it would be eroneous since it would be giving credit for the great work to a language and ethnic race that had nothing to do with it. Today's Egyptians speak Arabic, but that does not mean they are ethnically Arab. They are certainly mixed with Arabs from the Arabian peninsula, but they are still mostly Nobians and Egyptians ethnically, and thus, we call their encient civilization Egyptian, and not Arab. Similarly with the Phonecians. Phonecial history was located in today;s Lebanon. But nobody calls it Lebanese civilization..it is Phonecian. This is because the modern day nation of Lebanon has nothing to do with those achievements. It is the people who live in Lebanon, ie, the decendants of the Phonecians, who are now mixed with Arabs and Romans etc, who are most associated with the Phonecian civilization. We do not call it an Arab or Lebanese civilization, it is Phonecian in reference to the orginal name of the people who developed it. It is thus the same with what is today eastern Turkey, Turkic speaking Azarbaijan and other regions in the Caucusus or in Central Asia. It is not what nations call themselves today, or what languages are being spoken today in those areas, the question is: What language and ethnic people lived there when that civilization or that piece of literature was developed. Then we call it by that name. For example, the Safavid dynasty ruled Iran and its Iranian people for a couple of centuries. They were Turkic of origin. We do not see anyone--nor should they-- call the scientists and artists who lived and developed their work during the Safavid period call themselves Turkic. The dominant culture and language, as well as the dominant ethnicity in that period was Iranian (and more specifically, Persian).

Hope that was clear enough.

Cheers!

"western region of modern-day Turkey were predominantly Iranian-speaking people" Where do you get that nonsense from? Western region of Turkey (anatolia) was greek and the south east was mainly armenian and arab. Is this what they teach you at schools in Iran. When Rumi arived in konya in 1220 the turkish seldjuk empire ruled most of anatolia. The population was mostly turks (turkmen) with sizable greek and armenian minorities. What are you ging to claim next that the balkans were also iranian speaking?Orrin_73

Rumi and the dervishes

Over half of the current article is about the whirling dervishes. While it is obviously significant to mention these. I think they are a) significant enough to justify their own article b) teh article would benefit by concentrating more on the actual person or Rumi and his works rather than on an order founded after his death. I fact there is already a large article under whirling dervishes, while the reference within this article here leads recursively back to Rumi. I suggest cutting the whole bit about the order and leaving a short reference and transferring the cut material onto the already existing article + cleaning up links on the way too. Refdoc 18:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clear-out and re-organisation

Done... Please tell me what you think about it! Refdoc 20:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merged the sentences that appeared to be repetative, broke the article into sections, added a reference and a few sentences about Rumi's biography.--Vonaurum 19:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The whirling dervishes

Currently there are two active links to the Sufi order founded by his disciples Mevlevi and The Whirling Dervishes. The article is at The Whirling Dervishes while mevlevi is a redirect. I would like this to be swapped around, as Mevlevi order is the actual name while the whirling dervishes is just a kind of nickname. This will need admin rights so i can just go ahead and do it. Refdoc 22:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

really?

Is this really by Rumi? I've always seen it quoted as anonymous.

Dance, as though no one is watching,
Love, as though you've never been hurt before,
Sing, as though no one can hear you,
Work, as though you don't need the money,
Live, as though heaven is on earth.
~Rumi~

The style tends to be modern , it may be a free translation of Rumi poems.Pasha 04:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opening lines

I removed the word Persian before "Sufi Muslim ...." because his birth place and language is mentioned in the next sentences , I also placed poet before jusrist and theologian because he is best known as Sufi and poet , also replaced Sufi mystic with teacher of Sufism.Pasha 05:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi is Clearly Persian

Rumi is "a Turk"?[3]--Zereshk 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently I wrote a letter to the Guardian article and here is the response:

"Thanks, but I never said Rumi was Turkish. It was whatever idiot at the Guardian wrote the standfirst and headline. You will note that such a claim is never made in the text of the article, which draws on FD Lewis's work which I also admire, khuda hafez, WD"

The following is article from AFP: http://www.thingsasian.com/goto_article/article.2460.html

We must analyze this issue from all the available sources. Here are reasons why Rumi was clearly Persian.

a) A good proof towards this are the verses of Sultan Valad. Sultan Valad, who is the son of Rumi claims he knows Arabic and Persian, but clearly says that he does not know Turkish and Greek well.

گذر از گفت ترکي و رومي چون از آن اصطلاح محرومي ليک از پارسي گوي و از تازي چونکه در هر دو خوش همي تازي

Also 99% of the work of Sultan Valad is in Persian, but he does have a few Arabic, Turkish and Greek poems. In one of the Turkish ones he says the same thing about Knowing Persian and Turkish:

تورکچه اگر بيليديم بي سوزي بين ايليه ديم تات جه اگر ديله سوز گويم اسرار اولي

Which translates: If I knew Turkish, I would bring one word to a 1000 levels. But When you listen to Persian, the hidden secrets I tell wonderfully.

Also there are some more points to consider: b) There are some harsh comments about Turks in the Manaqib of Aflaki. For example this one is in the praise of Greeks and belittlement of Turks, from the book of Aflaki:

There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks.

When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times.

But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!" ---

I am not sure how a person can be of Turkic ethnicity, but say such a thing.

c) There are some harsh comments about Oghuz Turks in the Mathnavi For example the Oghuz Turks are compared to Abu-Jahl. d) The Majale's As'saba or the sever seremons of Rumi are all in Persian. Which means that Rumi used Persian to preach the Friday sermon. This is significant since in every Islamic country, the preacher usually either preaches in his local tongue or in Arabic. e) Rumi uses the word "Tang-Cheshm" (narrow eyes) for Turks. Genetically it has been proven that most of the Turkish speakers of Anatolia are not Turks, but former Greeks/Armenians who were Islamicized. But the Central Asiatic Turks who are of mongloid race, are the real Turks. Rumi mentions his eyes "Cheshmhaayeh Faraakh" (wide eyes, big eyes). f) The best Biography of Rumi is written by Franklin Lewis, called Rumi Past and Present, East and West (March 1, 2000). The Iranian ethnic identity of Rumi is made clear in this book. g) Balkh was a Persian speaking region before the mongols. For example see Zakhira-Khwrazmshahi for Persian phrases in the local Persian Balkhi tongue. Today it is mixed Tajik and Uzbek regions. But Uzbeks claim descent from Cheghniz Khan and were not in the area priorly. h) The word Turk had a negative connotation in the Ottoman empire and people referred to themselves as Othmani and not Turk. The word Turk only became positive in Turkey after Ataturk. Prior to that the word "Turk" meant a wild person. It should be remembered that the Ottoman language, specially in poetry was more Persian/Arabic than pure Turkish. i) Finally Rumi lives by the Persian language and is alive by the Persian language/culture. And the Persian language is alive because of people like Rumi. Persian speakers of Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan are the ones that can read and understand Rumi. No amount of translation can do justice to his poems, because poetry is so closely linked with the language, that the translations will always be imperfect. It is true that in the Islamic empire of the east, people mixed and married. But the cultural language of this empire was Persian. Even the Seljuqs became Persianized and adopted Persian names like Kheykhosrow and other Shahnama names. They mixed with other local Iranian dynasties and peop.e Today the word Turk or Persian or Arabi are cultural/linguistic more than racial. Rumi culturally was a Persian and mentions a lot about other Persian poets. For example he mentions Attar and Sanai profusely. Or he mentions the heroes of the Shahnama like Rustam and Esfandyar. So hypothetically speaking, even if Rumis parent were both Africans, he would be considered a Persian since what is at stake is cultural. Rumi could have had Arab, Persian, Turkic, Indian or whatver blood in him, but he was culturally Persian. For example how many citizens of Turkey or Arabia or Iran can claim that all of their ancestors were pure Turks, Arabs or Persian. Probably no one can. For example Ataturk himself was of Macedonian and Albanian background and was not Turkic. Yet he is considered a Turk because culturally he was Turk. So Rumi and his cultural background is also the key factor, even if we do not know Rumi's 50th ancestor and that is why Rumi belongs to the Perso-Islamic civilization.

--Ali doostzadeh 07:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Ali Doostzadeh[reply]

Dear Ali Doostzadeh: In your effort to "own" Rumi, and sort of, belittle Turks, you are forgetting one thing: Rumi spent most of his life, and matured and produced all his major works among them, and his genetical and cultural heritage are mainly, to a good extent, preserved in Turkey; surely they deserve a bit respect and some credit to associate themselves so closely with Rumi. It is not fare to indirectly belittle and deprecate the Turks here. Also, your claim that Ataturk was not Turkic is baseless. Yes, he definitely had other ethnic backgrounds, but that does not mean that he did not have Turkish ethnicity.

BTW, just so there is no misunderstanding, I am ethnically not Turkish. I am of Kurdish origin (Kurds, BTW, are an Iranian people). I felt to say this so that there is no preconceived ideas.

Let us put an end to this ethnicity discussion. I accept the fact that Rumi ethnically most likely was Persian, but to say that he belongs to the "Perso-Islamic" civilization is far from the truth. He definitely lived among, and interacted with, Persians, Afghanis, Tajicks, Turks, Arabs etc. As such his culture is the culture of the Middle-East. As far as where he belongs? He belongs to all humanity.

Love, user:Lugalbanda

- Err.. there was a time, Pre WWI, when every Muslim was known simply as a Turk, irrespective of where they came from. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t get it, Rumi himself wrote he travelled from Persia to what is today Turkey, because he escaped persecution. His father, his mentors, his teachers, his best friend and his wife were Persian as well. So why he should be named a Turk? Let`s not belittle his heritage please.Zmmz 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if we're talking about sports teams, where you're either on the team or off, and teams compete for good players. Rumi wrote in Persian and Arabic, he lived in Turkey, he speaks to all Muslims and humans. Nobody gets exclusive "bragging rights". Zora 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does bragging rights have to do with the man`s Persian origin? You can admire him, but do not falsely change his nationality.Zmmz 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "nationality"? There was no concept of nationality then. He migrated from one Islamic principality to another. Zora 01:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was born and raised in Persia, he was Persian. History agrees. If there was no concept of nationality so let`s call Alexander the Great Turkish too, why call him Macedonian, Greek?Zmmz 02:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some historians would agree and others wouldn't. The anti-nationalism position is the newer, trendier one. Zora 02:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some historians believe in UFOs too. Please name some refrences. My refrences are, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Encarta, the Meriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries etc...etc[4][5][6][7]. They all say he was Persian. You need more? Zmmz 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but all that absolute nonsense about Sultan Veled is quite hilarious regarding that he patroned and comissioned a massive work on Turkish Dictionaries and the Kamanan-Selcuk State proclaimed Turkish as the official language of all matters of affiar.

Mevlana moved to the Capitol of the Selcuk Turks, its quite logical that he or his relations were Turkic as they had to know somthing about the people's land they were seeking refuge in.

Plus, Mevlana was Sunni today's "Persian" National sense is galaxies apart from what Mevlana's views and identity was.

And last, he wasn't a Nationalist, he was simply a Muslim belonging to the nation of Islam so TO END ALL ARGUEMENTS SIMPLY DO THIS

MEVLANA = MUSLIM SUFI PHILOSOPHER, it will end all arguments.

Regards

johnstevens5

References?

We need to add some references to the article. If you have any, please add them using the new cite format (see the one in the intro). Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot put modern borders on ancient empires!

for those who claim that rumi was turkish just because he lived and died in a town that is NOW in turkey, doesnt make him turkish. at that time, that town was part of iran! your claims are crazy! i know, lets claim that einstein was actually origionally ethnically american, because he lived and died in the USA rather than in germany! LOL also, lets claim that columbus was portugese, because he sailed for portugal! LOL you pan turks have no evidence for your claims, all you can do is talk. its only us iranians making logical arguments.

again, you are making fools of yourselves! i hate to see people ruining their own image.

--Iranian Patriot

Iranian Patriot could you please tell me when Konya was part of Iran??? Konya was a part of the Turkish Seldjuk empire that is some 1300 km from the Iranian border. Look at a map dude before claiming nonsense. Orrin_73

The man himself wrote he migrated from Persia to modern day Turkey out of fear of persecution, so what is the argument?Zmmz 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what persecution are you talking about? he fled from the mongol invasion! no matter what you read off of your pan turkist sites, almost all non turkic historians call him persian or tajik. infact, i have never even heard of a non turkic historian calling Rumi anything other than persian or tajik. your fighting a losing battle. dont believe in your turkish propaganda, its the opposite of the truth. -- Iranian Patriot

His life was in danger due to the Mongol invasion so he fled Iran. But he was born there and [is] Persian.Zmmz 02:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was not born in Iran, he was born in present day Afghanistan. Error one. Error two - it is aperson's lineage not place of birth that tells us who he is. Not everyone born in Iran today is an Iranian by descent. Error three. Labelling him as a persian does not make him an Iranian. With such a non NPOV you shouldn't be editing any part of this article until you stop confusing issues. 88.255.16.38 11:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritative Refrences

Some important refrences that cite Rumi was Persian are, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Encarta, the Meriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries etc...etc[8][9][10][11].Zmmz 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. turks cannot find one non pan turkic source that says rumi is turkic. why dont they just give up, they are fighting a losing battle. --Iranian Patriot

These sources all say the same thing. [rm personal attack]. And if they don't I hope the Turks give you a good go. Noting Mevlana and his life one thing is sure, being a persian he certainly didn't like his "homeland" enough to want to fight for it or live in any region of it. 82.145.231.42 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL in your interactions with other editors. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully for us, Mowlana Rumi chose life over certain death at the hands of the Mongolians, otherwise, not only the Persian culture, but we all would have missed-out on some great poetry, and some keen human observations.Zmmz 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How you can hijack the creative works written during and under the Seljuk Empire as Persian I have no idea, especially when Mevlana's father's lineage is unclear. The man at best was an Anatolian. This was the region he chose to live and die in. Writing in the main language of the day does not prove a thing. Muslims to an extent must know Arabic as the Quran is written in Arabic - shall we now hijack G-d into Arabic nationalism? At the end of the end of the day Iranians like to hijack things to promote their so-called culture with a feverence akin to terrorism allowing no room for another view - and this is just another ploy. We should protect Mevlana from such Persian influences - which Isee as destructive as any 'Mongolian' in its day. 88.255.16.38 11:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Authoritative" reference

"I am not from India, not from China, not from Bulgar, not from Saqsin.

I am not from the kingdom of the two Iraqs.

I am not from the land of the Khurasan.

...

My place is placeless, my trace is traceless

No body no soul, I am from the soul of souls..."

—Rumi

Let's not fight over ownership. deeptrivia (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. I was wondering when somebody would finally realize how arguing over the Mevlana's ethnicity was a blatant contradiction of everything the man stood for. —Saposcat 08:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful sentiments! Others have also expressed similarly noble ideas. Take Perpetual Peace from that Russian philosopher from Kaliningrad for example. It requires:

republicanism

hospitality, the acknowledgement of the right to freely move and resettle in another state.

and a league of nations.

—Kant

--Kaveh 11:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleased to see someone quote the Russian philosopher from Kaliningrad, since he lived in East Prussia, was actually from Koenigsberg, and counts these days as a German philosopher. In his case as well, present-day borders don't help us much in making sense of past writers. Cheers, Anthony Krupp 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi was Persian

The whole world knows that Rumi was Persian. It is stupid to claim otherwise. Dariush4444 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic how a man like him is being used for chauvinism. I wonder how much he cared about his ethnic roots. Anyway, his foundation and creation lives still in Turkey and we cherish his legacy; you can have all his DNA... although of course his descendants are today Turkish as well so we have the DNA too.--Kagan the Barbarian 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

title

I suggest that the page title be moved to Rumi. It's the most recognizable name, and there is no disambiguation issue, because Rumi redirects here. Cuñado - Talk 19:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no disambiguation issue, which there isn't, then there is no reason to change the article's title. Besides that, to retitle "Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi" as just "Rumi" would be akin to retitling "Joseph Stalin" as simply "Stalin" (an identical redirect type, not coincidentally). The man's name was Jalal al-Din Muhammad (in one transliteration anyhow), and it makes sense to respect that (as far as I can see, at least). —Saposcat 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the case of Ali, which uses the simplest, most recognizable name for him. I'm not incredibly familiar with the subject of Rumi, so I'm not insisting anything, but I think he's best known as simply "Rumi", which is not equivalent to an English surname like Stalin. Cuñado

- Talk 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, Ali; you are right. However, the name "Stalin" and the name "Rumi" (who would ever have thought of those two polar opposites being yoked together in one phrase?) do bear similarities with one another and differences from Ali in that Ali is one of Ali ibn Abu Talib's given names, whereas both "Stalin" (Ioseb Dzhugashvili's adopted name, meaning "Man of Steel") and "Rumi" (meaning "from/of Anatolia") were names later taken on as distinguishing marks. Of course, by all means the "Rumi" must stay in the title, since that is indeed the name that the man is most identified by (at least in the West); but I think that it is best that the article's actual full title should stay as is. —Saposcat 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if the longer title remains, it really should be Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi, and not "al-din". The "D" is a solar letter and when preceded by "al", the "L" becomes a "D". Cuñado

- Talk 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this matter I certainly won't claim anything even approaching to expertise, but I've always thought that "al-Din" vs. "ad-Din" was just a matter of preferred transliteration styles, though as far as I know "ad-Din" does approximate the pronunciation much better (i.e., no one actually says "al-Din" with the "l" sound). Insofar as you probably know more on the subject than me, I would say that this change to the title seems valid (but if you make it, be sure to apply the appropriate redirect from "Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi" to "Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi"). Peace. —Saposcat 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title and corrected the many re-direct pages. You can see them if you click the "what links here" link underneath the search on the left. Cuñado

- Talk 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reversion

An anon keeps reverting my clean-up of the intro. See this edit. My edits were improving the structure and clarity and were not even content related. Cuñado - Talk

I made verifiable additions without taking away the 'label' attached for Rumi as a Persian poet - but removed Persian/Iranian and added extra arguments about the poet's father's lineage being unknown. I also added a music sample. I don't see how Mevlana was Iranian or should be listed in Iranian people. He would be more a Seljuk than an Iranian I'd guess. 82.145.231.219 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nominate for featured article?

i think we should - unsigned by 194.247.244.240 02:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had been working on getting it to FA status. Unfortunately, this article is not stable right now because of the debate and reverts going on (see above). Probably I'll return to complete what I planned to do once these discussions are over. Of course, you are free to work on it right now to improve it if you so desire. Good luck :) deeptrivia (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora's edits

I removed claims that Rumi was "in exile" in Turkey, and that Khorasan was part of the Persian Empire. There was no Persian empire then. Balkh was ruled by the Khwarizmshah. However, I did make it clear that Balkh was part of the eastern Persian "culture province", so I don't think that I can be charged with trying to change Rumi's supposed "ethnicity".

I also made various small edits to straighten out convoluted prose and ungrammatical constructions. Zora 07:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khwarizmshah and Samanids were native Persians, and ruled Persia and Iran. They are considered a Persian Empire. --ManiF 08:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? I have never seen the words "Persian empire" used of the Khwarizmshahs or Samanids, at least in any academic text. They were culturally Arabo-Persian, typical of post-conquest Khorasan and Transoxania, but they weren't empire builders on the scale of the Achaemenids and Sassanids. Oh, I see ... I type in Persia and I get "Persian empire" here at WP. I guess any ruler you tag as Persian gets an empire. Don't you think there's something a bit dodgy about that? Zora 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samanids were a Persian dynasty of Iran or Persia [12]. It's accepted history, and that's all there is to it. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research. --ManiF 09:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ManiF, you are correct in your assertion that the Khwarizmshah and Samanids were Persian dynasties..However, it is incorrect to say that Rumi "died in exile in Konya" - yes, he did in fact migrate to Konya to flee the invading Mongols, but it was not an exile. Exile implies the expulsion, usually by authorities, from one's land to another land where one does not belong. This is not the case with Rumi, Rumi was not exiled, rather he volubntarily migrated, and not only that, settled in Konya permanently, not temporarily as is implied by exile. Therefore, Rumi migrated to Konya but he wasn't there in exile, so the caption is wrong - it's not POV, it's just outright historically inaccurate. This is the accepted scholarly fact and I'm sure a person as knowledgable and well-read as you can appreciate that fact. However, I am not one to pointlessly bicker and I shan't change the caption back to what it should be until you yourself realise the inaccuracy of the statement in the caption and the false notion that it asserts. This, although erroneous, is minor, and I don't want to be party to a petty editing war. No hostility intended, yours in peace, Tanzeel 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Tanzeel. I see your point, perhaps exiled is not the best description, so I'm removing it from the caption. --ManiF 14:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE DILEMA IS SOLVED

Sadly extremist Persian Nationalists are making a Nationalist issue out of a humanist, this is the most ridiculous, outrageous, ludacris nonsense I've ever seen.

Now, I have come up with a remedy to shut up all sides.

Mevlana moved to the Capital of the Selcuk Turks, its quite logical that he or his relations were Turkic as they had to know somthing about the people's land they were seeking refuge in.

Then again he wrote most of this works in Persian.

Yet Persian was the literary language in those day.

Plus, Mevlana was Sunni today's "Persian" National sense is galaxies apart from what Mevlana's views and identity was.

And last, he wasn't a Nationalist, he was simply a Muslim belonging to the nation of Islam so TO END ALL ARGUEMENTS SIMPLY DO THIS

MEVLANA = MUSLIFM SUFI PHILOSOPHER (BELONGING TO NO NATION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NATION CONCEPT UNLESS YOUR GOING TO STATE HE WAS A SELCUK)

I have edited it to this.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MEVLANA = MUSLIM SUFI PHILOSOPHER, it will end all arguments.

Regards

Look Mowlanas son did not know Turkish/Greek well according to himself. So this is a good proof that this family was not from the area. He didn't even write 1% of his work in Greek/Turkish. He comes from Balkh Afghanistan. Seljuqs themselves didn't like Turks and the Ottomans did not consider themselves Turks. The majority Persians of Afghanistan (where mowlana was born) and Tajikistan are Sunnis as well. Prof. Franklin Lewis has done considerable research on Mowlana and he is the top scholar on Mowlana and Mowlana is a Persian Sunni Muslim. Just like Abu Hanifah who btw was both Sunni and Persian. --Ali doostzadeh 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just writing to second the facts put forward by Ali Doostzadeh. It is true, the concept of the modern nation did not exist at the time, but "Persian" is not referring to nationality but to ethnicity (which did exist). Maulvi Balkhi (as I was brought up to know him) was, in the light of almost all conclusive historical research, an ethnic Persian from Balkh (presently in Afghanistan). His literary language being Persian is immaterial as most Turks probably wrote in Persian as well - what matters is that he was born a Persian. His relationship to Turkey is, however, great, and he is very significant in Turkish history and literature, which should be mentioned, and it is. Tanzeel 10:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a sad bunch of people we have, what is it with you extremists.

Selcuks were Turks so were Ottomans get over it guys, stop being so bitter, the Persian Empire ceased to exist 2500 years age, you've never had anything to equal that since and have been ruled by Macedonians, Arabs and Turks for the past 2000 years.

Anyway, there was no "ethnicity" called Persian, there were tribal and clan confederancies and under the Islamic law there was no distinction made between the Muslims.

Mevlana was a Muslim, his nation was Islam, he didn't refer to himself as being Persian, Turk, Arab or anything else, all he openly stated was his religion now that's the hard evidence we have.

The only Hard Factual Evidence we have is that, Mevlana was a Islamic Sufi Phillosopher, this is somthing nobody can have a problem with so to end all further arguments, I will edit the article to simply state this.

p.s Mevlana was not born in a "so-called Persian Empire" this is a total and outrageous fabrication, the area was under the governance of Turkic rulers when he was born.

Regards

--[[User:Johnstevens5|Johnstevens5]

Firstly Mowlana was born in Balkh in Afghanistan, which was a Persian speaking reigion according to Tartusi and other sources. It doesn't matter who ruled the region. Just like many Greeks/Armenians were born under ottomans but that does not make those Greek/Armenians Turks. And it doesn't mean Greek/Armenians did not exist! Many Kurds are born in Turkey today, but none of them are ethnic Turks. BTW At least choose a Turkish name for yourself, since you are giving the wrong impression by your name that you are American! Mowalana was an ethnic Persian, just like Umar was an Arab and Oghuzkhan was a Turk. Mowlanas relationship is great to all countries in the region including Turkey, Kurds, Iranians, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, India..And as per ethnicity IRanian, read shahnameh, garshaspnameh, or read about the Shu'abiya movement. Also Mowlanas son did not know Greek/Turkish well(he has pointed it out three times at least) although these were the two main languages of the region during the Seljuqs. This shows that Mowlanas family were ethnically Persians. I agree he was a Muslim first but nevertheless, he was born as a Persian.

--Ali doostzadeh 19:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was Islamic, if he was Persian and if it was of importance to him he would have specifically highlighted this however, he didn't.

Its possible that he could have been anything, its possible that he was neither a Persian or a Turk but of another heritage.

However, what we can be sure of is that he was Islamic.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot say if Rumi was Islamic or not. We can only report what reputable sources say about him. See WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can quote for example Rumi's own words: "I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Magian, nor Muslim", which we do in the article. So regardless of what sholars, politically motivated or not, Rumi did not consider himself Muslim or from any religion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]