# Is Sufi from Arabic Tasawuf or IE. forms?



## mojobadshah

Is Sufi from Arabic Tasawuf "wool" or IE. like maybe Av. spitama "white" or Gk. -sophy?


----------



## fdb

_ṣūfī_ is from Arabic _ṣūf_ “wool”. Wearing wool rather than silk was a sign of poverty, or humility, in mediaeval Islamic societies. But who told you that _spitāma_ means “white”?


----------



## mojobadshah

fdb said:


> _ṣūfī_ is from Arabic _ṣūf_ “wool”. Wearing wool rather than silk was a sign of poverty, or humility, in mediaeval Islamic societies. But who told you that _spitāma_ means “white”?



Read it in a book somewhere.  The morpheme -pit- in Av. _spitama_ is cognate to Eng. _white after -fit- > vit.  _Spitama is also cognate to NPer. _safid_ "white" Gk. _sofia_ "wisdom" and L. _sapean_ "wise" or am I wrong?


----------



## fdb

mojobadshah said:


> or am I wrong?



totally.


----------



## mojobadshah

fdb said:


> totally.



No way. Wait.  I see that I'm wrong about Spitama's connection to Gk. sofia and L. sapient, but but all the sources I've seen define Spitama as "white," and I know I read something close to what I said about the -pit- > -vit- shift cf. Eng. white. And I'm assuming that NPer. safid "white" is akin to Spitama "White" because the two words resemble each other, which makes Safid look like a likely candidate for an ancestor of the Arab. Sufi "wool" which is white.  So if it doesn't mean "white" or "white garments" which is what Zoroastrian priests wore. If Spitama doesn't mean "white" what does Spitama mean?


----------



## Wolverine9

_Spitāma_- means “possessing brilliant attacking strength”; read this.  The avestan word for “white” is _spaēta__-._


----------



## palomnik

There are four common theories on where "sufi" comes from, but nobody really knows for sure.

One is from _ṣūf - _"wool" - as you point out. The second is from Greek _sophia_. The third is that it comes from _ahl is-suffa - _"people of the bench", a group who would meet in the Medina mosque at the time of the prophet. The fourth is from _ṣafa' - _purity.


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> _Spitāma_- means “possessing brilliant attacking strength”; read this.  The avestan word for “white” is _spaēta__-._



I thought that Spaetama was an alternate rendering for Spitama and that Spaetama/Spitama means "white" and spaeta is a cognate to Spaetama.  Do you agree that Spaeta is a cognate of the Eng. white?  This is what other sources say anyhow: see http://books.google.com/books?id=GF...EcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Spitama + white&f=false and http://books.google.com/books?id=vS...Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Spitama + "white"&f=false.  Pretty much every source I've read asserts that Spaetama : white, up until you showed me yours.  It doesn't say very much.  Can you support your source?


----------



## Wolverine9

_Spitāma _was the family designation of Zoroaster and is used in the Avesta as a patronym for him. Anything you read beyond that is merely conjecture.  That being said, the sources claiming it means "white" are all mainly from the 19th century.   It seems the name consists of _spita_- + _Hma-.   _The root _spit_- can mean "grow, swell, increase, fatten." The suffix _-ama _or -_āma _(<_Hma_) can mean "strength" or "power."  That would be the explanation behind the meaning I mentioned.


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> _Spitāma _was the family designation of Zoroaster and is used in the Avesta as a patronym for him. Anything you read beyond that is merely conjecture.  That being said, the sources claiming it means "white" are all mainly from the 19th century.   It seems the name consists of _spita_- + _Hma-.   _The root _spit_- can mean "grow, swell, increase, fatten." The suffix _-ama _or -_āma _(<_Hma_) can mean "strength" or "power."  That would be the explanation behind the meaning I mentioned.



Thanks.


----------



## mojobadshah

I think this source "Iranian loanwords in Syriac" comes from 2008 and it seems to maintain that Spitama means "white."  I googled Spaeta + Spaetama on google books.  It says something like: *214 Note that Av. Spitama-, as well as Av. spaeta- and MP spld, are all forms that come from the same IE root *£weyt- "light, white": the literal meaning of Av.Spitama- is "mit glanzender ['weisser'] (Angriffs-)Kraft" (Walde - Pokorny I 469; IPNB ...  



*Up until you showed me your source it made perfect sense that the family name would be called "white" because the Spitamas were hereditary priests and white was the color of their priestly garbs.   In any case that doesn't rule out Safid "white" as a candidate.  Apparently Arabic sufi is derived from safa which makes the two words resemble each other more.  Is NPer. Safid related to Av. Spaeta "white"?


----------



## Wolverine9

Yes, they're cognates.


----------



## mojobadshah

Are Safavid and Sufi cognates? The Safavids popularized Shiaism and its my understanding that Shia Islam was a Sufi movement.


----------



## Wolverine9

Safavid is derived from _ṣafī _“pure” _(<ṣafā_ “purity”_)_, which was the name of the founder of a Sufi order who also was an ancestor of the Safavids, while _ṣūfī_ is most likely from _ṣūf_ “wool.”


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> Safavid is derived from _ṣafī _“pure” _(<ṣafā_ “purity”_)_, which was the name of the founder of a Sufi order who also was an ancestor of the Safavids, while _ṣūfī_ is most likely from _ṣūf_ “wool.”



This source says its debatable and that it could come from Per. saf "pure": http://www.davidberryart.com/articles/sufism.html Are you sure Per. saf "pure" is not a cognate of Per. safid "white"?  And sufi comes from Arabic suf _or saf_ "wool."


----------



## Wolverine9

_ṣ__āf, __ṣafī, _etc. are of Arabic origin and not cognate to Persian _safīd_.


----------



## thelastchoice

The greek origin theory has no basis but the similar pronunciation. Arab and Muslim scholars did not mention such theory although they usually mention such information. They mentioned 8 theories. Greek S in Sophia as never transliterated as صاد Sad. It was always transliterated as سين Seen like in φιλοσοφία which became فلسفة not فلصفة .


----------



## sotos

The early Sufi movement evolved in the east of the then Byzantine Empire in a mixed Christian/Greek/Muslim environment and thus inherited some Neo-Platonic and pagan elements (Mevlana Rumi and his son wrote poems in Greek). So, I believe the etymology from Gr. σοφοί (in plural, _wise men_) is plausible. On the other hand, the connection with the "wool" has a parallel in other Greco-Christian-to-Muslim converts: In Cyprus the cryptochristian muslims were called "linovamvakoi" (linen-cottons). The "folk-etymology" could possibly take into account both meanings.


----------



## mojobadshah

sotos said:


> The early Sufi movement evolved in the east of the then Byzantine Empire in a mixed Christian/Greek/Muslim environment and thus inherited some Neo-Platonic and pagan elements (Mevlana Rumi and his son wrote poems in Greek). So, I believe the etymology from Gr. σοφοί (in plural, _wise men_) is plausible. On the other hand, the connection with the "wool" has a parallel in other Greco-Christian-to-Muslim converts: In Cyprus the cryptochristian muslims were called "linovamvakoi" (linen-cottons). The "folk-etymology" could possibly take into account both meanings.



My original hypothesis was that Zarathushtra Spitama "The White" worshipped Mazda "Wisdom."  Spitama was a family name that designated one who wore the white priestly garbs. Av. spaeta or Per. safid was therefore used to designate priests.  White was actually the common priestly garb of most ancient Indo-European priestly castes.  Saf "white" could then be the root of Sufi. I'm also tempted to think that Per. saf "white" is akin to Per. saf "pure," (it would sort of make sense semantically: white, clean, pure) but I have no evidence for this.  According to wikipedia saf "pure" is arguably a candidate for Sufi.   

Would the fact that not all Muslims wore wool, but also cotton detract from the fact that Sufi is derived from the Arab suf or saf "wool"?


----------



## Treaty

The three words _ṣaff _(ṣ-f-f), _ṣāf _(ṣ-f-w) and _ṣūf _(ṣ-w-f) come from unrelated Arabic roots as shown in brackets. Among them, _ṣūf _(=wool) is revered as the sign of belief and the cloth of people in paradise by Sufis_. _For  example, Hujviri (c. 1070) cites a number of early Islamic hadiths to  justify the religious significance of wool. The woolen cloth was  considered harsh, cheap and crude which connoted abstaining from luxurious,  comfortable and mundane urban life. The association of woolen cloth to  Sufis and abstinence is well attested in Persian literature as a  Persian-based equivalent for Sufi was _pašmīneh-pūš _(= one who wears woolen cloth).



mojobadshah said:


> Would the fact that not all Muslims wore wool, but also cotton detract  from the fact that Sufi is derived from the Arab suf or saf  "wool"?



Muslim society began to divide from the moment of Prophet's death if not before it. Let's say Muslims  were never practicing the exactly same thing that the absence of a  common practice leads us to a detraction. On the other hand, the Muslim  lands undergo repetitive insurgency against the "luxury" (_tajammul_)  and "mundaneness" of khalifs and rulers, demanding the "simplicity" and  "humility" of pioneer khalifs like Omar and Ali. It suggests that the  anti-luxury tendency is genuinely Islamic. Sufis were probably one  category of demonstrating this concern.


----------



## fdb

Persian _safēd_ “white” begins with س , and Persian (Arabic actually) _ṣafiyy_ “pure” with ص . But why worry about mere facts?

(Overlap with Treaty)


----------



## mojobadshah

Treaty said:


> The three words _ṣaff _(ṣ-f-f), _ṣāf _(ṣ-f-w) and _ṣūf _(ṣ-w-f) come from unrelated Arabic roots as shown in brackets. Among them, _ṣūf _(=wool) is revered as the sign of belief and the cloth of people in paradise by Sufis_. _For  example, Hujviri (c. 1070) cites a number of early Islamic hadiths to  justify the religious significance of wool. The woolen cloth was  considered harsh, cheap and crude which connoted abstaining from luxurious,  comfortable and mundane urban life. The association of woolen cloth to  Sufis and abstinence is well attested in Persian literature as a  Persian-based equivalent for Sufi was _pašmīneh-pūš _(= one who wears woolen cloth).




What you say about wool and its significance is very detailed.  Thanks.



Treaty said:


> Muslim society began to divide from the moment of Prophet's death if not before it. Let's say Muslims  were never practicing the exactly same thing that the absence of a  common practice leads us to a detraction. On the other hand, the Muslim  lands undergo repetitive insurgency against the "luxury" (_tajammul_)  and "mundaneness" of khalifs and rulers, demanding the "simplicity" and  "humility" of pioneer khalifs like Omar and Ali. It suggests that the  anti-luxury tendency is genuinely Islamic. Sufis were probably one  category of demonstrating this concern.



My notions are that Sufism pre-dated Islam.  It is as old as Zoroastrianism, because Sufis incorporate Zoroastrian ideas.  For example fire in Sufi poetry is prominent and derives from Zoroastrian veneration of fire as a symbol of God. In Orthodox Islam fire is associated with the damnation of hell. Spitama "white" clan was the heriditary priesthood among the Iran-Afghans and they wore white garbs.  The word "white" in the Iranic languages would have long been a designation for the priests who wore white garbs.  The Sufi movement was probably a Persian reaction to orthodox Islam, an attempt to put a Persian stamp on Islam.  It would therefore have made more sense to use an unorthodox designation for the movement.  And it would make sense that Sufi is actually a designation of a Persian movement and that the word Sufi ultimately derives from Persian and not Arabic.

Do we know who the first person to self-designate himself "Sufi" was?  That could explain something.  

fdb do you know if Per. safid "white" and Per. safa "pure" are related?


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> My notions are that Sufism pre-dated Islam.  It is as old as Zoroastrianism, because Sufis incorporate Zoroastrian ideas.  For example fire in Sufi poetry is prominent and derives from Zoroastrian veneration of fire as a symbol of God. In Orthodox Islam fire is associated with the damnation of hell. Spitama "white" clan was the heriditary priesthood among the Iran-Afghans and they wore white garbs.  The word "white" in the Iranic languages would have long been a designation for the priests who wore white garbs.  The Sufi movement was probably a Persian reaction to orthodox Islam, an attempt to put a Persian stamp on Islam.  It would therefore have made more sense to use an unorthodox designation for the movement.  And it would make sense that Sufi is actually a designation of a Persian movement and that the word Sufi ultimately derives from Persian and not Arabic.


The earliest Sufis in Islamic traditions were Arabs not Persians. If you think this is all wrong, please explain on which sources you base this.


mojobadshah said:


> fdb do you know if Per. safid "white" and Per. safa "pure" are related?


He answered this in #21 above (the two words don't start with the same sound/letter which makes it unlikely).


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> The earliest Sufis in Islamic traditions were Arabs not Persians. If you think this is all wrong, please explain on which sources you base this.
> He answered this in #21 above (the two words don't start with the same sound/letter which makes it unlikely).



That was my impression too, but can you name any Arab Muslims who used the designation Sufi, or is this designation a back-projection.


----------



## Treaty

mojobadshah said:


> My notions are that Sufism pre-dated Islam.  It is as old as Zoroastrianism ...


Islam itself predates Islam. No one, even the prophet,  claimed that Islam is something totally new but returning the origin of the religion. There are a great deal of  similarities, in details, between Islam and Zoroastrianism.



mojobadshah said:


> ...because Sufis incorporate Zoroastrian ideas. For example fire in Sufi poetry is prominent and derives from Zoroastrian veneration of fire as a symbol of God. In Orthodox Islam fire is associated with the damnation of hell.


Sufi poetry and symbolism (11th century onwards) are much later than the emerge of simple Sufism in 8th century. In 10th century, according to Al-Sulami there were already five categories of Sufis. In addition, in the canonical books _kitāb al-tawahhum_ and _ādāb al-ṣūfīyah_ there is no major difference between the so-called orthodox Islam and their teachings.



mojobadshah said:


> Spitama "white" clan was the heriditary priesthood among the Iran-Afghans and they wore white garbs.  The word "white" in the Iranic languages would have long been a designation for the priests who wore white garbs.



There was nothing called "white clan" and no Magus claimed to be offspring of Zoroaster or Spitamids. I assume the association of "white cloth" with purity is primary visual and universal rather than ideological and belonging to a certain priesthood.



mojobadshah said:


> The Sufi movement was probably a Persian reaction to orthodox Islam, an attempt to put a Persian stamp on Islam.  It would therefore have made more sense to use an unorthodox designation for the movement.  And it would make sense that Sufi is actually a designation of a Persian movement and that the word Sufi ultimately derives from Persian and not Arabic.



And what is that so-called "Islamic orthodoxy"? What is the unorthodox Islam then? And how the detailed and strict laws of Zoroastrianism help relieve that orthodoxy? (Some say one of the reasons Iranian became Muslims was the relative simplicity and relaxation of Islam).  



mojobadshah said:


> Do we know who the first person to self-designate himself "Sufi" was?  That could explain something.



No. There was always a dispute at least since 10th century. The name definitely goes before 9th century. As for themselves, they wondered between _ṣūf _(=wool: their "external" demonstration) and _ṣaf__ā' _(=purity of soul: their ultimate goal), not considering some other five or six possibilities. These can be a genuine debate. However, as seen in some Shia hadiths there was a suspicion that woolen cloth had become an abusively demonstrative tool rather that a humble clothing as it should be. This may explain why Sufis gradually became reluctant to relate the term to wool.



mojobadshah said:


> That was my impression too, but can you name any Arab Muslims who used  the designation Sufi, or is this designation a back-projection



The question is what do you mean by Arab Muslim? Arabic became lingua franca of the Muslim lands since their occupation like Latin did in Europe. You should distinguish between Arabic language which was spoken by all Muslim scholars and Arabic ethnicity which was the ruling minority of Islamic lands. Not only many Sufi scholars but also other Sunni and Shia scholars were of non-Arab ethnicities especially Iranians. 

There is no evidence that the fore-fathers of Sufism (either Arab or Iranian) called themselves "Sufi". The problem of considering an Iranian origin for the term "Sufi" is that the Iranian scholars who contributed to Sufism knew Persian well, so it is very unlikely that they have misspelled or mispronounced _safid_ into _sufi_.


----------



## mojobadshah

Treaty said:


> Islam itself predates Islam. No one, even the prophet,  claimed that Islam is something totally new but returning the origin of the religion. There are a great deal of  similarities, in details, between Islam and Zoroastrianism.
> 
> 
> Sufi poetry and symbolism (11th century onwards) are much later than the emerge of simple Sufism in 8th century. In 10th century, according to Al-Sulami there were already five categories of Sufis. In addition, in the canonical books _kitāb al-tawahhum_ and _ādāb al-ṣūfīyah_ there is no major difference between the so-called orthodox Islam and their teachings.



Al-Sulami is a start.  But this proves my point.  Using Sufi to designate historical figures is a backprojection.  We're not really sure exactly who the first Sufi was.  My understanding is that the Sufism is rooted in Shia Islam and therefore different from orthodox or Sunni Islam.   Shia Islam was adopted by the Iranians because tracing their authority to Ali allowed them to put their own stamp on the religion, and most Iranian mystics and poets used Zoroastrian ideas heavily. I'm not totally convinced that Sufi wasn't a Persian development and that it's not linguistically unsound that the word developed like so: safid > safi > sufi



Treaty said:


> There was nothing called "white clan" and no Magus claimed to be offspring of Zoroaster or Spitamids. I assume the association of "white cloth" with purity is primary visual and universal rather than ideological and belonging to a certain priesthood.



I'm not sure I agree with you.  The family name Spitama pops up a few times in the ancient history.  The name is listed in bank records that are dated to the Acheamenid period, and Spitama was also the name of a Bactrian king during the Selucid period. 

The cloth was white, the garb of the hereditary Zoroastrian priesthood.  Zarathushtra Spitama was a hereditary priest.  



Treaty said:


> And what is that so-called "Islamic orthodoxy"? What is the unorthodox Islam then? And how the detailed and strict laws of Zoroastrianism help relieve that orthodoxy? (Some say one of the reasons Iranian became Muslims was the relative simplicity and relaxation of Islam).



Being that Shia Islam and Sufi Islam looks to be a Persianized form of Islam, Sunni Islam would be the orthodox Islam.  



Treaty said:


> No. There was always a dispute at least since 10th century. The name definitely goes before 9th century. As for themselves, they wondered between _ṣūf _(=wool: their "external" demonstration) and _ṣaf__ā' _(=purity of soul: their ultimate goal), not considering some other five or six possibilities. These can be a genuine debate. However, as seen in some Shia hadiths there was a suspicion that woolen cloth had become an abusively demonstrative tool rather that a humble clothing as it should be. This may explain why Sufis gradually became reluctant to relate the term to wool.



The thing about wool which I haven't mentioned yet, is that its white.  This is another reason to link the word Sufi to the Persian Safid "white."



Treaty said:


> The question is what do you mean by Arab Muslim? Arabic became lingua franca of the Muslim lands since their occupation like Latin did in Europe. You should distinguish between Arabic language which was spoken by all Muslim scholars and Arabic ethnicity which was the ruling minority of Islamic lands. Not only many Sufi scholars but also other Sunni and Shia scholars were of non-Arab ethnicities especially Iranians.


 
Well pretty much all the Muslim world except for the Shia who mainly inhabit Iran and are Persian speaking, and the Persian Sufis, and then there are mostly Arabic speaking Sunni Muslims.  



Treaty said:


> There is no evidence that the fore-fathers of Sufism (either Arab or Iranian) called themselves "Sufi". The problem of considering an Iranian origin for the term "Sufi" is that the Iranian scholars who contributed to Sufism knew Persian well, so it is very unlikely that they have misspelled or mispronounced _safid_ into _sufi_.



Maybe it wasn't misspelled, maybe it was used so much that they just innovated the word.


----------



## Treaty

mojobadshah said:


> My understanding is that the Sufism is rooted in Shia Islam and therefore different from orthodox or Sunni Islam.


Incorrect! The concept which defines Shi’ism is _īmāmah_ (the hereditary succession of Prophet), that is, the only real difference between Sunni and Shia. You cannot find even a scant trace of this concept in an absolute majority of Sufi traditions. So, on what base do you connect Sufism to Shia?

In addition, Sufis devotedly venerated Omar and the founders of four Sunni schools which is totally un-Shi’ite.


mojobadshah said:


> The thing about wool which I haven't mentioned yet, is that its white.


Nope, I would say wool is probably the only material that may NOT be white as we have non-white sheep and camel. Interestingly, all Sunni clerics traditionally wore white cloths while Shia clerics preferred brown or greyish cloths.



mojobadshah said:


> Well pretty much all the Muslim world except for the Shia who mainly inhabit Iran and are Persian speaking


Incorrect! There are about 200-300M Shias [by name] of whom only 70M are West Iranian speakers (inc. all Iranian languages of Iran and Iraq) while majority of Persian speakers in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, as well as Baluchi and Kurdish speakers are Sunni. What will you say for the majority of Sunnis (Hanafi), who belong to the school of Persian scholar Abu Hanifah? Does it make Sunnis also Persian?
The current Irano-Turkic Shia people are living exactly inside the borders of the pro-Shia Safavid state (1600s) while the Irano-Turkic Sunnis live outside it. I think this clearly speaks what had made the current Shia-Sunni geographical distribution. Interestingly, Safavid kings “imported” many Lebanese Shia scholars to serve as religious teachers. 
-------
Although I’ve gone too far into explaining non-linguistic topics but it was essential to demonstrate many of your presumptions are not factual. I don’t deny the influence of Zoroastrianism on Islam, even in details but there are tens of other eco-socio-politico-cultural situations as important (if not more) that may have resulted into the rise, evolution and fall of religious movements like Sufism.


----------



## mojobadshah

Treaty said:


> In addition, Sufis devotedly venerated Omar and the founders of four Sunni schools which is totally un-Shi’ite.
> 
> Incorrect! The concept which defines Shi’ism is _īmāmah_ (the hereditary succession of Prophet), that is, the only real difference between Sunni and Shia. You cannot find even a scant trace of this concept in an absolute majority of Sufi traditions. So, on what base do you connect Sufism to Shia?



Neither Shia nor Sufi trace authority to Abu Bakr.  




Treaty said:


> Nope, I would say wool is probably the only material that may NOT be white as we have non-white sheep and camel. Interestingly, all Sunni clerics traditionally wore white cloths while Shia clerics preferred brown or greyish cloths.


But the priests wore white wool.  Good a reason as any to call their garbs white, no?



Treaty said:


> Incorrect! There are about 200-300M Shias [by name] of whom only 70M are West Iranian speakers (inc. all Iranian languages of Iran and Iraq) while majority of Persian speakers in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, as well as Baluchi and Kurdish speakers are Sunni. What will you say for the majority of Sunnis (Hanafi), who belong to the school of Persian scholar Abu Hanifah? Does it make Sunnis also Persian?
> The current Irano-Turkic Shia people are living exactly inside the borders of the pro-Shia Safavid state (1600s) while the Irano-Turkic Sunnis live outside it. I think this clearly speaks what had made the current Shia-Sunni geographical distribution. Interestingly, Safavid kings “imported” many Lebanese Shia scholars to serve as religious teachers.



The Sunnis are orthodox Muslims, but there were notable Sufi works which came out of Afghanistan (which is primarily Sunni today) such as those of Rumi.  Most of the Arabic world is made up of orthodox Muslims or Sunnis.  The Irano-Afghan zone is made up of unorthodox Shia Muslims, and unorthodox Sufis in other Iranic speaking areas which I suppose could even include the Yazidis in Kurdistan.


----------



## Treaty

mojobadshah said:


> Neither Shia nor Sufi trace authority to Abu Bakr.


Again what is your evidence? I just checked the works of some Perisan Sufis (Hujviri, Rumi, Attar, Sana'i) about Abubakr and all have considered him a righteous person (the second good after the Prophet). Anyway, Sufis traditionally didn't care about "authority" and "government" because it is a mundane concept for them.


mojobadshah said:


> But the priests wore white wool. Good a reason as any to call their garbs white, no?


So what? The priests all over Middle East wore white garment. In addition, there are several hadiths associated to Mohammad which recommend bright or white garment. Why do you single out Magi's white cloth?


mojobadshah said:


> ... but there were notable Sufi works which came out of Afghanistan (which is primarily Sunni today) such as those of Rumi...


So what? What's the connection between being from Eastern Iran and Zoroastrianism? I've just told you majority of Sunnis follow Abu-Hanifa who was from Afghanistan. Basically, all Sunni's six accredited books (Sahihs) are written by Afghano-Iranians. Why don't you consider your logic also for Sunnis? 
Their main capital (Baghdad) was in the former Zoroastrian powerhouse and their Khalifs were greatly depended on Iranians, politically and culturally. 
----
All I can say is that after death of Ali, the humility of the "golden age" rulers was replaced by the luxurious political bureaucracy of Umayyids. This simple fact may be a better explanation for the popularity of apolitical self-imposed poverty of early Sufis, which was parallel to the anti-Khalifs political movements of early Shi'ism.


----------



## Wolverine9

*mojobadshah*, why is it so difficult for you to believe that _ṣūfī _is of Arabic origin? Just because many Sufis were Persian doesn't mean the term itself is Persian.


----------



## sotos

The simplicity of clothing as a spiritual symbolism is a pre-muslim tradition. Compare with Mat. 3, 4 ".._. John had his raiment of camel's hair _...". Wool was the cheapest  material for clothes those days. Cotton, silk etc were luxury products. 
My example of "cotton-linen" crypto-christian muslims meaned to indicate that the clothe was used to identify certain religious communities. Another example, the Greek orthodox priests are often called "rassophoroi" (black-cloak-bearers). 
The relation between words meaning "white" and "wise" is not impossible. One may argue that the Gr. root "asp-" (> _aspros_, white) is anagrammatism of the root "sap-" (wise, to know etc).


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> Being that Shia Islam and Sufi Islam looks to be a Persianized form of Islam, Sunni Islam would be the orthodox Islam.
> ...
> Well pretty much all the Muslim world except for the Shia who mainly inhabit Iran and are Persian speaking, and the Persian Sufis, and then there are mostly Arabic speaking Sunni Muslims.


Your simplistic equation Sunni=Arabic and Shia=Persion doesn't hold water. There are enough Arabic Shia Muslims and before the Safavids made Shia Islam state religion and several waves of forced conversion, Persians were predominantly Sunnis.


----------



## mojobadshah

Treaty said:


> Again what is your evidence? I just checked the works of some Perisan Sufis (Hujviri, Rumi, Attar, Sana'i) about Abubakr and all have considered him a righteous person (the second good after the Prophet). Anyway, Sufis traditionally didn't care about "authority" and "government" because it is a mundane concept for them.
> 
> So what? The priests all over Middle East wore white garment. In addition, there are several hadiths associated to Mohammad which recommend bright or white garment. Why do you single out Magi's white cloth?
> 
> So what? What's the connection between being from Eastern Iran and Zoroastrianism? I've just told you majority of Sunnis follow Abu-Hanifa who was from Afghanistan. Basically, all Sunni's six accredited books (Sahihs) are written by Afghano-Iranians. Why don't you consider your logic also for Sunnis?
> Their main capital (Baghdad) was in the former Zoroastrian powerhouse and their Khalifs were greatly depended on Iranians, politically and culturally.
> ----
> All I can say is that after death of Ali, the humility of the "golden age" rulers was replaced by the luxurious political bureaucracy of Umayyids. This simple fact may be a better explanation for the popularity of apolitical self-imposed poverty of early Sufis, which was parallel to the anti-Khalifs political movements of early Shi'ism.



I'll be honest.  I'm not well versed in Islam, but the fact that the Shia subverted Islam by tracing authority to Islam and the incorporation of Zoroastrian ideas such as the celebration of Noe Ruz, and the fact that the writers of these 6 sunni hadiths were Persian, and the fact that the Sufi's didn't care about authority shows that Islam was being radically altered by the Irano-Afghans.  I'm not singling out the Magi's white cloth, but the fact is that they have been wearing white as far back as they can recall and the Muslims priests were wearing white garbs is why I'm tempted to think that the fact that the majority of priests wore white is why they were called Sufi's or holy men who wore white garments.


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> ... shows that Islam was being radically altered by the Irano-Afghans.


Nobody has ever denied the influence of Iranian scholars on the development of Islam. But please forget things like this: _Shia subverted Islam by tracing authority to Islam and the incorporation of Zoroastrian ideas such as the celebration of Noe Ruz_. The Iranians become Shiites only in the 16th century. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. _Noe Ruz_ was reintroduced only after the demise of the califate. All this can't influence the etymology of the word _Sufi_. The only letter the word _ṣ__ufi_ shares with _safēd _is the "f"; and this is definitely not enough to build such a far fetched theory upon as you are offering to us. And even if Sufism where all an Persian invention, it wouldn't mean the word had to be of Iranian origin. Arabic is the sacred language of Islam and no Muslim, Arab, Persian or from any other part of the world has ever questioned that.


----------



## fdb

I agree totally with Bernd, apart from one relatively minor point:



berndf said:


> _Noe Ruz_ was reintroduced only after the demise of the califate.



The Zoroastrian New Year (­naw rōz) was in fact celebrated in early Islamic Persia and indeed marked the beginning of the tax year in the Eastern provinces of the caliphate. In the 11th century, however, Naw rōz was fixed to the spring equinox and thus detached from the Zoroastrian vague year of exactly 365 days. All is explained here (unfortunately only if you have access to JStor):

www.jstor.org/stable/4299943


----------



## berndf

Thank you for the correction.


----------



## mojobadshah

Noe Ruz is celebrated by all Irano-Afghans.  Rumis work was called the Persian Koran and his predecessor beleived that Persian was better than Arabic for sacred writings.  Another reason why Sufi could have been Persian.  Maybe you only see 1 letter in common but I see potentially 2 s, f, ee or i and a vowel corresondence a > u.


----------



## fdb

Or as Voltaire (is wrongly supposed to have) said: Les voyelles ne font rien, et les consonnes fort peu de chose.


----------



## berndf

There is no s in ṣufi.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> Your simplistic equation Sunni=Arabic and Shia=Persion doesn't hold water. There are enough Arabic Shia Muslims and before the Safavids made Shia Islam state religion and several waves of forced conversion, Persians were predominantly Sunnis.



Its more like Shia and Sufi-Sunni Muslim= Persian and Sunni Muslim=Arabic


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> There is no s in ṣufi.



Kindly elaborate on this.  How is there no s in sufi?  All the etymologies that have been proposed here involve the word sufi having developed from an initial s.  Are you saying that the word sufi developed from the word ufi?


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> Its more like Shia and Sufi-Sunni Muslim= Persian and Sunni Muslim=Arabic


I don't understand a word of what you are saying.


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> Kindly elaborate on this.  How is there no s in sufi?  All the etymologies that have been proposed here involve the word sufi having developed from an initial s.  Are you saying that the word sufi developed from the word ufi?


Please read carefully how ṣufi is spelled. Hint: the little dot is *not* decoration.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> I don't understand a word of what you are saying.



The anti-orthodox and pro-Persian Muslim movement really began all the way back with Salman-i-Parsee and the murder of Omar who is still reverenced in a tomb today.  The 6 hadiths of canon were all authored by Persian Muslims.  Sufis such as Rumi reverenced Sunnis, but also incorporated Zoroastrian elements into his works.  The Safavids concept of the Mahdi the 12 and hidden Imam is a direct borrowing from Zoroastrianism, the Saoyshant.  As far as I know this motif does not appear in the Koran.  The Safavids hence also partook in this subversion of Islam choosing the Shia religion was a part of it.  So what you have is a Zoroastrianized Islam practiced in the Irano-Afghan zone (Noe Roz is another good example of antiorthodox practices), and a clearly orthodox sunni Islam practiced amongst most Arabic speakers.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> Please read carefully how ṣufi is spelled. Hint: the little dot is *not* decoration.



OK, maybe there's something I don't know.  What is your source for ufi > sufi?  I don't see why there would be a debate about it if there is sound linguistic evidence for an Arabic origin of the word.


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> OK, maybe there's something I don't know.  What is your source for ufi > sufi?  I don't see why there would be a debate about it if there is sound linguistic evidence for an Arabic origin of the word.



There isn't. It's just you who is debating. The two proposed Arabic etymons both start with the same letter as ṣufi; yours doesn't.


----------



## Wolverine9

mojobadshah said:


> The anti-orthodox and pro-Persian Muslim movement really began all the way back with Salman-i-Parsee and the murder of Omar who is still reverenced in a tomb today.  The 6 hadiths of canon were all authored by Persian Muslims.  Sufis such as Rumi reverenced Sunnis, but also incorporated Zoroastrian elements into his works.  The Safavids concept of the Mahdi the 12 and hidden Imam is a direct borrowing from Zoroastrianism, the Saoyshant.  As far as I know this motif does not appear in the Koran.  The Safavids hence also partook in this subversion of Islam choosing the Shia religion was a part of it.  So what you have is a Zoroastrianized Islam practiced in the Irano-Afghan zone (Noe Roz is another good example of antiorthodox practices), and a clearly orthodox sunni Islam practiced amongst most Arabic speakers.



It seems like you're asserting that "unorthodox" Shia Islam is a continuation of Zoroastrianism and distinct from "orthodox" Sunni Islam, and that the "unorthodox" Suffis are a continuation of the Spitamids.  All of this is _very _far-fetched without any historical basis for support.


----------



## Wolverine9

mojobadshah said:


> OK, maybe there's something I don't know.  What is your source for ufi > sufi?  I don't see why there would be a debate about it if there is sound linguistic evidence for an Arabic origin of the word.



There is a difference between *ṣ* and *s*. *ṣūfī *begins with *ṣ*, which is usually only found in words of Arabic origin.


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> There is a difference between *ṣ* and *s*. *ṣūfī *begins with *ṣ*, which is usually only found in words of Arabic origin.



OK I'm almost convinced that Sufi is an Arabic word, but didn't ṣ develop out of s?  How did an _ṣufi_ develop out of _ufi_?  I'd like to see the source for this explanation.


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> It seems like you're asserting that "unorthodox" Shia Islam is a continuation of Zoroastrianism and distinct from "orthodox" Sunni Islam, and that the "unorthodox" Suffis are a continuation of the Spitamids.  All of this is _very _far-fetched without any historical basis for support.



Both Shia Islam and Sufism incorporate both direct and indirectly inherited Zoroastrian ideas, there's no doubt about that.  I was merely proposing that the reason Sufi is developed from Safid "white" because white represented the forces of light and was the heriditary garb of many priestly castes during those days, and the Spitamids were one of them.  Everything about this is historical apart from the connection between Sufi and Safid which is a linguistic question.


----------



## mojobadshah

sotos said:


> The relation between words meaning "white" and "wise" is not impossible. One may argue that the Gr. root "asp-" (> _aspros_, white) is anagrammatism of the root "sap-" (wise, to know etc).



Very interesting.  You know my original hypothesis was based on etymological work I had done, but not committed to paper, and I could have sworn the word Spitama was related to the Eng. white and the Gk. sofia and the L. sapient.  Spitama has been said to mean "white" but also "light" and if I'm not mistaken Sofia is represented by "light," and I'm pretty sure Gk. Sofia is related to L. sapient.  Could Safid and Sofia descend from a common root?  There must have been a p > f shift in both forms.


----------



## mojobadshah

The Sufi's are also called the Sophees.  What kind of word is Sophee?


----------



## Treaty

mojobadshah said:


> ...1) the Shia subverted Islam by tracing authority to Islam 2) ... Zoroastrian ideas such as the celebration of Noe Ruz ... 3) the writers of these 6 sunni hadiths were Persian... 4) called Sufi's or holy men who wore white garments.
> --------------
> ... 5) Salman-i-Parsee  ... 6) Rumi ... incorporated Zoroastrian elements ... 7) The Safavids concept of the Mahdi ... 8) direct borrowing from Zoroastrianism ... 9) a Zoroastrianized Islam practiced in the Irano-Afghan zone
> -------------
> 10) How did an _ṣufi_ develop out of _ufi_?
> -------------
> 11) ... Shia Islam ... incorporate ... inherited Zoroastrian ideas, there's no doubt about that. ... 12) Everything about this is historical apart from the connection between Sufi and Safid which is a linguistic question


1) All post-Ali rulers, either Shia or Sunni, claimed a kinship to Prophet to legitimise their authority (e.g., Mu'awiah call himself Uncle of Believers; Abbassid Califate chose their name after Abbas, the uncle of Prophet; even now the Jordan kings emphasize on their "Hashimite" origin which includes Mohammad clan). So how was that only Shia "subverted" Islam?
2) There's not such a thing in Shia Islam called "Nowruz". Many Shia clerics in Iran *strongly oppose* Nowruz and other non-Islamic holidays like Sizdah be-Dar and Charshanbeh Suri.
3) You have presumed without evidence that they were not honest in reporting those Hadiths (just because they were not Arabs?), so they altered Islam. 
Interestingly, you first consider Sunni as "orthodox" then you say Sunni was an "altered" Islam by those Iranians! An then Shia is re-altered version of it.
4) If almost all Muslim and non-Muslim priests wore white garbs why only Sufis were called "whities"? 
5) All we know about him is mainly from later Persian-based traditions. We don't know if he was Zoroastrian, Mazdakite or else, though interestingly, he's said to have known Hebrew. 
6) Examples of Zoroastrian elements? I hope you don't mean composing about "fire" makes someone Zoroastrian-based.
7) Safavid concept? Mahdi has been well believed by *all *Muslims since very early decades of Islam. 
8) Even if we think it is not genuine of Islam, why Zoroastrian? Why not from Jewish messiah who is the descendant of David? Actually, a reason that extremist Sunnis are anti-Shia is that they accuse the Shi'ist view of Mahdi and Apocalypse of being Judeo-Christian.
9) Only 55% of people in the borders of former Sassanid empire (excl. Persian Gulf Arabs) are Shias.
10) Where did you find this _ufi_? I didn't see anyone mention it.
11) All Islamic schools as well as Quran itself has direct or indirect similarities to Zoroastrianism as well as Judaism and Christianity. Can you tell me any Zoroastrian-like feature in Shi'ism (not just current Shia common believes of some Iranians) that is not present in Sunni school?
12) In fact, the main problem is there is no or little historical evidence for it. If you had told Mazdakite, Mandaism, Judaic mysticism or Manicheism instead of Zoroastrianism it would actually have made more sense!
---------


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> ... but didn't ṣ develop out of s?


No. And if it did then certainly more than 6000 years ago in a predecessor language to proto-Semitic. Certainly not relevant for our discussion.


mojobadshah said:


> How did an _ṣufi_ develop out of _ufi_?  I'd like to see the source for this explanation.


Who said it did?

In Semitic etymology you always look for a verbal root and a verbal root is identified by its three-consonant (in rare cases four) skeleton. E.g.,_ I*sl*a*m*, Mu*sl*i*m* _and _*S*a*l*a*m* _as well as Hebrew _*Sh*a*l*o*m*_ all relate to the root _s1-l-m_ (_s1 _is a sound that developed into _s_ in Arabic and into _sh_ in Hebrew) meaning _to be free/safe/healthy/unharmed_.

In _ṣufi _we have the adjective suffix _-i_ meaning _of/from/pertaining to_ and _ṣuf-_ could be derived from two different roots: _ṣ-f-w_ _= to become clear/pure_ (search for _Sad-Fa-Waw _here) or _ṣ-w-f_ _= to wear wool_ (search for _Sad-Waw-Fa _here). This ambiguity arises because the semivowel _w_ can be vocalized to_ ū_ or can be lost in derived words. In theory a third root _ṣ-f-f_, mentioned here, is possible too but that is less likely (you would expect the _f_ to be long but in _ṣufi_ it isn't).


----------



## sotos

mojobadshah said:


> The Sufi's are also called the Sophees.  What kind of word is Sophee?



If accented at the last syllable, seems to be transliteration of the Gr. σοφοί (plural of σοφός). 
On the meaning of _spitama_ as _light_, it seems that may be cognate to the Gr. _spinther_ (spark). 
Let me know if you are aware of the Neo-Platonic influences in Sufi movement ("St. Plato" etc). I could indicate some online sources.


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> The Sufi's are also called the Sophees.  What kind of word is Sophee?


By whom and in which language representing which pronunciation?


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> By whom and in which language representing which pronunciation?



I'm not really sure.  Its from English books.  I did a scan on google for Sophee + Sufi and what I could find was that the Templars were probably Assassins which would make them Sophees connecting them to the Sufis.  The Sophees ruled Persia from 1500-1736.  There is also mention of the Great Sophie and an implication that Sufi = Salavf.  Not sure what Salavf means though.


----------



## mojobadshah

sotos said:


> If accented at the last syllable, seems to be transliteration of the Gr. σοφοί (plural of σοφός).
> On the meaning of _spitama_ as _light_, it seems that may be cognate to the Gr. _spinther_ (spark).
> Let me know if you are aware of the Neo-Platonic influences in Sufi movement ("St. Plato" etc). I could indicate some online sources.



I am aware of Neo-Platonic movement in Sufism.  If I'm not mistaken that influence in the east began during later Zoroastrian times.  The idea of the "mean" was a Greek concept incorporated into Zoroastrianism.  I'm also aware that Surwardi was a Neo-Platonist who promoted what he called the secret oriental religion which was probably Zoroastrianism.


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> I'm not really sure. Its from English books. I did a scan on google for Sophee + Sufi and what I could find was that the Templars were probably Assassins which would make them Sophees connecting them to the Sufis. The Sophees ruled Persia from 1500-1736. There is also mention of the Great Sophie and an implication that Sufi = Salavf. Not sure what Salavf means though.





mojobadshah said:


> I am aware of Neo-Platonic movement in Sufism.  If I'm not mistaken that influence in the east began during later Zoroastrian times.  The idea of the "mean" was a Greek concept incorporated into Zoroastrianism.  I'm also aware that Surwardi was a Neo-Platonist who promoted what he called the secret oriental religion which was probably Zoroastrianism.



*Moderator note: Ok, now all this seems to to have little to no bearing on the etymology of the word ṣufi any more. We should leave it at that.*


----------



## Phosphorus

mojobadshah said:


> Kindly elaborate on this.  How is there no s in sufi?  All the etymologies that have been proposed here involve the word sufi having developed from an initial s.  Are you saying that the word sufi developed from the word ufi?



Dear Mojobadshah, if you can read Arabic letters then it is clear that س and ص are different letters-and in case of Arabic-different sounds. Here س is represented by "s" and ص by "ṣ" - so as you can see there is no "s" in ṣufi". I myself was given to speculate that the word "Sufi" has in fact something to do with Greek "sophia". But it turned out to be incorrect. Because evidently Arabs transliterated the aforesaid Greek word as "سوف" not "صوف" (as in فلسفه or سوفسطی); while Sufi is in all cases, to my knowledge, written as صوفی in Arabic-a fact which almost precludes any possibility of kinship with Greek "sophia". Arabic Sufi is most likely derived from "صوف" meaning "wool". I think it was Attar, if I am not mistaken, who first records the speculation of Sufi being connected with Greek "sophia". I believe it had esoteric purposes rather than reflecting the true etymology.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> No. And if it did then certainly more than 6000 years ago in a predecessor language to proto-Semitic. Certainly not relevant for our discussion.



Well if _ṣ _developed out of s in Semitic languages then _ṣ _developed out of s (unless it developed out of something else).  So couldn't this mean that in the case of Sufi ṣ could have developed out of a IE. word like Sophoi with an initial s?  

Secondly apparently Sophoi is akin to the Gk. sapha, saphes "clear, clean" http://www.pitt.edu/~edfloyd/saphes.html so is there any connection between these Greek forms and the Arabic ṣafa "pure"?  You would think that the Arabic ṣafa is a Greek loan, yet unless it can be explained there is the problem of the distinction between the emphatic ṣ and s once again.

Lastly, is it possible that the original designation for this esoteric sect of Muslims was actually Sophee and was confused with Sufi or Sufi was a latter folk etymology.  Read this: http://books.google.com/books?id=Xg...g&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=sophees&f=false


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> Well if _..._


What is the point of all these "if"s? If I put enough ifs in my argument I can demonstrate virtually anything.

The simple fact remains: After the Islamic conquest when Persian became spelled with Arabic letters, that used the the siin to transcribe their /s/-sound and not ṣad. Occurrence of ṣad in a word is a strong indication of an Arabic loan. Of course there could be different explanations (there are some, very few native Persian words spelled with ṣad) but adding an improbable "if" to an already weak assumption doesn't make it any stronger.


mojobadshah said:


> You would think that the Arabic ṣafa is a Greek loan, yet unless it can  be explained there is the problem of the distinction between the  emphatic ṣ and s once again.


No, you wouldn't. You would have to have a reason for such an assumption. If an Arabic and a Greek word are similar this don't mean you can just assume that the Greek word is the original. It could be many things, chance coincidence, Greek could have borrowed the word from Semitic, both could have borrowed it from a third source and many more. You cannot make such an assumption for no other reason than because it is convenient for your pre-conceived ideas. You'd be lying to yourself.


----------



## palomnik

mojobadshah said:


> The Sufi's are also called the Sophees.  What kind of word is Sophee?



It sounds like a bowdlerization of _ṣufi, _probably coined by the British in India. 

If you saw it in relation to the Templars, bear in mind that the term is in all likelihood a translation from the Latin, and it would require a fair amount of research to determine what the original term was. 

Aside from the fact that there is an incredible amount of rubbish regarding the Templars spread around the media, including the internet.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> What is the point of all these "if"s? If I put enough ifs in my argument I can demonstrate virtually anything.
> 
> The simple fact remains: After the Islamic conquest when Persian became spelled with Arabic letters, that used the the siin to transcribe their /s/-sound and not ṣad. Occurrence of ṣad in a word is a strong indication of an Arabic loan. Of course there could be different explanations (there are some, very few native Persian words spelled with ṣad) but adding an improbable "if" to an already weak assumption doesn't make it any stronger.



Sorry, I just prefer a passive rather than aggressive approach.  But wouldn't the laws of linguistics dictate that if ṣ developed from /s/ in Semitic languages then the same could be true of foreign words that begin with /s/ that were loaned into Arabic?



berndf said:


> No, you wouldn't. You would have to have a reason for such an assumption. If an Arabic and a Greek word are similar this don't mean you can just assume that the Greek word is the original. It could be many things, chance coincidence, Greek could have borrowed the word from Semitic, both could have borrowed it from a third source and many more. You cannot make such an assumption for no other reason than because it is convenient for your pre-conceived ideas. You'd be lying to yourself.



I was subscribing to the rule that /s/ develops into ṣ in Semitic languages.


----------



## mojobadshah

palomnik said:


> It sounds like a bowdlerization of _ṣufi, _probably coined by the British in India. Where have you seen it?



Why do I keep on getting asked this question? Every time I've mentioned it I've provided links to sources.  Once again: http://books.google.com/books?id=Xg...g&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=sophees&f=false

But you'll get a clearer picture if you search for either sophee or sophee + sufi in google books.


----------



## Wolverine9

If *ṣ* developed from *s* (I'm uncertain that it did) it would've been a prehistoric development within Semitic.  That doesn't apply to relatively recent loanwords because the phonetic change from s > ṣ would've already occurred thousands of years ago.  Loanwords would preserve the original s sound.

Sophee is just a mispronunciation of Sufi.  The book you're using as a reference is more than a century old and will not help you in your arguments.


----------



## palomnik

mojobadshah said:


> Why do I keep on getting asked this question? Every time I've mentioned it I've provided links to sources.  Once again: http://books.google.com/books?id=Xg...g&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=sophees&f=false
> 
> But you'll get a clearer picture if you search for either sophee or sophee + sufi in google books.



I checked out the source. The charitable answer is that Swinburne  was using Farsi (or maybe Urdu) transliterations of what were originally  Arabic words. The fact that he transliterates "Imam" as "Imaum" only  encourages me in that opinion.

He also says on the next page that "Battaneah", an obvious misrendering of "Bāṭinīyah", was a Buddhist sect, based on the name.

To be less charitable, I'm inclined to dismiss any opinions on etymology by a Rosicrucian.​


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> If *ṣ* developed from *s* (I'm uncertain that it did) it would've been a prehistoric development within Semitic.  That doesn't apply to relatively recent loanwords because the phonetic change from s > ṣ would've already occurred thousands of years ago.  Loanwords would preserve the original s sound.



Apparently in Proto-Semitic *ṣ is seen as an emphatic version of *s ([sʼ]) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language  But I'm not totally convinced by your argument that the same would not occur from Greek to Arabic.  

I do see this: in Proto-Arabic the segments /s/ and /ḥ/ fused to become one : the emphatic sibilant /ṣ/. http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7281




Not exactly /s/ to /ṣ/ but the general consensus seems to be that /ṣ/ would more likely derived from /s/ than /ṣ/ to /s/ and we're talking about a foreign language and I have no idea what Greek to Arabic sound changes are like but I would imagine it would be /s/ to /ṣ/.




Wolverine9 said:


> Sophee is just a mispronunciation of Sufi.  The book you're using as a reference is more than a century old and will not help you in your arguments.



You could be right, but in my scans such as "Sophee + Sufi" these old authors are aware of both pronunciations like their confusing two different roots.  The definition of Sophee always seems to have something to do with wise men or wisdom like its derived from Greek.  See this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=j3...0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Sufi + Sophee&f=false

See also 
http://books.google.com/books?id=_f...EwAg#v=onepage&q=Sophee + Afghanistan&f=false

In this recent book the term Sophee is used for prophets and Hebrew seers... http://books.google.com/books?id=vR...&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Sophee&f=false


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> Sorry, I just prefer a passive rather than aggressive approach.  But wouldn't the laws of linguistics dictate that if ṣ developed from /s/ in Semitic languages then the same could be true of foreign words that begin with /s/ that were loaned into Arabic?


I wasn't beeing aggressive, I made a methodological point: You cannot just make up hypothetical "if"s and "could be"s until the result you were hoping for before you started the investigation becomes possible and then argue _because it cannot be excluded with absolute certainty it has so and so if must be so and so_. That simply isn't sound scientific methodology.


mojobadshah said:


> I was subscribing to the rule that /s/ develops into ṣ in Semitic languages.


Nobody ever said it did. We simply don't know. Proto-Semitic distinguished already five voiceless sibilants, _*š, *s, *ś, *ṣ_ and _*ṣ́_ where Greek had only one, _s_. We simply don't know these phonemes developed.

And, again, these sounds developed so long ago, if cannot possibly have anything to do with what we are discussing here.


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> I do see this: in Proto-Arabic the segments /s/ and /ḥ/ fused to become one : the emphatic sibilant /ṣ/. http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7281


There is absolutely no such merger. Your source is, by the way, talking of alterations and not of mergers and said that this particular alteration occurred in three words.


mojobadshah said:


> Not exactly /s/ to /ṣ/ but the general consensus seems to be that /ṣ/  would more likely derived from /s/ than /ṣ/ to /s/ and we're talking  about a foreign language and I have no idea what Greek to Arabic sound  changes are like but I would imagine it would be /s/ to /ṣ/.


Please don't confuse _developments_ with _loans_. These are to entirely different birds.

There are many of Latin, Greek and other non-Semitic words that were loaned into Semitic languages and where the plain consonants in the language of origin became an emphatic consonant, e.g. the city of קֵיסָרְיָה in Herodian Israel that transcribes the Greek name Καισάρεια. Therefore, the emphatic in _ṣufi _does not prevent the word being a Greek loan.

The issue here is that Arabic loans from Greek are not so numerous that a mere "theoretically possible" is a serious argument.


----------



## marrish

palomnik said:


> I checked out the source. The charitable answer is that Swinburne  was using Farsi (or maybe Urdu) transliterations of what were originally  Arabic words. The fact that he transliterates "Imam" as "Imaum" only  encourages me in that opinion.
> 
> He also says on the next page that "Battaneah", an obvious misrendering of "Bāṭinīyah", was a Buddhist sect, based on the name.
> 
> To be less charitable, I'm inclined to dismiss any opinions on etymology by a Rosicrucian.​


The transliteration is neither Persian nor Urdu but a sort of phonetic English kind of transcription. Nevertheless it is not coherent because there is ''sophee'' and ''sofee''; and to add insult to the injury he goes on to saying that ''Buddha'' means an old man in India (Urdu or Hindi)! Old man is _buDDhaa_ [bʊ*ɖ**ɖ*ʱa:] NOT [bʊd̪d̪ʱə].​


----------



## mojobadshah

marrish said:


> The transliteration is neither Persian nor Urdu but a sort of phonetic English kind of transcription. Nevertheless it is not coherent because there is ''sophee'' and ''sofee''; and to add insult to the injury he goes on to saying that ''Buddha'' means an old man in India (Urdu or Hindi)! Old man is _buDDhaa_ [bʊ*ɖ**ɖ*ʱa:] NOT [bʊd̪d̪ʱə].[/INDENT]



All the authors that mention Sophee were clearly not linguists, but as I have previously mentioned many of them are aware of two pronunciations Sophee and also Sufi.  So if Sophee is an English transcription then why didn't they just use Sufi?

This may be worth noting: the Great Mosque at Constantinople is called "Santa Sophia" http://books.google.com/books?id=j3...0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Sufi + Sophee&f=false pg. 327 See also http://www.hagiasophia.com/listingview.php?listingID=7


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> This may be worth noting: the Great Mosque at Constantinople is called "Santa Sophia" http://books.google.com/books?id=j3I4Jdb7wQAC&pg=PA331&dq=Sufi+%2B+Sophee&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W3n0Uc2EEu644AO43YCACA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Sufi%20%2B%20Sophee&f=false pg. 327 See also http://www.hagiasophia.com/listingview.php?listingID=7


I am confused as to why you mention that. Ἁγία Σοφία [Holy Wisdom] is undoubtedly a Greek name for a Basilica in a Greek speaking city (Byzantine Constantinople). I fail to see the relation with what we are discussing in this thread.


----------



## marrish

mojobadshah said:


> All the authors that mention Sophee were clearly not linguists, but as I have previously mentioned many of them are aware of two pronunciations Sophee and also Sufi.  So if Sophee is an English transcription then why didn't they just use Sufi?


Right!
Both _sophee_ and _sofee_ is meant to depict the sound of _suufii_ - there is no aspirated pronunciation of ph in English - it is the same as f. At that time if the author wrote "sufi" it could've been read as [sʌfɑ:ɪ] .


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> I am confused as to why you mention that. Ἁγία Σοφία [Holy Wisdom] is undoubtedly a Greek name for a Basilica in a Greek speaking city (Byzantine Constantinople). I fail to see the relation with what we are discussing in this thread.



It's a mosque that's named Sophia which I figure shows what I'll call the "wisdom" cult was influential early on in Islamic history.  Am I mistaken that sophia is related to sophoi "wise man" and sapha "clean [speech]"?


----------



## mojobadshah

marrish said:


> Right!
> Both _sophee_ and _sofee_ is meant to depict the sound of _suufii_ - there is no aspirated pronunciation of ph in English - it is the same as f. At that time if the author wrote "sufi" it could've been read as [sʌfɑ:ɪ] .



Why would sufi be read as anything different than sufi?


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> It's a mosque that's named Sophia which I figure shows what I'll call the "wisdom" cult was influential early on in Islamic history.  Am I mistaken that sophia is related to sophoi "wise man" and sapha "clean [speech]"?


This basilica was already called Ἁγία Σοφία 900 years before the city became Muslim and the basilica was converted into a mosque (550 years ago). This shows nothing of the sort. _Σοφία=wisdom_ is a frequent Greek word and has nothing to do with a specific cult. The basicila has consecrated to _Λόγος_ ("the word"), the "wisdom of god" as part of the holy trinity. This is all Christian and not Islamic.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> This basilica was already called Ἁγία Σοφία 900 years before the city became Muslim and the basilica was converted into a mosque.



I guess its not the strongest point, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the concept of "Sophia" was influential upon the Muslims does it?


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> There are many of Latin, Greek and other non-Semitic words that were loaned into Semitic languages and where the plain consonants in the language of origin became an emphatic consonant, e.g. the city of קֵיסָרְיָה in Herodian Israel that transcribes the Greek name Καισάρεια. Therefore, the emphatic in _ṣufi _does not prevent the word being a Greek loan.
> 
> The issue here is that Arabic loans from Greek are not so numerous that a mere "theoretically possible" is a serious argument.



Do we know of anyone who might know the answer to this question?  I would gladly follow up on this.  We already know that both "wisdom" cults Zoroastrianism and Neo-plantonism had a significant influence on the Sufis, and knowing the answer to this question could change everything.


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> I guess its not the strongest point, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the concept of "Sophia" was influential upon the Muslims does it?


_Wisdom _is an important concept in virtually every philosophical and religious system. What is that supposed to show? Arabic has its own word for _wisdom_, حكمة, from which also the Persian and Urdu word حکمت is derived.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> _Wisdom _is an important concept in virtually every philosophical and religious system. What is that supposed to show? Arabic has its own word for _wisdom_, حكمة, from which also the Persian and Urdu word حکمت is derived.



Maybe so, but is the concept of wisdom really as prominent as it was in Zoroastrianism (Ahura Mazda "Lord of Wisdom") and among Greek philosophers "lovers of wisdom"?  These were rational movements.  I don't think there's anything rational about Islam.  Even Divine Wisdom in Judaism is said to have been either a borrowing from Greek, but more probably Zoroastrianism.


----------



## Wolverine9

There could be a number of reasons why two different spellings (Sophee and Sufi) exist.  Older sources often have variations in spelling for "foreign" words.  That doesn't mean they are distinct terms.


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> Maybe so, but is the concept of wisdom really as prominent as it was in Zoroastrianism (Ahura Mazda "Lord of Wisdom") and among Greek philosophers "lovers of wisdom"?  These were rational movements.  I don't think there's anything rational about Islam.  Even Divine Wisdom in Judaism is said to have been either a borrowing from Greek, but more probably Zoroastrianism.


I think you have a distorted view of Islam. But never mind. The question where are interested in here is the etymology of صوفي. If you want to know, if there is any linguistic reason why this could not be derived from Greek Σοφία, the answer is no. It is theoretically possible. But that's about all. If you want to make a case that it actually is, you'd need considerably more than a "theoretically possible". First and foremost, the word remains an Arabic one and the order an Islamic one. An Arabic etymology remains the most straight forward assumption unless you have evidence to the contrary. A "theoretically possible" is not evidence.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> I think you have a distorted view of Islam. But never mind. The question where are interested in here is the etymology of صوفي. If you want to know, if there is any linguistic reason why this could not be derived from Greek Σοφία, the answer is no. It is theoretically possible. But that's about all. If you want to make a case that it actually is, you'd need considerably more than a "theoretically possible". First and foremost, the word remains an Arabic one and the order an Islamic one. An Arabic etymology remains the most straight forward assumption unless you have evidence to the contrary. A "theoretically possible" is not evidence.



This is fair.  I'm, however, under the impression that Sufism, at least, the Iranic strain (Hasan-e-Sabbah, Attar, Suhrawardi, Rumi, Hafez) is a syncretic Muslim order incorporating Zoroastrianism and Neo-Platonism.


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> There could be a number of reasons why two different spellings (Sophee and Sufi) exist.  Older sources often have variations in spelling for "foreign" words.  That doesn't mean they are distinct terms.



That could be, but like I said Sophee (Sofee) and Sufi are mentioned side by side.  Sophee is associated with wisdom and then equated with Sufi in the same text.  

What does Sufidani mean? http://books.google.com/books?id=_f...d=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q= Soufidani &f=false 

What is the function of the affix -dani?


----------



## marrish

berndf said:


> I think you have a distorted view of Islam. But never mind. The question where are interested in here is the etymology of صوفي. If you want to know, if there is any linguistic reason why this could not be derived from Greek Σοφία, the answer is no. It is theoretically possible. But that's about all. If you want to make a case that it actually is, you'd need considerably more than a "theoretically possible". First and foremost, the word remains an Arabic one and the order an Islamic one. An Arabic etymology remains the most straight forward assumption unless you have evidence to the contrary. A "theoretically possible" is not evidence.


I agree with this wholeheartedly.


----------



## Wolverine9

mojobadshah said:


> That could be, but like I said Sophee  (Sofee) and Sufi are mentioned side by side.  Sophee is associated with  wisdom and then equated with Sufi in the same text.
> 
> What does Sufidani mean? http://books.google.com/books?id=_f...d=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q= Soufidani &f=false



This goes back to my point about the two different spellings.  Early authors may have mistakenly thought that Sufi is connected to the Greek word Sophia; thus, the spelling Sophee is present, modeled after Sophia and connected to "wisdom."  That's another reason you shouldn't rely on outdated sources.  The etymological connections they directly or indirectly suggest are often wrong.


----------



## marrish

Agreeing with W9 let me say that in the title of this thread it should have been taSawwuf, with a geminated {w}


----------



## Treaty

mojobadshah said:


> What does Sufidani mean? http://books.google.com/books?id=_f...d=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q= Soufidani &f=false
> 
> What is the function of the affix -dani?



Clearly it was "Souveidani", an Arabic surname (سویدانی, _*s*u*w*ay*d*_+_aan_+_i_) remotely from _s-w-d_ root (= black). The writer decided to interpret it as "Sufi-dani" without any justification. Her (or his, in similar books) lack of understanding Persian and Arabic is clear from the interpretation of khisrevi (a common Iranic surname _Khosravi _خسروی, from Persian King/_Kay Khosrow_) to Caesareans in the same sentence!


----------



## mojobadshah

marrish said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly.



Me too, apart from having a distorted view of Islam.


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> This goes back to my point about the two different spellings.  Early authors may have mistakenly thought that Sufi is connected to the Greek word Sophia; thus, the spelling Sophee is present, modeled after Sophia and connected to "wisdom."  That's another reason you shouldn't rely on outdated sources.  The etymological connections they directly or indirectly suggest are often wrong.



According to an earlier thread Attar thought Sufi was connected to Sophia "Wisdom" too and he claimed to be a Zoroastrian which is a worshipper of Mazda "Wisdom."  Attar is much earlier than those early authors in question.

When did people start thinking the name of this esoteric religion in question originated in the Arabic word for wool?


----------



## Treaty

mojobadshah said:


> According to an earlier thread Attar thought Sufi was connected to Sophia "Wisdom" too and he claimed to be a Zoroastrian which is a worshipper of Mazda "Wisdom." Attar is much earlier than those early authors in question.
> When did people start thinking the name of this esoteric religion in question originated in the Arabic word for wool?




The first one who proposed "sophia" etymology was probably Biruni in 11th century who unlike Sufis was familiar with Greek. The "wool" etymology goes back to much earlier. Clearly, it was already popular when Qushayri (c.1050) rejected it because there were Sufis who didn't wear wool at his time, though admitting that "wool" is the symbol of virtue that is abused by corrupt Sufis. 


Attar (d. 1220, contemporary of Mowlavi) was not an early Sufi. He also didn't claim to be literally a Zoroastrian. While in his prominent Sufi works he devotedly express his adherence to Islam, in a few poems he says he changed his religion from Islam to Zoroastrianity and then to non-religion that is wisdom (you may find the parallel in Wisdom of Solomon). There is no reason to take the poems literally and ignoring his main writings.




mojobadshah said:


> Me too, apart from having a distorted view of Islam.


I also agree that "distorted" is not enough to describe your view of Islam.


----------



## mojobadshah

Treaty said:


> The first one who proposed "sophia" etymology was probably Biruni in 11th century who unlike Sufis was familiar with Greek. The "wool" etymology goes back to much earlier. Clearly, it was already popular when Qushayri (c.1050) rejected it because there were Sufis who didn't wear wool at his time, though admitting that "wool" is the symbol of virtue that is abused by corrupt Sufis.



Biruni is pretty much contemporary with Qushayri.  All I see is evidence to the contrary that Sufi meant wool.  So far we've mentioned Biruni, Qushayri, and Attar who all either rejected wool as an etymology or supported sophia as one. 



Treaty said:


> Attar (d. 1220, contemporary of Mowlavi) was not an early Sufi. He also didn't claim to be literally a Zoroastrian. While in his prominent Sufi works he devotedly express his adherence to Islam, in a few poems he says he changed his religion from Islam to Zoroastrianity and then to non-religion that is wisdom (you may find the parallel in Wisdom of Solomon). There is no reason to take the poems literally and ignoring his main writings.



You're contradicting yourself.  First off, who's to say who was a Sufi and who wasn't?  Attar obviously was aware of the Sufis.  Secondly, Attar didn't claim to be a Zoroastrian but he changed his religion from Islam to Zoroastrianism.  It may not have been literal but its definitely a significant point. 




Treaty said:


> I also agree that "distorted" is not enough to describe your view of Islam.



I'm not exactly sure which part of my interpretation of Islam is distorted.  My father was raised a Muslim, though I admit I'm not as versed in it as I may be versed in the history of the Irano-Afghan zone.  My impression that in the Irano-Afghan zone Islam took a syncretic direction has not changed and I stand by my statement that orthodox Islam is not a rational religion.  But this is not to single out Islam.  I'm also convinced that Judaism and Christianity are not rational religions.


----------



## mojobadshah

So I can't find a set of rules for Greek to Arabic sound changes, but I found set of rules for Persian to Arabic sound changes and so this is not direct evidence, but a generalization: Ir. _s_ is sometimes replaced by the emphatic ṣ in Arabic http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/arabic-ii


----------



## berndf

Treaty said:


> Attar (d. 1220, contemporary of Mowlavi) was not an *early* Sufi.





mojobadshah said:


> You're contradicting yourself.  First off, who's to say who was a Sufi and who wasn't?


Evident, if you look at the numbers. If he died in 1221 he can't have been an *early* Sufi. Whatever he thought, said or wrote therefore couldn't have influenced the creation of the name of the Sufi order.


Treaty said:


> ...but he changed his religion from Islam to Zoroastrianism.


I don't think there is evidence to support such a claim (not in a poem but for real). But there is no dispute that he was hostile to Greek rationalism. Bringing his name into play when you want to connect Sufi and Sophia could only serve as a counter argument.



mojobadshah said:


> But this is not to single out Islam.  I'm also convinced that Judaism and Christianity are not rational religions.


There, we could debate endlessly. But Sufism certainly isn't. Sufism is rooted in mysticism and therefore, by definition, anti-rationalist. In both Mysticism and rationalism_ wisdom_ is a central concept. But the definitions of the concept are incompatible.


----------



## berndf

mojobadshah said:


> So I can't find a set of rules for Greek to Arabic sound changes, but I found set of rules for Persian to Arabic sound changes and so this is not direct evidence, but a generalization: Ir. _s_ is sometimes replaced by the emphatic ṣ in Arabic http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/arabic-ii


There is no "rule". But as I told you, European plain consonants do sometimes enter Semitic languages as emphatics. The root soph- entered Arabic as part of the word فيلسوف (_faylasūf_) = _philosopher_. In this case, the Greek sigma became siin (i.e. non-emphatic) but this doesn't mean it can't be emphatic in a different context.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> Evident, if you look at the numbers. If he died in 1221 he can't have been an *early* Sufi. Whatever he thought, said or wrote therefore couldn't have influenced the creation of the name of the Sufi order.
> I don't think there is evidence to support such a claim (not in a poem but for real). But there is no dispute that he was hostile to Greek rationalism. Bringing his name into play when you want to connect Sufi and Sophia could only serve as a counter argument.



So what is an early Sufi exactly?  Hasan-i-Sabbah, Suhrawardi both incorporated Zoroastrian elements and the latter also Neo-plantonism, and they both roughly lived around the same time as Al-Biruni.  Suhrawardi was a bit later.  



berndf said:


> There, we could debate endlessly. But Sufism certainly isn't. Sufism is rooted in mysticism and therefore, by definition, anti-rationalist. In both Mysticism and rationalism_ wisdom_ is a central concept. But the definitions of the concept are incompatible.



Your right.  I digress.  Wisdom is the concept that is key to this argument.  Attar may have been hostile to rationalism, but if wisdom is central, well he connected Sufi to Sophia "Wisdom" as did Al-Biruni before him.


----------



## Wolverine9

How does it matter if Biruni or Attar thought Sufi is connected to Sophia?  Were they linguists?  Do you think they're more knowledgeable about the etymology of Sufi than modern scholars?  Has linguistics regressed in the last 1000 years?


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> This goes back to my point about the two different spellings.  Early authors may have mistakenly thought that Sufi is connected to the Greek word Sophia; thus, the spelling Sophee is present, modeled after Sophia and connected to "wisdom."  That's another reason you shouldn't rely on outdated sources.  The etymological connections they directly or indirectly suggest are often wrong.



Would you say that Sophee is a seriously bad English rendering of Sufi?


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> How does it matter if Biruni or Attar thought Sufi is connected to Sophia?  Were they linguists?  Do you think they're more knowledgeable about the etymology of Sufi than modern scholars?  Has linguistics regressed in the last 1000 years?



Biruni appears to be the first person to mention both that some believed the designation Sufi to mean "wool," but he, himself, believed Sufi to come from Sophia "Wisdom." Pretty much anyone called a Sufi before Biruni was a back projection.  Biruni wasn't a linguist, but obviously wisdom was central to Sufism.  This and the fact that Sufi could theoretically have been derived from a variation of Sophia/Sophoi (maybe Sophee) means that his etymology is not out of the question.  My point is that Sufism was not an orthodox Islam.  It was a syncretic Islam that incorporated Zoroastrianism and Greek philosophy both wisdom cults and was essentially a Irano-Afghan movement.  Hasan-e-Sabbah, Suhrawardi, Attar, Rumi, and Hafez were all Irano-Afghans, all incorporated Zoroastrianism, and are all called Sufis.  Sufism's roots go back to Zoroastrianism.  It was during the Zoroastrian period in Irano-Afghan history that Neo-platonism was introduced to the Irano-Afghans and its possible that because of the influence of both Zoroastrian and Neo-platonist wisdom cults, a variation of Sophia/Sophoi "Wisdom/Wise Men" was used to designate this Irano-Afghan movement.


----------



## Treaty

mojobadshah said:


> All I see is evidence to the contrary that Sufi meant wool. So far we've mentioned Biruni, Qushayri, and Attar who all either rejected wool as an etymology or supported sophia as one.


Actually, all the evidence says that the "wool" etymology was so widespread that people like Qushayri felt they need to oppose it (but failed to explain a better substitute). Anyway, please pay attention that I've written that Biruni *proposed *the "sophia" etymology; He didn't refer to someone before him while Qushayri and later Sama3aani (d. 1167) suggested that the "wool" etymology was the first existing explanation then.  

What you basically find is that "wool" etymology had been the most prevalent one though later scholars had tried to propose other roots. For me the best explanation is that, in early Sufism, "wool" was considered a practical symbol of humility and abstinence, so the name Sufi appeared, while it lost this symbolism later and becomes a casual and abused material. Hence, Sufis felt the word "sufi" cannot be just about the cloth and tried to find more shiny roots for it. 



mojobadshah said:


> I'm not exactly sure which part of my interpretation of Islam is distorted ... I stand by my statement that orthodox Islam is not a rational religion



When we talk about "rational" we shouldn't define rationality by the current 21st century definition. The quality of rationality is bound to the quality of our measurement and evidence. Clearly, Quran (i.e. the ortho-orthodox Islam) emphasises on rationality. It is very understandable that a self-claimed prophet (Mohammad) without miracles or army had no means except rational debate to convince the conservative Arabs. In Quran, you will frequently find asking people to *think *and *reason *about its arguments. The question of its accordance with the modern rationality doesn't change the fact that it tried to be rational and praise reason in its own era. You cannot claim "there is nothing rational about Islam" or "orthodox Islam is not rational". Otherwise, you should say the same thing about Greek philosophy.


As Berndf correctly elaborated, Sufism and other Islamic mysticisms are far from rational. That's why you cannot find any famous Sufi scientist or philosopher while there tens, if not hundreds, of non-Sufi medieval Muslim scientists from all corners of Islamic world. However, it doesn't mean [early] Sufis were not Islamic. The "insight" wisdom is also supposed by Quran in the story of Khidhr and Moses (the former is an archetype of the highest Sufi position). According to Quran, a way that God may give wisdomto someone, is the strict observance of the religion (the same thing that early Sufis did). Therefore, the base for early Sufism was already in Quran.


The division of Islam into "orthodox" and "unorthodox" schools is related to the interpretations of (or focus on) the Quran and early Hadiths as well as the political power of those schools. However, no one denies the possible influence of other believes on Islamic schools but it does not mean the non-mainstream Islam has necessarily come from an extra-Islamic source.


----------



## mojobadshah

Treaty said:


> Actually, all the evidence says that the "wool" etymology was so widespread that people like Qushayri felt they need to oppose it (but failed to explain a better substitute). Anyway, please pay attention that I've written that Biruni *proposed *the "sophia" etymology; He didn't refer to someone before him while Qushayri and later Sama3aani (d. 1167) suggested that the "wool" etymology was the first existing explanation then.
> 
> What you basically find is that "wool" etymology had been the most prevalent one though later scholars had tried to propose other roots. For me the best explanation is that, in early Sufism, "wool" was considered a practical symbol of humility and abstinence, so the name Sufi appeared, while it lost this symbolism later and becomes a casual and abused material. Hence, Sufis felt the word "sufi" cannot be just about the cloth and tried to find more shiny roots for it. .



Did all Sufi's wear wool?



Treaty said:


> When we talk about "rational" we shouldn't define rationality by the current 21st century definition. The quality of rationality is bound to the quality of our measurement and evidence. Clearly, Quran (i.e. the ortho-orthodox Islam) emphasises on rationality. It is very understandable that a self-claimed prophet (Mohammad) without miracles or army had no means except rational debate to convince the conservative Arabs. In Quran, you will frequently find asking people to *think *and *reason *about its arguments. The question of its accordance with the modern rationality doesn't change the fact that it tried to be rational and praise reason in its own era. You cannot claim "there is nothing rational about Islam" or "orthodox Islam is not rational". Otherwise, you should say the same thing about Greek philosophy.



When I said that the Abrahamic religions are not rational religions I meant that they all stress blind faith.  This was not the case in Zoroastrianism.  Reward in the afterlife was contingent upon one's "good thoughts, words, and deeds" in the reasoning process, not blind subjection to God.  



Treaty said:


> As Berndf correctly elaborated, Sufism and other Islamic mysticisms are far from rational. That's why you cannot find any famous Sufi scientist or philosopher while there tens, if not hundreds, of non-Sufi medieval Muslim scientists from all corners of Islamic world. However, it doesn't mean [early] Sufis were not Islamic. The "insight" wisdom is also supposed by Quran in the story of Khidhr and Moses (the former is an archetype of the highest Sufi position). According to Quran, a way that God may give wisdomto someone, is the strict observance of the religion (the same thing that early Sufis did). Therefore, the base for early Sufism was already in Quran.



That Khidhr was the archetype of the highest Sufi position is a back projection, right?




Treaty said:


> The division of Islam into "orthodox" and "unorthodox" schools is related to the interpretations of (or focus on) the Quran and early Hadiths as well as the political power of those schools. However, no one denies the possible influence of other believes on Islamic schools but it does not mean the non-mainstream Islam has necessarily come from an extra-Islamic source.



No, and maybe I'm wrong, but my assertion is that Sufism did come from an extra-Islamic source.  That it was a syncretic religion like Shia Islam.   

"Perhaps you know that Islam split into Sunnis of Semitic origin and who wanted to elect the caliph, and Shiites, who insisted that only legitimate successors came from Ali, the husband of Mohammed's surviving daughter Fatima and of Persian Aryan heritage." - http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Cannabis/

Another thing distinctly Zoroastrian about the Sufis that I'm pretty sure was typical the movement was indulgence in debauchery.


----------



## mojobadshah

Pir-e-Moghan "Elder-Magi" is a title used by Sufis.  Could Sophoi have come to be used as a synonym for the Magi known the the Greeks as "wise men" by the Sufis themselves?


----------



## Wolverine9

mojobadshah said:


> Would you say that Sophee is a seriously bad English rendering of Sufi?



The pronunciation difference would be due to one vowel, so it isn't that bad.


----------



## Wolverine9

Sufism has its roots in Islam.  All Sufis were Muslim by definition.  Sufis were open-minded about including diverse influences in the message they promoted.  So, there is a strong possibility that the Sufism practiced in Iran was influenced by Zoroastrianism and other aspects of Persian culture.  However, this doesn't apply to all Sufis across the world.  In other places, they may have been influenced by Christianity, Judaism, and other local beliefs.  Whatever the influences, at its core Sufism was an Islamic movement, regardless.

There's no doubt that there were many important Persian Sufis, but Sufism wasn't exclusively Iranian.  You can't expect the Sufis of Egypt, Tunisia, and other regions of the Muslim world to have been influenced by Zoroastrianism.  That's a mistake you're making.  You're intertwining Persian, Sufi, and Zoroastrian when there's no reason to do that.  

All religions have mystic elements or cults, and Zoroastrianism likely did as well (e.g. the 3 Wise Men from the East in the Bible?).  But that doesn't support your equation of Zoroastrian -> Sufi.


----------



## Wolverine9

mojobadshah said:


> Did all Sufi's wear wool?



Doubtful.  In any case, that's not relevant as to the etymology of Sufi.  You can continue to believe that there's a connection between Sufi and Sophia, even though most scholars reject it.  That's your choice.  You don't have to believe that Sufi is derived from the Arabic word for wool.  But the fact remains it's the leading theory among modern scholars.


----------



## berndf

Wolverine9 said:


> In any case, that's not relevant as to the etymology of Sufi.
> ...
> But the fact remains it's the leading theory among modern scholars.


Part of this theory is that _wearing wool_ stands for _being dressed modestly _(in contrast to wearing expensive dresses made, e.g., of silk) symbolizing the ascetic life of early Sufis. Whether they literally wore wool isn't essential to this theory.


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> Doubtful. In any case, that's not relevant as to the etymology of Sufi. You can continue to believe that there's a connection between Sufi and Sophia, even though most scholars reject it. That's your choice. You don't have to believe that Sufi is derived from the Arabic word for wool. But the fact remains it's the leading theory among modern scholars.



I disagree.  Its supporting evidence to the contrary that Sufi came from the word for wool.  And I don't believe that there's a connection between Sufi and Sophia. But I'm just not 100% there isn't.  I'm content with what Berndf's said.  But I think the connection to Sophia is interesting anyhow as to what it implies.


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> Sufism has its roots in Islam.  All Sufis were Muslim by definition.  Sufis were open-minded about including diverse influences in the message they promoted.  So, there is a strong possibility that the Sufism practiced in Iran was influenced by Zoroastrianism and other aspects of Persian culture.  However, this doesn't apply to all Sufis across the world.  In other places, they may have been influenced by Christianity, Judaism, and other local beliefs.  Whatever the influences, at its core Sufism was an Islamic movement, regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no doubt that there were many important Persian Sufis, but Sufism wasn't exclusively Iranian.  You can't expect the Sufis of Egypt, Tunisia, and other regions of the Muslim world to have been influenced by Zoroastrianism.  That's a mistake you're making.  You're intertwining Persian, Sufi, and Zoroastrian when there's no reason to do that.
> 
> All religions have mystic elements or cults, and Zoroastrianism likely did as well (e.g. the 3 Wise Men from the East in the Bible?).  But that doesn't support your equation of Zoroastrian -> Sufi.



I'm not sure I agree with you that Sufism has its roots in Islam.  That may be the case the Sufis of today are making, but this is a long time after Zoroastrianism was on the decline and Islam on the ascent.  The nativist movements in the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) zone after Islam tended to be Muslim on the outside, but inwardly Zoroastrian and the fact that Neo-platonism had already been introduced during the Zoroastrian period its not unlikely that Sufi came from Sophoi.  

The nativists kept the Zoroastrian idioms and pretended to be Muslims.  It may be worth mentioning that most Irano-Afghans today don't speak the language of the Quran, and neither did most the of them back then.  

Are you sure that the Sufism in Egypt and Tunisia didn't develop out of Sufism in the Aryan zone?   And are you sure that designating them as Sufis wasn't a back-projection?  I recall Hasan-e-Sabbah was in Egypt, and one of his disciples was an Egyptian who was in contact with the Knights Templars.



Wolverine9 said:


> (e.g. the 3 Wise Men from the East in the Bible?)



Yeah, what about that?  As far as I know Magi didn't mean "Wise Man" to the Irano-Afghans, but would this idea have gotten back to them?   Christianity, the Nestorian Church, would have thrived in Persia by the time the Sufis arrived on the scene.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> Part of this theory is that _wearing wool_ stands for _being dressed modestly _(in contrast to wearing expensive dresses made, e.g., of silk) symbolizing the ascetic life of early Sufis. Whether they literally wore wool isn't essential to this theory.



Let me get this straight...  the word Sufi means "wool" because Sufi's dressed modestly, but whether they literally wore wool isn't essential to the theory that Sufi means "wool"?


----------



## mojobadshah

Treaty said:


> Actually, all the evidence says that the "wool" etymology was so widespread that people like Qushayri felt they need to oppose it (but failed to explain a better substitute). Anyway, please pay attention that I've written that Biruni *proposed *the "sophia" etymology; He didn't refer to someone before him while Qushayri and later Sama3aani (d. 1167) suggested that the "wool" etymology was the first existing explanation then.



The Persian shaykh Abu Hashim Kufi (ra) (d. about 776 C.E) was the first person to be known by this name. Between 660 and 850 C.E., the earliest Sufi circles emerged.


----------



## Treaty

mojobadshah said:


> The Persian shaykh Abu Hashim Kufi (ra) (d. about 776 C.E) was the first person to be known by this name. Between 660 and 850 C.E., the earliest Sufi circles emerged.


He is regarded by Ibn Taymiyah (1200s) as the first person with the title "sufi" while he is almost absent from other sources. Even if he was the first one, where did you get "Persian"?


----------



## mojobadshah

Treaty said:


> He is regarded by Ibn Taymiyah (1200s) as the first person with the title "sufi" while he is almost absent from other sources. Even if he was the first one, where did you get "Persian"?



http://www.sufischool.org/sufism/history.html

Good point nevertheless.  It would seem that the later sufi writers made Sufi saints out of earlier Muslims.  But it would seem that the majority of Sufis came from the Aryan zone or formerly Zoroastrian territories in the Altaic speaking regions to the north or places like Mosul.  And it was mainly Persian Sufi poetry that influenced Islam.  You do have Sufis from India, Egypt, and Tunisia but not a lot.  I have notions however of Persian Sufis who operated in Egypt, and Palistine, and India is not far from the Aryan zone.


----------



## mojobadshah

Would the orthodox Muslims have adopted Neoplatonism?


----------



## Treaty

mojobadshah said:


> Would the orthodox Muslims have adopted Neoplatonism?


Basically, majority of Muslims may adopt everything as long as it is not directly banned by Quran (though it is sometime possible to give new interpretations of Quranic verses). The rest, "orthodox" or "unorthodox", is politics and tradition. There are people like Farabi (Khwarazmian) and Kindi (Arab) who endorsed Islamic Neo-Platonism.



mojobadshah said:


> ... the  majority of Sufis came from the Aryan zone or formerly Zoroastrian  territories in the Altaic speaking regions to the north or places like  Mosul...


What does it prove? Majority of all Islamic scholars, scientists and philosophers came from the previous Sassanid territory. Because it was geographically larger and more populated than other parts.



mojobadshah said:


> http://www.sufischool.org/sufism/history.html


There is no reason to put faith on this. The knowledge about him is too obscure to have such claims. Based on that he and his father were based on Kufa, a city founded by Arabs as a military base to control over newly conquered Syria and Persia, we should have doubts about the claim of he being "Persian".


----------



## mojobadshah

Apparently Abu Hashim and Shami adopted the name Kufi.  It may have been a nickname.


----------



## mojobadshah

My father mentioned a group which he pronounced Sofis that rose up against the king of Afghanistan.  Anyone know who he's talking about?


----------



## Treaty

I don't think this is related to the root of "Sufi". Basically, "king of Afghanistan" or "Afghanistan" are recent denominations compared to the history of Sufism. You can ask your father about the name, dynasty or city of the king or any thing that suggests a time for that event. To my knowledge, a few Sufi-related oppositions occurred in Khorasan against Mongols and Timurids between 1250 and 1500.


----------



## إسكندراني

I am puzzled by the recurring theme that Sufism is somehow associated with Persian-type languages than, say, Ottoman-influenced European areas or north africa or west africa. I mean, i am no expert on the matter, but i do know Sufism was extensively developed under greek influence in Alexandria, and that it still has a large influence in north africa (immediately displacing byzantine greek influences)


----------

