Talk:Sultan Bahu

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

Wrong Tag[edit]

This Article is 14 years and 15 days old, many wikipedian edit this Article,Proper reliable Published Books and Web citations sources are in Article.How you can say that this Article is confusing or unclear, kindly clearly mention which part or sentence is confusing or unclear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrashid364 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Run a spell check on your writing above to understand what I mean. One that would also include capitalisation and punctuation. kashmiri TALK 19:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV Issues[edit]

If you're going to edit Wikipedia you have to understand that there's a policy of neutral point of view. If there's two differing points of view then we present both. The main page is not the place to argue over the facts, that's what the talk page is for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calibas (talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Name Language[edit]

The name"Hazrat Sultan Bahu is written in Urdu but it says Punjabi which is Wrong someone please change it as I dont know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.64.67 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Punjabi language is written in two alternate scripts, Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi; the Shahmukhi script is the same script that is used for Urdu. So what the article says is not wrong. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing[edit]

If someone asks why I restore the "Confusing" tag to this article, I'd suggest them to try to understand this:

It is also said that Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani ordered Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Bahoo/Bahu, after completing his inward training, to swear allegiance upon the hands of Syed Abdul Rehman Jilani Dehlvi. Sultan-ul-Arifeen immediately set for Dehli to obey this order. Sultan-ul-Arifeen met Shaikh Abdul Rehman Jilani on Friday, 29 Ziqa'ad 1078 Hijri (11 May 1668). The Shaikh took him in privacy. Sultan-ul-Arifeen received his eternal destiny in the form of Ism-e-Allah Zaat in only one meeting with his Murshid. He found everything he wanted and returned replete and brimful with the emotions to benefit people with this favour and benevolence. Further, Sultan-ul-Arifeen spent all his life wandering in streets and cities searching for the Seekers of Allah and taking them to the Divine Oneness, as he was ordered from the court of Muhammad to do the duty of guiding people towards God

Good luck! kashmiri TALK 22:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Not Confusing This information that you've written is present in most of the books that have been written on Sultan Bahu. Many of them have been mentioned in detail within the article as well such as Manaqib-i-Sultani, Mirat-e-Sultani, Sultan Bahu Life and Work,Sultan Bahoo The Life and Teachings, Shams ul Fuqara, etc. I have personally read a few of them and the information exists in these books as well. The sources are various but the information is the same.

JugniSQ (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JugniSQ: Can't you see that that's not English? At least not its understandable variety? There is hardly any grammar and nil logics? kashmiri TALK 11:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There are no grammar mistakes or nil logics and I gave u book names to clear ur confusion. I don't want to talk to you.i don't see any point

JugniSQ (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The word 'bahoo' is an Arabic word so I have changed it from Punjabi to Arabic. In Arabic, 'ba' means 'with' and 'hoo' means 'God'... You can confirm by the book given above. I made this change before but you reverted it.

JugniSQ (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a person's name, we are not running a linguistic analysis in the lead section - if you wish you can add Etymology section below. The lead section may include spelling in the original language of the person. Sultan Bahu was a Punjabi, he spoke Punjabi and Farsi, so his spelling follows Punjabi/Farsi. As I said, if you want to have etymology and Arabic origins of his name mentioned in the article, it can be included below. kashmiri TALK 12:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, "bahoo" is NOT Arabic. An Arabic term for "with" is "bi" (among other possible terms) and "he/him" is "huwa" which is shortened to "hu" if it's at the end of the sentence. "Hu" is NOT a name of God in Arabic for any religion Arabs follow, be it Arab Muslims, Arab Christians or Arab Jews. Also, if the pronoun "huwa" is preceded by a kasra ("ee" sound) then it also takes that sound ("hi/hee"), so "bihuwa" is literally impossible in every single dialect of the language that has ever existed. "Bihi/Beehee" is possible, but not ever "bahoo." Perhaps it is originally some local language other than Urdu. It is NOT from any verifiable dialect of Arabic that has ever existed in the history of Arabs. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"With God" is then another example of folk etymology which is so incredibly common on the Subcontinent... Thanks for explanation. I had already removed this from the article anyway. kashmiri TALK 08:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The name “Bahoo” itself is an Arabic word. However, the saint Sultan Bahoo himself was a Punjabi having been born in Shorekot, Jhang which is a part of the rural Punjab. And yes all his poetry is In Persian. This being said, the name “bahoo” is an Arabic word. The name and the person are two different things. Most Pakistani people have Arabic names for example like Abdul Hameed, Karimullah, etc. These ‘names’ are Arabic but ‘people’ are Punjabi. So that’s the point for replacing Arabic with Punjabi in the article.

Hoo is derived from the Ism(name) of Allah(Allah itself a purely Arabic word). If you divide the word 'Allah' in 4 parts it is : Allah, Lilah, Lahoo and Hoo. This is Arabic. Hoo in itself is the highest station of annihilation in Sufism. Hence proven "bahoo' is an Arabic word meaning 'with Hoo'(with Allah). Plz study the books of Sultan Bahoo first and then edit this article. You are constantly editing this article without reading the books related to Sultan Bahoo’s life or history.

In all of the books written on Sultan bahoo, his date of birth remains constant which is Thursday 1st Jamadi-us-Sani 1039 Hijri/17th January 1630 at Fajr time and this consensus of opinion has been written in [Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings 978-969-9795-18-3] which is the reason I point to this book. I advise that kindly read Sultan Bahoo's books first and then edit this article. Otherwise the information you or anyone would edit based on personal knowledge would not remain authentic.

There is no logical editor on this forum. The existing editors have not read any books on Sultan Bahu. You guys are very powerful and I do not want to interfere into this argument anymore as you guys have already blocked many editors on this page n related articles. Do what you want to do but your arguments are illogical. I will wait to contribute till a logical editor comes up from Wikipedia. As this page is becoming a mess.

Arrogance always loses in front of Truth.

I put my Trust in Allah.

JugniSQ (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JugniSQ: First of all, be kind enough to use WP:INDENTATION in a discussion. Then, I believe you are replying to a native Arabic speaker. Third, your pseudo-linguistic speculations about letters in "bahu" have nothing to do with language science. Fourth, if you'll keep promoting this publishing house you risk discretionary sanctions. kashmiri TALK 09:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is bad comedy. @JugniSQ:, you literally don't know anything about Arabic at all. The mere fact that you seem to think that "lahoo" (for him) is a name of God proves that entering into a discussion with you is a waste of time.
@Kashmiri:, I'm actually a native English speaker and not of Arab ethnicity, but have worked professionally as a translator for academic publications as well as helped here with Wikipedia translating. If this guy makes any edits based on the fact that he doesn't know Arabic, I'll revert him without any discussion at all. If he has a problem, he can bring it to noticeboards but he is guaranteed to lose as places like WP:AN tend to ping me for Arabic translation due to my work with translation Wiki templates and stuff in the past and the regulars there know that I know what I'm talking about. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No knowledge and Tasawwuf and Sufism[edit]

User:kashmiri and User:MezzoMezzo you both have no knowledge regarding Sufism and Mysticism. In English, ‘Hu’ or ‘Hoo’ is the name of God. Please see the link to clarify doubts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hu_on_Gravestone.jpg

Al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi says in Fatoohat-e-Makkia (part II):

“Hoo is the extreme and most elevated Zikr of Arifeen(knowers of Allah)..”

If we assume that Hamza Makhdoom was Sultan-ul-Arifeen, didn’t he possess knowledge regarding Hoo or Hu? If you do not have knowledge, then surely, he also had none. So how can he be Sultan-ul-Arifeen or the King of Arifeen?

This is quite paradoxical: On one side, you call Hamza Makhdoom as Sultan-ul-Arifeen, but where is the zikr of Hoo through which a person becomes “fana-fi-Hoo” and ultimately gets the title of Sultan-ul-Arifeen? You refuse to understand that this name ‘Hoo’ is the name of Allah. Certainly, your argument has no weight and no proof which would prove your point valid. On a platform like Wikipedia, you both editors are clearly misguiding readers. If you do not have sound knowledge about a certain field then why are you so inclined upon editing such articles which are related to that field which in this case is Sufism. 

I strongly advise you to first read and then comment.

You have placed AfD on Hazrat Sultan Bahu’s page but he is not dependent upon it. He is beyond all this. Far more elevated.


W.white273 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page[edit]

He is a great Sufi poet and writer in Punjab , Pakistan. Admin can suggest improvements, but deleting the page is not appropriate. I can help to put references and reliable sources about his work. He was the disciple of the Qadri Sufi Order and started the new Sufi Order named Sarwari Qadri. His followers are in hundreds of thousands an increasing day by day. Here are few reliable references where we can see his work. [1]-[2]-[3]-[4]-[5]-[6]-[7]-[8]--Leotassawer (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015[edit]

correction of spelling Abiyaat.Correct spelling is Abyat.

Abiyaat-e-Bahoo is not correct spelling.Correct spelling is Abyat-e-Bahoo.Please check in google search for verification.Markangle11 (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Markangle11 (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

This is with reference to the recent edits to this article since 22nd October 2015. Please refrain from removing large amount of content from articles without first discussing it here on the talk page and reaching a consensus as such edits are taken to be vandalism.Markangle11 (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are back from sockpuppet block, again inserting promotional links to your "Sultan ul Faqr" website and pushing this boring "Sultan-ul-Arifeen" title, referenced only to your own website? kashmiri TALK 16:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? what are you saying? Your statement makes no sense at all. Markangle11 (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].... Enough? kashmiri TALK 21:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't been blocked, what sockpuppet are you talking about? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a long story, stretching nearly a year. I'll tell you because you seem to be new here (no offence!). They are folks of a certain faith group promoting their publishing arm Sultan ul Faqr Publications, its website and books, and using a large herd of socks for the purpose. You can take a look here: [15]. If you run wiki search for "sultan ul faqr", you will see their scope of interest and the type of edits they make. This article seems to be their primary focus (as is the title "sultan ul arifeen") - at one point they even created a long duplicate article on Sultan Bahu under a modified name! I don't have the link right now but The duplicate article was sultan ul arifeen and I was shocked when it dawned upon me how a just a few editors were able to flood Wikipedia with their promotional stuff - going almost undetected.... kashmiri TALK 00:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan ul Faqr Publications and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahnama Sultan ul Faqr Lahore, that's me. There seemed to be some possible socking going on there too (User:Demington). You're right, there seems to be some concerted effort to promote this group. It's high time for Markangle11 to adhere to the Terms of Service and disclose his conflict of interest. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, so you have also seen it yourself. I had a wikibreak over summer and missed their renewed efforts. But I saw quite a few accounts actively editing the target 5-6 articles and created over summer. Pity some folks treat Wikipedia as free advertising or a popularity-building platform. kashmiri TALK 12:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a spectacular and complicated mess.I think your last SPI closed because you failed to provide evidence to your false assumptions. Wikipedia can never be used as a platform for promotion which is exactly the reason why all the content here is backed by sources. By removing both the content and sources, you are only imposing your own POV because history of this article reveals you have been in the habit of vandalism with regard to this article. You re clearly escalating to a personal issue and reverting edits that has got nothing to do with Wikipedia's norms. I hav restored the previous version. The restored content complies with both WP:THIRDPARTY as well as WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. Please assume good faith and leave behind this battleground mentality so as editors, our focus should be on improving the article and not to vandalise or disrupt it.Markangle11 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate accusations of vandalism are basically personal attacks, which you know aren't allowed here. WP:Vandalism explains how we define "vandalism" here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Markangle11: What you and a host of (now mostly blocked as socks) editors have been doing is spamming Wikipedia with references to books by some Mohammad Najib ur-Rahman, head of a religious sect in Lahore, published by his own "Sultan ul Faqr Publications" [16] [17] [18] (as well as under Sufi texts); along with tens of similar spam edits by user Pixarh. See, with due respect but Mohammad Najib ur-Rahman is not an academic researcher nor his printing house is an academic publisher. His books are based not on academic knowledge but on religious tradition and thus can NOT be considered reliable sources for an encyclopaedia. Over the last weeks, I have removed most of the instances they were spammingly added as reference, bare a few artciles where I felt they could be acceptable and remain. I will be grateful if you folks cease adding unnecessary work to me and other editors who, in line with WP:NPOV, are trying to keeping check on the sect's Wikipedia spam. Please! kashmiri TALK 19:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraphine Gryphon: Accusing me of SPI without providing any diffs and failing the investigation. and then accusing me again to be associated to another editor. If this isnt personal attack then what is it? @Kashmiri: You cant create your own definition of reliable sources for Wikipedia. No matter what the book is based on, it is nonetheless a reliable source and you cannot deny that. The [[WP:RS}reliable sources]] "depend on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The book you are pointing out is a third-party source because the author of the book is not Sultan Bahu so it is not a self-published source either. Markangle11 (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a self-published source??? This was the best joke of today. Ok, bro, go to www.sultanulfaqrpublications.com and click on "About us" in the main menu. Now read carefully the page that opens. Pay specific attention to person names please. Now go back to the books you keep adding to Wikipedia and crosscheck their author with the publisher. Easy?
BTW, I did not write that you did sockpuppetry. kashmiri TALK 19:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So??? The article is about Sultan Bahoo. It is a third-party source because it is not written by Sultan Bahoo himself. Of course you did accuse me. :You asked me above "So you are back from sockpuppet block.." and then add my name to your SPI. What else is it but a personal attack? Re-read your statements above. Markangle11 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC) You cannot remove content from articles because that falls under disruptive editing.Markangle11 (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Markangle11: Not being written by Sultan Bahoo himself doesn't automagically make it a reliable source. Self-published sources written by people who aren't recognised experts (a simple rule-of-thumb would be that people who don't have a well sourced article about themselves here aren't recognised experts...) within a certain field aren't reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, and can't be used as references. Thomas.W talk 15:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you are saying that every source in every Wikipedia article has an author who has a Wikipedia article!!! Thomas, I am so embarrassed for you because this is so not the case. In this article for example, of the 6 sources given, only 3 have authors with a Wikipedia article of their own. This can nver be the bases of reliability of a source. The reliability is judged within a certain field and the source removed by the editors above, "Sultan Bahoo The Life and Teachings" is written by an author who has command over the teachings of Sultan Bahoo. That is why the source is reliable and makes total sense here. Please use policy based answers to prove your words. Your words made no sense at all. Also you are removing content of the article without any reason which is part of disruptive editing as already explained so do not revert unless you have a good reason to do so. Markangle11 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Markangle11: The problem is, you keep pushing links to self-published sources - books by a local guru called Najibur Rehman, the leader of a religious sect in Lahore, printed by his own publishing house, as well as to the sect's websites. You've added them to at least 20 articles, which is the majority of those you edited, despite other editors consistently removing them. Such behaviour falls under citation spam and may result in sanctions. I also encourage you to check out WP:DISRUPTIVE. Regards, kashmiri TALK 20:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than answering to my statement above, you are only proving your COI and bias in terms of sourcing.Markangle11 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sultan_Bahu&oldid=1210582514"