Talk:Seyyed Hossein Nasr

Nasr's father

Hello Egeymi, you changed the name of Nasr's father from Seyyed Valiallah Khan Nasr to Seyyed Valiollah Nasr [1]. In Chittick's introduction to The Essential Seyyed Hossein Nasr (World Wisdom, 2007), page ix, we find twice "Seyyed Valiallah". In Knowledge is Light, Faghfoory's contribution is named "The forgotten educator: the life and career of Seyyed Valiallah Khan Nasr". Furthermore, Nasr read his WP page and didn't ask to change the name. May I ask your source? Thank you, Manamaris (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, this change was made based on the following publication which you may access from this link:

• Mehrzad Boroujerdi (2020). "Rethinking the Legacy of Intellectual-Statesmen in Iran". In Ramin Jahanbegloo (ed.). Mapping the Role of Intellectuals in Iranian Modern and Contemporary History. London: Lexington Books. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-7936-0007-3.

Nasr, Seyyed Valiollah (1876-1946): Physician, literary scholar, educator, Majles deputy and minister of education. He also served as director of the School of Political Science as well as schools of law, theology and medicine at Tehran University.

But I should also remind you that we, wikipedians, do not use personal search or follow some people's requests. If you've such a close connection with this person please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to avoid some problems now or in future. Best, --Egeymi (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Tawhid

Hello Mosesheron. The lead’s original sentence was: “Although Islam and Sufism are major influences on his writings, his perennialist approach inquires into the essence of all orthodox religions, regardless of their formal particularities”. You have added “within the framework of tawhid” after “all orthodox religions”. As you certainly know, the lead section cannot contain information not found in the article. Furthermore, the concept of tawhid , which is not the exclusive ownership of Islam, is inseparable from the “perennialist approach” and from the “essence of all orthodox religions”; I thus see this addition as a superfluous precision. May I ask your opinion? Regards, Hamza Alaoui (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Your comment and position clearly demonstrate a Schounian bias in favour of presenting the Perennialists as advocates who happen to favour "practicing a religion". This could unfortunately be written about a "Sufi" who after being initiated by a famous Sufi, and after founding his own "tariqa", could have reservations about his Muslim identity, and could merely prescribe practising "a religion". True, Nasr tried his best to islamize Schoun, but it was evidently fruitless. You have to keep in mind that Nasr is not Schoun. He is first and foremost a Muslim, and only then a Perennialist. His position is evidently Tawhidic. As Zaidi notes: "With the recognition of the anthropocentric nature of modern knowledge, the reconstruction of knowledge must re-turn to the concept of tawhid to reveal the underlying "unity and interrelatedness of all that exists". Tawhid, in the first instance a theological notion referring to the strict unity and oneness of God, is here elaborated into a comprehensive metaphysical perspective of the unity of all phenomena. So, while it may be tempting to view the emphasis on tawhid as a nostalgic return to the undifferentiated unity of pre-modern times, Nasr's conception of re-turning to tawhid is one of rediscovering the primordial bond between God and humanity that has been severed. The reconstruction of knowledge within the framework of tawhid amounts, therefore, to a re-enchantment of the world, a re-sacralization, a reversal of the process of rationalization, the Entzauberungprozess." (Ali Zaidi, Muslim Reconstructions of Knowledge: The Cases of Nasr and al-Faruqi, 2011) I can refer you to countless sources but I am not going to do that for now. I am fully aware that this article carefully avoids Nasr's Islamic orientation, which, I note, will have to be addressed in the future by someone. Anyway, you are right about the lead section, but the lead also refers to some other articles as well. So that might justify my interventions. And yes, Tawhid is an Islamic concept, although it has resemblance to other religious and philosophical positions. But here's what I have to say about this for now. Do whatever you want. I won't interfere now. In fact I do not even want to talk about it now. I am a little bit disenchanted about certain things. Peace. Mosesheron (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Mosesheron for answering. Since our points of view are different, I asked the opinion of an American scholar who is a disciple of Nasr and particularly familiar with his thought; you have certainly read some of his writings on Islam. I do not know him personally, which should be a guarantee that he doesn't want to please me (I found his email address on the Internet). Here is his response: "I do agree with you that the addition is superfluous, but it is also unharmful. The comment of the one who added it, however, is completely off mark, and he clearly has little understanding of Schuon, which I suppose is common these days." I am astonished that you say that you are "fully aware that this article carefully avoids Nasr's Islamic orientation", when the sentence we are talking about starts with: "Although Islam and Sufism are major influences on his writings...". There are other points I could discuss, but it is useless since you accept the restoration of the original version, for which I thank you. Salam, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I am of course not a scholar. No further comments here for now. God knows the best. Peace. Mosesheron (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Transferred this discussion to your talk page. thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

2common

Hello 2common, you have made over 100 "corrections" to the article. Although I am not a native English speaker, I notice that you feel you know the language perfectly, better than Nasr himself, since he reviewed the article and informed one of his followers - who informed me - that there was nothing to correct. You are changing a lot of words and phrases that are perfectly correct, for a simple reason of personal preference; WP disapproves of this practice. Since you don't know the word "perennialist", you change it to "perennial"; similarly the Latin "intellectus" becomes "intellectuals"; corollary = result; principial = principal; neoscolasticism = neoclassicism, etc. As for commas before the word "and", they are common but not mandatory. Totally unjustified are also the many corrections within quotes, which are copied from the originals. I see in your contributions that, since the opening of your account on March 20, you dedicate yourself exclusively to the "correction" of articles (Iranian personalities). I think you should be less sure of yourself. Regards, Hamza Alaoui (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)