{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|1=

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Shi'a Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (assessed as Top-importance). Turkey Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not a branch of Islam anymore, but a heterodox offshoot faith. It is not part of normative, "5-pillar-Islam". Attempts at hiding this fact are of a non-academic nature and based in security considerations: not a valid criterion here on Wikipedia. Realistically speaking, I don't believe any jihadist killer will ever check on Wiki before saying "Aha, see, I knew it!" before harming an Alawite he would otherwise have spared as a fellow Muslim.

This is an ESSENTIAL characteristic, which must be included in the very 1st paragraph of the lead. Arminden (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is fringe POV. FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheJoyfulTentmaker, I mean you. I presented perfectly reliable sources - RS in Wiki terms. What have you got? Pls put it back in, and right where it was, because - as I have explicitly written in my edit summaries - it's THERE where they belong. There are perfectly valid reasons for that. And I'm sure you know it. Whose time do you want to waste? And: why not address me first, before going against those edits? Because I have no intention of letting this happen. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essential issues:

1. Is Alawism a religion of its own? Did it separate from Islam?
2. Do Sunni, Shia scholars consider it separate from Islam?
3. Do Alawi scholars consider it separate from Islam?
4. Are Alawis under particular stress, even persecution, because of being considered apostates from Islam, now and throughout history? Was their history substantially marked by their separation from Shia Islam?

Wiki is not supposed to ignore reality because it might aggravate X or Y. Arminden (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning in my edit summary, the info is correct but does not belong in the lead, that was it. It can be put somewhere in the article body. My reasoning is, what Shia and Sunni scholars think of Alawism is not the most important thing about Alawism. We can seek opinions of others. @FunkMonk what do you think? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Arminden, the way you quote the fatwa is clearly POV pushing. One person's opinion about it does not justify quoting it like that in the lead. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a person's: a RS. You can attack the source, but not misquote it, sorry.

I can find more RSs, and so can you. Arminden (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit, based on a RS, for that a good edit summary should suffice. You deleted it, and for that an edit summary is certainly not enough, as it is the beginning of edit warring. Arminden (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these points are important, but we need to seek out very reliables sources for it. For example, the opinions of religious extremists are WP:fringe, and should not be stated as fact. On another note, this talk page needs project tags. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source looks very mainstream RS to me, not extremist-cum-fringe at all. Arminden (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have preempted your argument of "not notable enough for the definition/intro/lead" (please look 5 steps higher). Unless you answer to that, we're (you're) not going anywhere - sorry, that's how debates work. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, in a Muslim region, and knowing that in Islam apostasy is a literally mortal sin: how the heck is it not of foremost importance if a relatively new faith broke away from Islam, no matter how much you stretch the term? Ask the Ahmadiyya and Baha'i what that means, if talking about Shia among Sunni is not indication enough. Arminden (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden please keep in mind the perspective of the readers. Some readers of this article will not even know what Muslim or Islam means, let alone knowing all the details of Islam and apostasy. The lead is for the most important, clear and least controversial information about a subject. Let's wait to hear others' perspectives, but the lead in its current form, to me, is clearly biased and includes POV pushing. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why use words? Let's move over to cartoons. Manga would be nice. Or Teletubbies.

You're not being serious, are you? Arminden (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited you you bring new RS and then we can talk about rewording the text. Instead, you're just arguing w/o arguments, basically just making statements based on your personal point of view. That's a dead end, rationally as well as on Wiki. Sorry, but I'm out of this until I see RS-based arguments. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To restart this on o better footing (I was intentionally provocative, because otherwise nothing tends to happen, but it might have scared people off; sorry).

Is Alawism part of Islam, based on the objective criteria adopted by mainstream Islamic scholars and by academics? I find the view from inside the community A) harder to come by (taqiyya for self-preservation, "secret religion"), and B) harder to trust, for the same reasons. The Sunni and Shia views are normative enough, their communities comprise pretty much all of the Islamic world. Widening the definition based on fringe sects' views only proves the point: those who need that type of certification are outside the fold. Exaggerate relativism is not a gain or sign of wisdom or enlightenment, but one of academic and intellectual surrender, with grave real-world repercussions. Here it's not about fatwas leading to deaths or Rushdie being stabbed again, but about an honest rational approach. The radicals have made up their minds long before Wikipedia.

That said: anyone willing to dig for more of those citable "reliable sources", RS? Arminden (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shias de facto consider Alawites Shias following rulings by Musa Sadr, and practically all objective sources present them as a branch of Shia Islam. What editors personally think, or what religious extremists think, is really irrelevant to what reliable sources say. Extremist Sunni Muslims don't even consider mainstream Shias Muslims, but again, extremist views don't dictate what we present as objective. We should mention these views, sure, but make sure to present them as fringe. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're going in circles.

Where are the sources you're talking about? Who stops you from bringing them up?

You keep on talking about extremist views, but we're talking of Fabrice Balanche, not of ISIL.

There's no dialogue here. Bye. Arminden (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically any mainstream source on Alawites say they're a branch of of Shia Islam. Any encyclopaedia, article, book, etc. Pick one. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I went to the article you indicated, Musa Sadr (cleric, "politician and revolutionary", so not a neutral scholar by any stretch, exactly the same as Haj Amin el-Husseini), looked up Alawi, and the first source there is

• Martin Kramer, Syria’s Alawis and Shi‘ism.

What does it say, from the get-go? "... the Alawis claim to represent the furthest extension of Twelver Shi’ism." In English, A claims to be the furthest extension of B means: A is not B. And so it goes on.

• The Fabrice Balanche article already there.

I didn't pick & choose: these were the first two I stumbled upon. Both RS. So no, you're wrong. And you don't bother to do your due and present sources.

Why TF am I not sticking to what I said and continuing this non-communication thread? If anyone is willing to engage in a real EXCHANGE, with SOURCES, fine. If not, I stop wasting my time. Arminden (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]