Talk:Alawites

Separate article for Alawism

Should we create a separate article for the religion of Alawism? For example, Judaism is the article for the religion of the Jewish ethnoreligious group. In the same way, Alawism should be the article for the religion of the Alawite ethnoreligious group. Thirurang Cherusskutty (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about Oxford Encyclopaedia

I removed a highly suspect claim that OE calls the Alawites an extremist sect, while the first reference was to The Telegraph. Making sensationalist claims and throwing around words such as "extremist" is very much in line with the populist and often downright false reporting of the Telegraph, but does not sound like Oxford Encyclopaedia. Before restoring the claim, could we make clear what part comes from a reliable source (OE) and what part comes from sensationalist journalism (Telegraph)? Jeppiz (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a user, Skitash has reintroduced the dubious claim without providing a reason or explanation. Skitash, can you please cite what Oxford Encyclopaedia says about Alawites being "extremist"? Jeppiz (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a reference to the "Ghulat" sometimes theologically/historically termed "extremist" (as in Matti Moosa's study Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects). But it's misleading here. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, you removed a lot more than that. I'm not sure what the Telegraph source is doing there, but the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World does indeed describe the Alawis as "extremist Shi'is". M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I say above I think that's a sort of term of art and is misleading without further explanation. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but I was replying to their request (about whether it's supported by the cited OE source). M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highly misleading POV

The article in its current format is highly misleading, and I am tagging it for POV. The current version makes numerous references to the Alawites being "extremist" and refer it to Moosa's academic work. This is an example of when a correct reference still ends up misleading readers. Moose, a native Arabic speaker and an accomplished academic who wrote for fellow academics, use extremist as the literal translation of "ghulat" and uses it to define those Shiites who around year 900 worshipped Ali even more than mainstream Shiites. In order words, the only "extremism" Moosa alleges is that over 1000 years ago, the Alawites had a more extensive worship of Ali than other Shiites. Moose is of course entirely correct in saying that. However, when WP takes his works to say that Alawites are extremist Shiites, I doubt even 1 in 1000 WP readers will understand that "extremist" in this article refers to how strongly Ali was worship in the first Millenia. To virtually every reader, "extremist Shiite" gives completely different connotations than what Moosa meant. So while the source is both WP:RS and correct within its academic domain, the language used in the article is entirely misleading. Jeppiz (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its long been contested the use of ghulat as it misleads the lay reader into interpreting the meaning otherwise. It would also be obvious that an adherent would not appreciate for their belief to be referred to as “exaggerated/extreme” as per the term “ghulat” and such a heavy word on the Alawite belief would be misleading and in my opinion archaic bias by fundamentalist muslims and thus unfair to incorporate such terminology in the article. I find it unusual how if you were to visit other esoteric sects that derive from Islam say like the Druze religion. They abstain from using the word “ghulat” and exaggeration although the concepts and discusion is similar in our matter here. FathomableStew06 (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading i think this article needs to be revised as there are too many right-wing opinions that lean towards hate and false information regarding a sect that is currently facing persecution by Islamist extremists in the middle east. This has led to the potential for biased edits that do not provide the views or authentic information regarding the Alawites. Since this is a belief that is centered around esoteric teachings not available to the public like in the Druze and Ismaili faiths, It would be suitable and appropriate to remove all information that claims to authenticate and confirm beliefs under the guise of secondary sources written by people not from the faith. According to many sources available online a large proportion of information mentioned in this article regarding the supposed teachings and beliefs of Alawites is largely incorrect and reliant on rumors and misleading information dictated/authored by secondary sources. It would be necessary to tend to this issue by addressing language neutrality, the leading paragraph avoiding any potential bias (again maintaining neutrality) and removing any sort of information that is not confirmed as true beliefs by the Alawites (excluding the belief in Reincarnation as this is acknowledged by the mainstream, similar to Druze faith) to prevent readers from misinterpreting the belief system of the faith. FathomableStew06 (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia shuns fundamentalism, it is also based upon mainstream academic WP:SECONDARY sources, i.e. not upon the self-presentation of the movement according to sources written by its own believers. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should build on academic sources. The problem in this case is that no Wikipedia reader (outside of the small academic circle of experts on Medieval esoteric Middle Eastern movements) will understand what Moosa means. We should use WP:SECONDARY sources (and not self-presentation) but we also have a responsibility to present those sources accurately in a way that readers understand. And once again: no WP reader will understand "extremist Shiite" to mean "adherentes to a movement that once worshipped Ali more than other Shiites" (which is exactly what Moosa means by the word ghulat/extremist). Jeppiz (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but what if these secondary sources are reliant on falsehoods preached or instructed to the author and the truth is otherwise. The religion is esoteric and it is not confirmed that they believe in such fallacies. Akin to how the druze and ismaili texts are not known even though many rumors emerge on the net. Both lf these faiths do not have anything regarding their esoteric beliefs although they share the rumored secondary sources like this faith FathomableStew06 (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is essential and unconfirmed beliefs musn’t be suggested under a category that would suggest it to appear factual when it is reliant solely on secondary sources that are questionable in origin and compilation. FathomableStew06 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jeppiz: ghulat were extremists 1000 years ago. That needs to be addressed. Further, WP:NPOV entails using WP:BESTSOURCES, not rumours against the faithful or counter-rumours by the faithful. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the beliefs section if I may add consists of information purported by the publishers to appear as if these are the confirmed true beliefs of the sect whilst this is not appropriate and factual. As the faiths esoteric works are not revealed to the mainstream, it seems that the contentions that arise regarding this article also stem from this information. Thus it would seem plausible to remove the content in the “beliefs” section and maintain the esoteric understanding of the faith similar to the other sects (Druze for example) and their respective wikipedia articles, whereby the esoteric nature of the faith is respected and the absence of a number of speculative sources is what maintains the neutrality of the article. the remainder of the article will suffice once the issues regarding neutrality, bias sentencing and views are removed/corrected, along with the choice of words to be used in a neutral non derogatory manner. FathomableStew06 (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the absence of a number of speculative sources is what maintains the neutrality no, that's not how WP:NPOV (neutrality as far as Wikipedia is concerned) works. M.Bitton (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, was not meant to use that word FathomableStew06 (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:CENSOR: Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that does not permit for the use of secondary sources to be used as confirmations of such beliefs and to misinterpret them as factual and label them as if their theologians admit to such and such. This is not how encyclopaedias should work. It is not right to assume all these beliefs when they have never been confirmed whilst you have wikipedia articles (once again) like for the Druze who do not mention any supposed/rumored beleifs (even though there are) in a “beliefs” section and deeming it as factual and agreed by its theologians, like what has been done here. FathomableStew06 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is bound by its own rules to render mainstream academic sources, see e.g. Anthroposophy or Grail Movement: their believers dislike very much the POV of Wikipedia. And pointing towards other articles is a weak argument: perhaps it did not make it to WP:RS, or perhaps nobody found such WP:RS in order to WP:CITE them there.
Oh, yes, the perennial offense for Orthodox Muslims: Wikipedia displays pictures of Muhammad. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely respect this and im with you on this, but the problem lies in how the information is delivered and referenced. You dont want the information across the article scattered with the opinions of other sects for example, if so there needs to be a dedicated section to opinions and the leading paragraph especially shouldnt be one to depict opinions and information that is not factual regarding the religious faith. The leading paragraph must abstain from containing opinions and misleading/debatable words. Ghulat is one of them.
I see too many sentences that favour the views of islamist fundamentalists who persistently like to downplay and shape facts to appear as though they are the truth when talking about other sects. Neutrality and respectful descriptions of a faith are essential. FathomableStew06 (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not cater to fundamentalists. It caters to books published by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, and so on.
Again, the term "ghulat" was correct 1000 years ago. That has to be addressed inside the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was correct 1000years ago, but it is not now. The wikipedia article for the ghulat literally states word for word “were a branch of early Shi'a Islam.” They cease to exist as they have gone extinct. No ghulats exist today. The Alawites are not ghulats rather solely an offshoot of Shia islam. FathomableStew06 (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current version makes numerous references to the Alawites being "extremist" Maybe I'm missing something, but all I can see is a single reference (discussed above) to them being part of extremist Shia sects referred to as the ghulat. M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ghulat tends to be used in a disparaging manner against these minorities so it would be advisable to consider whether or not to use the word when talking about the sect. FathomableStew06 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to remove/rewrite "extremist Shiites"

It seems the discussion I started has veered off a bit, and FathomableStew06 appears to be arguing for far wider changes than I am. My only suggestion here is to either rewrite of remove the sentence calling the Alawites "extremist Shiites" because (as argued above) it does not correspond to how readers today will understand "extremist Shiite". I take responsibility for the somewhat divergent conversation because my first comment was too vague on what actions to take. So to rectify that, I simply propose removing/rewriting the claim that Alawites are "extremist Shiites", based on Moosa's use of that term only referring to intense worship of Ali 1000 years ago, and not religions extremism as we understand it today. Jeppiz (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is correct but It is also important to address the beliefs regarding the Alawites. since they are muslims it is important to address that the ordinary adherent also believes in the 5 pillars of Islam and one of them involves salat (prayer) which they infact adhere to. Below the paragraph you are concerned about there is a suggestion that they do not belive jn daily muslim prayer but the infact they do. In order to be classified as Muslim, you must adhere to the 5 pillars and most of the information regarding these aspects are incorrect in this article and must be rectified.
https://amwchr.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Understanding-Muslim-diversity.pdf FathomableStew06 (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FathomableStew06, sorry but it feels like you are repeatedly hijacking discussions for your own purposes, causing them to go off-topic. I already started this subthread because you did the same above. The suggestion here is only and exclusively to discuss rewording the one sentence using "extremist Shiites". If you want to discuss other changes, I suggest you start a separate thread to discuss those changes to avoid conflating things. Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As there have been no objections, I have updated the sentence in question to still convey the same sourced information, but in language less likely to confuse readers not familiar with Mediaeval religious history in the Middle East. Jeppiz (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amend claims of beliefs regarding the Alawites

The article in question has portrayed the beliefs regarding the Alawites in a highly biased and unconfirmed format that is guised to appear as official and documented as factual information about the faith. The beliefs mentioned in the article rely on published sources that render the authors of these texts as the sources for the religious sects teachings and beliefs. This cannot be justified considering that the Alawites are an offshoot of Shia Islam and are classified as a sect branching from Twelver shi'ism -- far from the "Ghulat" depictions claimed in the article. Below I have mentioned the following amendments that are advisable to avoid confusions to what is factual regarding the Alawites and their beliefs, as the Alawite adherents, like the Sufis, follow the mainstream practices, beliefs and teachings of Islam whilst delving into the interpretations of the scriptures esoterically available only to a select few.

Alawites believe in the five pillars of Islam: 1. Shahada – Unity of God or Indivisibility of God (tawheed) and that the Prophet is his Messenger; 2. Salat – Prayer; 3. Zakat – Almsgiving; 4. Sawm – Fasting for the holy month of Ramadan (always for 30 days); 5. Hajj or Pilgrimage to Mecca. However, like the Shias, they place these fundamentals in a more complex system of ‘5 and 5 pillars’ (see Appendix 2). Alawites maintain the belief in Prophethood (from Adam to Muhammad, the latter being the final messenger of God), the four Holy Books (the Qur’an being the final holy book, and the source of truth), the Angels, and the Day of Judgement. Like all other Muslims, the Alawites rely on the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the consensus of scholars, and analogical deduction or human reasoning/intelligence in the formulation and practice of Islam. In addition to the four established Sunni jurisprudence schools (of Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi and Shafi’i), the Alawites also rely on and give precedence to the Jafari (6th Imam of the Shia’s 12 Imams) school of Islamic jurisprudence. (https://amwchr.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Understanding-Muslim-diversity.pdf)

Syncretism: The Alawites are often accused of heresy because they are considered syncretic; this is certainly a common assertion about them in current scholarship. To be syncretic is to meld together different beliefs, practices and ideals from different sources – in this case, different religions. Syncretism is generally considered unacceptable by mainstream Muslims and as leading to blasphemous beliefs and heretical practices. This has often led to their misidentification as being Phoenician, Christian or Zoroastrianism-inspired. However, the Alawites are not syncretic in the way that one usually understands it. Like all Muslims, Alawites believe in Islam’s insistence that it is not a new religion or new message but part of a longstanding narrative from God to humanity through many Prophets – starting with Judaism, moving through Christianity and then completing with Islam. The Alawites then pursue religious truths in other religions to add to their own Islamic understanding, teachings and practices. The Alawites, however, only integrate ‘Islamically consistent truths’ and only because the ‘holy Qur’an has compelled them to do so’. An example of this is where Alawites sometime celebrate or commemorate both Islamic and non-Islamic events and festivals (see Appendix 3). Alawites, for instance, celebrate the birth of Jesus as part of honouring Jesus as a Prophet of God, not the son of God – although not at the same time as Christians and not in the same way; generally the date falls at the same time as the Orthodox Christian celebrations and is done through prayer only.

  • On a similar note, since there is now an article about Alawism as a belief, this article should focus more on the adherents as a people, but the intro at least is still heavily about the former, and should probably be trimmed down and moved to the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon reading the article it would be justifiable to thus have someone rewrite the introduction of the alawites (avoiding speculations/incorporating beliefs and to focus more on the ethnoreligious context of the alawites. It is also necessary to remove the beliefs section due to the presence of the othe wikipedia page mentioned by @FunkMonk 49.195.42.71 (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Alawites are often accused of heresy because they are considered syncretic; this is certainly a common assertion about them in current scholarship. in other words, that's not something that we can change by simply claiming that what the RS are saying is a myth. If you have reliable sources that describe the above as myths, then you're more than welcome to add what they say to the article.
@49.195.42.71: what you did here (that you repeated again when reverted) is the exact oppose of what WP:NPOV stands for. I restored what you deleted and kept what you added (Peter Theo Curtis' view). M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any POV should be removed, but the intro is overly bloated about the faith when it should focus on Alawites as a group. Otherwise why even have the separate Alawism article, which is where info about the faith itself should go. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine to an extent - although it can't go too far as their syncretic religious beliefs are the distinguishing characteristic of this group. That has to come out clearly in the lead. Subject to that, trimming down is appropriate but not the edit of the IP which clearly had a NPOV-distorting objective. More care is needed than that. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa Also, If you were to refer to one of the articles mentioned in the original post it can be seen that the adherents scholars of the sect oppose all the information that is suggested about this faith so it would be dubious to retain information as if its factual when it is not 49.195.42.71 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any POV should be removed sure, but one must first prove that it's POV.
As for trimming it down, one must also make a difference between "trimming down" the content (while moving content to the other article) and obliterating content that one doesn't agree with. M.Bitton (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that FunkMonk's reference to "removing" POV is to my revert edit summary where I said that the trimming down had a POV objective i.e. they are confirming that the trimming down shouldn't be done with a POV objective. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonkis correct why else have the other wikipedia page it needs to be focusing on the ethnoreligious aspect and not on the religion itself. Also it is true by the original post that a large sum of this information is POV that is not justified by the adherents lf this faith and their have been many if not all sources by them that they are in fact myths. So it is a very contentious topic and inappropriate to suggest the information to readers as all factual. 49.195.42.71 (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa The edits that were made were not of a POV they were infact more neutral towards the article especially for an introduction. It was much more clear so i would suggest it be reverted. 49.195.42.71 (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, we rely on published reliable academic sources rather than anonymous individuals with a personal point of view to push. So, no - just posting on the internet that "the edits that were made were not of a POV they were infact more neutral" doesn't make it true and doesn't convince anyone. DeCausa (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately we all should rely on reliable sources and it would be unfair and unjust to rely on a single side and suggest it as truth. The contention here is that the information posited is POV and just because a lone publisher who seems to form the entirety of the suggestions regarding the beliefs whilst utilising an academic institution to publish their POV does not mean you have to base the entire speculations about the beliefs as truthful when the adherents say otherwise. You could say all you want about trying to suggest this as my anonymous view but rather it is a more reasoned and nuanced approach to consider and that this should be an article that was made to focus on the enthoreligious aspect than one of beliefs.
You also need not ignore the historical context that is currently harming the view of this group as they are being heavily persecuted in the middle east by fundamentalist islamist who spread the false beliefs of a scholar by the name of “ibn taymiyah” who made it permissible for the killing and persecution of this minority based on the lies he has spread about the ethnicity and religion and has led to false information being produced in this article regarding the beliefs, which are mentioned by OP as myths. Once again, this is not a POV but a dispute to ensure truth and transparency. 49.195.42.71 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with mainstream academic sources, take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, the reliable sources can be produced but how can the sources that do not have reinforcement in the english language academic body be considered reliable if you cannot understand it in your language? 49.195.42.71 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That simply means that your POV is incompatible with Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so does that mean sources have to be in english and should they always be from an academic source? E.g the faiths blog, articles made by ngo’s? 49.195.42.71 (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use sources published in mainland China in order to describe human rights in China. We don't use books published by Rudolf Steiner Press in order to describe Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy. We don't use sources published by the Grail Movement in order to describe Abd-ru-shin and the Grail Movement. We use WP:IS from the mainstream academia.
That means that your ardent desire is incompatible with WP:PAGs, admins apply PAGs, so admins won't allow you to prevail in this dispute.
You may WP:CITE other mainstream academic WP:IS. That's your sole remedy. Take it or leave it, it is part of the package. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu Got it, with regards to what has been discussed would it not be appropriate to redirect all religiously affiliated beliefs to the second article under “alawism” and strictly keeping this article for the ethno-religious context? Akin to how the Jewish ethnoreligious article and other ethnogroups do not mention anything about beliefs and focuses more on the identity, demographics, geneology etc? Thus the religions beliefs and views should be in the other article. 49.195.42.71 (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As others pointed out: slimming down is allowed, total erasure is not. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "total erasure" when the info has a dedicated article (Alawism) and is covered there. That's what WP:splitting is for. This article should merely summarise their beliefs briefly, or it'll just be two WP:content forks. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The basis of their identity should remain recognizable (mentioned in the article). Whether that has to be long or short: I have no opinion. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonkThe contention also cna be reinforced by the fact that like how other monotheistic religions like judaism have their own separate page for their ethnoreligion (Jewish) the beliefs section is not included, how could this be permitted in this case 49.195.42.71 (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the claim that Islamists recognize Wikipedia as a theological authority is ridiculous. See why at User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#GASP and some other thoughts. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are main paragraph edits being refuted along with the flag?

The recent edits that were made by a few editors in the last few days particularly regarding the re-writing of the first paragraph, population figure corrections, and the use of the Alawite flag are justified. It is advised that the following edits especially made by @cosmossun are to be reinstated as they are relevant to the article in discussion and no new information was introduced into the paragraph. Current/reverted edits of the main paragraph of the article are highly biased and are leaning more towards extremist Islamic views about the ethnoreligious group. it is advised to support the edits made as a step forward to maintaining neutrality in discussing a highly persecuted ethnic group and avoid confrontational bias. The flag, which represents the alawite state and its people is now broadly used by the ethno-religious group and social media, news articles, and protests have demonstrated its use. SignificantPeace (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of it was cited. The text needs to be cited (with inline citations) to sources that meet Wikipedia's standards as set out in WP:RS. This includes the flag. It also needs to comply with WP:DUE. The bst thing to do is propose it here with the sources so that a WP:CONSENSUS whether they should be added can develop. DeCausa (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I completely support your suggestion, particularly with the flag, however the rearrangement of the lead paragraph has not introduced new information, it appears merely to be rearranged from the exisiting information present in the article and is cited as shown in their contribution history. SignificantPeace (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
and their edit of the lead paragraph is more fluid and comprehensible than the original. it must be recalled that this is an ethnic group article and not a discussion about religion as this has a separate page. SignificantPeace (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alawites