Talk:Alevism

Christianity

Forbes says Alevi is a mystical belief that is rooted in Islam and Sufism with some traditions of Christianity and Shamanism. citing BBC's news, which is nonsense. The narrator uses only "prophet Jesus". Of course this has nothing to do with Christianity but Islamic prophet Isa. Second source says it's a claim, not fact. This has no place on the lead, which is factually incorrect. Beshogur (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Some shoalrs see similarities due to the belief in a trinity of some sort (God, Ali, Muhammad) and the pre-eternity of those figures. Since Christianity (especially Nestorianism) was prevalent at the time, influence is more likely than unlikely. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Semah

I was trying to add information about the origins of Alevi Semah dance rituals, but for some reason my contribution got deleted. I did reference to sources i had found from YouTube, which shows close similarites to Central Asian semah dances. Eg5033 (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source, as everyone can make a video and claims within that video without any factcheck or peer review. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The source cited does not mention anything about "Tengri"

Tengrism is a very specific term and the source cited says that "shamanism" or "Central Asian (Khorasan) shamanism" influenced Alevism, using Tengrism in the article is anachronistic and is not supported by the source itself. See the image on the right. 𝙲𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚞𝚜 𝚁𝚘𝚗𝚒𝚗 (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I see,

I apoligze, I thought the term Tengrism was used in the suorce and then got changed later. If the source says Shamanism, then Shamanism it is. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Important

This article has been unrecognizably butchered by pan-turkists and secularists to the point where it did not relate to the personalities whose articles linked to this page; someone like ahi evran has nothing to do with "tengri," christianity and whatever else was inserted into this article over the years; this has to stay this way. 2003:C0:6F3E:C165:9FE:DE1:5B4B:AF93 (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Improvements

I see that there are also others who are interested in this topic. I am revamping the article since it was in a state of disarray and riddled with misinformation. Please feel free to share thoughts or recommendations here, every hands welcome. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You made huge changes made without explainations and removal of sources and addee unreliable self published sources Finnashz (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The changes could be discussed here on-demand and per section basis but it doesn't give you to revert them all per WP:REVERT. Plus, my edits are WP:RS, WP:MOS and WP:COMMON complaint. You can use thessises and peer-reviewed articles, there are even special citation templates for them.

To summarize; I have merged sections and texts which were either scattered throughout the page or just double-tapping the information at hand. Also, I have expanded some sections and revised some information per references.

I have eliminated the un-referenced sections and revised the referencing on whole. Now, your issues are all adressed. For further inquiries, please quote the text in mind and create a conversation based on it. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

First gain a consensus before reinstating disputed edits you also removed serveal sections and added unsourced edits Finnashz (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Umm, my edits are doable per WP:CONSENSUS. I actually did a work based on WP:MOS. My original additions were minimal. Your actions are basically WP:JDL and WP:EW, also violating WP:3RR.

I revised my edits to be all referenced. Final version does not contain any unreferenced content. Also, for those you can use template. Please be complaint of WP:REVERT. If not, I'll be seeking WP:ANYUSER 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Finnashz @1337.d4nd135 Both users are edit warring cool it down. Noxapollo (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I have already explanied myself well above. My edits are mostly of flow and styling with minimal additions. They haven't contested any of my edits by creating a discussion, plus I have addressed all the issues presented by them. Please check my edits and explanations. Plus, if you check their contributions page, you'll see that they developed a habit of mass revertions. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You removed sources and then added sources about shamanism, humanism/secularism and pantheism with sources that aren't even reliable those are minimual changes Finnashz (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

They are reliable and my edits are complaint with Wiki-rules. You are clearly on an agenda. Your contribution history reeks of hardline Islamism. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@1337.d4nd135 I am not sure about the other user's intentions here but your edits to the page are deeply problematic. You claim that Alevism's lack of religious dogma makes it akin to Twelver Shi'a doctrine, which is ludicrous as most Twelver Shia have a deeply dogmatic, infallibility-based theology. Furthermore, Alevis weren't the official military faith of the Ottoman Empire, Bektashis were.

You also claim that extended rights of women and relaxed rules on alcohol consumption differentiate Alevism, and yet these were (and depending on point of view, to a certain extent continue to be) quite common aspects of heterodox Anatolian Islam outside of Alevism, and the latter just northern Mediterranean Islam in general.

There is a wealth of research connecting heterodox Islam in Anatolia to heterodox Islam elsewhere, and not to Shamanism or any other religion, which you (for some reason) skip over.

You also removed entire sections of text. For better argumentation when disputes arise, you should make smaller edits that can be discussed. Uness232 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

-You can check the ongoing situation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnashz and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Finnashz. They have been using 'Noxapollo' as a sock and got it blocked. Also I have presented their views openly there.-

Back to your comments:

1st: About the 12'er Shia input, please feel free to re-word or contribute.

Alevism is the 'culture' and Bektashi is the 'order'. Think it as the Hebrew culture and the Jewish faith. They are used interchangeably in Turkey so if you are of Bektashi faith you are automatically an Alevi.

2nd: Women and relaxed alcoholism is actually generally applicable to Anatolian Islam after the Atatürk's Reforms. It wasn't actually the case in the pre-republic times.

Though Alevism was indeed like that even in Ottoman times; some clear proofs are mixed-worship and dem ritual which are hundreds of years old. Even today, it is clear that majority of Alevis have relaxed views which stems from their beliefs, but we cannot use the word 'majority' for the Sunni or let's say the Jafari.

Lastly, there are also a plethera of research that connects Alevism to Shamanism. Even the article that you presented states: ' Anatolian Turkish religiosity had to be understood primarily in the light of the pre-Islamic cultural history of Turks in Central Asia. ' which includes a clear reference to Tengrism/Shamanism since it was the only religion that the Turkic tribes followed. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I have not been blocked and I used my older account to stop you from edit warring as you reverted in total four times and you reverted the edit from nox apollo my previous account that I didn't use as I switched my name to this one account and you still haven't addressed any of my issues saying I am a "islamist" isn't enough. Finnashz (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Huh? You got your sock account blocked. If you didin't notice, you can check your investigation. Plus, again, both in your investigation and here, I have adressed all of my claims and your questions very throughly. I won't be taking part anymore of this mouse-and-cat game with you. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

My issue was you refused to talk and just accused me of being a islamist you never broke down your edits and I have no issue with them once you explained it besides using the wrong terminology which I have changed your edits are right and align with alevi/bektashi teachings Finnashz (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@1337.d4nd135 First of all, despite their misuse of an alternative account, I agree with @Finnashz that you refuse to talk and discuss properly. You should not edit the page before the discussion is over per WP:QUO.

Anyways, the relation between Alevism and Bektashism is nowhere near that simple. By the time that Selim I started its repression of Alevi faith, Bektashis were already the official faith of the Ottoman army. They are different manifestations of similar beliefs, sure, but it is wrong to simply call them the extension of the same thing, as Bektashis would have considered being called a Qizilbash (the "Alevi" label didn't exist back then) an insult.

I said heterodox Anatolian Islam, not Anatolian Islam in general. Usually in rural areas and with those whose first contact with Islam came from Sufis. These people continued to drink alcohol (and indeed the Mevlevi elite of the late cities of the Ottomans also did), even if not in religious contexts. The article I provided to you explains this well.

The connections of Alevism to Shamanism is an old and outdated conception of the faith. It is now being renewed by scholarship that ties it to antinomian Islam beyond Turkey's borders. The study I provided to you actively makes this distinction, if you would actually read it instead of quoting out of context:

even though significant strides were taken in this area during the late ottoman and early republican eras, the field suffered from the unquestioned hegemony of a single paradigm during the course of the entire twentieth century, which we can now see with the benefit of hindsight stifled new and innovative research. This paradigm, was, of course, the one put into place by M.F. Köprülü, according to which anatolian Turkish religiosity had to be understood primarily in the light of the pre-islamic cultural history of Turks in central asia.

It actively critiques the information you're putting in to the article right now. Uness232 (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Relation of Bektashi and Alevi 'is' actually that since there are no Alevis without the Bektashi faith -and- the terms are interchangeably used in Turkey. Alevi culture was essentially formulated by Hacı Bektaş and Balım Sultan just codified it couple of years after. Alevism is the culture and Bektashi is the faith. Feel free to check this (What is the Bektashi Order?) beautfiul commentary by Let's Talk Religion to get a hold on.

Heterortodox Islam does existed indeed, but it still doesn't change the fact that overall Alevis have relaxed views regardless. There isn't any obstacle for us to mention that - we still 'can' express that. Especially in the case of women, even the Mevlevi nor the late Ottoman (İttihat) mindset were that inclusive, so it definitely stands out in this perspective. The 'humanistic' touch is even mentioned in the article that you provided.

Lastly, it is your WP:OR to claim that it is an 'outdated conception' since the sources that I have provided about the Shamanic connection are from veery reliable outputs like Cambridge and Oxford etc. Unless you can provide an open publication from multiple reliable publishers which concludes that the idea is 'outdated', this idea is still 'can' be mentioned. None of the articles that I provided are mentioning Köprülü as their ground zero, so they have reached out to Shamanic connection based on the facts that they gathered independently. Also, Karamustafa does not state that the culture doesn't have any kind of Shamanic input nevertheless. To mediate this, we could actually mention both that some claim it to be Shamanic input whereas some claim it to be 'traditional behaviour'. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@1337.d4nd135 The modern Turkish conception of Alevi-Bektashi is just that, the modern conception that equalizes both. They are different historical phenomena with similar beliefs, otherwise Ottoman persecution of Alevis would have been impossible until the 19th-century, as the Bektashis were an official order of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, willingness to participate in the Ottoman state-of-affairs and hierarchies may indeed be the main thing that differentiates them. That might not be very significant from a purely theological perspective, from a historical one it is very important.

There were groups with more 'relaxed' views (horrifyingly vague term by the way, it is better to explain what they believed in rather than just saying 'relaxed') than Alevis, although they were not as widespread. The biggest problem, though, is your positing of non-Alevi Islam and Alevi Islam as unchanging, static and uniform realities, which we shouldn't do, especially in a lede section.

I do see a point in your Shamanism argument, and we can say that the origins of Alevism are debated and explain the different theories. But your edits posit Shamanism as a main progenitor of Alevi belief with no argumentation back and forth. Uness232 (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok then let's summarize our collab here;

a) The 'chaplain' info could go like: Even though the Bektashi order was official, the historical Qizilbashism created rifts which caused Alevis to be persecuted etc etc.

b) It is still a fact that inclusion of women during worship (and clergy) differs from mainstream Islam since there isn't any other Islamic sub-culture or 'creed' which acts as such. This particularness makes it either unique or one of the very few (assuming the fact that there 'could' be others with minimal footprint for us to notice) and definitely deserves a place in the lede. This aspect is not changing and won't be changing anytime soon. As a matter of fact, Islam takes pride in being static and uniform, in contrast to Christianity's ever-changing attitude and liturgy.

c) My Shamanism edits are weighed by the references, which are totally from credible outputs, so their stance makes it more of a 'certain' rather than 'debated'. I can even present additional sources from the French and German academia which stands on this side, if the ones at-hand are not enough. Their findings are actually do contain concrete arguments and proofs if you were to take a look at the referenced documents. Though you are also providing an alternative voice also with a credible publisher (was it McGill Uni?) so yeah let's mention both.

Oh and, I am not saying it is 'the' main progenitor rather a second ignitor together with 12er Shia. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@1337.d4nd135

a) Sure, though this would need more context. Something like "Though the Bektashis, an order that incorporated Alevi beliefs, was official..."

b) Few problems here: firstly, we don't know the full extent of gender egalitarianism in late medieval Anatolia; while we have a better idea of it in the early modern period. Making a direct comparison and saying "relaxed attitudes on women" (whatever that means) without historicizing it is problematic. We can say that the lack of sex segregation in ritual contexts set Alevis apart from Muslim orthodoxy, absolutely, but you have to be specific. And while certain sources may repeat this claim, I believe as a Wikipedia editor we must keep an eye out for simplified historical claims especially if in encyclopedias and other tertiary sources.

Another thing. Muslims may pride themselves on a shockingly ahistorical belief that it is static, but it is absolutely not. Over the last two centuries, Islamic views on slavery (slavery was thought to be permissible until the late 19th century), same-sex intimacy (there used to be at least some acceptance from the general public and, at least for non-sexual acts also the ulema), music (with Salafi-like figures getting increasingly prohibitive on music) have changed massively for example.

c) I understand. And I will concede that this conceptualization has been around for a long time, even if wrong, and has only recently been challenged. It's always tough to figure out what to do in these contexts, but I guess I'll accept your influence of Shamanism edits and add onto it that these conceptualizations have been challenged recently. Uness232 (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

a)How about we go like this: 'Though the main order amongst Alevism, the Bektashi, were appointed as the military chaplains; historical Qizilbash affiliation created political rifts which caused Alevis to be persecuted both in Ottoman and modern Turkish regimes.'

Because there are also some Alevis who follow the Qalandariyya order, like my family, although the percentage is something like 1%.

b)I like the sentence: 'Lack of gender segregation in ritual contexts and clergy, set Alevism apart from Muslim orthodoxy'

On your other input; slavery still exists in Muslim-majority Mauritania or Kafala system is still prevalent in Gulf countires even though the Ottomans were one of the first civilizations to ban slavery in the history. Or again, even though bacha bazi are visible on the streets, being an LGBT person in Afghanistan is punishable by death. Those facts make Islam 'as-is' and static. Dynamism is only available in secular countries such as Turkey or Albania etc.

C)Sure thing.

PS:The other person above got banned. Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsi786 for further details if you or anybody else reading this convo are interested. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@1337.d4nd135

a) Sure, although change Alevism to Alevis. Mostly for prose reasons.

b) That's fine then!

By the way, when I say Islam isn't static, I don't mean that Muslim countries have a reputation for being progressive. Quite the opposite in fact. But what I mean is that Muslim jurisprudence and society have changed drastically in the last two centuries. Despite the fact that slavery continues in certain Muslim (and non-Muslim) countries, Islamic jurisprudence has taken a complete 180 over the last two centuries. No other religion has done this this way, as secular pressures generally outlawed slavery, despite many anti-slavery Christians existing as well. In terms on LGBT rights, you seem to have misunderstood me. Muslim societies have become far more, not less repressive of same-sex intimacy in the last two centuries. And in terms of music, in Herat, what was once one of the most important courts for music in the world, music is now completely banned. Islam is changing, although perhaps not always in the 'right' direction. Uness232 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Please check the final version. I have made some additional streamlining as well. Feel free to re-touch when needed. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'll make some changes now, we'll discuss as necessary. Uness232 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)