Talk:Druze/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Nirvana?!

The article saids "The Druze believe that, in every time period, these five principles were personified in five different people who came down together to Earth to teach humans the true path to God and nirvana". From where did "nirvana" appeared here? - AKoan 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed this comment from the lower portion of the article, under the source link:

as this is on a US government website and there is no copyright notice to the contrary, I assume this is in the public domain?

...as it doesn't belong in the article. Said lower portion needs to be merged... I'll put it on my list of articles to work on, but that list's getting long... -- Jake 08:32, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)

Some more than 1.100,000 Druze exist in the Middle-east today.

There are 700,000 Druze in Syria and 400,000 in Lebanon and about 100,000 in Israel

Any sources? Tim Bray 23:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link to Israeli Druze photo site

The following link was on the page, then removed, then put back by me, then removed again, and I just put it back once more.

Will Jayjg please explain why that site is not allowed to be in the links category here? What's wrong with that site? I absolutely don't understand why you think there should be no link to that site on this page.--Daniel575 12:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a commercial site whose owner has been spamming links to it into many Wikipedia articles for months. Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


Silly Azzam Azzam story

The narrative of the spy swap between Egypt and Israel has no relevance to the big picture of the Druze community/religion. I'll remove it unless someone disagrees in a reasonable way. Tim Bray 23:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was a big deal for the Druze community in Israel. I'm not sure why you would want to take it out. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Because it was a minor side-show of a side-show in the larger Middle East story. Would you fill up the stories on other religious and ethnic groups with anecdotes of prisoner-of-war swaps? I want to take it out because it doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps Azzam is now a prominent enough person to deserve his own entry?Tim Bray 00:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you wanted to create an article on him, and link to it, that might make sense. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Working on it... parking the text here so we don't lose it: Tim Bray 00:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On December 5, 2004 Egypt released the jailed Israeli Druze Azzam Azzam; in return, Israel freed six jailed Egyptian students accused of conspiring to kill Israeli soldiers. Azzam Azzam was arrested in Cairo in 1996 while working at a joint business venture between an Egyptian plant and an Israeli textile firm at which he was employed. Originally accused of industrial espionage, he was later accused of using women's underwear soaked in invisible ink to pass information for Mossad, and in 1997 was sentenced to 15 years jail at hard labor. Both Azzam and the Israeli government denied the charges. [1] [2] Azzam expressed gratitude to the government of Israel, and to Ariel Sharon in particular, telling him "I love you very much and I don't know how to express this. This has happened only thanks to you. I don't have the words to thank you for your determination. I told my brothers that if I wasn't released while Arik Sharon was prime minister, I would never be released. I am fortunate and proud to have been born in Israel."[3]

Druze in Israel

What was said is not actually correct; the Druze in Israel among the older generations do support Syria. However, the younger generations have sworn allegiance to Israel, due to the better life in Israel, especially the lack of persecution; and the Druze notion of being faithful to whatever country they currently live in. [ 68.106.127.101 ] (sig added)

The use of the term "collaborate" is highly POV. Israel has offered the Golan Druze citizenship, the older generation has repudiated it, the younger generation generally accepted it. "Collaborate" implies a great deal more. Jayjg 14:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Israeli state" is a bizarre usage; the term is "Israel". "Israeli state" uses two longer words to describe what is better said in one word. Jayjg 14:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are a few thousand Druze in the Golan heights. Most Israeli Druze reside in Israel proper and none of the above applies to them 85.65.48.126 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [Actually it's user MEW but I can't log in & can't get a new password - Sorry].

Judaism and Christianity are not hierarchical

Judaism is not a "hierarchical" religion; in fact, it has little formal structure, as religious authorities are not centrally controlled, and have only as much authority as individual Jews are willing to grant them (which, more often than not, is none). Protestant Christianity is also often non-hierarchical; most denominations pride themselves on this, in contrast to the Roman Catholic church, which is decidedly and formally hierarchical. In fact, Christianity is so broad and varied saying just about anything about Christianity as a whole is bound to be false. Jayjg 14:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'Christianity is so broad and varied saying just about anything about Christianity as a whole is bound to be false' - In that case I guess we all better shut up about Christianity because it might offend you... --Xed 01:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is not about me or my feelings, Xed, it's about the facts. Much of Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity, eschews hierarchy, precisely because Catholicism has it. It's all part and parcel of the repudiation of the Catholic church that devolves from Martin Luther's original doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As for Judaism, I don't know what "hierarchy" you are referring to in the article, perhaps you can explain here. Jayjg 01:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg is wrong about Christianity; probably the majority of Christians belong to sects (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, many varieties of Lutheranism, the Anglican communion, and maybe some I've forgotten) that have some sort of hierarchy. However, this dispute is both tiresome and unnecessary—it is sufficient to say that the Druze have little religious hierarchy without dragging in these comparisons. —No-One Jones 02:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, undoubtedly the majority of Christians belong to sects which have strong hierarchies; Catholics alone arguably comprise a majority. Them, plus the other groups you mention, plus other groups like Mormons definitely form a majority. Of course, one could quibble about who a real "Christian" is, but that's a debate best avoided like the plague. Regardless, that still leaves several hundred million Christians without any particular hierarchy, a not insignificant number, which is why I preferred Catholic, the largest Christian group with arguably the best known and developed hierarchy. That said, your edit is even better. :-) Jayjg 02:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Christianity and Judaism as a whole have no hierarchies that represent all of the membes of their faiths; both Christians and Jews form religious hierarchical religious bodies that represent themselves, but they don't represent other members of their faiths. The Roman Catholic is perhaps the best example of one such body, both for its size and its degree of organization for its size. Lorem Ipsum 20:40 7 Sept. 2005 (UTC)


wrong flag

Druze Cleanup Details?

There is comment at the top of the page to the effect that this page needs cleanup. Are there any technical details that should be cleaned up, for instance grammatical errors, link errors, formatting errors, etc? Remove the "Druze Flag"? What actually needs to be done to bring this page up to standards?

The Druze flag should be gone. I've never seen it. It's just stripes. And it's not found flying on flag poles. In fact the only place a druze flag is displayed is on the internet and on the back of key rings from the markets.

The Druze flag should not be removed. I have seen it in Lebanon. Please don't express your opinions if they don't have any logical foundation.

The labanese druze are not druze, they are muslims.

No, the lebanese druze are druze, that is why they are called druze. If they were Muslims then they would be known as Muslims and not Druze.

Yes, there is one more thing that I noticed that needs to be cleaned up. Twice there is mention of the meaning of the star's colors, however, each time different terms are used. Even though those terms may in essence mean the same thing, it might be prudent to decipher which of the terms for the colors best represents the meaning and then make them match. As a fluent speaker of Arabic, my choice would be the first set of terms. However, as I am not Druz-ey, I wouldn't want to attempt at describing something so special to them, when it's not my religion. Perhaps an actual Druz-ey should do it themselves. ما هيك؟ مش كدة؟ --LanguageSLO 08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this, but I'd like to direct my response to the user claiming that the Druze flag should be removed: I've seen the flag fly in Syria and displayed in prominent places of Druze-run local businesses. Should we remove images of past countries' flags from their respective entries as well just because they're no longer flown? If you honestly think removing the flag is justified, then furnish proof. Otherwise leave your personal opinions off the site.

Identity

The Druze are a religious group. The first paragraph says "Sometimes they do not consider themselves to be Arabs", which as far as I know is true only in Israel. Is there any indication that Druze outside Israel "do not consider themselves to be Arabs"? From what I've read, most Israeli Druze consider themselves to be Arabs, it is the (Jewish) Israelis who mostly consider them as a separate ethnic minority.

"The Australian druze do not consider themselves arabs."<<<?

The Druze ethnic origin is clear and well documented. Their are two tribal divisions among Druze (Kaysi and Yemeni) and both are Arabs. both are converts from Jabal Amel Shia. --Skatewalk 05:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • What about the Kurdish ancestry of for example the Jumblatts? How does that enter the picture? Funkynusayri 06:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Nusayri; The Jumblatts are a family amon families that came to be influential. Many Adnani and Yemeni tribes had non Adnani Arab sheikhs in order to eliminate the rivalry between the tribes sects. Just likein Syria today the leader is an Alawite does that make every Syrian an Alwaite?

The Druze ethnicity is well known they fought long bitter wars about it. Ethnicity overlapped religion in manytimes -- Skatewalk 19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Skatewalk. The Droze are not converts from Jabal Amel Shia. In fact, no one Druze family is originated from that area, but from neighboring areas: Galilee, Wadi al-Taim (between Litani rever and Mount Hermon) and the Mount Lebanon (western range). Many of them come also from Aleppo and the mountains near Idlib in Syria. The Jumblatts themselves come from Aleppo. Many Druze migrated from Northern Syria to parts of Lebanon and Southern Syria (Jabal ad-Duruz) where the Druze are a majority, many families are named after the places they come from. Moreover, many of them were converts from christianity, that's obvious from many shared family names between these two religions, while there's none of that between Druze and Shia. The Druze come from various ethnicities, Arabs, Kurds, Syriacs and God knows what. Many Historians (mostly French) claim they are of European descent, and there are many stories about large numbers of Crusaders who became Druze. Some others say that the Druze of Jabal al-A'ala (near Idlib) are the descendants of Galatians, who used to live in that area and the region to the north.
The issue of ethnic origin is a sensitive one, just as sensitive as their religious origin. Sensitive because of the hostile sentiments some other muslim Arabs have for them. Moreover, since the wave of Pan-Arabism swept the Arab World, all minorities have been considered Arabic, including Christians, who are of Syriac, Assyrian and Chaldean descent, as those ethnicities were considered other old branches of Arabs. Many Druze leaders joined the wave, that led to bitter internal fight in Syria in the forties, between those who wanted autonomy in Jabal ad-Duruz and those who wanted full unity with Syria, the pro-union faction emerged victorious, and since then this issue was avoided. And with the Baath policies and education, even forgotten in Syria. Still though, the Druze have great loyalty to their religion, and they are always ready to help their brothers wherever they are, that's obvious from the great numbers of volunteers whenever there's a war.
The Majority of the Druze do consider themselves Arabs, even the purist of all Arabs (as they don't marry outside their religion), but that doesn't make them so. Only a few families have well-documented origins, while others have unsupported claims of being descendants of famous Arabic tribes. Books that list every family and its line of ancestry are rediculous, they mention Arabic tribes that have no record or mention whatsoever in history. Druze try to stay away from trouble (that's a religious doctrine), and being of a non-Arab origin doesn't help at all. That's why they say they are muslims too, while clearly they are not.
The truth maybe lost in history. It needs extensive research which has never been done, and won't be welcome among the Druze.
Orionist 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Orionist are you awre of the Battle of Ain Dara?

If the Druze were not Arabs why will they name themselves Kaysi (Adnani) and Yemeni (They are not from Yemen, but of Syrian Yemeni tribes, which puts them in Jabal Amil or Hauran). The Druze Identity was Arab long before PanArabism even existed. The Syrian branch of Druze (AlAtrash and Hamdan)have obvious Hamdani (Non Ghasani) names that lead directly to (Jabal Amil). The Modern Lebanese branch is mostly Kaysi and Druze is a religion after all so I will not be surprised to find Turks, Kurds, Crusaders among them just like any religious group.

The Same exists among European families that have Arabic last names, you dont consider AlMontasers, Almodavars of modern Spain or Murabito, Attardo and Rigazzi of Sicily still Arabs? (unless it pays off to be an Arab at that time... = )....)
When it comes to identity its what the people feel and want to identify as, so I will leave it as it is. As of now the Syrian Druze are known to be Arabs. The Lebanese Druze are involved in the critical balance of Lebanon so it depends on how Jumblatt feels about the Taif agreement these days! -- Skatewalk 05:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Skatewalk, please read my post again. I did not say that Druze are not Arabs at all, I said that they are of different origins, Arabs being a major one. You have to note that only the large and rich families have well-documented line of ancestry, others lose track within 7-8 generations max. The battle of Ain Dara was a part of a long struggle over power, the families fought for control of Mount Lebanon and they were not exactly devided over Kaysi-Yemeni lines, and that explains the role of Jumblatts. I'll continue this argument later today. Orionist 14:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The genetic study brings more mystery, why do Druze have more South Asian genes than other Mid Easterners? Could they have absorbed Hindus or something in the past, which might also explain their belief in reincarnation? Funkynusayri 09:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nusayri, Their are two main groups of South Asians in the Mideast;

  1. The Slaves brought by the Ummayids when they first invaded the Sind.
  2. The Gypsies (Nawar) also came from India.

So it could be any of them, I am pretty sure many Arabs in certain areas also have heavy SouthIndian bloodlines (Basra are, Gulf in general especialy Bahrian, Gaza coasts, the dancers caste in Asir and Hiraz (who are also Ismailiso religion might have some meanning here) they were eventually forced to change the way they dress and live after the spread of Wahabism.

I am not going to say this applies to all of them, but they could have assimilated to the Yemeni and Kaysi populations of Syria at that time. Thier religious belief in reincarnation is a good indicator.. Arabs ethnic division doesn't translate well into Genetic terms, (what works with the Germans doesnt aply to the Arabs, thats where many European historians fail and end up coming up with race and terms theories that dont apply to the Mideast such as (Arabid, Armeniod, Assyrloid...etc). Many Arabs have Nordic or Negroid DNA mainly to absobing Maternal Slave DNA Siqaliba from Europe and the African slaves, but we will not have a time where some Arab claims there is an Arab race and goes around collecting DNA and measuring other people foreheads to findout where their DNA originated from!. -- Skatewalk 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pennant

I never saw a Druse flag/pennant anywhere in Souada, but the Druse star was displayed. It is the Eastern Star of the Shriners/Masons, of all things, as well.

Nancy

Even thought Druze are living in Arab country, their religion, culture and behavior are more Jewish culture than Arab are. It is s a mystery, but nobody knows or do not want to tell about it....It is a secret????

Re Pennant, Jewish culture? The Druze are not similar to the Ashkenazi's in any way except that they are living in the same land.

If you are referring to the Hebrew Jews (Mizrahi and Sephradi). then I can see the similarities since both lived under Islamic religious rule, so they had to maintain a secretive religious life. to avoid getting attention. -- Skatewalk 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

War Against the French

The Syrian Druse are very proud of their part in ridding Syria of the French occupation. The house of Sultan Pasha al-Atrash is virtually a shrine. Why isn't he mentioned under prominent Druse?

Nancy

  • Because you didn't edit the article and put the information in. Why don't you? If you know something the rest of us don't, the onus is on you to make sure the information is included. That's what Wikipedia is all about. David Cannon 01:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What a laugh. Why don't we include my great grandfather then who was the first man (druze/tawhid or not) to raise the Syrian Flag on the Government after defeating the french? Most old Druze men played their part and have stories to tell.

Karim

Sorry Karim, but only the leaders get to be mentioned in history. The followers just get to live and die to be remembered by their families only. Tough luck but this is life and you should have learned this from history.

Rami the Camel Lover


During my visit to the French Army Musem in paris ( Musée de l'armée , les Invalides ) , I took photos of two flags of druzes units under the French Army , which also shows a collaboration between the druzes and the French occupier.

  • flag of a Druze Unit in the French Army . le paradis est à l'ombre des sabres.
    flag of a Druze Unit in the French Army . le paradis est à l'ombre des sabres.
  • flag of a Druze Unit in the French Army.Groupe des escadrons Druzes
    flag of a Druze Unit in the French Army.Groupe des escadrons Druzes



Tiger

NPOV gushing and phrasing issues

This text:

He was just, close to the people He gave the right to people to choose their religion. In 1009, the Hakim gave away all the jewels and gold he had and lived a simple life. The Hakim tried to unite Sunni and Shitte muslims. He spent generously for the construction of mosques. He also allowed people who converted to Islam for money or fear to return back to their religions and he reconstructed churches.

is difficult to understand. While I accept that it may have been written by somebody for whom english is not the first language, it is important for them to provide information in the english wikipedia in a way that english speakers can understand. Additionally, the entire article, but in particular this paragraph, are needlessly ebullient about "the Hakim". Note that "hakim ..." is given as a name, and then used as a title later on as "the Hakim". It isn't explained what "a Hakim" is, neither here nor in Caliphate. It would be nice if one of our druze friends could clarify this. 69.143.133.51 09:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah was the third Fatamid ruler of Egypt. He ruled from 996 till his disappearance in 1021. It is ridicules that the article doesn't even mention Al-Hakim's name since his deification is the central point of Druze doctrine.

All muslim countries treat Druze as Jewish and hate us. I could feel it and convinced that they know that we are not muslim. Druze rituals are close to Jewish culture.

Um... no more closer than to Muslem or Christian "culture".

Golan's Druze voting patterns

According to: Maariv: HaYom special issue:2003 elections-the real result. Date:30.1.2003 Page: 28

The Golan Heights:

Majdal Shams: National Union-49.4% Likud-43.3% Labour-6% Balad-1%

Buq'ata: Likud-48.8% National Union-40.6% Am Ehad-6.9% Shas-2.3% Shinui-1.1%

Mas'ade: National Union-57.1% Likud-20% Labour-17.1% Ale Yarok-2.8% Meretz-2.8%


Population info (Israel’s center bureau of statistics-2001): Buq'ata-5,200 residents (all of them Druze) Majdal Shams- 8,400 residents (98.8% of them Druze, 1.2% Arabs) Mas'ade- 3,100 residents (all of them Druze)

Very surprising, but true indeed! Thanks for providing the info.--Doron 19:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
It is not that surprising, but you’re welcome.
Just out of curiosity, why is it not so surprising that Druze from the Golan Heights vote so overwhelmingly to right-wing parties, especially to ultra-right wing National Union?--Doron 23:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a complicated set of reasons, really. Druze are arrayed across the whole spectrum in the Israeli-Arab conflict, from strongly pro-Arab to strongly pro-Israeli, mainly borne out of that region's complicated multi-way factions (at various times, Druze militias have fought either with or against Jews, Christians, and Muslims). In the Golan heights, there's an additional self-selection bias in voting results: The pro-Syrian Druze refuse Israeli citizenship and therefore don't vote, while the pro-Israeli Druze are the ones voting. --Delirium 11:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it more accurate: very few Golan Heights Druze actually vote. Buq'ata: 5,200 residents, in 2003 elections there were 217 eligible voters and only 86 voted. Majdal Shams: 8,400 residents, in 2003 elections there were 256 eligible voters and only 103 voted. Mas'ade: 3,100 residents, in 2003 elections there were 107 eligible voters and only 36 voted. --128.139.226.37 08:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Contradicts Itself

This article teaches that the Druze do not fast or pray; then, that the Druze might fast and do pray. Can we get some expert revision to correct this? ~ Reaverdrop 07:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Druse do not have the obligation of fasting or prayer but they can pray to God in their own way and the uqqal usually recite the Holy book in their gathering.


There is no religious obligation to pray in the Muslim fashion nor to fast in the month of Ramadan, some people do so as a way of being 'super-religious' and others use it as a way of protecting their identity.

I suggest that the "Article Contradticts itself tag should be removed, since nobody can know what it is about, and anyhow it is probably wrong. Perhaps the wording about "do not fast and do not pray" needs correctss 85.65.48.126 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Individual prayer is different from group events. I think we need to clarify how the druze pray. Sam Spade 14:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: the Seven Noahide Law

From the Section of the article "The Druze today:" "...Sheikh Mowafak Tarif, signed a declaration calling on all non-Jews in Israel to observe the Seven Noahide Laws, as laid down in the Bible..."

The "Seven Noahide Laws" are not explicitly in the Bible. Even the Wikipedia article on the Seven Noahide Laws makes it clear that at best two of these "laws" are taught in Genesis while the others "are exegetically derived from a seemingly superfluous sentence in Genesis 2:16."

Of course, somethign can be taught implicitly in the Bible, or any other document for that matter, but in order to be NPOV the implicit teaching of the text should be fairly clear. In this case it isn't. Further, the way the sentence is phrased it implies the Bible teaches not only seven commands but also the whole set of teachings surrounding a Jewish understanding of the Seven Noahide Laws. I reccommned merely cutting the phrase "...as laid down in the Bible and..." That should clear up any POV problems

Is there a source for this? I changed the indent to quotation marks, though I'm not sure if it's an accurate representation of the quote. TewfikTalk 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Article appears to be POV and contradictory.

1. POV: At one point a Druze militia is called "atrocious." That is obviously POV. Possibly the writer is not a native English speaker, and confused it for "ferocious," which may well be backed by sources.

2. Contradictory: Towards the beginning, the article claims that Israeli Druze most assuredly do not consider themselves Arabs. However, further on it says that when voting, many Israeli Druze do classify themselves as Arab, if not Palestinian. - KB 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Druze Star copyright issue ?

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a list of 98 approved "emblems of belief" for engraving on military headstones. The list can be found here with an illustration for each emblem, except two of the items are listed without illustrations as follows:

97 CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST (Cross & Crown) Not shown because of copyrights.
98 MUSLIM (Islamic 5 Pointed Star) Not shown because of copyrights.

I went searching for these out of curiosity and found this blog/picture which suggests that #98 may be the "Muslim" Druze Star and if so cannot be displayed without explicit copyright permission? Can anyone confirm (a) if emblem #98 is in fact the Druze Star and (b) if there is/isn't any copyright issues?

PS: Are there any other names for the Druze Star? (the Jewish Star has three others that I am aware of)

Low Sea 14:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Druze Star is a very old symbol, maybe as old as the religion itself. I'm not aware of any copyright issue concerning it. If it is really the star mentioned in the list, the Department of Veterans Affairs could be wrong, they don't even know it's the Druze Star!
The Druze call it "the star of the five principles" by the way. Orionist 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

DRUZE non muslim

i have put a fact tag where it says that "most muslims consider Druze's as non muslim's". can some body clarify that.7day 12:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 

Druze are not muslims

Druze these days are considerd Muslims for political reasons, but religiously Druze don't have any thing in common with the muslim religion, they are from Nuslim origin but they are not Muslims —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JadZeitouni (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

can you please give reffrences.124.29.204.214 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a complex and contentious issue. I'd suggest that the article should address it reasonably fully on the basis of reliable sources. We should acknowledge all the relevant points of view, both those expressed by the Druze, those expressed by the relevant civil and religious authorities in Lebanon, Syria and Israel, and those to be found in scholarly studies of the Druze. This will obviously call for a bit of research, though. Palmiro | Talk 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

small detail about holy books in European libraries

"The sacred books of the Druzes, successfully hidden from the world for eight centuries, have since the middle of the 19th century found their way into European libraries." It is a common but rather ridiculous claim that holy relics simply "find their way" from the religious groups that created and carefully guarded them into the libraries and museums of foreign colonial powers. Would it perhaps be more accurate to say "have since the middle of the 19th century been acquired by European libraries."? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.98.191 (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

As we don't really know how the libraries got them, and the difficulty of this, I prefer to keep the wording as it is. The books could be smuggled by European voyagers... etc. There might be a hundred ways they got them. Orionist 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Druze, christianity, islam

I am married to Druze, and a lot of what Mr doron said, are not right.

The Druze are not a muslims and they do not want to be.

And the story of Samir Kuntar is so silly.. I think there are more important people to talk about such as Syrian Druze Leaders ALHENAWI, ALHAJARI, JARBOU.

We refuse the way that israeli people trying to introduce and promote the druze in this image. User:John sarter (subject heading and signature added by User:Classical Geographer)

Dear Mr. Sarter,

I am no Druze myself and I have only scarse knowledge of religious issues. However, you should be aware that the article on Druze has been in existence for quite some time, and that is has undergone revisions from many different persons, probably including Christians, muslims, and Druze. I do not claim the text as it stands is correct in all respects; however, I do feel we should await the advice of others, as Palmiro advised a few paragraphs above. The outcome of such a discussion can and will then be introduced into the article by one or all of us, including you, if you wish. Classical geographer 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to John sarter:

  • I did not say anything about the Druze, the article was written and edited by many Wikipedians over the past six years.
  • The fact that you are married to a Druze is of no consequence to this discussion, Wikipedia is based on published material and not on personal experience.
  • You have removed well-referenced information without providing any justification.
  • You have mentioned Christian influence without providing any explanation or source.
  • You have removed a reference to the Druze Samir Kuntar without providing any reasonable justification.
  • You added reference to Syrian leaders, mentioning only their surnames (apparently) in a way that does not help identifying who they are (however, if you provide more information, e.g., their full names and background, they may certainly be noteworthy).
  • In your indiscriminant reverts back to your revision you canceled essential edits by other editors.
  • Please leave political disputes out of this discussion, we are not interested in your opinion of Israelis.
  • I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy (in particular WP:NOR, WP:CIVIL, WP:EW).--Doron 00:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnote problem

At the time of writing, footnote 11 simply says:

"موسوعة الأديان والمذاهب المعاصرة (رابطة العالم الإسلامي"

This is not a lot of use for an English-language encyclopedia! Could someone please at least provide a translation (in the article, not just here). Loganberry (Talk) 23:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Orionist 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Could someone please add a few more pictures of some Druze people, please? Maybe one or two a bit more recent than the nineteenth century one of the woman in the 'tartur'. Rekk 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the Hebrew and Arabic Druze pages, there are some newer pictures there. I'm unable to read Arabic and Hebrew, so I can't provide them with a caption though. I added a recent picture of Walid Jumblatt in the prominent figures section. Funkynusayri 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just used the Google translator for the Druze man on the Arabic site, and added it. Funkynusayri 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy Star

I used to add a new tap for holy druze star but if you wan't to add it to druze i don't mind

New tap? What colour? Funkynusayri 15:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Citizens

Does anyone have a ref for the statement that the Druze have been offered Israli citizenship as stated in the article and above? I might be wrong but I thought that it was reserved for those who could prove Jewish decent.

CaptinJohn 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians who stayed in Israel after 1948 all have Israeli citizenship, they have IDs and everything, even members in the Knesset, but not all can join the Israeli army. The Druze, Bedouins and Circassians are required to go to mandatory military service, while the Muslims and Christians are not. Orionist 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is not clear

"Hamza Ibn Ali completed his directions and procedures to improve the Islamic weakness at that time. This was translated few years later by the refresh of Druze's Islamic beliefs and applying principles in a more powerful manner."

Missing some antecedents here...

Also could use a Druse history org chart to straighten out the Hamzas from the al-Hakims (just as others have trouble telling the Smiths from the Jones, I'm sure).

—Preceding comment added by Maczenwes (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Was Nashtakin ad-Darazi really the last prophet in Druze belief?

The history section of this article states "they believe in one God and seven prophets — Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Muhammad bin Ismail Nashtakin ad-Darazi. They believe that Muhammad is the last prophet and that the holy "Quran" is the law by which they abide."

This is confusing - the last prophet according to this chronological list is Muhammad bin Ismail Nashtakin ad-Darazi, but mention of the Quran in the same sentence suggests that the Muhammad referred to is actually the second last Muhammad in the list of prophets (i.e. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh). That would leave Nashtakin ad-Darazi as something other than a prophet, and the Druze with just six prophets. Grateful for any clarification.86.108.64.23 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote a bit

I need checking on whether the "beliefs of the druze" section is accurate - I tried, and certainly brought it a lot closer to intelligible and NPOV.69.140.102.62 04:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.angelfire.com/az/rescon/mgcdruze.html that might provide some insights - I'm too tired to incorporate it atm. Certainly not NPOV, but at least it's not this utter ignorance that web seems to have about Druze culture. 69.140.102.62 04:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • How are Druze an ethnic group? Funkynusayri 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Repition of Idea: Higher proportion of promotion in Druze military community

I noticied the repetition of the idea that Druze in the Israeli military are promoted at a higher rate proportion to the number of soldiers. Though I find this interesting, assuming it is true, I do not believe the repetition is neccesary and only creates doubts of legitimacy. To me, it seems either an over-eager and excitted or an envious, perhaps angry, person wrote this, attemptibng to get a point across. The three examples are:

The first two were found on the Druze page, under the paragraph Druze in Israel. The second example is mere sentences away from the first. "Israeli Druze have achieved high positions of command in the Israeli military, far beyond their proportion in the general population of Israel."

"In Israel, where the Druze enjoy prominence in the military and in politics greatly surpassing their proportion of the general population, the majority of Druze do not identify themselves as Arabs [19]."

The third example is on the Israel Military page under Minorities in the IDF. I believe this one should stay as it provides important context for the rest of the article. However, both that section of that article as well as this sentence could more clear and concise writting. "It is important to note that, proportionally to their numbers, the Druze peoples achieve much higher -- documented -- levels in the Israeli army than other soldiers (i.e. Jews)."

Additionally, after further reading the page there was another reference:

"They comprise around 80% of the Druze population, and generally distance themselves from religious issues - for this reason they are able to fill governmental positions (sometimes disproporationately to the Druze's share of the general population) in the nations that they inhabit which endorse other religions."

I do not dispute the validaty of this statement. However, as a curious reader, I inquire as to why the author has seen mentioning the higher proportionality of Druze in high leadership positions to be so important. Unfortuantely, the tone comes across as biased. Perhaps re-writing this section, or adding statistics or references beyond these statements would increase their validaty for those unfamiliar with the topic.

I would like to say I am not affiliated with any religious, ethnic, or political group mentioned in the above articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.245.29 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempted to cleanup the Israel section some. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic weakness needs to be rephrased to be NPOV

The text:

After Hakim's disappearance, Hamza Ibn Ali completed his directions and procedures to improve the Islamic weakness at that time.

is contentious. Even viewing it as a non-believer, it reads as derogatory to Islam. If it were written as "perceived weakness" and specified what those weaknesses were, it would be better.Keithcollyer (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hajj/Umrah

The article says that Druze are not considered Muslims by others, but that they are required to do the pilgrimage. How then do they get a hajj visa and permission to enter the holy cities? NTK (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Article growth

The article has grown substantially, with a gigantic history section. Seems a bit suspicious, is it copyrighted material? Funkynusayri (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion?

Assuming that the vast majority of Muslims don't consider Druze from their own flock, I think it's reasonable to give the Abrahamic label to this sect. In spite of its secrecy, one can see that the most of its precepts are incardinated in Judeo-Christian, and, of course, Islamic beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.204.192.247 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A month?

Please don't tell me this page has been protected for practically a month... Why is this the case? I tried reading the discussions above, but found it difficult to glean the central issue of the page's protection. I mean, I know it's mainly my OCD, but there's punctuation to fix and links to wikify. I understand the threat of anonymous vandalism in any article, but that's why there's partial protection so that established users can still edit. Hmm...let me see... - Gilgamesh (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to establish consensus, but we are not reaching one. And yes, it's been really frustrating to have the page locked down for a month. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's got to be a better way than locking the page for a month. If there's no clear concensus on certain issues, why not document multiple positions? With references of course. There's nothing that says that an article cannot address how something is controversial, so long as a controversy is notable and clearly referenced. When it comes to articles about religious and social groups, this is not difficult to do. If this stalemate remains intractable for too long, it might even become a lamest edit war. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I keep trying to reach out to Green Echo, but getting nowhere to date. He's also started working with the page Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah and doing the same. I've tried asking him on his page as well regarding using both kinds of citation and leaving the arguments out of the intro at minimum. Maybe he thinks I am hostile; someone else want to give a crack at it? Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, Druze isn't really an area of expertise for me. It's primarily a topic of study for me. If this page has more or less been frozen for a month, it just doesn't seem acceptable. Protection is for short-term, isn't it? You don't protect a page forever from all edits, even by established users, just because there could be an edit war. You can't freeze the article indefinately just because of the personality of an editor or two. That's a fundamental breakdown of how this system is supposed to work. It would seem prudent if everyone edited leaving personal egos at the door, and approaching topics from a completely dispassionate academic viewpoint. And if they can't do that, it's a problem on an editor's end, not on an article's end. It's just not appropriate to edit with passions on Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why the Issue of Hakim is Important

For those inquiring about the issue that got this page locked (I actually asked for anon-prot at the time to force discussion and consensus), here it is in a nutshell:

The Druze self-identify as hardcore monotheists. It's their autonym: Muwahhidun "Unists". As Ismai'ilis, they follow a complex theory of how God reveals truth: in every age, prophets teach the exoteric (ending with Muhammad), assistants teach the esoteric, and finally there are teachers of the "esoteric of the esoteric" (a Druze term). The last person in this age was Hakim, who therefore is hulul "emanation". It does not identify him as God, although for centuries other Muslims have excoriated the Druze for being like Christians and believing that God was flesh.

However, this is equivalent to insisting that Christians are polytheists because they believe God is three beings. Christians are emphatic about their monotheism, and the Druze even more so. To characterise them against their own writings as polytheists is equally as offensive - and ironic, given that they don't think of Hakim like Christians do Christ.

Discussion of Hakim's alleged divinity must be written with a sensitivity to both the views of insiders (Druze authors and scholars) as well as those of outsiders. This is the crux of the issue at hand: GreenEcho, we must come to a compromise since there is no agreement, and that compromise is to write in both views. I know you really think you are right, but so do I (and, presumably H111) and there must be a compromise.

I would appreciate it as well if you could bother to reply to any of the concerns that have been raised since you keep acting out and not participating other than to revert and cause more conflict by expanding your opinions onto other pages as well as this one. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've witnessed and been through many an "I am right"—"no, I am right" discussion. Though people have strong personal convictions, the problem here is that when editing becomes a personal matter, objectivity is lost, and productivity often ceases over a very personal battle of academic egos. I'm keenly aware of how this can happen in debates over articles of religious topic, since one person's orthodoxy is another person's insult/blasphemy and vice versa. Instead (and I've used this analogy before), perhaps you should try editing as if you were an alien from another world who has no personal involvement in our world, culture or society, and is observing with complete impartiality. Then, there is no orthodoxy or blasphemy, just mere observation and documentation. If it's notable and organic to the topic, it goes in. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Unblock Denied, No Consensus

A request for unblocking made by me was declined despite the fact that GreenEcho and Hiram111 has been banned. I'm not sure where to go from here. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering I'm not remotely an expert in Druze studies, all I can think of at the moment is...think about this, rhetorically: What were their arguments? Did they have references to back up what they said? It may be somewhat difficult, but it might be possible to document the different positions based on what's already been discussed, despite the fact that the users who discussed the rebuttal have been banned. In addition to that, the article could be listed to request experts on the subject. Credible editors. When an editor unethically circumvents the Wikipedia processes through acts such as sock puppetry, it seems to me that they have forfeited their active involvement. Still, you must consider whether their arguments are notable and important to any major area of thought. If necessary, there could be an article or section like Criticism of Druze or something like that where these things can be neatly organized in argument and counterargument. Also, articles and sections like Druze and Islam, Druze and Christianity, Druze and Judaism, etc. may help shed light on individual contexts to address. Afterall, it's important to understand these things in their proper context—Druze belief, Druze attitudes of neighboring cultures towards Druze, Druze attitudes of cultures that neighbor them. An introduction to the beliefs that Druze keep for themselves should give voice to the believers, and a section devoted to criticisms should give the critics voice, and the rebuttals should give voice to the apologists. If you mix them all randomly (with "but", "although", "others criticize", etc.), you get a jumble that may be difficult to understand. And...that's all I can think of at the moment. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I included the edits of banned user User:GreenEcho (now, I believe [though not positive] called User:NAccount) in the parallel section on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah even after he was banned... I think we can safely assume that the same form can be used on this page. I have requested a combinatory format given that there is no consensus of scholars or of editors, and just because GreenEcho was banned for sockpuppetry doesn't mean I'm going to take advantage of the situation. I might have disagreed with his attitude but I agree his arguments should not be put aside. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 02:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm out of ideas. I mean, I voted, but I can't really think of anything else at this time. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

I would like to make a non-binding straw poll to help test whether there may be a consensus whether this article should be unprotected. Please sign in one section. Add comments in the Comments section. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

  1. Gilgamesh (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 02:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. ← George [talk] 06:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


Don't unprotect

  1. I find it very unfortunate that emilyzilch took advantage of my absence to make this move when there is clearly no consensus. GreenEcho aka En Ne talk 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Didn't Naahid include GreenEcho's material in his absence? Why object to unprotection if people can compromise? - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have not yet included his material in this article because it's locked down! However, I included it in the one on Caliph Al-Hakim bi Amr Allah. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 04:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, the point of this issue is to unblock the page. Just because it is unblocked doesn't mean we will be edit warring. At least something else can get dealt with: it's been over a month of lockdown. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 04:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Alright. Considering I'm not an expert on Druze (but would definitely like to see this article fixed), let us please work on consensus. As discussed, this probably involves Druze orthodoxy, criticism and rebuttal. This model of religion description has worked for many other religion articles. If necessary, multiple articles (Criticism of Druze, Druze and Islam, Druze and Shia Islam, Druze and Christianity, Druze and Judaism, etc.) could potentially be created to this end. It can be done, and it can work. Opposing viewpoints aren't going to go away, but that doesn't mean they cannot coexist harmoniously. Now let's discuss now. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also it turns out GreenEcho/Enforcing Neutrality were sock puppets of Klaksonn, who revels in causing trouble, which should make conversations easier.
In the article on al-Hakim, I wrote,

From 1012-1021 al-Ḥākim

became more tolerant toward the Jews and Christians and hostile toward the Sunnis. Ironically he developed a particularly hostile attitude with regard to the Muslim Shiites. It was during this period, in the year 1017, that the unique religion of the Druze began to develop as an independent religion based on the revelation (Kashf) of al-Ḥākim as God.[1]

While it is clear that Hamza ibn Ahmad was the Caliph's chief dāʿī, there are claims that al-Hakim believed in his own divinity.[2][3][4][5][6]

Other scholars disagree with this assertion of direct divinity, particularly the Druze themselves, noting that its proponent was ad-Darazi, who al-Ḥākim executed for shirk. Letters show that ad-Darazi was trying to gain control of the Muwahhidun movement and this claim was an attempt to gain support from the Caliph, who instead found it heretical.[7][8]

The Druze find this assertion offensive; they hold ad-Darazi as the first apostate of the sect and their beliefs regarding al-Ḥākim are complex. Following a typical Isma'ili pattern, they place a preeminent teacher at the innermost circle of divinely inspired persons. For the Druze, the exoteric is taught by the Prophet, the esoteric by his secret assistants, and the esoteric of the esoteric by Imām al-Ḥākim.

Confusion and slander by opponents of the Druze were generally left uncorrected as the teachings of the sect are secret and the Druze preferred taqiyya when independence was impossible.

I hope a similar tactic could be used on this page, citing both opinions. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 17:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a new (currently empty) Druze#Criticism section. Use it wisely. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, alright. It was just an idea. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Gilgamesh, the blocked editor didn't aim to criticize but added unbalanced and POV to the introduction, a criticism section about the Druze would be a mess since it will mainly constitute of Fanatical Fatwas, that are not appropriate to place here and they had been mentioned in the persecution section.
Since disruptive editor had been indefinitely blocked, I suggest that the introduction should be restored to the old version, since the controversial POVs can be explained more in the body so I’m NOT going to remove, that users edits, but I’m going to move them to the “early history” section where they could be disambiguated and explained, since I still believe that they sound “out of context” and ambiguous at the introduction and that some references had been misrepresented. For editors, who have no idea about the dispute, please check archive 2.« Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 09:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. You're right, I don't really know what it's all about. X3 Since I know so little about Druze, perhaps I should limit my involvement to ordinary copyediting like I originally planned. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S: By " editors who have no idea about the dispute" I meant to talk in general, rather than meaning a certain editor, and thanks for your proposals Gilgamesh, anyway I believe its not a bad Idea to have pages about druze and their relation with other sects, but balancing the article would be better concerning the disputed points and I think that Wikipedia's policy or guidelines about libelous or controversial statements, that it should be placed on the page concerning the side that adopted it, but in this case its mainly about ambiguous and historical issues and the usage of references in a suspicious way by the "blocked user" and placing those POV at the introduction as facts... so it was a tough issue to handle, anyway thanks for all the users who helped in solving the dispute. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 20:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

Hi, I unprotected the page. Please note that I am a new admin, and I have little experience in this type of thing, so it is not impossible that another admin may reverse my actions. Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds 05:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Druze and Judaism, Jewry and the State of Israel

I hope my questions don't seem naive or offensive. I'm neither Israeli, Lebanese, Jewish nor Druze, and I particularly don't know much about Druze, but I do tend to keep up with events in Israel and Lebanon that make international news. Anyway, I've observed that the Druze of Israel tend to be on the philo-Semitic side, and Israeli Druze and Israeli Jews seem to have plenty of esteem and respect for one another. The Druze of the Golan seem more reluctant, but considering the lasting state of war without diplomatic relations between Israel and Syria, it would seem that they risk losing ties on either side. And then there's the Druze of Lebanon...I've honestly heard the least about them except that they recently clashed with Hezbollah on Chouf around the same time Hezbollah invaded west Beirut. But I've also read some of the seemingly extreme anti-Semitic and anti-Western comments by community leader Walid Jumblatt, and I find myself puzzled. Is there any common and/or united Druze orthodoxy regarding Jews and Judaism? I read that Jethro's shrine in Tiberias is one of the most important and sacred sites among Druze, and that they seem to relate to Jethro as he accompanied Israel's Exodus and conquest of Canaan. The Druze of Israel seem to identify as a separate religious and ethnic group with strong ties to both Jews and the State, and yet this is contrasted with extremely opposite sentiments like those of Jumblatt. I don't know how common my curiosity is, but it's all very fascinating and interesting to study. Perhaps there can be more text addressing things like these? With accredited references of course. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, the short answer is just that the Druze in Israel have adjusted to their role as Israelis, which is easy since they live in relative isolation as a rule. I recall some Israeli leader referring to them as "domesticated animals". FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds like it might be rather offensive to Israeli Druze. I mean, I read that the Druze community leaders originally asked for compulsory IDF service, and that the Druze are highly respected in the IDF, and particularly that there have been more sacrifices proportionately by Druze than any other ethnoreligious group serving in the IDF. I also read that, among most Arab Israelis and other Israelis of Arab world origin, there isn't a great deal of warmth towards the State, and yet the allegiance of Israeli Druze to the State is regarded as practically total. I find these sharp contrasts worthy of further curiosity. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's an article about Druze-Jewish relations which appears to answer your questions, and also mentions the "domesticated beasts" statement which was apparently an analogy made by a Druze, which could maybe be incorporated into the article: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3495934,00.html FunkMonk (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hm, that is interesting. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems the Lebanon war plays a factor in this, no? I know that a lot of Israelis resent Ehud Olmert now. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • About the good relation between the Israeli Druze and the state, its mainly related to the pre-Israel condition of the Druze, living under the direct ottoman rule, unlike the Lebanese Druze who had some kind of autonomy in the Mountains of Lebanon, the Palestinian Druze where considered inferior by the rulers of Acre (who were appointed by the Ottomans).[4]
  • When the Jewish immigrants arrived to Palestine, clashes erupted between the Jewish and Arab gangs (Haganah and Abu Durrah), the Druze took a neutral stance and refused to attack the British troops, which led to an assault by the Arabs (Abu Durra gang) against their villages, and that led to the alliance between the Druze and the Jewish immigrants against the Arabs. Although many Palestinian Druze did fight with the Arabs but they were a minority and sympathy towards the Arabs decreased after Druze villages were attacked,[5] Also the Israeli's were capable of gaining the support of the Druze and the Sunni Bedouins.
  • About the relation of Druze in general concerning Judaism, the Druze are usually friendly towards outsiders that’s mainly because they don’t try preaching their religion and rarely convert and for that prior to the formation of Israel many Druze villages in Lebanon had Jewish minorities and Synagogues, but mainly the anti-Semitic sentiments are related to political affiliations like some of them support the anti-Semitic right winged nationalist party called the Syrian Social Nationalist Party its almost the only political party that had an anti-jewish slogan which is “there is no enemy that endangers our land and religion, other than the Jews”, while even Hizbollah tries to differentiate between Judaism and Zionism.
  • And this is an interesting article concerning Jethro and the Druze [6]
  • About Walid Jumblatt's "extreme anti-Semitic and anti-Western comments", even though the Wikipedia article about Walid Jumblatt is biased and is subjected to heavy vandalism by pro-Syrians, and the "controversial statements" section, is a synthesis of statements said during interviews, and many of them are taken out of context. I previously stated that on his talk page, I’ll probably work more on this issue.
  • But some of Walid Jumblatt’s statements, are related to the fact that politics in Lebanon is like walking in a mine field, specially during the Syrian occupation of Lebanon and after he demanded in 2000 that the Syrian army should withdrew to the Bekaa valley according to the Taif Agreement, the Baathist MP in Lebanon Asim Qanso, openly stated that Walid Jumblatt and his supporters are traitors and threatened him with assassination((he literally said "You have exceeded all limits," when he rose to address parliament. "The Israeli war is coming," said Qanso, warning him that "uncovered and covered [Israeli] agents . . . will not be protected from the rifles of the resistance fighters by any red lines or by seeking refuge in embassies," a remark interpreted in the Lebanese press as a veiled assassination threat. "We tell Walid Jumblatt that the Israeli war is at our door. Does he want to meet his ally [former Israeli prime minister] Shimon Peres?" [7]
  • Also, after the American invasion of Iraq, there was a lot of severe criticism of Walid Jumblatt in the Syrian press that accused him as working for a Druze state (after he met in Jordan with a Druze Israeli party that was against the Druzes serving in the IDF [8]), and mainly Walid’s statements were said to prove his Arabism to the Syrian regime and to try to work the political issues with the Syrians, but his attempts were unsuccessful after the failed assassination attempt against his MP Marwan Hamadi and the assassination of his ally Rafic Hariri, in which Syria is the primary suspect.
  • And I don’t think Jumblatt can be described as an Anti-Semitic, because his political party (Progressive Socialist Party) is a secular party that believes in a two state solution between the Palestinians and Israeli’s and his father suggested a Judeo-Arab state, but for sure the party is critical of the Israeli policy , but I don’t think it can be described as anti-Semitic.« Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Very very nuanced...I appreciate this. I think a special article may be warranted, though I'm not sure Druze and Judaism is an appropriate name anymore since I was thinking largely in religious terms. Perhaps Jewish-Druze relations, since much of the relations seem to have been forged by history. Heh, the Abu Durra action against a neutral party must have been painfully counterproductive in retrospect. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That’s a great idea Gilgamesh, I do have a good background concerning the topic and I will be contributing in this area, but it still needs some researching and I’m really busy these days, but I'll try to find time for Wikipedia.
Remember, this is a somewhat controversial topic, so everything should be sourced. There are many factions of Druze with different opinions about everything. And Gilgamesh, not sure how the Lebanon war affected Israeli/Druze relations, but some Druze were hurt by Hizballah rockets during it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, they certainly were. The north of Israel especially is heavily populated by non-Jewish Israeli citizens, and especially Mount Carmel which is high ground and vulnerable to rocket attack. Hezbollah targeted practically everyone. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you FunkMonk,that the issue is controversial,and that's why I suggested to create a page that talks about the relation between the Druze and other religions in general, rather than limiting it only to the Jews, like a single article for the relation with Christians, Sunnis, shiites, Jews...etc.I think that this will spare some stubs, and we can redirect other pages like Jewish-Druze relations to it.« Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 10:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • About the article FunkMonk posted, I think its related to the usage of extreme force by the Israeli Police against the Druze village of Pikiin, it was mainly related to the removal of a cellphone station that the villagers accused of causing a high rate of cancer among the population, and that created some tension and the Druze opposition in Israel(which is pro-Palestenian) like the Free Druze Movement (Maarofiyeen Al-Ahrar),used this incident to gain more support from the druze population and extend its efforts in discouraging the Druze from joining the IDF. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 10:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this isn't perceived as too spammy or anything, but...look what I just made. ^_^

This user supports peace, freedom, dignity and mutual respect for all in the Middle East.

Please carry on. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Heh, you forgot the mother of all terrorism, Saudi Arabia. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, those six countries are especially closely linked in the most volatile geopolitics, and benefit the most from peace and lose the most from conflict. Now, I already feel bad for getting this far off-topic, but I was just too satisfied with my new userbox. X3 I didn't post about this anywhere else, since I haven't been talking anywhere else really. I thought about the ever-fascinating Druze, and how they are divided between four countries with vastly different interests, and they especially have a lot to lose from regional conflict. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
you Rock Gilgamesh, I'll add this to my user page, and FunkMonk thats a POV and it should be balanced, its the mother of a "good percentage" of terrorists :D not all of them, yeh whatever. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. ^_^ That is, when you have a user page. It got deleted. o.o - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course it was a simplification, but this is a talk page, just tried to make a point. The Saudis have their hands in every conflict in the Middle East, and are many times a catalyst for them. FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about radical Wahhabis? - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
They're doing a heck of a lot more than just funding/spreading/being Wahhabis. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I meant that, sidestepping any extremely POV assertion that Wahhabis are necessarily radical, I meant those Wahhabis that most certainly are radical, such as those who support blatantly terrorist acts or the eradication of other human beings, be they Jews, Westerners, Baha'is, pagans, non-Sunni Muslims or Druze. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, Wahhabis/Salafis are radical per definition. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's probably true. XD It's just something I'd be reluctant to say without an accredited reference. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm actually "redesigning" and "experimenting" :D, after I finish from this phase, I'll create the pages you proposed and I'll probably place the "relation with other religions" in a single page, and I think such topic would be relevant to the Druze topic since Druzism is labeled as a Syncretic religion, and I found a couple of good references.
  • And now I know what you meant FunkMonk, and I was joking concerning the POV part ,but I usually joke like a geek, anyway thanks for your reply bro.« Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 08:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I might've been overly cautious with my reply, since you never know if the Saudis have employed Wikipedia editors to edit in favour of them, just like they do with journalists all over the Middle East. That was a joke too, by the way, Wikipedia sure needs some smilies to underline such... FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Unqualified Tabs

Please remove the Tab on Islam on this page.

As a scholar of the Druze and living as a member of this community, it is deeply troubling to see this tab appear on a page about the Druzes.

In many countries, Druzes are recognised as an independent religion, with their own system of courts that do not follow Sharia, and Druzes do not hold any real Islamic beliefs (e.g.: (1) reincarnation, (2) elevation of prophets like Jethro, (3) no special or overriding importance on Muslim sites or places of importance to that faith, (4) belief in luminaries like Plato, (5) lack of prayer facilities/practices (Druzes do not pray in Mosques because Druze philosophy is quite critical of religious symbolism, indeed, some posit that Druzes do not place an importance on prayer at all- which leads back to the quality of immanence - the belief that all people embody good, and by doing good to others, there is no need to "pray" in order to find communion with God).

Three core precepts of the Druze faith make it rather difficult to harmonise with Islam:

Prohibition of polygamy (in contradiction to Islamic systems of belief and practice)

Prohibition of slavery (the 'Jethro' fable, and again, leading back to the equality of men and women, and essentially, the unity of all humankind)

Absolute separation of Chruch and State (which invalidates the application of Sharia to civil affairs)

Moreover, Druzes have also endured persecution by Muslims over a considerable period of time. These are not confined to the events like the Lebanon Civil War, but during and following the genealogy of the faith itself, when Druzes were forced to conceal their faith becuae of their differences from Islam.

Please pay attention to historical sensitivities and remove the tab.

The article had been in the Category:Shi'a Islam, which is why I think the banner was there. I am removing the article from that category. John Carter 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Really I don't know how and why Druze consider them self as Muslim...if you read in their books you will find The truth that "Druze are not Muslim"...Dr.Red —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Red (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Monotheism

@Jayig: Not only are the Christians by self-labelling monotheistic, but also (to quote your nemesis):

Most Jews and Muslims see the Trinity as a sincere attempt to be monotheistic. Thus, most Jewish and Muslim critics of the Trinity don't claim that it is the worship of three separate Gods; rather, they say that Chrisitians attempt to worship one god, but at the same time acknowledge three distinct persons within that god. Given Mulim and Jewish definitions of these terms, the resulting Christian worship has the appearance (to Muslims and Jews) of cognitive dissonance. The way that Jewish law deals with this is by saying that such worship is legally considered monotheism, as long as gentiles are doing it; however, this type of worship is forbidden by Jewish law to Jews. (The law itself is an example of cognative dissonance, but the rabbis were well aware of this. They are trying to legally find a way to hold onto their beliefs, without condemning Christianity. For this issue, they were not looking for philosophical clarity.) I am not sure how Muslims or other strict unitarian monotheists formally deal with this issue. User:RK

Do you have specific evidence of the Druzes accusing the Christians for not beeing monotheistic. Otherwise I'm rather tempted to revert your last edit. --Pjacobi 17:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To begin with, my own edit was simply the reversion of an anonymous insertion. Next, RK's views of what "most Jews and Muslims" believe are inaccurate. Finally, what Trinitarians view as monotheism is not viewed by Muslims and Jews as monotheism; rather, Jews view it as "shituf", and Muslims view it as "shirk". Each word essentially means "association", and it is considered a sin for members of both faiths. The article itself says that Druze are monotheists "like Jews and Muslims"; the Trinitarianism of the vast majority of Christians, regardless of whether or not one views it as monotheism (and not even all Christians do), is quite different from the monotheism of Judaism and Islam. Furthermore, as the article points out, the Druze call themselves Ahl al-Tawheed (sons of the Unity). If you look at the Tawheed article you will note immediately that it relates to the Muslim (not Christian) concept of monotheism. Jayjg 18:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thinking again about this formulation, I can see that the sentence under inspection:

  • They are monotheists, like Jews and Muslims.

Can be read in two ways (at least for me, not being a native speaker of english):

  • (a) They are monotheists, in the same way as Jews and Muslims.
  • (b) They are monotheists. Other prominent monotheists are Jews and Muslims.

IMHO (a) is perfectly valid statement (despite some minor voices who explicitely claim that trinatarism is compatible with Druze beliefs). Only reading (b) has a problem, and all disputes about the possibile POV-ness of (b) should go into Monotheism, not into Druze.

So if anyone can propose a formulation which emphasizes the (a) reading in a stylistally acceptable way, all can agree, right?

Pjacobi 20:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

a) is fine with me. Jayjg 20:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above information should not be compared when you are defining a religion. You should stated facts only. Nizar

One suggestion -- the monotheism of Jews, Muslims, and a few Christians (classical Unitarianism, Oneness Pentecostals, etc.) can be called unitarian monotheism; that of most Christians, trinitarian monotheism. Thus the Druze, like Jews and Muslims, are unitarian monotheists. -- samuel katinsky


Newbie here - I'm confused by the paragraph on beliefs. It says that Druze consider themselves monotheists. Then (as of 2/9/07) the paragraph ends with the statement: "The Druze believe in reincarnation and are pantheistic." Pantheistic? who says? I don't know one way or another, but it contradicts what is said several sentences previously.

Please somebody clean up this inconsistency, it seems pretty fundamental. Either they are monotheistic or they are pantheistic, right? One or the other. - Signed Leila A., February 2007

Where is the contradiction? Pantheism ideas are prevalent in Monotheistic religions.--Doron 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Although there isn't any room in Pantheism to allows for multiple dieties, I think historically monotheism has been associated with a creating/destroying/miracle-working diety. Pantheists don't believe in that kind of diety. As soon as you start talking about profits recieving instructions from God, as if God had a voice, and it was seperate from the rest of the world, you're reaching the Pantheism city limits. It's hard to rectify. Is there a better word to describe them as pantheistic? Do they use words like "God" "Universe" and "Nature" or "Natural Law" interchangably? - JeffHart (newbie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.202.96 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

the Druze are not Muslim

there should not be a Muslim beliefs tab on the page, I removed it 67.183.93.122 04:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That is strange because I believe that the Druze claim they ARE Muslim. What makes you say they are not? Who decides? 85.65.48.126 19:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Druze do not consider themselves Muslim. However, in some countries they claim to be. They are also not Arabs(as are the Jews), but often claim to be(mainly in Syria and Lebanon). Both of these effects are based on a custom Druze adopted from the Shi'a, called Taqiyya, which crudely means one may(and should) claim to be something he's not in order to protect himself. For instance, when dealing with the Alawite in Syria one would "I'm Muslim, and sure the Alawite are", although besides the Alawite "Muslims" themselves no one considers them as such...
Point is, Druze are not Arabic and aren't Muslim, though they claim to be such sometimes because of a religious custom, and plain and simple good sense. conio.h • talk 13:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok we know Druze are not Muslim, otherwise they wouldnt be Druze. But why do you insist they are not arab? We can go on and say that anyone who is not from the arabian peninsula isnt really arab, but the fact is that anyone who speaks arabic and forms part of the arab culture extending from the persian gulf to the atlantic is arab. Druze religious texts are in arabic, and they all speak arabic - doesn't that make them arab? (23:29, 6 January 2006 Cbet202)

They aren't Arabs for the same reason they're not Muslim - they're just NOT. If you do it your way the Jews are also Arabs(many of them speak Arabic, and as we go further back in time Hebrew becomes more and more similar to Arabic), Jews live in the same area(believe it or not - but Israel is located between Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria - all of them Arabaic countries). Culture is similiar too.
The simple facts are:
  • Some Druze claim to be Muslim. Others claim the opposite.
  • We accept the fact they aren't Muslim, and base it on a religious custom.
  • Some Druze claim to be Arabs, other claim the opposite.
  • The same explanation from above fits this case PERFECTLY, but for some mysterious reason you deny it in this case.
Also, don't forget that with your "rules" you could say that the Turks are Arabs (they're mongols in origin), but for decades they use "latin-Arabic", instead of the traditional Arabic script.
Druze are Semites(that's the region you mentioned), not Arabs. conio.h • talk 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Arabs are Semites.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.208.181 (talk • contribs) . People are what they say they are. The article should simply say that while they call themselves muslim for convenience at times, they neither consider themselves muslim or arabs. Sam Spade 12:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we know they only call themselves Muslim for convenience? They are often quite insistent on the point. Palmiro | Talk 14:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the OCRT page that I just added to the references, it was often a matter of safety as well. Naturally enough, they will be insistent on their claims if they think they are important to their safety. A muslim friend of mine confirms that the Druse (there are some in Brazil) are not Muslim, but are somewhat relieved to be mistaken as such. Luis Dantas 14:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no definitive test for who is Muslim. A large part of being Muslim is identifying oneself as Muslim. The other large part is how others identify you. Other indicators are belief and custom similarities and the history of religion. It may be that some Druze really believe Druze are Muslim and others believe otherwise. There is no way to know. So it is dubious to just say that someone is not Muslim but says he is. And to say "they're just not" is silly. If the indicators disagree, say so and leave it at that, and maybe cite an authoritative source. Otherwise you are not being neutral. The explanation of why it may be that the indicators disagree (Druze's attempt to protect themselves) is important, but does not make the Druze non-Muslim (or Muslim). An encyclopedia should stay out of the controversy and state what is said about the topic. It is similar for the Arab question. Pgan002 06:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Let's write something like "Druze in A claim to be Arabs while Druze at B claim not to; Druze at X claim to be Muslim, while Druze at Y claim the opposite.". I know that most of Islamic sects don't recognize the Druze being Muslim, but I'm not sure what's the Arab view(and we'll disregard the obvious "Who's an Arab?" question that pops up) on the subject(wether the Druze are Arabs or not). conio.h • talk 19:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, they are recognised as Muslims by al-Azhar and by the Sunni religious authorities in both Syria and Lebanon. That would suggest that mainstream Islamic authorities do consider them Muslim, officially at least. Palmiro | Talk 21:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard about it. You think you could provide with a citation or something? I tried to search their site - their internal search doesn't work(Viva la IIS), and google doesn't find anything. a google search on Druze found this. I'm not sure how reliable is this site, but it also says that most Muslims don't consider the Druze to be such... conio.h • talk 13:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure I can, but not in the immediate future - I'm not sure that I have any relevant books at my disposal at the moment. Palmiro | Talk 13:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
For starters, this article remarks that "A joint Christian-Muslim dialogue group exists in the Lebanon. An interesting feature of this body is that, on the Christian side, it includes representatives of the different Churches, and on the Muslim side representatives of the Sunni, Shi‘a and Druze communities. The Middle East Council of Churches has also been instrumental in setting up a Christian-Muslim dialogue group covering the whole of the Middle East". The French Wikipedia article on the Druze refers to the Azhar recognising them as Muslims, but provides no source. Palmiro | Talk 13:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether any given Druze person identifies (or not) as Muslim or Arab depends in part on the political conditions of the country they find themselves in. I've known Druze who deny they are Muslim, yet tell me that when in Saudi Arabia, for example, they say that they are, because to deny it could cause trouble. Druze in Israel deny they are Arab, for what should be obvious reasons. Like ANY label, whether it applies or not is based on political motivations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.208.181 (talk • contribs) .

I've a seen a documentary on Al Jazeera last year, the Druze leaders in Lebanon calling themselves as Muslims.. they even taught Muqaddam (Last Chapter of the Koran) to the kids. Furthermore Druze, is not the only Sect within Islam that believe in reincarnation.

For me whosoever says they are muslims (regardless of their beliefs or practices), I'll consider them as Muslims

This is ridicuous, "Druze are not Arabs because they're just not"? I suggest you go read the definition of Arab.

Druze are a Muslim sect, just like Christianity is a Jewish sect, so defining it as one might be a bit iffy. 

    Christianity started as a jewish sect 200o years ago.  When the Roman Empire split, and the Eastern Orthodox split from the Roman Cahtolics, you can say that they are "Christian sects"  So Druze are a muslim sect?  I'll buy that.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.202.96 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Alawites are as different from Muslims as Druze, yet they're still considered a Muslim sect. Funkynusayri 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I'll ditto on the ridiculousness of above arguments of the "Arabic-ism" of the Druze. Anyone who equates being Muslim with being Arab and then claims that Druze aren't Arab because they aren't Muslim obviously needs to do a bit of basic research and realize that the majority of Muslims live OUTSIDE of the Middle East and are not Arab (i.e., Indonesia, Malaysia, India, etc.). Religious persuasions and ethnicity are not an absolute correlation. In fact, by the strict definition of being an "Arab," one must originate from the Arabian Peninsula; however, the definition has been stretched to encompass all those living in what we call the Middle East. This applies to the argument about Jews not being Arabs: 'Jewish' is a RELIGIOUS definition, not an ethnic one. ISRAELIS, on the other hand, are a different subject. The residents of the current state of Israel, formerly known as Palestine, are a medley of both the Palestinian Arabs that have been living there for centuries, Christians, original Jewish inhabitants, and the descendants of the influx of EUROPEAN Jewish immigrants during the early decades of the 20th century in response to the rise of Antisemitism and Nazism in Europe and the promises from the British government for a Jewish homeland as documented by the Balfour Declaration of 1917. But that's getting away from the point, which is Druze born and living in the Middle East can certainly be called Arab, as many of them do call themselves.

"officially classified as muslims"

what does this even mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.46.177 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

well Because some Sunni and Shiite Shiekhs label the Druze and other sects (like Ismailis, Alawites, some Sufis) as non-muslims like the Wahabis and the Hanbali school does. But according to governments and the Azhar mosque they are... so I dont think we can dismiss the fact that some Islamic sheikhs dont consider druze as muslims but officially and according to governments and official authorities they are considered so.Hiram111 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Darazi the Heretic

Please do not add unsourced edits. The Druze emphatically reject the heresy of ad-Darazi, "the first heretic", who was executed by Hakim with the support of the early Druze community for claiming Hakim was divine. em zilch (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I added sources that show otherwise. 77.42.178.249 (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with emily and I'll add a section in the beliefs part about the subject. About the references you supplied, well I can reference the info concerning other islamic groups concerning divinity but that doesn't make it true or encyclopedic material... and you added the info to the intro in an unorganized way and it seemed out of context Hiram111 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't remove sourced material. And what I added in the introduction is not out of context but I'm sure you are aware of that because you reverted all my other addition that seem to trouble you. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

prohibited the popular dish Mulukhiyya

The Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, an eccentric who prohibited the popular dish Mulukhiyya and grape eating, is the central figure in the Druze faith, as he is considered by the Druze to be the reincarnation and manifestation of God[7][8][9][10][11]. He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation.

well some "Mulukhiyya" enthusiasts are "from my point of view" sabotaging the druze page and yes its referenced but not introduction material second I clarified the Hakim part in the beliefs section... So I hope no offense is taken but for the anonymous user you can put your point of view but at least don't delete the other... best regards Hiram111 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is introduction material. And please don't lie about clarifying the Hakim part in the belief system. You removed sourced passages that reflect the core beliefs of these people and replaced them with Neglecting this warning, individual seekers, scholars, and other spectators have considered al-Hakim and other figures divine in the end of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.113.124 (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your cited material needs to be discussed. Modern Druze specialists and the Druze themselves - Samy Swayd, for example, CITED IN THE TEXT, state clearly that Darazi was a heretic and that Hakim, while an Imam, was most emphatically not "God"; that is shirk in Druze eyes, as they are hardcore Unists. One of your sources is a travel guide and doesn't even say what you claim it does (listing two uncited myths about a great fire), another is an Orientalist work published in 1936 whose contents are strongly opposed to what you are claiming. Finally, you changed Hakim's disappearance - which all sources agree is a mystery but likely he was assassinated - to stated fact that he was "killed by his servants".
You come in thumping your gavel and throwing your weight around on this page and think no one will disagree? Discuss and come to consensus is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. em zilch (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't attempt to misrepresent what's written in the sources. Nissim Dana says: The religion is termed a monotheistic religion, its believers are called "those who proclaim oneness", and the last embodiment of the divine spirit was in al-Hakim. Then he says Hamza ibn Ali, one of the propagandists involved in propagating the belief that al-Hakim was a divine manifestation, claimed that al-Hakim disappeared.... Mordechai Nisan says al-Hakim became the God of he Druze religion. Zeidan Atashi says He is accordingly considered by the Druze to have been a reincarnation of God. John Esposito says The Druze call themselves the Unitarians, followers of al-Hakim who embodied and revealed the one true God. Think twice before vandalizing the page and removing sources to impose your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.113.124 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. or Mrs. 63.216.113.124 let me explain something, not every “referenced” or “cited” information gets to be placed on the page .
  • For example I have an absurd book about the history of Islam in which the writer translates the first sentence said in the Islamic prayer which is “Allah W Akbar” (Allah is Great) laterally from Arabic which makes it (Allah and Akbar) and this “renowned” scholar goes to explain in a whole chapter that ‘’Akbar’’ was a pagan God and that the Prophet told the Muslims to worship Allah but to revere Akbar…. Because Arabs refused to stop worshiping the “Akbar”.
  • So, If a wikipedian referenced such book, his/her edits would be reverted because they contradict with the Islamic theology and are absurd ... so even though such info can be referenced by a couple of sources It doesn’t mean that someone has the right to create a page titled “Akbar” or placing the info on the page concerning Islamic History or Islam and saying that Muslims revere him as the second Deity who is the second after Allah in the Islamic “pantheon” ,even though several references (published books and articles) can be found to reference such absurd info.
  • And about the “lying part” well that was Dr. Sami Swayd , and why would I care to tell lies to an “IP address” or any user on a Wikipedia page concerning such topic.
  • Second, if the Druze believed in the concept of “Incarnation” of God and NOT reincarnation as you are writing (since yes they Do believe in reincarnation). I don’t think they would be embarrassed to state that…specially Dr. Sami Makarem or Dr. Samy Swayd.
  • The Incarnation of God is not a weird idea or something to be embarrassed of, the biggest religion in the world (Christianity) believes in Incarnation, with several other large religious groups so why are you making such a big deal of the issue… and why, if the Druze believe in this concept, we are reverting your edits????
  • Anyway I’ve been working hard to expand the page for a couple of weeks now, that I actually added several sections to the beliefs part because I’m assuming “good will” when it comes to your edits.
  • I hope you will be more constructive and to stop vandalizing the page or at least discuss the points before editing ….Hiram111 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to Resolve Conflicts

Okay, let's try to fix this issue now. If others might then weigh in on this issue we could come to a speedy conclusion.

Issue: IP man claims I and others are removing cited sources. My response: citations are inappropriate, out of date, and frankly do not say what he claims they do. For example, a citation given on for burning of the city by Hakim is actually from an uncited travel guide to Egypt, and not only that it lists two separate stories about what happened to cause a great fire, one of which is that Hakim caused it. This is not what was written on Wikipedia: it is misrepresented material from an inappropriate source and therefore should not stay on this page. A second example is that the posted material by IP man originally stated "Hakim was murdered by his servants"; this isn't what the cited source says, nor does any source of which I am aware claim to know what happened to Hakim. He disappeared; it is likely he was assassinated, but no one knows. The current version has added "the Druze believe he went into occultation", which is better but still claims he was killed. We simply don't know what happened, and the page should say that.

A lot of weight is being put on works by orientalists when citations are available by the Druze themselves. Statements that "Hakim is God" directly contradict works by Druze authors discussing their faith and previously existing on this page. Like all other Shi'a groups, the Druze believe in the Imamate, and in the case of the Druze, their Imam (like that of many other Shi'a groups) went into Occultation. Citations are all over the Druze article stating this.

Another note: a sect is a subgrouping of a religion. You can't have a non-Muslim sect of Islam; either they are a separate religion or they are a sect of (Shi'a) Islam. The Druze claim the latter and do not contradict any basic Muslim teachings; they are merely heavy on the gnostic side of Ismaili practices.

I notice the Druze get a lot of flack because many have chosen to become Israeli citizens and fight for Israel; this is not true of all Druze, many of which live elsewhere, including Palestine, but it ends up that people slam Druze as mushrikuun and "influenced by pagan", as "apostates", and the Druze historically did not bother to address these issues. The use of the word "Druze" is a perfect example: it was a slander that they were students of Darazi, who did declare Hakim divine, but he was executed by Hakim with the full support of the early Unist community.

So: any comments on how to resolve this issue? em zilch (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No one has commentary? em zilch (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Other than the strong points you presented Emily…
  • I think the main problem is that the information inserted into the introduction (by the IP) contradicts with the whole article which makes it unsuitable for an introduction or the early History section.
  • I’m new to the "resolving conflicts" Business but if all “point of views should be presented”.

As a compromise the “IP User” currently User:GreenEcho can create a section to give the view of Islamists and Orientalists and there is a lot of Islamist references he can use to say his point of view while creating a separate section rather than messing up the whole article with inserted text. So let him say why some Muslim scholars don’t consider the Druze Muslims such as the fatwa of Ibn Taymiya ,he can also include Sunni, twelver Shiite or Orientalist references.

  • and for Anti-Druze websites and references he can use (www.allaahuakbar.net/druze/index.htm).
  • The only point that does have “sources” is the accusation that the Druze consider Al-Hakim divine It was first presented by the orientalist Sylvester de Sacy in 1838 ( he also stated that they attribute divinity to al-Qa'im , al-Mansur , al-Moiz , and al-Aziz ) and it was referenced in tens of Druze related books. And also many Muslims accuse many Shiite sects of attributing divinity to their Imams. So the article (before his edit) referenced mostly Druze and modern scholars so let him present his sources in the section explaining why the Druze aren’t considered Muslims, by many Sunnis, twelvers and Orientalists.Hiram111 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Emilyzilch, you say that the citations are inappropriate, out of date, and frankly do not say what he claims they do. Well, it isn't up to you to decide whether or not books by John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and Nissim Dana should be considered reliable on Wikipedia, and it is clear when I copied the citations on this talk page that they the books say exactly what I claim they do. As for the weight being put on works by orientalists when citations are available by the Druze themselves, I think these scholars are competent and established enough to be quoted and used as references on the issue, and the Druze, of whose history taqiyya is an essential part and who are most likely to be secretive and misleading concerning own belief system, are not as authoritative on the issue as the scholars I quoted. This is to say that if Mordechai Nisan and John Esposito, as well as hundreds of other scholars of Islam and the Middle East, consider al-Hakim to be the God of the Druze faith, we cannot use the works of Druze authors, whose beliefs and scriptures are known by a select number of hermits and are hidden from the overwhelming majority of its adepts, as an excuse to remove citations and claim otherwise. As for the Druze considering themselves as Muslims, Nissim Dana in his book The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status states on page 17, "the Druze do not see themselves as Muslims, despite the fact that most of the Druze believers are apparently of Muslim origin [...]. Thus there are those who suggest that they be considered as Muslims though it is clear that this view is cultivated by people of certain political inclinations, but for which there is no genuine religious substance." So when I say in the introduction that some Druze consider themselves as Muslims, I'm being flexible.

To Hiram111, I shouldn't bother replying. Most of your edits have been disruptive, and you make a very weak case. But I will reply in a few words. The scholars of Islam and of the region, as opposed to the Druze who are most likely to 'misrepresent' what they believe in, are those who must be referred to and cited on this subject. Maybe you should read WP:RS before equating books by scholars with anti-Druze websites. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider al-Hakim to be a divine figure in the Druze religion and consider the Druze to be non-Muslims. So assume good faith, and don't disrupt Wikipedia by removing reliable sources and pushing your point of view. GreenEcho (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Reliable sources are God, so anything controversial without proper sources should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with FunkMonk that reliable sources are God, as an example to the other user... flooding Islam related pages with Daniel Pipes references and Citations can be considered pretty much adequate and reliable or referencing the late Theo van Gogh at the introduction of the Islam page.And all the critics of Islam say that muslims practice Taqiyya and are misleading when it comes to their own understanding of their religion So what about banning "Muslim Scholars references" when it comes to Islam.And I have the largest collection of conspiracy theories related to religions, so why don't i impose my references by placing them as introductions but anyway It seems User:GreenEcho misunderstood my point I presented above and it seems he partially read the WP:RS.

User:GreenEcho "I have no personal problem with you" and maybe you got on my nerves with your attitude, So I was aggressive in my reply, but let us put this aside and let us be more mature.

What I was proposing is to place the information you added to a new section created by you about anti-Druze or "references which disagree with the article", Its actually a good compromise so that we can solve the dispute... and I gave you an additional references the "URL" so that the section would be richer than just saying the Druze are pagans so If you want I will create the section for you but my only problem with you is that you started inserting text without caring about the content of the page Hiram111 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have to place the information I added in an anti-Druze section because it is not anti-Druze, they couldn't care less about the Druze to be anti-Druze. It is referenced information by leading scholars about what the Druze believe in, because the Druze themselves tend to 'mislead' us concerning their beliefs and scriptures. Almost none of your edits are well referenced, so it is your edits that conflict with what the article should contain. And think a little before comparing these scholars with Daniel Pipes. Nissim Dana and Mordechai Nisan are Israeli scholars who actually sympathize with the Druze and John Esposito is the main authority on Ismailism and the Druze, but I don't have to explain any of my edits to you. Let it go and stop disrupting. Until you get references from leading scholars that state the contrary of what I added, the facts I added will stay and the rest of the article with be fixed so as to match what the overwhelming majority of scholars say about the Druze. GreenEcho (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Im not saying Nissim Dana and Mordechai Nisan are Anti-Druze I'm saying you have an Anti-Druze attitude when Dr. Samy Swayd the Professor in Religious Studies and the Director of the Institute of Druze Studies at the San Diego State University writes something you are not the right authority to have a saying if he should or shouldn't be cited and you are not qualified to force your views and you are not the one to say if the most renowned Professor Sami Makarem should be cited or not or if any scholar is eligible to be trusted by you.
  • Wikipedia is not a forum I have my radical views about a lot of religious groups and I do consider them evil,pagans, satanic or crazy and the same for many religious personalities (and I do have a lot of citations and references to support my claims ) but as "you" or any other wikipedian, I don't have the right to do this.
  • you said :but I don't have to explain any of my edits to you Mr. GreenEcho let us respect each other and when you own the wikipedia site then you can say this to me. Hiram111 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Answering the controversial edits

User:GreenEcho formerly IP Address 63.216.113.124 and 77.42.178.249 actually created an account because he considered the Wikipedia Admins as being Biased against IP addresses for not Block me and other users for disagreeing with his latest edits concerning the Druze page. He reported me two times and flooded my talk page with vandalism warnings for removing cited and referenced information after a couple of days of this dispute and him requesting to protect the page from us “vandals” I chose to check his references, to find out that that the content of these books contradict with his edits.

So, I chose to use his own references to answer the controversial edits he added claiming they were taken and cited from these three books:

  1. Nissim Dana, The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status
  2. Mordechai Nisan, Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-expression
  3. M. Th. Houtsma, E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936

Since quoting the whole paragraphs will make this post really extensive, I will place a link to the book’s page for convenience, and I will be waiting for his reply.

  • He wrote that the Druze were influenced by pagan philosophy

Answer: Mordechai Nisan page96 the Druze adherents practice radical Unitarianism (Tawhid).

And there is no reference or scholar who ever claimed such a thing.

  • The Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah is the central figure in the Druze faith, as he is considered by the Druze to be the reincarnation and manifestation of God

Answer : Mordechai Nisan book contradicts with his edits and are compatible with the Old version… in page 95 the author says that "After talking about (Shiite extremists who deified their Imams he then states that: “The Druzes according to --one version-- did the same with Hakim(considered him divine) Alternatively they may argue that he was an image of God... page 95(first paragraph) while the User presented the information as the only version. And I will clarify this in the last part.

  • He wrote that Al-Hakim was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintains that he disappeared and went into occultation.

Answer: the disappearance of Al-Hakim its addressed by Nissim Dana at page 3of the book and its clear that the user’s edit was fabricated while pasting references for credibility. Since Nassim Dana makes it crystal clear that his disappearance wasn’t solved and that many theories exist while stating many but nothing about servants. Including the users other references.

  • He wrote: Most scholars label the Druze as a non-Muslim sect, even though some Druze identify themselves as Muslims.

Answer: Nissim Dana’s book is compatible with the other version which he changed in the introduction , that stated that the Druze are officially classified as Muslims (the Azhar Fatwa and governments) while some Islamic scholars labeled them as non-Muslims. page 40 page 39

  • He wrote :According to Mordechai Nisan, al-Hakim, who opposed the Ramadan fast and prohibited the hajj to Mecca, is the God of the Druze religion.

Answer: Mordechai Nisan mentioned this in his book as a sequence of historical events related to each other while such claims are not credible because of the Abbasid propagandists during that time and even if it was it’s inserted by the user to be misleading.

  • He wrote: The Druze faith began as a movement that deified Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, considering him a manifestation of God. They still await his second coming

Answer: Also the (M. Th. Houtsma, E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936) page 921 confirms the Talk Page section titled Darazi the Heretic in which the user refused to listen to User EmilyZilch when she told him that Darazi was a heretic and that he preached that Al-Hakim was the reincarnation of God and was killed for it ((this reference that he actually provided claims that Al-Hakim and Hamza ordered his assassination because of his heresy.))

  • He wrote :In 1020, the news that al-Hakim was about to proclaim that he was a manifestation of God provoked serious riots to which he responded by sending his Sudanese troops to burn down the city where they clashed not only with the civilians, but also the Turkish and Berber soldiers

Answer: It had been addressed by an another user in which “its from an uncited travel guide to Egypt, and lists two separate stories about what happened to cause the great fire, one of which is that Hakim caused it”

  • But still the main dispute is about the (the Incarnation or reincarnation of God) in Al-Hakim and even though I already clarified it above and in the Article with a section titled “God in the Druze Faith” that cited Dr. Phillip Hittie, Dr. Sami Makarem and Dr. Samy Swayd but still the user replied with :

The Druze, of whose history taqiyya is an essential part and who are most likely to be secretive and misleading concerning own belief system, are not as authoritative on the issue as the scholars I quoted. And he refused to engage in any compromise to remove the information from the introduction and early History But stated that “the facts he added will stay and the rest of the article with be fixed so as to match what the overwhelming majority of scholars say about the Druze”

So the main problem is that the Druze believe in theophony(tajalli) (which totally contradicts with the concept of incarnation or reincarnation of God which is in Arabic called (Hullul) while the User insists to say they believe that God incarnated in Al-Hakim. And stated that “the facts he added will stay and the rest of the article with be fixed so as to match what the overwhelming majority of scholars say about the Druze”

Such two concepts are explained in an article about the Bahai’s that discusses this topic and is titled The Concept of Manifestation in the Bahai Writings by Juan R.I. Cole Department of History (University of Michigan) this article references the first Orientalist (Sylvester de Sacy ) concerning the Druze faith :

About the concept of Hulul(incarnation) for Users who don’t understand Arabic:

Baha'allah preached the doctrine of "General Revelation," which teaches that God is revealed in his creation by virtue of his effulgence (tajalli) therein.

Baha'allah further denies the possibility that God could become incarnate (hulul) and that the worlds of God could descend into the grades of the creatures.

And then the Article Discusses the Druze ideology of Tajali similar to that of the Bahaiis:

The Druze movement in Egypt, which centered on the Fatimid ruler al-Hakim (r. 996-1021), was very much influenced by Neoplatonism and used the term "manifestation of God" as a technical term in its prophetology.[56] The concept of manifestation was also used by the Persian Isma'ilis of Alamut in the twelfth century.[57]

Another heterodox Imami figure, Fadlu'll�h Astarabadi al-Hurufi (1340-1394 AD) wrote in one of his poems. "The countenance of Adam is the manifestation of the essence of God / This true statement is the religion of the prophets."[61] However, like the Druze and the Isma'ilis of Alamut, al-Hurufi speaks in an unqualified fashion of the manifestation of the very essence of the Deity, an approach to theophany which implies that God could become immanent. Most Muslims, and even most Shi'is, rejected this approach as heretical.

*And the Users references do confirm that for the Druze Al-Hakim was NOT considered as God but as a manifestation of the Divine through theophany and uses the same terminology used in the God in the Druze faith section :

Nissim Dana states that the Druze believe that God revealed himself several times before the eleven century page 3

The Belief in the revelation of God (kashf) in the form of a human being is considered the most important….

second paragraph... (Al-Lahut bi Surat Al Nasut) (the Divine as the image of the material)

page 15

So for that stating that the Druze believe that God is Al-Hakim comes from , ignorance when it come to the difference between the concept of Tajalli(theophany) and Hullul(Incarnation)Hiram111 (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiram111, you have replied as I have earlier in this conversation, by showing up how the sources do not say what Green claims they do even further. I would also note again that - as I have cited and already exists in the article with citation - the notion of an incarnate divinity is abhorrent to Islam in general and to the Druze themselves, that they identify themselves as true monotheist Muslims, and their Imaam was occulted. Here again the misleading notion of taqiyya appears as a claim that "Muslims can just lie"... in fact, the Druze secrecy of teachings is not taqiyya, it is common to faiths around the world, and taqiyya is a permissible lie used to avoid being persecuted and murdered. It is not simply a free card to lie (as extremist anti-Muslims claim). Druze publications on their faith fall neither under the rubric of the secrecy of advanced teachings nor under the permissibility of taqiyya... to discount their very own words on their faith is ridiculous and insulting. em zilch (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to Edit the Page

{{editprotected}} The page was protected because of the controversial edits by ip address 63.216.113.124 and 77.42.187.118 currently User:GreenEcho almost 2 weeks ago. Numerous discussions happened between many editors and this user, but he refused to compromise claiming that they are well referenced and cited.

The Discussions between us and him were:

In the last discussion titled “answering the controversial Edits” I used his own references to prove that his edits were not taken from the references he supplied and that he twisted some of the information found in these books. After, a period of three days in which he was pretty much active on Wikipedia. He didn’t answer my last post about what his own references actually says.

So I hope that the controversial edits would be reverted to the emilyZilch edit. Since not answering my last post implies consensus and if he is not consent then the Administrators should take a decision concerning the subject since his edits are libelous and erroneous and shouldn’t be featured on the current version. Hiram111 (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

☒N Not done. Consensus for the requested edit must be apparent before making an {{editprotected}} request.  Sandstein  22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Can we please vote on some kind of consensus for this page? It needs to be resolved. em zilch (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources are clear on the issue. The sources and the opinion of scholars precedes yours and that of Hiram111. GreenEcho (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus regarding what? ← George [talk] 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
About whether GreenEcho's edits should be reverted or not I said why it should be in the Answering the controversial Edits section while other points had been presented by me and other users, on several talk sections but still GreenEcho refuses to answer our remarks. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 23:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
GreenEcho, you misrepresent the sources: there are more writers than just Esposito and Nissan. They are scholars, but they are certainly not the only ones. You argue... what, exactly? Druze scholar Samy Swayd's work The Druzes: An Annotated Bibliography cannot be trusted because he's a Druze and lying about his faith when he says (with primary and secondary sourcing) that Darazi's teachings about al-Hakim as divine lead to his execution, that he is called "the first apostate" and "greatest heretic" (p.4) because this belief violates the fundamental principle of Islamic monotheism? Swayd also notes that the Hakim "is regarded within the Druze manuscripts as the founding father of Druzism and the source of its strict unism" (19) and that he was understood as Imaam and Khaliifah to the Ismaili community. See also Attempt to Resolve Conflicts above... em zilch (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Quickly looking over earlier discussion, it looks like there a large number of differences of opinion on this article. Can you guys pick out one statement to start with, the one you feel is the most agregious I guess, and discuss that? I don't initially have any opinions on a lot of these issues, so if you guys can discuss a single statement at a time, I think it will make things much easier for myself (and other editors) to understand. When we resolve the first issue (and hopefully achieve some consensus), we can move on to the next statement, and the next, etc. ← George [talk] 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The most crucial issue is the alleged deification of Hakim. These issues have been discussed above... cf. Swayd's notes. Also about Hakim are as I wrote above: Issue: IP man (now GG) claims I and others are removing cited sources. My response: citations are inappropriate, out of date, and frankly do not say what he claims they do. For example, a citation given on for burning of the city by Hakim is actually from an uncited travel guide to Egypt, and not only that it lists two separate stories about what happened to cause a great fire, one of which is that Hakim caused it. This is not what was written on Wikipedia: it is misrepresented material from an inappropriate source and therefore should not stay on this page. A second example is that the posted material by IP man originally stated "Hakim was murdered by his servants"; this isn't what the cited source says, nor does any source of which I am aware claim to know what happened to Hakim. He disappeared; it is likely he was assassinated, but no one knows. The current version has added "the Druze believe he went into occultation", which is better but still claims he was killed. We simply don't know what happened, and the page should say that.

The issue therefore seems heavily to be strong bias against Hakim. I have no positive opinion on Hakim - I think he was a loon, actually - but the Druze openly state they do not deify Hakim and the cites he gives don't say what he claims they do. em zilch (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To start with, I'd like to discuss the statement: The Druze faith began as a movement that deified Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, considering him a manifestation of God. First, is this a disputed statement? Second, it lacks an inline ctiation in the current version, so if GreenEcho (or anyone else) can provide a source that specifically states this, it would be much appreciated. If others would like to provide counter-sources that state that he is not deified by the Druze, that would be helpful too. Remember, go for quality sources, not quantities, and explicitly quote a statement from your source that supports your claim. ← George [talk] 01:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, George, Nissim Dana, in his book The Druze in the Middle East on page 3 describes al-Hakim as "the central figure in the Druze faith". He says: "According to Druze belief, God revealed himself several times before the eleventh century, when al-Hakim lived. The religion is termed "a monotheistic religion", its believers are called "those who proclaim oneness", and the last embodiment of the divine spirit was in al-Hakim." Then he says: "Hamza ibn Ali, one of the propagandists involved in propagating the belief that al-Hakim was a divine manifestation, claimed that al-Hakim disappeared from human sight as a sign of protest and to put believers to the test.".
Mordechai Nisan in his book Minorities in the Middle East writes on page 95: "The abrogation of the shari'a opened the floodgates to articulating a new religion which al-Hakim was personifying in a wild idiosyncratic fashion. At root was the idea that God had appeared in a physical form in this last human manifestation of divinity. Referred to as without parents of children, without proof of his death or murder, al-Hakim became the God of the Druze religion."
Phillip Hitti in his book The Origins of the Druze people and religion writes on pages 44-45: "The guiding thought of Druze theogony, as it was with the Isma'iliyyah, is the belief in a succession of divine manifestations through a progressive series. Hence with the Druzes, al-Hakim is not only the incarnation of God but the final and most perfect manifestation."
John Esposito in Islam, the Straight Path writes on page 47: "The Druze call themselves the Unitarians, followers of al-Hakim who embodied and revealed the one true God."
I think the sources are clear enough on this matter, and I don't want to waste anymore of my time making it more clear. GreenEcho (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
These sources look pretty good to me. Based on them, I would rewrite the sentence as: The origins of the Druze faith are vague, but its central personage is Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, whom the Druze view as having the last embodiment of divinity in him. These sources have a very specific, odd wording that I think we should follow - that is, they say the last emobdiment (implying there are multiple) of divinity was in him (not him, but in him). What are thoughts on my suggested wording? Or what other versions can editors come up with, and what other sources? Or are there reasons to discredit any of these sources? ← George [talk] 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The wording is perfect as it is, and I think the sources make it clear. GreenEcho (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hakim is not God. The wording "divinity is in him" is acceptable (although their origins are actually well understood), as it accords with the sources and the idea as delineated by the Druze. It is clear from the sources that those who proclaimed his specific divinity - "Hakim is God" - were executed and expelled from the community. Maybe the distinction is lost on you, GreenEcho, but it's crystal clear in the sources. em zilch (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well the issue is complicated because it’s related to the complex Ismaili missionary movement, but I support to place the John Esposito reference at the introduction rather than his old edits this reference says that  :The Druze call themselves the Unitarians, followers of al-Hakim who embodied and revealed the one true God.
  • Since it summarizes what he was trying to say and is suitable for an introduction furthermore it states that (without using incarnation or the reincarnation of God since that was the ideology of the Darazy and the Ghullat movement) and I would like to explain to GreenEcho that according to orthodox Muslims both the Tajalli and Hulul are considered a heresy but the Druze believe that the concept of Hullul will make God limited to a human but the Caliph is the divine representation of God and Hakim took the nickname of the “ruler in the name of God” but both theories leads to persecution so the Taqiyya thing is not present concerning this issue.
  • “The historical reason for this belief is that some of the Muslim Gnostics (some times called Ghullat or batinids and are similar to the cathars) used to believe that the material world was created by the devil or the demiurge and that the spirit should free itself from this evil realm but the Druze used Neo-Platonism and mainly Plotinus to answer such claims (most of the Kitab al-Hikma debates this issue) and stated that there is a unity between opposites rather than discord and that extreme transcendence of God will make the belief in him impossible and the extreme immanence (incarnation into human beings) will make him limited and for that people can see God through pure individuals who manifested the divine wisdom(one of them was Al-Hakim). About the concept of the unity of opposites you can review this site that says : the idea that Blake had, that there is no separation between opposites, but rather a unity, was new and hadn’t really been uttered in millennia outside of a Druze meditating on the Kitab al-Hikma.” « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 16:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To George ,I've explained how some of GreenEcho's references were misrepresented in the Answering the controversial edits section but for more references there is the book titled The Olive and the Tree: The Secret Strength of the Druze By Dr Ruth Westheimer and Gil Sedanthat states :
An inherently modest man al-Hakim did not believe that he was God, and felt Ad-Darazi in his sly manners, was trying to depict himself as a new prophet, Al-Hakim preferred another preacher Hamza Bin Ali over him and Ad-Darazi was executed, Hamza was now the sole leader of the new faith
(de-indenting). Ok, let's try to merge some of these together: 'The Druze call themselves the Unitarians, but the origins of their faith are vague. Its central personage is Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, whom the Druze view as having the last embodiment of divinity in him, and having revealed the one true God. However, Al-Hakim did not believe that he was God, and felt that Ad-Darazi was trying to depict himself as a new prophet. Ad-Darazi was executed, and Hamza Bin Ali, Al-Hakim's preferred preacher, became the sole leader of the new faith. What do editors think about that? I'm not too familiar with these people, so it might need some more information on who they were, especially this Ad-Darazi, who should be described more when he is first mentioned, perhaps by his title, or his relation to Al-Hakim. ← George [talk] 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your help George, but my wording corresponds exactly to what the sources say. Hamza, according to these books, was the one who propagated the belief that al-Hakim was a manifestation of God, regardless of what Hiram111 likes to convince himself. The sources also show that this was done with Hakim's consent and support. Farhad Daftary's in his book The Ismailis: their history and doctrines writes on page 196: "The Druze movement was indeed the cause of much of the unrest that occurred during the closing years of al-Hakim's caliphate. It was also in relation to this movement that al-Hakim, at the end of 410 A.H, ordered his black troops to plunder and burn Fustat where, following the proclamation of the divinity of al-Hakim, certain circles has accused the Fatimid caliph of having abandoned Islam." This hardly corresponds with al-Hakim being an inherently modest man, which itself is an unscholarly expression that I failed to find in the book. GreenEcho (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • GreenEcho please don't take the issue personal and its pretty easy to search for keywords on books.google.com but again I’m sorry to inform you that I do have excellent knowledge concerning the Druze and I read hundreds of books concerning this issue, So you’re actually providing what I already know... about your last reply.
  • This is taken from the historian Yehya Bin Saeed Al Antaki who was a Christian historian who lived during the times of Al-Hakim about the paragraph you posted just for your information and if you actually read my last post year 410 A.H is actually year 1019 A.D in which AD-Darazi proclaimed that Al-Hakim is divine at the end of the year 1018 as the two references I provided above say here and here .He had hundreds of supporters who apposed Hamza bin Ali( the leader of the modern Druze the Unitarians who were given the name Druze by their Muslim rivals) and the Darazites claimed that Al-Hakim was divine and other stuff mentioned by the Antaki which led to riots in Egypt and caused the persecution of the Darazites by Al-Hakim whether he actually ordered his black troops to plunder the Fustat that’s disputed but what is known that he and Hamza Bin Ali supported the persecution of the followers of the Darazi and about that "certain circles has accused the Fatimid caliph of having abandoned Islam." well that was known by the Baghdad Manifesto and was created by the Abbasids during al-Hakims reign (who was also taunted for being the son of a Christian women) and when the Fatimid empire was abolished they transformed the books of Dar Al-Hikma (which was constructed by Al-Hakim) and was one of the largest Libraries during medieval time, into slippers for their concubines ,anyway I hope that the historical incidents are clarified to you by now.
  • About the inherently modest man part its at page 127, 3rd paragraph, eleventh line. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 01:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an encyclopedia. Books by scholars are used as sources, not your interpretation. All of the sources say that Hamza propagated the belief that al-Hakim was the manifestation and incarnation of God, and this was done with Hakim's consent. Books by John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and other specialists usually take precedence over a book by a sex therapist, especially when the book contradicts works by renowned and and far more reliable scholars who actually know the about subject. Also, concerning your claim that al-Hakim's mother was Christian, I find this highly improbable, seeing that al-Hakim was the one who destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and seeing that he, of all Muslims caliphs, was the most intolerant towards Christians and Jews. GreenEcho (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you guys are still pretty far apart on this issue, and unfortunately without a willingness to compromise on the wording from editors, I'm really not able to help much. I think you should consider filing a request for comments, and possible a request for mediation to escalate the issue a bit. You could try to reach a consensus via voting, but without getting other editors' eyes on this article (via WP:3O or WP:RFC), I don't think you'll have enough voters to build any kind of consensus. Cheers. ← George [talk] 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help George and your proposal is the best thing to do, since yes the issue is complicated.
And for GreenEcho, I can't actually understand the motives behind your edits but it seems that you have minimal information about this issue and no I'm not interpreting anything and you are the one refusing to read and its a known fact that Al-Hakim's uncles were Greek Orthodox bishops and that his mother was a Christian some sources say that she was a Coptic Christian and it would have taken a small query on Google to get that info but it seems you don't actually care about information.And about the persecution of non-Muslims that was a response for the Baghdad Manifesto in 1011 that accused the Fatimids of having a Jewish ancestry and Al-Hakim as being loyal to the Christians which led to a civil war in Egypt and the Caliphate had to prove its Islam by forcing dhimmi laws but the Fatimids like the Ismailis are known for their tolerance and for that few of them survived in the middle east.Anyway it seems that you are taking this debate to the Ad-Darazi page and that is actually neat. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
That's right. Me, John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and all the others have minimal information about the Druze, and you are the all-knowledgeable. GreenEcho (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • According to Bezanson, the central doctrine of the Druze code was "the incomprehensible, indefinable, and passionless nature of God, whose only sure attribute was existence.(the same reference).

Agree. Comments are apparently necessary. I also would like to add another citation from the Institute of International Studies at UCLA (SoCal is home to the largest population of Druzes outside the Middle East):

Darazi began to falsify the doctrine of Tawhid by altering a number of Hamza’s writings. Darazi was ultimately executed by Hakim in 1019. Nonetheless, some of Darazi’s teachings were attributed to the Druzes by his followers, referred to as “Darazis.” Ironically, a few medieval chroniclers of the time not only failed to make the distinction between Druzes and Darazis but attributed Darazi’s doctrine to the followers of Hamza and argued that Hakim supported Darazi’s ideas. Other historians have reported that it was Hamza who was subordinate to Darazi, and still others have referred to Hamza and Darazi as the same person: Hamza al-Darazi. As a consequence, the name “Druze” became synonymous with the reform movement. Despite the ironic and misleading origins of the sect’s name, the title “Druze” never occurs in the Druze manuscripts of the 11th century. After the execution of Darazi and his collaborators, Hamza continued his preaching activities for two more years. Among Druzes today, Darazi is known as a heretic and the uttering of his name constitutes the use of profanity.

UCLA International Institute, Who Are the Druzes?

[9] I hope we get some feedback so we can figure this page out soon. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How does this relate to Hamza preaching al-Hakim's divinity? No one is arguing over the etymology of the word Druze. GreenEcho (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Um... because it specifies the difference between the followers of Darazi, who deified Hakim, and the Hamzite Muwahhidun (modern Druze), who did not. Cf. the other cites discussing the issue of hulūl and the hierarchy of the cyclical appearance of exoteric prophets, their esoteric helpers, and the "esoteric of the esoteric" luminaries. Hakim was a luminary, not God! Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The sources speak for themselves. GreenEcho (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with you GreenEcho ????? read the RFC guidelines you dont have the right to take the discussion to the template and I wrote what the dispute is about in a neutral tone so the other users will know what the issue is about so try to be more mature. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference is:Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia By Josef W. Meri, Jere L. Bacharach.published by Routledge(2006),ISBN 0415966906

And since the renowned scholars Josef W. Meri and Jere L. Bacharach say exactly what we have been saying for weeks, i think the dispute should be over by now. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It's funny, and quite sad. The same book, on page 311, reads: "By 1017 or possibly even earlier, others turned more enthusiastic, declaring that al-Hakim was in fact divine, a god whose actions were not to be judged by human standards. That same year, Hamza ibn 'Ali, the eventual founder of the Druze, and al-Darazi, the man whose name provided the word Druze itself, both began to preach openly that al-Hakim was God Himself, appearing in human form." GreenEcho (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I quoted the Encyclopedic section about the Druze and its crystal clear, I don't care about the other sections because the misconception had been explained, in the Druze section of the encyclopedia.AND IT'S FUNNY AND QUITE SAD THAT YOU DELETED MY TALK PAGE CONTRIBUTION HERE « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not you care is of absolutely no importance. And it is also "crystal clear" that the "renowned" authors of the book are inconsistent and have absolutely no authority on the subject. Also, I didn't delete your comments intentionally. I was reverting to a previous version of the Request for Comment. GreenEcho (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Duplicate

Please replace Image:Jumblat1t.jpg with Image:Jumblatt.jpg. -- CecilK (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

Done. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Theological Rambling

About the believe, the five emanations plus the sixth and his Godly unity the Universal intelligence who is higher than the universal mind and lesser than the almighty God, the Universal intelligence emanates in the holy personality who chosen by the almighty God to host the Godly universal intelligence in turn of the Builder or the Ruler( al Hakim), but don?t mix up and take it wrong about the believe.

Some hint of the Druze faith or (al taw hid) which means in Sanskrit Yuga, and the religious men or women (Ajawid) called in Sanskrit yogis, al tawhid began with the history of Adam ( al safa) or Adam the crystal or in Greek Christo, or the true Christ, or Krishna in Sanskrit and re-announced during the Fatimid khalifa AL Hakim by the Universal mind emanation Hamza Bin Ali.

What are they?

If they claim to be muslims, why don't they recognize Muhammad as a prophet?

They do recognize Muhammad as a prophet, just not the last great prophet. And most Druze do not claim to be Muslim.

Wrong date for signing of declaration

Mowafak Tarif signed that document in January 2004, not April 2006. Many other sites on the Web have quoted Wikipedia using the wrong date.

http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/732353-1.html there's alot of gods and their're all good.

Azzam Azzam

imprisoned 7 or 8 years, can't be both?

Gross errors

I am currently working with, translating and editing several of their epistles from several manuscripts and am preparing my thesis on their doctrines and origins in Isma'ili Shi'ism. I've lived in Syria and Lebanon and worked with the Druze living there(or attempted to, Druze can be observed but will not divulge many details of their doctrine). Based on my studies, I assure you that the material on the Druze faith in this article is horrendously dated. The sources used are awful, Phillip K. Hitti's book (cited in the section on the Precepts of the Druze Faith) was discredited in the 1930s (see Berlin Druze Lexicon, M Sprengling, though there are a couple problems with that article with that as well). Comparisons to Christianity are incorrect as well, the two religions are extraordinarily similar, and it may be argued that, while the Druze see themselves, like any other religion, as the only correct religion, Christianity is given the most amiable treatment in their holy texts. They do believe that God took the form of flesh in Al-Hakim, God is comprised of a Divine nature (Lahut) and a Human nature (Nasut), and it is the Nasut which takes physical form on Earth in a human form (maqam). There is only one citation from the epistles, and it should be noted that Hamza often contradicts himself and developed his doctrine over a period of several years. This is common, the Qur'an and other Islamic, Christian and Jewish texts. Hamza's opinion of the significance of Batin changes over the course of the epistles. At one point, he accuses Darazi of exalting batin over Zahir inappropriately, but seems to take that approach himself later. Sami Makarem and Samy Swayd are good sources, but as practicing Druze, their works should be appreciated as such. Prof. Makarem's book was intended for the uninitiated members of the Druze community, so the material is necessarily diluted (I could be a bit bitter, Prof. Makarem did not show up for a meeting I had scheduled with him in Beirut). As for Swayd's article on asceticism in the Druze faith, it is an interesting assertion. However, Sufi influences were not initially present in the religion. Prof. Makarem made a similar assersion at a conference held by the Druze Heritage Foundation several years ago. There is little reference to the Isma'ili influences in their religion as well. When this article is unlocked, I will attempt to correct many of these errors. Until then, I encourage those interested in the Druze to read Hodgson's article "Al-Darazi, Hamza and the Origin of the Druze Religion" JAOS, David Breyer's thesis published in Der Islam, V.52, and Daniel De Smet's recent edition of the first two books of the Druze epistles. The great historian Silvestre de Sacy wrote two volumes on the Druze, Expose de la Relgion des Druzes, in the early 19th century which was, until recent publications came out, the most thorough and accurate source on the Druze, though it, like everything so far, has its problems as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.233.87 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds good, bur remember to cite your claims when you add something to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • About the precepts of the Druze faith section, the precepts are well known though Phillip Hitti did mention some inaccurate info in his book, but this section can be cited from tens of other sources and if you are actually translating the scriptures you should be already aware of this.
  • You said that "Christianity is given the most amiable treatment in their holy texts." I don't think that if the Druze were friendly to the Christians in some Epistles, implies that they have the same beliefs actually in the Phillip Hitti book there is a translation of some epistles concerning Christianity and it does show the Druze's criticism of the Council of Nicea and the Church, as not implementing the teachings of the Gospels, while giving the title of the Messiah a symbolical esoteric meaning and Jesus is considered the Nous (Aql) in the Druze doctrine and the story of his crucifiction is the same as the Orthodox Islamic view, actually the Druzes attitude towards Christianity is extremely complicated and I would be actually thrilled if you can tackle such a subject.
  • And Silvestre de Sacy's book is probably the oldest research done about the Druze and did serve as a reference to the more recent ones but many of his assertions were debunked including his assertion that Bahaa El Deen was a heretical christian who embraced Ismailism.
  • I think the Druze are very close to other esoteric movements whether esoteric Christianity, Judaism or Islam and probably that's why Silvestre de Sacy and other orientalists linked esoteric Islam (Druze, Ismailis and Alawites...etc) to some esoteric western movements including Freemasonry.
  • About Samy Swayd's article you can review the verse called "Irf El Tajalli" in the Moshaf Al Mofarid Bi thatih" and the Epistles in which this issue is raised many times and the "Human Nature" of God is refuted in the Druze scriptures, I think if you research a little bit more you'll see that God in the Druze is similar to the concept of Monad in ancient philosophy.
  • Anyway as long your sources are well referenced you are welcomed to edit and please add new future discussions at the end of the page so that other editors can easily spot them. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 22:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Isma'ili Muslim?

Do Druze consider themselves an offshoot of Islam or not, and are Druze still part of the Isma'ili branch of Shi'ism since they have been labeled as such, so Input would be welcome for both editors at the Isma'ili page and everyone here. Thoughts? (Water Stirs (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

It is completely and utterly controversial. To put it simply, the Aga Khan III called them Ismaili, sometimes I think even they accept the designation, but some Druze don't. It's a complex issue because of years of persecution. --Enzuru 04:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The Druze followed the mainstream of the Ismaili by accepting the Fatimid Imaamate. (Those who rejected it were the Qarmatians.) Since they follow Hakim as Imam of the Time, they split off right before the Taiyyibi, Musta'li and other subgroupings of Ismailism. They are therefore part of the Ismaili proper. Druze identity is a little unclear, because they believe Hakim taught them secret teachings - the esoteric of the esoteric - and therefore they don't talk about themselves publicly. However...
Recently, several Risaa'il - the secret Druze theological books - have been published with the permission of the Druze 3uqqaal and their theological leader. We also have letters of theological battle between the 3uqqaal and the 3alawiyy shuyuukh, each accusing the other of hæresy and laying down the reasons why. Therefore, while the Druze themselves avoid answering questions directly, their various texts tell a story of a people who clearly accept the Ismaili lineage through Hakim. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 04:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well I agree with Nahed and Enzuru actually after the fall of the Fatmid Caliphate Druzism became somehow isolated because the majority of Ismailis were either forced to convert or killed by Saladin and his successors, the Druze were spared because their leaders had good relations with Saladin.
During the 16th century the most important non-Fatimid Druze theologian Amir Said Tanukhi tried to preserve the Druze doctrine because most of the Ismaili books were burned or lost and it was hard for many Druze to understand some aspects of the faith, Amir Said studied the Sunni doctrine for 12 years in Damascus and incorporated some teachings and laws from the Sunni school of thought it wasn't actually Taqiyya but it was more related to the survival of the Druze doctrine, though he respected and was influenced by some Sunni theologians but still he harshly criticized the ideas that are not compatible with the Druze faith.
- About if they associate themselves with Ismaelism well from what I know and I'm not sure of this but I heard that an Ismaeli living in a Druze village in Lebanon was admitted to the Druze religious meetings that are held on Thursdays and are only exclusive to Druze also many Druze scholars wrote books concerning the Fatimids and are pretty much proud of their heritage.
And Nahed you are right concerning the 3alawiyy and Druze debate in a certain epistle, but many scholars misunderstood this epistle since its clear that a 3alawi person fabricated an Epistle that contained immoral teachings and linked it to Hamza and Hakim in the aim to defame the movement so Hamza replied to him as the 3allawi or Nusayri since the two communities lived in the same region and were competing for converts. So the Epistle wasn't related to the 3alawi faith but to the fabricated epistle actually there is another epistle that was believed to be a 3allawi document while it was written by a Druze criticizing the belief that humans can be punished by being reborn as animals or the aspect of “Tanasukh”.
Though there is some other epistles criticising some aspects of Gnosticism in the same manner Plotinus did and probably that has something to do with the 3alawiyy doctrine.
-And since Enzuru and Nahed have much deeper knowledge concerning this topic I would like to know if the info in the Article concerning Numerology, Qiyamah and Adamic religion is Orthodox Ismaili or is it taken from a Druze source ??? Since I don’t have access to the cited reference … « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 19:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is a Sevener source, from what I understand, presently Nizari do not give the number seven as much significance. I may be incorrect though. --Enzuru 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Enzuru I was interested in this article because such ideas are mentioned a lot in the Druze scriptures and I believe that such ideas were behind the Kashif or the proclamation of the Dawa, so I doubted at first that the writer was referencing a Druze source. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 20:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I may have to take back my original statement... the Nizari very well may have something in regards to seven: Check this out:
Abrogation of the Shariah, therefore, by every seventh natiq encompasses the meaning of the law only, not its exoteric or practical and ritualistic aspects. The Prophet was ar-Rasulu'n-Natiq, whereas Muhammad bin Ismail was al-Imamu'n-Natiq. The former was the natiq in the capacity of the Prophethood, and the latter was the natiq in the role of Imamate. Thus, Muhammad bin Ismail had never repudiated or suspended the Shariah for his followers. Arif Tamir writes in "al-Qaramita" (pp. 86-87) that, "The Imamate of Muhammad bin Ismail was the beginning of a new era in the history of the Ismaili movement. We go even further to say that he came with some new teachings, setting aside some exoteric teachings which preceded. He was in fact the first Imam to have done away with the trouble of manifestation and gave call for tawil and esoteric meaning, and for spreading his mission, he relied on his hujjat and great dai, Maymun al-Qaddah." Idris Imaduddin (d. 872/1468) writes in "Zahru'l-ma'ani" that, "Muhammad bin Ismail was named the seventh natiq, because he rose to preach by the command of God, incorporating in himself all the virtues which are to be crowned in him. He is neither the Revealer of the final religion, nor the Apostle of God, but he is in a class by himself, of a unique rank." - Nizari Ismaili history

The number seven does indeed have a significance to Nizari, the seven prophets, the seven pillars of islam, and the 7X7=49 the current Imam. If you go onto the Nizari page and look at "community" section near the bottom you will see a photo of the Ismaili centre London, depicting a seven sided fountain surrounded by seven sided pillars. (Water Stirs (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Ridiculous!

The Druse are not Muslims, as they reject the five pillars of Islam, and of this, there is proof!

They understand them metaphorically, like many Sufi and Shi'a Muslims. Are all of them not Muslim too? Also, the five pillars is a concept that is found in Sunni hadith, I don't believe you can find it in Shi'a hadith. --Enzuru 04:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You can't "prove" they're not Muslim. That's POV, but so is saying they're "officially classified" as Muslim. Superm401 - Talk 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
We don't say on the talk page nor the article that they are "officially" classified. --Enzuru 04:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait, apparently we do and it's sourced to Britannica. What the hell? How can you officially source that? --Enzuru 04:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay this issue is controversial and was already discussed on the talk page. The officially classified was added as a compromise after the page was subjected to vandalism because some editors refused the Britannica’s label of the Druze as Muslims though no I didn't check the Britannica article.
  • I think it might be ambiguous to some people but the issue is that some Muslims and some Druze refuse to consider the Druze Muslims. But officially or formally they are considered so… for example the Druze are admitted to Mecca and many of them performed the Hajj including Sultan Pasha Atrash and the Druze Salafist Shakib Arslan and the Druze are always represented in Islamic conventions in the Levant and when they reside in countries that places religion on its passports the religion placed on Druze’s passports is “Islam”. And in the 1950’s the Azhar Mosque the highest Sunni authority issued a Fatwa that banned Muslims to label the Druze as non-muslims even though they don’t practice the pillars of Islam citing a Hadith by the prophet that says that if a person believes that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet then he is a Muslim and no one should label him otherwise and the Azhar blamed the imperialist powers in such accusations to bring discord among Muslims and to isolate the Druze.
  • Now many Druze do not associate themselves with other Muslims because they believe that their Islam is radically different than that of Muslims and many Muslims do not associate them with Islam but when it comes to the official authorities they are considered Muslims.« Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 16:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
And like I mentioned before, I'm a Nizari Ismaili, I'm the one who put the Druze on Template:Ismailism and put their topics in there when I made the template. The Aga Khan III considered them Ismaili Muslims. I am all for them being Muslims, I just want things to be correctly sourced here. The information you provided was very interesting, and perhaps if we source it as well, it can be incorporated into the article. --Enzuru 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am druze, and my religion is a part off islam, our islam is very tolerant, and have no link with the wahabite islam or iranian islam. We have a philosophic interpretation of the coran.(sorry for my bad english) imad, 13 demceber 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.17.112.183 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I am part of your tolerant Islam too. Ismaili Shi'a Islam has always been very tolerant, especially under the Fatimid Empire. --Enzuru 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am Shi'ah, and the Druze are definitely a branch of Ismaili Islam. I've heard people claim otherwise, but generally they don't have evidence, just opinions. Druze theologians are quite direct about it, however. Ogress smash! 00:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

jabal al druze flag is wrong

jabal al druze flag is wrong

I believe there are several variations of the flag. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Officially classified?

The line in the intro said that the Druze are "officially classified as Muslim" and then there is a reference to the Encyclopedia Britannica (1982!). I wasn't aware the Encyclopedia Britannica was the Official determiner of religions. Can't we say the Druze "are usually classified as Muslim"? Or say, perhaps, "the State of Israel officially classifies the Druze as Muslim" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.32 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think such info even needs references its simply a common fact that the Druze are considered Muslims ,the reference was left by me after I paraphrased a copy paste edit concerning the Islam of the Druze ,the officially part was used to present a NPOV since fanatical Muslims don't consider a lot of sects as Muslims actually I think the issue is not of importance and probably if we want to present the POV of radicals we would have to place the officially part at the intro of every Islamic sect, since I can get you polemic references against most Islamic sects anyway I think the issue has taken more time than it deserves, and I didn't actually get your last sentence about the state of Israel ??? . « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand that part about Israel, either. Israel does not, in fact, classify the Druze as Muslims. The Druze are recognized as a separate religious group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.58.96 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


They are not Muslim,you know their believes are against Islam and Christinary,also you have written that most of them live in Israel and fight against Muslim and have memorial in Israel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.106.52.66 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayesha and Ali fought against other Muslims too, in particular each other. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Muslims are fighting Muslims all the time, what on Earth are you talk about? Ogress smash! 09:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Taqiyah

I believe more needs to be said about the adoption of Taqiyah from Shi'a Islam. In Shi'ism, Taqiyah is concealing one's identity as a Muslim or Shi'a Muslim when facing persecution. For example, I may classify myself as, and give the appearance of, a non-Muslim or as a non-Shi'a in societies where Shi'a Muslims are threatened. Islamic history has had many instances where Shi'a Muslims have had to conceal their "Shi'a-ness" in order to avoid persecution. However, the Druze faith is different in this regard. The Druze themselves aren't in concealment. They are very noticeable and identifiable (Aley, Chouf, Mt. Carmel, Jabal Druze, etc), but their religion is concealed. The Druze have elements of gnosticism and practice a secret religion that is impenetrable by any outsider. Furthermore, the Druze do not accept converts nor do they make accessible doctrine and beliefs. Even in the Druze community 90% of the people are part of the "jahaliyah." So I don't see this as taqiyah in the same manner Shi'a Muslims practice taqiyah.

One more point: if a Shi'a Muslim is practicing taqiyah in Saudi Arabia, this isn't stopping anyone else in the country or in the world, for that matter, from learning about Shi'a Islam, reading its beliefs, customs, history, and having direct access to its doctrine (Qur'an, Sunnah, books my notable scholars, etc). This isn't the case with the Druze, where most of this information is concealed and impenetrable. Druze beliefs are known only sketchily by non-Druze and from my own experience is known only inferentially. I believe this should be addressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.224.29 (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What you described is (primarily) a difference between Twelver Shi'a Islam and Ismaili Shi'a Islam, rather than Shi'a Islam as a whole in contrast to the Druze. This should be dealt with on Ismailism and here. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
When I used the term "Shi'a" I was referring to the Twelver school of thought. More commonly than not, "Shi'a" has come to be referred almost exclusively to the Twelver school. Perhaps this discussion on taqiyyah should be taken up in light of the Ismaili religion, since the Druze are an offshoot of Ismailism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.224.29 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I noticed you referred to the Twelver as a "school of thought" and the Ismaili as a "religion", when neither is true, rather both are branches of Shi'a Islam. For example (using a religious source), Allamah Tabatabai in his book "Shi'a Islam" didn't refer to either as madhaab, but actually used inshi'ab. The only thing that is school-wise is that the Twelver follow the Jafari "school of law" and the Zaydi follow the Zaydi "school of law". The slang use of Shi'a does not matter, because in almost all academic literature (for example, check the BBC's breakdown of the Sunni-Shi'a issue or any serious secular scholarship), and even fatwas by Ayatollahs (which specify ithna'Ashariyya and not just Shi'a when specifying who should be a wet nurse for example, or Ayatollah Sistani's fatwa stating that Ismaili are "Shi'a") and Wikipedia itself, we use the proper terminology. And you basically stated what I said, taqiyya will be stated in Ismailism, but also most importantly on the Shi'a Islam article, since the Twelver share it as well with the differences we noted above. It will be more important to state taqiyya in general terms on the Shi'a Islam article, and then have each article develop on the idea further. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Peace & Joy

Wow, no Duruzi/Mowahiddun to argue, and no know-it-all editors! What a great find! I'll come here to rest and meditate when I am wounded by the Vicious Wikipedians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it! All the articles on Ismailism are so soothing to work on compared to articles on Afghanistan and non-Ismaili Islam, where it's a constant battleground. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's so pleasant, isn't it? But it didn't always feel this way... Admins had to lock Druze down for like 6 months at one point. But now... *breathes deeply* ahhh... peace... Ogress smash! 06:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is user "Supreme Deliciousness" undoing edits without comment?

E.g. why has he undone my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&oldid=295459048 ? What's the explanation? I see in the history record that he is undoing other people's edits likewise without comment. Does he think he owns the article or what? 76.24.104.52 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You removed information without explanation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WHICH information was it that I removed? Why don't you use the diff and tell me, which information I have removed by slightly rewriting the text and including several relevant wikilinks? 76.24.104.52 (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, there was a a section that looked like you had deleted it from the text, now I see that you just had moved it. My mistake. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights

In regards to "Regions with significant populations" section in the infobox: Some users feel that the text "including Golan Heights" should be placed next to the Israeli flag. While there is a internationally recognized dispute over who rightly should control the occupied Golan Heights territory, the land area is currently under the control of the Israeli government and therefore the flag of Israel should suffice. Comments and input would be appreciated. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong there, there is no internationally recognized "dispute" about this only on wikipedia there is a dispute. In reality it is an occupation of Syrian soil. Therefor the druze living in Golan can not be counted as only "Israel" but it must clearly say "Israel (and the Golan Heights)" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The following link, from the New York Times, is an article stating Golan Heights, while disputed in ownership with Syria, is currently under Israeli control. Therefore the land area is currently Israeli, not Syrian. This may change in the future, and it can be reflected as such at that time. There is no "Golan Heights" government, which could be attributed to like the PLO controlled areas of Gaza and the West Bank. [9] -- Nsaum75 (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Link from CBS News in the US quoting the Syrian foreign minister as saying that Israel must relinquish control of the Golan Heights. [10] --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The land is not Israeli and it will never be. I know it is under Israeli control just like Iraq is under American control. Iraq is still Iraqi and southwestern Syria is still Syrian. The foreign occupation of Syrian soil will never change this. To say "Israel (and the Golan Heights)" recognizes an Israeli control of the region in southwestern Syria without saying that it is a part of Israel, which the whole international community recognizes as part of Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Iraq has its own legitimate elected Government, as do the Palestinian territories. In the Golan Heights, currently the only Government is that of the Israel and the Israeli Occupation Forces; therefore it is part of Israel, even if you dislike that term. If the "whole international community" recognizes it is part of Syria, then you must document it. That means that every country in the world must say it is currently part of Syria and not Israel. Until a treaty or agreement is met between Syria and Israel, the land is under Israeli control and therefor defacto falls under the Israeli flag as part of Israel.
As for right now, the US Central Intelligence Agency recognizes it is disputed, and currently under Israeli control (and not that of Syria) in this CIA article, and therefore the Israeli flag suffices. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The israeli occupation of southwestern Syria has prevented the Syrian government to practice its authority there. As I said before, israeli control doesn't mean its a part of Israel. The CIA link you posted says its an occupation, its not part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that it currently part of Syria, then maybe you should change place (including the Golan Heights) next to the Syrian flag; although I doubt you will find a Syrian flag flying anywhere in the Golan Heights, since it is currently under the occupation and control of the Israeli Government. In the meantime, here are two more 3rd party sourced articles on the occupation and annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel Haaretz: Article 1 and New York Times: Article 2
So far I have presented 5 reliable sources stating that the Golan Heights are occupied and/or were annexed by Israel. --Nsaum75 (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that Golan is not illegally occupied by Israel. This everyone already knows. But this illegal occupation does not mean that it is a part of Israel. It is a part of Syria. The reason why there are no Syrian flags there today is because the Syrian population was ethnically cleansed during the 1967 war by the israeli occupation forces and the newly arrived eastern european and ethiopian settlers are waving israeli flag. It is not a part of Israel and it will never be. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide some third party, reliable resources that specifically state that the Golan Heights will never be part of Israel. If it is currently controlled by Israel, be it by illegal occupation or whatnot, then it is defacto part of Israel. You cannot change what it is by saying its not. --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not part of Israel today: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45fa5e8e2.html

"1. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, in particular Security Council resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council, inter alia, decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect and demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its decision; 2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements; 3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,3 and have no legal effect;"

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a resolution calling on Israel to relinquish its control of the Golan Heights, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel currently occupies it, so it is part of Israel. You cannot change what it is by saying it is not. --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To withdraw from the Syrian Golan (did you see that?) I don't know how many times I have said this, you are forcing me to say it again, but this is the last time: Control does not mean it is a part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Supreme Deliciousness, will you please stop adding (and the Golan Heights), since it already says right below the box; *Includes Druze in the Golan Heights. This is perfectly sufficent, it makes clear that the Golan Heights is not considered to be Israeli. Now please stop adding what is already there. It's completely unnecessary. Fipplet (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I will not stop adding "and the Golan Heights", because Golan is not Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly why it already says right below the box; *Includes Druze in the Golan Heights. Therefore it is unnecessary to add it. Fipplet (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There is something wrong with the page, thats why its outside the box, it must be direct after Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why it has to be direct after Israel. It is perfectly fine as it is. Fipplet (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't, it has to be direct after Israel so people can directly see that the numbers are including an area that is not Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The asterisk is direct after so stop changing. Fipplet (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an asterisk directly after the Israeli druze population that says "Includes Druze in the Golan Heights". Why is there a need of both this and "and Israeli controlled golan heights" in the infobox? Fipplet (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It was outside the box when it should be exactly after the numbers, I have now removed it.--User:Supreme Deliciousness 11:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No the asterisk was exactly after the numbers and it leads you to a text right below the infobox. That's the point of asterisks. It don't take any space but provides you with all the valuable information. So I will take it back soon. Fipplet (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
the info have to be in the infobox directly after the numbers explaining the situation, a little "*" mark that has no link to the line outside the box shows no connection between the mark and the outside line, its barley understandable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understant. How is it not understandable when there is a * after the numbers and a * right below the box with big letters saying includes druze in the golan heights? Fipplet (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No one notices the "*" mark, and no one connects it to anything outside the infobox because the line outside the box is barely noticeable. The info must be inside the infobox.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are blind you may not notice it, my suggestion is that we make it big then everyone surely must notice it *. And what line are you talking about? Fipplet (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The text will be directly after Israel in the infobox, because the numbers are including an area that is not Israel, there will not be any "*" mark.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That is not a response to my comment at all. I will change it back unless someone gives me a reason not to. "There will not be any "*" mark" is not a reason at all. Fipplet (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I find it difficult to see the asterisk, and hard to find the footnote. I see no reason not to say that it includes the Golan Heights inline, as the other elements in the infobox already use inline text and not footnotes (such as "Outside the Middle East", "Hebrew (in Israel)", "French (in Lebanon and Syria)"). If it's okay to use small text in those situations, instead of footnotes, I see no reason to make a special case here. ← George [talk] 21:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This is fine with me. Fipplet السلام عليكم 17:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Druze or Muwahideen?

User:Nidal Mawas keeps changing almost all instances of the word Druze in the article to Muwahideen; effectively changing the article so that the title no longer is representative of article. Although I realize Muwahideen is one of the names the "Druze" call themselves, I would like other editors opinions on this, before such sweeping changes are made. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick Google search shows that the term Druze is far more common. I'd think that Wikipedia policy would prefer the common English name for the group, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. ← George [talk] 07:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the recent edits should be reverted since Muwahideen is ambiguous since its also related to the Wahhabi movement and is not that common in English language maybe Unitarian Druze is not bad but also there is a debate whether to translate Muwahideen, as Unitarian or monotheist so leaving it as Druze is the best choice. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this edit

[11] I saw it as undisputable vandalism. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "Druze" in Arabic "duruz"?

That's what I learned in school, isn't "duruz" for many druze people and "durzi" for one druze person?-- Someone35 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation of pronouns in reference to God

I have decapitalised "He" and "Him" in reference to God throughout this article in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style in regards to capitalisation in religious articles. "Pronouns for figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines HorseloverFat (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Qaysites and the Yemenites

This section has a link to Yemenites. However the disambiguation page only refers to Israeli Jews or citizens of Yemen. Neither seems applicable. Tiddy (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dana was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ John Esposito, Islam: the Straight Path, p.47
  3. ^ Nissim Dana, The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status p.3
  4. ^ Mordechai Nisan, Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-expression p.95
  5. ^ Cherine Badawi, Egypt, p.96
  6. ^ Zeidan Atashi, Druze and Jews in Israel: A Shared Destiny?, p.12
  7. ^ Swayd, Sami (2006), Historical dictionary of the Druzes, Historical dictionaries of peoples and cultures, vol. 3, Maryland USA: Scarecrow Press, ISBN 0810853329
  8. ^ Swayd, Samy (1998), The Druzes: an annotated bibliography, Kirkland WA, USA: ISES Publications, ISBN 0966293207
  9. ^ "The Druzes: One Thousand Years of Tradition and Reform", Intercom: Newsletter of the International Studies and Overseas Programes of UCLA, vol. 21, no. 1, Los Angeles CA: UCLA, 1998-10 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |publication-date= (help); line feed character in |periodical= at position 63 (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Druze/Archive_1&oldid=1142225748"