Talk:Ottoman persecution of Alevis

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Low-importance).

Some flaws

The main idea of the article may be sourced. But the details needs close inspection.

In the subsection 1300s it is claimed that Orhan Bey and Seyit Rustem had an agreement. Orhan Bey after a long reign died in 1361. But he wasn’t active during the last years of his reign. Seyit Rustem died in 1421, 60 years later. Since Seyit was in the position to come in agreement with Orhan he must have been in adult age when Orhan died. So how old Seyit was in 1421 ? Remember, we are talking about Middle ages when the average human life was much shorter.
In the subsection 1400s it is claimed that Mehmet II was called to Hurufi faith in 1445. It is true that Mehmet II was temporarily enthroned between 1444 and 1446. But he was only 13 in 1445 and probably was still under the surveillance of his tutors. He wasn’t mature enough to discuss the faiths.
In the section Prohibition of the Bektashi Order (1826) The Auspicious Event is interpretted as an anti Bektashi act. However, jannisary army was a medieval army and all sources agree on the urgent necessity of abolishing janissary corps which was a nuisance rather than military in the 19th century.

On the other hand, In the section Implications of persecution which also refers to present situation, I vainly searched for the name of Atatürk and the principle of laïcité. Although the creator has the liberty to design the article as he/she wishes, omitting the gains by the laikate is a deficiency for the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point with the "1300s" isn't about time and date accuracy, but on the fact, that a hagiography from the 1300s clearly shows signs of discrimination towards heterodox and Alevi-like groups (e.g. Qalandar, Torlaks etc.).

Again, the incident with Mehmet II is not to prove whether he was personally against the Hurufis or not, but to show that there was a strong anti-heterodox position within the Ottoman administration. If you've read the references, it does also say, that Mehmet II was under the pressure of his tutors.

Regarding the abolishment of the Janissary Order; there are no dispute, that the Bektashi Order and prominent Bektashi persons were severely punished and persecuted in connection with 1826. Hundreds of Bektashi Monasteries (Tekke) got closed, and dozens of innocent people were executed, thousands of Janissaries killed, etc. (Xizilbash (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Alevi-like groups, qizilbash, qalandar etc.

The term "Qizilbash" in the fatwas are the older word for Alevi. Alevis are still known as Qizilbash in Turkey. Regarding "Alevi-like groups": if you were familiar with Alevi litterature, you would know that the Qalandariyya, Haydariyya, Bektashiyya etc. are all groups that are clearly related to Alevism. (Xizilbash (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I deleted the fatwa here because

The fatwa here contained no information whatsoever against the Alawis of Anatolia. It was entirely against the Safavid state and their leader Ismail of Iran. The fatwa issued against the Alawis, if there is any, should be inserted here. In the comment above, it is stated that Qizilbash and Alevi were the same; however this is wrong, because although the term Qizilbash used to refer to Alevis until recently in modern Turkey, they did not refer to the same group back then in 1510s. Qizilbash [Red Head] specifically meant the soldiers of Iran, their name deriving from the red covering they wear on their head during war. Much later on, some Alevis became to be referred to as Qizilbash, because over time they laid allegiance to Iran, but this was not the case back then in the beginning of the 16th century. Returning back to my initial point, the fatwa inserted on the page is clearly against Iran but not against the people of Anatolia, and it is only anachronic and over-reading to interpret it as the other way.

First of all, you are confusing the "Alawis" with the "Alevis". These two terms refer to two separate but similar groups. And then you actually try to deny the existense of the entire Alevi community, by cancelling their historical name ("Qizilbash"). If you had read Ottoman documents from the 16th century, you would have known that the Alevis were called "taife-i Kizilbas" (The Qizilbash Sect), and you would also have known, that the red cap was used by the civil Qizilbash population as well as the Safavid soldiers. And therefore Bayezid II banned the cap in 1500/1501 with death penalty as punishment. You would also have known that they belonged to the Safavid Tariqah and that their spiritual leader (murshid-i kamil) was Shah Ismail. Just by reading the mentioned fatwa, it becomes clear, that the fatwa is issued towards a civil population and not soldiers. The fatwa clearly says "Kizilbas toplulugu" (the Qizilbash people) and orders to kill all inhabitants of villages. Villages! Not military bases! (Xizilbash (talk) (08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

User Xizilbash is correct there were many agents of Sultan Selim spreading Qizilbashism in Anatolia during the 16th Century and adherents to the religion identified as Qizilbash which would later come to be known as Eastern Alevism. The use of the fatwa to kill and cleanse Qizilbash from central anatolia is well documented in Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream, page 104. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.109 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some serious editing

This article, I would contend, is in quite bad shape. Not because of POV issues one way or another - it seems to be a largely accurate account, but because of 1) formatting, and more importantly 2) its attempt at creating a decline narrative about all heterodox groups. This is not supported by most historians (yes, heterodoxy decreased in the 16th and 17th centuries, but increased again in the 18th); and worse, it misplaces the reasons for Alevi persecution and in an inconvenient way excuses it somewhat, even if unintentionally. Alevis were specifically targeted not mainly because of their heterodox beliefs but because they were a scapegoat for the Ottoman government, specifically in the context of the Safavid wars. Alevi theology is not necessarily more heterodox than other groups that the Ottomans tolerated, even if with some dislike. Uness232 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]