What is the Religious Identity of the Alawites? The Testimony of Scholars Throughout the Centuries Is the Final Word Between Truth and Claim.

This section is from pp. 303–314 of the book:
Reflections on the Book “The Methodology of Muslim Alawites: Creed, Law, and Sufism”.

The Eleventh Response to Their Statement:

“The Imāmī Twelver Shīʿa are one among the sects of Shīʿism…”

As for the Alawite Imāmī Twelvers, they are not a “sect among the Shīʿa”; rather, they are:

“An independent Islamic community, possessing its own distinct entity, doctrines, legal rulings, and sources of authority.
They do not fall under any other group — whether Shīʿa or otherwise — neither in matters of doctrine nor in matters of jurisprudence.”1

---

Statement of Commentary

It appears that this group of elites cannot express their “independent identity” except by contradicting what our scholars themselves have stated — and what our scholars have said is more than sufficient.

Our scholars affirmed that the Alawites are distinguished by their environment, customs, intellectual positions within Islam, and certain juristic interpretations, yet they do not possess a religion other than Islam, nor a madhhab other than the Ja‘farī school.

However, this group of elites claims: “The Alawites are an independent community, not a branch of the Shī‘a.”
As though they were more protective of the Alawites than their own scholars, and more knowledgeable about their characteristics, what distinguishes them, and how they express themselves.

Do the scholars of the Alawites say: “We are a branch of the Twelver Imāmī Shī‘a,” and then this group says: “We are not a branch of the Shī‘a” — as if they are deliberately contradicting the scholars, or claiming to be more protective of the Alawites than the Alawites are of themselves?

How close this claim is to the Arabic proverb: “Then you shall be tested.”

And the “test” will simply be to present some statements from our scholars — and it remains for the reader to consider them, and for that group of elites to answer them: will they accept them, or will they reject them? Among such statements are:

1. The words of Shaykh Yūnus Hamdān:
   “The Alawites are a branch of the Imāmī Shī‘a.”2
2. The words of Shaykh Ḥusayn Ḥarfūsh:
   “The Alawites are one of the sects of the Shī‘a…”3
3. The words of Shaykh ‘Īsā Sa‘ūd:
   “The Alawites are a Shī‘a sect.”4
4. The words of Shaykh ‘Alī Maḥmūd al-Ḥakīm:
   “The Shī‘a, following the noble ones from the Prophet’s Household, divided into the Kaysāniyya, the Zaydiyya, the Ismā‘īliyya, the Imāmiyya, and other various branches…
   We, the Alawites, are from the Imāmī branch, believing in the infallibility of the Twelve Imāms.”5
5. The words of Shaykh Maḥmūd al-Ṣāliḥ:
   “The Arab Muslim group known for its loyalist affiliation (the Alawiyya) is a part of the whole of the Imāmī Shī‘a…”6
6. The words of Dr. ‘Abd al-Laṭīf al-Yūnus:
   “The Alawites are a Muslim, Shī‘a, Imāmī, Twelver community.”7

What, then, is the opinion of that group of elites regarding these clear testimonies?

There are only two possibilities:
either this “elite group” consists of Alawite scholars, or it does not.
If they are indeed from among the Alawite scholars, then let them follow the statements of our scholars.
But if they are not from among them, then why do they burden themselves with this matter?
On whose behalf are they burdening themselves, and for whom?

Glory be to God!
Our scholars hold firmly to the name “Shī‘a”, and they consider the Alawites to be one of the branches of the Imāmī Shī‘a.
And then comes an obscure committee saying: “We are not a branch of the Shī‘a.”
What stance does this elite group take toward the statement of Shaykh Sulaymān Aḥmad: 

“Al-Ḥusayn ibn Ḥamdān is among the men of the Imāmī Shī‘a and among its transmitters.”

How can he be counted among their great figures and transmitters, while we are supposedly from an entirely different sect?

---

Contradicting the Method of Our Scholars

How far this “elite group” has drifted from the path of our scholars.
Their insistence upon a particular designation has reached a point where they reproach anyone who does not classify the Alawites as Shī‘a.
Here I present two examples that illustrate this matter:

---

First Example

The statement of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Karīm ‘Alī Ḥasan (1874–1988):

“Shaykh Muḥammad Jawād Mughniyah sent me his book ‘The Shī‘a and Shi‘ism’.
The enclosed image is of this valuable gift.
I read the entire book from beginning to end, and I was not surprised by the author’s breadth of knowledge, nor by his elegant pen that traverses whatever scientific field he wishes…

However, what disappointed me was that he did not mention this group of the Shī‘a.
I assumed this to be an oversight on his part.

After much hesitation, I decided to contact him in Beirut and ask him the reason for that omission, and what excuse he might have—especially since he had been present among us, heard, seen, and interacted with people…

Indeed, I went to Beirut, contacted him, and reproached him for this…”8

Reflect carefully upon his words:

“I went to Beirut, contacted him, and reproached him for that…”

Glory be to God!
A journey undertaken for the sake of a single word — fatigue, hardship, and exertion.

One of the Alawite sheikhs travels to Beirut solely to reproach Shaykh Muḥammad Jawād Mughniyah because he failed to mention that the Alawites are a branch of the Shī‘a.
And then comes someone who insists on denying this designation, rejecting it, and erasing it.

Second Example

The statement of Shaykh Maḥmūd al-Ṣāliḥ:

“The trustworthy witnesses to my claim that the names ‘Alawite’ and ‘Shī‘ī’ refer to one and the same reality—aside from what present-day reality itself confirms—are both His Eminence al-‘Allāmah Sayyid Ḥasan al-Shīrāzī and His Virtue Shaykh ‘Abd al-Amīr Qablān…”

His Eminence the Sayyid wrote in the introduction to a declaration issued by some Alawite religious figures:

“The Alawites are Shī‘a who belong to Amīr al-Mu’minīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib through walāyah…
The terms ‘Alawite’ and ‘Shī‘a’ are two synonymous expressions, just like the terms ‘Imāmī’ and ‘Ja‘farī’;
every Shī‘ī is Alawite in creed, and every Alawite is Shī‘ī in school of law.”

And the Mufti wrote:

“…Just as the Alawite community follows the Shī‘ī school of jurisprudence, the Imāmī Shī‘a are Alawite in inclination and orientation…”

I say:
For anyone determined to distance the Alawites from the fold of their Imāmī brethren, let these lines—penned by the hands of these two eminent scholars with fairness and integrity—serve as a sufficient deterrent.
Words that history preserves on its pages, to be read by the eyes and absorbed by the ears of future generations.9

Reflect, then, on the method of the predecessors in fostering closeness — and how different we have become after them.

And there is no harm if you recall the words of Shaykh Muḥammad Ḥasan Shu‘bān:

If this doubt or confusion arises from among the Alawite sheikhs themselves, why then did you not ask them to clarify their distinctives?
For they never denied being part of the Imāmī Shī‘a; rather, they emphasised this designation because it is a testament to their walāyah, their spiritual allegiance.

Among such statements is that of Dr ‘Alī Sulaymān al-Aḥmad:

“Indeed, although we are truly and sincerely Shī‘a—indeed, Twelvers—
we nevertheless possess intellectual perspectives and spiritual conceptions regarding the realities of Islam that distinguish us from the general body of believers…”

Let the discerning observer reflect:
What does true distinction look like?
How does one properly express the characteristics of the Alawites?

It is not through denying their Shi‘ism.
Rather, it is through affirming it —
for denying it is equivalent to denying walāyah.
Otherwise, what meaning does the term “Alawite” even carry?

---

It is nothing but a name of walāyah (loyal devotion), and among its expressions is the statement of Shaykh Maḥmūd al-Ṣāliḥ:

“The term ‘Alawī’ is the true name for Shi‘ism,
the definitive and explicit title of walāyah,
and the singular banner of Imāmism…”11

And the statement of Dr ‘Alī Sulaymān al-Aḥmad:

“The essence and core of Shi‘ism — after faith in God and His messengers — is walāyah for the People of the House (Ahl al-Bayt), and that to them alone belongs guardianship over God’s religion and the right to disclose what has been revealed in His Book…”

And the best thing to be said to that “elite group” in this regard is the saying of Shaykh ‘Alī Maḥmūd al-Ḥakīm:

“The Alawite is none other than an Arab — the son of Arabness;
a Muslim — the son of Islam;
a Shī‘ī — the son of the Shī‘a.
Whoever claims other than this has contradicted the free conscience,
departing from truth and fairness…”

And the statement of Dr ‘Alī Sulaymān al-Aḥmad:

“When the opponents of the Alawite community attempted to attack it on a new front, they were correct in perceiving it as a branch of the great tree of Shi‘ism.
In this they were more just to it, and closer to its true reality, than some of its own brethren — even its own sons — who continue to cast doubts upon the soundness of its affiliation to the People of the House, and to disregard the value of its Islam and its faith.

Those very opponents were also correct in realising that they must first disparage Shi‘ism in order to achieve their aim of disparaging Alawism and uprooting it from the hearts of its own people…”12

The benefits derived from this are many; the most important are:

1. Whoever considers the Alawites a branch of the Shī‘a is correct, even if he is an opponent — as indicated by the statement:

   “They were correct when they viewed it as a branch of the tree of Shi‘ism.”

2. Whoever does not consider the Alawites a branch of the Shī‘a is mistaken.

3. The opponents of Alawism are more just than some Alawites themselves, as indicated by his statement:

   “They were more just to it, and closer to its true reality, than some of its brethren — even its own sons…”

4. Attacking Shi‘ism inevitably leads to attacking Alawism —
   this is the method of the opponents of Alawism, not its supporters; as indicated by his words:

   “They realised that they must first disparage Shi‘ism in order to reach their aims of disparaging Alawism and destroying it.”

Does the reader not see, then, that the opponents of Alawism are more fair-minded than this ‘elite group’?

And Shaykh Muḥammad Ḥasan Shu‘bān said:

Do the predecessors strive to affirm the Twelver Shī‘ī designation, and declare: “We are truly and sincerely Shī‘a”,
and then we respond to them:
“What you have said is neither true nor sincere”?

With such logic, shall we meet our forefathers — and present ourselves to our sons?

---

Have that “elite group” truly found no way to prove an independent identity for the Alawites except by removing the Alawites from the Shī‘a, inventing an independent madhhab, independent sources, independent doctrines, and independent rulings?

Were our scholars unaware of what this “elite group” now claims to know?

Al-‘Allāmah Shaykh Sulaymān Aḥmad said:

“The Alawites do not possess an independent madhhab for acts of worship or the rulings based upon knowledge of the lawful and unlawful, nor for transactions such as inheritance and others.
This is because they rely upon the Imāmī Ja‘farī madhhab, which is the root, and they are a branch of it…”14

Did he not know what you claim to know?
Are you truly more knowledgeable than he was about his own madhhab?

And if the Alawites, in his time, did not possess an independent madhhab, then when did you acquire an independent one?

Was the Ja‘farī madhhab in his time the foundation, and the Alawites a branch of it — but in your time the situation has been reversed, so that you have become the foundation and others have become the branch?

Do you truly imagine that you have an independent madhhab — as though the Shaykh called for dependency and subservience, and you are the ones calling for freedom and independence?

Shaykh Yūnus Ḥamdān said:

“The madhhab of the Alawites is the Ja‘farī madhhab, attributed to Imām Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq.
Its sources are the books of the Imāmī Shī‘a, such as al-Kāfī, al-Wāfī, al-Hidāyah, Biḥār al-Anwār, Madīnat al-Ma‘ājiz, and other divine works…”15

Did he not know what you claim to know?
Are you truly more knowledgeable than he was about his own madhhab?

And if the Shaykh referred back to al-Kāfī, al-Wāfī, Biḥār al-Anwār, and Madīnat al-Ma‘ājiz, which are among the books of the Imāmī Shī‘a — then how have you suddenly acquired “independent sources”?
Did he, with all his vast learning and broad expertise, fail to know of them?

Shaykh Ḥusayn Ḥarfūsh said:

“As for the madhhab of the Alawite, it is the Ja‘farī madhhab, attributed to Imām Ja‘far ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq, whose rulings are well known and whose sources are taken from him.
One returns in it to the books of the Imāmī Shī‘a, and to al-Hidāyah al-Kubrā of Sayyid al-Khaṣībī…”16

Did he not know what you claim to know?
Are you truly more knowledgeable than he was about his own madhhab?

Would a scholar refer to the books of the Imāmī Shī‘a while ignoring his “independent sources”?
Or have you discovered, after him, sources that were unknown in his time?

And ninety of our scholars have said:

“As for the remaining branches of religion… we practise them according to the explicit texts of our Ja‘farī madhhab, without any disagreement, relying upon its many references.
The most important of these for the mujtahid scholars are the Four Books: al-Kāfī by al-Kulaynī, al-Tahdhīb and al-Istibṣār by al-Ṭūsī, and Man Lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh by al-Ṣadūq.
And for the non-mujtahids (the followers): the practical treatises, which are the legal edicts of the marāji‘.”17

Did they not know what you claim to know?
Are you truly more knowledgeable than they concerning their own madhhab?

Shaykh Maḥmūd al-Ṣāliḥ said:

“There is absolutely no disagreement whatsoever between the Muslim Alawites and their Imāmī brethren regarding any matter of religion, whether foundational or subsidiary.
The principles of religion (uṣūl al-dīn) according to the Alawites are the very same Five Principles upheld by the majority of the Imāmīs.
Many of their scholars have explained them in their books and writings, and we ourselves have clarified them in our work al-Mukhtaṣar al-Jāmi‘.”18

Did he not know what you claim to know?
Are you truly more knowledgeable than he concerning his own madhhab?

Were the principles and branches of religion one and the same in his lifetime, and then—only in your time—did they suddenly become independent; so that now you possess independent principles and independent rulings?

And if that is your claim, then why did you mention, on page 447 of your book, the name of Shaykh Sulaymān Baysīn among the notable figures of the Alawites?

Did you not read what Shaykh Maḥmūd al-Ṣāliḥ wrote:

“In the early thirteenth century AH, the virtuous and departed Shaykh Sulaymān Baysīn established strong ties with his Shī‘ī brethren in Jabal ‘Āmil.
He exchanged poems and odes with some of them, and they shared books and letters overflowing with the fragrance of affection, the dew of loyalty, and the speech of sincere love and brotherhood.
These writings expressed deep emotions, tenderness, and even complaints and reproaches—for reproach is the purifier of hearts—and conveyed what they all felt of the pains of estrangement and separation…”19

Are the Shī‘a to be blamed for not maintaining ties with the Alawites, while you choose to sever this connection, tear apart this bond, and belittle that relationship?

Why, then, did he maintain contact with them?
And why did you mention him in your book?

If you consider him a notable figure of the Alawites, then why do you not follow his example?

There are only two possibilities:

• You follow his example,

• Or you reject it.

You will either say: “He was correct,” or you will say: “He was mistaken.” There is no third position.

If he was correct—and I swear by God that he was—then you are mistaken.
And if he was mistaken—which I do not say—then you are belittling our respected scholars.

And if neither position is acceptable to you, then why, exactly, did you include his name in your book?

Did you include him because of the nobility of his rank, or merely to flatter the reader?

And what will you say to the readers of your book if they ask you about him?

If you claim to be an independent sect, unrelated to the Imāmī Shī‘a, then why do you not answer the questions of this poor Alawite?

What is the meaning of the statement:

“The virtuous and departed Shaykh Sulaymān Baysīn established strong ties with his Shī‘ī brethren in Jabal ‘Āmil…”?

If you possess an independent madhhab, then the situation cannot escape the following two possibilities:

First possibility:

The Shaykh knew that he had an independent madhhab.
This would require you to explain his correspondence, including his words:

If they were “the same in distance and in nearness,” then this means that you are mistaken in your claim that you are an independent sect.

Second possibility:

You hold an opinion different from his, and a path different from his.
If that is the case, then he is not one of your leading figures—so why mention him at all?

If you do not maintain ties in the present, nor correspond, nor follow the example of those you cite from the past—then leave the people to their own affairs; perhaps they will do what is right.

Judge Shaykh ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Suʿūd said:

Glory be to God—
indeed, God’s creation holds wondrous affairs

• 1The Methodology of Muslim Alawites in Creed, Law, and Sufism, p. 15–16.
• 2Who Is the Alawite?, vol. 1, p. 93.
• 3Who Is the Alawite?, vol. 1, p. 25.
• 4Al-Amani Magazine, vol. 1, p. 18, October 1930.
• 5Who Is the Alawite?, vol. 1, p. 137.
• 6The Certain News about the Alawites, p. 47.
• 7The Certain News about the Alawites, p. 47.
• 8Images and Events, p. 83–84.
• 9The Certain News about the Alawites, p. 48.
• 10The Breaths of Gnosis, p. 182.
• 11The Certain News about the Alawites, p. 47–48.
• 12The Alawites between Truth and Assumptions.
• 13The Breaths of Gnosis, p. 205.
• 14A Statement of the Alawite Creed, p. 13.
• 15Who Is the Alawite?, vol. 1, p. 93–98.
• 16Who Is the Alawite?, vol. 1, p. 25.
• 17A Statement of the Alawite Creed, p. 26–27.
• 18The Certain News about the Alawites, p. 69.
• 19Same source, p. 197.