Talk:Bektashism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This page should be renamed "Bektashi Order of Dervishes". Either that or "Bektashi Islam". In addition it should be accesible by both Bektashi and Bekteshi spellings as the original Albanian can be translated differently. freestylefrappe 02:18, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

In Albanian it's bektashi, but I don't see why couldn't have a redirect. If you want to move it feel free, I just picked the most common name. Dori | Talk 03:51, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I would if I knew how... freestylefrappe 00:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bektashi are not Sufi order. Sufi are Mevlevi Order

I can add some things I know about Bektashi similiarities to other religions but it would be helpful if it was re-termed by someone that knows what and how Bektashi see it. Example: confession was clarified to read, "yearly confession to a baba". The names of the rites that Bektashi do would be better named by bektashi names. I don't know them.

Baptism was taken out by the next edit. Is this untrue?

Other similiarities I will add to the article with input from others:

Shared reverence for Cosmas of Aetolia (Shen Kosma or Choban Baba) and Spyridon (Sari Salltik) as well as many saints with Albanian Orthodox Christians.

Religious imagery of saints.

Secretive baptism in water mixed with the essence of roses. Those who go through it don't say what goes on.

The use of the Christian Gospel of John.

The use of the greeting, "the Lord is risen." on Christian easter.

Some Bektashi(s)? claim lineage to Adam through Seth.

I wanted to get feedback from others before putting this in the article.

Bektashi similarities

I think too much has been made in the past regarding alleged borrowings or similarities with faith traditions outside of Islam. As a Bektashi, I can assure you that every aspect of Bektashi thought can be backed up with some sort of Islamic precendent. For instance there is no such practice of “Baptism” in Bektashism, unless the aspirant’s making ghusl and wudu’ right before initiation is considered as such. The popular use of images of Imam Ali, the Twelve Imams and other saintlu personages is widespread throughout the Shi’i world and it appears to be something of a more modern phenomena and originating from Turkey. I know of no Bektashi ritual that utilizes amy of the previously revealed scriptures, although mention is often made in Bektashi and Alevi poetry of the “Four Books” (the Torah, Psalms, Gospel, Qur’an). I have never heard of, or experienced, Bektashis using the greeting "the Lord is risen." on Christian easter, nor have I heard of any claims to a primordial lineage that goes back to Seth, other than ones found in traditional Islamic legends. The phenomenon of “saintly borrowings” is, however, wellknown, and Hasluck made a determined study of it at the start of the last century. However, it must be known that these saints are venerated as Muslim holy men (and women) not as Christian ones.

And, yes, the Bektashis have traditionally been seen by Muslims as being a Sufi order, although in post-WWII Albanian and the Balkans it has evolved more into a sect rather than and order.

Humor & Legacy

May I learn what was "racist" in the sample jokes I put in Humor & Legacy section and why they were deleted? I can't believe this is serious. I am strongly offended with this meaningless accusation. I guess you consider them offensive against sunni muslims, but they are not considered offensive by sunni muslims in Turkey, these jokes are also common among them. Moreover, bektashis and sunni muslims share the same religion, ethnicity, and culture, so there is no western-sense "racial" discrimination between them. Even if we assume that the jokes could be considered offensive today from a universal perspective (which I don't agree as a muslim), this wouldn't make inclusion of them in an encyclopedia "racist", because they tell something about the culture and its history. Censoring these jokes simply means ignoring the culture, which is indeed anti-democratic, let alone being unrealistic. Will we delete the article about "Satanic Verses" because it is considered offensive by many muslims? Whatever your response is to my opinions, regardless of how we end up with this article, I am expecting an apology for the "racism" comment. It should not be this easy to label people as racist. I recommend Freestylefrappe's version be kept with the addition of two sample jokes, which were deleted by them. The text of the jokes could also be revised to remove any language that can be considered offensive. AldirmaGonul 04:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Some links to sample Bektashi jokes, from Alevi/Bektashi websites:

http://www.bektashi.net/beliefs-jokes1.html
http://whalesoundervish.blogspot.com/2005/08/bektashi-jokes.html
http://www.musaeroglu.de/humor.html
http://www.alevibektasi.org/xalevis1.htm

AldirmaGonul 04:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I just tried those links and unfortunately, 3 are broken. Only the 4th link is still working. I'm not gonna judge whether they're appropriate here, though. Thanks. 99.9.112.31 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)NotWillDecker

The jokes you posted were deleted because you do not put "jokes" on a religious article. Thats like putting black jokes on the African American article. I was referring to the article as a whole as racist, though your edits seem highly suspect. freestylefrappe 21:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the jokes are "censored" because of religious intolerance. Religion is not only about philosophy and beliefs, it is also about culture, and these jokes are an important part of the Bektashi culture. Anybody, who has some knowledge about the interaction of Sunni and Alevi/Bektashi muslims in Ottoman Empire and Turkey will agree that there is no parallelism between these jokes and black jokes, simply because these jokes are a means of challenging opression rather than opressing other people. I consider the deletion of these jokes as an act of supressing alternative beliefs and cultures. It is amazing to see that the Bektashi culture is threatened to be supressed even in a diverse international enviroment today. I am also uncomfortable with your attitude of insisting on accusing me of racim. I don't think you are listening to me and we will able to reach a consensus together, so I will request mediation. I will also report your offensive attitude. AldirmaGonul 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Those jokes are great and should be included! Sam Spade 00:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

They are not "my" jokes, they belong to the Bektashi culture. I provided links to many websites they are full of samples of these jokes. All of these websites are devoted to the Bektashi culture. They wouldn't put them there if they were "inappropriate" or irrelevant to their culture. I don't know what you know about Bektashi culture, but if this whole thing is about those stories being not confirmant of what you understand from religion, you don't have any right to censor them. Because this is our culture, this is our understanding of religion, and we will not let our way of looking at things suppressed anymore. I will also include a section about Bektashi poetry in there, and probably you won't be able to stand what's in that poetry as they will not obey your understanding of religion. Will you then tell me "there is no place for poetry in an article about religion?" This is what Bektashi culture is about, and this kind of censorship is unacceptable. AldirmaGonul 14:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I enjoyed these jokes so much that I shared them with my family after reading them all. I have this page watched because I am interested in Sufi islam, and related topics. If these were indeed racist jokes (which they are not), it might be true that including them is inappropriate. But they are not racist jokes, and instead are very educational regarding bektashi culture and its interaction with other muslims. They are also very funny, and should definitely be included. Sam Spade 16:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No. These jokes arent funny, they're offensive and dont belong here. Show me the Wikipedia precedent for placing jokes on religious pages. Are there Muslim jokes on the Islam page? Ahmadi jokes on the Ahmadi page? I dont think so. You want to have Bektashi jokes then start a new article. freestylefrappe 21:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There are no Muslim jokes in Islam page because Muslim jokes are not part of Muslim culture. There are no Ahmadi jokes in Ahmadi page because (probably, I don't know Ahmadi culture) there are no Ahmadi jokes related to their culture or philosophy. If you are knowledgeable about Bektashi belifs or culture, please let us know why the assertion "these jokes are an important part of Bektashi culture" is not true. AldirmaGonul 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all the culture of Muslims is Islamic culture, and second of all Bektashi is an Islamic sect. You have yet to provide any proof of the importance of Bektashi jokes. freestylefrappe 19:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I already provided proof, but you didn't take them into account. The links I listed above are from websites prepared by Alevi/Bektashi organizations who intend to provide reliable information on their culture and beliefs. They also include articles by international researchers. If you cared to check them, you'd see they all assign an important place to Bektashi humor & wit, and provide examples. If you need additional proof, please search for "Bektashi", "Bektasi", "Bektashi jokes", "Bektashi humor", and you'll get plenty of answers for your question. I wasn't able to understand the relevance of your first sentence. AldirmaGonul 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe you simply did not click the link to Bektashi jokes. freestylefrappe 02:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe you simply did not explain why the article should be divided and try to reach an agreement. AldirmaGonul 19:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me add a comment here in this discussion. While it certainly seems strange that jokes are included on a page concerning 'religion', dismissing it completely without some discussion and consideration would be doing a disservice. It may very well be that Bektashi culture is intimately tied to a rich collection of jokes which serve some pedagogical role in the religion. For example, if we look at this site:

http://www.alevibektasi.org/xalevis1.htm

It is written that

"X. Alevi-Bektashi Humor Alevis and Bektashis love to use humor to mock religious legalism, hypocrisy, and those who they feel have persecuted them. This humor reveals much about Alevi-Bektashi thought. To understand their humor is to understand the Alevi-Bektashis’ approach to life, religion, and their place in society. Here are only a few examples of the hundreds of Bektashi jokes (fıkralar) that have been collected. This first joke reflects the Alevi attitude toward the legalism of the five pillars"

The author is John Shindeldecker, and he is listed as one of the researchers on the fairly official-looking homepage

http://www.alevibektasi.org/makale_engl.htm

In this case, this material suggests that humor is an integral part of defining Bektashi culture as distinctive from other factions of Islam. Much as Zen Buddhism is characterized by the sometimes meaningless Koans or Gospel music in certain factions of Protestant Christianity. In all of these cases, I don't think it's fair to say that it's like "adding black jokes to an article about African Americans." This comparison is also a bit overreaching, and unwarranted. AldirmaGonul has made a good faith case for why the jokes should be placed on this page. freestylefrappe has deleted it by only saying that it's "suspect" and "racist". But given what we read from another source, this seems an overly simplified and inaccurate depiction of the "jokes" section. I would like to hear an argument against these lines of evidence from freestylefrappe.Wilgamesh 03:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If you vandalize this page by reverting you will be blocked. It's just that simple. Aldirma has not made a good faith case at all. He's engaged in personal attacks and taunts. In fact, I highly doubt that you and Aldirma are not the same person. Either way it makes no difference. freestylefrappe 04:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Assumptions again huh, my admin friend? It shouldn't be this easy to accuse people of cheating - well, who am I talking to? Just for completeness, I don't know this person, and I haven't looked at or edited anything in wikipedia since you have threatened me. And be happy, you will never see me again, so you can keep wikipedia free from any fact you don't like. AldirmaGonul 05:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Someone requested a third opinion in this dispute between freestylefrappe and AldirmaGonul (plus SamSpade and Wilgamesh, whom freestylefrappe accuses of being a sock puppet, on no better evidence than him agreeing with AldirmaGonul). I am not a Muslim of any sect, and before seeing the request for a third opinion, knew nothing about Bektashi religion or culture. I have been reading the discussion here, the article, and the references, and I've been holding my tongue until I had enough of an understanding to make a decision one way or the other. AldirmaGonul has made a very strong case that jokes of this type are an integral and important part of Bektashi culture. It is completely irrelevant that freestylefrappe finds them offensive, for exactly the same reason it is completely irrelevant that SamSpade likes them and finds them funny. It is also irrelevant whether they are 'racist jokes' or not (an issue which has not been and need not be decided). The only issue is whether they are a part of Bektashi culture, because if they are, then an impartial encyclopedia article that accurately and completely documents that culture would include at least samples of such jokes. An analogy has been drawn to including 'black jokes' on a page about African Americans, but I find that analogy hollow. Perhaps a better analogy would be including 'black jokes' in an article about the Ku Klux Klan, if such jokes were an important part of Klan culture (but without any pejorative implication about Bektashi culture that the analogy might convey). An even better anology might be including 'Pollack jokes' in a page about Poland, if Poles themselves told those jokes about themselves. To the extent that the Bektashi jokes criticize other Muslim sects (as well as their own), members of those sects will be offended, but that is irrelevant in a decision about what to include or exclude. The focus should be on accurately and completely describing the subject of the article. If an accurate description offends members of other sects, that is not Wikipedia's fault. Indeed, it would be a fault in Wikipedia to leave out an important fact, to make Bektashi culture appear less offensive to other sects than it is (if it is). I cite the five pillars, particularly the first, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and the fifth, "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules" such as "absolutely no jokes in articles about religion" that freestylefrappe wishes to enforce. My third opinion: this article should have those sample jokes in it, and anyone who deletes them, or reverts the article to delete them, should be blocked. I will delete the request for a third opinion; I leave it up to the participants in the dispute to restore the jokes to the article, and I hope this ends the dispute. Aumakua 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this didn't work, since the jokes remain deleted. A pity, since a page about Bektashism with no mention of Bektashi jokes is like a page about Zen with no mention of koans. Solri (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added a section on Bektashi humour. The jokes are different, but if anyone wants to dig out the original ones and add them, that would be fine. Please note Aumakua's comment about deleting or reverting; if there is anything problematic about these particular jokes, feel free to edit, but deleting jokes because they are "offensive" is vandalism. Solri (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio?

What reason is there to think that Nygdan's material is a direct text dump? He's stated it isn't [1]; have you checked his sources, Freestylefrappe? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Pagan Survivals

As a Bektashi, I take issue to Nygdan's overuse of this material stressing pagan borrowings in folk religion. Such traditions are NOT part of Bektashi spirituality. Perhaps this person should initiate an entry on pagan survivals among the people of the Balkans instead. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bektashi110 (talk • contribs) 00:21, January 28, 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the material for now, since it belongs somewhere, probably. If you want to split off the material from this page, you should make the effort to do so, instead of just deleting the information. Note: I personally have no interest in or knowledge of this subject area; I'd strongly suggest you and Nygdan talk about the content here to hash out what is best for the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The info looks like a copyvio text dump to me. For now it should stay until another page, perhaps your suggestion of Paganism in the Balkans, is created, or illegitimacy is proven. freestylefrappe 20:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

freestylefrappe, why should anyone grant your opinion here any weight? Your ridiculous allegations of 'copyright violations' on material from a /scientific journal/ are baseless.

As far as creating another page, seems silly to have a 'paganism in the balkans' page just to remove information that some people dislike. The fact that a particular bektashi doesn't follow these customs or this spirituality is irrelveant, they are old customs and beleifs maintained by the bekthashi in this part of the world. They aren't even, properly 'borrowings', they are survivals of ancient religions. These customs and beleifs have consistently been attacked and in many cases destroyed over the generations of sectarian strife in that region. Merely because now different people find them 'offensive' is hardly reason to eliminate them. Also, I get the impression that, if there was a page on these survivals, that the same people would demmand that there be no linking to them on this page. And, I have to re-iterate, it doesn't make much sense to exclude information from an article merely because it is unpopular. Also, this is part fo bekthashi theology, so it properly belongs on a page about the bektashi. Nygdan 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand you cant just dump text from a book without permission? I saw your userpage. Bektashi and Alawi are Islamic divisions whether you like it or not. The content you added is not being ridiculed for offensiveness as you are trying to misportrary, but its irrelevance. freestylefrappe 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious there is some sort of agenda here. There is nothing crypto-pagan in Bektashism and I would like to know, if there is, in what part of Bektashi 'theology' is this found? What you have inserted here may be survivals from ancient paganism, but I challenge you to show me how this is particularly relevent to Bektashis, especially given that Orthodox Christians and Muslims, Sunnis, Catholics, Sufis and Shi'is practice the same folk rituals other than by producing out of date material written by late 19th century European travellers. Bektashi110

Sabbatai Sevi et. al.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the 17th century Jewish "messiah" had contact with the Bektashi Order. Unfortunately this is an oft repeated fallacy that need no be repeated here. It is equally unfortunate that this entry has become a dumping ground for all sorts of misinformation and half truths. Perhaps if would be wise to seek a lock on it. Bektashi110

The influence of Sabbatainism (Sabbatai Zevi) and Hurufizm (Ali Al-Allah) on Bektashism

You can get some references by googling Sabbatai Bektashi, eg http://www.kheper.net/topics/Kabbalah/Zevi_and_Bektashi.htm http://www.donmeh-west.com/re-evaluation.shtml http://www.sunnirazvi.org/forum/read.php?f=15&i=3&t=3 Although soemone is removing the links from the Bektashi page for some reason... I think they are also removing links to Hurufizm. There are ongoing debates about whether Hurufizm is an Islamic or pagan or atheist discipline and so I think soem Bektashia maybe eager to distance Bektashism from either Sabbatainism or Hurufizm. Paki.tv 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Paki.tv: Do you know of any Bektashis personally? Can you, or the neo-pagan chap, read Ottoman Turkish or even modern Turkish, the language in which countless Bektashi books are written? If not, please refrain from you sweeping generalizations of "I think soem [sic] Bektashia maybe eager to distance Bektashism from either Sabbatainism or Hurufizm." This is definately not the case, as any serious student of the Tarikat knows all too well. If there are indeed any debates on anything it comes from the fact that people have no access to source material due to their lingustic limits and therefore decide to invent all sorts of erroneous assumptions. These website entries that you have listed regarding the false theory that there was some sort of Sabbataian influence on Bektashism can hardly be called credible sources (two Jewish and one traditionalist Sunni), while I have no problem with the Hurufi links to Bektashism. If anything it was Bektashism and Batini Islam that influenced Sabbatai Sevi and not the other way around! Also Fadlullah's khalifah's name is Ali al-'Ala not Ali al-Allah! Cheers! Bektashi110

OK I take your point about source material and admit i have waded in here with a very limited knowledge. Perhaps you could arrange for the translation of key texts into English to lift the veil from our eyes? In the meantime, i will re-write the reference to Sabbatai Zevi to simply mention contact between himself and Bektashia of the time, and also add that there are misinformed debates in the english language about links between Hurufi and Bektashi sufis, as well as Sunni anti-Bektashi propoganda which suggests the same. How does that sound? Paki.tv 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for graciously understanding the point. I would recommend the best book written in the English language on Fadlullah Astarabadi and the Hurufis to be the recent work by Prof. Shahzad Bashir, which is readily available. It includes a sizeable discussion on the Hurufi/Bektashi relationship, a portion of which is online (link is at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry). Also I think it would be more in place to put your reworked information on Sabbatai Sevi into the "History" section rather than right in the introduction, since it is something that, even if true, is peripheral to understanding Bektashism. As far as original source information we are slowly trying to make available Bektashi works to the public via (initially) our website www.bektashi.net All the best! Bektashi110

Many thanx, I will certainly check out the links, and shift the mention of Sabbatai to the history - it will make more sense there. All the best with your work, Paki.tv 22:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Bektashi's are not muslim as they say they dont have to pray 5 times a day, allow alochol, and say they do not have to preform the hajj.

Bektashi Poem

I found a Bektashi poem in "Bektachiyya Etudes sur l'ordre mystique des Bektachis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach". It is in Turkish with adjoining translation. It has strong Hurufis undertones, and is attribute Balim Sultan (d.922/1516). I would like to put it on in the article any thoughts? Text: Istivayi ozler gozum. (My eye seeks out repose) Seb'al-mesani'dir yuzum (my face is the oft reperated seven. ie Fatiha) Ana'l-Hakki soyler sozum (My words proclaim 'I am the truth') Miracimiz dardir bizim (Our ascension is by means of the scaffold) Haber aldik muhkemattan *(We have become aware through the firm letters) Gecmeyiz zattan sifattan (we will not abandon essence or attributes) Balim nihan soyler hakk'tan (Balim speaks arcanely of God) Irsadimiz sirdir bizim (Our teaching is a mystery). Any input?Altrafton 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Bektashism → Bektashi Order – per WP:COMMONNAME

• "Bektashi Order" -Llc 3,670 results (1923-2011 minimum 3,390 results)
• Bektashism -Llc 5,340 results, but these results include not only Bektashism but also Bektashis.
  • Bektashism without Bektashis 820 results
  • "Bektashism" -Llc 1,220 results, 1923-2011 minimum 1,020 results)

Takabeg (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

haji bektash isn't persian

his name bektash is turkic bek means lord or strong tash means rock his name means strong rock in turkic languages. it's uncommon a native persian adopted a turkic name while it's common to turks taking islamic (arabic or persian) names. furthermore haji bektash is in the list of silsila (chain) of turkistan saints after saint of turkestan hodja ahmad yesevi. branches of that silsila exclusively turkic. of course theirs was to a degree persianized culture and bore elements from both turkic shamanism and iranic zoroastrianism. origins of a historical figure creates unnecessary controversy yet i think it's important to give credit to turkistan saints silsila's cultural origins, because they represent a distinctive form of islam compared to persian and arabic cultural influences. without giving that credit it will be harder to analyze certain cultural influences in islamic thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.131.182 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Shia infoboxes

The bektashi are sufi not shia.عبد المؤمن (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised that the infobox places this article under Shia Islam. As the article points out, the Ottoman Janissaries were also initiated into Bektashism, and they weren't exactly Shiites ;-) Solri (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Shi'a Islam

If this is about Shi'a Islam, shouldn't that be sourced somewhere in the article? Did I miss it? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Development of the Bektashi faith

The large table given has no source, and I am strongly minded to remove it. On the face of it (to me, with some academic training in Islam) it looks tendentious: I note several comments from Bektashis in the threads above about being wrongly accused of syncretism, where their perception is that they are authentically Muslim (for want of a better term): the table would seem to do the same, forte. We should probably expect a source on every one of those links. But perhaps we don't even need to debate the merits of the genealogy given there: the connecting pipes are so vague as to make the table meaningless (and unhelpful) beyond vague insinuations. Are there other thoughts on this? Eteb3 (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Order name

The opening claim that the Bektashi Order is short for what is confusingly called here the "Shī‘ah Imāmī Alevī-Bektāshī Ṭarīqah" is simply incorrect and unsubstatiated by existing literature on this religious tradition.

The name of the order is, in keeping with typical Sufi practice of organising a set of teachings around that of a founding historical and religious personality, dervied from the name of the 13th century Anatolian religious figure from whom the Order traces it's lineage. It is not an abbreviation of anything.

On the subject of including the Bektashis under the rubric of Imami Shi'ism, this has sometimes been a practice by some historians of Shi'ism such as Moojan Momen who includes it in a list of Shi'ite groups due to some superficial similarities in devotional practices and rhetoric but is rarely taken seriously by specialists in the field who stress the amalgamation of various religious currents in Medieval Anatolia to the distinct character of the Bektashis

In older literature on the subject it was thought that the Bektashis may have been "Shi'itised" in the 15th century due to their proximity to Safavid propogandists. This view has been challenged in more recent studies which indicate increased Alid cultic practices to communities outside of this reach. In any case the Bektashis themselves don't refer to themselves as Shi'ite, and certainly not Imami which conventially designates a particular form of religiosity maininted by a scholastic and legalistic hierarchy, not simply a devotion to the Twelve Imams which can be found amoung a multitude of non Shi'ite Muslim communities, especially in Anatolian Sufism.

On the question of the common term Alevis often use to express their tradition in contemporary Turkey, that is "Alevi-Bektashi". This is a rather novel self designation of Alevi communities, particularly intellectuals in the 1980s and never a term used by the Bektashi Order which is an entirely seperate institution. On this subject I'd recommend consulting Markus Dressler's "Writing Religion" for a history in the evolution of this terminology.

To summarise, I feel it would be far more accurate to refer to the tradition in question to what it is called by both the Bektashis themselves an academia at large. That is simply, The Bektashis. Spinningsun (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Bektashi is much less than 20% of Muslims in Albania

The 3rd paragraph of the page states that "Albania is the country with the most Bektashis, where they make up 20% of the Muslim population." The number comes from reference 9. The number is highly though in the referred source it is mentioned twice. According to the Albania page, the whole population of the country is 2.8 million, there is less than 1.6 million Muslims (all Sunnis) and only 58 thousand Bektashi. That would do only about 3.75% of the Albanian Muslims, so the 20% is way off. PeterGabris (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

updated data here -- https://www.turkiyetoday.com/world/albanias-muslim-population-drops-below-50-for-first-time-in-centuries-24897/ 47.229.6.8 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Request move January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Bektashi Order → Bektashism Bektashism is much more suitable for this article as it is the WP:COMMONNAME now. See [Ngrams] QKIMK (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That Ngram is about 50:50, so it makes little case for a move. Meanwhile, Google Scholar shows quite a different story. You get 2,050 hits for "Bektashi Order", versus just 53 hits for "Bektashism", so likely not at all the common name in reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Your google scholar search has a spelling mistake, 'bektashism' has 2,170 hits [2]—blindlynx 20:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Restricting google scholar searched to the last five years (2017-present) shows a clearer trend towards 'Bektashism' with 750 hits [3] vs 519 [4]—blindlynx 20:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I could have sworn I double checked that. All of these comparisons are still little better than 50:50, 60:40-ish. We really need a better argument than Ngram and Google Scholar. This case should be being made by pulling up examples of recent authoritative sources referring to it as Bektashism rather than the Bektashi Order. It should be doable, as the movement appears to have shifted fairly clearly over its history from being a Sufi Order into something far more akin to its own syncretistic faith. Sources should reflect this. This type of narrative is reflected in pieces such as this, but we should really be looking for more scholarly evidence for such a shift in terminology from reputable, academic sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So something else to consider is that 'Bektashi Order' (searched without quotes) has 1660 hits since 2017 [5]. We're going to have to look at the sources more closely to see what's going on—blindlynx 21:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There are also plenty of people and companies with Bektashi as a name, as noted in the last review of this, which went about things by excluding "LLC". So yes, source studying required. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also a not uncommon trend for some works to manage to refer to the movement without deferring to either term - instead, sticking to just Bektashi and Bektashis (E.g.: here) Iskandar323 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Support per points made by QKIMK and blindlynx. It is also supported by a broader ngram, comprising Bektashism, Bektashiyya, Bektashi Order, Bektashi Islam and other. See [here] 9:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.138.220 (talk)

Please re-read the points i have made, i don't think there is a clear case for a move—or keep—without a review of sources that is simply haven't had the time to do—blindlynx 16:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Both the nom and 119.63.138.220 are block-evading sockpuppets. For the nom, see the current case section on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. For the IP a case section still needs to be filed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC) [edit: Struck since this SPI case isn't going anywhere atm. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)]
• Comment The ngram results get even closer if you combine the spelling variants "Bektashi Order" and "Bektashi order". Colin M (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

After doing a look around myself I do want to note that the phrase 'Bektashi' seems to be vastly more popular than any other used term. Using one of the searches above and adding it to the list highlights how much more common it is in usage. If it can be found out if this term relates to the religion as a whole then perhaps it is the better article title? Dubarr18 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Originated in 13th century Ottoman Empire?

Ottoman Empire (or rather the Ottoman Beylik) was founded on 1299. Haci Bektas Veli died in 1271. This information cant be true. 178.246.149.65 (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that statement in the lead contradicts the article body. Durraz0 (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)