Will the Alawis rebel against their one time hero Assad?

Bashar al-Assad is, at least in name, a member of the Alawi Shia sect known as Nusariyya before the French Mandate gave them some advice, to call themselves followers of Ali or "Alawi" and conform to Sunni Islam to avoid persecution, which I can understand, and it worked well as half of 8 infantry battalions in the Syrian Army were Alawi. They came to dominate the army.

In 1964 Baath party membership among the Alawis quintupled as they adopted a sectarians ideology.

The Nusayyri (Alawi) are a Shia offshoot created about 1,000 years ago named after Muhammad ibn Nusayr, died 859AD, after the death of 11th Imam Hasan al-Askari Nusayr claimed to be the Imams messenger, like Paul had with Jesus (pbuh) although Paul didn't know Jesus (pbuh), it is a similar scenario at least somewhat.

Core concepts: God is a triad, 7 times manifested, first with Abel, Adam, Gabriel and ending with Ali (God in the flesh) who created Mohammed who created Salman al-Farisi (Pharisee/Parsee/Farisi... Interesting), Persian companion and evangelist (pbut).

The triad is Mang(meaning)-Ism(name/veil)-Bab(gate).

Bab-el, the Tower of, was a "gateway" to Heaven, essentially.

Oddly Simon-Peter(pbuh) is "God in the flesh" to the Nusayyri, not Jesus(pbuh) and they also celebrate Christian holidays, in fact it is likely that Nusayri and Nasar (Nazarene) have a connection, evidenced by their quasi Christian doctrine that convinced Jesuit scholar Henri Lemmans they were "Lost Christians." I would say quasi-Christian.

They also believe women are inferior, have no souls and can't reincarnate, a belief they picked up from either Hindu, Greek, Phoenician, Manichean or maybe Zoroastrian beliefs, all said to be incorporated into their doctrines.

Assad lives a life of power and wealth and his co-religionists are impoverished mostly, which is why they became soldiers at first.

Since 2011 Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and doesn't care if you are Alawi, Christian or Shia if you oppose him, he WILL kill you.

Alawis are starting to rebel, which could be disastrous in so many variable ways, or the solution to the problem itself.

Assad's cousin killed an Alawite officer and for this the Alawi want him dead.

Personally I don't care what they believe, if they have been puppets for Assad all along and are willing to turn against him I could forgive the fact that they are his forces in combatting Syrians who want to oust Assad, the rebels, their complicity in the bloodshed as his puppets.

And who better to take out a dictator than his own people.

If the Alawi have different beliefs that conflict with Islam by even liberal standards I don't really care, religous freedom is a right that should be extended to all. Maybe they suffered persecution in the past, I am sure of it actually, but it doesn't excuse the fundamental concept of the Qur'an that no Muslim should ever shed another Muslims blood (or go to war with Muslims.)

The article I am using mentionied the French policy of divide and conquer was used during the French mandate, as done earlier by the British who beguiled the Arabians to fight the Turks of the Ottoman Empire only to end up as subjects of the British and Americans, as was Turkey made the "Secular Republic of Turkey."

All in all it seems Muslim have been getting screwed over by colonialists, who install puppet regimes after they subdue a nation, and I feel it is time to set aside religous differences in the Middle East and concentrate on ousting oppressive regimes forced upon them by either sham democracies or coups backed by who knows who, usually it is the British or Americans though.

If the Alawites want to free Syria they could.


And I believe they might and hope they do.

Insha Allah.

Salaam. source

a reply to: Disturbinatti

All in all it seems Muslim have been getting screwed over by colonialists, who install puppet regimes after they subdue a nation, and I feel it is time to set aside religous differences in the Middle East and concentrate on ousting oppressive regimes forced upon them by either sham democracies or coups backed by who knows who, usually it is the British or Americans though.

Did you just say the west should stop regime change and then call for another "Ouster"??

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Disturbinatti

All in all it seems Muslim have been getting screwed over by colonialists, who install puppet regimes after they subdue a nation, and I feel it is time to set aside religous differences in the Middle East and concentrate on ousting oppressive regimes forced upon them by either sham democracies or coups backed by who knows who, usually it is the British or Americans though.

Did you just say the west should stop regime change and then call for another "Ouster"??

You have my comment and know that I did not say that.

Not at all.

I said it is time for the Middle East to set aside religous differences and concentrate on ousting dictators installed (likely and usually) by the West.

Because the divide and conquer strategy works and needs to be conquered itself.

Colonialism is not dead, it just morphed. Transmutated and exists under the guise of spreading (sham) democracy.

a reply to: intrptr

And as you also know I said Muslims have been getting screwed over by colonialism. It began after WW1, but was planned much earlier to divide and conquer the Muslim world.

I would say it was obviously a success.

Oust Al-Assad and they all get slaughtered by the Wahhabis. The Alawi know this, the Shia know this, the Christians know this, the non-radical Sunnis know this.

He's not going anywhere.

a reply to: Ohanka

Wahhabis exist almost exclusively in the Arabian peninsula and would have nothing to do with it.

Russia is the problem, Saudis are not in this case.

If I am wrong I will say it if you give me a good reason and some good evidence that this would happen.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Oust Al-Assad and they all get slaughtered by the Wahhabis. The Alawi know this, the Shia know this, the Christians know this, the non-radical Sunnis know this.

He's not going anywhere.

You are probably right about him not going anywhere.

Hope is all some have.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

You have my comment and know that I did not say that.

I do now. My apologies, thanks for setting me straight...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Disturbinatti

You have my comment and know that I did not say that.

I do now. My apologies, thanks for setting me straight...

No problem, apology accepted.

a reply to: Ohanka


Just some information about Wahhabism I want to share.

It was an obscure sect until the 70's when British intelligence sponsored its ascendency to prominence in order to oppress the people of the Holy Land of Islam and rewrite after scrapping the successfull system of Islamic law that had made it so successful over the 1400 or so years it was codified.

Introducing a non traditional version of Islam rejected by 95.5% of Islam, hated even, especially since they occupy the most important land in Islam and spit on its traditions at the same time as oppressing women in violation of Quranic Law and Sharia.

It is still a minority at .5 percent, but they wield enormous power and wealth, the house of Saud and their court jesters.

What this does is make 95.5% of Muslims subliminally associated with anti Muslim practices, because it's the Muslim Holy Land.

And I am sure it is useful for much more.

Hasan al-Banna, founder of the "Muslim" Brotherhood, was a British spy and Freemason also, and if it is an act of terrorism, I can assure you they planned it, the Middle East is infested with Masonic lodges right now in literally every country.

The invisible enemy is always more dangerous, as you can not fight what you can not see.

Fascinating insight.

Thank-you for sharing. It's really important that people like you take time to explain the complexity of Islam's sects. If we're ever going to have peace in the middle east it's going to take tolerance and understanding of everyone's differences.

As for Assad, if he needs to go, he needs to go. But Syria needs another secular government to allow diversity to flourish once again.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: Ohanka

Wahhabis exist almost exclusively in the Arabian peninsula and would have nothing to do with it.

Russia is the problem, Saudis are not in this case.

If I am wrong I will say it if you give me a good reason and some good evidence that this would happen.

Russia is the problem for helping the Syrian government fight the Wahhabi terrorists with known ties to Saudi Arabia?

Wahhabism does not simply exist on the Arabian Peninsula. They aggressively spread this ideology (I blatantly refuse to acknowledge it as a legitimate sect of Islam) overseas either through armed terrorist groups (Al-Nusra, Free Syrian Army, Islamic State etc.) or through covert radicalisation. The latter being evident in the Saudi funding of mosques across the world.

Mosques with connection to the House of Saud exist all over the world, from America to Southeast Asia, and serve as propaganda centers to radicalise Muslims into Wahhabists and Salafists. It is no coincidence that the majority of foreign recruits for the Islamic State attend these Saudi-funded mosques.

There was also not a single charitable motive behind Saudi Arabia offering to pay to build a mosque for every 100 refugees that Germany takes.

Saudi Arabia is the problem not only in Syria but across the world. Most major Islamist terrorist attacks can be traced back to them in one way or another.

I think much of what the OP is writing is what OP wants the situation to be.

The Sunni could have lived in Secular Societies all over the world if they reformed and rejected the Saudi influence. But Mammon and it's corruption is not easy for souls on this level to stand up against.

It is quite telling when OP choose to not see Saudi Arabia as spreaders of fundamentalism thru Salafi/Wahhabism.

a reply to: LittleByLittle


Hey, buddy.

Of course it's what I want, I basically said so.

What would be your reason for caring?

I also said Wahhabism was powerful and wealthy which means influential so you are just hostile to my hope for a peaceful Syria, or something equally disturbing.

Wahhabism has no relevance to the topic though as it's basically confined to the Arabian peninsula and only .5% of Muslims are Wahhabis, you hype up their influence when it obviously isn't THAT influential if it doesn't make up even 1% of Islam.

Mammon? Talk about meaningless rhetoric.

It's ok, anti Muslim hate speech is chic nowadays, you are cool.

Hater.

a reply to: Ohanka


Russia is not helping Syria fight Wahhabis.

Russia helps Russia and isn't helping anyone else but Russia.

Wahhabis have nothing to do with Syria, exist almost exclusively on the Arabian peninsula.

ISIS is not Wahhabi. Muslim Brotherhood controls ISIS.

a reply to: markosity1973

Thanks for your (unfortunately rare) positive comments, I do appreciate it.

I literally learned about this today, but I firmly believe to learn something and not share it is a waste of knowledge.

Even though some people (not you) take it as an opportunity to spew confused rhetoric that only shows they don't understand Islam or the Middle East, at least you have the decency to say thank you for sharing what is I imagine an interesting topic if you are interested in such things.

I know it fascinated me. I have never heard of this sect before today.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Not true. Boko Haram in Nigeria & Chad are Wahhabi-Salafis. The Taliban & Al Qaeda in Afghanistan are also Wahhabi-Salafis. And Al Shabaab in Somalia are also Wahhabi-Salafis.

Not to mention, the Syrian "rebels" are largely foreign Salafi and Wahhabi groups. Syria's new Constitution, adopted by a referendum in 2012, solved a lot of the problems that caused the initial Syrian protests. And then in 2014, Pres Assad was re-elected in Syria's first contested democratic Presidential elections.

But guess what? The Western-backed "rebels" and the Wahhabi-Salafi groups don't accept that Constiution nor Assad's democratic reelection. They want to form their own govt/govts in Syrian land and impose their own laws, completely rejecting the will of the Syrian voters. That's why the Syrian people and Syrian Army are still backing Assad. Oh did I mention that 2 months after Assad was democratically elected as President, the US started its official bombing campaign in Syria?

a reply to: markosity1973

And I am not entirely averse to secular government but I don't think it works in the Middle East or Islamic nations who have an ancient culture with 1400 years of tradition that should not be dispensed with.

Look at Turkey, it nearly became a dictatorship recently, was put to vote. I don't think it worked but it could come up again.

And every religion is persecuted in Turkey including Islam, especially Islam.

Since WW1 the Donmeh-Sabbateans have controlled the Secular Republic, since Ataturk. A Sabbatean is a heretical Jewish follower of despised by Orthodoxy Shabbatai Svi, a false messiah of the 17th century whose followers converted to Islam with him after he declared his Messianic claim to the Turkish Sultan or one of his aides, was told he had to prove this (reportedly by seeing if God would save him from death) or convert to Islam and chose to convert.

Reportedly Ataturk is a descendant but when you have orgiastic wife swopping rituals as religous rites genealogy is tough to trace.

They aren't allowed even to return to Israel under the right of return law but oddly Israel wields immense influence there, a lot are Frankists and Sabbateans themselves.

And look at what happened to Saudi Arabia which certainly is not secular but scrapped 1400 years of tradition, now everyone thinks Wahhabism is the norm and it's only a half a percentage of Muslims worldwide who are Wahhabis.

And the Masonic Lodges that spring up in the Middle East that are a result of this trend towards westernization only help the Muslim Brotherhood, ARE the M.B.

It doesn't work. Islam needs to be Islam, wasn't intolerant before this trend at all, even being the protectors of Jews for 1400 years.

A fact few know but is easy to discover from many Rabbis on YouTube.

And they were welcomed by Coptic Christians, Syrian Christians, Jews as deliverance from Edom aka Byzantium, as the 8th century Apocalypse "Secrets of Simeon ben Yohai" calls Mohammed (saws) the "Rider on the camel" of Isaiah and "a deliverance for Israel."

John bar Penkaye wrote in the 7-8th century that Islam was Divinely decreed to protect their monastic life corroborating our own records.

And the Hebrews of the Iberian peninsula also welcomed them.

This intolerant behavior is a result of secularism or westernization, not the answer to it.

That's how I see it.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yes I am sure you know everything but that doesn't make anything I said untrue.

It wasn't.

And I really don't think you understand my position, or that I am not against Islam because I am a Muslim myself which seems to have escaped your notice.

You seem to be reacting as if I am slamming Islam, I could be wrong, but it seems like it.

You didn't even say WHAT was not true, you completely diverged from the topic after claiming it.

But I didn't say anything that wasn't true so it doesn't matter anyway.

I don't care about Boko Haram or whatever you are talking about, I care about Syria and the topics in my post and comments.

If you are saying Wahhabism is not almost exclusively confined to the Arabian peninsula you would be wrong, it is, it also is only .5 percent of Islam worldwide.

I know how to fact check bro.

If you are just looking for someone to say "You are wrong" to, look elsewhere.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

All I want is peace in Syria.

My thread is saying that the Mid East needs to set aside religous differences and unite against the despotic western puppet masters.

And that I would forgive the Alawi if they turn on Assad.

What's not true about that?