• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Deep into Druze faith

  • Advertisement
  • Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    That's a very oversimplified historical vision. Your line is not sound at all because you can flip it and it's inaccurate. I can do the same thing and say we have no evidence of the existence of Christians in Tyre, if so "produce one church" in pre-Islamic Lebanon. In this case we don't have direct observable evidence that there were Christians ever in Tyre, which is a very silly thing, we have to rely on historical accounts and narrations in this case.
    The point is that there is NO historic accounts of Ismealis in Lebanon in Druze areas. NO Ismeali in Lebanon today that claims old roots. No Ismeali neighbors of the Druze who have not converted. Druze are mostly neighbored by Christians.

    I have never heard this claim ever before. Often Academics say Druze were Yezidi-like polytheists or Christians in the Chouf.

    While Christians do have significant archeological sites in Lebanon. And would have historical accounts in Sidon and Tyre. Ismealis in Lebanon never had any significant presence.

    As for the quote, I don't know who wrote this nor where is this coming from, there's no reference. I have no reason to believe this quote is purporting the actual history of the Druze and neglect other historical accounts. Some accounts specifically sayal-Hakim ordered ad-Darazi to be killed because of his divisive way of preaching the Druze faith after being appointed by al-Hakim himself, which is a fringe account and isn't taken seriously by historians since "it must have sounded in his personal life and his activities as a ruler."
    Citation is originally from The Olive and the Tree. A book about Druze and their history.

    It has nothing to do with Ad Darazi and Al -Hakem. Just points out how Ad Darazi was fighting a "unity movement" that was already there in the Chouf and Houran. And as you know, Druze prefer to be called the Unitarians and reside in those two areas.

    If you want more evidence that the Druze were already established as a mystery cult before the fatimids, you would have to do your own research about the beliefs and practices of the Druze that are unique and different than Ismealis or anyone in the Levant.

    Another thing:
    The Druze historical accounts were written primarily to explain theological and religious issues rather than to record history. The Druze accounts were however written at a much later date, i.e., in the 16th and 17th centuries, such as "Majra az-Zaman" by Taqi ad-Din Zayn al-Abidin Abdul Gaffar in 16th century, and "Umdat al-Arifin" by Abdul Malik al-Ashrafani in 17th century.
    True to some extent. But there's very old accounts of the Druze by foreign travelers. And Druze themselves recorded their history. The Epistles of Wisdom (which is academicaly estabisbled to be from the 10th century) is like a historic record of different phases / interactions with different groups. For instance, the Two Letters to Constantinople.
     
    X

    Xynus87

    New Member
    Often Academics say Druze were Yezidi-like polytheists or Christians in the Chouf.
    Yes, obviously there were lots of converted Christians whatever sect they are but the Ismaili component is still present in the Druze. For example Druze tend to have higher incidence of E-M81, the main lineage of North Africans, out of all Lebanese groups. Why? Lots of Ismailis migrated from North African powerhouse of the Fatimids, often settled by the Fatimids and that's because the Fatimids relied on mostly the Berbers in the army and as viziers.

    The point is that there is NO historic accounts of Ismealis in Lebanon in Druze areas. NO Ismeali in Lebanon today that claims old roots. No Ismeali neighbors of the Druze who have not converted. Druze are mostly neighbored by Christians.
    Well lots of Druze families migrated from what is now Syria, especially the areas adjacent to Aleppo, you can see it in their family histories and more general history, not that every single claim should be taken as an objective fact of course.. And if you're familiar with that era, you'd be familiar with the Mirdasids (an Ismaili Shia dynasty), but the preaching was not confounded there of course. Wadi at-Taym was a center for the Druze da'wah and all sorts of people, Christians, Muslims be them of any sect, joined the Druze faith and accepted the vow that necessitated their belief of reincarnation.
    As for the Ismaili presence in Lebanon, prior to the crusaders, for instance, Tripoli was known for being a city of Twelver and Ismaili fusion. Banu Ammar, the rulers of the Emirate of Tripoli and vassals of the Fatimids from, if I'm not mistaken, 1079 till the fall of Tripoli in the hands of the Franks in 1109. Sidon or Tyre also had Ismailis, but I can't remember at the moment, everything I'm citing here comes from authentic historians and scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah described the inhabitants of Keserwan in the late 13th century belonging to "al-Batiniyyah", which was used mostly for Nizari Ismailis and Nusayris (Alawites). There was an Ismaili Nizari presence in areas that are not too far from northern Lebanon, in Masyaf as well for instance, before borders were ever drawn. There are lots of other accounts but I'm not here to speak about it.

    If you want more evidence that the Druze were already established as a mystery cult before the fatimids, you would have to do your own research about the beliefs and practices of the Druze that are unique and different than Ismealis or anyone in the Levant.
    The problem here comes with the misunderstanding of how cultural influence and contact comes. I'm not denying that Druze faith borrowed elements from different faiths, I already agree and concur this is holds some truth. You can see the same thing in the Nusayri (Alawite) faith, with holding belief that human souls originate from the stars in the world of light and are consequently cast and lost on earth. This is very similar to the Mandaean idea that souls are captives that belong to the world of light, almost identical. How? We know the Nazerini existed in the Syrian coastal mountains region in Latakia and Tartus, and they were described to us by Pliny the elder. Does this mean Nusayri is derived from Nazerini? No, the etymologies are different, but the idea is that when the Nusayri missionaries fled Aleppo with their leader in around 1030, the local peasantry of the coastal mountain region was subsequently an easy target for preaching and so they won over their perspectives. And so when these rural people converted they incorporated local beliefs to the Nusayri faith, and as I have related in my previous posts the Gnostics existed in that region. This explains how these beliefs became existent in their faith, but before that they weren't and that's when they were Twelver. The same thing is happening here. It's problematic if you claim that the Druze faith already existed as a faith before the Ismailis sect ever was founded, and frankly no scholar would take that seriously.

    While Christians do have significant archeological sites in Lebanon. And would have historical accounts in Sidon and Tyre. Ismealis in Lebanon never had any significant presence.
    Of course there are Christian archaeological sites in Lebanon, don't assume anyone would deny that because then it would be foolishness. I was just drawing analogies, the archaeological sites are supposed to mean something, and to be fair Tripoli was never extensively excavated so there could be churches and mosques buried under the current city and I'm sure we would find lots of places there. Perhaps when the whole corona issue ends.
    Just because the sect is a minority nowadays does not necessarily imply the sect never existed. It did, and I already explained how Ismailism was existent in all the coastal cities during the Fatimid era, and how the Fatimids would settle people from north Africa here.
     
    Last edited:
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Yes, obviously there were lots of converted Christians whatever sect they are but the Ismaili component is still present in the Druze. For example Druze tend to have higher incidence of E-M81, the main lineage of North Africans, out of all Lebanese groups. Why? Lots of Ismailis migrated from North African powerhouse of the Fatimids, often settled by the Fatimids and that's because the Fatimids relied on mostly the Berbers in the army and as viziers.
    The genetics you cited are misleading.

    Druze tend to have a "higher incidence" of many other things. It's because they're a minority that marry from each other, and so admixture is magnified in a sense. That's why we even hit high incidence in North European.

    1586468849911.png


    Genetic studies show that the Druze are mainly of Armenian Turkish ancestries.

    "The mixed Near Eastern–Middle Eastern localisation of the Druze, shown using both modern and ancient DNA data, is distinct from that of neighbouring Syrians, Palestinians and most of the Lebanese, who exhibit a high affinity to the Levant. Druze biogeographic affinity, migration patterns, time of emergence and genetic similarity to Near Eastern populations are highly suggestive of Armenian-Turkish ancestries for the proto-Druze. "


    Well lots of Druze families migrated from what is now Syria, especially the areas adjacent to Aleppo, you can see it in their family histories and more general history, not that every single claim should be taken as an objective fact of course.. And if you're familiar with that era, you'd be familiar with the Mirdasids (an Ismaili Shia dynasty), but the preaching was not confounded there of course. Wadi at-Taym was a center for the Druze da'wah and all sorts of people, Christians, Muslims be them of any sect, joined the Druze faith and accepted the vow that necessitated their belief of reincarnation.
    That's false too.
    Few families migrated from Aleppo. Like the Halabi family. But most Syrian Druze are actually a "Lebanese diaspora" from the 1700s. As in that period, Houran was destroyed and was rebuilt by Lebanese immigrants to that area (from Hasbaya and Chouf), who took advantage of the agriculture.

    Even the Turshan family are said to be from Tursha in Wadi Taym in Lebanon.

    As for the Ismaili presence in Lebanon, prior to the crusaders, for instance, Tripoli was known for being a city of Twelver and Ismaili fusion. Banu Ammar, the rulers of the Emirate of Tripoli and vassals of the Fatimids from, if I'm not mistaken, 1079 till the fall of Tripoli in the hands of the Franks in 1109. Sidon or Tyre also had Ismailis, but I can't remember at the moment, everything I'm citing here comes from authentic historians and scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah described the inhabitants of Keserwan in the late 13th century belonging to "al-Batiniyyah", which was used mostly for Nizari Ismailis and Nusayris (Alawites). There was an Ismaili Nizari presence in areas that are not too far from northern Lebanon, in Masyaf as well for instance, before borders were ever drawn. There are lots of other accounts but I'm not here to speak about it.
    There's no proof or evidence for Ismaeli presence in Aley or the Chouf, that's my point. Or any Ismealis today in those areas. If the Druze could survive, Ismealis would have survived too next to Druze, Jews and Christians.


    The problem here comes with the misunderstanding of how cultural influence and contact comes. I'm not denying that Druze faith borrowed elements from different faiths, I already agree and concur this is holds some truth. You can see the same thing in the Nusayri (Alawite) faith, with holding belief that human souls originate from the stars in the world of light and are consequently cast and lost on earth. This is very similar to the Mandaean idea that souls are captives that belong to the world of light, almost identical. How? We know the Nazerini existed in the Syrian coastal mountains region in Latakia and Tartus, and they were described to us by Pliny the elder. Does this mean Nusayri is derived from Nazerini? No, the etymologies are different, but the idea is that when the Nusayri missionaries fled Aleppo with their leader in around 1030, the local peasantry of the coastal mountain region was subsequently an easy target for preaching and so they won over their perspectives. And so when these rural people converted they incorporated local beliefs to the Nusayri faith, and as I have related in my previous posts the Gnostics existed in that region. This explains how these beliefs became existent in their faith, but before that they weren't and that's when they were Twelver. The same thing is happening here. It's problematic if you claim that the Druze faith already existed as a faith before the Ismailis sect ever was founded, and frankly no scholar would take that seriously.
    A lot of false things here.
    Nusayris are an offshoot from the Assassins. Assassins were an offshoot or part of the Nizari Ismealis.
    And this Nusayri group does not condemn Mohammad or Ali.
    Druze are very different. Druze even fought the Assassins (of Latkiah) and the Druze leader Dahek Abu Jandal killed their leader in Wadi Taym. They were hostile to each other.


    Of course there are Christian archaeological sites in Lebanon, don't assume anyone would deny that because then it would be foolishness. I was just drawing analogies, the archaeological sites are supposed to mean something, and to be fair Tripoli was never extensively excavated so there could be churches and mosques buried under the current city and I'm sure we would find lots of places there. Perhaps when the whole corona issue ends.
    Just because the sect is a minority nowadays does not necessarily imply the sect never existed. It did, and I already explained how Ismailism was existent in all the coastal cities during the Fatimid era, and how the Fatimids would settle people from north Africa here.
    Ismealis existed in coastal cities, sure. But Druze don't inhabit coastal cities. Except for perhaps the few princes of Beirut.
    Druze homeland is the mountains. So I don't think the theory that Druze were mostly ex-Ismaelis is valid.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    And I don't claim that Druze existed as Druze before Ismaelis.

    I argue that most proto-Druze were Gnostic Christians in the Lebanese and Syrian mountains. With some Pagan traditions that you can find archealogical evidence for such as "rock collection" or black rocks [incorrectly] called "baphoments" in Suweida. And a Christian / Jewish affinity towards the Temple of Solomon, cedar trees and Tsidian traditions among the Chouf inhabitants.
     
    Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    That's a very oversimplified historical vision. Your line is not sound at all because you can flip it and it's inaccurate. I can do the same thing and say we have no evidence of the existence of Christians in Tyre, if so "produce one church" in pre-Islamic Lebanon. In this case we don't have direct observable evidence that there were Christians ever in Tyre, which is a very silly thing, we have to rely on historical accounts and narrations in this case.

    As for the quote, I don't know who wrote this nor where is this coming from, there's no reference. I have no reason to believe this quote is purporting the actual history of the Druze and neglect other historical accounts. Some accounts specifically sayal-Hakim ordered ad-Darazi to be killed because of his divisive way of preaching the Druze faith after being appointed by al-Hakim himself, which is a fringe account and isn't taken seriously by historians since "it must have sounded in his personal life and his activities as a ruler."

    Another thing:
    The Druze historical accounts were written primarily to explain theological and religious issues rather than to record history. The Druze accounts were however written at a much later date, i.e., in the 16th and 17th centuries, such as "Majra az-Zaman" by Taqi ad-Din Zayn al-Abidin Abdul Gaffar in 16th century, and "Umdat al-Arifin" by Abdul Malik al-Ashrafani in 17th century.

    Tyre was one of the most ancient and important Dioceses of the Christian Church. That's why when the barbaric Muslim invaders came they completely destroyed the city and genocided the Christian population and never allowed Christians to settle in great numbers again. The Muslim mission since the beginning was to destroy and occupy all important Christian cities. Antioch, Tyre, Dasmascus, Alexandria were the most affected places during the Arabian invasion, but Constantinople and Rome were the ultimate goal - to completely destroy Christianity.


    Now let me ask you, Baalbek had the largest Syriac Orthodox population after Tur Abdin. What happened to them?
     
    X

    Xynus87

    New Member
    Tyre was one of the most ancient and important Dioceses of the Christian Church. That's why when the barbaric Muslim invaders came they completely destroyed the city and genocided the Christian population and never allowed Christians to settle in great numbers again. The Muslim mission since the beginning was to destroy and occupy all important Christian cities. Antioch, Tyre, Dasmascus, Alexandria were the most affected places during the Arabian invasion, but Constantinople and Rome were the ultimate goal - to completely destroy Christianity.
    Not that I agree completely with what happened during the Islamic conquests, but this is completely bogus.
    Let's see what the early letters of the Muslims entailed:
    In your march be not hard on yourself or your army. Be not harsh with your men or your officers, whom you should consult in all matters. Be just and abjure evil and tyranny, for no nation which is unjust prospers or achieves victory over its enemies. When you meet the enemy turn not your back on him; for whoever turns his back, except to manoeuvre for battle or to regroup, earns the wrath of Allah. His abode shall be hell, and what a terrible place it is! And when you have won a victory over your enemies, don't kill women or children or the aged and do not slaughter beasts except for eating. And break not the pacts which you make. You will come upon a people who live like hermits in monasteries, believing that they have given up all for God. Let them be and destroy not their monasteries. And you will meet other people who are partisans of Satan and worshippers of the Cross, who shave the centre of their heads so that you can see the scalp. Assail them with your swords until they submit to Islam or pay the Jizya. I entrust you to the care of Allah.
    If their will was to completely destroy Christianity as you're claiming all of the populace would have been put to the sword in a blink of an eye.
    But on the contrary, the Christians were given compensations for the Umayyad mosque (being a basilica originally), the Mariamite Cathedral was reopened for instance. If the ultimate goal was to destroy Christians then why do Christians still exist in the Levant?

    Now let me ask you, Baalbek had the largest Syriac Orthodox population after Tur Abdin. What happened to them?
    Logically, a significant chunk of them must have converted to Islam or became Maronites or Greek Orthodox. Assuming this claim relates to the Islamic conquests era.
     
    X

    Xynus87

    New Member
    Lol. Sorry. I didn't mean you weren't saying that... I was just going over it.
    The Assassins were indeed Nizari Ismailis, but the Nusayris existed well before the Assassins. There shouldn't be a confusion between Nizari and Nusayri, as the latter comes as a description to the followers of Ibn Nusayr, a companion of Hasan al-'Askari, the 11th Imam for Twelvers.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The Assassins were indeed Nizari Ismailis, but the Nusayris existed well before the Assassins. There shouldn't be a confusion between Nizari and Nusayri, as the latter comes as a description to the followers of Ibn Nusayr, a companion of Hasan al-'Askari, the 11th Imam for Twelvers.

    It's really the same group. Those were just different descriptions of it.
    Both have same origin story. Founder was in prison and magically escaped.
    Both in the same area. Latkiah / coastal North Syria.
    And many other similarities.

    Refer to the book The Asian Mystery.
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    Tyre was one of the most ancient and important Dioceses of the Christian Church. That's why when the barbaric Muslim invaders came they completely destroyed the city and genocided the Christian population and never allowed Christians to settle in great numbers again. The Muslim mission since the beginning was to destroy and occupy all important Christian cities. Antioch, Tyre, Dasmascus, Alexandria were the most affected places during the Arabian invasion, but Constantinople and Rome were the ultimate goal - to completely destroy Christianity.


    Now let me ask you, Baalbek had the largest Syriac Orthodox population after Tur Abdin. What happened to them?
    Lol, that’s what conquerers tend to do- conquer. You’re just butt-hurt that the Muslims did it so well.
     
    X

    Xynus87

    New Member
    That's not a very accurate way of reading history. The Nusayris still had a very divergent history, and even longer than that of the Assassins.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The biggest difference between Nusayris and Assassins is that Assassins believed God appeared among them per se. In their different caliphs. I think the main one was Caliph Sinan.

    While Nusayris had God appearing in Ali Ibn Abi Taleb and others before him. But don't comment much on God's "newer appearances". Even though the Nusayri cycles (in the form of a Trinity) are not said to have stopped.
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    Not that I agree completely with what happened during the Islamic conquests, but this is completely bogus.
    Let's see what the early letters of the Muslims entailed:

    If their will was to completely destroy Christianity as you're claiming all of the populace would have been put to the sword in a blink of an eye.
    But on the contrary, the Christians were given compensations for the Umayyad mosque (being a basilica originally), the Mariamite Cathedral was reopened for instance. If the ultimate goal was to destroy Christians then why do Christians still exist in the Levant?


    Logically, a significant chunk of them must have converted to Islam or became Maronites or Greek Orthodox. Assuming this claim relates to the Islamic conquests era.
    Let’s not forget Jerusalem, and how Saladin spared Jewish and Christian lives when he took over the city. The crusader pigs did not do the same.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Also what's funny is that...

    Druze, Qarmatians, Nusayris, Assassins are all called Seveners.
    But not one group of them is a Sevener.
    Or gives any real importance to the Seven Imams.
    :D
     
    Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    Lol, that’s what conquerers tend to do- conquer. You’re just butt-hurt that the Muslims did it so well.

    Well, then Muslims should stop saying Islam is a peaceful religion and admit it spread only due to violent wars and conquests, genocide and forced conversions.
     
    Top