A History of the ‘Alawis

From Medieval Aleppo to the Turkish Republic

Stefan Winter

• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781400883028
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

The 'Alawis, or Alawites, are a prominent religious minority in northern Syria, Lebanon, and southern Turkey, best known today for enjoying disproportionate political power in war-torn Syria. In this book, Stefan Winter offers a complete history of the community, from the birth of the 'Alawi (Nusayri) sect in the tenth century to just after World War I, the establishment of the French mandate over Syria, and the early years of the Turkish republic. Winter draws on a wealth of Ottoman archival records and other sources to show that the 'Alawis were not historically persecuted as is often claimed, but rather were a fundamental part of Syrian and Turkish provincial society.Winter argues that far from being excluded on the basis of their religion, the 'Alawis were in fact fully integrated into the provincial administrative order. Profiting from the economic development of the coastal highlands, particularly in the Ottoman period, they fostered a new class of local notables and tribal leaders, participated in the modernizing educational, political, and military reforms of the nineteenth century, and expanded their area of settlement beyond its traditional mountain borders to emerge from centuries of Sunni imperial rule as a bona fide sectarian community. Using an impressive array of primary materials spanning nearly ten centuries, A History of the 'Alawis provides a crucial new narrative about the development of 'Alawi society.

* 1 *

THE NUSAYRIS IN MEDIEVAL SYRIA

FROM RELIGIOUS SECT TO CONFESSIONAL COMMUNITY (TENTH–TWELFTH CENTURIES CE)

The Nusayris or ‘Alawis constitute one of the oldest and most established confessional communities in what is today northwestern Syria and adjoining regions, but their history in premodern times is often conceived of in terms of the anomalous and the exotic. In the literature they are generally branded as an “extremist” branch or “offshoot” of more normal Shi‘ism; members of a “heterodox” and covert “sect” who practice a “syncretic” religion with admixtures of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and other belief systems, a “survival” from the past who suffered continuous “persecution” and thus took “refuge” in the coastal mountains, where they maintained themselves for centuries in “concealment” and through taqiyya (dissimulation). While each of these notions can be investigated on its own merits, it is the way in which they are linked and emplotted, usually to the exclusion of more prosaic historical themes, that has produced a narrative in which the ‘Alawi community’s past appears wholly determined by religion, secrecy, and otherness.

The purpose of this chapter is to reexamine the early development of the ‘Alawi community and its situation in western Syria in the medieval period in the wider context of what might be termed Islamic provincial history. It starts from the premise that the conventional image of the “Nusayris” has largely been fashioned by elite historical sources whose discourse on nonorthodox groups is a priori negative but which, when read against the grain and compared with other sources, can yield a less essentializing, less conflictual account of the community’s development. In particular, this chapter aims to show that the ‘Alawi faith was not the deviant, marginal phenomenon it has retrospectively been made out to be but, on the contrary, constituted, and was treated by the contemporary authorities as, a normal mode of rural religiosity in Syria. The first part will trace the genesis and early diffusion of Nusayri thought, mainly on the basis of secondary literature, but will attempt to situate this thought in the wider stream of Shi‘i history and argue that Nusayrism simply represented the Syrian variant of medieval Twelver Shi‘ism rather than a radical departure from it. The second part will take a closer look at the constitution of Nusayri/‘Alawi society in geographic Syria. Drawing on a little-known ‘Alawi biographical dictionary, it will examine the community’s struggle with its Druze and Ismaili neighbors, its internal conflicts, and its reorganization along tribal lines following the intervention of Makzun al-Sinjari in the early thirteenth century.

GHULAT SHI‘I ORIGINS

There is no self-evident starting point for writing the history of the ‘Alawi community of Syria. Modern writers who equate ‘Alawism wholeheartedly with Shi‘ism tend to begin with the conflict over the Prophet Muhammad’s succession and the battle of Siffin in the seventh century;¹ Western orientalists sometimes took the term “Nusayri” to be the Arabic diminutive of “Christian” (Arabic Nasara) and thus fondly conceived of the ‘Alawis as a long-lost Christian tribe whose origins would of course predate Islam. While not accurate, this last view does raise the question of why the history of a given population need necessarily begin with its adoption of a particular religious creed, which is only one event on the timeline of its social and political evolution. This book will nevertheless take a conventional stand and begin with Muhammad ibn Nusayr and his teaching in the ninth century—not because these intellectual foundations should be seen as the one defining essence of ‘Alawi identity throughout history but because, right or wrong, it is as “Nusayris” that they were usually perceived by outsiders, categorized, discriminated against, ruled, taxed, and written into the historical record.

The doctrine subsequently labeled Nusayri can be traced back to the ninth-century Baghdadi scholar and mystic Muhammad ibn Nusayr al-Namiri (d. 883), a close disciple of ‘Ali al-Hadi (d. 868), the tenth Imam of the Imami (Twelver) Shi‘i tradition, and of his son Hasan al-‘Askari (d. 874), the eleventh and final visible Imam. According to the Nusayri/‘Alawi creed, the latter entrusted Ibn Nusayr with a secret revelation of the true nature of God, of the imamate and of the created cosmos, and anointed him as the bab or “gateway” through which believers could arrive at the same mystical comprehension. Ibn Nusayr’s doctrine, like the other ghulat or “ultra-Shi‘i” ideas current in Iraq at the time, revolved around the belief that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib had not merely been the Prophet Muhammad’s chosen successor but was in fact himself God. In the beginning of time the souls of the faithful had been celestial points of light worshipping ‘Ali, but at one point they were cast down to earth and incarnated in physical bodies as punishment for refusing to obey Him. The objective of the true believer is thus to recognize ‘Ali and return to his side in heaven; to this end ‘Ali appeared to mankind in various forms through the eons, whereby his true essence (ma‘na) was accompanied in each eon by a more outwardly prominent face (ism or hijab) as well as by a bab. In the Islamic cycle this triad was represented by the corporeal ‘Ali, the Prophet Muhammad, and their (probably legendary) Persian companion Salman al-Farisi and continued in the line of twelve Imams and their respective associates, including and ending with Ibn Nusayr himself.²

Ibn Nusayr’s deification of ‘Ali and the Imams earned him the rejection of Hasan al-‘Askari and later Shi‘i theologians and legists, who branded his thought as ghulat or beyond the pale of acceptable Shi‘ism and thus relegated Nusayrism to the rank of heresy with which it has been identified ever since. As is frequently the case in the study of religions, however, the orthodox mainstream, in this case of Twelver Shi‘ism, was nowhere near completely formed in his time, and it is precisely in the period of Twelver Shi‘ism’s consolidation as an Islamic “church” in its own right, under the protection of the Shi‘i Buyid dynasty in Baghdad in the eleventh century, that the first heresiographies defining Nusayrism and distinguishing it from correct Shi‘ism make their appearance. Historically, Ibn Nusayr and other ghulat did not “split from” or “part ways with” the mainstream Shi‘a, the views they espoused being no more or less heterodox at the time than those which were then—retroactively—made part of the normative Imami tradition. The term ghulat, as Marshall Hodgson observed, was a convenient label for any form of early Shi‘i speculation that did not make it into the later canons, while many of the central features of Twelver Shi‘ism, including the condemnation of the “two shaykhs” (i.e., the two caliphs) Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, the refusal to admit the death of the last Imam, and the expectation of his return, were in fact ghulat beliefs before the wider community adopted them.³ Conversely, the research of Mohammed Ali Amir-Moezzi suggests that many of the doctrines later identified with ghulat excess, such as the incarnation of God (hulul) or the transmigration of souls (tanasukh), were probably shared by the contemporary Imams themselves, who condemned the likes of Ibn Nusayr not for the content of their teaching but for disclaiming it publicly when it should have been kept secret (the fundamental meaning of taqiyya). Sects such as the Nusayris, Amir-Moezzi posits, may well hold the key to understanding what constituted “original” Shi‘ism.⁴

If the formation of Twelver Shi‘i orthodoxy has to be seen in terms of a historical process, the same is also true for Nusayrism itself. Many of the fundamental texts of Nusayri doctrine were also shared by other ghulat currents and predate Ibn Nusayr, such as the famous Kitab al-Haft wa’l-Azilla (Book of the Fall and the Shadows), while other elements such as the belief in seven cycles of cosmic time and the distinction between exoteric and esoteric meaning have cognates in, or are derived from, Neoplatonic philosophy and Eastern Christian Gnosticism.⁵ Still other features of Nusayrism, most notably its ritual calendar, show Zoroastrian influences and were incorporated only subsequently by Ibn Nusayr’s successors.⁶ It has for these reasons become a common theme in the literature to describe Nusayrism disparagingly as “syncretistic,” as if more established religions were not also historical amalgams of various older belief systems and influences. What is perhaps particular in the case of Nusayrism is that it would remain distinctive enough to not be absorbed into the general synthesis of Twelver Shi‘ism (even though Ibn Nusayr himself continues to be cited as a legitimate source for some Imami hadith) but never acquired the sort of patronage that would have allowed it to institutionalize a Nusayri “college” and fix its own orthodoxy along the lines of the better-known Shi‘i sects.

Ibn Nusayr’s thought originated in the still amorphous confessional context of ninth-century Baghdad, where the Imams of the ‘Alid line were venerated but viewed with suspicion by the ‘Abbasid caliphs and surrounded by intimates who alternately saw them as emanations of the divine or potential leaders of a millenarian revolt. Ibn Nusayr’s claim to be the true deputy of the eleventh and later the twelfth Imams was certainly considered plausible, seeing as he was their contemporary and associate; again it was only a century later under the Buyids that the idea of four “envoys” maintaining contact with the hidden Imam during the “lesser occultation” became the official and exclusive Imami dogma. Ibn Nusayr seems in particular to have been supported in his claim by the Banu Numayr (or Namir), a bedouin confederation based around Baghdad with which he himself was affiliated, and as such his mission was originally labeled “Namiri” and seen as a tribal as much as a religious movement. Despite the sectarian nature of his pro-Imami doctrine, he also had the support of the al-Furat family, a key pillar of ‘Abbasid court and intellectual life in ninth-century Baghdad. Ibn Nusayr’s main opponents were neither the Sunni rulers nor what later coalesced into the Twelver Shi‘a but rather another ghulat gnostic of Hasan al-‘Askari’s inner circle, Ishaq ibn Muhammad al-Nakha’i (d. 899) and his followers. Like the Nusayris, the Ishaqis deified ‘Ali and considered their own leader his rightful deputy or bab; as such they were serious rivals for the loyalties of the early Shi‘a, and this animosity carried over into Syria, where both sects eventually took root.⁷

The struggle between different ghulat currents to define correct belief was a key factor in their early diffusion but also raises the question of what historically constitutes “true” Nusayrism. After Ibn Nusayr’s excommunication and death his teaching was perpetuated by Husayn ibn Hamdan al-Khasibi (d. circa 957). Khasibi openly embarked on a mission to convert the faithful throughout the region and is thus usually considered to be the founder of the “Nusayriyya” as an organized religious group. At the same time, seeking the patronage of the Buyids, he also cast himself as a regular Imami scholar and rejected some of the most basic ghulat doctrines, including the physical incarnation of God and the transmigration of souls. He furthermore took a clear stand against antinomianism, insisting that the allegorical interpretation of Islam inherent in Nusayrism does not dispense the believer from also conforming to the outward letter of the law and from praying, fasting, and so forth. Yaron Friedman, whose recent monograph provides the most complete account of the religion’s development to date, has traced the many different and sometimes contradictory traditions represented in ‘Alawi theological literature and argued that many key precepts were not at variance with Muslim orthodoxy: thus the manifestation of the divine in human form has to be, and indeed was, understood docetically (i.e., as being in appearance only), while accusations of heresy or antinomianism or the use of the label ghulat generally resulted from a superficial or facile comprehension of Nusayri mysticism on the part of its detractors.⁸

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that the accusations leveled against the Nusayris were simply baseless. While a part of Nusayrism’s scriptural tradition may formally have rejected its more ghulat aspects, there is plenty of historical and anthropological evidence that various heterodox beliefs and practices were carried over into ‘Alawi religiosity on the popular level. Medieval, early modern, and contemporary observers attest to the widespread enjoyment of wine, which Friedman states was restricted to small amounts at especially important religious ceremonies, and certainly the Ottomans made a point of controlling and taxing the Nusayris’ wine production and distribution in the region (see chapter 3). This undercuts the notion that the Nusayris consistently denied or concealed their sectarian leanings; moreover it raises the question of what sort of religion the average Nusayri actually observed on a daily basis. In particular, the theological treatises that have been passed down make little or no reference to the visitation of shrines and the veneration of holy figures such as the pre-Islamic prophet and fertility saint Khidr (Hızır), which then as now can be said to have been the basis of popular ‘Alawi religiosity.⁹ Anecdotes about the Nusayris using mosques which the Mamluk authorities built for them as stables (see chapter 2), even if exaggerated for effect, and numerous later observations that ‘Alawis shunned mosque worship do indicate that pious Sunni Muslims throughout history found cause to criticize not only the mountaineers’ t...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgments
• INTRODUCTION
• 1: THE NUSAYRIS IN MEDIEVAL SYRIA: FROM RELIGIOUS SECT TO CONFESSIONAL COMMUNITY (TENTH-TWELFTH CENTURIES CE)
• 2: BEYOND THE MOUNTAIN REFUGE: ‘ALAWISM AND THE SUNNI STATE (THIRTEENTH-FIFTEENTH CENTURIES)
• 3: SURVEY AND PUNISH: THE ‘ALAWIS’ INTEGRATION INTO THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE (1516–1645)
• 4: THE AGE OF AUTONOMY: ‘ALAWI NOTABLES AS OTTOMAN TAX FARMERS (1667–1808)
• 5: IMPERIAL REFORM AND INTERNAL COLONIZATION: ‘ALAWI SOCIETY IN THE FACE OF MODERNITY (1808–1888)
• 6: NOT YET NATIONALS: ARABISM, KEMALISM, AND THE ALAOUITES (1888–1936)
• CONCLUSION
• Bibliography
• Index