The Transformation of the Ottoman State’s Relationship with the Nusayri/ʿAlawi Community in the Nineteenth Century

ABSTRACT

This article aims to examine the changing nature of the Ottoman central administration’s policies towards Nusayris in the nineteenth century. In different contexts of space and time, the Ottoman authorities employed different measures of collaboration, oppression and persecution, while the Nusayris responded to these policies by either resistance or accommodation. Drawing on various sources from the Ottoman archives, the article singles out various contexts in time and space, in which the Ottoman state – both centrally and locally – condemned them as ‘heretics’ or, alternatively within this fluid continuum, accommodated them to local political and administrative practice and needs. A close analysis of the practices and the terminology brought to bear in dealing with the Nusayris suggests an adaptive, ever changing and dynamic relationship of the state to these parts of the population. The findings presented here thus urge the historicization of instances of persecution and marginalization in order to come to terms with complex religio-political entanglements and, finally, to delineate a more nuanced perspective on the history of this community in the late Ottoman Empire.

KEYWORDS:

• Nusayris
• non-Sunnis
• Ottoman minorities
• 'Alawis

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The term Nusayri is used in this article without prejudice or preconception. The decision to use this term is primarily based on the fact of its extensive use in the two primary sources on which this article depends, namely Ottoman archival records and missionary accounts and reports.

2 Winter, History of the ‘Alawis, 119–60.

3 Ibid.

4 Barkey, Empire of Difference, 155.

5 BOA, HAT. 496/24372; BOA, HAT. 495/24295.

6 BOA, HAT. 92/3784; Uğuz, Tarihte Nusayriler, 139.

7 Uğuz, Tarihte Nusayriler, 140.

8 BOA, HAT. 385/20647.

9 Winter, History of the ‘Alawis, 177–81.

10 BOA, HAT. 386/20671.

11 Winter, History of the ‘Alawis, 170–4.

12 Friedman, ‘Ibn Taymiyya’s Fatawa’.

13 Lyde, Ansyreeh and Ismaeleeh, 196.

14 Winter, ‘Alawis, 180.

15 ‘ … Zenadıka ṭāʾifesinden olmak mülabesesiyle iʿtiqād-ı fāsida ve fiʿil-i şenīʿaya tebāʿiyet ederek Laẕkiyeʾniñ Nuṣayrī mukāṭaʿatlarınıñ ehālisini … ’ BOA, HAT. 521/25480.

16 BOA, HAT. 508/24973.

17 Çapar, ‘Mezhepçilik’, 128.

18 Antakya Şerʿiyye Sicili (AŞS), 23, s. 6–8, b. 7.

19 Çapar, ‘Nusayri Reaction’, 27.

20 Farah, Politics of Interventionism, 15; Marsot, Egypt, 222; Çapar, ‘Nusayri Reaction’, 28–9.

21 Winter, History of the ‘Alawis, 182.

22 Talhamy, ‘Nusayri and Druze Minorities’, 975.

23 Marsot, Egypt, 235.

24 Çapar, ‘Nusayri Reaction’, 29.

25 Kinnear, Cairo, Petra, and Damascus, 330.

26 Winter, History of the ʿAlawis, 183.

27 Talhamy, ‘Nusayri and Druze Minorities’, 981.

28 BOA, HAT. 451/22354.

29 Winter, History of the ʿAlawis, 186.

30 Omar, ‘Alawites Rebellion’, 83.

31 Talhamy, ‘Conscription among the Nusayris’, 31.

32 Winter, History of the ‘Alawis, 186.

33 Omar, ‘Alawites Rebellion’, 74.

34 Ibid.

35 Çapar, ‘Mezhepçilik’, 131–2.

36 Ibid., 132.

37 Winter, History of the ‘Alawis, 215.

38 Köksal, Local Intermediaries, 102.

39 Jabbour, ‘Safita et son environnement’, 612.

40 BOA, A. MKT. NZD. 124/42; BOA, A. MKT. MVL. 74/84; BOA, A. MKT. MHM. 757/110, 2.

41 Dussaud, Histoire, 33.

42 Çapar, ‘İsmail Hayr Bey İsyanı’, 48.

43 BOA, HR. MKT. 236/94.

44 BOA, A. AMD. 83/17.

45 Çapar, ‘İsmail Hayr Bey İsyanı’, 51.

46 Terms particularly underlining the ‘infidel’ character of the Nusayris, such as zenādıka ṭāʾifesi (group of unbelievers), kāfir (infidel) and iʿtikād-ı fāsida (corrupted faith), were used in state documents. Such terms were used whenever the Nusayris threatened state control up until the 1870s. In the report on that point a group of Nusayris in Şeyh Sindiyan village killed one person and injured three others in 1858. The authorities depicted the Nusayris as infidels (kāfir Nuṣayrīleriñ bir fırkası – ‘a group of infidel Nusayris’). However, in other documents and reports regarding the same incident in 1858, the Nusayris were described as ṭāʾife (merely ‘group’) and with no emphasis on their sectarian identity. I suggest that this indicates that the authorities adopted the earlier terms to describe only the small group of the Nusayris who committed the crime rather than the whole community. It is important to note the context in which these terms were adopted to describe the Nusayris, and how inclusive the terms were. BOA, MVL. 750/107; BOA, A. MKT. MHM. 349/68.

47 Ibid.

48 Talhamy, ‘Nusayri Leader’, 904.

49 Çapar, ‘Mezhepçilik’, 137.

50 Bilgili et al., Osmanli arşiv, 41.

51 ‘Laẕkiye Qa’immakāmına ve ṣavb-ı çākeriye olarak bu kerre ṭaraf-ı veliyyü ’n-niʿam-ı efhāminden aldığım emīrnāmede Nuṣayrīlere dā’ir her ne keyfiyyet vukuʿ bulur ise ifāde etmemiz içün emr ü irāde buyurulmuş’ BOA, MVL. 750/107, 1.

52 BOA, A. MKT. MHM. 757/110, 4.

53 BOA, A. MKT. UM. 395/98.

54 BOA, A. MKT. MHM. 349/68, 5.

55 BOA, DH. MKT. 1311/27, 2.

56 BOA, A. MKT. MHM. 349/68, 5.

57 BOA, ŞD. 2428/9, 5.

58 Ibid.

59 Kiremit, ‘Lazkiye’, 101–3; BOA, İ. MMS. 62/2930.

60 BOA, ŞD. 2428/9.

61 Kiremit, ‘Değişim sürecinde’, 80–6.

62 His positive image among the Nusayris is described by a Nusayri historian: El-Tavil, Nusayriler, 261–3.

63 Barkey, Empire of Difference, 288.

64 For detailed analysis of taṣḥīḥ-i iʿtiqād measures, see Alkan, ‘Ottoman Policy’.

65 Deringil, Well-Protected Domains, 110.

66 Makdisi, ‘Ottoman Orientalism’; Deringil, ‘‘Nomadism and Savagery’; Kasaba, Moveable Empire. For justification, see Amara, ‘Civilizational Exceptions’, 929; Solomonovich and Kark, ‘Bedouins’, 210.

67 Solomonovich and Kark, ‘Bedouins’, 210.

68 The followings are a few examples of how the Nusayris’ ignorance is described: ‘the defects in the Nusayris’ character are the result of ignorance’ (Nuṣayrīleriñ mizāçlarında bulunan bozukluğuñ hep cehāletten kaynaklandığı), BOA, İ. MMS. 113/4821; ‘[the community is] in need of education and knowledge’ (ʿulūm ve maʿarife muḥtāc) BOA, A. MKT. MHM. 475/44, 2; ‘remaining under the influence of ignorance’ (zimmet-i cehāletde kaldıkları) BOA, BEO. AYN. 867/141.

69 In the late nineteenth century, with a substantial transformation in the Ottoman discourse on ‘heterodox groups’ from describing them as ‘heretics’ to calling them ‘ignorant’ tribes or rural people who needed to be brought back to the right path through education and teaching the right Islam, the Ottoman central administration adopted a novel terminology to describe these communities. For examples see: BOA, DH.TMIK.M. 168/7; BOA, A. MKT. MHM. 475/44, 2; BOA, İ. MMS. 113/4821; BOA, Y.PRK.UM. 19/70; BOA, İ. MMS. 114/4867, 2. The terms used to describe the elimination of their ignorance through the correction of belief policy were taṣḥīḥ-i iʿtiqād, taṣḥīḥ-i ʿaqāʾid-i dīniye, taṣḥīḥ-i dīn ve iʿtịqād. BOA, MVL. 247/32, 2; BOA, MV. 54/37. Sometimes the terms refer to apostasy, such as iḥtidā, kabūl-i ʿakāʾid-i İslāmiye, dīn-i mübīn-i İslām ile teşerrüf etmek, dīn-i mübīn-i İslām ile teşerrüf etmek, dīni mübīn-i İslāma geçmek, hidāyet-i rabbāniye eseri olarak iḥtidā etmek. This kind of terminology suggests that the Nusayris were not considered real Muslims. BOA, MF.MKT. 507/58, 1; BOA, İ.DH. 1182/92451; BOA, İ. MMS. 113/4821; BOA, MF.MKT. 187/1, 1–2; BOA, MV. 54/37; Mertcan, ‘Türk modern devletinin’, 8–9.

70 BOA, MV. 54/37; The schools that were opened in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were often named after Sultan Abdülhamid II.

71 BOA, İ. MMS, 111/4821.

72 BOA, İ. MMS. 113/4821.

73 BOA, İ. MMS. 114/4867.

74 The central administration was concerned about missionary activities among the Nusayri communities, which intensified after the 1860s. On Nusayri interest in these schools and Ottoman measures towards missionaries in the region, see Türkyılmaz, ‘Anxieties of Conversion’, 203–23; Alkan, ‘Fighting for the Nusayri Soul’; Çapar, ‘Governance in the Periphery’, 11–15.

75 BOA, Y.PRK.UM. 19/70.

76 Çapar ‘Governance in the Periphery’, 7.

77 BOA, Y. PRK. AZN. 4/57.

78 BOA, Y. PRK. AZN. 4/57.

79 BOA, MF. MKT. 228/28, 1–2.

80 BOA, Y.PRK.UM. 19/70.

81 BOA, DH. MKT. 1767/69.

82 BOA, Y. PRK. AZN. 4/57.

83 BOA, MVL. 247/32, 1–3.

84 BOA, BEO. AYN. d. 867, 138.

85 BOA, DH. MKT, 31/9, 1–4.

86 BOA, BEO. AYN. d. 867, 141.

87 BOA, BEO. AYN. d. 867, 144; Bilgili et al., Osmanli arşiv, 69–74.

88 BOA, HR. TO. 516/24.

89 Winter, History of the ʿAlawis, 209–10.

90 BOA, DH. MKT. 31/9, 2.

91 BOA, Y. PRK. MF. 2/57, 1.

92 BOA, Y. PRK. MF. 2/57, 2.

93 Following the successful application of the correction of belief policy among the Nusayris, the term of ‘ṭāʾife-i hüdāiye’ (those who had found the right path) was adopted to refer to them. BOA, DH.TMIK.S. 26/31; BOA, MF. MKT. 496/33. Halil Kemal Bey’s lahiya says that the Nusayris used the term of Alevi ṭāʾifesi to describe themselves. The same term is used in İskenderun court records to refer to the Nusayri community. The Nusayris probably adopted the term Alevi to describe themselves in the petitions in order to attribute to themselves a more universal Islamic identity in the 1890s. BOA, Y. PRK. MF 2/57, 1.

94 BOA, Y. PRK. MF. 2/57, 2. In some circumstances, Nusayris’ testimonies against Sunni Muslims were not accepted as the members of the group were considered believers in ‘akîde-i fâside’, a ‘corrupt faith’. Their testimonies were accepted or rejected depending on whether they constituted a majority or minority in the region where they lived. According to Dick Douwes, their testimony was accepted in the court of Latakia, but not in the court of Hama, where the Nusayris were a minority in the mid-nineteenth century. Douwes, ‘Knowledge and Oppression’, 165–7. However, Antakya court records 34 (1866), 35 (1868) and 50 (1899) indicate that the applications of people from Levşiye, Muğayirun, Nehr-i Kebir, Nehr-i Sağir and Dersuniye, where almost all the population were Nusayris, were processed. See Antakya Şer’iyye Şicili (AŞS) 34, s.35, b.69; AŞS, 34, s.62, b.130; AŞS, 34, s. 103, b. 270; AŞS, 35, s. 24, b. 131; AŞS, 50. s. 25, b. 124; AŞS, 50. s. 67. b. 203. There seems to be no indication in these records of their sectarian affiliation. In particular, a case in 1867 indicates that a person from Muğayirun applied to the court, and one of his witnesses was a person residing in the same district. (AŞS, 34, s.62, b.130). Considering these cases, it can be inferred that evidence given by Nusayris in court was only recognized in exceptional instances in particular places. The Sunni people’s reactions, attitudes of local powerful families, the arbitrary behaviour of local administrators, and the effort to prevent inter-communal tensions in Antakya and Iskenderun contributed to the Nusayris’ uncertain status in the courts of Antakya and Iskenderun.

95 BOA, İ. MMS, 130/5563, 1–2.

96 BOA, İ. MMS. 130/5563, 1–2. The authorities also responded to this allegation by stating that the correction of the Nusayris’ beliefs had been registered, approved and announced by the local court. BOA. DH. MKT. 1958/80, 1–3.

97 BOA, İ. MMS. 130/5563, 1–2.

98 Around 50–60 Ottoman soldiers attacked Nusayris in the mosque in İskenderun in 1896. BOA, Y. A. HUS. 358/80, 1. The attackers in Adana are described as ignorant and despicable people in the phrase ‘ʿalā melāʾi ʾn-nās Etrākden bir takım cehele ve haẕeleniñ’. BOA, BEO. 201/15050, 2; for other documents on this issue, see BOA, MF.MKT. 374/12.

99 BOA, YEE. 132/38, 4–5.

100 BOA, İ. MMS. 113/4821, 12.

101 Winter, History of the ʿAlawis, 204.