From the Omayyad to the Alawites, on the History of Sectarianism in Syria

The advent of the internet opened a virtually limitless access to information for anyone who could read; the explosion of the Social Media opened a world-wide forum to exchange thoughts, ideas, and data in the form of friendly-user links that magically pop-up with a mere click the way Aladdin used to summon his genie by rubbing his legendary lamp. Anyone could quote anybody and provide an immediately available reference to support his or her point of view.

More often than not, those links are misleading if not outright mendacious and it takes a healthy dose of knowledge and skepticism to guard against abusing, rather than using the Information Technology. Wikipedia is nowadays one of the most cited -perhaps the most cited- references and yet it is full of falsehood and tendentious articles, at least when it comes to history and politics.

The year was about 2011 or 2012 when I had an online exchange with an anonymous English speaking Internet user (most likely an American) regarding the composition of the Syrian Army. He posted an assertion that the majority of the men making-up the Syrian Armed Forces belonged to the Alawite Sect, when I replied to the contrary, he promptly provided a link to Wikipedia corroborating his view thus -in his mind at least- dealing me the proverbial coup de grace. I was certainly not about to divulge my national origin to yet another know-it-all ignoramus but I politely pointed out to him that what he was proposing was simply impossible: the Syrian Law prescribed mandatory universal military service for all men of all sects age 18 or older with few exemptions, naturally I provided a link to support my counter argument but he deigned not reply to my post or even acknowledge receiving it.

So much of this anecdote. Everyone who lives in Syria or has resided therein long enough knows that the Syrian Army is made-up of all Syrians, not just the Alawites as many outsiders seem to think. That said, there is no question that the Alawites are over-represented in the professional armed forces and this is true for the Officer Corps, the N CO’s, and the carrier soldiers in general. Certain key units are commanded by Alawites and that has been the case for decades, no ifs ands or buts. Why is it so? Has there been a deliberate policy by the powers-that-be to construct a sectarian army? And if so, towards what purpose?

To understand the process by which the Alawites came to occupy such a position, one has to go back in time, all the way to the Ottomans if not prior. For centuries, the Alawites were marginalized, impoverished, and discriminated against. They sought a safe haven in the mountain named after them the way the Druze, Maronite, and Twelver Shiites have done in Greater Syria from time immemorial. So long as Syria belonged to one empire or another, the Alawites' ambitions were frustrated by the dictate of the imperial center often located thousands of miles away; in this respect they shared the fate of all Syrians with the exception of those who identified or collaborated with the hegemon.

Syria gained its independence in 1946 and felt as such compelled to have its own national army, rather than depend on the “protection” of Paris or Constantinople. Joining the army was now open to all Syrians -Jews excepted though I am not sure at what point did this discrimination start- who wanted to embark on a military career, and there was of course the above mentioned universal service. But who are usually the ones who choose such a career? This is a question that could be posed in any country, not just Syria.

Serving in the army in Syria is most certainly not a free ride. Military life is difficult for the vast majority of soldiers even in peaceful times. It is true that some may end-up achieving wealth and glory but this is the exception, not the rule. Many more lose life and limb and the majority endure a Spartan existence. Conclusion: if you or your parents have the means, chances are you would not opt for a military career, this is true of everyone regardless of color or creed. Joining the army affords some a chance, a way out of a precarious life. The army is a vehicle of social mobility all over the planet. If the Alawites joined the Syrian Armed Forces in disproportionate numbers, it is because they'd been disproportionately poor, not because they harbored some ominous designs to dominate the country. An excellent study about the rise of the Baath Party and its relation to Syria's Peasantry and minorities was done by the late Hanna Batatu. Patrick Seale's Asad is also an essential read for those interested in Syrian politics.

But is this phenomenon, that of minorities assuming leadership, a new one? Was it a product of the 20^th Century? Of decolonization? Let's take a free ride in a time machine to the Middle Ages, and let's start with the 7^th Century AD. Admittedly this would be an arbitrary departure point for a country as ancient as Syria.

When the Arabs thundered out of their peninsula under the banner of Islam to evict the Byzantines out of Syria and North Africa and humble the Sassanian Empire beyond redemption -in what could arguably be described as the Blitzkrieg of the Dark Ages-, the Levant was still largely Christian in creed (with a multitude of denominations at each other's throat to be sure) and Aramaic and/or Greek in speech. The triumphant Arabs were a minority in language as well as religion and that was to be the case throughout the reign of the Omayyad. They even discouraged the conversion of the natives preferring instead to maintain their privileges as an elite caste, taxing the “Zhimmis” to support a parasitic (excuse my language but I prefer to call a spade a spade) Arab soldiery and its dependents. Tolerant of others faith they were, but this tolerance varied with the temperament of the ruler. Perhaps the most tolerant of them all was the founder Muawiya, understandably so as the state was still young and vulnerable, whereas the least tolerant was the pious Omar ibn Abdul Aziz.

The Omayyad reign came to an end when -in a blood bath- their White Banner succumbed to the Abbasid Black Banner. In reality it was a resurgence of the Persian Empire and a reassertion of Iranian age old dominance in Mesopotamia. Syria was marginalized under the Abbasid as the empire's center of gravity shifted to the east. It is not my intention to narrate a page that does not properly belong to the history of Syria. Suffice it to say that the Abbasid Empire was dominated by Persians or Turks practically since its inception all the way to its collapse and ultimate destruction under the onslaught of the Mongol Hordes.

Syria subsequently fell under the Tulunid, Hamdanid, Fatimid, Seljuk Turks, Crusaders.... It was to experience an Indian Summer under the Zengid and the Ayyubid. It is interesting to note that not only were those “minoritarian” rulers (for by then the Arabic speaking people constituted a decisive majority) of a different ethnicity, they also hardly spoke Arabic. They bore different, foreign-sounding names as could easily be verified by paying a visit to some of the countless mosques and mausoleums they left behind throughout Syria. Saladin was not an Arab no matter what the pseudo-history taught in Syria's schools tells us. Same goes for Nureddin, al Adil, all the way to the fall of the Ayyubid in the middle of the 13^th Century.

From 1250 to 1516, Syria fell under the dominance of the Mameluke, yet another alien race with alien manners and foreign tongue. Next came the Ottomans who regularly appointed governors from all over their vast empire to Syria, then one of of their fairest provinces.

It should by now be evident that Syria has been governed by one minority or another since at least the Muslim Arab invasion. Those pesky “sectarians” however eventually managed to melt with the rest of the population, adopt its “native” Arabic tongue, contribute to the country' s rich heritage.

One cannot overemphasize the importance of those inconvenient yet straightforward facts: pretty much every single religious, ethnic, linguistic group in Syria was -at one point or another- a sect or a minority. The same ignorant and derogatory stereotypes heaped indiscriminately against the Alawites today were in all likelihood used and abused against “Pagans”, Omayyad, Persians, Turks, Fatimid, Kurd, Jews, Samaritans, Christians (Monophysite, Nestorian, Greek Orthodox), Muslims (Sunni, Shiite, Ismaili, Druze) you name it.

Bigotry does not target individuals, rather whole groups. It is not about what you do but who you are. It goes without saying that no one should be immune to criticism and any leader or politician should be fair game. President Obama is a case in point: serious criticism targets his domestic and foreign policy, bigots choose to focus on irrelevant issues such as his faith (or the lack thereof), skin color, parents, birthplace.