//The Alawite Discourse in Syria: Analysis and Transformations//
Suddenly, and without warning, the Syrians found themselves facing a rapid succession of events that imposed on them a new discourse they were not accustomed to. This caused a state of confusion among all components of Syrian society, both at the national and religious levels, especially among the Alawites, who were prohibited from forming a religious council in their name or even from addressing others in sectarian terms. They did not even favor this language in the first place, as it contradicted their own methodology, which was based on the words of Imam Ali (peace be upon him): "People are two kinds: either your brother in faith or your equal in humanity."
The Alawites lived in a state of citizenship alongside their fellow Syrians within a system that prohibited sectarian labels—this is one of the merits that should be acknowledged. However, the course of events led them to use sectarian language after it had become the norm.
At the beginning of the events, the Alawites rejected the label of the "Alawite regime," which, in truth, was never the case. The regime included all religious sects, and the Alawites, as a community, did not have any privilege over other sects. On the contrary, they felt that such a label was an accusation and a false claim, a scapegoat used to shift the blame of that era and absolve the participants in that system from punishment by exploiting this accusation. Anyone familiar with the reality of Alawite areas understands the depth of this statement, as it reflects widespread poverty, deprivation, and exclusion from the economic scene (factories, businesses, investment zones...), as if it were a systematic effort to keep them confined to civil and military jobs, which were limiting and subordinate to the state, merely to fulfill the bare minimum for a decent living.
Additionally, the Alawites rejected the merging of religion with politics and the idea of attributing the sins of politics to religion. For them, religion is a personal act of worship directed towards the Creator, and its influences should not be exploited for worldly matters, as it would tarnish the sanctity of faith.
...All these factors prevented the Alawites from adopting a sectarian discourse, considering it a discourse of division at the expense of a unifying national discourse. This explains the confusion in recent religious discourse, as well as the appearance of various scattered statements in the name of the Alawites in their areas of presence. This is an issue that should be addressed quickly, as, although it has its justifications, it creates an impression of a lack of organization and unity.
Accordingly, the Alawite religious discourse passed through two phases: the phase of surprise at the events, and the phase of balance in processing the events.
Phase One: The Phase of Surprise at the Event:
The Alawites were more affected than other communities, especially since the media had deliberately attached a sectarian label to the regime—particularly by claiming the existence of a religious council that guided and provided directives to the regime, which was considered a "shadow religious government." The facts have proven this claim to be false, just like other accusations that tried to link the regime with the religious establishment. The media attempted to use religious emotions as one of the tools to topple the regime, succeeding to a large extent, as it did previously with other cases of exaggeration during the fall of each Arab regime according to the specific circumstances of each country.
Under this media mobilization and the dramatic scenario of events, with a religious body taking power, and in the face of fears of negative repercussions following the fall of regimes, the Alawite discourse was characterized by several features:
- Emphasis on the sanctity of life and blood, according to the religious principle outlined by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who said: "Every Muslim’s life, property, and honor are sacred to another Muslim."
- Highlighting the Alawite religious stance in rejecting injustice and violence, and distancing themselves from bloody events, refusing to link them to religious identity from any side.
- Welcoming the new political leadership in the country and declaring support for it, directly refuting the theory of Alawite rule, and showing that the Alawites had no attachment to power. This also demonstrated their acceptance and willingness to coexist with any political component or regime based on justice.
- Emphasizing the separation of religious and political spheres, thus dissolving the accusation of a connection between the Alawite community and the political regime, which had members from all sects and components.
- Highlighting the social and economic grievances, shedding light on the reality the Alawites were living, thereby refuting the accusation of benefiting directly from the ruling regime.
- Emphasizing the principle of security, which provides the Alawites with a guarantee for peaceful living, and stressing their trust in the promises made by the new leadership, especially after the official statements guaranteeing tolerance, non-revenge, avoidance of bloody violence, and respect for the rights of all Syrian components, particularly minorities. Simultaneously, guarantees were provided to maintain order and prevent any further bloodshed.
Phase Two: The Phase of Processing the Event:
The Alawites did not abandon the principles they had outlined in their statements because they were based on firm convictions, reflecting unity within the Alawite community and sincerity in expressing their reality.
With the emergence of some instances of provocation and violations in Alawite areas—particularly attacks on sacred places, insults, and violations of rights and dignity—doubts began to arise regarding the assurances provided by the religious body to the Alawites and minorities. Excuses, such as claiming these were isolated incidents or actions by undisciplined factions, no longer seemed adequate. Fearing a loss of trust and the possibility of sliding into a new sectarian fitna, which could destabilize the situation, ideas and proposals started to take shape in the discourse:
- Emphasizing the rejection of holding on to power or defending it, in favor of affirming national identity and the unity of the country as a national decision and choice in Alawite thought.
- Clarifying the demand for a general amnesty, excluding individual actions that violated religious principles or rules of combat, and emphasizing the need to classify these actions and hold those responsible accountable.
- Reaffirming the national option and rejecting the idea of geographic or sectarian division of the country, a stance drawn from the decision of the Mujahid Sheikh Saleh Al-Ali and the Alawite elders who rejected the notion of an Alawite state, insisting on the unity of Syria, both in land and people.
- Emphasizing the twin principles of "security and dignity" as a way to achieve stability and reassurance in the country.
- Addressing the Alawites as citizens and participants, as required by national belonging, not as subordinates driven by the considerations of victory or defeat.
- Reaffirming the protection of religious freedoms, sanctities, and dignity, and the need to prevent provocations from any side, which could lead to reactions that would spiral out of control, damaging the trust the Alawites sought and which they wanted to see as sufficient guarantees that could not be questioned or compromised.
- Reaffirming the principle of citizenship for all components of the people as a means to achieve social justice, and emphasizing the Alawites' right to participate in managing the country's affairs as an essential component with the national experience and capabilities necessary to play an active role in building the nation.
- Calling for the formation of local protection committees from the people of the areas to ensure security in coordination with the leadership.
- Praising the efforts of the religious body in maintaining order and responding to many requests that reassure the Alawites, while continuing to demand that these reassurances become more effective, particularly in preventing violations against innocents and sacred sites and addressing the growing demands of the people in light of the difficult economic situation.
- Rejecting instances of insults and violations of rights and dignity, and demanding the cessation of behaviors that contradict human emotions and national belonging, which go against the guarantees given by the religious body, and on the basis of which it gained the acceptance and trust of the Alawites.
In light of these circumstances, the Alawites in Syria have shed the label of the "ruling sect" that some tried to impose on them as a collective accusation deserving of collective punishment. It has become clear to everyone that the alleged privileges they were envied for were false claims and burdens they carried. They trusted the new leadership based on official guarantees given to them, and this trust is now threatened by repeated attacks on their dignity, which is detrimental to stability, undermines commitments, and requires urgent and definitive action to restore the necessary level of trust to build a state based on law, justice, and equality.
They are always ready to play their role on a national level when the required conditions are met.
You can also read:: (1) Alawites in Syria: Drawing Conclusions
- 552 views