In Pursuit of National Unity: Anti-sectarian Discourse in 19th Century Syria
INTRODUCTION
Sectarianism, fanaticism, and ethno-religious conflicts are among the few terms that have predominantly been associated with the Arab world in Western news, scholarship, and discourse. International scholars and policymakers alike still look at the Arab world through a rigid sectarian lens, choosing to categorize Arabs by their religious and tribal affiliations alone, portraying them as separate religious and tribal groups destined to engage in an endless battle against one another. It is a lens and decades long narrative that assumes that civil wars and ethnic conflicts are unique to the Middle East, and do not occur in other regions of the world.
Historically, the heterogeneous nature of the Middle East represented an opportunity for foreign and colonial actors to justify their political and military interventions in the region, manipulating sectarian identities for realpolitik gains. However, despite inter-communal hostilities and sectarian strife occupying significant chapters in the region’s history, as the renowned historian Ussama Makdisi writes in the introduction of the illuminating volume Age of Coexistence, “every history of sectarianism is also a history of coexistence”.1 Existing Western literature on the Middle East, whether wittingly or unwittingly, adopts primordial terms when looking at its conflicts and clashes, heavily disregarding the critical role of the surrounding context in which said sectarianism evolves. As Makdisi eloquently puts it, “there is a key difference between orientalizing the Middle East (thinking of it as strange, aberrant, and dangerously different) and historicizing it (putting it in context and in dialogue with analogous experiences in other parts of the world)”.2 This Essay aims to examine anti-sectarian discourse in Ottoman Syria, which included modern day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine, during the late 19th century. It will do so through a careful mapping of Butrus al-Bustani’s works in an attempt to shed light on a pivotal part of our region’s history that remains understudied to this day.
BUTRUS AL-BUSTANI (1819-1883): A LUMINARY OF PATRIOTISM
Butrus al-Bustani was an exceptional Arab figure of the 19th century who played a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of Greater Syria during a tumultuous period. His reformative ideas influenced the manifestation of complex issues related to secularism, nationalism, and even feminism in Bilad Al-Sham. Al-Bustani, along with other intellectuals like Rifa’at al-Tahtawi (1801-1873), Muhammed Abduh (1849-1905), Ibrahim al-Yaziji (1847-1906), and Rashid Rida (1865-1935), were part of a time that Albert Hourani explained as representing “Arabic thought in the liberal age”3, which infused progressive ideas into different segments of a collective Arab society. Most scholarly works focus on al-Bustani’s pioneering role during Al-Nahda, or the Arab Renaissance, and discuss his contributions to the period’s reform agenda through the evolution of journalism and women’s rights in the region. However, less attention is given to al-Bustani’s anti-sectarian project and his ultimate quest of forging national solidarity among Syrians.
Al-Bustani was born into a notable Maronite family from Dibbieh, a small village in Al-Shuf region in Mount Lebanon. He attended the prestigious seminary school of Ayn Warqa where he studied theology and various languages.4 According to the renowned historian George Antonious, al-Bustani “stood out among his contemporaries, both for his character and for the brilliance of his attainments”.5 In 1840, al-Bustani decided to relocate to Beirut and converted to Protestantism possibly due to a “faith related fallout” at school. Henceforth, al-Bustani left his birthplace and moved to Zokak Al-Blat in Beirut, a hub for Al-Nahda’s activities and a center for Protestant missionaries.6 There, he established close ties with Eli Smith at the then American mission in Beirut, and they became intellectually close and shared the same passion for knowledge. Notably, they even worked together on translating the Bible to the Arabic language.7
Notwithstanding, al-Bustani’s attachment to the mission was based on personal ties with Smith rather than claims that he was ideologically submerged as many historians note. In fact, the death of Smith in 1857 “put an end to Bustani’s major connection with the mission.”8 Contextually, al-Bustani’s pursuit for national unity emerged when he first moved to Beirut and co-founded a number of cross-sectarian salons that discussed social and cultural affairs.9 Interestingly, al-Bustani’s rhetoric uniquely blended Syrian nationalism and Arabism more broadly. In 1859, al-Bustani presented his famous lecture titled “On the Literature of the Arabs”, which aimed to invoke a sense of pride in Arabism through its emphasis on both the Arabic language and culture. For al-Bustani, the role of language cannot be limited to education, rather, he stressed, “it was above all a basis of national identity”.10 In addition, al-Bustani asserted in his lecture that cultural infrastructure was a necessity for social progress.11 More importantly, he went further to argue that the unity of the people constitutes a primary condition for knowledge.12
INTER-CONFESSIONAL CLASHES OF 1860
The year of 1860 marked a watershed moment in Damascus and Mount Lebanon. Vehement clashes among Druze and Maronite communities in Mount Lebanon, as well as violent confrontations between the Muslims and Christians of the Bab Tuma neighborhood in Damascus, took place.13 In fact, various factors contributed to the turmoil, and the violence was primarily incited by a mixture of socio-economic and geopolitical causes, rather than, as alleged in the literature, an ancient animosity between the various identity groups.14 The Ottomans’ conflict with the Europeans had a critical influence in the social, political, and economic order of Mount Lebanon.15 As Makdisi illustrates, the strife was rooted in the struggle among the social classes in Mount Lebanon, where power was historically divided between upper class Druze and Maronites who dominated the social sphere. Yet the Ottoman reforms of 1856, known as Tanzimat, altered the balance of power by offering equal representation to all Ottoman subjects belonging to the various religious groups.16 Consequently, this placed Maronites of a lower class in a power struggle against the Druze elite. Thousands of Maronites were murdered by the Druze, their villages burned and holy places destroyed.17 The events in Mount Lebanon and Damascus created an opportunity for European powers to exploit and justify their intervention under the banner of saving Christians of the Levant.18 Napoleon III dispatched his army while Britain, Austria, France, and Russia sent representatives to Mount Lebanon to further investigate the incidents.19 Henceforth, Mount Lebanon became a “center of Eastern Question politics”.20 Notably, “inter-confessional hostility” in Syria is connected to the socio-economic transformations that were associated with “Ottoman Syria’s integration into the world economy via foreign trade and European intervention in the political and legal domains”.21
A good case in point which highlights socio-economic factors behind the 1860 clashes is the memoir of Christian physician and intellectual Mihayil Mishaqa (1800- 1888), who lived in Damascus and was, along with his family, a victim of the Muslim attack. Mishaqah blames the violence on Muslims and Christians from the lower class.22 Therefore, as scholar Leila Tarazi Fawz argues in her eloquent volume on the topic, “forces other than sectarian identity were at work in the civil war of 1860 […], people from the same religious or sect but different regions reacted very differently to the conflict […] frustrations of the peasants, the weakening of the traditional elites, the changing role of the Maronite clergy […]”.23 Indeed, the violence of 1860 represents a multilayered crisis driven by social, economic, and political causes. Interestingly, the crisis also raises the question of national identity for Syrians.
NAFIR SURIYYA: A PLEDGE OF NATIONAL UNITY
The violence of 1860 had a profound effect on al-Bustani, who viewed the bloodshed as both an ethical crisis and an opportunity to promote national unity among Syrians. Between September 1860 and April 1861, al-Bustani published eleven pamphlets in Beirut calling on Syrians of all sectarian backgrounds to reject religious division and to unite as one community.24 Interestingly, these pamphlets were entitled Nafir Suriyya. Nafir, meaning ‘clarion’ or ‘trumpet’, serves as a metaphor to alert readers of the urgency of forging national unity. The term nafir also refers to the mobilization of a group to compete against the enemy, and for al-Bustani, the enemy was sectarianism.25 George Antonious classifies Nafir Suriyya as the “first germ of the national idea” in Syria.26 Al-Bustani would address each pamphlet to his “fellow countrymen” and would sign it as “him who loves his country”.27 Throughout these eleven pamphlets, al-Bustani did not elaborate on the details and causes of the clashes, nor did he blame a particular political community on the basis of individual actions.28 His main objective, however, was to awaken Syrians of all religious groups and urge them to pause and reflect.29 In essence, al-Bustani attempted to reestablish communal ties among Syrians themselves, and between Syrians and Syria more broadly. This was explicitly stated in the first clarion in which he wrote:
“Countrymen,
You drink the same water, you breathe the same air. The language you speak is the same, and so are the ground you tread, your welfare, and your customs. You may still be intoxicated from drinking your compatriots’ blood, or disoriented by the calamities you have suffered. But very soon you must wake up from this stupor and realize the meaning of my advice and where your welfare lies. This is what I intend to convey to you here”.30
The main pillar of al-Bustani’s nationalist narrative is based on the notion of al-watan, or homeland, as an inclusive entity for all citizens. Throughout Nafir Suriyya, he stressed that Syria is the homeland of all its inhabitants regardless of their religious affiliations and that the “homeland is the dearest thing to those who love it, and it is the most pleasantly coined word adorning the Arabic language. Syria, which is known as Barr al-Sham and Arabistan, is our homeland with all its diverse plains, coastlines, mountains, and barren lands. The inhabitants of Syria, regardless of their religious beliefs, their physical features, their ethnicities, and their general diversity, are all our compatriots”.31
Al-Bustani elaborated on his vision of the relationship between the homeland and its inhabitants when he asserted that it was based on fulfilling both “rights” and “duties”, where “people of the homeland have rights vis-à-vis their country which in turn has obligations toward them […] the more these rights are fulfilled, the more people grow attached to their country…”. He emphasized the crucial role of political authority and good governance which, in his view, should be inclusive, and respect religious freedom and civil rights because “compatriots love their country more whenever they sense that it is theirs”.32
Al-Bustani introduced the term al-harb ahliya, meaning civil war, by claiming that the “worst thing under the firmament is war, and the most horrendous among them are civil wars, which break out between the commoners of a single country and which are often triggered by trivial causes and for ignoble aims”.33 He further argued that the most lethal implication of the civil war is the effacing of concord between Syrians.34 Thus, throughout the pamphlets, al-Bustani emphasized the importance of restoring national unity and argued that this could be achieved through the separation of religion and politics. According to al-Bustani, there is “harm visited upon religion and people when religious and civil matters, despite the vast difference between them, are mixed. This mixing should not be allowed on religious or political grounds.”35
THE ROLE OF EDUCATION & THE PRESS
In 1863, al-Bustani put his patriotic ideas into practice by establishing The National School, or Al Madrasa Al-Wataniyya, in the Zokak al-Blat neighborhood of Beirut. The name of the school reflects his beliefs in the power of knowledge and education in fighting against sectarianism. His main objective behind the founding of the school was to build a national education structure for younger generations, and to enable a sense of national harmony among students of different sectarian backgrounds.36 In fact, the school was the first cross-sectarian educational institution in the Ottoman Empire which focused on teaching the Arabic language besides related subjects. Although it did not offer any religious teaching, the school respected religious freedom and welcomed students “from all sects, millets, and races without discriminating against their personal beliefs […] and [should be given] full license to carry out their religious duties”.37
Like the student body, teachers and staff members at the school belonged to various religious groups. Among them was the prominent Muslim educator Yusuf al-Asir, an Al-Azhar graduate, and the distinguished scholar Nasif al-Yazaji.38 Notably, al-Bustani conducted a weekly lecture where he introduced his patriotic ideas to the students.39
The fact that it enrolled students belonging to the same sectarian groups, who less than three years ago were vehemently fighting each other and were now sending their kids to be educated in the same classroom, was an extraordinary manifestation of al-Bustani’s national vision, even if it was short-lived. In 1970, he founded Majallat Al-Jinan, a bi-monthly publication focused on Syrian political and cultural affairs. The magazine’s raison d’etre was explicitly portrayed in its motto, which appeared on the cover page of every issue: “Love of the homeland is the acorn of believing”.40 Once again, al-Bustani framed the love of the nation as a sense of inherent duty.41 He noted that the main purpose of the magazine was to “foster knowledge and promote progress. It would not side […] with this or that [sectarian] group, but only with our fatherland and with our people.”42
Majallat Al-Jinan was a subscription-based journal which reached a wide range of readers, including Christians, Muslims, even sultans.43 As in Nafir Suriyya, al-Bustani denounced sectarian divisions and highlighted the love of Syria as a unifying national power. In an article titled Ruh Al’Asr, or ‘The Spirit of the Modern Age’, al-Bustani elaborated on his vision for progress by emphasizing the separation of state and religion, and the replacement of religious solidarity with patriotic solidarity.44 According to al-Bustani, “there is no way of success …except by adhering to patriotic solidarity and uniting in Arab solidarity.”45
CONCLUSIONS
Butrus al-Bustani’s paradigm depended on two vital tools: education and the press, and through them, he endeavored to theorize and institutionalize al-watan, and to reestablish the relationship between the land and its people, one that is based on patriotism, and more importantly, on citizenship rights. Syria, to him, was a monolithic entity which should guarantee citizenship rights to all its citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliations. In turn, he believed that Syrians should fulfill their duties and prioritize the love of their country over any religious identity or belief.
Whilst Greater Syria was at the center of a dramatic transformational period, as Ottoman and European powers were scrambling for control over land and resources, al-Bustani pursued the dream of forging an inclusive identity for all Syrians. At a time when religious groups were competing for power, al-Bustani bravely proposed the separation of religion from politics, while emphasizing that such a separation should still guarantee the freedom of religious practice. Throughout his life, al-Bustani strove for the revival of the Arabic language and emphasized its significance as a unifying power for Syrians. Nevertheless, al-Bustani asserted that Syria resembles a territorial entity within the Arab world, located within the Ottoman Empire. From that point of departure, he attempted to craft a complex identity which balanced Syrian patriotism, Arab nationalism, Ottomanism, and religious affiliations. Al-Bustani’s Nafir Surriyya reinforced the importance of a firm political authority to conduct such balance.
Al-Bustani’s works challenge the Western narrative which claims that the Arab world suffers from eternal antagonism, and that sectarian identities are ancient and at odds with each other. A closer examination of the history of the region and the work of thinkers like al-Bustani demonstrates that such an assumption is indeed misleading. The sectarian turmoil of 1860 in Damascus and in Mount Lebanon constitutes an extremely important case which indicates that sectarianism is neither a theological phenomenon nor an inherited one. Rather, it is the product of both socio-economic and geopolitical influences. At the intersection of his life and work, al-Bustani strove to illustrate how sectarianism carried disastrous implications for Syria, and that the only remedy for sectarianism is the spreading of knowledge and the empowerment of the elements which unite Syrians, rather than those which divide them. Herein, Al-Madrasa Al-Wataniyya and Al-Jinan represent an experiment for the nationalist and patriotic vision that al-Bustani had in mind; the united Syria that he dedicated his life to imagining and trying to turn into a reality.
To access the works cited & endnotes, download the full report.
The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author, and do not represent Fiker Institute.
