Duruz

DURUZ (Druzes), sing. Durzl, a Syrian people professing an initiatory faith derived from the Ismaciliyya [q.v.]. They call themselves Muwahhidun, "unitarians", and number (in the mid-twentieth century) almost 200,000, living in various parts of Syria, especially in the mountains of the Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon, and Hawran, chiefly as cultivators and landlords. The faith originated in the closing years of the reign of al-Hakim [q.v.], Fatimid Caliph of Egypt (386-411/996-1021). According to the Ismacili Shici faith then officially received in Egypt, al-Hakim, as imam, was the divinely appointed and authoritative guardian of Islam, holding a position among men which answered to that of the cosmic principle al- *akl al-fac ca/, the active intellect, and unquestionable head of the Ismaclli religious hierarchy. Al-Hakim proved an eccentric ruler both in his personal life and in his religious policy, which flouted alternately the feelings of Ismacilis and Sunnis alike. In his last years he seems to have wished to be regarded as a divine figure, above any rank which official Ismacilism could accord him. A number of Ismacilis were in fact inclined so to regard him and, evidently with his private permission, set about organizing a following in the expectation of a public acknowledgement of the position. The first of these men to catch the public eye was al-Darazi [q.v.], a non-Arab (like several of the leaders); the whole movement was called al-Daraziyya (or al-Durziyya) on his account. He seems to have interpreted the mood of the Hakim-cult circles in terms of a recurrent Ismaclli heterodox attitude which exalted the td>wil (inner truth) and its representative, the imam, over the tanzll (outward revelation) and its representative, the Prophet; so 632 DUROZ giving the current imam, al-Hakim, a supernatural status as embodiment of al-cakl al-kulli, the highest cosmic intellect. But his public activity (408/1017-8) caused disturbances and forced al-Hakim to be more cautious. In 410, however, al-Hakim gave his support to another leader, Hamza b. CAH [q.v.] of Suzan in Iran, who gave to the Hakim cult its definitive Druze form. Hamza had begun his mission in 408/1017 (the first year of the Druze era—the second being 410, when the public mission was renewed) and claimed to have been the only authorized spokesman for alHakim from the first.

In 410, after al-Darazi's death, he tried to rally the whole movement under himself. His doctrine was evidently more original than alDarazi's. It was, like Ismaclli doctrine generally, a doctrine of cosmic emanation from the One and of return to the One through human gnosis. But it was unique in its special emphasis on the immediate presence of the cosmic One and made correspondingly rather less of the subordinate emanations. Hence Hamza called his own followers "Unitarians" par excellence. For Hamza, al-Hakim was no longer merely imam, however highly exalted. Hamza himself was the imam, the human guide, and therefore al-^akl alkulll, the first cosmic principle; while al-Hakim was the embodiment of the ultimate One, the Godhead who created the Intellect itself and was accordingly Himself beyond name or office, beyond even good or evil. Compared to Him, CA11 and the Ismacill imams as such were secondary figures (though, since the One is ever present even when unrevealed, some of the latter, together with several obscure figures from earlier times, had also been embodiments of the One in their time). In al-Hakim, the One was uniquely present openly in history. The contrasting extravagances of his life expressed the workings of the ultimately Powerful, Whose acts could not be called to account, though they always revealed a meaning to His imam, the cakl, the cosmic intellect, Hamza. Al-Hakim was the present makdm, locus, of the Creator; only in knowledge of Him could men purify themselves. Accordingly, Hamza's teaching was no longer strictly an extremist Ismacilism, though it made use of extremist Ismaclli conceptions and language; it claimed to be an independent religion superseding both the SunnI tanzll and the Ismacili ta'wil. Hamza evidently looked to al-Hakim to introduce, by his caliphal power, the messianic culmination of history, forcing all men to discard the various symbolisms of the old revealed religions, including Ismac!lism, and to worship the One alone, revealed clearly in al-Hakim. In preparation for al-Hakim's decisive move, Hamza, as imam, built up his own organization within the Hakim-cult circles to spread the true doctrine. Like al-Hakim and Hamza himself, the members of this organization embodied cosmic principles.

There were five great hudud, cosmic ranks, adopted in a modified form from Ismaclli lore: the 35-40, 76-83; Henri Aucapitaine, Etude sur les Druzes in Nouvelles Annales des Voyages, VIme serie, February 1862; Magasin pittoresque, 1841, 367, and 1861, 226. For chroniclers on the earliest period, see Silvestre de Sacy, Expose (Nuwayri, Nihdyat al-Arab; Md. Djacfarl, Anhad[ al-tard\k; Severus of Ushmuriayn, Life of Patriarch Zechariah; Abu '1-Mahasin Ibn Taghribirdi, al-Nud^um alzdhira [based on Sibt Ibn al-Djawzi, Mir*dt alzamdn]; and Djurdjus al-Makin, Ta^rikh alMuslimln). The latter is based on Yahya alAntakl, continuation of Eutychius, Scriptores Arabici, text, ser. Ill, vii/2, ed. L. Cheikho, B. Carra de Vaux, H. Zayyat, Beirut 1909, 220 ff.; see also Ibn al-cAdim, Ta^rikh Halab, s.a. 423; M. G. S. Hodgson, Al-Darazi and Hamza in the origin of the Druze religion, in JAOS, Ixxxii (1962), 5-20. (M. G. S. HODGSON) (ii) — OTTOMAN PERIOD When the Ottoman and the Mamluk armies met in battle at Mardj Dabik in 922/1516, the Druzes fought on both sides. The Buhturids from the west of the country fought on the side of the Mamluks, while the Macnids of Shuf supported the Ottomans by allying themselves to Ghazall, the nd^ib of Damascus. Under the Ottomans, the Druzes were governed by local dynasties, of which the Al Tanukh, the Macnids and the vShihabids, and particularly the last two (for whose genealogy see Zambaur, i, 108 ff.) were the most important. At the battle of Mardj Dabik the Macnids were led by the Amir Fakhr alDin I, who at the crucial point changed sides, abandoning the Mamluk Kansuh al-Ghuri and going over to Sultan Sellm I in Damascus. The Sultan rewarded him with overlordship over the amirs of Mount Lebanon, the Al Tanukh dynasty being confined to Sayda and Sur (Blau, Zur Geschichte Syriens, in ZDMG, viii (1854), 480 ff.). In 951/1544 Macnid rule passed to Fakhr al-Din's son Korkmaz. Druze attacks against the Ottomans led in 992/1584 to a punitive expedition by Ibrahim Pasha, the wall of Egypt. The son of Korkmaz, the Amir Fakhr al-DIn DUROZ 635 II [q.v.] challenged the wall of Tripoli, Sayf-oghlu Yusuf Pasha. He had some initial successes, but was eventually forced to withdraw to the Mountain, after the defeat of the rebels in 1016/1607 in the battle between Kuyudju Murad Pasha and Djanbulatoghlu, the importance of whose family among the Druzes dates from this time. The Druze alliance dissolved as a result of the expeditions led by land by the wall of Damascus, Hafiz Pasha, and by sea by the Kapudan Pasha Okiiz ("The Bull") Mehmed Pasha between 1018/1609 and 1022/1613. Fakhr al-Dln allied himself to Florence in 1017/1608 and on 30 Radjab 1022/15 September 1613 he went to Italy to seek help under the alliance, returning to the Djabal in 1027/1618. Macnid rule was preserved during his absence, particularly as his spies in Istanbul and Damascus gave preliminary warning of any Ottoman military measures. Although the Ottoman Sultan, by a fermdn issued in 1034/1625, recognized Fakhr al-DIn as Amir of the Druzes from Aleppo to Jerusalem (Haydar, i, 715), the latter was subjected to constant pressure from Kiiciik Ahmed Pasha, who had been appointed wall of Damascus by Murad IV. In 1044/1634 the Druzes were decisively defeated at Magharat Djarzln, the Amir and three of his children being carried off prisoner to Istanbul, where all but Husayn Bey were executed. The death of Fakhr al-DIn marked the end of Macnid ascendancy. It was followed by KaysiYamani dissension. Fakhr al-DIn, like the ruling branch of the Al Tanukh before the Macnid ascendancy, belonged to the YamanI clan (known as akll, "white" by the Ottomans, the Kaysis being known as "red", kizllli, cf. Findiklili Mehmed Agha, Ta^rikh, Istanbul 1928, i, 215; C.-F. Volney, i, 414, note i). Amir Malham, who succeeded him in IO45/ 1635, represented the Kaysi clan and was opposed by the Amir cAli cAlam al-DIn on behalf of the Yamanis.

Dissension gave openings for Ottoman intervention, as in 1061/1651 by the wall of Tripoli, Hasan Pasha. In 1064/1654 Amir Malham extended his rule to Safad, by agreement with the wall of Damascus. Malham died in 1069/1659 and was succeeded in the Djabal by his son Amir Ahmad, the last Macnid ruler, who died in 1108/1697 and was succeeded by Shihabids of the Kaysi clan. The latter had been protected by Amir Ahmad, who had refused to give them up to the wall of Damascus, Kopriilu Fadil Ahmed Pasha, in 1070/1660. The wall of Damascus, helped by the wall of Tripoli, thereupon defeated the joint Macnid-Shihabid forces at Kasrawan. The two dynasties later fell out, however, with the Macnids winning a short-lived victory at al-Fulful in 1076/1666 (Ibn Sabata, Salih b. Yahya, appendix, 237). After the death of Amir Ahmad, however, it was the Shihabid amir of Rasheya, Bashlr b. Husayn, who was chosen overlord of the Djabal with the agreement of the Ottomans. The Yamanis tried unsuccessfully to undo Kaysi ascendancy: from the court in Istanbul Husayn, the son of Fakhr al-DIn II, managed, for example, to relegate Bashlr to the position of regent to the 12-year old Haydar, of the family of the amir?, of Hasbeya, whose local supporters later poisoned Bashlr. But when Haydar became Amir in his own right he crushed the Yamanis at the battle of cAyn-Dara which changed the whole feudal picture of the Djabal. Thereafter under the overlordship of the Shihabls, who tried to prevent DruzeMaronite struggles, the Djanbulats reigned over Shuf, Abu 'l-Lamac held Matn, while at vShuwayfat the Arslan family of the YamanI clan had to share their rule with Talmuk Yamanis. In holding together the Djabal, the Shihabls had to rely on the support of Ottoman walls, whose intervention led to the increase in the number of local shaykhs, who in turn exterted pressure on the amir. Thus, while the shaykhs, paid tribute to the amir, it was they who decided in council whether to keep the peace or wage war. Amir Haydar died in 1144/1732 in the Shihabi capital at Dayr al-Kamar, having in 1141/1729 abdicated in favour of his son Malham. Under the latter's rule which lasted until 1167/1754, the port of Bayrut regained the importance which it had enjoyed under Fakhr al-DIn and became the second Shihabi centre after Dayr al-Kamar. Many of Malham's children were converted to Roman Catholicism, Christianity in general gaining ground in the Djabal. Malham and his successors generally tried to maintain a balance between local Muslims and Christians. Thus, when in 1171/1758 Greek pirates flying the Russian flag attacked Bayrut and when local Muslims retaliated by attacking the Franciscan monastery in the town, two of the Muslim leaders were hanged at the Amir's orders. Malham was succeeded by his brothers Ahmad (the father of the historian Ahmad al-Shihabi) and Mansur, although Nucman Pasha, the Ottoman wall of Sayda, appointed to the amlrate Kasim b. cUmar, who, however, had to content himself with the area round Hazlr. Kasim died a Christian in 1182/1768, his son Bashlr II also making no secret of his Christian beliefs (Blau, op. cit., 496; Lammens, La Syrie, Beirut 1921, ii, 100 ff.). These conversions did not, of course, prevent the majority of Druzes from retaining their faith, a fact which sowed the seed of future trouble. Mansur was dismissed in 1184/1770 by Derwish Pasha, the wall of Sayda, and replaced by Amir Yusuf. In 1185/1771 when the Russian fleet commanded by Alexei Orlov was encouraged by Zahir al-cUmar, the rebel ruler of Safad and Acre, to bombard Bayrut, Mansur sued for peace against payment of 25,000 piastres, while Amir Yusuf asked for Ottoman reinforcements, whereupon cUthman Pasha, the wall of Damascus, despatched Djazzar Ahmad Pasha who occupied Bayrut in the name of Amir Yusuf. The latter succeeded, however, in ejecting this unwelcome deputy from Bayrut in 1187/1773 after a four-month siege, in which he was helped by the Russian fleet which he summoned from Cyprus. Nevertheless, Djazzar Ahmad Pasha continued to exert pressure from Acre and Sayda on the Shihabls of the Djabal. Payment of a tribute and loyalty to the Ottoman cause in the face of the Napoleonic expedition from Egypt, did not shield Bashlr II from this pressure. Even although Yusuf Diya Pasha, the commander of the Ottoman forces against Napoleon, confirmed Bashlr as ruler of the Djabal, Djazzar Ahmad Pasha had him expelled by forces commanded by Husayn and Sacd al-DIn, the sons of the Amir Yusuf, whom he wanted to appoint in his place. Bashlr sought refuge with the British admiral Sidney Smith, who took him in his flagship to al-cAr!sh, returning later to the Djabal, Djazzar Ahmad Pasha contenting himself this time with keeping one of Bashlr's sons as a hostage. Pressure on the Druzes decreased in 1804 with the death of Djazzar Pasha. In 1810 when the Wahhabls threatened Damascus, the wall Yusuf Pasha asked the help of Siileyman Pasha, the sandiak-beyi of Acre, who in turn summoned the Druzes to Damascus. The Druzes forced the departure of Yusuf Pasha and were only with difficulty compelled to retire into the 636 DURtfZ Hawran by Suleyman Pasha's successor, cAbd Allah Pasha. Bashir's absence from the Djabal had, however, caused so much resentment that the wall of Damascus and cAbd Allah Pasha were forced to allow the shaykhs to summon him back to the Lebanon. Bashir thereafter sided with cAbd Allah Pasha, in his revolt against the Ottomans in Acre, whereupon his rival Shaykh Djanbulat had cAbbas al-Shihabl proclaimed amir, while Bashir and his sons had to seek refuge with Muhammad CAH in Egypt.

Before long, however, Bashir was back, defeated Djanbulat at the battle of Mukhtara in 1825 and had him executed. In the following year, an attack on Bayrut by the fleet of the Greek insurgents led once again to a pogrom of local Christians, many of whom emigrated to the Djabal. Muslim feeling against Bashir was also inflamed by the permission given to Melkite Christians to settle in the Djabal. In 1830 Bashir once again helped cAbd Allah Pasha, this time to suppress a revolt in Nablus. He then sided with Muhammad CAH against the Ottomans and helped the conquests of Ibrahim Pasha. (M. C. §iHABEDDIN TEKINDA6) After the Kiitahya agreement of 1833 Bashir did his best to help the Egyptians, securing in return a wide autonomy for the Lebanon. Egyptian rule was at first welcomed, particularly as certain impositions on non-Muslims were abolished, but difficulties arose when Ibrahim Pasha tried to confiscate firearms and to call up Druzes. In 1835 Ibrahim Pasha introduced troops into Dayr al-Kamar and tried to collect the arms of local Christians but preferred later to suspend his measures in so far as they affected the Druzes. Nevertheless a Druze revolt broke out in 1837 when an attempt was made to call up Druzes in the Hawran, who retaliated by assassinating Ibrahim Pasha's emissaries. The Ottoman Government tried to stir up the Druzes and to supply arms to them, Ibrahim Pasha retaliating by stirring up the Kurds and by closing Syrian ports to Ottoman shipping. A Druze revolt broke out in Ladja, but from his palace in Bayt al-DIn, from where he exercised wide influence over the Maronites, Bashir succeeded in preventing its spreading from the Hawran to the Lebanon, believing as he1 did that thanks to French support the Egyptians would be finally victorious. A general revolt in the Lebanon, including this time the Maronites, broke out again, however, when Ibrahim Pasha made another attempt to call in arms and Egyptian forces in Bayrut found their communications cut. On 14 August 1840 the British naval commander Sir Charles Napier established contact with the rebels, who were supplied with arms after the joint bombardment of Bayrut the following month by British, Austrian and Ottoman ships. After vainly waiting for help from Ibrahim Pasha in Dayr al-Kamar, Bashir submitted to the Sultan, whose troops were in the process of reconquering Syria as a result of the London agreement. Bashir's personal security was guaranteed, but he was nevertheless deposed in favour of a relative, Bashir Kasim Malham.

The Egyptian occupation on the one hand disorganized the feudal structure of the Djabal and, on the other, sharpened antagonism between the Druzes and the Maronites. Bashir Kasim's rule lasted for approximately one year and was underpinned by the Mushlr of Sayda, Selim Pasha, whose seat of government was transferred to Bayrut and who formed a mixed council of the various communities to advise the amir. Taxation reform (the Egyptians had raised the taxation of the Djabal from 3,650 to 6,500 purses and this was then reduced to 3,500 purses) and the question of compensation led to communal friction, which erupted at Bacaklin, after which many houses and shops were set on fire at Dayr al-Kamar. Relative peace was restored after the Druze adventurer Shibal al-cUryan, who was in the service of the wall of Damascus, was forced to return to that city from Zahla. These events caused much stir abroad and led to foreign complaints against the Ottoman administration. The Ottomans thereupon deposed Bashir Kasim, and entrusted the administration of the Djabal directly to the ser'asker Mustafa Nuri Pasha, who in turn appointed to the amlrate one of his infantry commanders, the mlrliwd cOmer Pasha. Continued foreign displeasure led to the despatch to Bayrut of Selim Bey as an investigator in 1842, but the latter's report that the situation was satisfactory and that the appointment of either a Druze or a Maronite amir was impossible, was disbelieved by foreign ambassadors at the Porte. Meanwhile new incidents were reported, whereupon Escad Mukhlis Pasha was appointed mushlr of Sayda, and after his arrival at Bayrut the sercasker's mission was declared completed. Escad Pasha appointed two kd*im-makdms, the Maronite Haydar from Bayt Abi 'l-Lamic and the Druze Mir Ahmad from Bayt Arslan, and detached the northern districts of Djubayl from the Djabal, placing them under Tripoli. More serious troubles broke out in 1845, when Escad Pasha was succeeded by the wall of Aleppo, Wedjihl Pasha. Bloody incidents included an attack by the Maronites on the Druzes of Matn as well as Druze attacks on the monasteries of Abi and Sulima which were set on fire. Accusations and counter-accusations followed, the French accusing Wedjihl Pasha of being pro-Druze, while the French themselves were being accused of stirring up the Maronites. Another mission was then undertaken by the Foreign Minister Shekib Efendi, who started by demanding that all arms should be handed in, an order which led to resistance and further complications. A further emissary, the ferlk (divisional general) Emm Pasha was sent to Bayrut in January 1846. He helped Shekib Efendi in his work of reorganization, returning with him in June 1846. Shekib Efendi's reforms provided for the retention of the two kd*im-makdms, advised by mixed councils, special deputies (wekll] being elected in villages having a mixed population. The two kd^im-makdms were to receive a salary of 12,500 piastres a month each, and to be appointed and dismissed directly by the Sultan on the advice of the mushlr of Sayda.

The councils were given judicial as well as administrative and financial powers. Stability was thus established at the beginning of 1847, even although the failure to expel some trouble-making Druze leaders created difficulties. Taxes were apportioned between the two communities, the Maronites being asked to pay 1994 and the Druzes 1506 purses. Peace was preserved until the khatt-i humdyun of 1856, which by its promise of concessions to nonMuslim subjects led to a more generalized ChristianMuslim rivalry. The first signs of trouble appeared in 1859. In the following year the Druzes and the Maronites clashed openly, whereupon Khurshid Pasha sent troops to the border between the two fyadds. This did not prevent the major outbreak of 1860: in May the Druzes attacked and set fire to villages in Matn; in June they were joined by Druzes from the Hawran, led by Ismacil Atrash (the Djabal Druzes being led mainly by Sacld DjanDUROZ — DUST MUHAMMAD 637 bulat and Khattar Ahmad). While the General Council of the province (Medjlis-i 'Umumi) rejected the wall's suggestion to send troops, the Druzes overpowered the defenders of Government House at Hasbeya, massacring the local Christians: similar outrages were perpetrated at Rasheya, Bacalbak (where local government was overthrown by the Harkubin family), Zahla and Dayr al-Kamar. To crush the insurrection the Ottoman Government dispatched the Foreign Minister Fu3ad Pasha, arming him with emergency powers. His arrival coincided with a massacre of Christians in Damascus by the local mob, reinforced by Druzes and Bedouins. In the meantime Khurshid Pasha had secured an armistice between Druzes and Maronites, of which Fu'ad Pasha did not approve, on the grounds that it compromised future judicial proceedings, but which he feared to denounce as bloodshed might then be renewed. France intervened directly by landing 5,000 troops and by suggesting the total expulsion of the Druzes from the Djabal. This Fu5ad Pasha succeeded in avoiding by taking firm action against guilty Druze leaders, pursuing and apprehending them, and finally putting them on trial at a court-martial at Mukhtara, where some of them were sentenced to death. He also took severe punitive action in Damascus and had the wall Ahmed Pasha sent under escort for trial in Istanbul, Khurshid Pasha having also been dismissed from Bayrut. These measures made possible the evacuation of French troops from the Djabal. Under the agreement signed on 9 June 1861, the Djabal was completely detached from the wildyets of Bayrut and of Damascus and placed under a Christian mutasarrif, who was, however, to come from outside the district. The mutasarrif was to be advised by an agent (wekil) from each community. Administrative councils were also formed at the centre and in seven newly formed kadds; a mixed police force was also constituted. At the instance of foreign embassies, an Armenian Catholic, Dawud Pasha, was appointed mutasarrif, a post which he retained for five years and in which he was succeeded by a Christian Arab, Franko Pasha. Dawud Pasha had many schools opened in Druze as well as in Maronite villages, and the Druzes continued to prosper under his successor. Disorder continued to prevail, however, among the Druzes of the Hawran who were joined by refugees from the Lebanon, so that Djabal Hawran began to be known as Djabal Duruz. Here Druzes came under the ascendancy of the Atrash family, as a result of the leading role played by Ismacll al-Atrash in the events of 1860. IsmacH's son Ibrahim raided Suwayda, the capital of the Djabal Hawran, in 1879. When the wall of Damascus led a punitive expedition against him, the Druzes put up a stiff resistance until an armistice was concluded in 1880.

There was more trouble when Ibrahim's son Shibli was imprisoned at Darca by the Ottoman authorities, as a result of incidents which were largely economic and social in origin. The Druzes rose up again and Shibli had to be freed. Shibli was once again arrested and once again freed by a Druze insurrection in 1893, when in alliance with the Ban! Fadjr he led his followers against the Ruwala tribe. During these troubles many Druze families were banished to Anatolia, but they were later allowed to return, while, at the same time, projects to call up the Druzes for military service were dropped. In the meantime the Druzes in the Lebanon remained peaceful until 1897 when they complained that Maronite pressure was constantly increasing and when they demanded the formation of a separate kadd for the 10,000 Druzes of Matn, in case the Maronites succeeded in detaching four communes (ndfyiya) from the only one existing Muslim kadd at Shuf. After the Young Turkish Revolution of 1908 operations against the Druzes were entrusted to SamI Pasha, who proclaimed martial law and then summoned the Druze leaders to Damascus where he had many of them executed. Druze resistance continued, nevertheless, until 1911. Druze demands became irrelevant when, after the beginning of the First World War, the capitulations, and with them Lebanese autonomy, were abolished and Ismacll Hakkl Bey was appointed independent mutasarrif. During the war, Djemal Pasha kept some Druze leaders as "guests" in Jerusalem. Also during the war, the Druze leader, Yahya al-Atrash, whom Djemal Pasha accused of complicity with the French (Khdtirdt, Istanbul 1339, 179), died and was succeeded by his son Sellm. Djemal Pasha praised the services of two members of the Atrash family, Naslb and cAbd al-Ghaffar, but a third member, Sultan, whose father had been executed by SamI Pasha, was opposed to the Ottomans and was the first Druze leader to enter Damascus with the Allied troops on 2 October 1918.

(M. TAYYIB GoKBiLGiN)