Fares Ashtey writes on 180post:
The Rashaya uprising (1878) coincided with another uprising in the village of Metula at the bottom of Wadi al-Taym, which had a Druze population led by Sheikh Ali al-Hajjar. The Ottoman authorities were troubled by him after the uprising, just as the Zionist settlers were troubled by his presence. Both parties conspired to assassinate him in 1895, which effectively led to the Zionist movement seizing Metula and displacing its inhabitants to surrounding villages and the Hauran.
The two uprisings in Rashaya and Metula occurred under similar circumstances, as follows:
First: General Conditions:
A – The Ottoman authority's attempt to modernize the state according to European standards. This was an attempt that predated this date, but what was new at this stage was the accession of Sultan Abdul Hamid in 1876 and his reliance on an enlightened elite serious about the modernization project, most notably Midhat Pasha, in contrast to the persistence of the old guard of governors and administrators who were accustomed to the previous management style, supported by a traditional economic and social structure. The most prominent example of this at that stage was the attempt by the Sultan and the enlightened administrators to establish constitutional rule by passing the Constitution (the Basic Law) in 1876, only to suspend it the following year. This attempt reflected the conflict between the project of modernizing the state and the “project” of maintaining its traditional nature—politically, administratively, economically, socially, and militarily. Each had its own forces. Urban elites in Istanbul and the centers of the provinces bore the burden of imitating the capitalist experience in producing power, but the administrative structures of the state did not reflect this inclination; on the contrary, they resisted it centrally and locally, with Midhat Pasha serving as the governor of Damascus.
B – The intensification of European powers' struggle over the Ottoman state. Events in the Levant between 1831 and 1861 were a prime example, whether through intervention to confront the Egyptian campaign or in the sectarian events that followed. This was officially established in the Mutasarrifate system and its governance, which was accompanied, in the Arab context, by the occupation of Tunisia (1881) and the imposition of a protectorate over Egypt (1882).
C – The activity of the Zionist movement in purchasing land in Palestine and establishing colonies on it.
D – The authority’s decision to be strict in implementing the compulsory conscription law. E – The issuance of the Land Law (1858) and the Tabu Law (1859), which were supplemented by the issuance of the Penal Code (1867) and the “Mejelle” (1868). It is unclear whether there were manipulations of the laws issued during this stage, the most important of which were the Land and Tabu laws, which aimed to encourage agriculture and protect the rights of those working in it, contrary to what was prevalent. This was done on the basis of preserving and legitimizing the previous situation, in addition to serving the interests of new influential figures, and something similar happened in the Beqaa.
Second: Druze Conditions:
The Rashaya uprising (1878) and the Metula uprising coincided with two broad and deep states of protest among the Druze:
The first was in the Chouf, Wadi al-Taym, and the Beqaa in between, stemming from the grievances they suffered in the 1860 settlement, which caused the persecution and displacement of their leaders and notables, and heavy economic and financial losses whose effects lasted for a long time. An Ottoman document from that year reveals a fear of a simple incident that occurred on January 25, 1876 (a quarrel between a Maronite and a Druze in Abey, where the latter was wounded; relatives of the wounded man, along with 200 men led by two sheikhs from the Nakad family, attacked the Christian quarter and threatened its residents with death, but the Mutasarrif Rustom Pasha quickly arrested the two sheikhs along with 18 Druze and the assailant).
The second was in Hauran; the Jebel witnessed a dense exodus from the Druze of the Chouf, Wadi al-Taym, the Iqlīm al-Ballān, and Safed, some of whom were participants in the events of 1860. A faction within the Ottoman authority, supported by the French, worked to pursue these individuals under the pretext of returning stolen goods. The displaced persons, as a result of the events of the sixties, were striving to secure a living by expanding into the vicinity of the homes of those from their community who had preceded them, settling in ruined villages and engaging in farming and grazing on fertile lands. This led to frequent clashes with those around them. This was represented shortly after the two uprisings by fighting between the Druze and the people of Bosra al-Harir from May to December 1879, and the authority's effort to deter Druze attacks while preferring a peaceful solution by handing over the surviving killers. Linked to and expressing these two protests was the massive displacement from the Chouf, Wadi al-Taym, and Upper Galilee toward Hauran, either to escape persecution, as in the events of 1860 and thereafter when the Ottoman authority imposed mandatory conscription and conducted wide-scale arrests after the 1860 events in the Rashaya, Hasbaya, and Iqlīm al-Ballān regions (1860-1862), or in search of a livelihood, as happened during the crackdown to seize the properties of Druze feudal lords in the Beqaa and the resulting displacement of farmers (1860-1872). In 1867, during the shortage of the silk crop and the scarcity of agricultural land, those loyal to the Jumblatt faction were persecuted. Or to provide aid to their kin, as in the battles of their group with the authority or neighbors, represented by aid to Druze fighters in the Hauran mountains, as occurred in the Karak events (1881), the Al-Sumayyah and Sha'ara events (1886), the Majdal Shams-Hauran events (1894–1896), and the 1905 events, where Ottoman instructions were to strictly prevent them and send military forces to the entrances of their routes.
Third: Local Conditions: The general and Druze conditions were reflected in local circumstances and manifested in:
A – The clash between attempts to impose the modernization experiment for “democratic” production of power and the traditional leadership production, especially in rural areas. While attempts to modernize the administration, especially building a modern army, were accompanied by the population's refusal, insistence on evading it, and confrontation, the issuance of the Land Law and the Tabu Law and what followed them—laws intended to grant land to farmers and boost production—were met with circumventing actions by influential figures, former land tax farmers, merchants, and administrators on one hand, a traditional culture based on loyalty to the influential leader on the other, and the ignorance of the public regarding the law's provisions on a third hand. As a result, land acquisition operations took place by influential figures and merchants through circumvention of the two laws, which stripped farmers of their sources of livelihood and turned them into wage earners without them realizing the dangers of what happened early on. We have mentioned an example of this in the Beqaa above.
B – The Zionist settlement movement targeting the flatlands in Palestine, with the Hula Valley being the most flat and fertile. The first colonies were in Tiberias and Safed.
C – The massive displacement from the Chouf, Wadi al-Taym, Iqlīm al-Ballān, and Upper Galilee towards the Hauran; either escaping persecution, as in the events of 1860, and when the Ottoman authority imposed mandatory conscription and conducted wide-scale arrests after the 1860 events in Rashaya, Hasbaya, and Iqlīm al-Ballān (1860-1862); or seeking a livelihood, as happened during the crackdown to seize the properties of Druze feudal lords in the Beqaa and the resulting displacement of farmers (1860-1872), and as occurred in 1867 during the shortage of the silk crop, lack of agricultural land, and persecution of those loyal to the Jumblatt faction; or providing aid to their kin, as in the battles of their group with the authority or neighbors, represented by aid to Druze fighters in the Hauran mountains, as occurred in the Karak events (1881), the Al-Sumayyah and Sha'ara events (1886), and the Majdal Shams-Hauran events (1894–1896), and the 1905 events, for which Ottoman instructions were to strictly prevent them and send military forces to the entrances of their routes. The displacement from the valley villages appears as a result of pursuits on the one hand, escaping mandatory service on the other, and facing living crises on a third hand, as shown by reviewing the origins of families in the mountain from all villages in the region. Some of them had an active role in expansion and fighting operations, most notably one of the valley's leaders, Muhammad Nassar, and his kin.
D – The deteriorating economic situation, which was expressed by the press in the numbers appearing at the same time as the uprising, represented by destitution, hardship, high prices, worsening distress, locust outbreaks, the death of goats, and heavy snow. A report by the French consul dated June 7, 1877, and published by Kais Firro in his book 'History of the Druze', shows a disagreement between farmers in Rashaya over land and water sources. E – The deteriorating security situation, as the newspaper "Lisan al-Hal" in 1878 reported many incidents of robbery, hijacking, and murder in each of: Ibl al-Saqi (July); Hasbaya (June); the Sidon-Tyre road (October); Rashaya (November); the Ghajar bridge (November); and Kfarkila (December).
Fourth: The Rashaya Uprising:
It occurred in late October and early November 1878 and was more limited than the Metula uprising that preceded it (February 1878) and had a narrower impact, as its effects continued until the end of the year. Its issue was forced labor (corvée); soldiers in Rashaya seized a mule belonging to a man from the Qazzaz family from Dahr al-Ahmar to force him to go to Damascus. A group of Druze from Rashaya rallied for him, and the two sides clashed. The soldiers were severely beaten and fled to the Serail. Their officer mobilized and sent 24 men to discipline the attackers. They tried to arrest Muhammad Siyour, who was the first to gather and incite everyone. Druze gathered in large numbers to prevent this, and firing into the air did not succeed in dispersing them; rather, it encouraged the Druze to bring their weapons and fire at the soldiers, wounding ten of them and one Druze. Druze from neighboring villages also arrived to besiege the Serail. The clash intensified with the Druze capturing two soldiers and the soldiers killing two Druze with gunfire. Then, the sheikhs of the Al-Aryan family, “famous for their love of peace,” and Sheikh Youssef Zaki intervened to calm the situation, and it did calm down, but the Druze forces continued to rally toward Rashaya while the Christians fled. No subsequent issues of the newspaper contained any indication of renewed clashes, nor did any other source report news about it. However, the impact of this uprising was significant, as the authorities’ forces were mobilized beyond the limits of the Qada. The military Qaimaqam, Youssef Bak, arrived with 50 cavalrymen and Hassan Agha Buzq, and the Mutasarrif of Hauran, Othman Bey, arrived with 40 cavalrymen. Then, two divisions of infantry arrived. This meant extreme caution and alertness on the part of the authorities' senior officials by sending the military Qaimaqam (central military) and the Qaimaqam of another district, specifically Hauran, due to his experience with the Druze, in addition to the number of cavalry sent, which was estimated to be large for the time. Wathiq Pasha, the Mutasarrif of Beirut, to which Marjeyoun was subordinate, also wrote to the district Qaimaqamates regarding the large number of transgressions in some of them, as was evident in the case of Hasbaya, Rashaya, and Marjeyoun. One of them, the Qaimaqam of Sidon, arrested 11 Bedouin outlaws and sent them to the Mutasarrifate center in Beirut. The significant implication of the uprising appears in the comments about it; "Lisan al-Hal" concluded the report by saying that the state does not like increasing problems and it is not in the Druze's interest to stir up matters that would result in their loss, adding: “However, the presence of some outlaws in the district who commit many transgressions and do not fear those in authority prompts the people to be cautious.” "Lisan al-Hal" also published a long letter from its correspondent in Damascus refuting those who attributed the Rashaya events to “old grudges” and attributed them to the incompetence of the officials and their lack of consideration for the time, place, and temperament of the people on one hand, the low salaries of the soldiers on the other, and the exceeding of the given orders on a third hand. The uprising’s data indicate the participation of residents of neighboring villages in the rally, and although not named, the rally of the villages was in two stages: the first during the incident, where rallying from villages adjacent to Rashaya is assumed, and the second, after the incident, during the arrival of additional forces, where rallying from all villages in the region is assumed. Upon examining the Ottoman documents in Hauran, two documents appear dated January 10, 1877, and May 31, 1878, to which the researcher gave the title “Disagreement between the Druze of Hasbaya and the Matawila (1878),” based on the contents of the two documents: “Transforming the coldness and disagreement between the Druze of Hasbaya and the Matawila into respect and accord.”
What was mentioned in "Lisan al-Hal" is related to the subject of the two documents, starting with the news of the killing of Khalil and Abbas, residents of Hasbaya, on the Ghajar bridge, and the introduction talks about the distance between the Druze and the Matawila. However, careful examination of the two documents traces them back to events in Rashaya unknown in the first document of November 10, 1877, and likewise in the second document (May 31, 1878). The events of the first document might be the disagreement referred to by Firro between the farmers in Rashaya over land and water sources (June 1877). In the report, the narrative is clear: Othman Bey, the Mutasarrif of Hauran, completed the investigations he was assigned to conduct in Rashaya and headed to the Quneitra district, making Banias (subordinate to Quneitra) his center, while Quneitra (subordinate to the Hauran Mutasarrifate) is where he stayed, whereas the Rashaya district was directly subordinate to the province center (Damascus) and there is no Shiite presence there. This means the continuation of the effects of the two events known in Rashaya, and the meeting with the notables of neighboring districts—each subordinate to a Mutasarrifate (Marjeyoun – Beirut, Hasbaya and Rashaya – Damascus, Quneitra – Hauran)—may have been in anticipation of a potential disagreement or a pretext to manage the aftermath of the two uprisings in Metula – Marjeyoun – Hasbaya and Rashaya, especially since other steps were taken, including assigning Najib Bey Qais to control Hasbaya (July 1878). Describing what happened in Rashaya as an uprising might seem exaggerated, and this may be due to the limited information known about it, but the attention given by the authority points to the importance of what happened, which warrants the conclusion of describing it as an uprising because of: -Confronting the military, in itself, which is a confrontation with significance for the prestige that the authority’s forces enjoyed and the severe repression they practiced. -The rallying of neighboring villages, which are villages that extend beyond the current Rashaya region and reach Hasbaya villages and villages in the Iqlīm (modern-day Syria), and a similar rally had preceded this in the Metula uprising, which required a request for the Chouf leaders to intervene to end it. -The presence of more than one governor in Rashaya and the authority’s mobilization of central military forces and those from other brigades, which implies the scale of what happened. -The presence of the active Wadi in the provincial capital, Damascus. The neighborhood where Druze still live in Damascus, Bab Musalla, was called the Tayamna neighborhood, and this neighborhood had a presence in Damascus events, just as the location of the Wadi on the road between Damascus and Beirut had an importance known during the battles against the forces of Ibrahim Pasha and during the Syrian Revolution.
(*) The study was also published in the Lebanese magazine "Al-Duha" (with its references and sources), Issue 38, July 2023, pp. 47-50.
