Today the New York Times reports on a sectarian incident in Turkey. But its reporter Jeffrey Gettleman gets the issue so very much wrong that one wonders if there is a darker intend behind this piece:
The ill will had been brewing for days, ever since the Evli family chased away a drummer who had been trying to rouse people to a predawn Ramadan feast. The Evlis are Alawite, a historically persecuted minority sect of Islam, and also the sect of Syria’s embattled leaders, and many Alawites do not follow Islamic traditions like fasting for Ramadan.
The mob began to hurl insults. Then rocks.
“Death to Alawites!” they shouted. “We’re going to burn you all down!”
First: It is unclear if the Evli family really chased the drummer away. The Turkish paper Huriyett is carefully qualifying that as "alleged". Its report is much less sensationalized:
Members of the Evli family in the Sürgü village of the southeastern Malatya province allegedly asked a Ramadan drummer not to drum in front of their home the night of July 28 as they were not fasting and had work early in the morning. The two sides quarreled after the drummer rejected the family’s request.
Second: The Evli family is of Alevi believe, not Alawite and that is a quite big difference:
Alawis are distinct from the Alevi religious sect in Turkey, although the terms share similar etymologies.
Third: Where did Gettleman get the quote “Death to Alawites!”? Hurriyet reports the incident differently:
News of the incident was heard throughout the village and a mob of around 60 people gathered in front of the Evli family’s house yesterday. The group hurled stones at the family's home and said the family members were “Kurds and Alevis.”
Despite the rather similar sounding names and despite both being some far offshoot from Shia Islam there are serious differences between Alevis and Alawites. There are also differences in their ethnography and their political positions. The somewhat 15 million Alevis live mostly in central Anatolia and their language is Turkish and Kurd. Their religion appeared sometime around 1300. The Alawis (or Nusayris) speak Arabic and live mostly on the west coast of Syria. Their believe was founded some 300 years earlier than the Alevi believe.
What the NYT writes the following it is definitely wrong:
Many Turkish Alawites, estimated at 15 million to 20 million strong and one of the biggest minorities in this country, seem to be solidly behind Syria’s embattled strongman, Bashar al-Assad, while Turkey’s government, and many Sunnis, supports the Syrian rebels.
While it is correct that Turkish Alevis support the Syrian government, the NYT not only conflates two distinct religions and it misses the real reason why Alevis would feel positively towards the Syrian government.
The struggle of the Alewis in Turkey is more a political one than a religious one:
Alevis were early supporters of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, whom they credit with ending Ottoman-era discrimination against them, while Kurdish Alevis viewed his rise with caution.
Being Kemalists makes the Alevis a political enemy of Erdogan's Islamist AK party.
Both, the Alevis and the Alawis are religious minorities in their respective countries. Both support secularism because, as minorities, any non-secular government would be to their detriment. It is not the not existing similarity of their believes that lets the Turkish Alevis support the Syrian government. It is their common support for secularism that lets them show that solidarity.
So why is the New York Times publishing this factually wrong piece? Is that to support the sectarian Turkish prime minister Erdogan who has used the same nonfactual conflation:
Beginning last year, AKP leaders including Erdogan accused Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the Alevi leader of Erdogan’s main political opponents, the secularist Republican People’s party (CHP), of support for Assad, and alleged “sectarian solidarity” between Turkish Alevis and Syrian Alawites.
…
Erdogan’s allegation that Alevis and Alawites are co-religionists is inaccurate and irresponsible.
Again – why did the New York Times publish such an incorrect piece? Why is it supporting the false Erdogan narrative? Why is it helping to let this false narrative gain credibility in the west?