Imam Musa al-Sadr is one of the most prominent figures in the modern history of Lebanon. A Shiite religious and political leader, he was both a defender of his community's rights and a builder of national unity. His deeply humanistic and patriotic approach starkly contrasts with the sectarian and transnational vision of Hezbollah, which rose as the dominant force within the Shiite community after his disappearance.
A national vision versus a tansnational logic: for a patria against an ummah
Sadr envisioned a sovereign Lebanon where different confessions coexisted in equality and justice. His famous statement, “Lebanon is a mission before it is a homeland,” encapsulates his ideal: a model country for the region, promoting mutual respect among its religious communities.
In contrast, Hezbollah, founded in 1982 under Iranian influence, has rooted its actions in a transnational vision. Loyal to the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih (the Guardianship of the Jurist-Theologian), Hezbollah has subordinated Lebanon’s interests to Tehran's strategic goals, particularly in its struggle against Israel and the spread of revolutionary Shiite ideology. This project conflicts with Sadr’s sovereignist vision, which saw Lebanon as an independent entity free from foreign hegemonic ambitions.
Imam Sadr: the architect of a Lebanese patria beyond religious hegemonies
Imam Sadr remains an emblematic figure who shaped Lebanon’s history with his enlightened vision of a nation founded on coexistence and mutual respect among religions. For him, Lebanon was not merely a confessional mosaic but a true patria – a shared space where different religious communities and their respective ummahs could meet, dialogue, and coexist. His conception of the Lebanese state firmly opposed any form of religious hegemony or submission to a transnational logic like that of the Islamic ummah.
Lebanon: a unique encounter of religions
Sadr saw Lebanon as a universal mission: a model of coexistence and diversity. For him, every religion and community had its place, but none should dominate the others. He often stated that Lebanon could not be reduced to a mere extension of a specific religious or ideological project.
In his speeches, he emphasized that Lebanon represented a unique space in the Arab world and beyond, bringing together extraordinarily diverse religious, cultural and spiritual traditions in a limited geographical area. This diversity, he believed, should not be a source of conflict but a foundation of wealth. In this spirit, he called for rejecting all forms of domination, whether internal or external.
A patria beyond any ummah
For Sadr, the concept of a Lebanese patria transcended that of the Islamic ummah. While the Islamic ummah seeks to unite Muslims around a shared faith, the Lebanese patria followed an entirely different logic: that of a secular state capable of welcoming all ummahs without privileging any single one.
He affirmed that the state must stand above religions, guaranteeing their freedom and equality while ensuring that none could impose its authority or ideology on the entire nation. For Sadr, this was the only way to preserve the fragile balance that makes Lebanon a unique country.
The state as arbiter and guarantor
Sadr advocated for a strong, impartial state above confessional divisions. In his calls for social justice and political reform, he stressed that the state should be the sole holder of legitimate power, including the monopoly of force. He saw the weakening of state institutions as a direct threat to national unity, as it opened the door to sectarianism and foreign interference.
He also denounced attempts by certain groups to exploit religion to monopolize power. For him, religion should inspire values of solidarity, justice and peace, never serve as a pretext for political or hegemonic ambitions.
The rejection of religious hegemony
Sadr firmly opposed any form of religious hegemony, including that of Shiite Islam, the faith he represented. He viewed the rise of transnational ideologies, such as the Iranian Islamic ummah, as a threat to Lebanese pluralism.
In his public addresses, he regularly called on religious leaders to work together to build a united nation rather than imposing their vision at the expense of others. His opposition to the idea of a hegemonic Islamic ummah stemmed from his conviction that Lebanon, as a patria, should be a space of neutrality and balance where every community could live in security and dignity.
A prophetic vision for Lebanon
By asserting that Lebanon was a patria and not an ummah, Sadr laid the foundation for a unique model in the Arab world. This model, grounded in the state as the supreme arbiter, required strong national institutions to guarantee equality among the various religions.
For Sadr, Lebanon should not be a component or extension of a specific ummah. On the contrary, he saw it as the meeting place of all ummahs in one country. This diversity, managed by an impartial state, would allow Lebanon to embody a universal message of coexistence and peace.
Lebanon as a message
Imam Sadr bequeathed a visionary legacy: a Lebanon where religions meet without one dominating the others, in respect of shared values. He emphasized that the Lebanese state must stand above confessions, ensuring their harmony without allowing any ummah to impose its authority.
His message still resonates today: Lebanon belongs to no specific ummah. Instead, it is the land where all ummahs meet and coexist – a unique space that transcends divisions. By respecting and strengthening this mission, Lebanon can not only survive, but also inspire the world.
A leader of unity versus an agent of division
Sadr worked to fully integrate the Shiites into the Lebanese state, steering them away from sectarian isolationism or separatist logics. He founded the Supreme Shiite Council in 1969 to enhance the community's representation in national institutions while fostering collaboration with other confessions. He often declared that Lebanon’s diversity was a wealth to be preserved.
In contrast, Hezbollah has established itself as a confessional and militarized organization, often operating outside the state’s frameworks. With its armed militia, it has created a "state within a state," undermining national sovereignty. By unilaterally waging wars without the consent of Lebanese institutions, Hezbollah has deepened internal divisions and heightened communal tensions.
An inclusive approach versus a policy of control
Through the Movement of the Disinherited, which he founded, Imam Sadr fought for the rights of the oppressed, regardless of their religious affiliation. For him, social justice had to transcend sectarian divides. He advocated for the equitable redistribution of resources and balanced development of regions, especially the long-marginalized South and Beqaa.
While Hezbollah claims to defend the disinherited, it has established a clientelist system tightly linked to its politico-military agenda. The services it provides to its supporters, such as healthcare and financial aid, reinforce its communal base but deepen the rift among Lebanese by fostering sectarian allegiance. This logic of control contradicts Sadr’s inclusive legacy.
A rejection of violence and hegemony
Sadr categorically rejected violence as a means of resolving political or religious disputes. During the Civil War, he called on Lebanese to lay down their arms and engage in dialogue, asserting that “the weapon of the believer is his word, not destruction.” For him, resorting to force was incompatible with the very idea of the rule of law and coexistence.
Hezbollah, on the other hand, has made armed violence one of the cornerstones of its actions. Its militia, considered by some a "resistance" against Israel, has also engaged in regional conflicts, notably in Syria, to the detriment of Lebanese neutrality. This militarization has exacerbated internal fractures, steering Lebanon further away from the ideal of peace and dialogue championed by Sadr.
Diverging legacies and futures
The mysterious disappearance of Sadr in 1978 deprived Lebanon of a leader capable of uniting the Shiites and other communities around a common national project. This absence paved the way for the emergence of Hezbollah, whose ideology and methods fundamentally oppose those of Sadr.
Nonetheless, Imam Sadr’s legacy continues to inspire those who still believe in a united and sovereign Lebanon. Faced with challenges posed by Hezbollah and other transnational forces, his message of justice, dialogue and respect for diversity stands as a credible and necessary alternative.
Two visions, two destinies
Imam Sadr and Hezbollah represent two irreconcilable visions for Lebanon. Where Sadr envisioned a country unified by diversity and sovereignty, Hezbollah places the Shiite community within a project of subordination to transnational interests.
The vision of the ummah, as carried by Hezbollah and its allies, is fundamentally incompatible with that of the Lebanese patria unless the ummah respects the patria, and all efforts are directed toward building and strengthening it. Lebanon belongs to no specific ummah. It is, instead, the meeting place of all ummahs within a single country. This unique richness makes Lebanon a universal mission. If this mission is respected, Lebanon can survive and thrive as a model of harmony in a world often marked by division.
Comments