Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah 'Wanted: A change of Lebanese mindsets'

05 August 2003

Questioned on whether the Taef Agreement of 1989, which ended the Lebanon war, should be renegotiated, Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah replied, “The problem is that the Taef Agreement was based on a superficial, not a fundamental basis. It was merely an urgent measure to impose an armistice, but not to install a lasting peace since it did not compel the Lebanese to meet on the basis of their citizenship”. Sayyed Fadlallah, a leading Lebanese Shiite scholar, noted that as a result of Lebanon’s confessionally-based political structure, people tended to place loyalty to religious sect ahead of loyalty to the nation. Confessionalism, he charged, “has turned into religious fanaticism, which has had a very adverse effect on politics and society. The confessions began as various forms of religion but have turned into forms of tribalism. This is why the country’s political problems could not be resolved by a new Taef conference. “The problem lies in mindsets, not in texts”, he argued. “When we are able to accept each other and to converse in a reasonable dialogue, it is then that we will be able to have peace and stability regardless of the regime we are under. “I believe that Lebanon needs to have its citizens get rid of their confessional fanaticism and to stop considering each confession as having its own regions and politics. On the contrary, they should believe that there is a country called Lebanon in which all the citizens are equal”. Sayyed Fadlallah expressed a widely-held view when he said that the ‘road map’, the latest initiative to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, would end in an impasse. It “will come to grief because of Israeli intransigence. What concessions has Sharon made on the settlements, on release of prisoners, on the wall he is building? None”.

In a recent Friday sermon, you wondered how the corrupt summit of a society can be reformed if that summit is only a reflection of the base?
It is only natural that any base reflects the status of a society in which outdated concepts are embodied and only a few new concepts. This is why I believe that those responsible for education and awareness in society should plan to change these concepts and values in order to build a solid new basis so that people’s actions will portray their reasoning and humanity.

This may take great efforts because if society is to be changed, it has to rid itself of all forms of backwardness.

Humanizing the state is something you have long been calling for. Do you still believe this is possible?
Negative phenomena have not caused me to lose my faith in human nature. There are many factors working to improve social realities and lift society to a higher level. I believe that instinctive energy may move either positively or negatively in human beings, and it is a question of making the positive instincts move towards the negative ones so to give the latter some positive content. When I meet someone who is implicated in some offense or other, I try to search deep inside him to discern some purity and authenticity in his character.

How do you view your standing in the light of rumors circulated in regard to you which your supporters have described as biased?
Since I started my work, I resolved to be loyal to God and man and to respect myself. This is why I kept away from personal aspirations because I believe that a man with a mission must set aside his personal ambitions in order to devote himself to his mission.

This is why I also took into account that I might not agree with everyone, for people may have divergent opinions. But I have always respected the right of others to have their own opinions even though I did not necessarily agree with them.

I started on this path some 50 years ago when I was in Iraq, in Najaf. This conflict first started at the level of Islamic concepts, the Islamic movement and in regard to international, regional or local politics.

Thus, my responsibility is to present the reality to people, as I see it. Obviously I do not claim to understand the whole truth; I seek only to convey my personal insights to others.

I constantly meet and converse with prominent politicians who hold specific and partisan views, but if I work against my convictions, people would lose their trust in me and I would have to withdraw into seclusion. I don’t like to ‘sail under false colors’.

Moreover, I have noticed that those who attack the stands I take are in fact doing me a service because their criticism has the effect of arousing people’s curiosity in what I believe. People then examine my views and they see that the accusations directed against me are not entirely true.

As for the extension of my authority, educated and serious people want to know the truth, and it is with them that I converse and engage in dialogue because I learn from their experiences. I am not affected by any criticism, accusations or defamation; they are all valueless. Superficial things fade away, while that which is of value remains.

More than 14 years have passed since the Taef Agreement. Some affirm that there are indications that Lebanon is moving away from security and stability. Do you think that we need a second Taef that would be successful where the first has failed?
The problem is that the Taef Agreement was based on a superficial, not a fundamental basis. It was merely an urgent measure to put an end to the war. It was a means of imposing an armistice, but not of installing a lasting peace since it did not compel the Lebanese to meet on the basis of their citizenship. We do not want to eliminate religious confessions. What we want is to stress the fact that confessionalism has turned into religious fanaticism, which has had a very adverse effect on politics and society. The confessions began as various forms of religion but eventually turned into forms of tribalism.

This is why I don’t think the problem would be resolved by a second Taef because the problem lies in mindsets, not in texts.

When we are able to accept each other and converse in a reasonable dialogue, it is then that we will be able to have peace and stability regardless of the regime we are under.

I believe that Lebanon needs to have its citizens get rid of their confessional fanaticism and to stop considering each confession as having its own regions and politics. On the contrary, they should believe that there is a country called Lebanon in which all the citizens are equal.

The fact that while on a recent visit to Beirut you did not meet President Mohammad Khatami has been taken to mean that relations between yourself and the Iranian authorities are not at their best…
First of all, there is no tension but only a divergence of opinions. Several men of religion in Iran have had reservations regarding the precept of the wilayat al-fakih, the principle on which the Islamic Republic is based. But this precept is only a doctrinal theory.

And if the legitimacy of the wilayat al-fakih is not proved on the basis of the religious tests, we have in the Islamic doctrine, the obligation of maintaining order. Thus, if a ruler is able to maintain public order and security, he is considered legitimate; if he is not, the nation can choose anyone else having the required competence, on condition that he observes Islamic religious and social norms.

This is why I do not think that this divergence of opinions has led to any tension. In fact, I support many of Iran’s political stances against the US and Israel and its support for the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine.

Moreover, I believe in the Islamic order regardless of what reservations or remarks I may have regarding legislation.

As for the fact that I did not meet Mr. Khatami, he is a friend of mine. We have had a relation of mutual trust and respect since before he became president. The issue was merely a matter of protocol. This issue has been blown out of proportion in the press.

The developments in Iraq show that the US is being sucked into a quagmire and that it will pay a high military and political price, do you share this view?
What is now happening in Iraq indicates clearly that the United States is sinking into a quagmire of its own making that will eventually exact a high price from the aggressors on many levels. The US has shown that with its great military force it can easily overrun another country. But it is one thing to do that, and something else to govern it effectively. The United States, unlike France and Britain, has no history of ruling other countries.

Those who planned this war thought that as soon as their troops crossed into Iraq, they would be welcomed with open arms as ‘liberators’ and that they could quickly turn the country over to some puppet regime that would acquiesce in US aims. It never occurred to them that there could be resistance to their occupation. But this has not been the case; in fact, the US forces now feel that they are in Iraq not to protect the country from the forces of the former regime, but rather to protect themselves from the Iraqi people.

The whole sorry affair has been made much worse not only by the Americans’ failure to provide security and basic services, but also because, through their lack of understanding of the realities of the country and the region, unfortunate incidents have occurred involving violations of things considered sacred in Iraq.

And the way the American civil administrator abolished the Iraqi Baath Party and the army has led the Iraqi people to disregard the possibility of having any future with the US.

While the American Administration is finding that far from being “irrelevant”, the United Nations could transform the situation in Iraq in terms of maintaining security and providing essential services. It would also be helpful, the Administration now sees, if France, Germany and Russia, which opposed the war without UN authorization, contributed troops to the so-called coalition forces. But this isn’t going to happen, certainly not as long as the US, with its habitual arrogance, insists that command of any armed forces in Iraq should remain in its hands rather than in those of the UN. In fact, we’ve seen a good deal of quiet Schadenfreude on the part of ‘old Europe’ over the mess the Americans have made for themselves in the country.

The US, it appears, faces a crisis, and it is not easy to see what exit it will find.

What are your remarks on the transitional Governing Council in Iraq? And is there a possibility that the US will try to exploit sectarian differences in the country?
I believe this council is an attempt to convince the Iraqis that credible progress is being made in the process of giving control of the country back to them. Those who have joined the council believe that it is the first step to recover their national independence.

The fact that the Americans have given the Shiites a slight majority on the council may be seen as an attempt to stir up sectarian feeling, but this will come to nothing because Iraq has never witnessed confessional strife.

Do you intend to visit Iraq?
I have no plans to visit it in the near future in view of the chaotic situation there. But I would love to visit soon given the fact that I grew up and had my education there.

The ‘road map’, the current initiative to bring about an Arab-Israeli peace settlement, is now the center of attention. Do you see it as laying the basis for a settlement, especially since Lebanon and Syria are hardly mentioned in it?
It is instructive to see that Israel has been allowed to impose its conditions while the Palestinians have not even been allowed to mention their reservations.

I believe that Israel will work hard to erase the ‘road map’ and will exploit the upcoming US elections for this purpose, enlisting the support of the Jewish lobby.

The ‘map’ is in my view no more than an attempt by the US president to convince Arabs and Muslims that he is an authentic peacemaker, not a warmonger. But it’s an attempt that will come to grief because of Israeli intransigence. What concessions has Sharon made on the settlements, on release of prisoners, on the wall he is building? None.

The ‘map’ is an exercise in public relations, and I cannot believe it will lead to anything but a dead end.

Article originally published by Monday Morning 05-Aug-03