Hezbollah is one of the most impressive examples to Muslims in the past few years. Likewise, its leader Hassan Nasrallah is, according to the US Newsweek, the most charismatic character in the Muslim world and the most impressive to all Muslim masses.

However, Muslim scholars and intellectuals differ on a great sclae on estimating Hezbollah as well as its leader Nasrallah. Some of them overestimate him to the extent of regarding him as the caliph of Muslims. On the other extreme, there are others who judge them to be disbelievers. However, there are many other opinions between the two extremes.

 Where is the truth about this issue? Is it permissible for us to be that impressed with Hezbollah's achievements?  Which is proper; to consider it a symbol that is to be highlighted or a danger that is to be warned against? Is it permissible to keep silent as observed by many Muslims who
view it is better not tackle such an issue at the present? Actually, keeping silent is meaningless in view of the continuous succession of events and aggravation of problems. In this regard, you certainly know that to refrain from saying the truth is satanic.

As we stressed in our previous articles, to understand the truth about something, we have to explore its very roots. Thus, we should understand the story from the beginning, i.e. how and in what surrounding circumstances Hezbollah rose. Moreover, we should understand the story of its founders, their beliefs, ideology, ambitions, objectives and means. By doing so, many ambiguous facts will become clear and we will be able to use our mental ability to control our emotions, for emotions speak so differently from reason.

The rise of Hezbollah

Hezbollah rose in Lebanon, a country of a unique nature that is totally different from all world countries. It is an amazingly sectarian country consisting of 18 acknowledged cults. Maybe its mountainous nature made it a resort of outlawed sects. Therefore, Christians of different sects, Shia, Druze and other sects found refuge therein. It is conventionally acknowledged among the Lebanese that Sunnis, Shiites belonging to the Twelver (Ithna 'Ashriyyah) or Imami Shiism and Christian Maronites are the largest three sects in Lebanon. Next to them, but very less in number, are Druze, who are conventionally recognized as Muslims although not really so.

French colonizers, who invaded Lebanon in 1920 A.D., were keen to reinforce sectarianism by conferring authority on their Maronite allies. Anyway, after gaining independence in 1943, the Lebanese constitution was formed providing that the president be a Maronite, the premier be a Sunni and the parliament speaker be a Shiite. Furthermore, such a constitution provision was only put into practice in 1959, before which all positions of power were assumed by Maonites.

On account of such sensible sectarianism, the Lebanese entirely overlooked conducting an overwhelming census so as to state accurately the ratio of each sect. However, most trustworthy analyses state that Sunnis constitute 26%, Shia constitute 26%, Maronites constitute 22% and Druze constitute 5.6% of the total population.

As a matter of fact, each sect sought to centralize in a certain place so as to constitute an influential power. Thus, Shia centralize in the South Lebanon and in Al-Biqa valley, Sunnis centralize in the North and Middle Lebanon and in coastal cities such as Beirut, Tripoli and Sidon (Saida), while Maronites centralize in Jabal Lubnan and Eastern Beirut.

Shia's locating in the south explains to us their conflict with Jews during the last decades. Actually, it was not that creed-based conflict that is for the sake of Allah or for liberating Palestine; rather, it took place as they wanted to defend principal regions they control and, therefore, had to resist. Otherwise, their whole existence would be exposed to danger. Moreover, we should know that they would not certainly move a hairbreadth to resist in case Sunni areas were attacked.

Musa Al-Sadr and the roots of the story

Let us go back to the roots of our story. Sunnis and Shiites were marginalized to a great extent if compared to Maronites who were supported by France and the international community. However, Sunnis and Shiites started Self-actualization and proving existence especially in the late fifties of the past century. Meanwhile, there was no one to support the Sunni Cause or adopt its project bearing in mind the spread of nationalist Communism all over the Arab world at that time. In the same time, Shia found it opportune to rise and grow. Thus, an influential Shiite who left his imprint on Lebanon's map, Musa Al-Sadr settled in Lebanon in 1959. Al-Sadr was born in Iran's holy city of Qom in 1928, where he studied the Twelver School of thought. He was then appointed as a lecturer in the University of Qom where he taught Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and Logic. He then moved to the Iraqi city of Najaf, where he studied under great Shiite authorities such as Ayatullah Muhsin Al-Hakim and Abul-Qasim Khu'i. He then moved to Lebanon where he settled for the rest of his life.

Al-Sadr came to Lebanon for two major missions:

First: The Shiite religious plan to establish a Shiite-based state in Lebanon, a state that is to be based on the Twelver ideology including all its deviated beliefs and tenets and abhorred Bid`ahs (innovations in religion). For more information on Shia's origins and beliefs, refer to my article Origins of Shia. Moreover, be informed that Lebanese Shiites at that time were not religious. Although having born the title Shiites, they knew nothing about the nature and beliefs of their sect.

Second: He had very great funds to facilitate achieving his plan. It is well-known that Shiite authorities all over the world are very wealthy as they receive one fifth (20%) of the income of Shiites as they are believed in to belong to the Prophet's Household. In fact, such money is their purely owned property and thus have full right to dispose of it as they like. As such, they constitute a huge economic power and thus have full authority.

Shia fight against Sunni rule

Shiite sects were basically revolutionary movements against ruling regimes who aim at assuming power and authority at the expense of and in conflict with Sunni regimes. Actually, Shia managed to rule a wide range of Muslim territories during different stages of history. (For knowledge about negative abominable effects of their rule over a given place, refer to the article "Shia's Dominance".) By the decline of the Safavid Dynasty in the middle of the eighteenth century A.D., they had no more rule over any place in the world and their plan faded away for a long period. However, their authoritative thought started to revive at the outset of the fifties of the past century. By then, they had a relentless ambition to establish a state to spread their Twelver-based deviated thought through the influence of authority and armament. The aspired for state was supposed to be established in no more than three countries, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, where there exists good numbers of Shiites, which might enable them to establish their state.

The Shiite lobby planned to establish a state in one of, or in all, those three countries. Therefore, men of mission were distributed to those regions. Thus, Khomeini was entrusted with staging a coup d'etat in Iran, others were entrusted with doing the same in Iraq, an issue which we will tackle in a later article if Allah so wills, and Musa Al-Sadr was entrusted with doing the job in Lebanon. Actually, it was an interlaced, complicated and deliberate mission. Actually, the time factor was of no significance to them that they deemed it unimportant to reach their goals even after decades. The same method was applied to establish ancient Shiite states such as Buwayhid, Ubaidi, falsely called Fatimid, and other Shiite states. (See the article "Shia's Dominance" for more information.) Usually, Shiite organizations practice their mission on the proletariat and poor classes. They preach in those people revolutionary spirit, inherently implanted in Shiites, against the rich and inhabitants of palaces hoping, via doing so, that a coup d'etat may result in establishing the Shiite state.

The same method applied along history was applied in Iran (we might perhaps have time to discuss the Shia revolution there). The plan is making its way now through Lebanon and Iraq. If the plan is to succeed in the latter two countries, expansion will be extended later to include Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia. Accordingly, I found it inevitable to write this article so that Muslims might understand surrounding events.

A plan to establish a Shiite state

Let us go back to the story of Lebanon.

Musa Al-Sadr was delegated to Lebanon to plan for the establishment of a Shiite state. Being an ethnic Lebanese and having a good command of Arabic as well as Persian, Al-Sadr was thus elected for the mission. There was a continuous political coordination between him and Al-Khomeini and even more stronger ties. Al-Khomeini's son Ahmad Al-Khomeini was married to Al-Sadr's nephew. Moreover, Al-Sadr's son was married to Al-Khomeini's granddaughter. Besides, Mustafa Al-Khomeini was an intimate friend of Musa Al-Sadr.

 Al-Sadr headed directly for South Lebanon where the Shia population density live. He started to work on the 

social level showing no clear religious tendency. He established many service institutions to help the poor and the needy. However, his Shiite tendency started to emerge gradually. He established Ja'fari courts, which issue verdicts among Shiites subject to the Twelver school of thought, having been enabled by the sectarian nature of Lebanon to do so taking into consideration the very weak state of Lebanese government and army. Al- Sadr was known for working both sides of the street and thus was ready for cooperating with anyone in order to achieve his goals. Knowing that Mornite Christians represent the strongest current in Lebanon at that time, although competed by the Sunni current, he strengthened ties with the former. Actually, Shiism in its very essence stands for a revolution against Sunni Islamic ideology and rejection of the story of Islam beginning with Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq and Umar bin Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them) as well as all Sunni Muslim states along the history of our Ummah. Please, bear in mind that roughly all Sunnis at that time were not firmly committed to principles of their religion and adopted nationalist, socialist and secularist ideologies. Undoubtedly, Shia's main idea is conflict with Sunnis. Accordingly, Al-Sadr strengthened ties with Charles Helou the Maronite president of Lebanon at that time rather than cooperating with Sunnis in order to join Muslim forces.

Actually, he was viewed by Helou to be the right ally in face of the Sunni front and thus showed favor to and encouraged him. By the same token, Helou consented in 1967 to the establishment of the Supreme Shiite Islamic Council to represent the Shia of Lebanon. Moreover, he passed the law No. 72/76 providing that the Shiite Council might refer to greatest Shiite authorities in the world (Iran, Iraq and others) regarding fatwa, rulings and laws and not necessarily to Lebanese rules. The Council has already been established in 1969 headed, of course, by Musa Al-Sadr and was recognized by the government in 1970, which further decided to give a 10-million-dollar aid to the Shiite south.

Furthermore, Musa Al-Sadr did not forget to curry favor with the USA. In a meeting with the US ambassador, Al-Sadr stated that he resists the Nassirite Socialist expansion among the Shiite youths. His relations with the Americans got so disclosed that Al-Khomeini's escort accused him of it, bearing in mind that Al-Khomeini, at that stage, considered the USA to be a contingent peril as it strongly supported the Shah. Contrary to all Al-Sadr's expectations, a serious development took place when Palestinian refugees in Jordan suffered from the Black September massacre which lasted with the expulsion of the Palestinian fighters led by Fatah to Lebanon. Unwelcoming expulsion of "Sunni" Palestinians to the south Lebanon (near Palestine), Shiites thought it might be a stumbling rock in the way of the Shiite state plan, bearing in mind that Fatah at that time had socialist secularist tendency and was far away from Islamic teachings.

Nevertheless, Musa Al-Sadr benefited from Fatah making good relations with them in the hope of having Fatah give Shiites military training and thus help establish Shiite militias that will have serious influence in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Fatah sought another ally besides communists, which produced an interest-based relationship between them.

In 1971, Hafiz Al-Asad came to power in Syria. He belonged to the Alawis, also known as Nusayris, a sect, although judged to have dissented from Islam, is still considered within the political scope of Islam. They claim Ali to be a god (High indeed be Allah exalted above that they say!). However, Musa Al-Sadr issued a famous fatwa judging Alawis to be Shiites and thus considering Hafiz Al-Asad a Muslim!

This led to a close rapprochement with Syria and its ruling regime and to Musa Al-Sadr becoming a vehicle for on-going contact between Hafiz Al-Asad and Iranian Revolution leaders. Actually, Al-Asad strongly supported rising against the Shah and backed Iran in its war against Iraq, for he was at bitter enmity with Saddam Hussein.

This way, Musa Al-Sadr was laying the foundation of his new Shiite state supported by the greatest Shiite authorities in the world especially Al-Khomeini, Lebanese Christians, the USA and Syria as well as Fatah the so-called Sunni group.

In 1974, he founded the Movement of the Disinherited to press for better economic and social conditions for the poor. At the beginning, many Christians in the south, thinking it a national movement aiming at improving the status of the poor in Lebanon, joined the movement in large numbers. Discovering the clear Shiite orientation of the Movement, they decided to withdraw. Soon after, Al-Sadr, held an agreement with Yassir Arafat, Fatah leader, to the effect of Fatah giving military training to the Movement of the Disinherited, which was well-known to the weak Lebanese government. In 1975, Al-Sadr declared the formation of the militia, Afwaj al-Muqawama al-Lubnaniya (the Lebanese Resistance Detachments) better known by the acronym AMAL (which also means "hope") to be the military wing of the Movement of the Disinherited and was headed, of course, by him. Soon after, Al-Sadr snubbed Palestinians and started to strongly demand the expulsion of Sunni Palestinians from the Shiite south. Later, we will come to know that the AMAL movement fought against Palestinians in the well-known War of the Camps from 1985 to 1988.

The Lebanese civil war broke out in 1975, a multifaceted civil war involved in which are many internal and external parties. However, we have to single it out with special analyses so that we might have a clearer understanding of it.

Musa Al-Sadr: Multiple Enmities

Having founded the Supreme Shiite Council and the AMAL Movement, Musa Al-Sadr turned into a significant power center, which aroused the anger of many parties. In fact, Musa would publicly boast of feeling powerful and would in many conferences threat of prompting his supporters to attack palaces of the rich in case their demands are not fulfilled. He would further criticize some behaviors of Al-Khomeini and would deal with some universal powers without consulting Shiite authorities who sent him to Lebanon. Things got even worse when he paid a visit to Iran to hold a meeting with the Shah himself to ask him to pardon twelve Shiite religious leaders whom the Shah had decided to execute. Al-Khomeini considered such a visit a violation of the universal Shiite coordination and dealing with the Shah who is the enemy of revolutionists. The situation aggravated in 1978 on a breakup of relations between Syria and Al-Sadr. Being under pressure of surrounding countries as well as the US after the visit paid by Al-Sadat to the Zionist entity in 1977, Syria wanted a strong support from Lebanon as the Syrian army was in Lebanon at that time and wanted Al-Sadr to ally with no other than Syria. Feeling powerful in face of the Syrian awkward situation, Al-Sadr wanted to strengthen ties with Arab countries and thus did not heed Syrian warnings. Thus, he visited Kuwait and then Algeria and then headed for Libya in August 1978 to give rise to a great surprise. Libya declared that Al-Sadr left in August 25, 1979; however, he has never been seen in any place all over the world since then.

It is something really astonishing. Actually, Musa Al-Sadr is not that young boy as may lose way in the airport and is not that insignificant figure whose destination might be ignored by the hosting country. Evidently, he was detained and then assassinated.

At that time, Musa Al-Sadr was lurked by many enemies many of whom are accused of killing him. Foremost are the leader of the would-be Iranian revolution that is to take place one year later who do not want charismatic figures having many relations and thus could compete with Al-Khomeini for the leadership of the would-be Shiite state. Moreover, arousing the anger of the Syrian regime could have one ultimate result, i.e. being assassinated, bearing in mind the well-known cruel manner in which the Syrian regi
me would deal with its opponents. Furthermore, Libya itself had relations with the leadership of the Iranian revolution and thus will support it later in the war against Iraq. Taking into consideration that the Lebanese civil war was at its utmost heat, we can infer that many internal Lebanese forces were interested in toppling Musa Al-Sadr.

In fact, disappearance of Musa AL-Sadr represented a confusing puzzle, many competing scenarios for which were suggested by politicians but were all in vain. Either way, Musa Al-Sadr left behind a fierce conflict and the armed AMAL Movement undertaking his plans. Moreover, his post at the head of the Shiite Supreme Council remained vacant. One year later, the Iranian Revolution will be staged to oust the Shah. Four years later, Zionist forces will invade the south Lebanon.

Actually, all such complicated events gave rise to Hezbollah which is to complete Al-Sadr's plans but with a purely Iranian orientation. How could this happen? What is the fate of AMAL? What is the attitude of Shiites toward Palestinians in the south? How could Hezbollah steal the limelight? Who is Hassan Nasrallah? What are his beliefs and ideas?

The answer to these questions will be dealt with in length in our coming article, if Allah so wills. I ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.

http://300035.dotdothktrade.tech/en/artical/3407495