• Introduction
• Druze History
• The Role of al-Hakim
• The Druze Concept of God
• The World
• God and Man
Introduction
The Druze movement sprang from Isma‘ili Shi‘i Islam in the year AH 408/AD 1017, during the time of the sixth Fatimid caliph-imam, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. Headquartered in Cairo, the movement soon took hold in Mount Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon Range, in northern and southern Syria, in and around Damascus and in northern Palestine.
Most of the adherents to this faith were members of those Arabian tribes, such as the Tanukh, Kalb, Kilab and Tayyi’, who had already come under the political and creedal impact of Isma‘ili Fatimid hegemony. Druze epistles were also sent to the Hijaz, to the eastern part of Arabia and to Yemen. They reached as far as India. This suggests that adherents to the Druze movement may have existed in those countries.
The name by which the Druze like to be known is Muwahhidun (sing. Muwahhid), which reflects their central belief in a mystical oneness (tawhid) with the One. Ironically, however, the followers of this movement acquired their popular name, the Druze, from a certain Muhammad ibn Isma‘il al-Darzi (also known as Nashtakin or Anushtagin al-Darazi). He was a high state functionary enrolled in the movement in its early stages, but who came, before long, to have major differences (1) with other of its leaders: this prompted Hamza ibn ‘Ali, the movement’s head, together with Caliph al-Hakim, to expel him from it, causing him to rise up against Hamza ibn ‘Ali and to ally himself with the non-adherents to the faith among the Cairenes. He led an insurrection that ended with his defeat on 29 Dhu l-Hijja AH 409/9 May AD 1019 and his execution on the following day.
In order to understand the Druze faith, we must step back to consider the evolution of Islamic approaches to the Qur’an. As Muslims came into greater contact with Greek philosophy, Persian thought, Indian mysticism, and Jewish and Christian theology, they began to interpret the literal message of the Qur’an in order to gain insight into its deeper ramifications.
This new approach to Islam became more distinctive as Muslims increased their acquaintance with Sufism. An interaction between Greek rationalism and Oriental mysticism, which was intensified by the emergence of Sufi sages, especially in the ninth and tenth centuries AD, prepared the way for the emergence, at the beginning of the eleventh century (fifth century AH), of the Druze movement as an offshoot of the esoteric Isma’ili approach to Islam. Adherents to the movement believed that a third and last stage of Islam had begun: namely, al-haqiqa, ‘self-realization,’ as true a feeling of unity with the One as is humanly possible.
The first stage, al-shari‘a (literal or exoteric Islam), had paved the way for the second one, al-tariqa (inner or esoteric Islam), but now it was the time of al-haqiqa. These three Sufi terms ― al-shari‘a, al-tariqa, and al-haqiqa ― were used by the Druze synonymously with islam, iman and ihsan (or tawhid), the latter three being common among other Muslims as well, Sunni and Shi‘i alike. (Islam here refers to the first stage, not to the religion as such.)
For the Druze, this last and third stage, variously known as al-haqiqa, ihsan, or tawhid (oneness with the One), is reached by passing through the states of gnostic preparedness instilled during the preceding two stages. It is the nature of tawhid to lead the adherent to behold his or her divine reality where no relative is mystically apart from the absolute and no outward existence is independent of divine reality. The Muwahhid is thus led to identifying him or herself and, consequently, every existing being, with the One. At this stage, the Muwahhid is mystically subsumed into the all-inclusiveness of the One, whose existence is the only real existence.
Courtesy: www.druzeheritage.org
It was during the period of Crusader rule in Syria (1099-1291) that the Druze first emerged into the full light of history, in the Gharb region of the Shuf mountains. As redoubtable warriors serving the Muslim rulers of Damascus against the alien invaders, the Druze were given the task of keeping watch over the Crusaders in the seaport of Beirut, with the aim of preventing them from making any encroachments inland. Subsequently, the Druze chiefs of the Gharb placed their not inconsiderable military experience at the disposal of the Mamluk rulers of Egypt (1250-1516); first, to assist them in putting an end to what remained of Crusader rule in coastal Syria and, later, to help them safeguard the Syrian coast against Crusader retaliation by sea.
(In 1425, a Druze contingent from Beirut and the Gharb joined in a major Mamluk naval expedition against Cyprus, where the last remnant of Crusader rule in the Near East was reduced to subservience). In return for the valuable services rendered by the Druze of the Gharb and other parts of the Shuf mountains, the Mamluks appear to have allowed them the freedom to manage their internal affairs with minimal interference from the central government in Cairo, or its Syrian agency in Damascus.
(The history of the Gharb Druze during the Crusader and Mamluk periods is known from the work of two remarkable Druze historians, Salih ibn Yahya (d. ca. 1435) and Ahmad ibn Hamza ibn Sibat (d. 1523), no such documentation being available regarding the Druze of other Syrian regions. It appears, however, that the Druze of Hauran were among the peasants and tribesmen of that area who fought and decimated the forces of the Second Crusade, as they advanced from Palestine to attempt the capture of Damascus in 1147.
Notably, the Druze placed their military resources at the disposal of the Sunni Muslim state against the Crusaders at a time when their community was being singled out for special condemnation by the Sunni religious establishment on account of its beliefs.)
Unlike the Mamluks, the Ottomans who succeeded them as the rulers of Syria in 1516 were not prepared to allow the Shuf Druze the customary local freedoms which they had come to regard as established rights. Consequently, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were to witness a succession of armed Druze rebellions against the Ottomans, countered by repeated Ottoman punitive expeditions against the Shuf in the course of which the Druze population of the area was severely depleted and many villages laid waste. These military measures, however, severe as they were, did not succeed in reducing the local Druze to the required degree of subordination. This led the Ottoman government to agree to an arrangement whereby the different nahiyes (districts) of the Shuf would be granted in iltizam (that is, in fiscal concession) to one of the region’s emirs, or leading chiefs, leaving the maintenance of law and order in the area, and the collection of its taxes, in the hands of the appointed emir. This arrangement was to provide the cornerstone for the privileged status which ultimately came to be enjoyed by the whole of Mount Lebanon in Ottoman Syria, Druze and Christian areas alike. (The history of the Shuf Druze for the Ottoman period is known from the work of Christianmainly Maronitehistorians, as well as from other local and Ottoman sources, and from Ottoman archival material.)
(Remarkably, the Shuf Druze had taken up arms against Ottoman rule when the Ottoman Empire was at the peak of its power. Starting from the middle decades of the nineteenth century, the Hauran Druze of Jabal al-Duruzwhose earlier history remains obscure due to a lack of documentationput up a similar resistance to determined efforts on the part of the Ottoman state to tighten its weakened control over Syria. Later, in the mid-1920s, these same Hauran Druze rose in armed rebellion against the French shortly after France, emerging victorious from the First World War, was allotted its mandate over Syria and Lebanon. This Druze revolt was to trigger a general Syrian insurrection against the French Mandate, lasting for nearly three years.)
Historically, the close relations between the Druze and Christians of the Lebanon date back to the sixteenth century, when the Druze of the Shuf, whose livelihood depended on silk production, first opened their country to large-scale Christianand principally Maronitepeasant migration from the north, to help produce the silk. To encourage this Christian immigration, the leading Druze chiefs of the area made generous donations of land to Maronite and other Christian monastic orders for the building of monasteries and churches; tradition has it that the Druze villages where the Christian newcomers settled came to be called ‘honoured villages (diya‘ musharrafa)’. Meanwhile, as the Druze emirs holding the iltizam of the Druze area gained control over the adjacent Maronite nahiye of Kisrawan, the management of the affairs of Mount Lebanon developed into a close Druze-Maronite partnership.
Having the advantage of numbers and of privileged external connections, the Maronites eventually started to gain the upper hand in this partnership. This development appears to have elicited little Druze concern in its initial stages but, before long, tensions began to rise. Incited and openly backed by France, the Maronite clerical and feudal leaderships began, from the 1840s, to seek complete dominance over the whole of Mount Lebanon, causing the Druze to feel dangerously threatened on their very home ground. When the Druze reaction, in full force, finally came in 1860, its violence was such that the Christian parties who had provoked it fled the scene, leaving the defenceless Christians of the Druze regions to their fate.
While the manner in which the Druze fell upon their terrified Christian neighbours in 1860in the Shuf, Wadi al-Taym and elsewherewent far beyond the justifiable limits of self-defence, what it represented at the time was an outburst of pent-up feelings of hostility provoked by decades of equally unjustified Christian provocation. Over a century later, during the course of the multi-faceted Lebanese civil war of 1975-1991, Christian provocation was even more pronounced and included indefensible attacks on isolated and unprotected Druze communities in different parts of Mount Lebanon (notably, in the Matn and Shahhar districts). This was a decisive factor in eliciting the violence with which the Druze attacked Christians living in their midst in 1983, devastating their villages and forcing a massive Christian exodus from the Shuf. In both instances, the Druze recourse to violence represented a departure from the historical Druze norm, which had emphasized peaceful coexistence on the basis of equitable partnership and mutual goodwill. However, to maintain this norm, the community had first to attend to its survival, which is why, at various turning points in their history, the Druze felt compelled to resort to arms when they perceived their community to be in danger. This compulsion was the same regardless of whether the perceived danger came from a neighbour or an external power, or whether the odds were with the Druze or overwhelmingly against them.
Proud of their communal identity and solidarity, the Druze have also been staunchly attached to their native soil; the same Druze families have lived in the same towns and villages, if not the same houses, for centuries, with hardly an interruption. Attachment to community and territory, however, has never been a bar to active Druze involvement in the affairs of the broader societies to which they belonged; nor has it obstructed the Druze commitment to the wider Arab identity that they share with other Muslim and Christian communities of the Near East. Moreover, though socially conservative, the Druze have exhibited a remarkable openness to Western cultural influences in modern times. During the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, Lebanese Druze chiefs welcomed and offered their protection to British and American missionaries arriving to establish schools and colleges in the Shuf mountains, as they had in Beirut; furthermore, by sending their own sons and daughters to these teaching institutions, they set the example for others. As a result, the spread of modern education began particularly early among the Druze, no less than among Lebanese Christians. In due course, Druze educated at home or abroad came to be counted among those playing leading roles in the social, economic and cultural advancement of Lebanese society, as of the broader Arab society, thereby placing their community in the vanguard of Arab development.
All of these considerations make the heritage of the Druze community a subject worthy of serious academic investigationbeginning with a thorough survey of Druze literature and of centuries of literature written about the community, both by its supporters and by its detractors. Hopefully, the present bibliography, sponsored by the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies in Amman, Jordan, will help provide not only basic material, but also an incentive for further study in the field.
Kamal Salibi
Courtesy: www.druzeheritage.org
The Role of al-Hakim
The Druze doctrine maintains that, four hundred years after the advent of Islam (one thousand years after Christ), esoteric interpretation of the Qur’an achieved its task and the stage of iman or al-tariqa terminated with the arrival of the caliph-imam, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. Just as the Prophet Muhammad had delivered the divine message (literally, islam or shari‘a) and was the last conveyor (natiq) of it, so was al-Hakim the last of the esoteric imams who, starting with ‘Ali ibn ‘Abi Talib down through the Fatimid caliphs, took upon themselves the task of interpreting God’s message and implementing the second stage (iman or tariqa) by establishing the Fatimid state, thus transmitting the esoteric meaning of the divine Word to mankind. (Hence, the Fatimid imam was known as the maqam or ‘station’ of the esoteric divine Word.) With al-Hakim, the third stage started.
Consequently, on 1 Muharram AH 408/30 May AD 1017, al-Hakim, according to the Druze, relinquished the esoteric Imamate and appointed Hamza ibn ‘Ali as the imam of the third stage (tawhid). He also appointed a distant cousin, ‘Abd al-Rahim ibn Ilias, as heir presumptive of the Muslims (wali ‘ahd al-Muslimin) and another Fatimid personality, Abu Hisham ‘Abbas ibn Shu‘ayb, as heir presumptive of the Mu’mins (wali ‘ahd al-Mu’minin). The Fatimid imam was thus replaced by the holders of three different positions, the first dealing with the Muslims (in other words, the followers of exoteric Islam), the second dealing with the Mu’mins (the followers of iman) and the third dealing with the Muwahhidun (the followers of tawhid.)(3) Al-Hakim was now solely the maqam.
Courtesy: www.druzeheritage.org
The Druze Concept of God
The doctrine of tawhid maintains that God is not an entity in Himself (dhatiyya); nor is He merely above this existence. For the Druze, God is absolute existence. Consequently, He is not a creator in that He created the universe ex nihilo. Rather, physical existence is God’s expression, His manifestation (badw). Since God is absolute, He has not created the world outside of Him for, as absolute, He has no limit: similarly, the world did not emanate from Him in time. He is the One: there is none other than God; He is the only Existent. The world is a constant projection from Him, by Him, within Him and to Him. This is what the Druze doctrine means by ibda‘, not an act that occurred outside of God.
The world is, therefore, in existence due to God’s divine nature (amr). The Qur’anic verse, “His amr, when he wills a shay’ , is to say to it, ‘Be,’ and it is,” (4) lies at the basis of the Druze doctrine of existence according to Hamza ibn ‘Ali. The word amr in this verse means sha’n (affair, activity) and is equivalent to the Latin word res. (5) According to the Druze interpretation of this Qur’anic verse, the amr of God, that is, His will, activity, is transformed into the divine imperative: “Be!” For the Druze, God is to His amr as a word’s meaning is to the word. As meaning both transcends the word that it expresses and is immanent in it, the absolute Existent transcends the world while being immanent in it. Hence, God is referred to by the Druze as both transcendent (munazzah) and immanent (mawjud). Tawhid is defined as tanzih wa wajud, that is, transcendence and immanence.
Hamza ibn ‘Ali refers to God’s amr as ‘aql, an Arabic verbal noun that originally meant ‘to bind’: equivalent to the Greek nous, it should not be misunderstood as ‘mind’ or ‘reason’. As an intelligent and purposive principle, however, the ‘aql is inclusive of all existing beings. The ‘aql or amr of God binds and encompasses (‘aqala) the whole world. It is the finite projection, so to speak, of the absolute One (al-mubda‘ al-mahdud min al-mubdi‘ al-ahad).
Just as a word is in constant union with the meaning which it expresses, so God’s amr or ‘aql is, by its very nature, in constant union with God. However, as a finite projection of the absolute, the ‘aql is also, by its very nature, aware of being projected (mubda‘) by the One. This awareness made it feel that it was an entity in its own right, although one within the absolute oneness of God: the ‘aql had become aware of its self.
By being aware of its self, the ‘aql was deflected, so to speak, from its original course, for self-awareness impeded it from full awareness of the One. This deflection from feeling in union with God to ‘focusing upon’ and ‘enjoying’ its self made the aql feel that it was separate from God. This deflection, however, was nothing more than relative absence from the One, the absolute Existent, an absence of light (nur mahd) that is the same as utter darkness (zulma mahd). This is a delusion (‘adam). The absence of divine light is what the Druze call adversity (didd). It is a selfish attitude, the origin of discord, contrariety, and division.
However, the ‘aql realized that it had been deflected from the One and developed an imploring passion to return to Him. I say ‘imploring’ because the ‘aql realized that it is, by its very nature, completely dependent upon the One. It has no power of its own. Hamza called this passion nafs (‘wish’, ‘desire’, ‘endeavour’, ‘eagerness’ or himma) (6) and it is the shay’ mentioned in the Qu’ranic verse quoted above. Here, shay’ is the verbal noun of the Arabic verb sha’a (‘to desire’). For the Druze, it is the second cosmic principle. The first is the ‘aql; the third, according to the Druze interpretation of the verse, is the ‘saying’ (al-qawl, al-kalima) implied in the phrase, an yaqula; the fourth is the imperative “Be!” (“Kun!”). This imperative precedes its implementation, yakun, which is the fifth cosmic principle. Hence, the amr or irada corresponds to the ‘aql; the shay’ corresponds to the nafs; the qawl (in the phrase an yaqula) corresponds to the kalima; the imperative kun to the sabiq; and the implementation of kun, namely, yakun, corresponds to the tali, in other words, that which follows. These are the five cosmic principles (al-hudud al-khamsa) that are always associated with the Druze. They are derived from the Druze’s esoteric interpretation of the Qur’anic verse (36:82) “Innama amruhu idha arada shay’an an yaqula lahu kun fayakun.” (His amr (nature, activity), when he wills a shay’ (desired thing), is to say to it, ‘Be’, and it is.)
Courtesy: www.druzeheritage.org
The World
From the fifth cosmic principle, therefore, came forth the world. The world is the expression of the fifth cosmic principle, which is, in turn, the expression of the fourth cosmic principle, and so on, all of the way back to the first cosmic principle, the res divina, the divine will, the ‘aql, the finite projection of the absolute. Now, since man is the quintessence of this world, which originated as a spark from the ‘aql and, since the ‘aql, as the finite projection of the absolute, is eternal, then so is man’s reality—his soul. The human soul is to the human body as its meaning is to a word. Just as a meaning makes sense only when expressed through its word, so must the human soul be expressed in a human body. The human soul realizes itself in the human body. The human body, therefore, serves as the sole medium for the human soul to achieve actualization and to participate in the progress of man toward knowledge and self-realization. The true knowledge of the oneness of God, through which man realizes his purpose of feeling as much in union with the One as is humanly possible, can only be achieved through man’s gradual yet continuous spiritual experience and through his constant preparedness for the gnostic discovery of human union with the One. For the Druze, the span of a single life is not enough for an individual to realize this ultimate purpose.
Courtesy: www.druzeheritage.org
God and Man
Since man is the only being who possesses the faculty to comprehend this gnostic reality, he alone can strive to discover it. He is the only being who can check the egotistic drive that throws him into the delusion of plurality and, consequently, deflects him from his true nature. Here lies the seed of vice in man: taking joy in his own ego and living in the delusion of plurality. Virtue, on the other hand, lies in living in this plural world, but without taking it as an aim, that is, in moving away from one’s own ego toward unity with the rest of humanity and, therefore, in union with the One, inasmuch as it is humanly attainable. Those who succeed in reaching this goal do so through divine love. Hence, love is seen by the Druze as a mystical feeling of endless striving for such a union with the One, whereas hatred is understood as a product of metaphysical egotism in which one separates one’s own being and interests from the being and interests of the whole. Union can be reached if man believes in and spiritually realizes the following: the non-dualism and absoluteness of the One; that God’s amr, the ‘aql, is the finite manifestation of the absolute; and that the cosmic principles are the source of all being, with the ‘aql as both their origin and their goal. In addition, man should practice, truly and through the exercise of his free nature, the following virtues:
1. Veracity in the broadest sense of the word, that is, to profess the truth, to act according to the truth and to live for the truth.
2. Safeguarding, helping and guiding his fellow men or seeking their guidance along the path of truth and real knowledge.
3. Renouncing all beliefs leading to repudiation of the oneness of God and, consequently, to falsehood.
4. Dissociation from those who transgress against righteousness and justice, that is, those who hinder man from knowing the truth and treading upon the path of real knowledge.
5. Striving endlessly to achieve the real purpose of man, namely, to be in union with the One as much as is humanly possible.
6. Contentment (rida) with the divine law.
7. Submission (taslim) to God’s will and deeds.
In order, these seven tenets are the true meanings of the seven Shi‘i pillars of Islam, namely, the two testimonies, prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage, strife in God’s way (jihad) and allegiance (walaya). It is by means of these pillars that man moves away from egotism and plurality toward union with the One. In the Druze faith, the aim of ethics is not merely to acquiesce to a superior will only, but to lead man, rationally and spiritually, to the natural fulfilment of his being through virtuous behaviour. This approach is what led the Druze to call for complete equality among human beings, including equality of opportunity: it is only thus that man may realize himself, to the highest possible degree, in the One. This is why the Druze doctrine strictly condemns polygamy. The Druze law of domestic relations stipulates that, when a man marries a woman, he must put her on the same footing as himself, materially as well as spiritually. Husband and wife must treat one another with complete equality and justice. In case of divorce, the spouse proven to have been unjust must pay the other half of what he or she owns. This approach stems from the central position that the Druze doctrine gives to the human being. In order to try to live up to such a standard, men and women must strive to attain the purpose of their being, which is self-realization in the One and living accordingly, in real love. The individual’s capacity to reach such oneness with the One depends upon his or her intellectual and spiritual preparedness. True discovery of the self will enable the individual to behold the One, as if he or she looked into a mirror and saw his or her own image. It was through such manifestations that the presence of God was revealed to man, just as a word reveals its meaning to the reader in as much as the reader is prepared to receive it. God is infinite and transcendent in His boundless immanence and omnipresence. The onus is on man, through intellectual and spiritual preparedness, to behold such immanence and omnipresence. Man can achieve the harmony of these two forces only if he opens his heart to divine love. No one, however, can walk the path of self-realization without a guide to show him that God, in His oneness, is both inside and outside of him, both transcendent and immanent, both divine and human.
Notes (1) Marshal G. S. Hodgon, “Al-Darazī and Hamza in the Origin of the Druze Religion,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 82 (1962) : 5-20. See, also, Kamal Salibi, “Introduction,” to The Druze Heritage: An Annotated Bibliography, compiled and edited by Talal Fandi and Ziyad Abi-Shakra (Amman: Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies, 2001), 1ff. (2) Sami Makarem, The Druze Faith (Delmar, NY: Carvan Books, 1974), 19-22. (3) Cf. Sami Makarem, “Al-Hākim bi-Amrillāh’s Appointment of His Successors,” Al-Abhath 23 (December 1970), nos. 1-4. (4) Qur’an 36:82; Makarem, The Druze Faith, 43. (5) Cf. Sami Makarem, “Al-Amr al-Ilihi wa mafhumhu fi l-‘aqida al-Isma‘iliyya,” Al-Abhath 20, no. 1 (March 1967) : 3-16. (6) E. W. Lane, “Nafs,” in An Arabic English Lexion (London: William and Norgate, 1893).
Courtesy: www.druzeheritage.org