The Religion of the Shehabi Family during the Ottoman Empire

In an attempt to understand the current conflict between Lebanese social groups, I decided to map out the religious and political rivalries and cooperations. I decided to go back to the early years when Mount Lebanon was first recognised as an autonomous province under the power of the Ottoman Empire, then on to the colonial years, independence, civil war, and up to the present situation.

Emir Beshir II Shehab

While going through a wide range of books and online articles that relay the history of Lebanon, I was surprised to find a reoccurring contradiction in many sources. During the Ottoman Empire, two families had authority over Mount Lebanon: The Lebanese Emirates of the Maanids (1516-1697) and the Shehabis (1697-1841). While all sources confirm that the Maanids were Druze, some of the sources depicted the Shehabis to be Sunnis which later converted to Maronite Catholicism, other sources said they were Druze same as the Maanids, while a few stated that Shehabis were Druze, but Emir Beshir II Shehab converted to a Maronite during his rule.

While considering these three possibilities, I would think that the first one is quite intriguing considering the religious demographics of Mount Lebanon during the 15th and 16th centuries. Mount Lebanon was dominated by Christians (Maronites) and Druze, with Sunni, Shia and Melchite minorities around the mountain’s edges. During the Maanids Emirate, the Druze were in power, but there was a strong Druze-Maronite cooperation, and Emir Fakhr Ed-Din al Maani developed Lebanon’s relationship with Latin-Catholic Europe through his close relationship with Tuscany (Italy). When the Maanids’ male line became extinct, power was passed on to the Shehabis.

Beiteddine, the home of Emir Beshir II Shehab

My question is, if the Shehabis were Sunni as some sources claim, and if the Druze were the majority and had the power, why would they pass the rule to a Sunni family if Sunnis were a minority with no strong inter-religious cooperation? Why was the power not passed to a Druze or a Maronite family? And finally, why would a simple fact such as an Emir’s religious origin remain ambiguously recorded after so many dedicated archives and writings about the history of the Ottoman Empire?

Reception Hall at Beiteddine (The House of Religion)

Origins of a Caste Structure

Dr. Adonis Bouhatab has recently written an unpublished review on the book ‘The Social Structure of Lebanon’ by Safia Antoun Saadeh. Bouhatab remarked that the book is ‘most instructive, it clearly defines our social and political system, offers a complete model that is well documented and substantiated, explains our problems and recurring civil wars, and may forecast our difficulties in the coming months.’ The study shows that the Lebanese society has been, during the Ottoman Empire, developing a structure based on a caste system that has been strengthened after the Lebanese Independence in 1943.

The definition of a caste is a system restricted in five elements which delineate that: one, the castes are ranked from high to low, two, they are formed of endogamous groups where marriages are constrained within one caste and intermarriage between two castes is socially sanctioned, three, membership within a caste is determined by birth and is inherited and ascribed, four, the caste at the top is the largest numerically, and five, mobility is restricted and an individual can move up within a caste, and the caste as a whole attempts to move up in the system.

The five elements coincide with the Lebanese social and political structure and it makes one realize that all the concepts that have been previously attributed to the Lebanese system, such as tribalism, feudalism, sectarianism, clan or classes, are incomplete models. This caste system clearly explicates the frequent rivalry among castes competing to take precedence in the Lebanese hierarchical ranking.

The system started in Lebanon during the Ottoman Empire, which stratified castes according to occupation and then assigned ranks to the different religious groups. The Ottoman theocracy prohibited mobility, ascribed occupations and divided the cities into quarters representing specific guild corporations. Each quarter was self-contained with a bath, market, church or mosque, and gate that closed at sunset.

Today, more than 400 years later, this division of castes according to religions groups is still roughly visible in the Lebanese demography.

Diversity and placement of religions in Lebanon

Brief Overview of the Socio-Political Conflict

The constitution proclaims Lebanon to be a parliamentary democratic republic which it follows a special political system known as confessionalism. This system is meant to distribute power as evenly as possible among different sects.

Looking back at the chronology of sectarian diversity in socio-politics, it is evident that the Lebanese are torn between endless conflicts: Arab and West, Sunni and Shia, Muslim and Druze, Muslim and Christian, Israel and Lebanon, Palestine and Lebanon, Syria and Lebanon, etc. Not to mention the conflicts between political parties frequently changing strategical positions: Free Patriotic Movement, Future Movement, Lebanese Forces, Hezbollah, Progressive Socialist Party, Phalengist Social Democratic Party, etc.

The 15 year Lebanese civil war (1975-1990) was a direct consequence of the failing democratic system. During the next 15 years from 1990 to 2005, Lebanon was in a constant struggle to recover from the devastations caused by the war. Just when everything was returning to ‘normal’ and Beirut was regaining its pre-civil war reputation as the economic, intellectual, commercial and touristy capital of the Middle East, a major turning point occurred. Former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, one of the most prominent political figures in Lebanon, was assassinated. That led to a long chain of public demonstrations, terror bombings and more assassinations for over a year, including the killing of Member of Parliament Gebran Tueni. In July 2006, war re-entered the history of Lebanon, it lasted for 34 days, caused devastating human and economic losses, and heavily polluted the Lebanese Mediterranean coast. After that came more terror bombings and the assassination of Member of Parliament Pierre Gemayel. In May 2007, conflicts rose between the Lebanese Army and Fateh al-Islam; a Sunni Arab Islamist group in the Naher al-Bared camp in the north of Lebanon. The fighting ended with capturing the camp’s army in September. The summer of 2007 also witnessed dispersed terror bombings in addition to the assassination of Members of Parliament Walid Ido and Antoine Ghanem.

Distribution of seats in the Lebanese Parliament 2005-2007

In October 2007, President Emile Lahoud completed his second term. For the following 7 months, the Lebanese parliament could not reach an agreement on electing a new president until Hezbollah and Amal militants took over Western Beirut as a reaction to a government decision against Hezbollah’s communications network. The situation triggered fear of another civil war, so an Arab League was formed in Doha, Qatar, where after 5 days of intense negotiations, all the major Lebanese political parties agreed on electing a neutral president – The General of the Lebanese Army, Michel Suleiman – as the new president on the 25th of May 2008.

Lebanon experienced peace for the following months, and the economy enjoyed a successful boost in tourism during the summer of 2008.

The Paradox of Consociational Democracy*

This is an extract from Itamar Rabinovich’s book The War for Lebanon. I find that it gives a fresh perspective on the political system in Lebanon. Although the book was written in 1984, the content of this extract still applies to today’s political situation as little has changed in the Lebanese constitution since the Independence in 1943.

“…(The Lebanese political system) had important merits, not least of which was that it was based on an awareness of the fundamental conflict in Lebanon and attempted to come to grips with it. In this respect, Lebanon was significantly different from Syria and Iraq, whose political systems were ostensibly built on the assumption that communal differences had given way to an allegiance to Arabism. Furthermore, the Lebanese political system contained mechanisms designed to blunt intercommunal rivalries and to require intercommunal cooperation. The historical roots of the system and its gradual evolution gave it significant advantages over possible alternatives. And whatever the system’s obvious deficiencies, it did not seem that any other could preserve the Lebanese state as a pluralistic polity. Furthermore, it was the only genuine parliamentary system that survived and functioned in the post-World War II Arab world.”

Approximate concentration areas of major communities

*Consociational Democracy: A political system common in states which have major internal divisions along ethnic, religious or linguistic lines, with none of the divisions large enough to form a majority group, yet nonetheless manage to remain stable, due to consultation among the elites of each of their major social groups. Consociational states are often contrasted with states with majority rule. Classical examples of consociational states are Belgium, Switzerland, Lebanon and the Netherlands.

Hello,

This blog has moved.

For updates on this PhD Research please visit this link:

http://www.joannachoukeir.com/filter/PhD

Thank you!