Over the last ten days or so, as deadly violence broke out in the southern Syrian province of Sweida, there was one name that kept coming up: Hikmat al-Hijri.

The 60-year-old spiritual leader of Syria's Druze community played a major role in events that saw over 500 people killed and threatened to overturn Syria's fragile transition, after decades ruled by a dictatorship.

Al-Hijri's critics have blamed his belligerent attitude towards the new Syrian government for what happened as violence escalated. They describe him as an "unhinged warlord," a power-hungry traitor to his country and a drug smuggler with ties to remnants of the ousted Syrian dictatorship's military. But his fans say the Druze spiritual leader is a "symbol of dignity and nobility," who was right to defend his community against the overbearing new Syrian government and their potentially dangerous followers.

Inherited power

The position of Druze spiritual leader is inherited and after his older brother, Ahmad, died in an unexplained car accident in 2012 — the Assad regime was suspected — the younger al-Hijri, born June 1965 in Venezuela, was given the post.

He is one of the three main religious leaders of the Druze community in Syria. The others are Yousef Jarbou and Hammoud al-Hanawi. The spiritual leaders are seen as a reference point on social, moral and religious matters and for any major decisions, there is supposed to be consensus between all three.

While the Assad regime was in power, and during the Syrian civil war, which started 2011 and ended 2024, al-Hijri's position might best be described as one of politically expediency. At times he openly supported the Assad regime, urging young Druze to fight for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. But by 2023, he was speaking for Druze protestors and against the regime.

He was not alone in this though. The other two Druze spiritual leaders also supported the Assad regime at times.

There has also been squabbling among the three over who is the primary leader of the Druze community in Syria and who speaks for it. Reports suggest that Jarbou and al-Hanawi split from al-Hijri because of this.

Villain or hero?

Since the ouster of the Assad regime and the formation of a new, interim government, headed by Ahmad al-Sharaa, the leader of an Islamist rebel group that headed the December offensive against Assad, al-Hijri has become even more controversial.

The Druze mainly live in the southern Syrian province of Sweida and just like Syria's Kurds, the community has been negotiating its involvement in the new Syria.

Syria is a Sunni-majority country — Sunni Muslims make up about 70% of the country's population — and the various Syrian religious and ethnic minorities have been concerned about their future in it.

Some, like the Kurds, have suggested they be allowed to run their own areas, which has sparked fears the country could be split into different zones. There have also been ongoing talks on how to integrate armed militias around the country into a central military and whether the state should have a monopoly over arms.

These are the kinds of negotiations that al-Hijri has been involved in. He is considered the most belligerent when it comes to cooperating with the country's new leaders, with an absolutist attitude that differs to that of Jarbou and al-Hanawi, who have generally been more conciliatory and advocated finding ways to come to terms with al-Sharaa's government.

For example, in March a handwritten memorandum of understanding between the government and Druze authorities was circulated, saying the Druze and the central government had come to an agreement about their mutual future. Al-Hijri was at the meeting where it was drafted but didn't sign it and then later said he disagreed with it.

The interim government doesn't have total control of national security and recent outbreaks of violence (in which some government soldiers may well have been involved) haven't done much to assure minority communities they'll be safe. This is why some believe that al-Hijri's attitude is the correct one.

What did al-Hijri do during recent violence?

Since July 13, after tit-for-tat kidnapping between the Druze and Bedouin communities blew up into major fighting, several ceasefires were negotiated and even agreed to, including by other Druze leaders. However, after first agreeing, al-Hijri rejected them.

Some observers say he was right to do so. British-Iraqi researcher and analyst Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi says he spoke to leaders of Druze fighters in Sweida, who had previously disagreed with al-Hijri's anti-government stance. But they told him, "at the same time, discussions were taking place on initiatives such as forming joint patrols between local [Sweida] factions and the internal [Syrian government] security forces, violations were being committed by the government forces," al-Tamimi wrote on his Substack page this week.

During this month's violence, every side has been accused of atrocities — the Druze fighters, the Sunni fighters and the government forces. Online disinformation has been rampant and until the violence has been investigated, it will be difficult to know exactly who was responsible for what.

Al-Hijri's views on the new government are allegedly supported by a body called the Sweida Military Council, which was created shortly after the Assad regime fell. Critics accuse the council of protecting military remnants of the Assad regime and say it may be involved in drug smuggling and other crimes. 

Traitor to Syria?

Syrian Sunni fighters elsewhere in the country responded to the violence, saying they would travel to fight the Druze in Sweida. Al-Hijri called on the international community, including the US and Israel, to protect the Druze. 

Later that same day, July 16, Israel bombed central Damascus. This is what led to al-Hijri being called a traitor to his country. That anger about Israel — the two countries are still considered to be at war — was also mistakenly extended to the Druze community in general, with other Syrians saying they must all be traitors.

Fast-moving events, entrenched attitudes and long-simmering prejudices make it almost impossible to tell who are the villains or heroes of recent events. Possibly what al-Hijri currently represents most of all is the lack of consensus in the Druze community.

There's no doubt that recent events, in which al-Hijri's attitude and opinions likely escalated violence, have deepened sectarian tensions in a Syria scarred by communal insecurity. A ceasefire seems to be holding but after the violence of the past week, one thing is becoming clearer: Even as other Druze leaders in Lebanon continue to urge diplomacy, the Syrian Druze community's feelings towards their new central government appear to be hardening.