The Moral Dilemma of Syria's Revolution: Reflections on Syria and Islamist Movements

By Hamid Farahani

      The Moral Dilemma of Revolution: Reflections on Syria and Islamist Movements

     It has been a few months since Syria’s new government was established. Yet, there is a lot of doubt regarding its international status and whether or not it should be accepted as the legitimate ruler of the country by international bodies such as the United Nations. One reason is that the current government of Syria has been taken over by a UN-designated terrorist group called HTS, a self-proclaimed Sunni Islamist movement. 

     Initially, there were some hopes that establishing the new government would lead to stability in Syria. However, clashes between HTS and its opposition that resulted in killing large numbers of Alawite people by HTS, conflicts with Lebanese forces, and territorial expansion of Israel in Syria proved that this new government has failed significantly to provide stability in the country. While the failure of the new government is widely acknowledged, there are a lot of misconceptions as to why this new government, similar to many other post-revolution governments by self-proclaimed Islamist movements, is a failure. 

     One of the core reasons the Syrian revolution has struggled to achieve lasting success lies in a deeply personal and philosophical question regarding the Islamic armed movements: the Dilemma of Responsibility. As we know, Revolutions are advertised as a quick method to achieve justice and liberation from a system that is believed to be beyond reform. One characteristic of a political revolution is that due to its rapid attempt to achieve its goals, it does not offer a clear picture of how a new system should operate. This leads to massive confusion. Moreover, methods used to quickly achieve revolutionary goals could frequently involve morally troubling actions, especially when the existing system resists and violence becomes a more common tool of change.

     In Syria’s revolution, violence became a consistent element, ranging from the killing of government supporters to the attacks on holy sites and monuments. These methods inevitably raise pressing moral questions. Is it ethical to kill in the name of revolution? Based on what moral values can these actions be justified? Are people who are engaged in these violent methods trustworthy?

     For many individuals, these moral considerations become a barrier. The idea of killing innocent people is in itself a big crime that is not justified under any circumstances. However, revolutionary groups often attempt to reframe these actions. Within their ideological frameworks, killing those aligned with their opposition, regardless of their action, is not seen as murder but rather as a justified act of war. This mindset is crucial for their cause to continue, but it also creates a dangerous moral gray area.

    The situation becomes even more complex when considering groups like Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and other Islamist factions. These groups often claim to be guided by Islamic principles, which offer a clear and strict legal code regarding murder, theft, and destruction. According to Islamic jurisprudence, simply belonging to the Alawite sect or supporting the Assad regime is not a crime punishable by death. Yet, such actions were frequently committed by the so-called Islamist revolutionaries during and after the revolution, in direct contradiction to the very laws they claim to uphold.

    This contradiction is usually ignored or dismissed by the groups themselves during their armed conflicts. One reason is that before overthrowing the existing ruling party, the Islamist opposition groups do not genuinely perceive themselves as future rulers responsible for governance; rather, they operate primarily as opposition forces.By that logic, they do not feel responsible for fully implementing Islamic laws in their territories  But when the time comes to transition from revolution to governance, when they attempt to establish an Islamic state, the contradiction resurfaces in an uncomfortable way.

    The reason is that if they genuinely apply Islamic law, a fair and functional judicial system could, in theory, prosecute members of these same revolutionary groups for their past actions. This potential reckoning creates an existential crisis. Faced with the possibility of being judged by the very laws they championed, many revolutionary leaders choose not to implement them at all. In doing so, they may abandon the ideological foundation that justified their struggle in the first place.

    Some observers interpret this shift as a sign of moderation, suggesting that abandoning strict religious laws reflects a more pragmatic, inclusive approach. However, in many cases, this change is not about moderation but about fear—fear of accountability, fear of moral judgment, and fear of being punished under their own belief system. As a result, many revolutionaries eventually distance themselves from the ideologies they once fiercely defended. This isn’t necessarily a sign of ideological growth but rather a form of self-preservation, an attempt to rewrite the narrative to avoid the consequences of their past.

    This phenomenon is observable today among many supporters of the new Syrian regime. Their discourse often lacks any serious engagement with Islamic legal or moral frameworks. Instead, their focus has shifted toward reactionary rhetoric and, at times, disturbingly aggressive defense of the regime's actions. These behaviors suggest not a confident belief system, but rather the psychological residue of unresolved guilt and ideological disillusionment.

    What might be the solution? This is a question that requires further study in the future. However, history has shown that a significant number of first-generation post-revolutionary leaders and authorities often end up marginalized or pushed into isolation. This serves as yet another indication that building a stable, long-lasting bureaucratic system after a revolution requires distancing, or even removing, a large portion of first generation of revolutionary fighters and activists

    Like many others, the Syrian revolution faces not only political and strategic challenges but also deep moral and existential ones. The failure to reconcile ideology with action, especially when it comes to personal and collective responsibility, continues to undermine the legitimacy and sustainability of revolutionary movements. Until these contradictions are addressed, any new system they build will remain unstable, built on shaky moral ground.

Hamid Farahani
06 April 2025