Syrian Supreme Islamic Cleric Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for War Crimes

In August 2024, the Supreme Islamic Authority of Syria, Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, was convicted of war crimes by a court in Damascus. The indictment covered nearly fourteen years of unlawful conduct since the outbreak of the civil war in 2011, and the judge sentenced Hassoun to life imprisonment. The court found that, during President Bashar al‑Assad’s regime, Hassoun used his religious authority to legitimize the government army’s massacres, forced displacement, and systematic violence against civilians, constituting serious and ongoing war crimes.

The charges included several high‑profile atrocities that attracted international attention, such as the persecution of Sunni Muslim communities, attacks on medical facilities, and obstruction of humanitarian aid corridors. Prosecutors cited reports from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Amnesty International, and other non‑governmental organizations, arguing that Hassoun, in his public sermons and fatwas, openly encouraged the use of force against opposition groups and civilians, describing such actions as legitimate execution of Islamic doctrine.

In Syria, the Supreme Islamic Authority had originally served as a state‑approved religious legal adviser, issuing official interpretations of Sharia and guiding the government on religious matters in both legal and administrative contexts. On 15 November 2021, President al‑Assad abolished the position under the pretext of “administrative restructuring,” transferring its powers to the Supreme Council of Fatwa, a body under the Ministry of Religious Affairs. The move sparked controversy domestically and abroad, with critics alleging it weakened religious independence and strengthened direct governmental control over Islamic affairs.

Meanwhile, opposition forces operating outside government‑controlled territory re‑established a “Supreme Islamic Authority” office, aiming to preserve the traditional religious leadership structure and to provide a relatively independent fatwa for Sunni communities. The organization claimed its purpose was to “protect the purity of Islamic law” and “counter government abuse of religion,” making it a contested political and religious asset during the war.

The verdict has elicited divergent reactions inside and outside Syria. The Syrian government described the judgment as “the embodiment of judicial justice” and accused opposition groups of using the case to smear the Assad regime. The opposition labeled Hassoun a “government tool” and viewed the sentence as a necessary international response to Syria’s war crimes. Human rights organisations noted that while the ruling demonstrates the possibility of legal accountability, further investigations and prosecutions of higher‑ranking officials are needed to truly prevent a recurrence of war crimes.

For Taiwan, the life sentence of Syria’s former Supreme Islamic Authority underscores the potential political and legal roles that religious leaders can play in conflicts, reminding the island to uphold judicial independence and human rights protections when engaging with religious groups and state governance. The ruling also serves as a concrete example of international law’s capacity to hold individuals accountable for war crimes, offering Taiwan a reference point and warning as it promotes humanitarian law and participates in multilateral judicial cooperation.