Connect with us

Middle East

Ahmad Sharia and Mullah Haibatullah; Why are their (Islams) so different?

Published

on

In his last interview, the leader of the Hayat Tahriri al-Sham (HTS) and current ruler of Syria spoke about holding elections and drafting the constitution. Ahmad Sharia’s desire to hold elections and draft a constitution shows that Syrian Islamists do not intend to build a system similar to the Taliban emirate in Kabul.

Speaking to Saudi Arabia’s state television, Ahmad Sharia also known as Abu Mohammad Jolani said that it may take four years to hold presidential elections in Syria and three years to draft a new constitution. Unlike the leader of HTS, the Taliban in Afghanistan has explicitly stated that free elections will not be held under their rule. The Taliban believes that the government should be based on Islamic Sharia and internal consultations of Taliban leaders and religious authorities, not on western democratic models of the ballot box.

Talking about holding elections and drafting the constitution is not the only difference between HTS in Syria and Taliban in Afghanistan. In the past months, Jolani has taken actions that show that he does not want the world community to look at him and Hebatullah Akhundzadeh, the leader of the Taliban from the same window.

He is aware of this comparison and has deliberately emphasized his difference with the secret and mysterious leader of the Taliban. Jolani had recently said that the society of Afghanistan and Syria are different and he will not create a government in the “style” of the Taliban.”

Jolani does not hide from his people and world

One of the main differences between Jolani and Hebatullah Akhundzadeh is that the leader of HTS does not hide from the public.

The presence of the leader of Jolani in public and the way he interacts with the members of his group and other Syrian citizens have significant differences with the leader of the Taliban. From these differences, it is possible to understand the different cultural, political, and ideological views that both groups adhere to.

In the three and a half years that have passed since Hebatullah Akhundzadeh’s rule over Afghanistan, he has been ruling by broadcasting audio files and orders from Kandahar and has shown no desire to have a closer relationship with the people. During this time, he never appeared in front of the media cameras to speak to the people of Afghanistan. To such an extent that prominent Sunni and Shiite clerics and a number of prominent media figures of the Taliban have also said that they have not been able to meet Akhundzadeh so far.

Hebatullah is against photographing of the living creature, but Jolani takes pictures with women in Damascus

Recently, a video of the moment Jolani took a picture with a young Syrian woman in Damascus became very popular and controversial on social media networks. In this video, it can be seen that Jolani asks one of them to cover his hair before taking a photo with several women in Damascus.

The leader of the Hayat Tahriri al-Sham (HTS) Ahmad Sharia (R) and Taliban leader Hebatullah Akhundzadeh (L).

Critics criticized Jolani’s “intervention” about a woman’s veil. There are many positive and negative opinions about this video. In addition to these views, the video shows two differences between Jolani and Akhundzadeh – unlike Akhundzadeh, Jolani is not afraid of appearing in the streets of the capital of the country he leads and is not afraid of appearing in front of people’s cameras and that he is not against filming.

Akhundzadeh has banned filming and broadcasting images of living creatures in the controversial law through the Ministry of Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. The law that seriously threatens the future of visual media in Afghanistan and has provoked differences among the cabinet members of this group.

Following the passage of this law, the Taliban have intensified pressure to ban the broadcast of images of living creatures on televisions across Afghanistan.

Appointing a woman as head of the central bank for the first time in the history of Syria

In one of the latest actions, the Syrian transitional government appointed Misa Sabrin as the head of the country’s central bank. Mrs. Sabrin is the first woman in the history of this bank to become its president. Before this position, she was the first deputy as well as director of supervision of the Central Bank of Syria.

Misa Sabrin’s appointment probably shows Jolani’s desire to involve women in the country’s top management. On the contrary, the Taliban administration has barred women not only from participation in higher jobs, but also from government jobs in general. Also, women have lost the right to education and participation without discrimination and gender segregation in the country’s economy. This action has had negative effects on the economy and health of Afghan women.

Afghan women are banned from working in NGOs and international organizations including UN offices across Afghanistan. Afghan women were also banned from going to work and also schools’ girls above sixth grade forced to stay at home. In the last action, the Taliban also banned female medical students from attending classes.

Contrary to the dissolution of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs of Afghanistan, the Office of Women’s Affairs of Syria continues to work.

The interim government of Syria has appointed Ayesha Al-Debs as the head of the country’s women’s affairs office. With this appointment, Ayesha Al-Dabs was the first woman to hold an official position in the new Syrian government led by the Islamist Tahrir al-Sham group.

Ayesha Al-Dabs is a human rights and civil society activist. She has previously worked in humanitarian fields in Idlib, Syria and helping Syrian refugees in Turkey.

This appointment took place while there were concerns that the role and rights of women would be ignored in the new structure.

After her appointment, Ayesha El-Debs announced in an interview that the Syrian interim government will provide opportunities for women to participate in all social fields, according to their abilities and qualifications.

On the contrary, the Taliban dissolved the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and replaced it with the Ministry of Public Affairs, whose task is to oppress women and deprive them of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Hebatullah Akhundzadeh is isolated

Jolani and his representatives have been busy meeting with officials and high-ranking envoys of foreign countries in Damascus in the past couple of days.

In one of the most important events, US Deputy Secretary of State Barbara Leaf said after the meeting of the US diplomatic delegation with the leader of Tahrir al-Sham in Damascus, Washington has canceled the $10 million reward for the arrest of Jolani.

In justifying the decision, Barbara Leaf, the US assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs, said that the leader of Tahrir al-Sham is committed not to allow terrorist groups to operate in Syria and pose a threat to the United States or neighboring countries.

Unlike him, so far similar awards set by the United States and the United Nations on Taliban leaders have not been removed.

On the contrary, Hebatullah Akhundzadeh’s isolation in Kandahar has become one of the most prominent features of her leadership period.

In more than three years of ruling Afghanistan, only once Akhundzadeh held a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister of Qatar, Mohammad bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani. The meeting was held in Kandahar.

Apart from this meeting, Akhundzadeh has never met a foreign official. Akhundzadeh has not only refused to appear in public, but also has almost no connection with the outside world at the diplomatic level.

The reluctance of foreign officials to travel to Kabul is mostly due to the policies of the Taliban, which have led to strong international reactions. For example, the suppression of women under Taliban rule has intensified so much that a famous American actor said at a UN meeting that “cats and birds” have more freedom than Afghan women.

Any fear of Jolani becoming another Hebatullah?

Jolani is a figure who emerged from among a rebel Islamist group and is now in a position that many consider him to represent a change in the approach of this group. However, examining his background, it is very important in assessing whether he will really take a different path from similar leaders like Hebatullah Akhundzadeh.

Since the beginning of his activity as the leader of HTS, Jolani has tried to present a different image from similar Islamist groups. In recent years, unlike the traditional and strict approach of many Islamist groups, he has shown a desire to interact with regional countries and the international community. At the same time, these changes are mostly tactical and it is not yet clear to what extent this more open approach is committed to the fundamental principles of the group and the political future of Syria.

Another point is the structure and history of writing Sham, which consists of a rebel group with strong ideological tendencies. In the past, many similar groups have moved to establish single-party governments after coming to power, severely suppressing dissent.

This risk is also present with HTS and Jolani’s leadership, especially if some of these changes are designed solely to garner international support.

Paying attention to his performance in the near future, especially in matters such as drafting a constitution, holding elections, and interacting with different ethnic groups in Syria, will determine whether Jolani really intends to lead Syria to a more diverse and democratic path, or whether he will also finally give in to the ideological and political limitations of his group.

The key question is, does Jolani have the ability and real desire to protect citizen rights and respect human rights, or will his policies ultimately, similar to other ideological Islamist governments, lead to the concentration of power and limiting freedoms? Only time and his performance in future critical situations can clarify the answer to this question.

Two different Islams

The fundamental differences between HTS under the leadership of Jolani and Islam of Taliban under the leadership of Akhundzadeh are due to the different approaches of these two groups in the field of politics, human rights and interaction with the outside world.

HTS has moved more towards interacting with the international community, holding elections and accepting some democratic principles, while the Taliban under the leadership of Akhundzadeh emphasize an Islamic governance system based on strict (Sharia law) and are against any kind of political or social participation. These differences are especially evident in women’s rights, diplomatic relations and individual freedoms.

Despite these strict approaches, the Taliban say that their goal is to establish an Islamic order, but this order comes at the cost of removing individual freedoms and human rights. Finally, instead of creating stability, the Taliban’s governance has led to the deepening of crises and further isolation of Afghanistan.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Middle East

US and Israel weigh Iran strikes after midterm vote, reports say

Published

5 hours ago

on

22/10/2026

By

The US and Israeli defence ministries have drawn up plans for a fresh assault on Iran, with the envisioned offensive under consideration to launch after the US Congressional midterm elections on 3 November.

Citing sources, The New York Times reported that the blueprint anticipates a brief but intense campaign.

As military units step up their drills, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed prospective strike options with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The list of targets encompasses Iran’s nuclear sites, its energy infrastructure, and its arsenals of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Several officials who spoke to the newspaper argued that a new wave of attacks could deal a heavy blow to the Iranian economy, forcing the leadership in Tehran into concessions.

Conversely, other sources doubt whether a resumption of fighting would prove any more successful than the earlier campaign conducted between February and April.

That previous offensive drove energy prices higher and drained US stockpiles of interceptor missiles.

It remains unclear whether US President Donald Trump will authorise the operation.

Domestic political calculations in Israel could also influence the trajectory of the plans, given that the country faces general elections on 27 October.

While some experts speaking to the newspaper contended that Netanyahu could leverage the threat of war to form a national unity government, others pointed to the opposition’s distrust of the prime minister.

Washington fears regional spillover

The US administration also harbours concerns that the fighting could engulf the wider region. On Wednesday, the US State Department ordered non-essential government personnel and their family members to leave Saudi Arabia following attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis.

A US military build-up, comprising three aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and special forces units, is slated to be fully deployed to the region by early November.

The targets under review include the deep underground nuclear facility code-named “Pickaxe”. Trump suggested that the high-yield GBU-43/B bomb, known as the “mother of all bombs”, could be deployed against the site, though experts doubt whether the ordnance can destroy a complex buried so deeply.

For its part, Tehran is preparing for a potential escalation, threatening to broaden its target list. Retaliatory options under consideration by Iran reportedly include data centres and subsea internet cables, in addition to shipping and energy facilities.

Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to an Iranian negotiator, dismissed US hopes of wrapping up a new campaign within 72 hours as a “fantasy”. Mohammadi warned that Tehran’s response would be more severe and unpredictable.

The Financial Times previously reported that an Israeli strike on Iran set for 10 October had been called off because the US president was unwilling to risk a broader conflict ahead of the Congressional midterms.

According to that report, the Israeli military had prepared a multi-day assault on nuclear sites, Iranian government targets, power plants, and civilian infrastructure on Netanyahu’s orders. The strikes had been designed to exceed the intensity of the campaign begun in February.

Washington seeks to secure an agreement from Tehran covering both the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear programme.

“It will either be a deal or a strike,” one source told the Financial Times, adding that an operation could get under way in the coming weeks.

Another official who spoke to the paper suggested that Israeli preparations might serve as leverage to squeeze Iran in negotiations.

Axios also reported that the Pentagon had issued orders to prepare for renewed strikes, though the directive contained no specific date and Trump has yet to take a final decision.

The US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on 28 February. Iran hit back by targeting US and Israeli assets across the region and curbing vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Although both sides signed a memorandum of understanding in June that provided for a ceasefire and talks to lift the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, reciprocal attacks between the US and Iran have persisted.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing

Published

1 day ago

on

21/10/2026

By

As general elections scheduled for 27 October approach in Israel, the opposition camp led by former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot continues to lead Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in public opinion polls.

Survey data published in the Israeli press on 19 and 20 October reveal that the governing coalition has failed to catch the opposition, despite explicit backing from US President Donald Trump.

However, the current distribution of votes documents that neither wing can reach a governing majority on its own.

Neither bloc reaches the 61 seats needed to form a government

According to a survey conducted by Channel 13, if an election were held today, Eisenkot’s bloc would win 51 seats, while the Netanyahu coalition would take 50.

A Channel 12 poll indicates that the gap has widened slightly, projecting 55 seats for Eisenkot’s alliance and 51 for the governing bloc. A minimum of 61 seats is required to form a government in the Knesset, Israel’s 120-seat parliament.

A key factor deadlocking the political arithmetic is the refusal by both sides to form a coalition with parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel. This stance stands as the most tangible obstacle to securing a parliamentary majority after the election.

Channel 12 data shows that overall voter turnout is expected to remain at 72%. The inclination to head to the ballot box climbs to 81% among opposition voters, compared with 74% measured among Netanyahu supporters.

The same poll notes that Eisenkot has widened his lead over Netanyahu by two further points in prime ministerial preferences.

Yashar party climbs after Gantz bows out

A survey published on the Walla news site shows that the balance shifted after Benny Gantz decided to withdraw his Blue and White party from the race. Following that move, Eisenkot’s Yashar party increased its projected tally to 23 seats, while Netanyahu’s Likud dropped by one seat to 19.

Eisenkot’s party and the “Zionist Opposition” bloc it anchors have remained atop the polls for several months.

In an earlier message of support, Trump praised Netanyahu as “a great fighting prime minister and an even greater partner for peace.” Public opinion polls document that this diplomatic and political backing has not proved sufficient to tip the preferences of the Israeli electorate in favour of the incumbent government.

Support for Ben Gvir rises among young voters

Although Netanyahu’s alliance trails in overall strength, far-right figures within the coalition appear to be expanding their grassroots base. Gauged interest in the Jewish Power party of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is climbing, particularly among younger voters.

Speaking to a study conducted by Agam Labs, affiliated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an 18-year-old student described his shifting preference: “I used to think he was a bit crazy, but then I actually looked at what he was saying, and it all made sense.”

Another Israeli citizen stated that Ben Gvir’s push to arm West Bank settlers gave them “room to breathe.”

Ben Gvir is known for leading settler incursions into the Al-Aqsa compound and distributing military-grade rifles to tens of thousands of settlers since 7 October 2023.

Criticized for escalating violence against Palestinians, Ben Gvir has called for starving Gaza, maintaining military operations in Lebanon, and bombing Beirut. The far-right minister’s militaristic stances also find a political constituency across several opposition parties in Israel.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu unveils security doctrine and regional alliance map

Published

2 days ago

on

20/10/2026

By

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shared an updated security doctrine with the public ahead of general elections scheduled for 27 October.

Announced by the Prime Minister’s Office on 18 October and shaped with contributions from the National Security Council, the work includes a detailed map classifying Israel’s regional allies, adversaries, and spheres of influence.

The new doctrine aims to eliminate elements defined as threats directly through pre-emptive military interventions rather than containing them, to expand buffer zones, and to establish new regional partnerships.

Al Jazeera points out that this approach has effectively been put into practice during Israel’s recent military operations and strikes against neighbouring countries.

Regional blocs and allies classified on the map

The map presented by Netanyahu classifies not only sovereign states into blocs, but also armed groups, de facto administrations, and territories controlled by various forces.

The terms “alliance” and “friend” used on the map do not imply that formal and binding partnerships have been established with all these entities.

The “Hexagon Alliance” on the Israel-United Arab Emirates (UAE) axis and parties considered “friends” of this bloc are shown in blue and light blue shades.

This group includes Azerbaijan, Greece, southern Cyprus, the Druze in Syria’s As-Suwayda province, eastern Libya under Khalifa Haftar’s control, Ethiopia, Somaliland, Puntland, areas in Yemen held by the UAE-backed former Southern Transitional Council, and territories controlled by the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan.

The “Sunni Diamond Alliance”, formed by Türkiye, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, alongside peripheral actors, is distinguished by green and light green shades.

This cluster marks Azerbaijan, Syria, Qatar, Kuwait, areas in Yemen controlled by the Saudi-backed Presidential Leadership Council, Eritrea, Sudan, the West Bank, Jordan, the Lebanese government, Northern Cyprus, and Somalia. In Libya, both the Tripoli-based western administration and the Haftar-dominated eastern administration are shown as linked to this bloc.

Iran and the Axis of Resistance are defined in red and pink colours. Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq, eastern and southern parts of Lebanon where Hezbollah is active, Ansar Allah-controlled areas in Yemen, and Hamas-administered Gaza find a place within this axis. Russia is marked on the map in pink under “friend” status to this bloc.

Orange and yellow markings are also used around NATO members, alliance partners, and actors with friendly relations with Washington. The lines also illustrate the permeability between blocs.

For instance, Azerbaijan is presented with two-toned stripes as a friend of both the Israel-UAE axis and the Türkiye-led bloc, while India stands out as the only actor classified as a “friend” to all parties.

The map in question was reportedly prepared in May by Marc Saxer and Marcus Schneider for the Germany-based Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which has engaged with Israeli governments since 1978.

Pre-election rhetoric of the “indispensable leader”

Netanyahu is facing voters in a bid to retain power amid ongoing corruption proceedings and continued criticism over his management of the 7 October 2023 attacks and subsequent conflicts.

According to Al Jazeera’s analysis, releasing the security doctrine and map on the eve of elections rests on Netanyahu’s strategy of establishing himself as the only capable leader who can protect Israel.

Backed by electoral support from US President Donald Trump, Netanyahu pointed during his presentation to a potential change of administration in the White House.

Arguing that an administration distant or hostile to Israel could take office in Washington within two years, Netanyahu said his country must expand its network of alliances and become an attractive regional partner because of that possibility.

Mohanad Hage Ali, deputy director for research at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, noted that this presentation, built on rival blocs and security corridors, deepens existential anxieties within society.

According to Hage Ali, this approach reinforces voters’ perceived need for a tough leader, and Netanyahu is attempting to rally support from populations wary of uncertainty through this reassurance.

Fierce backlash from the Israeli opposition

The publication of the document provoked reactions in Israeli domestic politics.

Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar Party and former chief of general staff, criticised the work as consisting of “two empty pages filled with slogans that have nothing to do with an actual security doctrine”.

Emphasising that the Netanyahu government was responsible for the “gravest failure and disaster in Israel’s history” on 7 October, Eisenkot said subsequent escalating regional clashes had also left every front engulfed in flames.

Eisenkot argued that the document exposes a lingering strategic vacuum, while the prime minister is reviving fears to divert attention from misleading claims in his election pledges.

Yesh Atid leader and former prime minister Yair Lapid also described the text as superficial.

“Even by Netanyahu’s current standards, which are defined by exhaustion and detachment from reality, this document looks as if it was written using a free version of an AI chatbot,” Lapid said.

Lapid added that a text consisting merely of bulleted headings cannot be deemed a doctrine, and that the effort is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the disasters caused by the prime minister.

The buffer zone model

The buffer zone concept featured in the strategy document is based on Israel establishing direct military control over cross-border territories.

Al Jazeera notes that the current occupation conditions in Gaza and southern Lebanon are practical reflections of this policy.

Mohanad Hage Ali warned that a plan based on making military control permanent could bring fresh conflicts and the risk of ethnic cleansing.

Hage Ali also noted that portraying actors such as the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan and Haftar’s forces within the Israel-UAE axis could damage their legitimacy in the Arab world.

Arguing that this choice reflects Netanyahu’s domestic priorities, Hage Ali observed: “What Israelis think becomes more important than the reputation of your allies and the sustainability of these alliances.”

Netanyahu’s proposal for a “hexagon of alliances”, raised at the beginning of the year and covering India, Greece, southern Cyprus, and unspecified Arab, African, and Asian nations, has yet to be formalised.

While international analyses describe the initiative as a diplomatic branding exercise rather than a binding defence pact, observers recall that actors such as India prioritise commercial interests and non-alignment over rigid blocs.

Finally, Hage Ali stated that the presented map will provide propaganda material for the Tehran government and its allies, reinforcing arguments that Israel harbours regional expansion and domination ambitions.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey