Middle East
Ahmad Sharia and Mullah Haibatullah; Why are their (Islams) so different?
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.
Middle East
US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.
The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.
Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.
A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.
Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.
A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”
This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.
An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”
The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”
“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.
The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.
The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.
A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.
In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.
The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.
Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.
Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.
In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.
Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.
This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.
Middle East
Britain expands curbs on arms exports to Israel over Gaza risks
Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.
This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.
United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.
Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.
Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.
Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.
“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.
Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.
The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.
Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.
Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.
Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.
The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.
Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”
Middle East
Netanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.
Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.
Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.
The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”
Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.
Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.
Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”
Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.
According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:
“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”
-
Europe4 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy4 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
