Syria in the Era of Al-Jolani: The Direction – Islamization

The Syrian Civil War, which broke out in 2011, changed the country’s character beyond recognition. Armed factions emerged with the collapse of central authority in vast areas, each offering ideological and political alternatives. One of the most prominent among them was Jabhat al-Nusra, which later evolved into Tahrir al-Sham under the leadership of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (Ahmad al-Sharaa). This process led to what is referred to as the “Islamization of northern Syria”—the imposition of strict Islamic rule in territories controlled by Islamist factions, particularly in Idlib province, where these groups consolidated after being defeated by the Assad regime and Russian air power.

Al-Jolani’s forces learned to coexist with the secular rebels of the Free Syrian Army while systematically reshaping social, educational, and judicial structures. Since 2017, Idlib has become the central stronghold of Tahrir al-Sham, effectively transforming into a region governed almost exclusively by the organization. Consequently, drastic measures were implemented to enforce Sharia law: courts began operating under these laws, completely discarding the civil legal system that had been in place during the Ba’athist era. Punishments such as public floggings and even stonings re-emerged as part of daily reality.

The education system underwent significant reform, adapting curricula to align with the Islamist worldview, enforcing gender segregation, erasing secular content, and emphasizing religious studies. Additionally, women’s participation in education was drastically reduced.

Strict modesty laws were enforced, requiring women to wear the niqab and be accompanied by a male guardian when leaving their homes. Regarding the economy and resource management, significant revenues were generated through taxation of the local population (“zakat”) and illicit trade with Turkey and other entities.

The local population in Idlib has shown mixed reactions to the Islamization process. On one hand, some view Islamic rule as a source of relative stability after years of chaos. On the other hand, many express dissatisfaction with the harsh restrictions, particularly regarding women’s rights and freedom of expression. Secular groups and human rights activists remaining in the region face severe persecution, and any attempt to criticize the religious regime is met with harsh punishment.

Under Al-Jolani’s leadership, northwestern Syria has experienced an accelerated process of Islamization. Through a combination of religious ideology, military force, suppression of civil liberties, and the implementation of rigid Islamic laws, Tahrir al-Sham has transformed society in the region. The implications for the country’s future are clear—Syria is on the path of Islamization, and what existed before 2011 is no longer.

The West’s Hypocrisy

The removal of Assad on December 18, 2024, did not bring real relief to the Syrian people. Initially, Al-Jolani and the groups that liberated Syria from Assad’s rule attempted to present themselves as an Islamic but not extremist force, offering an alternative to the regime and moderate rebel factions. Every year on Christmas, they even allowed and assisted Christians in celebrating, including appointing a Christian as the governor of Aleppo. However, the façade quickly crumbled as Tahrir al-Sham asserted its authority over all of Syria. Hundreds of horrific videos circulated—not only documenting the massacre of the Alawite minority but also showcasing the forced implementation of Islamic law on the shocked population.

Syria is undergoing upheaval, not only due to the massacres against the Alawites in early March but also because of a fundamental social transformation. The country is being reshaped, and all indications suggest that Syria today is no longer the state it was in previous decades. What was once a secular nation under the Assad family’s rule for over 60 years is now turning into an extreme Islamic state.

From his first days in power, Al-Jolani has led Syria through a process of Islamization, similar to what he implemented in Idlib and akin to the Taliban’s actions in Afghanistan following the U.S. withdrawal.

How does the West perceive this transformation? Due to national interests—particularly among European countries seeking to repatriate hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees—the West wants to demonstrate to its legal systems that Syria under Al-Jolani’s rule is stable and safe for returnees. This, however, amounts to willful blindness, ignoring systematic massacres against thousands of Alawites while blaming remnants of the Assad regime for these events.

These events began on March 6, when forces loyal to the deposed Assad regime killed dozens of Syrian security personnel in the Latakia and Tartus regions. Hours later, hundreds of operatives from the new regime launched attacks on the coastal plain, particularly in these cities and the surrounding villages. They looted, kidnapped, and cold-bloodedly murdered thousands of Alawites—men, women, children, and infants indiscriminately—as an act of revenge. The execution videos circulated online showed merciless killings, with some victims humiliated before being shot.

Both the Arab world and Western nations blamed Assad loyalists, with no direct criticism aimed at those indeed in charge. The new regime, in response, appointed a committee to investigate what it termed “the coastal events,” as they were labeled in the Arab world. However, as of this writing, the exact number of Alawite casualties remains unclear. Reports from within the Alawite community suggest tens of thousands of deaths, while the regime claims the number is only in the hundreds.

Erdogan’s Dual Achievement

While the world remains shocked by the horrific videos and crimes committed against the Alawites, an unexpected development emerged: an agreement between the Kurds and Syria’s de facto president, al-Jolani. This agreement could spell the end of Kurdish aspirations. This deal effectively eliminates Kurdish autonomy in northern and eastern Syria, as it was born out of repeated threats against the Kurds.

To understand the background of this agreement, it is essential to recognize the history of Kurdish autonomy in this region and the complex power dynamics between the Kurds and the Turks. Syrian society is diverse and consists of various religious and ethnic groups: Christians, Druze, Alawites, Shiites, and also Kurds, who, while being Muslim, are not Arab. Any historian will tell you that the Kurds are the actual historical inhabitants of Syria, having lived there long before the rise of Islam.

Kurdish autonomy in northern Syria is essentially a semi-independent state, unrecognized by most of the world but supported, funded, and militarily protected by the United States—mainly due to its fight against ISIS a decade ago. The Kurds primarily inhabit the areas of al-Hasakah, Deir ez-Zor, Raqqa, and Qamishli, where gas and oil fields are located, along with prisons holding ten thousand captured ISIS fighters. In practice, the Kurds established a “democratic state” within their territories, focusing on aspirations for future independence. They maintained strained relations with the Syrian government under Assad and were in a state of war with Turkey and other Islamist factions in the region. Their greatest hope was to gain internationally recognized autonomy, like Iraqi Kurdistan. However, Assad’s ousting did not favor them, as the new president advocates for the unity of the state and refuses to grant autonomy to any ethnic group.

This region also hosts American bases with thousands of troops, preventing any Turkish invasion. However, in recent months, U.S. pressure on the Kurds has increased, necessitating an agreement with Syria’s president due to President Trump’s desire to withdraw from the region and his reluctance to fund the Kurds for another year.

Until now, the American presence prevented any Turkish invasion, allowing the Kurds to establish a separate autonomy under the leadership of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the political wing of the People’s Protection Units (YPG). Their military force is known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

In other words, any American withdrawal from this region would undoubtedly lead to a Turkish invasion, massacres, and possibly the complete elimination of Kurdish autonomy. Turkey’s hostility toward the Kurds is unrelenting. From Turkey’s perspective, all these Kurdish organizations are extensions of the PKK, led by Abdullah Öcalan. From his prison cell in Turkey, Öcalan called on his supporters to lay down their arms and cease terrorist activities following Turkey’s offer to pardon and release him. With this proposal and the agreement signed between the Kurds and Damascus, it is clear that the Kurds will no longer pose a threat to Turkey. Erdogan has successfully neutralized the Kurds both in Turkey and Syria within weeks.

The Catalyst Behind the Agreement

One of the main objectives of Syria’s new president is to establish control over all regions of the country, especially after Israel unexpectedly seized southern Syria under the pretext of protecting the Druze minority. Encouraged and pressured by the Americans—who seek to withdraw—the initial negotiations between al-Jolani and the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), General Mazloum Abdi, took place in recent weeks, laying the groundwork for the agreement.

The understanding between the two sides is not the result of shared ideology—far from it. The president, a former ISIS member, holds extreme views, while the general, representing the Kurds and their autonomy, is a staunch secular leftist. However, their converging interests enabled this merger, primarily due to Syria’s shifting political and military conditions.

On one hand, the Kurds’ interest is to preserve their independence, security, and survival against Turkey, which they perceive as an existential threat. On the other hand, the Syrian president seeks legitimacy, especially now that he faces severe accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing. He is deeply embroiled in crimes against humanity, with his forces committing massacres against the Alawites. Given these circumstances, both sides found the perfect timing and conditions to finalize an agreement that ensured normalcy for the Kurds while granting the president territorial continuity from the north to Damascus, allowing him to expand his influence and stabilize his controlled areas.

The agreement between al-Jolani and the Kurds includes the following provisions:

1. Ensuring the rights of all Syrians to representation and participation in the political process across all state institutions, based on merit, regardless of religious or ethnic background.
2. Recognizing the Kurdish community as an integral part of the Syrian state, guaranteeing their right to citizenship and all constitutional rights.
3. A nationwide ceasefire across Syria.
4. Integrating all civilian and military institutions in northeastern Syria into the Syrian government, including border crossings, airports, and oil and gas fields.
5. Ensuring the return of all displaced Syrians to their towns and villages and providing state protection for them.
6. Supporting the Syrian state in its fight against remnants of the Assad regime and any threats to Syria’s security and unity.
7. Rejecting calls for Syria’s partition, including incitement and attempts to sow discord among the country’s social components.
8. Implementing the agreement through an executive committee by the end of the current year.

A New Constitution, A New State

Three days after the signing of the agreement, the new Syrian constitution was revealed, consisting of 53 articles regulating the political and civil life of the country in the new era. It grants extensive powers to the president without checks and balances. According to the law, the president cannot be impeached or removed from office—he is the supreme and sole ruler. Essentially, this is a totalitarian regime identical to that of Assad. If that were not enough, four key articles in the new constitution indicate that Kurdish rights are being diminished and absorbed into the new state. The Kurds, who rightfully define themselves as a nation, have effectively been reduced to a minor part of the Syrian people.

The name of the new Syria, as revealed in the constitution—“The Arab Syrian Republic”—severely undermines the Kurds, as they are a non-Arab minority that does not identify with Arab identity. Moreover, Article 3.1 states that the constitution’s authority and the legislation source will be Islamic law (Sharia). The Kurds have always feared the transformation of Syria into a theocratic dictatorship similar to Afghanistan, and it is evident that the new Syria is heading toward Islamization, mirroring the process seen in Afghanistan. The constitution also ignores the Kurdish minority and does not recognize their language, prompting thousands of Kurds to take to the streets, demanding the removal of the new president.

Here are the first four articles of the new Syrian constitution:

1. The Arab Syrian Republic is an independent, sovereign state. It is a single geographical and political unit that cannot be divided, and no part of it may be relinquished.
2. The state establishes a political system based on the separation of powers principle and guarantees its citizens freedom and dignity.
3. The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam, and Islamic law is the primary source of legislation.
   3.1. Freedom of belief is protected. The state respects all religions and guarantees freedom of worship and religious ceremonies, provided they do not disrupt public order.
   3.2. The personal status of religious communities is protected and respected according to the law.
4. Arabic is the official language of the state.

Achievements and Failures

After one hundred days of Al-Julani’s rule, his supporters, for the first time in many years, speak of an atmosphere of optimism in the new Syria and highlight significant achievements of the new regime. These include the elimination of Assad’s regime and its elite, Syria’s return to the Arab fold and away from Iranian influence, the partial return of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees from abroad, the lifting of some international sanctions, and international legitimacy for the new government—especially compared to the previous regime. Additionally, the new government has received praise for its agreement with the Kurds and their integration into the Syrian army, the announcement of a new constitution, the dissolution of the Ba’ath Party along with Assad’s army, the dismantling of security agencies, the cessation of torture in prisons, the release of thousands of political prisoners—some of whom had been incarcerated since the 1980s—and the arrest of many criminals associated with the previous regime.

Other notable achievements include the removal of Hezbollah and the Iranian Shiite presence from Syria, the cessation of Iranian and Shiite militia operations and smuggling activities within and through Syria, the reduction of Russian military bases to just two across the country, the abolition of mandatory military conscription, an increase in the value of the Syrian lira, and encouragement of foreign investment.

On the other hand, opponents of the current regime argue that it lacks legitimacy and does not exercise complete sovereignty over the entire country. For example, they point to Israel’s occupation of parts of the south and its continued airstrikes in Syria, the lack of complete control over the entire state, and the mass killings of thousands of Alawites, proving that the new president is no different from Assad. They also criticize the forced spread of Islam, the establishment of an Islamic state, the recruitment and naturalization of thousands of Chechen and Turkish fighters who assisted Al-Julani in liberating Syria and are now being integrated into the security apparatus, the failure to reach an agreement with the Druze, the undemocratic new constitution that discriminates against Kurds and other minorities, the dismissal of hundreds of thousands of Alawites from public service as an act of revenge, and numerous clashes along the border with Hezbollah.

One thing unites both supporters and opponents—the consensus that Syria is following Afghanistan’s path and is currently undergoing an Islamization process. This transformation began with the elimination of Assad’s secular regime and culminated in the announcement of the new constitution, which placed secular institutions under Islamic Sharia law. Indeed, in many parts of Syria, secular courts have already been replaced by Islamic courts operating under Sharia law.