The leader of the HTS rebel group, Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, said that the new Syrian regime will be run according to Sharia Law.
While speaking in Damascus, al-Julani, who formerly had ties to ISIS and al-Qeuida, said that the new regime will include a morality police, which will operate under the Minister of Internal Affairs and be under the supervision of religious clerics and mullahs.
This new morality police will ensure the population implements Sharia Law. Al-Julani claimed the morality police will prioritize the path of “dawah,” proselytization and education, instead of operating through force.
However, al-Julani added, the new regime will not hesitate to use force against those who attempt to prevent it from implementing Sharia Law. “The jihad is obligatory for this reason,” he stressed.
The Assad regime imprisoned thousands of Syrians in torturous condition, and murdered thousands more.
{Matzav.com}
ISIS and Iran anew? Oy!
Why not westernize and be accepted by the world?
So what changed?
What does sharia have to do with terror?? banning alcohol and immodesty is not essentially tied to terror and does not violate human rights. For example, Bahrain has sharia law, is a US ally, made peace with Israel, and is definitely not a terror state.
we have to approach this with pragmatism and sense, not with confusion and broadbrushing.
Because these wonderful “freedom fighters” had/have ties with ISIS and other TERRORIST Islamists.
“However, al-Julani added, the new regime will not hesitate to use force against those who attempt to prevent it from implementing Sharia Law. “The jihad is obligatory for this reason,” he stressed.”
Did you even read the article?
1)I was referring specifically to sharia not necessarily being tied to terrorism. As far as this group’s past ties to terrorism, that is a different and valid concern. Regarding that issue, while we should approach this with caution, there is reason to be optimistic, given this group’s non-terror trajectory and current rhetoric, in contrast to common jihadi terrorists who are rarely shy about their intentions, even to their own detriment. And while this obviously does make them beacons of tolerance, and we are wary of them as neighbors, but pragmatically speaking, we can examine the possibility that there may be a path to stability with these people, going forward.
2) As to the quote from the article, using force to enforce the law, whatever the law of the land is, is not terroristic, as long as the law itself does not violate human rights. If they want to outlaw immodesty in their own country, that is their right (even if it causes libs a meltdown).
You’re just adorable.
We can talk again when you turn bar mitzvah, young man.