by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog
This is the final part of a 3-part series which examines the leftist project of Northern Syria
In the first article of this series, “Stop confusing Kurdistans! Syria’s leftists must turn home to Assad”, I discussed how the Turkish invasion of Afrin should provoke the immediate reconciliation of the self-proclaimed Democratic Federation of Northern Syria and Damascus.
In the second article, “Northern Syria’s leftism explained: a response to Socialist Arab Nationalism” I described the policies of the DFNS, also known as “Rojava”, and explained how their rise is a result of the lack of modern ethnic equality/multi-culturalism in the official Arab Socialist Baath Party…which has promoted Arab nationalism in a northern region which is half-full of Kurds and half-full of other ethnic groups, including Arabs.
I concluded part 2 when it came to describing Rojava’s view of religion and government – which is “secular”. But secularism such a broad term that it needs clear definitions. Let’s take the historical worldview:
Firstly, Muslim secularism is not a contradiction, but it has undoubtedly been an anti-democratic disaster. Tp those who promote Western-style secularism in the Muslim world: It is as if you are totally blind to the atrocities required to implement it.
Iraq: Outlawing and massacres of Islamist Dawa Party (this was the official reason Saddam was hanged).
Algeria: Military coup ahead of impending election victory of Islamic Salvation Front in 1992, which started the Algerian Civil War, killing 250,000 people.
Egypt: Morsi jailing, coup overturning 2011 revolution, decades of Muslim Brotherhood repression.
Syria: Mass repression of the Muslim Brotherhood, sparking 6 years of Islamist insurgency that peaked with the Hama massacre in 1982 – tens of thousands dead.
We clearly see that massive, violent, anti-democratic repression has been required to enforce Western secularism; the reason for this is that Western secularism in a Muslim context is totally undemocratic, culturally inauthentic and ineffective.
Those four countries compose the entire list Middle East-North African Arab countries which are not reactionary monarchies, although only Egypt is a Zionist collaborator. All of these countries are totally screwed up in 2018, with Algeria being the tallest of the 7 dwarves (poor Algeria, so far from God, so close to France).
Lest we not forget: Tunisia – Islamist Ennhada party wins vote, gets Islam enshrined in Constitution and thus overturning secularism, but they are also too timid to accept power. Turkey – Erdogan’s base is definitely more Islamist than secular. Iran – the least secular and most successful leftist country in the MENA region.
The reality – which, again, is impossible not to see if one is an honest democrat and if one views the region objectively – is that as long as Muslims are banned from being openly political, a Muslim-majority nation will be at risk of civil war for reasons ranging from inauthenticity to cognitive dissonance to injustice, envy, resentment and more.
Therefore, it is impossible to to promote democracy in politics and oppress religion in politics at the same time – this is global left’s hard-earned lesson of the 20th century.
It’s too bad Rojava has not learned this.
Rojava follows secularism…but their model isn’t authentic, desired or democratic
What does “secularism” even mean in 2018? Let’s examine the models:
Western left-wing secularism has been a dismal failure. It has failed because it is a religion in itself. Much like neoliberals do, its proponents take it on faith that this is the best model despite their lack of proof: there is every indication that secularism has actually reduced the amount of morality in its political programs, and also among the politicians who thrive in such a model. It is even a radical “religion” because it seeks to impose a one-size fits all model; its propaganda bars not just dissent, but even discussion. This model runs from the absolutely unbearable fake-leftist “Je Suis Charlies” to far-left Trotskyists. This model of secularism believes that all public decisions must be totally untouched by religious beliefs or practices.
Western right-wing secularism is simply a lie: To say that Christianity is not embedded in Western society – in their socio-political classes and in their ideology -is a falsehood which can only possibly be swallowed by the region’s Christians: everybody else sees the lack of honesty, balance and justice. Christian Democrat parties, usually with that exact name (like in Germany) have governed Western Europe almost universally and continuously since World War II…yet “Muslim Democrat” parties are impossible, right, LOL? This model is less severe, as it wants political life to be religiously neutral, neither imposing religion nor barring it (at least officially).
Muslim right-wing secularism is exemplified by massacres of Islamist democrats – total intolerance, and a refusal to admit that grassroots Muslim organisations are actually working to help improve their societies (unlike their Western-puppet leaders). This model of secularism is not the banning of religious thought in government, but rather the banning of religious people from holding positions in government.
Muslim left-wing secularism is not exemplified by Muslim left-wing secularism is best described by…Baathist Syria today: There is religious equality, and their legal system currently has religious personal courts (for each preferred religion) but secular civil and criminal courts. So Islamic law does exist, but it is limited to parts of the judicial branch and is subordinate to civil law. Not accepting the “guardianship of the Islamic jurist”, as in Iran, is a choice only Syrians can make – but Syria is secular in that it does not allow religiously-inspired democratic parties despite the obvious democratic demand to do so.
So, to finally answer my final question of Part 2: Rojava’s view of religion and government is best described as “Western right-wing secularism”…which is clearly culturally inauthentic and thus doomed to be democratically rejected. It is also not a modern advance on this issue.
Rojava is similar to what Russia floated in January as a change – from the “Syrian Arab Republic” to a “Republic of Syria” would not allow Islamic law to be a basis of jurisprudence. Well, the problem is that this would be a revolution in Syria’s current system, and one which goes in the exact opposite of Syria’s recent history. For all the flaws of those opposed to Assad south of Rojava, the Baathist party’s barring of Islam (as well as ethnic equality) has been opposed in Syria for decades. Indeed, such a constitution would not resolve the core demand of those opposed to Assad south of Rojava. Clearly, such a constitution would not be the result of inter-Syrian, democratic diplomacy.
Rojava’s great contribution is to demand ethnic equality in an Arab nationalist state, but Syria cannot be modern if it continues to bar democratic participation base don religion.
Protecting ethnic identities is good, but we must recall that it is inherently divisive. Let’s recall that Rojavans understand this – they promote and defend Syrian nationalism.
Arab nationalism has been enough for Syria to keep from crumbling under imperialist attack, but it will not resolve its decades-old tensions, and it will likely require more than just state nationalism to provide the moral foundation and moral unity in the victorious, free Syria.
Ignoring the unifying appeal of Islam is to ignore a universal Syrian resource
If you don’t understand that already, you are either lazy or uncurious.
If Christians and Jews would take just 10 minutes to read only the first 5 pages of the Koran they would quickly understand that Islam embraces all Abrahamic religions to the tune of about 10,000%. The Koran is crystal clear on this: if you are a Christian or Jew but you are a righteous and religious person – you have a place in Paradise.
Every Muslim who has read the Koran knows this, and lives it.
This fact of tolerance is never reported in the West because…capitalist-imperialists feed off of creating divides, of course. On the other side, the Muslims who hate all Jews because of Zionism, for example, are clearly bad Muslims who don’t read or follow the Koran.
Indeed this Islamic tolerance and whole-hearted embrace of believing Jews and Christians is why all 3 brother religions lived in communal harmony from 700-1800. Even the small Yezidi minority lived in peace with Muslims (they are monotheists, after all) – it is only ISIL which has persecuted them, and they are obviously not Muslim.
Christians, Jews and Yezidis living in Syria, Iran, Egypt and elsewhere know about this Abrahamic unity because they know their own history and because they are in daily contact with each other. Zionists coming from New York City, however, have no conception of this, nor did Europe’s medieval Christian crusading imperialists. It is their loss….
Historical reminder: This peaceful coexistence changed in places like Syria only when the French & English came along in the 19th century, bringing their racism, religious intolerance, identity politics and privileged statuses for minority Christians, etc.
Indeed, our fellow “People of the Book” (a Book revered by Islam) in 2018 are sadly and totally misled about there being some sort of animosity between Muslims and their fellow Abrahamic religions. Again…take the time to read just 5 pages of the Koran to enlighten yourselves and you will take a huge step forward in brotherhood, harmony and understanding. Radical leftists and extremist Christians will, I’m sure, be unable to make such a small effort despite their alleged “European humanism”….
Realising that Islam unites all the region’s religions, and that Rojava unites the ethnicities, it is thus absurd for Syria to not, as Tunisia did, declare themselves an Islamic nation. The failure to do so excludes a source of historical-yet-existing unity, and which will only culturally antagonise the majority and create needless tensions. Indeed, Wester secularism does that very well: create needless tensions.
Indeed, who loses if Syria makes their Islam formal, like Tunisia? They are 90% Muslim, and the other groups are part of the Abrahamic brotherhood. Indeed, Jewish and Christian Syrians will obviously find receptive minds if they have religiously-inspired policies. Must Muslim-majority countries be pushed towards the faith-based religion of atheism, as in Western societies? That would totally ignore the democratic will (along with even more important considerations) which I thought “Western human rights” revered?
It is clear that Rojava, being heavily influenced by the Turkish Marxist PKK Party, is not modern on the issue of religion: they are not modern for the Muslim world because they have not embraced all-unifying Islam and have instead continued an unwanted embrace of Western secularism.
The worst part is that Western secularism excludes a coalition democracy with a Muslim-democrat/Muslim-socialist party…despite that group being the ideological majority. Just look at history for the bloody results – it is crazy to continue on this line.
This rejection of religion in politics means Baathist Damascus and Rojava have something in common…but it is something which loses, and which costs very dear.
The long-term trend: (mostly Arab) Nationalist Socialism versus Islamic Socialism
The results are in: Islamic Socialism has been far more effective than Baathist Nationalist Socialism. Even on the authoritarian end of Islamic Socialism – provided by Libya, with Iran on the democratic end of the spectrum – this model has provided a better, safer, more modern society than Baathism ever has.
The two ideologies fought it out during the Iran-Iraq War, and Islamic Socialism won. Now Islamic Socialists are consolidating democratic power in Iraq, and they are helping to save Syria along with other Islamic Socialists, Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Therefore, my thesis that Rojava has emerged as a response to the failures of nationalist-based Socialist Baathism fits right in line with history. But it does not mean that Rojava’s socialist-influenced model is superior to Islamic socialism!
Islamic religion as a key part of the foundation for the future Syrian culture and the government will likely be a democratic demand of the Muslim Syrian people, as I wrote in “The future of postwar Syria: victory looks like Iranian Islamic Socialism”. You can reject that, and the idea that the Muslim world needs democracy, but I don’t think Syrians will make demands which are hugely different from people in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Tunisia, etc.
Does Syria need Islamic Socialism? Does Syria need to change from Baathism, or at least update it? Is the Rojavan movement going to sweep all of Syria? That is for Syrians, and only Syrians, to decide.
But say it loud, even if you are not Muslim: Islam is no threat to democracy, and democracy cannot be said to truly exist without Islam, for Muslim-majority nations.
So there is nothing to fear…but there is no precedent – that is true.
That’s because, like all leftist projects (which anti-Zionist Syria has been for decades), socialism of all kinds is something which has to be created on a daily basis – there is no model in mankind’s reactionary, racist, sexist, anti-democratic histories! Iran has no model, China has no model – we are all making it up as we go along, but thank God we were not content with the status quo.
Conclusions & reasons for leftist hope
A few things are clear:
If Rojava wants to stay within Syria – as they insist – they must subordinate themselves to the democratic will of the nation. Autonomy cannot be self-declared – it must be democratically approved, and such approvals cannot be made during wartime.
If Rojavans insist on total autonomy…that means prolonged civil war. Rojavans must give in first and trust “Damascus” – that means they are trusting in the legitimate government of ALL of Syria – and promote state nationalism in order to defeat imperialist balkanisation. Showing the lower two-thirds of Syria the sincerity and modernity of their political system appears to require a faith that a significant part of it will be democratically chosen in any possible postwar political restructuring…once Syria is secure for Syrians. But this is not a one-way street: Clearly, Baathist concessions are required to catch up with modernity.
Baathism has spent decades denying ethnic equality in favor of Arab nationalism, but the latter’s time has passed. Baathists should give that up.
Baathism has spent decades violently repressing Islamic socialism – Baathists should give that up (Rojavans as well).
Rojavans must accept that – at least for now – they are not a vanguard party capable which has been selected by the Syrian people to lead, unlike Iran’s clergy or the Chinese Communist Party. They must come to the table and fall under the umbrella of Syrian nationalism which they have been espousing.
Since 1917 the left’s Achilles heel has been religion, and Rojavans must realize that. We should all recognise the political, modern, leftist, democratic advances Rojavans have created, but also realize that their lack of modernity on the religion question is a major weakness which can be easily used to destabilise all of Syria.
On the Western right, they would love to split Rojava from Syria – that would destabilise Damascus and the entire region, help safeguard Israel and make them a de-facto ally of imperialism. On the Western left, they would love to split Rojava from Syria – that would see Rojava praying to their false idol of secularism and make them them an ally against Muslim democracy and Muslim socialism.
Both these Western groups, of course, totally disavow democracy, because democracy in Syria would allow the people to choose Islamic Socialism, and their form of Islamic Socialism, and in the proportion that they choose.
Of course, the US will throw money at Rojava. Kurdish separatists will try to convince Rojavans that the Kurds are like the Jews (that they are so harassed that they must live in a separate state which segregates them from the rest of the world). Rojavans don’t believe that, but the longer they resist compromise with Damascus….
The only opinion that matters is that of the Syrians – but this opinion can only be democratically decided after the expulsion of foreign armies. If Rojava does not side with Damascus in this fight, they cannot be leftist, or Syrian, and they have claimed to be both.
I am very optimistic: History shows that massive wars post-1917 push the population towards leftism. Except for on the issues of religion and ethnicity, Syrians have been fine leftists at the forefront of some 20th century political trends.
Keep the faith, Syria! You will need it – leftist projects are not easy, but it is easier than fighting off murderous capitalist fascists.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.
Ramin, what do you think about Ghassan Kadi’s views on Kurds? What in your view is lacking in his analysis? What is superior in his compared to yours? Discuss, please. Thank you, sir.
Ghassan does great stuff! A pleasure to read and I learn a lot.
I don’t want to critique his work – that would take time to do it justice, as it is such fine work. I think my views on the Kurds have been clarified by this series – overall, I’d say just don’t konfuse Kurds, LOL, and we’ll all go a long way in avoiding stereotyping/identity politics/lack of solidarity. The leftist project of Northern Syria – of which the Kurds are a key part, but not the sum of its parts – is a great project, but has a bit further to go to prove its true modernity (which I think it will).
Leftism is dead, today leftism is just about hating white people, heterosexual people, Christians, femininity and masculinity, family and so forth.
During the 1960’s leftism exchange class war for race war.
I am a south american and those concepts of yours on ”leftism” and similarities are a countersense use of words. If on benign concession, of the ‘anglo’ type.
Ah, not least, I am Left on the citizenship political spectrum and I am nationalist, definitely. What seems Ironic is that exactly following the western ‘globalizing’ Ideology sponsored by the angloeurozio elites since 40 yrs now, China is globalizing the former globalizers. The chinese way.
Lol.
Leftism, Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, Fascism, and many more –ism, are Logos, Used as propaganda, to create illusion, deception, and diversion, by the one who wants to control US. Unfortunately many fell in their TRAP …
You cant have leftism and islam, they both exclude each other. “Leftism” is a western product. It is a “west” in conflict with its own self. It does not matter if it is universalist in outlook it is still western at the end of the day. Islam can pretend to be universalist but at the end of the day it is an Arab creation. That is why Arabs thought they were superior to other non Arab muslims. Proof of this is the non arab indigenous movements(“Shuubiya”) against Arab racism, in Spain and in Iran. Leftism is a religion just like orthodox christianity and islam, thats why they exclude each other. The only reason why non westerners think that leftism goes hand in hand with their own indigenous outlook is because of leftism being opposed to the west. As I said, a west within and opposed against itself.
“The Koran is crystal clear on this: if you are a Christian or Jew but you are a righteous and religious person – you have a place in Paradise.”
Abrahamic religion is clearly relevant to the area and any solution to the social and political problems there has to account for it freely and generously. The Koran made an exceptionally good start.
The Koran, as we now find it on paper or as above, was written a long time ago.
In the modern world it is also clear that this “place in Paradise” must be made relevant to or integrate with the majority of the world who have not, are not and will never be of any Abrahamic persuasion.
If this integration is achieved the Koran will be as timeless as it is most certainly intended to be.
If not the area under discussion will continue to be a black hole trying to suck all else into its navel.
If the latter, it will tragic.
Yes, because they (Fascism, Socialism/Communism) are siblings of the core process (Capitalism, Materialism) they are as toxic and fundamentally destructive, and were used exactly to that end, and still are – of course.
Crystal clear ?
Is that then also clear for the myriad of Jihadis roaming in Syria ? When I watch their Tube-Vids I hear roughly two hundred ‘Allah Akhbar’ per Video – they must therefore love the Quran deeply.
I wonder who massacred the Christians in Syria ? Who where they who pledged to follow the Quran and erect a new islamic paradise ? How and from where do they get their fighters from unberlievers ?
I until this day have I never heard any refusal of these great fighters for Allah by any authority of Sunni-Islam. Can you refer to me the list of Quran authorities who did and do refuse these obvious murderous rats of scum ??!
Until then I think your cult is fake, bigotted, rascist and most of all, weak beyond imagination and most condemning a mockery of god.
“If you are a Christian or Jew but you are a righteous and religious person – you have a place in Paradise.”
Sorry to rain on your parade but this is a misinterpretation of the verse and it misses the context of the verse. Besides, if God thought–from a Muslim perspective–Christianity and Judaism were still capable of carrying the day, why introduce another version to stir the pot?
Hi Shazad,
I’m sorry, but that is not correct at all. The place for righteous Jews and Christians in Paradise is a constant refrain. It is not just one verse, whatsoever; it is re-stated so many times that it’s clear – this is a fundamental precept of Islam.
Indeed, the Koran is completely based on the Old and New Testaments: Jewish prophets and stories (from the Torah) and the Gospel of Jesus are all referred to, commented upon and honoured hundreds and hundreds of times in the Koran. The idea that the Koran could exist without them is…only something a non-Muslim would imagine is possible.
Indeed, the Koran 100% honors Jews and Christians because Islam is a continuation of this thought – monotheism. Islam would like them to convert and tries to win them over, but without force and only via the persuasion of the Koran.
Also, the Koran makes it very, very clear why Judaism and Christianity need Islam – how it has divine revelations which were not revealed prior but which cannot be separated from the previous prophets.
Again, anybody with any familiarity at all with the Koran knows this. That’s why I encouraged people to read just the first 5 pages – to clear up this totally false sense of animosity between the 3 Abrahamic religions. Shazad, I encourage you to re-read the first 5 pages as well, at least.
What the Koran does not refer to, but it is in the ‘Gospel of Jesus’ is that Jesus is the Son of God, the Word made flesh, who dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Read just the first chapter of the Gospel of John.
Hi, Ramin. I’m no scholar but I am a little more than vaguely familiar with the Quran . . .
I’ll try to stay on point because your response strays into issues that I did not raise i.e. Animosity between the faiths and the inter-relatedness of the three faiths. Also, I’m going to assume that you’re not referring to the adherents of a faith, prior to the advent of its successor faith i.e. Jews before Christ, Christians before Mohammad. And finally, this does not address exception cases, such someone living on a remote island who dies without hearing the message of Islam.
Now, the most notable two verses on this issue are verses 2:62 and 5:69. The context of the first is a rendition of the crimes of the Jewish people, destroying their claim to being the chosen people, in preparation for an official dethroning in the second year by redirecting the Muslims toward Makkah instead of Jerusalem. The meaning of the verse that becomes manifest from this context is that (paraphrasing): you may belong to whatever nation but it is only those who believe in God and the last day, and do righteous deeds, that have nothing to fear with God.
The second verse’s context is even more apparent in that it is challenging the people of the book (Jews and Christians) to uphold the tenets of their faith, as well as those revealed onto Mohammad. So clearly, no way to avoid accepting Islam as a means to paradise. And, if that wasn’t very clear read 3:85 to seal the deal.
All this goes back to the obvious logic that if God felt that those adherents were doing a fine job of establishing God’s Kingdom on earth, why send yet another messenger with a new law. Far above that is the Most Wise.
You make my point: “only those who believe in God and the last day, and do righteous deeds, that have nothing to fear with God.” All those who accept monotheism and are righteous can be in Paradise – this includes Christians and Jews, and the Koran includes them specifically and repeatedly.
Your logic about “why send yet another messenger” is a logic which I cannot follow. Mohammad did not throw away or disregard all the previous teachings of the apostles as found in the Torah and New Testament…why would I? Mohammad repeatedly reveres these books and those apostles – why wouldn’t I?
And there are not only 3 verses in the Koran which express unreserved brotherhood with righteous Jews and Christians.
As far as my understanding is concerned, it is only non-Muslims who believe Jews, Christians or Muslims should or can even possibly be separated…that is the point I am making to non-Muslims who have been misled by propaganda and who do not want to read the Koran.
@Jews and Christians) to uphold the tenets of their faith, as well as those revealed onto Mohammad.
It is a twisted logic. Why should the ‘people of the Book (which Book, BTW?) who are under the obligation to upheld the tenets of their faith, upheld the tenets of a revelation which starkly contradicts those very tenets and enjoin them to ‘desist’ from them?
I have never read in the Koran the Muslims should desist from Christians and Jews who are believers and do good works.
The Koran does say that Muslims should stay away from all non-believers, who are clearly not righteous, because they are a bad influence, and that goes for non-believers of all types.
The Koran also approves intermarriage with righteous Christians and Jews – that’s pretty much the opposite of “desist”.
This Jewish-Muslim-Christian animosity is really a one-way street – the Koran and Muslims build upon the previous two…and how could anything stand if the foundation is removed?
Don’t believe the anti-Muslim hype….
Interesting conclusions: Syria must abandon Baathism (Assad must go) and adopt Political Islam (Muslim Brotherhood back and Sharia Law)!
Ramin Mazaheri wrote: “Rojava is similar to what Russia floated in January as a change – from the “Syrian Arab Republic” to a “Republic of Syria” would not allow Islamic law to be a basis of jurisprudence. Well, the problem is that this would be a revolution in Syria’s current system,….”
I cannot find the source, but I once read that political parties based on religion and/or ethnicity have been banned in Russia for several years. The Russian elites are able to govern their multi-ethnic and multi-religious state peacefully. Why can’t Syria adopt the Russian model?
@who loses if Syria makes their Islam formal, like Tunisia?
Sharia Law would entail suppression of ‘privileged statuses for minority Christians’. How would be the Christians ‘equalized’ with the Muslim majority? Conversion? or Dhimmi status as it was in the times of Caliphate ‘tolerance’?
“…decades of Muslim Brotherhood repression.”
does this mean the Muslim Brotherhood was repressed ? – or did it do the repressing ? Sorry to be so ignorant
There is so much wrong with this article I don’t even know where to begin.
1. The brotherhood was a legal party and was allowed to organize through President Hafez Al-Assad’s rule. When they thought they had public support, they launched an insurgency against the state even though the government NEVER engaged in their suppression prior. In fact, the Syrian Social National Party, a secular leftist party, was made illegal in the 50’s for assassination while the brotherhood was illegal.
2. Baathism does not deny “ethnic equality” and never has. The President of Damascus University is a kurd. The Speaker of the People’s Council (parliament) is a Chaldean. In the highest levels of the military, there are Circassians in charge. President Bashar Al-Assad made it clear that Arab Nationalism is not about a race, but a common history a group of people share. The kurds in northern Syria were refugees from turkey and iraq, and as such, are guaranteed human rights, but not political rights. The kurds who moved to Syria in the late 19th and early 20th century all have citizenship and full rights.
This narrative that the Syrian government just kills religious Muslims for fun is simply a lie propagated by takfiris and political Islamists to promote their agenda, even though, ironically enough, lying is Haram in Islam. Even after the brotherhood was purged, Muslims continued going to mosques and to this day Muslim Syrians go to mosques in the millions.
I think I made it clear: there is PLENTY of Syrian state nationalism, and enough to carry the day against ISIL. Arab nationalism, however, is a different thing. You are correct that – and I never wrote otherwise – there is a political equality among the different ethnicities, but there is NOT a cultural one. The proof of this is in the Rojava project.
I never said that only Arabs hold political office, or that there was official discrimination. Indeed, everyone knows the relatively high position of the Druze, who are not “perfect ethnic Arabs”, so to speak.
I certainly never said anything close to ‘the Syrian government just kills religious Muslims for fun’, but I was not directly accused of that slander, thankfully.
If Baathism survives, that is up to the Syrian people. As I have written, it is merely my outside opinion that it seems they would do well to do some updating and to include some of the wishes of those in Northern Syria.
Accused of that “libel” – ugh, terrible journalistic mistake there. Slander is spoken. That’s what happen when you don’t edit!
Anyway, “Muslim Syrians going to mosques in millions” is indeed a good reason why I think they may democratically choose to have religion in their politics…and they should have that right. Thus Part 3….
Sir,
Fine analysis. However, this Muslim, Jew and Christian love-in (dependent on observancy) excludes those, for example, in the Christian ‘box’ who are excluded for being heretics. What if the professing Christian good people are actually false in their faith and have wrongly labelled some people as heretics? What if the heretics are the good guys? This may have a parallel to some degree elsewhere.
So your point is largely dependent on who makes the decision as to who is a good Religion-X person. Who will adjudicate these matters?
The Muslim brotherhood is the ancestor of al qaida/daesh. It is this proxy org israeloamerica-uk first developed their tactics of using terrorists in the Mideast to affect regime change. As such, there is no place for this proxy org in countries desiring to remain independent of zionazi, inc.
The most famous member of the Muslim Brotherhood was Khomeiny, the ayatollah. That was at a time Chiites and Sunnites were working together in that brotherhood. The present day Iran is a success of the chiite site of that Brotherhood.
DF
“The most famous member of the Muslim Brotherhood was Khomeiny, the ayatollah.”
Do you have a credible source for that?
Swiss TV about the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Bana. “En passant”, they showed a picture of a very recognisable Khomeiny and very much younger. He was with famous members of the MB. To give you a precise source, I need some researches.
I’m just sure of my assertion because I was very much surprised by this. So I remembered.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a Sunni organisation. So that would indeed make it “famous” if Khomeini was a member.
There has never even been a Shiite chapter of the Brotherhood. Seeing Khomeini with members of the MB is, LOL, like saying Macron is a member of the MB because he shook hands with Tariq Ramadan…it’s certainly not proof.
The Muslim Brotherhood has become rather focused on its Sunni identity in the years of Sunni-Shia strife in Iraq following 2003. However, it was founded as an pan-Islamic organization and was still such an pan-Islamic organization during Khomenei’s day. Its attitude towards Iran’s government has shifted from admiration in the early years to hostility for the last several years and now, with the developing times between Iran on one side and Turkey/Qatar on the other, it seems that they are becoming friends again.
“Indeed this Islamic tolerance and whole-hearted embrace of believing Jews and Christians is why all 3 brother religions lived in communal harmony from 700-1800. ”
Muslim writers really should stop relying on a few tolerant-sounding passages from the Quran and look at the actual history of the region following the Muslim conquests for a much more nuanced view of how tolerant Islamic rule was.
Song,
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about regarding the Koran, or regional history.
And you also seem to underestimate the intolerance, wars and racism of Christendom: Compare Islam’s tolerance to that and you will find there is no comparison – there are no apartheid states in Islamic history, LOL.
If you are Song as in you are Chinese: The religious plurality of the Islamic world and Christendom is something which has no parallel in Chinese history. I would suggest that denying the Emperor’s place as religious chief from roughly 1000 BC to 1912 AD would not have been greeted with tolerance, however.
Oh come on…are you telling me the Muslim brotherhood and parties like them such as the AKP are socialist. …they will imprison secularists and progressives as soon as they get the chance. ..just look at turkey. ..
While the kurds continue taking orders from zionazia and operate as their proxies, the local Syrians decide it’s time to take matters into their own hands.
Local Syrians form militia to expel US-backed forces from Raqqa – Reports
https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/local-syrians-form-militia-to-expel-us-backed-forces-from-raqqa-reports/
“Local Arab tribesmen have formed a militia to fight and oust the US-backed SDF from Raqqa, according to media reports and reports circulating on social media.
The group, which has called itself the Popular Resistance of Raqqa (PRoR), currently has just a few dozen fighters in its ranks, but is covertly recruiting additional combatants.
Armed with only small arms and light weapons (SALW), they are currently only able to conduct hit-and-run attacks, as they simply don’t have the manpower to take and hold territory.
At the moment the group’s forces are stationed in Raqqa city, though they may expand into other areas of the province, provided they can significantly increase their manpower.
Sunni Arab tribesmen — primarily from the Al-Shaitat tribe — played a significant role in the Syrian Army’s Russia-backed offensive against Daesh* (also known as ISIS/ISIL/IS/Islamic State) in Deir ez-Zor, contributing thousands of fighters to anti-terrorist operations in the area.
Much of the casualties from the US’ attack on Syrian forces last month were reportedly from this tribe. A number of troops from the elite “ISIS Hunters” militia were also killed by the US military in last month’s attack.
Syrian media reported that a total of 50-60 pro-government combatants were killed in the attack, refuting reports of hundreds of soldiers being killed.”
“Autonomy cannot be self-declared – it must be democratically approved, and such approvals cannot be made during wartime”
Says who?