Peloni: Here lies a fair analysis of the promise which was made when a Jihadist donned a suit and was claimed to be a reformer, when the terrorist Al Jolani was repackaged as the moderate Al Shaara, when repression was suppose to be replaced with reform and was instead only redirected against Syria’s minorities. Indeed, radicalism is the reality of what came of the promises of Jolani’s reportedly miraculous transformation into Shaara,, and proof of this lies in his own words as he described the butchers of the Druze as being “heroes”. Taha challenges that Jolani now has a choice to be the statesman rather than a terrorist, but that choice was already offered when the terrorist put on the suit, and the choice was poorly made, and trust was badly abused. So are we going to offer Jolani the opportunity to choose again only to hope for a better outcome??
?? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????. ?????? ?? ?????? ????: ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????. ?? ??????? ??? ???????. ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? "?????". ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??????. ?? ??? ???…
— Amjad Taha ???? ?? (@amjadt25) July 20, 2025
Translation:
You won’t like these words, for the truth is harsh and ideologically unfiltered. So let’s begin with a simple test: if Al-Jolani came to you asking for a job, would you accept him? A man who changed his name as he changed his allegiance. From jihadist to politician. He fought in Iraq and Syria, pledged allegiance to ISIS, led Al-Qaeda, then announced his “repentance.” He was neither tried, nor did he apologize, nor compensate his victims. Instead, he sat in the seat of leadership, planning and being received as if nothing had happened.
But politics, my friend, is not built on trust but on harm reduction, as God said: “And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, monasteries, churches…” That’s why the region dealt with him not out of love, but out of hatred for something worse. Not out of belief in his repentance, but in pursuit of avoiding a greater disaster. Al-Jolani was not embraced, but used as a temporary balance in a regional scene where Iranian withdrawals intersect, Turkish repositionings take place, French involvement rises, and Israeli monitoring watches closely. No one wants a new war, only “lesser damage.”
When he or Bashar was received, it wasn’t normalization with them, but an attempt to defuse the bomb before it explodes. Yes, when Al-Jolani or Bashar was received, it wasn’t for their sake, but for the chance to save a homeland. Syria is not an arena for settling scores between Islamists and civil society, nor a battlefield for Turkish-Israeli conflict. Syria is a homeland, whose people must reconcile—not its executioners. Assad’s crimes must be cleansed with justice, not recycled under new names.
Some get angry when we mention Al-Jolani’s name, but the aim isn’t to offend, rather to point out the historical context and true identity. When we mention his real name—Al-Jolani, Ahmad Al-Shara’—we are not just recalling his history, but invoking the logic of the Umayyads, when Abu Sufyan repented and entered Islam, and then from his descendants emerged an Arab glory rising from the ashes of war. Abu Sufyan didn’t initially love the Prophet ?, but he surrendered to reality—and that reality shaped history. So, could Al-Jolani be a new Abu Sufyan?
The difference is that Abu Sufyan did not kill after repentance, while Al-Jolani—his men’s massacres, crimes, and beheadings in Sweida were documented on camera.
They didn’t stop at killing; they practiced ritual humiliation. They used razors to humiliate men, just as the Nazis did with Jewish prisoners—a scene not military but symbolic. Shaving the mustaches of heroic Druze men was a language of humiliation. And all of this was documented by their own lenses, as if to prove their crime—or perhaps God exposed them by their own hands.
The Druze did not wage war, but war came to their homes. They lived in the mountains, distancing themselves from sedition, until the killer came to them. And when Al-Jolani remained silent for four days, it was not out of shame, but waiting for Washington’s stance. He did not issue his statement until after an Israeli strike hit his palace. And in that statement, he spoke of “violations,” not a “massacre,” and of “transgressions,” not “ethnic cleansing.” A repetition of Bashar’s methods at the start of the revolution.
So who rules? Al-Jolani or Ahmad Al-Shara’? Or is he just a facade for a larger machine? Was this massacre meant to intimidate minorities? Or was it a message: if you don’t follow me, blood is coming? Was Turkey behind the scene to impose a border reality on Israel? Or did Al-Jolani want to replicate Bashar and Tehran’s style—spreading fear in the name of the state, saying: I have militias and tribes behind me, stand with me or I’ll open fire on every neighbor and region?
Some beasts do not repent, but adorn themselves and wait for the moment of prey with a smile. And perhaps Ahmad Al-Shara’ wanted to say: “I am the leader, and whoever wants partnership must first submit to my power.” But we tell him: guidance is not imposed by force, and governance is not built with razors, and a state is not founded on the corpses of minorities.
Either be a statesman, or remain a militia leader to be replaced later. We Arabs do not support individuals, we support Syria—a Syria that accommodates everyone. We stand with Druze who asked for nothing more than to live in peace in their mountains. So do you hear the voice of wisdom, Ahmad Al-Shara’? Do not be like Saddam, or Gaddafi, or Bashar.
Repentance is not a slogan but a commitment. You have the right to repent, and the people have the right to see it in your actions—not in your statements. But when your forces are directed toward safe areas, and massacres are documented in your name, your credibility fractures, and your project collapses.
History is not written by weapons alone, but by conscience. And the Druze, as I said, did not seek war—it came to them. Your silence is not neutrality, but condemnation. And your timid statement was not in your favor, but in favor of your opponents. Your repetition of phrases like “the nation is in danger” and “violations” brings us back to the lying rhetoric the Syrian regime used to justify its massacres.
You now have a choice: to be Ahmad Al-Shara’, the statesman who turns the page on war and opens the door to justice—or to remain Al-Jolani, the militia leader abandoned to fate. Syria does not need armed heroes, but statesmen who know when to apologize, when to listen, and when to stop the killing.
In conclusion, history cannot be repeated, but it can be corrected. And time does not return, but it offers a chance. So choose true glory, not manufactured glory. Choose reconciliation for Syria—not massacres. And choose for its children a future unlike its bloodstained past.
… but don’t hold your breath.