The dialectical relationship between the so-called parliamentary elections for the "Takfiri Sunni Component" currently taking place in some Syrian provinces—completely excluding two and a half provinces in Western Kurdistan and the Sweida Governorate—and the decision to abolish Nowruz as a legitimate national right of the Kurdish people is not merely political coincidence; it is an intellectual and moral scandal that exposes the falsehood of the rhetoric behind the interim Joulani government. It also reveals the fragility of its so-called project to build a “New Syria.”

What is happening is not just a ceremonial electoral process but a step towards consolidating an extremist, closed doctrinal authority—legally contested on both national and international levels—lacking basic democratic standards in candidacy and elections, which have been dominated by quota-based appointments and allocations, not for the benefit of national components or women, but for extremist groups, reproducing the same racist methodology once pursued by the Ba'ath regime, but under a new religious guise. This is promoted as being supported by a transitional constitution, which itself is contested and rejected by all Syrian factions, including the Kurdish movement, except for the Takfiri Sunni component and the terrorist organizations affiliated with the Joulani government.

Under the oppressive regime, the People’s Assembly was merely a reflection of Ba'athist voice; today’s new council appears as a repeat of that model, but in the language of Takfir—where legislative authority is entirely monopolized by Joulani under the pretext of a “transitional phase” or “correcting past mistakes,” the same false pretext used by Ba'ath for decades to justify repression. It is now being presented anew with different vocabulary, blending nationalism with religious fanaticism.

What most exposes this approach—not only legally but culturally, politically, and ethically—is the appointment of Mohammed Taha Al-Ahmad, a professor of Islamic jurisprudence, as head of the legislative committee, ignoring the principles of civil law and the constitution. It is as if we are witnessing the formation of a "Majlis Al-Shura" (Shura Council), and there is a high likelihood that “the commissions for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice” will soon be formed, headed by figures like Hassan Al-Dghaim—known for their explicit hostility toward Syrian components, especially the Kurds.

The Joulani government, through its committees and media arms, seeks to beautify its image before the Syrian and international public by talking about “national partnership” and “social justice,” but in reality, it clandestinely reproduces the same exclusionary ideology. The most obvious example of this is the abolition of Nowruz from Syria’s official holiday calendar—a blatant replica of Ba'ath policies that viewed Kurdish identity as a threat to be erased, not a national component to be recognized.

The refusal to recognize Nowruz can only be interpreted from two main perspectives:
1. A religious-ideological stance rooted in political Islam, which sees the “Islamic nation” as the sole salvation entity, leaving no room for national recognition or cultural particularities outside this framework.
2. A political Turkish perspective, as the Joulani government faithfully implements Ankara’s instructions, ensuring continued hostility towards the Kurdish people and restricting any federal or national aspirations in Western Kurdistan.

According to the scholars of this Takfiri regime, Nowruz is considered “pagan” because it is linked to ancient Kurdish religions, disconnected from the Kurdish historical struggle against tyranny. Based on this view, they recognize Christian holidays but deliberately omit Jewish festivals, branding Nowruz as a “holiday of infidels,” based on fatwas of Ibn Taymiyah whose texts they still venerate.

To hide this racist decision, they resorted to the same old deception used by Ba'ath—transforming Nowruz into Mother’s Day! As if they could reduce thousands of years of Kurdish history and national struggle into a superficial symbol suitable for propaganda pages rather than the dignity of peoples.

The difference between Ba'ath and Joulani is not in substance but in disguise: the former practiced tyranny in the name of “Arab Unity,” while the latter does so under the guise of “Islamic Caliphate.” Both reject the other, see the Kurd as an incomplete loyalty project to be dissolved or expelled, and both tried to erase Nowruz.

We face Takfiri groups that have misunderstood Islam not in its Qur'anic essence but in its historical deviations—they made religion a tool of exclusion rather than a message of peace, and politicized authority into a divine power, beyond human responsibility.

Their rejection of Nowruz is not merely symbolic; it is a clear declaration that dialogues with this government have been doomed since the beginning. They started by excluding the Kurdish movement from the first national congress, then ignored it in forming the government, drafted a constitution that never mentioned the Kurds, and now, they are launching an assault on the cultural symbols of the Kurdish people.

 

But the new Syria will not be a Takfiri state, nor will its future be written in Turkish intelligence offices or at the tables of religious merchants who replace military dictatorship with doctrinal guardianship. The nation that has sacrificed its sons—Kurds, Arabs, Syriacs, Assyrians, and others—on the altar of freedom cannot be again led into ideological slavery in the name of “resistance” or “Sharia.”

Free Syria will not be built on denial but on mutual recognition, true citizenship, and a just federation that guarantees each component its rights and dignity. Just as Ba'ath failed to extinguish Nowruz and erase the Kurdish existence, Joulani and all who follow his path will fail too, because peoples who know their own identities cannot be erased. Even if their voices are silenced for a time, their freedom is inevitable and coming no matter what.

Dr. Mahmoud Abbas