The wolf speaks of sheepfolds: Al-Jolani and Christian minorities under Islamic rule
Syrian Christians fears aren't based on speculation or prejudice, but grounded in both 1,400 years of documented history and very real experiences of their neighbors today
In a recent CNN interview, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the prime candidate to lead Syria in the coming years, presented himself as a voice of moderation, speaking calmly about inclusion and institutional governance.
"No one has the right to erase another group," he asserted, emphasizing that diverse religious communities have coexisted in the region for centuries. His remarks appeared to resonate with the experienced CNN International correspondent, Jomana Karadsheh.
However, al-Jolani's peaceful words today clash sharply with what he said before. Just a few years ago, he clearly stated that "Alawites, Christians, and other minorities have no place in Syria." His group HTS then acted on these words – forcing thousands belonging to religious minorities to flee their homes, destroying churches, and driving Christian communities from their ancestral lands.
Has al-Jolani truly transformed from a hardline leader to a moderate voice promising protection? For Syria's Christians, watching cities fall and celebration videos showing rebels freeing prisoners and taking control, this question carries existential weight.
The present fear
Syria's Christian population, once numbering over 2 million and representing about 10% of the population, has been reduced by an estimated 85% since 2011. Churches have been destroyed, communities displaced, and ancient Christian neighborhoods emptied. The fall of Hama to HTS forces has heightened fears among remaining Christians about their future in a country their ancestors have called home since the time of Christ.
For Syria's Christians, these historical patterns aren't merely academic – they've watched them play out in real-time across their borders. In Iraq, they've witnessed:
The pattern of initial chaos after regime change
Systematic exclusion from neighborhoods and professions
The marking of Christian homes with "ن" by ISIS
False promises of protection that preceded persecution
In Lebanon, they see a different but equally disturbing model:
Decline from Christian majority to approximately 30% today
Gradual political marginalization despite constitutional guarantees
Systematic economic pressure on Christian businesses
Cultural erosion and the pushing of Christian symbols from public spaces
The failure of "power-sharing" arrangements to protect Christian interests.
The current crisis facing Syrian Christians is not occurring in a vacuum – it follows a historical pattern that has played out repeatedly across the Middle East and North Africa since the 7th century. When Islam emerged from Arabia, it brought with it a comprehensive system for managing conquered populations: Sharia law.
The burden of jizya
The "legal framework" al-Jolani may be referring to has existed in Islamic societies for centuries – the Sharia system of dhimmi status for conquered "People of the Book." Under this system, Christians and Jews are granted limited protection in exchange for accepting a position of institutional inferiority and paying the jizya tax. Dhimmis (literally "protected people") face restrictions on worship, dress, property rights, and legal standing. More than just a tax, the jizya represents ritual submission to Islamic authority.
This system has defined Christian life under Islamic rule since the religion's earliest days. As Muslim armies swept across the Middle East in the 7th century, once-thriving Christian communities found themselves increasingly marginalized. While portrayed as "protection," the dhimmi framework created profound vulnerabilities. Christians who converted to Islam and later returned to Christianity faced execution. Those who criticized Islam could be charged with blasphemy. Many Christians were pressured to convert through economic and social coercion.
The jizya tax, mandated by the Quran (9:29), wasn't merely a financial transaction – it was a symbol of submission and subjugation. Christians and Jews were required to pay this tax in person, often accompanied by ritual humiliation. Historical records describe collectors grabbing beards, slapping necks, or making dhimmis wait in long lines under the sun. The amount varied by region and era, but was typically substantial enough to create economic hardship. In some periods, parents unable to pay would be forced to surrender their children to slavery.
Restrictions on church building and repair proved particularly effective at gradually diminishing Christianity. Under the Pact of Umar and subsequent Islamic law, Christians could not build new churches nor repair existing ones without specific permission – which was rarely granted. Over centuries, this led to the physical decay of Christian heritage across the Middle East. In Egypt, churches literally crumbled while congregations watched helplessly. Even today, in countries like Pakistan, getting permission to repair a church can take years of bureaucracy, if approved at all.
Silencing the bells
The prohibition on public displays of faith extended far beyond just visible crosses. Church bells were silenced, processions banned, and even quiet prayer in public could be punished. In medieval Baghdad, Christians were forbidden from displaying crosses on Palm Sunday. In Ottoman territories, churches were often required to be set back from main streets and maintain a low profile. This forced Christianity into an increasingly private, hidden existence – a pattern that continues in many Islamic countries today.
The requirement for distinctive dress served multiple purposes. Known as "ghiyar," these dress codes included specific colors (often yellow for Jews, blue for Christians), special belts called "zunnar" and prohibitions on riding horses or carrying weapons. The rules varied by region and era but shared a common purpose: visible, daily reminders of subordinate status. In some periods, Christians were required to wear heavy iron or wooden crosses, while in others, they were forbidden from wearing clean clothes at religious festivals.
Defenseless by design
The prohibition on bearing arms left Christian communities vulnerable to both official persecution and mob violence. Without means of self-defense, they became dependent on Muslim authorities for protection –protection that could be withdrawn at any time. Restrictions on riding horses compounded this vulnerability (forced to ride donkeys instead, often sideways in some regions), making escape from danger more difficult.
Perhaps most devastating for long-term survival was the prohibition on sharing the Gospel. While Muslims could – and were encouraged to – convert Christians, any attempt by Christians to share their faith with Muslims was punishable by death. Even the mere act of explaining Christian beliefs could be considered proselytizing. This one-way valve ensured that demographic shifts would always favor Islam over time.
The requirement to accept Islamic legal supremacy meant that even internal Christian matters could be overruled by Sharia courts. While Christians were theoretically allowed to handle their own affairs in some areas (marriage, inheritance), in practice, their autonomy was limited. Any dispute involving a Muslim automatically went to Islamic courts, where Christian testimony was often worth half that of a Muslim's – if accepted at all.
Phase three: Active persecution
The third phase usually coincided with Muslims becoming a majority population. This often featured periods of intense persecution, forced conversions, and the destruction of churches. These episodes might be triggered by external threats, internal political instability or religious revival movements.
Regional Case Studies
Egypt: The slow erosion
Once the heartland of Christianity, Egypt's transformation offers perhaps the clearest example of this pattern. The Coptic population declined from nearly 100% in the 7th century to less than 10% today:
7th century: The initial Islamic conquest maintained the Coptic administrative structure.
8th-9th centuries: Implementation of distinctive dress and increasing taxes.
9th-11th centuries: Gradual exclusion from government positions.
14th century: Massive persecution under Mamluks.
Modern era: Continued pressure through bureaucratic discrimination and mob violence.
Turkey: From Christian center to Christian desert
The transformation of Anatolia represents the most complete elimination of Christian populations:
Pre-Islamic period: Heart of Eastern Christianity.
11th-15th centuries: Gradual Turkification and Islamization.
19th century: Christians still 20% of the population.
Early 20th century: Armenian Genocide and Greek population exchange.
Today: Less than 0.2% Christian.
Terrorist? That’s ‘the old al-Jolani!’
Can we believe al-Jolani has changed? The question becomes even more pressing when we consider the thousands of fighters in his HTS forces – veterans of al-Qaeda and ISIS who personally carried out brutal persecution of Christians across Syria and Iraq.
Well, remember the Prophet Jeremiah's words: "Can the Cushite change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good, who are accustomed to doing evil." (Jeremiah 13:23)
Just as Jeremiah spoke of the impossibility of fundamental change in those accustomed to evil, al-Jolani's actions throughout his career show no genuine abandonment of radical jihadi ideology. His path from al-Qaeda to ISIS to HTS has been marked by consistent adherence to strict Islamic fundamentalism, only varying in its public presentation.
Middle East Christians have seen this movie before
The more likely explanation aligns with historical precedent: al-Jolani is following a well-documented pattern of initial stabilization and moderate rhetoric, preparing the ground for later implementation of full-fledged Sharia when the world's attention has shifted elsewhere. This pattern of presenting a moderate face during periods of consolidation before implementing stricter Islamic law has been seen repeatedly.
This pattern of deceptive moderation has played out repeatedly in recent history. In August 2021, as the Taliban swept into Kabul, their spokesmen promised to protect women's rights, respect minorities, and form an inclusive government. Within months, girls were banned from schools, women were confined to their homes, and religious minorities faced systematic persecution. The world watched as moderate promises gave way to strict Sharia enforcement, following a script that seems eerily similar to al-Jolani's current rhetoric.
ISIS demonstrated the same pattern in Mosul in 2014. Their initial messaging emphasized protection for all communities and respect for local customs. Christian residents were initially told they could remain if they paid jizya. Within weeks, churches were being destroyed, Christian homes were marked with the Arabic letter "ن", and the city's two-millennium-old Christian community was given hours to flee, convert, or face execution. The transition from promises of protection to implementation of harsh Sharia law was swift and brutal.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt followed this template during their brief rise to power. Mohammed Morsi and his supporters spoke the language of democracy and inclusion during their campaign and early rule. However, once in power, they quickly moved to implement Islamic law and restrict minority rights, leading to increased attacks on Coptic Christians and their churches. Only military intervention prevented the full implementation of their agenda.
Hamas provides perhaps the most relevant example. For years, they alternated between moderate political rhetoric for international audiences and hardline Islamic governance at home. Their recent actions in Gaza, particularly their treatment of the tiny Christian minority there, reveal the true nature of their ideology despite years of careful messaging about protecting minorities. Christian shops have been destroyed, crosses removed from public view, and the ancient Christian community reduced to a fraction of its former size.
These examples reveal a consistent strategy: present a moderate face while consolidating power, then gradually implement strict Islamic law once control is secure. Each group learned from its predecessors, refining the art of speaking one message to the West while preparing to implement quite another once attention shifts elsewhere.
Understanding al-Jolani's dog whistle
So when al-Jolani speaks of "institutional governance" and protection for minorities, Syria's Christians interpret these promises through their neighbors' lived experiences. His careful reference to sects having "co-existed" for hundreds of years technically acknowledges a shared history – but obscures how this relationship was structured through systematic disadvantage and gradual demographic erosion.
This rhetoric proves particularly effective with Western media, which tends to accept declarations of moderation at face value, lacking the historical and theological context to recognize the underlying patterns.
The fears of Syria's Christians aren't based on speculation or prejudice – they're grounded in both 1,400 years of documented history and the very real experiences of their neighbors today. When al-Jolani speaks of "a legal framework that protects and ensures the rights of all," they hear echoes of the dhimmi system that has, over centuries, led to the systematic diminishment of Christian communities across the Middle East.
Tolik is a Middle East analyst and media professional with extensive experience in covering regional geopolitical developments. His background spans analytical journalism, media production, and strategic communications, having contributed to major Israeli and international television networks and newspapers.
You might also like to read this:
