Obeida Arnaout, the spokesman for the Sunni fundamentalist Levant Liberation Council (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham or HTS) gave an interview on Wednesday with the Lebanese Al-Jadid channel that provoked a firestorm of protest among Syrian women and, well, non-fundamentalists.
He pledged, “There will be no imposition of the hijab on the Christian community or any other group because these matters are not a point of contention, and people are free.” It is not sure what he meant by “any other group.” If he meant “any other non-Sunni minority group,” then mandatory veiling could still be imposed on women of Sunni Muslim heritage.
When the fundamentalist, Salafi HTS was ruling the northern Syria province of Idlib earlier this year before they took over the whole country, it promulgated a law on public behavior that required all girls older than twelve to wear a veil in public, forbade public performance of music, demanded gender segregation, and established a morals police of the sort that used to patrol Saudi Arabia and still does police behavior in Afghanistan. It seems a little unlikely that its leaders have changed their minds about the desirability of any of these measures, though they also are not as strong in big cities like Aleppo and Damascus as they had been in small, rural Idlib.
Asked about whether women would be allowed to continue to serve as judges, as they did in secular, Baathist Syria, he replied that they would be allowed to go to law school, but maybe not to preside over courts: “”Women certainly have the right to learn and receive education in any field of life, whether in teaching, law, judiciary, or others. However, for women to assume judicial authority, this could be a subject for research and study by specialists, and it is too early to discuss this aspect.”
Women were 13 percent of judges in Baathist Syria, and had double that representation in the capital of Damascus.
Women comprised 46 percent of university students in the old regime, though they tended to major in fields such as education and literature and were underrepresented in medicine, economics, and engineering, according to Freedom House.
Arnaut hinted broadly that universities would be gender-segregated under the new government: “Syrian universities already exhibit many positive ways of proceeding, but these need to be reinforced to enhance the educational process and produce better outcomes than before. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen these ways of proceeding in a way that allows male and female students to focus their minds more fully on the educational process.”
Juan Cole, “Obeida Arnaut,” 2024.
Studies have shown that gender segregation in higher education harms women students and faculty. If they have to go to a separate all-women medicine or law school, and there are few women students in those fields, then they will suffer lack of resources. They will also be viewed as second-class citizens by the male portion of the university.
Then came the big issue, of women in politics. The one-party Baathist state was sectarian and dictatorial, not to mention genocidal, and so women’s participation does not tell us much (except that they were tainted by the atrocities committed by the government). But for what it is worth, 11 percent of the members of the phony “parliament” were women, and in recent years 3 of 31 cabinet members were women.
Arnaut was asked about whether women would be able to continue in these roles: “As for women’s representation in ministerial and parliamentary roles, we believe that this matter is premature and should be left to legal and constitutional experts who will work on rethinking the structure of the new Syrian state. Women are an important and honored component, so tasks must align with roles that women can perform. There will be no concerns regarding women’s issues.”
In other words, no, HTS does not envisage women being allowed to serve in parliament or on the cabinet or as prime minister.
That was bad enough. He went on to make a fool of himself by saying women are biologically unsuited to leadership roles: “There is no doubt that women have their biological and psychological nature, as well as their specific characteristics and composition, which must align with particular tasks. For example, it is not appropriate to suggest that women use weapons or be placed in roles that do not suit their abilities, composition, or nature.”
I read that the anchor interviewing him pointed out that hundreds of thousands of Syrians fled the Old Regime to safety in Germany, and that the leader who allowed them into the country and gave them safety was Angela Merkel, a female chancellor.
Al-Quds al-`Arabi quoted a reaction from Professor Milena Zain Al-Din from Damascus University: “We, the young women and women of Syria, are activists, politicians, human rights advocates, journalists, economists, academics, workers, and homemakers. We are revolutionaries, detainees, and fighters, and above all, we are Syrian citizens. Obeida Arnaout’s rhetoric is unacceptable. The Syrian woman, who has struggled and endured alongside millions of Syrian women, is not waiting for you to choose a place or role for her that aligns with your mindset for building our nation.”
The paper also quoted women who pointed to the countless modern Syrian women who have fulfilled roles as “politicians, judges, fighters, doctors, activists, and working mothers,” advising Arnaout to catch up on his reading about them.
Some women on social media demanded that Arnaout retract his remarks and resign.
To support Syrian women, visit Women for Women International.
COMMENTS