Imam Harris Ali in Oklahoma Friday Sermon: The Jews Have Always Been Cowardly, Backstabbing People; They Are Committing a Holocaust - May Allah Give Them What They Deserve
Ali further stated: 'The same thing they claim – 'The Holocaust happened to us' – they are committing upon others. May Allah give them what they deserve.' According to the Norman Transcript, on May 2, 2025, Imam Harris Ali offered a prayer in Arabic during the National Day of Prayer observance at the Cleveland County Courthouse in Norman, Oklahoma.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Memri
15 hours ago
- Memri
Has Legitimizing HTS Opened The Door To Violence Against The Druze?
Just days after U.S. Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack stated that federalism does not work in Syria and emphasized the need for one army, one nation, and one government, armed groups affiliated with the military and security forces under Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) in Damascus launched a brutal attack against the Druze minority in Suwayda, a southern province of Syria. These attacks have been carried out under the direct orders of the transitional president, Ahmad Al-Shara (Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani), and his cabinet ministers, as if they are apparently interpreting Mr. Barrack's statements as a green light to subjugate the remaining components of Syrian society. The bloody attack resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Druze civilians, either through extrajudicial executions or indiscriminate shelling. In addition, there was systematic looting, theft, and burning of property. These acts were accompanied by violations specifically aimed at humiliation and the degradation of human dignity, as well as offenses against the Druze faith, such as forcibly moustache-shaving. This behavior is comparable to the Nazis' treatment of Jews during World War II and recalls the atrocities committed by ISIS against the Kurds in Kobani and Sinjar. Ahmad Al-Sharaa (Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani) The Heroic Resistance Of The Druze Fighters In Suwayda The Druze constitute a unique community, known for its deep-rooted social traditions, a strong emphasis on knowledge, strong attachment to the land, and internal solidarity. Some of their traditions and lifestyle elements – such as growing long moustaches, distinctive dress styles, and a preference for living in mountain regions – bear notable similarities to those of the Yazidi Kurds. Indeed, a Kurdish-Druze dynasty known as the Mandi Dynasty (Mand Prince) ruled the Mount of Kurds region (Çiyayê Kurmênc – Afrin and surrounding areas) in northwestern Syria until the early 17th century, before migrating to Mount Lebanon. Although the Druze speak Arabic, there Druze and Kurds, who are considered among the most ancient peoples of the Middle East, may have a shared origin. The Druze community is spread across Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. Their population in Syria is estimated at around one million, primarily concentrated in Suwayda Governorate and the suburbs of Jaramana and Sahnaya near Damascus. Additionally, there are 18 Druze villages in Idlib, northwest Syria, whose residents were largely forced to flee and have been subjected to violations following Jabhat Al-Nusra's takeover – later known as HTS – a decade ago. The IDF's intervention, at the request of the Druze community in Israel, played a decisive role in preventing a potential ethnic cleansing in the Mount of Druze in Suwayda. The airstrikes carried out by the IDF targeted the militants' supply lines to Suwayda, as well as on the General Command headquarters in Damascus, where the attack on the Druze was being coordinated. These strikes curbed the advance of the attacking groups and sent a firm message to Al-Joulani that he would pay a heavy price unless he halted his militants' offensive on Suwayda and withdrew them. This proves that extremist Islamists respond only to a language of firmness coupled with force, as clearly demonstrated by the recent operations of the IDF and the statement by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. These actions gave a significant moral boost to the heroic resistance of the Druze fighters in Suwayda, who refused to submit to the threats of the HTS authorities and ultimately succeeded in repelling the attacking groups. Nevertheless, threats persist of renewed attacks and repeated violations, as militants mobilize around Suwayda under the name of Bedouin tribal forces. The International community Must Send A Clear Message To Al-Joulani Given the ongoing violations and incitement against various components of the Syrian people including Kurds, Druze, Alawites, Christians, and liberal Sunnis, there is no doubt that Al-Joulani has repeatedly failed to meet the conditions emphasized by Western officials regarding the protection of minorities, the establishment of representative and inclusive governance, and the fight against terrorism. Minorities continue to be subjected to violence, the government operates an Islamist regime of a single hue, marginalizes other communities. Furthermore, extremists and criminals accused of committing war crimes hold high-ranking positions in Al-Joulani's army and security apparatus. The international community, particularly the United States and the European Union, must send a clear and firm message to Al-Joulani that the recent lifting of sanctions and diplomatic engagement with Damascus do not constitute a blank check authorizing him to unleash armed groups to commit violence against Syrians and marginalize key segments of society. The incitement of violence and hatred targeting minorities and other societal components clearly demonstrate that lifting sanctions and channeling funds to the Damascus regime without making them conditional on the fulfillment of its commitments will serve to establish a regime similar to Iran's Wilayat Al-Faqih or Hamas's rule in Gaza, one that thrives on spreading hatred, repressing ethnic and religious minorities, and suppressing freedoms. This poses a serious threat to regional security and stability. Despite the failure of the initial attack, the threat to the Druze in Suwayda continues, with the spiritual leadership of the Druze community declaring it a disaster zone. Voices are now rising among merchants and unions loyal to HTS, demanding a blockade of Suwayda, a ban on the entry of food and fuel, and the obstruction of financial transfers. In response to this siege, which constitutes a crime against humanity, the spiritual leadership of the Druze Community has called for the opening of a border crossing with Jordan, as well as the establishment of a safe corridor linking Suwayda with Rojava. The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria (AANES) has already expressed its willingness to dispatch an urgent humanitarian aid convoy to Suwayda. However, there are concerns that the Damascus authorities may obstruct the convoy's arrival, as they did previously when hindering aid deliveries to the coastal region following the massacres of Alawites in March, which claimed the lives of hundreds of civilians during a wave of sectarian violence carried out by the same groups that attacked Suwayda. A Corridor Could Link Northeastern Syria To The Mount Of Druze Via Al-Tanf Or Palmyra Opening such a corridor between the Kurdish region and Suwayda is practically possible, especially with the potential support of the U.S-led International Coalition. This corridor could link northeastern Syria to the Mount of Druze via Al-Tanf or Palmyra. Such a step would not only break the humanitarian siege imposed on the Druze in Suwayda but also have significant strategic implications. The proposed corridor would enhance the effectiveness of Operation Inherent Resolve by improving coordination and mobility for joint operations targeting ISIS cells in the Syrian Badia. It would also foster a partnership between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Druze factions in Suwayda, aligned with coalition efforts, thereby bolstering the fight against extremism and reinforcing regional security. If the plan succeeds, it could evolve into a trade partnership and a political agreement linking the State of Israel with Rojava, eventually extending to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Such a development would contribute to greater stability, security, and development throughout the region. This vision is consistent with the core principles of the Abraham Accords, which would gain further momentum by the inclusion of the Kurds and Druze. Their participation would represent a united front against the malign ambitions of extremist groups. The emergence of such an alliance would not only reshape geopolitical dynamics but also offer a new model for comprehensive post-conflict cooperation in the Middle East, based on mutual recognition, minority rights, and the rejection of extremism. *Çeleng Omer, a prominent economist from Kurdish-led North and East Syria, is a former resident of Afrin and professor at Afrin University. He was forced to flee the region due to the ongoing Turkish occupation.
Shafaq News
17 hours ago
- Shafaq News
Syria's shadow rulers reshape economy
Shafaq News - Damascus In the weeks after Damascus fell to Syria's rebels, a leading businessman got a late-night call to come see 'the sheikh.' The address was familiar, a building where periodic shakedowns of businessmen like him occurred under Bashar al-Assad's economic empire. But there were new bosses in town. With a long, dark beard and a pistol on his waist, the sheikh gave only a fighter's pseudonym, Abu Mariam. Now the leader of a committee reshaping Syria's economy, he asked questions in courteous Arabic with a slight Australian twang. 'He asked me about my work, how much money we made,' the businessman said. 'I just kept looking at the gun.' A Reuters investigation has found that Syria's new leadership is secretly restructuring an economy broken by corruption and years of sanctions against Assad's government, under the auspices of a group of men whose identities have until now been concealed under pseudonyms. The committee's mission: decipher the legacy of the Assad-era economy, then decide what to restructure and what to retain.
Iraq Business
18 hours ago
- Iraq Business
Judge Zidan statement on Khor Abdullah Dispute: IBN Explainer
By John Lee. The President of Iraq's Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), Dr Faiq Zidan, has issued a statement regarding the legal dispute about the Khor Adbullah waterway, between Iraq and Kuwait. Here are the main points: Background and Legal Framework: The Iraq-Kuwait navigation agreement for Khor Abdullah was signed in 2012 as a technical response to post-1990 invasion issues. Iraq ratified it through Law No. 42 of 2013 using a simple majority vote, and it became internationally binding under the UN framework. Initial Court Decision (2014): The Federal Supreme Court initially upheld the treaty's constitutionality in 2014, distinguishing between laws governing treaty ratification processes (requiring two-thirds majority) and laws ratifying specific treaties (requiring simple majority). This decision achieved res judicata status, providing legal finality and protection from future appeals. Controversial Reversal (2023): In September 2023, the same court reversed its 2014 decision, declaring the ratification law unconstitutional and requiring a two-thirds majority. The court justified this reversal using Article 45 of its internal rules, claiming "constitutional and public interest" grounds. Systemic Legal Consequences: Dr. Zidan argues this reversal creates catastrophic implications: it would retroactively invalidate over 400 international agreements Iraq ratified by simple majority over two decades, potentially dismantling Iraq's entire international treaty framework and creating international liability. Constitutional and Procedural Violations: The statement contends the court exceeded its authority by: Using internal regulations to expand judicial powers beyond statutory law Violating the principle of res judicata by annulling a final judgment Acting without proper constitutional authorization for such reversals Creating legislative vacuum and diplomatic instability Legal Assessment: Dr. Zidan concludes that the 2014 decision was constitutionally sound and internationally compliant, while the 2023 reversal lacked proper legal grounding and generated harmful legal and diplomatic consequences for Iraq. Click here to read the full statement in Arabic. The full text of the statement in English, according to the SJC website, is shown below: The Waves of Khor Abdullah Between Two Contradictory Decisions The agreement regulating navigation in Khor Abdullah, signed on April 29, 2012, between the Republic of Iraq and the State of Kuwait, represents a technical and administrative response to the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and the subsequent border demarcation under UN Security Council Resolution No. 833 of 1993. Article Six of the agreement clearly states that it "does not affect the borders between the two parties in Khor Abdullah as determined by Security Council Resolution No. 833 of 1993." The Iraqi Council of Ministers approved the draft ratification law on November 12, 2012. It was then passed by the Iraqi Parliament by a simple majority under Law No. 42 of 2013 and published in the Iraqi Official Gazette, issue No. 4299, dated November 25, 2013. The ratification documents were deposited with the United Nations, and a copy was sent to the International Maritime Organization. Consequently, the agreement entered into force and became binding under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, a fundamental norm in international law meaning "agreements must be respected." At the same time, ratification procedures were completed in the Kuwaiti National Assembly. When the constitutionality of the ratification law was appealed, the Federal Supreme Court issued Decision No. 21/Federal/2014 on December 18, 2014. It distinguished between the law governing the treaty ratification process - which requires a two-thirds majority per Article 61/Fourth of the Constitution - and the law ratifying a specific treaty, which only requires a simple majority under Article 59/Second. The court rejected the case due to a lack of constitutional or legal basis, affirming the treaty's domestic legitimacy and protecting it from future appeals. The ruling thus acquired the force of res judicata (final judgment) under Article 105 of the Evidence Law, which gives binding force to final rulings so long as the parties, subject matter, and cause remain unchanged. This legal position remained stable until the Federal Supreme Court heard the consolidated cases No. 105 and 194/Federal/2023 on September 4, 2023. The court ruled Law No. 42 of 2013 unconstitutional, reversing its previous decision (No. 21/Federal/2014), on the basis that a two-thirds majority vote is required and citing Article 45 of its internal rules, which permits reversal "whenever constitutional and public interest require." If the two-thirds majority condition adopted in the 2023 decision is applied retroactively, it would automatically invalidate more than 400 international agreements previously ratified by simple majority, rendering all of them void due to failure to meet the new quorum. This would, in effect, dismantle the entire framework of international agreements Iraq has concluded over the past two decades. Furthermore, the decision undermines the legal stability of treaty-based arrangements deposited with the United Nations, potentially triggering international liability for Iraq. In Iraqi legislative practice, judicial annulment is an exceptionally regulated measure. Article 13(First/1) of the Judicial Organization Law limits this power to the General Authority of the Federal Court of Cassation - not to any other court - and imposes strict conditions: the annulment must concern an abstract legal principle, not a final ruling; it must be referred by one of the cassation panels; and it must be justified with an explanatory decision showing urgent need, without affecting legal positions or acquired rights. These restrictions safeguard legal certainty and uphold the principle of finality enshrined in Article 105 of the Evidence Law, preventing any judicial authority from annuling conclusive rulings under the pretext of reform or development. Although neither the Constitution nor the Law of the Federal Supreme Court grants it the power of reversal, the court added Article 45 to its internal regulations, stating that it may annul a previous principle... whenever required by constitutional or public interest." This inclusion goes beyond the procedural nature of internal regulations and violates the principle of legal hierarchy, since internal rules rank below statutory law and cannot expand judicial powers. Even more troubling is that the court, in its September 4, 2023, decision, did not simply reverse a principle, but annulled its own final 2014 ruling regarding the Khor Abdullah agreement - labeling this annulment as a reversal, although Article 45 states overruling pertains to "principles," not "judgments." In doing so, the court violated the principle of res judicata and created a legislative vacuum and diplomatic instability, as the annulled ruling had underpinned a treaty deposited with the United Nations. Accordingly, any so-called " annulment" that does not meet these strict conditions - mainly if it targets a final judgment or is issued by an unauthorized body - constitutes a legal nullity and inflicts direct harm on the rule of law and public trust in the judiciary. From this trajectory, it becomes evident that the 2014 decision aligned with constitutional provisions and international legal norms, achieving legal certainty domestically and internationally. In contrast, the 2023 decision lacked constitutional and legal grounding, and generated significant legal and international repercussions. Faiq Zidan July 23, 2025
