• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Lebanon - A New Pact?

O Brother

O Brother

Legendary Member
yes exactly the UN is the reason the islamic civilization is a complete and utter mess 😂😂😂😂

next step for you: the earth is flat! OH WAI..
No, what I said that so called third world countries are being screwed today by the same countries headed by USA who were behind the creation of so called united nations!

Third world countries includes many non Muslim majority countries as well... just so you know :)

And did I say something which is untrue or did I say something you disagree with?
 
  • Advertisement
  • NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    You know what was truly illegal @Rafidi

    Joining the so called UN!
    It was never our choice let it be as people or as state!

    If you look at history it was a complete Western European colonial decision that they took themselves across many of their colonial states all over the world.. Lebanon, Syria etc. for example joined the UN under the french occupation or what they like to call french mandate.

    Just look at the early official posters of so called UN and tell me where do we fit in within all this?

    The world of the Allies vs the Axis was not our world but theirs!

    Our miseries as so called 3rd world countries is rooted here..
    Balderdash. The reason Muslim societies have been in decline for a long time now is because Muslims have so far failed to update Islam and make sense of the religion in a post-Industrial revolution world.

    They’ve become too insecure, too boring, and all too meek. In case you haven’t noticed, you can’t get the world’s attention and make meaningful change with that approach. Telling people how great Allah is is not going to change their minds. You need to show them the light!

    You have to captivate and enthrall your audience, the way Mr. Trump does. So far, the Muslim world has only been producing the typical Ahmad; who gets married at an early age, prays all his prayers, and makes sure he pays his bills on time. Boresville.
     
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    Balderdash. The reason Muslim societies have been in decline for a long time now is because Muslims have so far failed to update Islam and make sense of the religion in a post-Industrial revolution world.

    They’ve become too insecure, too boring, and all too meek. In case you haven’t noticed, you can’t get the world’s attention and make meaningful change with that approach. Telling people how great Allah is is not going to change their minds. You need to show them the light!

    You have to captivate and enthrall your audience, the way Mr. Trump does. So far, the Muslim world has only been producing the typical Ahmad; who gets married at an early age, prays all his prayers, and makes sure he pays his bills on time. Boresville.

    I wasn't talking about the reasons.. but ya sure there are many different internal aspects of our decline in power obviously!
    And it is certainly not Islam that needs update but people needs to free themselves from their captivity of relying on their enemies and somehow expect to move forward by relying on them!

    What we need as people.. who are considered from 3rd world countries is to realize and acknowledge what and who is the enemy!
    And in today's world it is not as easy task as we might think it might be!

    Just watch now what is happening.. France once again making itself like a saviour coming to the rescue while in truth they are the ones who shaped these failed and fragile states across many continents!
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    When Lebanese marry abroad, do they register in religious courts according to their mazhab? You register in a civil or secular court and then to suit your beliefs, you hold a private religious ceremony at home or at the place of worship. What's wrong with that?

    When it comes to inheritance, it is what you write as your will that would be executed. If you like give your male children whatever percentage and your female children whatever percentage. I dont see a problem in all of these issues.
    Where I live, both civil and religious marriages are recognized.

    Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    I wasn't talking about the reasons.. but ya sure there are many different internal aspects of our decline in power obviously!
    And it is certainly not Islam that needs update but people needs to free themselves from their captivity of relying on their enemies and somehow expect to move forward by relying on them!
    Not Islam itself, but Muslim’s general perception of Islamic principles and Quranic verses need to be updated, in order for the religion to fit a 21st century narrative, especially considering modern physics. You have too many Muslims who think that they have to act like it’s the year 1400 to bring back Islam to its former glory. They walk around with cheap sandals and long beards, and always look miserable and sexually frustrated. This can lead to violent projections, hence Sunni terrorism.

    As for the Shiites, the bozo Mullahs in Iran think that as long they give America the finger, regardless of how impoverished and wretched they become,
    God is apparently going to come down from heaven to their aid. They want to “save Palestine” and defeat the evil West, but only so they can prove something about their own tradition and sect. Purely worldly reasons.

    And how about that idiot Erdogan? The guy thinks that transforming a stupid building into a mosque does something for Islam. What a joke. These losers care more about advancing the ideology of their stupid sect than advancing the Light of Allah. Since the early Muslims existed in a universe where there were no sects or traditions that defined their overarching character, they were able to achieve great things.

    What we need as people.. who are considered from 3rd world countries is to realize and acknowledge what and who is the enemy!
    And in today's world it is not as easy task as we might think it might be!
    You need to realize that the only enemy is within you. Islam is supposed to free oneself from the ego, which explains its former worldly successes. But too many Muslims today act and operate on their individual sects and traditions, and perceive that alone as the absolute Truth. It limits their capabilities and human evolution!

    That’s why Sunnis will never get it because they will always be limited by their Sunnism. And Shiites will never get it because their “Shiite ego” will likewise disallow it. That’s why you have morons like Hezbollah’s Hassan Raad running away from a table with whiskey on it like a little baby! 👶

    Just watch now what is happening.. France once again making itself like a saviour coming to the rescue while in truth they are the ones who shaped these failed and fragile states across many continents!
    I’m not concerned with the West. Those cross-worshippers have no clue what’s going on, and it’s only a matter of time before they become totally irrelevant while they wildly praise Jeebus. But you can bet that I’d rather have a Christian like Trump running the show, than another 3rd world brown Muslim who’s so insecure and uncomfortable with himself that you can smell it a mile away...
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    From the very beginning of what is called Lebanon the people had or have no say. Nothing new. Were people asked if they wanted to be part of Lebanon or Syria or to remain a part of France? The first mistake. We need to revisit this over again. Should we be independent, part of Syria or join France?

    Then there was the one and only census in 1932. After supposedly over 5 centuries of "Ottoman Muslim oppression, domination, marginalization and victimization", our Christian brothers claimed they were a majority and used that as the basis for sectatian domination, ceding the presidency with full executive powers to only one Christian sect!

    There was a so called national pact, that was neither national nor a pact, imposed on the people. Did they consult with the people? Not at all. It didn't matter. The people never matter in Lebanon. It is always the rule of the brutes.

    Of course, there was a constitution that everyone is still singing about. They keep talking about respecting the constitution. Did they put the constitution to a referendum vote before it was adopted? As a Lebanese, did I or my grandfather or father accept that constitution to be the official document to govern our country? Not at all. Did the people of Lebanon approve that constitution? Not at all. But we must respect the constitution anyways.

    Then the warlords fought themselves and destroyed the countries for 15 years. They ended up agreeing on the Taef accord. Again, the Lebanese people were absent. They fought among themselves and agreed to share the loot and impose an accord on the country. Did these corrupt warlords resort to the people, in whose name they supposedly spoke, to seek their opinion? Of course not. Another accord imposed.

    Now we are attempting to have a new, modern and progressive regime, will they resort to the people to decide what form of regime they want and what new constitution they would approve of? Of course, the warlords, corrupt clerics and spiritual heads - who are more materialistic than paper money itself, and some confused politicians think they should decide one more time for the people who are disregarded and absent in deciding what country they want for themselves and their children.

    Dont Lebanon have a people? Why should the people not have a say in/on everything?

    Until the people regain their power and sovereignty and be the ones to determine or decide on every small and big issue, Lebanon would continue to be a playing field for the corrupt, the ruthless and the brutal and ungodly, both internal and foreign players . The people must vote for MPs, whose job should be strictly legislative and to watch over the govt performance. The people should vote for their leaders, whether the president or PM. The people should decide on all and both small and big issues through referendums.

    Lebanon's problems are too easy to solve. But Lebanese are too stubborn, corrupt, hateful and wicked to themselves. You read that right. Read it again and let it sink in. Our solution is to go back to the people collectively. And whatever most of the people decide should be respected by all. Quite simple, yet very difficult to achieve or accept by the complex Lebanese psyche.
    You complain that no one took your opinion into consideration on the way Lebanon was set up, but you want to create a new set-up without taking into consideration what the Christians want (by using demographics to push a referendum's result to your advantage).

    For the record, most countries and their constitutions were not created through referendums. They were created the way Lebanon was created: by people who had power at the time. Most states in the region ended up being ruled by Muslims. Only a single tiny state ended up being ruled by Christians; but, even in that one state, Muslims were given some representation, unlike the Christians and minorities in the Muslim ruled states who were given none. Had the Christians been like their Muslim counterparts, the only choice you would have had would have been to live like a dhimmi or to emigrate.

    Instead, you were given a 50/50 power sharing agreement. That too is not enough for you, so you are being given another option: take your half of the country, make a new country out of it, and do with it as you wish. But, no! That's not enough either. All of it must be yours or you won't be satisfied.

    Whether through fake secularism, bogus referendums, or the threat of violence, you will stop at nothing in that pursuit. And then you wonder why you're not trusted and why no one wants to live with you.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    You complain that no one took your opinion into consideration on the way Lebanon was set up, but you want to create a new set-up without taking into consideration what the Christians want (by using demographics to push a referendum's result to your advantage).

    For the record, most countries and their constitutions were not created through referendums. They were created the way Lebanon was created: by people who had power at the time. Most states in the region ended up being ruled by Muslims. Only a single tiny state ended up being ruled by Christians; but, even in that one state, Muslims were given some representation, unlike the Christians and minorities in the Muslim ruled states who were given none. Had the Christians been like their Muslim counterparts, the only choice you would have had would have been to live like a dhimmi or to emigrate.

    Instead, you were given a 50/50 power sharing agreement. Even that is not enough for you, so you are being given another option: take your half of the country, make a new country out of it, and do with it as you wish. But, no! That's not enough either. All of it must be yours or you won't be satisfied.

    Whether through fake secularism, bogus referendums, or the threat of violence, you will stop at nothing in that pursuit. And then you wonder why you're not trusted and why no one wants to live with you.
    So apparently your problem is compounded distrust and sectarianism.

    I am not obliged to live in a sectarian jungle because of "what the Christians want" or "what the Muslims want". This goes to show we aren't yet a country and the people do not matter therefore. We are a collection of competing tribal forces trying to outdo one another and some people do not want change. They dwell in the past. It is apparent that your type are the reason why Lebanon is not democratic. Do not complain of its flaws therefore. You have the option of giving birth to tens of children. The Muslims arent in control of your private organs after all. And at a point, through a sham one and only census in 1932, you claimed to be the majority. That referendum was shambolic because it was apparently fake and aimed at elevating one sect among Christians or its elites into the position of absolute power at the expense of all else. And apparently, you see nothing wrong having or imposing undue advantage over the rest of the country because it feels good to be in bed with the colonial master back then. And you feel that is alright. There are Christians in Jordan, and Syria. Your problem only starts when foreign powers interfere or intervene militarily and you take their sides. And this is the same for others as well.

    So, finally we are reaching a clearer picture. Lebanon is a sectarian jungle because Christians want it that way or that Christians do not want a democratic Lebanon, based on your post. Own up to taking responsibility for the state of Lebanon.

    I dont think if there are good Muslims or good Christians in charge, anyone is going to oppress anyone. My call for secularism doesnt mind having a government of 24 out of 24 good Druze or good Christian or good Sunni ministers, if they're competent. But you cant withstand that. After all, the most secular of parties in Lebanon were founded by Christians. But a sectarianist your type, pretending to be speaking on behalf of all Christians, has the racist gene that drives your outlook on every issue.

    For the fact that you concede that Lebanon, its constitution and it's so called National Pact and its Taef Accord were all created, and imposed by the so called powerful, without recourse to the people shows that the present state of Lebanon is an illegitimate entity that never consulted with it's own people. The people of Lebanon have had no say in choosing any of those right from the start and to this day. The reason we must pledge our destiny in the hands of 128 tribal lords who decide everything on our behalf and we have no power against them or to change them or to hold them accountable, even when they loot us or mistreat us. Your illegitimate entity therefore facilitates sectarian apartheid and corruption, as a byproduct. Without recourse to the people, Lebanon will continue to be an illegitimate colonial project in its foundations and we will continue to live in a sectarian jungle of wicked sectarian creatures and beasts trying to outdo one another in this apartheid kingdom. Am I proud being a Lebanese? No, I am not. A mistake my ancestors committed which I cannot change.
     
    SAVO

    SAVO

    Member
    christian values and islam ones are not compatible...
    muslims need to fight the corruption inside their community before any BS talk about secularism and abolishing sectarianism.
    what happened yesterday with wazni is not very encouraging ..
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    So apparently your problem is compounded distrust and sectarianism.

    I am not obliged to live in a sectarian jungle because of "what the Christians want" or "what the Muslims want". This goes to show we aren't yet a country and the people do not matter therefore. We are a collection of competing tribal forces trying to outdo one another and some people do not want change. They dwell in the past. It is apparent that your type are the reason why Lebanon is not democratic. Do not complain of its flaws therefore. You have the option of giving birth to tens of children. The Muslims arent in control of your private organs after all. And at a point, through a sham one and only census in 1932, you claimed to be the majority. That referendum was shambolic because it was apparently fake and aimed at elevating one sect among Christians or its elites into the position of absolute power at the expense of all else. And apparently, you see nothing wrong having or imposing undue advantage over the rest of the country because it feels good to be in bed with the colonial master back then. And you feel that is alright. There are Christians in Jordan, and Syria. Your problem only starts when foreign powers interfere or intervene militarily and you take their sides. And this is the same for others as well.

    So, finally we are reaching a clearer picture. Lebanon is a sectarian jungle because Christians want it that way or that Christians do not want a democratic Lebanon, based on your post. Own up to taking responsibility for the state of Lebanon.

    I dont think if there are good Muslims or good Christians in charge, anyone is going to oppress anyone. My call for secularism doesnt mind having a government of 24 out of 24 good Druze or good Christian or good Sunni ministers, if they're competent. But you cant withstand that. After all, the most secular of parties in Lebanon were founded by Christians. But a sectarianist your type, pretending to be speaking on behalf of all Christians, has the racist gene that drives your outlook on every issue.

    For the fact that you concede that Lebanon, its constitution and it's so called National Pact and its Taef Accord were all created, and imposed by the so called powerful, without recourse to the people shows that the present state of Lebanon is an illegitimate entity that never consulted with it's own people. The people of Lebanon have had no say in choosing any of those right from the start and to this day. The reason we must pledge our destiny in the hands of 128 tribal lords who decide everything on our behalf and we have no power against them or to change them or to hold them accountable, even when they loot us or mistreat us. Your illegitimate entity therefore facilitates sectarian apartheid and corruption, as a byproduct. Without recourse to the people, Lebanon will continue to be an illegitimate colonial project in its foundations and we will continue to live in a sectarian jungle of wicked sectarian creatures and beasts trying to outdo one another in this apartheid kingdom. Am I proud being a Lebanese? No, I am not. A mistake my ancestors committed which I cannot change.
    Copy / paste my previous post here.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    christian values and islam ones are not compatible...
    muslims need to fight the corruption inside their community before any BS talk about secularism and abolishing sectarianism.
    what happened yesterday with wazni is not very encouraging ..
    I dont know if you are naturally stupid or just a born troll. How are Wazni, corruption and changing the system relate or connect in this thread? This isnt the thread to discuss Wazni or whatever he did or did not do yesterday. Our sectarian jungle was probably in place before Wazni was born and it is what empowers the likes of Wazni and every corrupt politician to act with impunity. Every tribal lord in parliament has sectarian immunity, coated as parliamentary immunity.

    When our central bank governor was being asked to resign or was to be sacked, it was the Maronite partriarch who came out to defend him. To paint corruption as one sided or community related or based, is mischief. You are either mischievous or corrupt yourself.
     
    Achilles

    Achilles

    Active Member
    So apparently your problem is compounded distrust and sectarianism.

    I am not obliged to live in a sectarian jungle because of "what the Christians want" or "what the Muslims want". This goes to show we aren't yet a country and the people do not matter therefore. We are a collection of competing tribal forces trying to outdo one another and some people do not want change. They dwell in the past. It is apparent that your type are the reason why Lebanon is not democratic.
    Yes you are right on this. Lebanon is far from being a country, and Lebanon is not a democracy. It is a democracy when compared to other Arab countries, especially countries before the 2000 era, but Lebanon is not a democracy if compared to western standards.

    And you are right about the sectarian jungle, it’s a system that showed it’s failure. It’s the cause of most of Lebanon’s problem Since its independence in November 1943.

    But Lebanon when created was never meant to be a democracy first. Democracy came second. First, Lebanon is a kind of agreement between Muslims and Christians to share power in this country. Lebanon was built on this principle of power sharing between Muslims and Christians, And this Since 1920. The 1943 pact enforced it, and then came the Taef agreement enforcing this idea again.

    This is why you canot change, by running a referendum, the way the founding fathers Of Lebanon (to use a US expression) envisioned the country.

    Muslims being a majority now, they will easily win any referundum, which means the 1943 pact could be changed (if we go by a referendum) by the will of Muslims alone, even if Christians are against. And this is far from the spirit of those who founded Lebanon, which is based on Christian/Muslim partnership and share of power.

    Therefore if you wanna change the constitution, then you need the aproval of the sects, not the people as a whole. You want a referundum? Then you need a minimum of two referendums, one within the Muslim community and one within the Christian community, and both referendums should come back positive over any regime change.

    BTW, the USA are a little bit like that. The USA was created as a union of 13 States rather than people. This is why the president is elected by an electoral college rather than directly by the people. The electoral college reflects the will of each state of the union, And not directly the will of the people. This is why Bush and Trump were elected President while losing the popular vote. They won cuz they won more States than their rival, rather than gathering more votes from the people. This system was made to keep the spirit of a union of States and forbid a State with a big population like California to influence or shift the balance over what smaller states might have decided.

    Lebanon is similar. It was founded as a federation of sects. 18 sects within two groups: The Christians and the Muslims. And each of those two groups must agree over any change to the 1943 formula.

    Today you have two realistic way to change the 1943 formula. Either through a secular state or a federal state.

    - A secular State unless being really secular is a trap for minorities. If we just remove the Current sectarian laws, the only thing that will change is that Lebanon will be ruled by Muslims with a small christian participation. So for a true secular state to work it should be a full and total Secular state, with zero place for religion outside the church, the mosque and home. No Muslim clerics being on the state‘s payroll like it is now. No religious marriage. No religious personal status law. No polygamy. No religious signs whatever it is in schools or public institutions. No political parties built on religious agenda Etc. No religious Courts anymore.

    - Second option is a federal system. A federal system is not a sectarian system. It’s not South Africa apartheid. It’s a way to live in the same country while admitting that big cultural differences and way of life exists between Muslims and Christians.

    Rejecting a full secular system and rejecting federalism, means staying with the 1943 system forever.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Yes you are right on this. Lebanon is far from being a country, and Lebanon is not a democracy. It is a democracy when compared to other Arab countries, especially countries before the 2000 era, but Lebanon is not a democracy if compared to western standards.

    And you are right about the sectarian jungle, it’s a system that showed it’s failure. It’s the cause of most of Lebanon’s problem Since its independence in November 1943.

    But Lebanon when created was never meant to be a democracy first. Democracy came second. First, Lebanon is a kind of agreement between Muslims and Christians to share power in this country. Lebanon was built on this principle of power sharing between Muslims and Christians, And this Since 1920. The 1943 pact enforced it, and then came the Taef agreement enforcing this idea again.

    This is why you canot change, by running a referendum, the way the founding fathers Of Lebanon (to use a US expression) envisioned the country.

    Muslims being a majority now, they will easily win any referundum, which means the 1943 pact could be changed (if we go by a referendum) by the will of Muslims alone, even if Christians are against. And this is far from the spirit of those who founded Lebanon, which is based on Christian/Muslim partnership and share of power.

    Therefore if you wanna change the constitution, then you need the aproval of the sects, not the people as a whole. You want a referundum? Then you need a minimum of two referendums, one within the Muslim community and one within the Christian community, and both referendums should come back positive over any regime change.

    BTW, the USA are a little bit like that. The USA was created as a union of 13 States rather than people. This is why the president is elected by an electoral college rather than directly by the people. The electoral college reflects the will of each state of the union, And not directly the will of the people. This is why Bush and Trump were elected President while losing the popular vote. They won cuz they won more States than their rival, rather than gathering more votes from the people. This system was made to keep the spirit of a union of States and forbid a State with a big population like California to influence or shift the balance over what smaller states might have decided.

    Lebanon is similar. It was founded as a federation of sects. 18 sects within two groups: The Christians and the Muslims. And each of those two groups must agree over any change to the 1943 formula.

    Today you have two realistic way to change the 1943 formula. Either through a secular state or a federal state.

    - A secular State unless being really secular is a trap for minorities. If we just remove the Current sectarian laws, the only thing that will change is that Lebanon will be ruled by Muslims with a small christian participation. So for a true secular state to work it should be a full and total Secular state, with zero place for religion outside the church, the mosque and home. No Muslim clerics being on the state‘s payroll like it is now. No religious marriage. No religious personal status law. No polygamy. No religious signs whatever it is in schools or public institutions. No political parties built on religious agenda Etc. No religious Courts anymore.

    - Second option is a federal system. A federal system is not a sectarian system. It’s not South Africa apartheid. It’s a way to live in the same country while admitting that big cultural differences and way of life exists between Muslims and Christians.

    Rejecting a full secular system and rejecting federalism, means staying with the 1943 system forever.
    You have accurately painted the reality. In my view, this reality, which came to be since 1943 or maybe even before, is illegitimate in itself because it was never endorsed by the people, either as a whole or in parts. Whoever thought of this plan and imposed it was not taking into consideration that people live on this land. The framework gives sectarian elites, acting in the name of their respective sects to have the absolute power to decide on everything, irrespective of inter sectarian opposition or opposition within sects themselves. This is the very reason why our corrupt sectarian overlords today are united among themselves to loot and suck our blood, while they use sectarianism to divide the people and incite divisions. The sectarian system allows the elites to divide the national treasury and enrich themselves at the expense of their own peoples. They basically decide everything on our behalf because we have been divided into sects.

    Even if we are to take the reality, which lacks absolute legitimacy, that Lebanon is a confederation of sects, the sects themselves, as people were never consulted. If it would take conducting sectarian referendums within the major sects to undo or abolish this apartheid system we have in place, then we should. And thereafter let everyone bear the burden and responsibility of their respective decisions.
     
    Last edited:
    Apostate

    Apostate

    Your will, my hands.
    Orange Room Supporter
    First of all, to have a new pact - you have to get the agreement of all the communities signing in to this pact... it is not a referendum where the majority impose their point of view over others. The literal meaning of "3aqod ijtime3e" indicates the agreement of all parties involved.

    Moreover, moving towards a secular state does not happen overnight... you cannot just abolish secterian representation and claim we're now living in a secular state lol. You have to remove secterianism from the "Noufous" before the "Nousous", and take baby steps in abolishing secterianism in laws and representations. Therefore, those yalle 3am yetsharda2o w ynaghmo 3a mawwel l dawle l madaniyye and/or 3elmeniyye, let them start by legalizing the civil marriage and introducing a civil personal status law as a start.

    In a secular state you have to completely isolate the effect of religion from the political life, ya3ne no religious parties in politics, no religious courts... no takaleef shar3iyye... no ideological and religious indoctrination in schools (whether private or public schools) and all curriculums taught in school should be approved by the state (Yes I'm eyeing those brainwashing institutions, disguised as schools, that some religious parties have).
    In a secular state, you have to have a state to begin with... a good start would be abolishing all the militias maybe? :)

    Ya3ne mnel ekher, those who suddenly want a secular state while they're secterian to the bones... mesh 3layna... ksouroulna 3ayna and prove us wrong and take those steps and we'll meet you half way.
     
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    Not Islam itself, but Muslim’s general perception of Islamic principles and Quranic verses need to be updated, in order for the religion to fit a 21st century narrative, especially considering modern physics. You have too many Muslims who think that they have to act like it’s the year 1400 to bring back Islam to its former glory. They walk around with cheap sandals and long beards, and always look miserable and sexually frustrated. This can lead to violent projections, hence Sunni terrorism.

    As for the Shiites, the bozo Mullahs in Iran think that as long they give America the finger, regardless of how impoverished and wretched they become,
    God is apparently going to come down from heaven to their aid. They want to “save Palestine” and defeat the evil West, but only so they can prove something about their own tradition and sect. Purely worldly reasons.

    And how about that idiot Erdogan? The guy thinks that transforming a stupid building into a mosque does something for Islam. What a joke. These losers care more about advancing the ideology of their stupid sect than advancing the Light of Allah. Since the early Muslims existed in a universe where there were no sects or traditions that defined their overarching character, they were able to achieve great things.



    You need to realize that the only enemy is within you. Islam is supposed to free oneself from the ego, which explains its former worldly successes. But too many Muslims today act and operate on their individual sects and traditions, and perceive that alone as the absolute Truth. It limits their capabilities and human evolution!

    That’s why Sunnis will never get it because they will always be limited by their Sunnism. And Shiites will never get it because their “Shiite ego” will likewise disallow it. That’s why you have morons like Hezbollah’s Hassan Raad running away from a table with whiskey on it like a little baby! 👶



    I’m not concerned with the West. Those cross-worshippers have no clue what’s going on, and it’s only a matter of time before they become totally irrelevant while they wildly praise Jeebus. But you can bet that I’d rather have a Christian like Trump running the show, than another 3rd world brown Muslim who’s so insecure and uncomfortable with himself that you can smell it a mile away...

    Sectarian Muslims have for sure big issues and these issues have developed into some strong cultural sectarian belonging and identity!
    But on the other hand specially in the West, Muslims are more and more identifying themselves as just Muslims!
    Now obviously for the sectarian who are usually mostly affiliated to the physical customs of the sect rather than the beliefs or the spirituality of our deen, usually these type of people are not satisfied with someone just being from the Muslimin!

    This is at least my experience with some Salafi and Shiite.

    Anyway you are talking about the spiritual aspects of it all but that doesn't make the worldly matters any less important, we must always deal with the worldly matters but with keeping the balance between the two, something many Muslims are lacking today!

    As for your last comment I'm not sure what's so Christian about Trump, the man is clearly just another one of those who uses religion to get some supports but he himself is not in truth a Christian at least he is not a practicing one nor a devoted one! He is just another dirty politician!

    As for Hassan Raad, there isn't a problem with not wanting to be on a table were alcohol is being served actually that's a good thing but I wish he would have felt the same way about the party he represents protecting tyrants who are killing children and women!
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Sectarian Muslims have for sure big issues and these issues have developed into some strong cultural sectarian belonging and identity!
    But on the other hand specially in the West, Muslims are more and more identifying themselves as just Muslims!
    Now obviously for the sectarian who are usually mostly affiliated to the physical customs of the sect rather than the beliefs or the spirituality of our deen, usually these type of people are not satisfied with someone just being from the Muslimin!

    This is at least my experience with some Salafi and Shiite.

    Anyway you are talking about the spiritual aspects of it all but that doesn't make the worldly matters any less important, we must always deal with the worldly matters but with keeping the balance between the two, something many Muslims are lacking today!

    As for your last comment I'm not sure what's so Christian about Trump, the man is clearly just another one of those who uses religion to get some supports but he himself is not in truth a Christian at least he is not a practicing one nor a devoted one! He is just another dirty politician!

    As for Hassan Raad, there isn't a problem with not wanting to be on a table were alcohol is being served actually that's a good thing but I wish he would have felt the same way about the party he represents protecting tyrants who are killing children and women!
    His name is Mohammad Raad. Not Hassan Raad.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    First of all, to have a new pact - you have to get the agreement of all the communities signing in to this pact... it is not a referendum where the majority impose their point of view over others. The literal meaning of "3aqod ijtime3e" indicates the agreement of all parties involved.

    Moreover, moving towards a secular state does not happen overnight... you cannot just abolish secterian representation and claim we're now living in a secular state lol. You have to remove secterianism from the "Noufous" before the "Nousous", and take baby steps in abolishing secterianism in laws and representations. Therefore, those yalle 3am yetsharda2o w ynaghmo 3a mawwel l dawle l madaniyye and/or 3elmeniyye, let them start by legalizing the civil marriage and introducing a civil personal status law as a start.

    In a secular state you have to completely isolate the effect of religion from the political life, ya3ne no religious parties in politics, no religious courts... no takaleef shar3iyye... no ideological and religious indoctrination in schools (whether private or public schools) and all curriculums taught in school should be approved by the state (Yes I'm eyeing those brainwashing institutions, disguised as schools, that some religious parties have).
    In a secular state, you have to have a state to begin with... a good start would be abolishing all the militias maybe? :)

    Ya3ne mnel ekher, those who suddenly want a secular state while they're secterian to the bones... mesh 3layna... ksouroulna 3ayna and prove us wrong and take those steps and we'll meet you half way.
    Going by what you have stated, let us then agree that we cant move into a civil state without sectarianism and we cannot establish secularism or a secular system.

    That still does not excuse the fact and reality that our currency system is defective, stagnant and has many flaws, which make governing effectively almost impossible.

    So let us say within sectarian parameters and to please and take along all the stakeholders or recognized sects and communities, there is actually need to restructure, or to expand or to develop the current system. How do we go about that?

    In my view, the people, whether as one group or as a nation, or whether on the other hand as sects need to be in the driver's seat. The Taef Accoed doesnt completely rule our sectarian rules in developing the system. Even though the president could be elected directly with one or two vice presidents. And the parliament wont have sectarian quotas, there would be a sectarian Senate. The presidency in my view, as well as the PM and speaker and senate president positions should be rotated. The people should directly vote for the president with two vice presidents. The president should have power to appoint and sack the PM. The 2/3 of parliament and the 2/3 of senate should have powers to sack the president and thereby call for new elections, both legislative and presidential. It would ensure the people are the decision makers and they renew the system. And importantly, law makers and every state position must have tenure limitations. MPs for instance should serve more than 3 tenures or 12 years.

    So basically, our sectarian system needs development, expansion or restricting, even if we do not abolish the system or establishment a secular regime.
     
    Apostate

    Apostate

    Your will, my hands.
    Orange Room Supporter
    Going by what you have stated, let us then agree that we cant move into a civil state without sectarianism and we cannot establish secularism or a secular system.

    That still does not excuse the fact and reality that our currency system is defective, stagnant and has many flaws, which make governing effectively almost impossible.

    So let us say within sectarian parameters and to please and take along all the stakeholders or recognized sects and communities, there is actually need to restructure, or to expand or to develop the current system. How do we go about that?

    In my view, the people, whether as one group or as a nation, or whether on the other hand as sects need to be in the driver's seat. The Taef Accoed doesnt completely rule our sectarian rules in developing the system. Even though the president could be elected directly with one or two vice presidents. And the parliament wont have sectarian quotas, there would be a sectarian Senate. The presidency in my view, as well as the PM and speaker and senate president positions should be rotated. The people should directly vote for the president with two vice presidents. The president should have power to appoint and sack the PM. The 2/3 of parliament and the 2/3 of senate should have powers to sack the president and thereby call for new elections, both legislative and presidential. It would ensure the people are the decision makers and they renew the system. And importantly, law makers and every state position must have tenure limitations. MPs for instance should serve more than 3 tenures or 12 years.

    So basically, our sectarian system needs development, expansion or restricting, even if we do not abolish the system or establishment a secular regime.
    In other words, you didn't want a secular state to begin with :lol: ... you just wanted to remove the secterian shares in the parliament for secterian reasons right? What exactly in my post you don't agree with? or that isn't expected to have in a secular state? what made u realize that "we cannot establish secularism or a secular system." as per your words? because I have a feeling that those would be the same reasons why we don't want your view of a civil/secular state, and that is why we don't want Lebanon as 1 electoral district.

    Regarding the remaining of your post, I do agree on alot of stuff... specially that no matter if we're moving towards a real secular state or not, the current system is paralyzed and can't work anymore and something gotta change, even if within the boundaries of "secterian" jungle we live in.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    In other words, you didn't want a secular state to begin with :lol: ... you just wanted to remove the secterian shares in the parliament for secterian reasons right? What exactly in my post you don't agree with? or that isn't expected to have in a secular state? what made u realize that "we cannot establish secularism or a secular system." as per your words? because I have a feeling that those would be the same reasons why we don't want your view of a civil/secular state, and that is why we don't want Lebanon as 1 electoral district.

    Regarding the remaining of your post, I do agree on alot of stuff... specially that no matter if we're moving towards a real secular state or not, the current system is paralyzed and can't work anymore and something gotta change, even if within the boundaries of "secterian" jungle we live in.
    I didnt read further. I stopped at the first sentence. If you want us to discuss responsibly, do not judge my intentions. That is one nasty trait we do have as a people. And we should grow up and overcome it.
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    Sectarian Muslims have for sure big issues and these issues have developed into some strong cultural sectarian belonging and identity!
    But on the other hand specially in the West, Muslims are more and more identifying themselves as just Muslims!
    Now obviously for the sectarian who are usually mostly affiliated to the physical customs of the sect rather than the beliefs or the spirituality of our deen, usually these type of people are not satisfied with someone just being from the Muslimin.

    This is at least my experience with some Salafi and Shiite

    Anyway you are talking about the spiritual aspects of it all but that doesn't make the worldly matters any less important, we must always deal with the worldly matters but with keeping the balance between the two, something many Muslims are lacking today!
    Of course not, but as the Prophet said, “If you run to Allah, the world will run after you.” Ergo, given that Muslims today have been lacking in terms of worldly power and abundance (for a good number of centuries), there clearly is a disconnect here. Again, there is too much ego in the Muslim community, and that can’t be solved by “focusing on our enemies.” This is a spiritual endeavor that must take place from within, and it will thus reflect on the physical realm!

    For example, it makes no sense that Iran, which prides itself as being Allah’s government on earth, is completely destitute and has no friends in the world. This is a reflection of modern Muslim’s failure to perceive Islam from a 21st century perspective! They are mimicking how ancient Muslims considered Islam, but times have obviously changed. What made sense back then doesn’t make sense now!

    As for your last comment I'm not sure what's so Christian about Trump, the man is clearly just another one of those who uses religion to get some supports but he himself is not in truth a Christian at least he is not a practicing one nor a devoted one! He is just another dirty politician!
    The point was that he’s a successful individual, and that’s due to his lack of pride. If you insult the Iranians, they’ll act all offended and stop talking to you like babies. If you do the same with the Americans, they’ll simply respond with a greater insult. In other words, you can claim to be God’s best friend, but still be full of pride and ego! And that’s the major problem with Muslims today.

    As for Hassan Raad, there isn't a problem with not wanting to be on a table were alcohol is being served actually that's a good thing but I wish he would have felt the same way about the party he represents protecting tyrants who are killing children and women!
    Oh, I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. The point was that his reasons for doing so is not because he understands the true nature of alcohol vis a vis a position of modern physics, no, he ran away because he (like most Shiites) is m3a2ad! It’s the same way all those Shiites got offended with the dancing protestors. It’s not because dancing is haram, but because their insecure egos couldn’t handle it!
     
    Top