The Illegal National Pact, the Taef Accord and the Roadmap towards Uprooting the Confessional System and Implementing a Civil State

SeaAb

SeaAb

Legendary Member
Staff member
Super Penguin
Bala habal bala ballout. FPM is under US pressure and is being blackmailed with sanctions to break their alliance with HA, so Bassil is trying to stir up trouble with Hizbullah in order to save face and make it seem like they parted ways on their own. Trump wants to isolate Hizbullah further.

You all have the IQ of a dhimmi. Byekhter3o el kizbeh w bisad2ouwa.

FPMers are trying to insult our intelligence by pretending they realized overnight that HA's not a serious partner in state building.
Wrong thread wala khabetlak saroukh 3ammo?
 
  • Advertisement
  • O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    I agree with your post to some extent.

    However, in a country with much diversity, it is logical to demand that religion be kept away from public spheres.

    Religion should be a private affair between man and God, and to increase his spirituality through that relationship with God and to prepare for his afterlife. It should not be converted into a political tool to play politics or incite religious sentiments in politics. Keep religion in the places of worship and at home. If we all can be employed in businesses and we leave religion aside to work together for the common good and to make money, likewise we can operate the country in that type of atmosphere.

    Take for instance the question of marriage. In a secular state, you go to the marriage registry and sign a document and you are husband and wife. If afterwards or before, you need a priest or an Imam to solemnize your marriage, you get the cleric to your house or you go to a place of worship to perform the religious rites. How you choose to apply your faith or beliefs is not the business of the state. It is a private affair. And you may choose not to do any religious rites. It is enough to have an official document from the state that recognizes your union without any religious ceremony. Marriage becomes a consensual affair between two adults who have decided they want to live together for the rest of their lives. So, while I agree with most of what you said, religion should not stop us from progressing as a country and moving forward and to catch up with the rest of the world. Therefore, religion should be a private affair in a country with diversity.

    The idea of religion must be only private affair is so wrong on all levels and contribute to irreligious societies.
    By removing the communal aspect and the shared ethical aspect of a religion is like declaring war on a religion and seeking to eliminating it eventually!

    You are simply asking for a secular Western European ruling model here!

    What we need for our societies is a totally different governing system that doesn't make our children property of the state or owned by the state where they control every aspect of his/her life!

    Dictating only one way of life is not much different from a totalitarian rule so for me the idea of religion being something only private sounds more like religion must be secretive and not shared! While from Muslim perspective that is very selfish way of living and goes against our religion!

    For instant as Muslim we should practice/follow the Shariah on all levels let it be on communal level by having laws etc and even on private levels.
    If we can not do that then there is something wrong and unhealthy within our society that must be fixed ASAP otherwise we would be leading the community as whole in astray!

    If we take the marriage model you are asking for then you will be dictating your way of life on others only because you see it as best model while others might not see it a such so maybe to solve the issue here is to allow people to get married however they see it fitting within whatever beliefs they have or belong to! For example if I chose religious based marriage then it shall be under the law of that religion and nothing else.

    What you asking for is simply replacing the current religious marriage with secular marriage which is dealing with problem by only flipping the coin expecting to solve the problem somehow!

    I as Muslim would rather take the Madina constitution as a role model and as good standard to build any new modern pluralistic society within the limits of logic and reason.

    As for politicians using religion as tool I think dirty politicians have limitless of tools other than religion to use so should we start eliminating the tools every time they find a "tool" to use? Take money as example many of these dirty politicians would use money as a tool does this mean we should eliminate money if that is even possible? I think the right way here is to actually deal with these dirty politicians instead.. the "tool" here can be used in both way let it be positively or negatively! So blaming the "tool" is not fixing the problem!

    And lets not mix sectarianism with religion! I get that our issue here comes because how the current sectarian system is dividing us and so we just want to get rid of it all while secularism sounds much fairer and more of equality based but if we think about it deeply is it really?

    Because eventually secularism is a way of life too in itself which is not something that all people agree with! So dictating it on everybody is not allowing diversity!

    I get that this is very complex issue and hard to solve!
    And when dealing with it we need to start with defining stuff like religion etc.. how do you define religion for example?
    Is it for you ritual, formality or is it a complete way of life? what does it mean?
     
    Last edited:
    oldschool

    oldschool

    Active Member
    This was a post of mine in another thread. Who made it a thread and gave it this title
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    The idea of religion must be only private affair is so wrong on all levels and contribute to irreligious societies.
    By removing the communal aspect and the shared ethical aspect of a religion is like declaring war on a religion and seeking to eliminating it eventually!

    You are simply asking for a secular Western European ruling model here!

    What we need for our societies is a totally different governing system that doesn't make our children property of the state or owned by the state where they control every aspect of his/her life!

    Dictating only one way of life is not much different from a totalitarian rule so for me the idea of religion being something only private sounds more like religion must be secretive and not shared! While from Muslim perspective that is very selfish way of living and goes against our religion!

    For instant as Muslim we should practice/follow the Shariah on all levels let it be on communal level by having laws etc and even on private levels.
    If we can not do that then there is something wrong and unhealthy within our society that must be fixed ASAP otherwise we would be leading the community as whole in astray!

    If we take the marriage model you are asking for then you will be dictating your way of life on others only because you see it as best model while others might not see it a such so maybe to solve the issue here is to allow people to get married however they see it fitting within whatever beliefs they have or belong to! For example if I chose religious based marriage then it shall be under the law of that religion and nothing else.

    What you asking for is simply replacing the current religious marriage with secular marriage which is dealing with problem by only flipping the coin expecting to solve the problem somehow!

    I as Muslim would rather take the Madina constitution as a role model and as good standard to build any new modern pluralistic society within the limits of logic and reason.

    As for politicians using religion as tool I think dirty politicians have limitless of tools other than religion to use so should we start eliminating the tools every time they find a "tool" to use? Take money as example many of these dirty politicians would use money as a tool does this mean we should eliminate money if that is even possible? I think the right way here is to actually deal with these dirty politicians instead.. the "tool" here can be used in both way let it be positively or negatively! So blaming the "tool" is not fixing the problem!

    And lets not mix sectarianism with religion! I get that our issue here comes because how the current sectarian system is dividing us and so we just want to get rid of it all while secularism sounds much fairer and more of equality based but if we think about it deeply is it really?

    Because eventually secularism is a way of life too in itself which is not something that all people agree with! So dictating it on everybody is not allowing diversity!

    I get that this is very complex issue and hard to solve!
    And when dealing with it we need to start with defining stuff like religion etc.. how do you define religion for example?
    Is it for you ritual, formality or is it a complete way of life? what does it mean?
    Your idea of implementing a religious state, never mind a sharia based one is not only dangerous but outdated too. Not to mention that there won't be an egalitarian society where people of other faiths will be treated differently than Muslims. the idea of religion being a private matter is not wrong, it is actually the opposite. Politicizing Islam like what you are just doing now is wrong on many levels, especially that Muslims can't even agree on which Sharia to implement because of the different schools of thought. Will you go for the Hanafi? the Hanbali? the Maliki? Wahhabi? Jaafari? Which one? A shia muslim sees Islam differently than a sunni or a sufi muslim sees Islam differently than an Ahmadi muslim. For exmaple, For Sufis Islam religion is interpreting the soul and spirit in oneself to open up to the divine. For sunnis and shias it is not, so how can you implement a sharia law when different sects of Islam don't even agree with one another. Plus, politicizing a religion strips away the fundamentals of religion, which is philosophy and wisdom. Even the madina constitution you preach about is not entirely agreed by the madaheb.

    What's funny is that the Ottomans did not implement a complete sharia law. They actually adopted a lot of laws from the previous Byzantine empire (Like the Justinian and Theosdosus codes).

    What's wrong with Western European model? too much kafar for you? Maybe it's time we learned from them so we can live in dignity and happiness. Maybe even we have a bit of freedom to innovate.

    Secularism and building a civil state is the only way people will have the SAME rights. A Muslim, Christian and Druze will be treated the SAME under the state. No one will have better rights than the other. If you want to marry in a religious ceremony you can do that, but you should also marry under a civil law to protect your rights.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    This was a post of mine in another thread. Who made it a thread and gave it this title
    I made it a thread with my own post. But since your post doesn't belong to the other thread it was moved to this one, where it belongs. And since your post was made before mine that opened this thread, yours appears as the opening post. But the thread is mine and I chose the title.
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    Continue voting for billionaires turn oligarchs, who use the parliament and its laws to legalise their business deals, cut business deals and suck the blood of the economy. Thay is exactly what we have in Lebanon. I dont know if to call it an oligarchy or a kleptocracy. But it is both. When you have billionaires who dont know the misery other people are in or the struggle to stay afloat that others must go through, how do you instill discipline and change? A country is not a company to be run by executives with degrees in economic and finance from Harvard. A country is a source of wealth and resources that needs upright men to serve. Countries that are progressing do not have leaders. They have servants. Those men in authority should serve the people. In Lebanon, and in other shithole countries, they are leaders and regarded as demigods or see themselves as superior to everyone else. If I am a peasant and all of my people are peasants and I belong to a rich country, i dont need a con man who is a billionaire to lead me and end up stealing everything for himself and his children or family only. I need a hardworking peasant like myself with some knowledge and uprightness to serve our mutual and collective interests.
    No one is advocating for oligarchy. Attaining wealth is both a mindset and a skill. It has nothing to do with being “upright” and “noble.” Until the Shiite community has demonstrated that it is capable of generating real wealth, it should not be in a position to govern to the extent that it currently is.

    Your philosophy may sound good and fuzzy, but it doesn’t rake in the dollars bills.

    Every community has its educated class and its illiterate class.
    Once again, you bring up a strawman. Generting wealth has nothing to do with a man’s level of academic knowledge.
     
    oldschool

    oldschool

    Active Member
    because you went on a rant about shias in a thread that was talking about peace with israel.
    I was responding to an earlier post about how the pact supposedly wronged the Shiites.

    Anyway whoever moved it please delete my first post. The thread title is retarded and I don’t want my post associated with it
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Wrong thread wala khabetlak saroukh 3ammo?
    I really hope that clown isnt right. But if Basil is hoping to become president through a foreign country, ma ra7 yshemmah. Frangieh should get ready to become the next president. All it would need to make the election void is to make sure not one Shia MP attends. Oh well, lest I forget, Berri can hide the keys to parliament any day. All it would need is for Berri not to attend. That means no president for another ten years after Aoun. I've heard rumours that Basil was responsible for engineering the escape of Fakhoury. It led to the press conference of Sheikh Maher Hammoud. Then today, Ahmad Hariri is directly accusing Basil of facilitating the escape of traitors. Does Basil really think he can become president by bending down to a foreign power that only cares about the occupation entity down south? It seems Basil lacks the strong will and perseverance General Aoun had. Sad.
     
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    Your idea of implementing a religious state, never mind a sharia based one is not only dangerous but outdated too. Not to mention that there won't be an egalitarian society where people of other faiths will be treated differently than Muslims. the idea of religion being a private matter is not wrong, it is actually the opposite. Politicizing Islam like what you are just doing now is wrong on many levels, especially that Muslims can't even agree on which Sharia to implement because of the different schools of thought. Will you go for the Hanafi? the Hanbali? the Maliki? Wahhabi? Jaafari? Which one? A shia muslim sees Islam differently than a sunni or a sufi muslim sees Islam differently than an Ahmadi muslim. For exmaple, For Sufis Islam religion is interpreting the soul and spirit in oneself to open up to the divine. For sunnis and shias it is not, so how can you implement a sharia law when different sects of Islam don't even agree with one another. Plus, politicizing a religion strips away the fundamentals of religion, which is philosophy and wisdom. Even the madina constitution you preach about is not entirely agreed by the madaheb.

    What's funny is that the Ottomans did not implement a complete sharia law. They actually adopted a lot of laws from the previous Byzantine empire (Like the Justinian and Theosdosus codes).

    What's wrong with Western European model? too much kafar for you? Maybe it's time we learned from them so we can live in dignity and happiness. Maybe even we have a bit of freedom to innovate.

    Secularism and building a civil state is the only way people will have the SAME rights. A Muslim, Christian and Druze will be treated the SAME under the state. No one will have better rights than the other. If you want to marry in a religious ceremony you can do that, but you should also marry under a civil law to protect your rights.

    Let me begin first by saying that you are confusing sufism as being a sect while it is not the case at all!

    Anyway the problem here that you would like to dictate a specific world view over all people under the banner of giving equal rights to everybody!
    But in truth here what is happening that you are overlooking that societies actually have different world views and so they have different believes and perceive order and laws differently so enforcing the secular world view will actually step on the right of what other people believe in!

    And basically all the arguments you are using against me, I can also use it against you for example what type of secularism do you want?
    Can you agree with which type or form of secularism to implement having all those countless different ideologies among leftist themselves?
    Or is it nationalistic based secularism we are talking about here or is it both?

    And so you do realize that the question of separating religion and state is partly due to the rise of nationalism and by replacing religious belonging with nationalism.. meaning you want to assume by replacing religious belonging with nationalism fixes the problem somehow!

    While in truth what is happening here.. is calling for a new religion and only replacing our current whatever religion with nationalism!!

    I agree that there are very deceiving factors within secularism that will attract us like equal rights etc but there are so much hidden factors to it just look at the Western model or the French model of secularism and where it is leading that society!

    When they tell you.. hey keep your religion private and start ripping your cloth off then what is this telling us?
    Why don't you keep your nationalism private or your sexual orientation private or your political association private? Why do you want my religion to be something private when it is not!

    As Muslim I want to be governed by laws we believe in as Muslims and obviously the differences we have can be solved through consensus by the scholars. You want to claim this as unworkable problem while in truth it have worked for about 1400 years.

    For every problem there is a solution, Muslim scholars obviously have to make things better and find better solutions at all times..
    And there is no problem in adopting laws that doesn't contradict the Quran and Sunnah in the Muslim perspective!

    And to be clear here I like to differ between the secular and secularism.. I'm only against the later being imposed on us!

    If we truly believe in freedom then we should start accepting that we are different and we also have different world views!

    Nationalism, secularism, socialism and so on is not what everyone believes in and likewise Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc.
    So tell me how can all these believes coexist without one totally dictating over another on every aspect of it all?!

    I guess here where we clash and so you want to dictate your way of life and vice versa!
     
    SeaAb

    SeaAb

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    I really hope that clown isnt right. But if Basil is hoping to become president through a foreign country, ma ra7 yshemmah. Frangieh should get ready to become the next president. All it would need to make the election void is to make sure not one Shia MP attends. Oh well, lest I forget, Berri can hide the keys to parliament any day. All it would need is for Berri not to attend. That means no president for another ten years after Aoun. I've heard rumours that Basil was responsible for engineering the escape of Fakhoury. It led to the press conference of Sheikh Maher Hammoud. Then today, Ahmad Hariri is directly accusing Basil of facilitating the escape of traitors. Does Basil really think he can become president by bending down to a foreign power that only cares about the occupation entity down south? It seems Basil lacks the strong will and perseverance General Aoun had. Sad.
    Inta 3am te7ke 3an "bending down to a foreign power"? Ste7e ya zalame. :lol:
     
    L'arbalette

    L'arbalette

    Well-Known Member
    Inta 3am te7ke 3an "bending down to a foreign power"? Ste7e ya zalame. :lol:
    Question for the Mods -- Can we get a clarification on the "illegal" qualification of the national pact. Which law did this pact break? Can someone help?
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Question for the Mods -- Can we get a clarification on the "illegal" qualification of the national pact. Which law did this pact break? Can someone help?
    It goes against the constitution and it is discriminatory. It has no legal standing and for the fact that it is discriminatory, it is an illegal piece of trash. It was never adopted by the people or enforced through a referendum. The very reason why during the presidential or speaker election in parliament, some people voted for Paula Yacoubian, and she's neither Maronite nor Shia. She's Armenian. So let's say majority of parliament vote for Paula to become president. She will become president and her presidency becomes legal and in line with the constitution. On the other hand, when a document violates the constitution and human rights through discrimination, it becomes illegal. For that reason I label it as illegal and will continue to do so with no apologies. Your National Pact has no legal standing but quite to the contrary.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Inta 3am te7ke 3an "bending down to a foreign power"? Ste7e ya zalame. :lol:
    Is this the best line you can come up with? Why are you dodging? Is there element of truth in what people are saying? If Basil is trying to protect, defend and facilitate the escape of traitors from justice, then that is a crime in itself that, if there is law and order, the courts should look into. I have no reason at this point to believes does other than what people are claiming in the media, like Sheikh Maher Hammoud.
     
    oldschool

    oldschool

    Active Member
    So bassil controls the Shia judge that released him?

    Hell aan []. You wanna clean berris shit find another outlet. Go check your Wikileaks for what Berri thinks of you.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Does @Rafidi know that this "pact" was never actually written down? It's nothing more than a verbal agreement. I guess they never heard of "كلام الليل يمحوه النهار"

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong. And if I am, where is the original copy located?
     
    Nonan

    Nonan

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It goes against the constitution and it is discriminatory. It has no legal standing and for the fact that it is discriminatory, it is an illegal piece of trash. It was never adopted by the people or enforced through a referendum. The very reason why during the presidential or speaker election in parliament, some people voted for Paula Yacoubian, and she's neither Maronite nor Shia. She's Armenian. So let's say majority of parliament vote for Paula to become president. She will become president and her presidency becomes legal and in line with the constitution. On the other hand, when a document violates the constitution and human rights through discrimination, it becomes illegal. For that reason I label it as illegal and will continue to do so with no apologies. Your National Pact has no legal standing but quite to the contrary.
    It goes against what constitution? How does a pact go against a constitution ? Does a pact encourages people to do something illegal? You are confusing things. You can say the pact should not be followed because it is not it has no constitutional basis, it does mean it is illegal. Cutting my hair is not in the constitution, is it illegal? No one is asking you to follow it. I’m not, nor do I Care if you follow it.
    As we’ve established, what we all collectively bark here on the forum has no impact whatsoever, Shiites will keep voting Berri, Sunnites will keep voting Hariri or worse, Druze will vote Joumblatt, and Christians will vote FPM, LF and feudal lords. Let’s stop hiding behind some random excuse: one day it is the west, the next day it is the pact, the third day it is the French, the Americans, the Italians, the Brazilians...
    It’s never us weirdly
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Does @Rafidi know that this "pact" was never actually written down? It's nothing more than a verbal agreement. I guess they never heard of "كلام الليل يمحوه النهار"

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong. And if I am, where is the original copy located?
    Even if it was not penned down, it has been written in the memory of every Lebanese and in history books. If there was a gentleman agreement between Bshara Khoury and Riyadh el Solh, that agreement is by no means constitutional or obligatory for the rest to obey. Hopefully the next Prime Minister is Nabih Berri, and the next president of Lebanon is Walid Jumblatt and the next speaker of the house is Ahmad Hariri. Basil will be given the deputy parliament speaker post to represent Maronites. And the Orthodox would maintain what they already have - deputy PM and deputy speaker. We'd create a sectatian Senate with an Alwite (likely) as senate president and a nonsectarian parliament.

    Two clauses have already been discarded. The Druze is no longer head of the military. And there is no 6:5 representation in favor of christians in parliament. It is time to do away with the other clauses.

    Let there be national parties in Lebanon that gather figures from all regions and sects. Let parties present figures for the people to vote for. Let our political parties take a national colour and appeal to the people and not just to sects and small cantons.
     
    Top