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

  • Advertisement
  • Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    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.
    Agreed, first let's arm the Sunnis and Christians and Druze to the teeth -- on par with the Shiites -- then we will talk about accomplishing the above. First we make sure everyone is equal.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    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
    It is Berri. Now you can smile.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Agreed, first let's arm the Sunnis and Christians and Druze to the teeth -- on par with the Shiites -- then we will talk about accomplishing the above. First we make sure everyone is equal.
    They are already armed. Who says they are not. Only that their balls are smaller and we have men whose madness starts where theirs stops.

    You dont even need to arm anyone. All of Lebanon should return, from Tripoli to Keserwan to Tyr and Naqoora should return to the original owners. The Sunnis should go to Turkey and Arabia and the Christians should move to the West. Let Lebanon return to the original inhabitants who didnt arrive through invasions and invaders. Let us have peace in our country for once, without our supposed compatriots always looking for excuses to create trouble.
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    They are already armed. Who says they are not. Only that their balls are smaller and we have men whose madness starts where theirs stops.

    You dont even need to arm anyone. All of Lebanon should return, from Tripoli to Keserwan to Tyr and Naqoora should return to the original owners. The Sunnis should go to Turkey and Arabia and the Christians should move to the West. Let Lebanon return to the original inhabitants who didnt arrive through invasions and invaders. Let us have peace in our country for once, without our supposed compatriots always looking for excuses to create trouble.
     
    SeaAb

    SeaAb

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    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.
    You're relying on reports from Al Jadeed and Al Akhbar, doesn't warrant a reply. FPM doesn't take orders from a consulate or a foreign country. Ba3ed na2es! :lol:
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    You're relying on reports from Al Jadeed and Al Akhbar, doesn't warrant a reply. FPM doesn't take orders from a consulate or a foreign country. Ba3ed na2es! :lol:
    So who's responsible for Fakhoury's escape and now pushing for parliament to pass a law for the return of traitors, who have commented crimes? If you dont take orders, others too dont take orders from you. So when you misbehave you'd be called out.
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    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!
    You are contradicting yourself

    You don't want someone to dictate your life yet you want to impose something you agree with to dictate other people's lives. No habibi, it won't work that way. A secular state does not dictate anyone's life, you are free to choose to practice whatever you wish and civil laws are equal to everyone. Why does it bother you if someone says he's gay? is he physically harming you? Religion should never be politicized, it is not it's intentions.

    consensus through scholars? it has worked for about 1400 years? please, history shows otherwise. after the death of the Prophet Mohammad, Muslims went to war with one another over power. They've been fighting since then and they couldn't agree on a consensus in the past you think they would reach a consensus now? Even Shia and Sunnis start their Ramadan on different days! Let me give you another example, the Abbasid Caliphate did not even impose most of the sharia, so did the Ottomans.

    We don't need to follow a European model, we can choose to form our own secular laws through our values, traditions, history and culture. You cannot in this day and age go after apostates and kill them according to your sunna, or force Christians to pay jizyah in Lebanon. It's outdated, so it's time to face reality, move forward and adapt to the 21st century.
     
    NAFAR

    NAFAR

    Legendary Member
    No need to elaborate much on this topic.
    Below are the facts:

    1) The Taef system isn't working
    2) Secularism and Islam are impossible to coexist as it is obvious all over the world from Tanja in the west till Jakarta in the east- Lebanon isn't an exception
    3) Lebanon as a country suffers from what we call in political science "Deep Cleavages"....google it.
    4) Lebanon in its current geographical border and its different sects/people is not a Nation
    4) The Lebanese different sects/people are stuck in eternal war since hundred of years which is still continued even today but without canons
    5) In view of the above, the only theoretical solution is partition but since it is very difficult, the practical solution is federalism.

    Just to cut the s.h...t, the majority of Muslims reject federalism because they think that on the long term they will dominate the complete country as the Christians will diminish in both numbers and geographical distribution..... which is unfortunately true and I don't blame the Muslims for this...... the Christians may have the same thoughts if they were the majority and increasing.
     
    Last edited:
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    No need to elaborate much on this topic.
    Below are the facts:

    1) The Taef system isn't working
    2) Secularism and Islam are impossible to coexist as it is obvious all over the world from Tanja in the west till Jakarta in the east- Lebanon isn't an exception
    3) Lebanon as a country suffers from what we call in political science "Deep Cleavages"....google it.
    4) Lebanon in its current geographical border and its different sects/people is not a Nation
    4) The Lebanese different sects/people are stuck in eternal war since hundred of years which is still continued even today but without canons
    5) In view of the above, the only theoretical solution is partition but since it is very difficult, the practical solution is federalism.

    Just to cut the s.h...t, the majority of Muslims reject federalism because they think that on the long term they will dominate the complete country as the Christians will diminish in both numbers and geographical distribution..... which is unfortunately true and I don't blame the Muslims for this...... the Christians may have the same thoughts if they were the majority and increasing.
    Ma fi shi [] ella Tangier in the west and Jakarta in the east.

    If you want federalism, subject it to a referendum. Very simple thing to do. Otherwise, who's going to decide in favor or against, if not the people you want to use the system to govern them with.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    No need to elaborate much on this topic.
    Below are the facts:

    1) The Taef system isn't working
    2) Secularism and Islam are impossible to coexist as it is obvious all over the world from Tanja in the west till Jakarta in the east- Lebanon isn't an exception
    3) Lebanon as a country suffers from what we call in political science "Deep Cleavages"....google it.
    4) Lebanon in its current geographical border and its different sects/people is not a Nation
    4) The Lebanese different sects/people are stuck in eternal war since hundred of years which is still continued even today but without canons
    5) In view of the above, the only theoretical solution is partition but since it is very difficult, the practical solution is federalism.

    Just to cut the s.h...t, the majority of Muslims reject federalism because they think that on the long term they will dominate the complete country as the Christians will diminish in both numbers and geographical distribution..... which is unfortunately true and I don't blame the Muslims for this...... the Christians may have the same thoughts if they were the majority and increasing.
    It seems to be working in Turkey...
     
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    You are contradicting yourself

    You don't want someone to dictate your life yet you want to impose something you agree with to dictate other people's lives. No habibi, it won't work that way. A secular state does not dictate anyone's life, you are free to choose to practice whatever you wish and civil laws are equal to everyone. Why does it bother you if someone says he's gay? is he physically harming you? Religion should never be politicized, it is not it's intentions.

    consensus through scholars? it has worked for about 1400 years? please, history shows otherwise. after the death of the Prophet Mohammad, Muslims went to war with one another over power. They've been fighting since then and they couldn't agree on a consensus in the past you think they would reach a consensus now? Even Shia and Sunnis start their Ramadan on different days! Let me give you another example, the Abbasid Caliphate did not even impose most of the sharia, so did the Ottomans.

    We don't need to follow a European model, we can choose to form our own secular laws through our values, traditions, history and culture. You cannot in this day and age go after apostates and kill them according to your sunna, or force Christians to pay jizyah in Lebanon. It's outdated, so it's time to face reality, move forward and adapt to the 21st century.

    My point was clear that you are imposing a way life too! So my question was how can we solve the issue here without imposing anything on each others if that is a possibility to begin with!? Then you go to say it wont work that way unless it is your world view so tell me how you are not contradicting yourself by imposing your world view over all people who have different one? You say I'm free to practice whatever I want yet it must be within the limits of the laws of your world view, the one you believe to be the correct ones! And then you say civil laws that are equal to everyone.. so then again you are imposing what you might believe to be equal laws while others like myself might not see it as such!

    I'm not bothered by someone saying he is gay nor am I harmed by it if it's coming from strangers but I do feel sorry for someone who might be.
    You do realize this is all about setting limits, your world view's limits are different from ours.. but we both have limits or red lines for example do you have an issue with with two consenting adults like a brother and a sister having sexual relationship or even getting married and having kids building a family etc? If you tell me that is their business and they are free to practice and do whatever they like to there is no harm in it! Then I would tell you what if these two adults were actually your own son and daughter would you still have the same view on this would you still claim that you do not feel hurt by it? And if we accept this as social norm what kind of sick society would we be making?

    My point is that when we look to these things we have to look at it from that direction by asking ourselves would we allow this on our loved ones and then you might find the world view you actually stand for! Also clearly my second point is that there are always set of red lines that must exist now it just happens that you don't like mine and i don't like yours so how do we deal with this?

    As for politicizing religion i agree that is wrong but politicizing anything is wrong, like politicizing science that is wrong too but does this mean we should ban science all together from politics when science can actually be very helpful to achieve some certain goals? And I could go on and on like politicizing sports is seriously wrong or politicizing food.. all these are wrong but you can not call for banning of these stuff and keep them private just because they are being politicized by whatever.. this is simply not dealing with the actual issue but running away from it!


    Also you are confusing the political conflicts Muslims had in the last 1400 years with Shariah or to be more precise with Fiqh!
    These conflicts were about powers like you said so basically these conflicts were at least rarely if ever about fiqh or shariah understanding..

    Consensus in Islam have actually worked very well and the fact that the different madhhab/schools exist was never seen as something bad but actually very positive one and it is not like the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki or Hanbali were fighting each others many of the scholars of these madhahib were actually friends, teachers over another and so on so clearly there are some confusion from your part on all this! To this day there have always been shared respect between all these schools as for the Shia we do have our theological differences among others things with them but that is all fine they have their own fiqh/schools we just need to accept our differences through respect and understanding for example if a Shia praying next to me is praying slightly differently from me by having different hand positions that is not a big of deal for me at all!

    But I think you bringing up this is only fairer if we also bring up the same issues that exist within the Secularist world view itself as there are even much greater differences within that secularist world view.. and my point here is that all the arguments you are trying to use against me can even be used against you at even much greater extent.. the secular world view comes with radically different ideologies like socialism, liberalism, nationalism, communism, fascism and I could go on and on! Now if we just bring up the history of it all and the actual conflicts that happened and even the number people dying by the same ideologies who held to the secular world view then you wouldn't be doing that particular world view a favor! Also once you acknowledge that the world have seen so many totalitarian regimes who adhere to secularism and enforcing it on so many people tells you it is not always nice like you like to portray it to us!

    As for saying we don't have to follow a Western European secular model then I'm all ears tell me more about it as I never heard of any and what do you do when our cultures, traditions, history etc are so tied to religion! Do you deny it all simply because you can not make yourself like religion?
    Also in this region the only secular world view we ever had dealt with was through colonialism, military rule or other totalitarian regimes so don't blame so many people for taking their distances from it!


    Now to end this my point here is not convince you or others with Islam or Shariah but to make you understand that whatever other world view we have out there it is being imposed in the end of the day and your acceptance in the end of the day depends on the value you believe in!

    Usually when people want to argue against Islam/Shariah they wouldn't use the same logic against the world view they think is good and believe in!
     
    NAFAR

    NAFAR

    Legendary Member
    It seems to be working in Turkey...
    Please tell me you are joking.
    The sultan Erdogan is reviving the Islamist Khalifa and transforming Turkey into an ekhwani middle age Sultanate.....and it is working.
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter

    الله يرحمك يا شيخ جورج فرح
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    Also you are confusing the political conflicts Muslims had in the last 1400 years with Shariah or to be more precise with Fiqh!
    These conflicts were about powers like you said so basically these conflicts were at least rarely if ever about fiqh or shariah understanding..

    Consensus in Islam have actually worked very well and the fact that the different madhhab/schools exist was never seen as something bad but actually very positive one and it is not like the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki or Hanbali were fighting each others many of the scholars of these madhahib were actually friends, teachers over another and so on so clearly there are some confusion from your part on all this! To this day there have always been shared respect between all these schools as for the Shia we do have our theological differences among others things with them but that is all fine they have their own fiqh/schools we just need to accept our differences through respect and understanding for example if a Shia praying next to me is praying slightly differently from me by having different hand positions that is not a big of deal for me at all!
    Fiqh and sharia are mutually exclusive. Fiqh expands and develops sharia over time to include new laws/fatwas. Do you really believe all madahebs will agree on the same sharia?!! nonsense. Sharia is politicized it always had been, why is Saudi and Iran sworn enemies? Because of different ideologies and different interpretations of Islam. Not to mention the fact that "bikafro bi ba3d" at every opportunity. Sufism too, there are theological differences between a sufi and a sunni or a shia. How can you bridge the gap when you cannot agree on set of religious laws that would treat all Muslims the same? let alone other people of different faiths?

    But I think you bringing up this is only fairer if we also bring up the same issues that exist within the Secularist world view itself as there are even much greater differences within that secularist world view.. and my point here is that all the arguments you are trying to use against me can even be used against you at even much greater extent.. the secular world view comes with radically different ideologies like socialism, liberalism, nationalism, communism, fascism and I could go on and on! Now if we just bring up the history of it all and the actual conflicts that happened and even the number people dying by the same ideologies who held to the secular world view then you wouldn't be doing that particular world view a favor! Also once you acknowledge that the world have seen so many totalitarian regimes who adhere to secularism and enforcing it on so many people tells you it is not always nice like you like to portray it to us!

    As for saying we don't have to follow a Western European secular model then I'm all ears tell me more about it as I never heard of any and what do you do when our cultures, traditions, history etc are so tied to religion! Do you deny it all simply because you can not make yourself like religion?
    Also in this region the only secular world view we ever had dealt with was through colonialism, military rule or other totalitarian regimes so don't blame so many people for taking their distances from it!
    Secular laws treat EVERYONE the same regardless of beliefs. Your beliefs are your own and you choose to do whatever you want with it but when it comes to laws and rules equality is what matters. You cannot force a Christian to pay a tax just because you think your religion is superior or you are superior than him/her. You don't have to follow any of those ideologies to build a secular state, what matters is that the set of laws are implemented equally to everyone. This is why Europe and the US are always ahead of Islamic countries in terms of development, innovation and standard of living. Not only that, a lot of people prefer to live in Europe, Canada and the US because of freedom of opportunities and the freedom of expression, something that is lacking in countries ruled by stringent religious laws.

    I gave you the Ottoman Empire example, they did not impose 100% sharia, they actually adopted a lot of previous laws from the Byzantine empire and a mix of secular laws to build an empire. This is because the Ottomans had values and traditions different than peninsular Arabians who were more tribal. Our country for example is tied between two sets of religions but those religions are interpreted differently than other countries because of culture, so why don't we start there? why can't we build a secular state based on our own Lebanese history, values, traditions and code/ethics? The same way the Ottomans did minus any sharia so each and every one of us are treated equally under law.
     
    Last edited:
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Please tell me you are joking.
    The sultan Erdogan is reviving the Islamist Khalifa and transforming Turkey into an ekhwani middle age Sultanate.....and it is working.
    Would you say the same about the Christian Democrats in Deutschland? Or what is ok for Christians is not ok for Muslims?
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    I moved this conversation over here because it seems more appropriately placed in this thread rather than the previous one (FPM's signing a peace treaty with Israhell or whatever).

    Exactly, it didnt :D

    They could have elected to do many different things especially when you entertwine the fact that they were constrained by the leeway colonial and imperial powers gave.
    So, did the colonial powers give them leeway or constrain them? Those are two different things.


    Take a drive along the Dawra highway. Look at all the major dealerships concentrated in that area. Those dealerships are THE major funnel of money in Lebanon and the source of embedded wealth.

    I never said that it was completely dominated by Maronites. The Maronite oligarchy had the lion's share of the spoils and in running the country. I don't see how that position is controversial when its readily accepted as historical fact.
    Dealerships? Dawra highway? That’s rather anecdotal. I was looking for something more tangible – complete control over industries, trade, imports/exports, banks, seizing of public property, relations with external forces (countries and companies) that bring capital investment. Oh, wait, those reminds me of someone else...

    Look, the biggest proof that the Maronites had a fragile hold on power is how quickly their “resources” were dismantled after the war, including the banks, if you’d like. Their political leadership was decimated, their prerogatives within the state were diminished, their supposed economic primacy was not only challenged, but completely fragmented and mostly overtaken by the three big Kahunas – one at the head of the parliament, one at the head of the ministry (shte2nelo wallah), and one at the head of the mountain.

    The point is that the economic conditions are directly tied to power sharing. The power-sharing formula, hence economic planning, though slightly favorable to the Maronites prior to the war, was tipped heavily against them after the war.

    Sure, Maronites had a slight advantage at one point, but there’s more to the story that explains the political collapse of the state than just Maronites supposedly hoarding resources. History is written by its victors and plenty of people, cathartically I would imagine, love to pit all the blame on the Maronites, so there’s no controversy.


    A hegemonic sectarian ruling class(es). Sectarian being the difference whereby the power structure and its administrattion is divided along sectarian lines.

    How does it fail? Were there or were there not fascist christian organizations?
    If I were to go by your original argument, which is that the Maronites dominated the state so much that they only gave economic advantage to their patrons and left the rest of the country in poverty, and that that was the cause of the war. However, we've established that the Maronites did not have complete control over the state and the economy and that they shared power and resources with others. Therefore, if they were fascists, they were not able to imbue the state with their fascistic ideology because they could never completely control the state, even if they had an advantage. So, your statement just sounds offensively sectarian for no good reason. Or are Maronites the only ones capable of doing sectarianism?


    That state was artificially created by colonial powers and then further strengthened by imperialism. Of course the ruling powers used local populations and utilized the structure of the existing oligarchy to implement colonial rule. The French certainly didn't create the ruling classes but they gave them their positions and their status and their roles. Especially when you consider that those same ruling classes were presiding over regions they never had sway in.
    It goes way beyond the French. 470 some years of Ottoman rule had a significantly lasting effect, things didn't simply get wiped away in the 40+ years of French influence.

    Further, many nation-states around the world were artificially created. It just so happens that after WWI the world was no longer organized around empires and spheres of influence, but states became the main organizing tool for geopolitical entities. It's disingenuous to say this is a unique ill to Lebanon, even though many would argue it wasn't entirely artificial and that there was significant proximity between Mt. Lebanon and the surrounding areas prior to the creation of greater Lebanon.


    There's no such thing as "purely" economical. There's always a confluence of reasons. But the main and most whitewashed reason is the economic and social depravity that the vast majority of Lebanese were trapped under. Especially when you contrast that with the propaganda campaigns by Intrabank and the like to present Lebanon as this oasis of prosperity and culture.
    OK, but your argument originally stated that the causes of the war were economic. It's clear that the reasons why the PSP and many of the Pan-Arabists and Nasserites in and around Beirut and their mountain domiciles, who were relatively privileged compared to your family and mine, were not economic, but almost entirely political. It's undeniable how smart Kamal Jumblatt was in using a rhetoric fully embedded with principles of economic and social justice because it allowed him to do the obvious - pin the responsibility and blame entirely on the Maronites and their leaders. Relevant
     
    Top