• 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.

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

Steven Gerrard

Steven Gerrard

Member
Like I already said there is no issue here of whether all Madhahib would agree on on single law there are so many ways to deal with this with respect to all differences that might exist and which have always existed..

Saudi and Iran are enemies mainly for sectarian reasons and when Iran used to be allies with USA the Saudi-Iranian relationship were better than ever.. these weak and puppet regimes are not a good example to give nor am I saying that the Sunni and Shia should be forced into same set of rules.

As for sufi you do realize they are in most cases Sunni?
We have on one hand the Ash'ari and Maturidi and on another the Athari now in all these three Sunni schools of theologies you will find sufi tariqas/orders...

What you want to speak about is the Ash'ari-Salafi divide.
Your issue here though that you want to deal with it like we have reached a dead end and claim a complete understanding to it all and not like it is a ongoing thing that evolves and changes with times..

So again and again there are obvious differences in understandings but that is the case with any other world view let it be the secularist world view or any other world view!

The Western world were not always ahead of Islamic nations that is another BS statement you are making!
You can surely claim that today it is ahead but this is due to their current political stability and being a world power..
When the Muslim world was in that position of power it was ahead of the Western world too in terms of "development, innovation and standard of living". Shariah was never obstacle for any of this for many centuries so why should it be today!!

And there is not such thing as imposing 100% Shariah what is that even supposed to mean? You are again assuming that we have reached some sort of dead end of understanding Shariah and not something which is dynamic and constantly developing.. why in this case we still have fiqh!

What would even be the point of fiqh if would could reach the level of imposing 100% shariah!

And Like I told you earlier there are no issues in adopting laws that do not contradict the Quran and Sunna!
So you have to be more specific with which Byzantine laws were adopted and how they contradicted the Shariah.


Could you then tell me how this model would be any different from the Western European model of a typical Secular, liberal, nationalistic state?

And what if a very good number of people's choice was to adhere to the Shariah? How do we solve this problem then?
Not everybody is willing to let go of this so easily as you like to think!

Sufi is a sect (especially that a lot of sufis are considered heretics by people like ISIS and salafists) , Salafism is a political doctrine and not a religion. You don't know what you are talking about when you talk about religion. Religion is tradition and values that were compiled over the ages. Salafism imposes an intolerant rule that considers everyone infidels or heretics who don't abide by their doctrine. You are telling me that a Shia and a salafist will agree on a sharia law? nonsense.

My understanding is fine, you need to realize that religion is a very subjective realm and madahebs will not agree on each interpretations. You are too naive to think that they would agree on set of laws when there are so many differences. If Turkey one day imposes sharia law it will be very very different than the sharia law that is used in Saudi Arabia. Even Saudi Arabia's laws are different than UAE ones.

Like I told you, Fiqh will always expand Sharia, but you cannot even agree on Fiqh, as sects in Islam have different Fiqh and different Sunnas.

Let's make a poll in Lebanon shall we, who will adhere to Sharia between Sunnis and Shias, let's assume a sunni sharia vs a shia sharia and see the results. Let's also put into the mix forcing Christians to pay jizya and them being treated like second rated citizens who can't hold high public offices or be in the army in the mean time, let's see how many people in Lebanon would agree to that.

I stated the the ottomans used adaptations of Justinian and Theodosus codes for their "Qanun". What's also interesting the Umayads used "Diwan" Christian laws and relied on some Roman laws on certain matters, for example mostly on commercial matters.

People will get used secular laws that will provide them with a good life and improve their standard of living. Everyone will be equal under law. This is what Lebanon needs to govern 18 sects.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    Member
    The only reason we view incest as an immoral conduct is because religion says so.
    But other than that, how does it differ from homosexuality? And why does it make him bigoted to lump the two together?
    Incest is actually legal in many European countries.

    If you wanna label something "good" or "bad" based on if it makes you uncomfortable or not, then we can say the same thing about homosexuality.
    No

    incest is unnatural, you don't see it in the wild or between animals. There is an evolutionary explanation to it because interbreeding results in morbidity and deformations, hence why evolutionary speaking it is better to spread your own genes with others who are not related to you in order for your dna/genetic code to survive.
     
    Manifesto

    Manifesto

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    No

    incest is unnatural, you don't see it in the wild or between animals. There is an evolutionary explanation to it because interbreeding results in morbidity and deformations, hence why evolutionary speaking it is better to spread your own genes with others who are not related to you in order for your dna/genetic code to survive.
    I don't think we should rely on nature to determine what's natural human behavior.
    For instance, rape is completely natural in the animal world.

    And if we are to use evolution as an argument, homosexuality is unnatural too because it can't ensure the continuation of species.

    Interbreeding aside...what's immoral about a childless relationship between two sisters? They can't get each other pregnant, hence no risk of child deformities.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Sufi is a sect (especially that a lot of sufis are considered heretics by people like ISIS and salafists) , Salafism is a political doctrine and not a religion. You don't know what you are talking about when you talk about religion. Religion is tradition and values that were compiled over the ages. Salafism imposes an intolerant rule that considers everyone infidels or heretics who don't abide by their doctrine. You are telling me that a Shia and a salafist will agree on a sharia law? nonsense.
    The Sufis are not really a sect per se, like you have Shia and Sunni. You may find a Sufi who is Shia FYI. There are Shia Sufis in Iran and there are Sunni Sufis in Turkey. Sufism is a movement. And even among the Sufis, you find orders which differ in spiritual practices. And then, to make it all mixed up, you find Sunni Sufis who believe in the 12 Shia Imams and seek them for intercession. Generally, Sufis, even when they identify as Sunni, are the closest Sunnis to the Shia, just like the Zaydis are the closest Shia offshoot to the Sunnis.

    My understanding is fine, you need to realize that religion is a very subjective realm and madahebs will not agree on each interpretations. You are too naive to think that they would agree on set of laws when there are so many differences. If Turkey one day imposes sharia law it will be very very different than the sharia law that is used in Saudi Arabia. Even Saudi Arabia's laws are different than UAE ones.

    Like I told you, Fiqh will always expand Sharia, but you cannot even agree on Fiqh, as sects in Islam have different Fiqh and different Sunnas.

    Let's make a poll in Lebanon shall we, who will adhere to Sharia between Sunnis and Shias, let's assume a sunni sharia vs a shia sharia and see the results. Let's also put into the mix forcing Christians to pay jizya and them being treated like second rated citizens who can't hold high public offices or be in the army in the mean time, let's see how many people in Lebanon would agree to that.

    I stated the the ottomans used adaptations of Justinian and Theodosus codes for their "Qanun". What's also interesting the Umayads used "Diwan" Christian laws and relied on some Roman laws on certain matters, for example mostly on commercial matters.

    People will get used secular laws that will provide them with a good life and improve their standard of living. Everyone will be equal under law. This is what Lebanon needs to govern 18 sects.
    The basis or sources of the Sharia between Sunni and Shia schools of thought are very similar and have slight differences. But when it comes to application, it will differ greatly. Even among Sunnis, there are four schools of thoughts or jurisprudence. So they may apply things slightly different. The Sharia is not to be considered divine and in fact it is not because fallible men influence its laws and base it on their judgments often times. Only the Quran is of divine source.

    When most times we speak of jizyah, the conditions that prevailed in the time of the Prophet in Medina were not the same that prevailed in Syria or in Bilad ash Sham. Syria was home to other religions. And over time, the people in Sham came under the rule of the Ummayyad. Whether to apply jizyah or not is subjective here. The Christian as individuals and Jews in Sham didn't rebel or lose a war generally speaking. It was the case of one empire replacing another. There are Christians and Jews today in Iran, but they are not made to pay any jizyah. The conditions that were prevalent in Arabia to make the Jews pay jizyah are different. The Jews in Medina broke an initial treaty. The jizyah came afterwards, after they were defeated in the battle. Which means they became conquered people and therefore it is reasonable to exclude them from military service and made them pay a special protection tax to the state. Their status as citizens was not present.

    But in a situation where the people of other faiths are citizens, and not treacherous and have not aggressed the Muslims or killed them, they then become deserving of fair, kind and just treatment. So when most idiots on this forum talk about Christians and Jizyah and dhimmi status, they dont know what they are saying. They are just blinded by sectarianism. They fail to see that certain enforcements in the sharia on the subjects are based on the discretion of the ruler and the relationship between the Muslim state and its subjects from other faith and how cordial it is. If you are good and kind, you'd be treated accordingly. Otherwise, except the ruler is a lunatic and a maniac who derives pleasure from human suffering, there would be no reason to maltreat people from other faiths solely based on their distinct beliefs or identity. And if he is indeed a maniac and derives pleasure from human suffering, then even his Muslim subjects will feel the effect. Bad rulers or leaders are in every religion and country.
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    Sufi is a sect (especially that a lot of sufis are considered heretics by people like ISIS and salafists) , Salafism is a political doctrine and not a religion. You don't know what you are talking about when you talk about religion. Religion is tradition and values that were compiled over the ages. Salafism imposes an intolerant rule that considers everyone infidels or heretics who don't abide by their doctrine. You are telling me that a Shia and a salafist will agree on a sharia law? nonsense.

    My understanding is fine, you need to realize that religion is a very subjective realm and madahebs will not agree on each interpretations. You are too naive to think that they would agree on set of laws when there are so many differences. If Turkey one day imposes sharia law it will be very very different than the sharia law that is used in Saudi Arabia. Even Saudi Arabia's laws are different than UAE ones.

    Like I told you, Fiqh will always expand Sharia, but you cannot even agree on Fiqh, as sects in Islam have different Fiqh and different Sunnas.

    Let's make a poll in Lebanon shall we, who will adhere to Sharia between Sunnis and Shias, let's assume a sunni sharia vs a shia sharia and see the results. Let's also put into the mix forcing Christians to pay jizya and them being treated like second rated citizens who can't hold high public offices or be in the army in the mean time, let's see how many people in Lebanon would agree to that.

    I stated the the ottomans used adaptations of Justinian and Theodosus codes for their "Qanun". What's also interesting the Umayads used "Diwan" Christian laws and relied on some Roman laws on certain matters, for example mostly on commercial matters.

    People will get used secular laws that will provide them with a good life and improve their standard of living. Everyone will be equal under law. This is what Lebanon needs to govern 18 sects.
    Dude, what? Sufism is not a sect. It’s simply the metaphysical/inner spiritual aspect of Islam. It’s most probably the only solution for Islam in the modern world, however.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Dude, what? Sufism is not a sect. It’s simply the metaphysical/inner spiritual aspect of Islam. It’s most probably the only solution for Islam in the modern world, however.
    It is best described as a "movement". Thus what is known as "The Sufi Movement"
     
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    Sufi is a sect (especially that a lot of sufis are considered heretics by people like ISIS and salafists) , Salafism is a political doctrine and not a religion. You don't know what you are talking about when you talk about religion. Religion is tradition and values that were compiled over the ages. Salafism imposes an intolerant rule that considers everyone infidels or heretics who don't abide by their doctrine. You are telling me that a Shia and a salafist will agree on a sharia law? nonsense.

    My understanding is fine, you need to realize that religion is a very subjective realm and madahebs will not agree on each interpretations. You are too naive to think that they would agree on set of laws when there are so many differences. If Turkey one day imposes sharia law it will be very very different than the sharia law that is used in Saudi Arabia. Even Saudi Arabia's laws are different than UAE ones.

    Like I told you, Fiqh will always expand Sharia, but you cannot even agree on Fiqh, as sects in Islam have different Fiqh and different Sunnas.

    Let's make a poll in Lebanon shall we, who will adhere to Sharia between Sunnis and Shias, let's assume a sunni sharia vs a shia sharia and see the results. Let's also put into the mix forcing Christians to pay jizya and them being treated like second rated citizens who can't hold high public offices or be in the army in the mean time, let's see how many people in Lebanon would agree to that.

    I stated the the ottomans used adaptations of Justinian and Theodosus codes for their "Qanun". What's also interesting the Umayads used "Diwan" Christian laws and relied on some Roman laws on certain matters, for example mostly on commercial matters.

    People will get used secular laws that will provide them with a good life and improve their standard of living. Everyone will be equal under law. This is what Lebanon needs to govern 18 sects.

    Ok this is all becoming very repetitive..

    ISIS or Salafist are not a source for Islam! ye3ni are we talking here about what ISIS believe?
    Salafism whether we agree with it or not is more than just a political movement like you are trying to portray it as!
    We can't deny the religious roots of Salafism and other aspects like being influenced or motivated politically..

    In islam religion is defined as a complete way of life and a world view to live by.. ye3ni a complete package..
    And this is not a purely salafi understanding but broad understanding among Muslims!
    Meaning Islam is not a part time religion but a full time religion! And so just because we are dealing with politics or whatever we must put our religion aside!

    And no I never told you that the Salafi and Shia would agree on understanding of all Shariah laws that is not the point I was even arguing clearly and I have repeated this again and again but you keep making this type of argument over and over despite me answering it!
    Also again I wasn't ever arguing either that different Sunni schools of thought should be under one single interpretation or one understanding!
    All this is beside the point.. These differences between Madhahib and sometimes within the madhhab can clearly coexist freely without a problem as they always did!

    For example in Lebanon most Sunni follow the Hanafi Madhab but there is a good number of Shafi3i too.. never was there a big issue on this! So again I wasn't arguing here about having one single understanding among all Muslims but surely eliminating as much differences when it's possible is not bad either but that is totally another topic!

    I asked you the same exist within the secularist world view.. there are radically different ideologies, understandings and so on.. so why is this a problem within our world view but not a problem within your world view? But you keep ignoring this..

    Like I told you we will always have different school of thoughts like you will always have different school of thoughts within the secularist world view! The difference that our school of thoughts are set within specific ethical religious boundaries while the secular world view is all open to whatever .. Unless you want to argue that all the secularist believe in one single ideology with some set of boundaries!

    What I'm arguing is not a Sunni Vs Shia Shariah looool A shiite or a sunni can in this case follow his school of thought!

    As for Jizya we can change the term to let say Sadaqah or Zakat or whatever this isn't a big of deal in the end whoever is capable of paying taxes should pay it to the state and obviously it should be as fair as possible to all people whether they are Muslims or not!

    People from other respected faiths or minorities should have the right to rule themselves within their laws and rulings!

    The secularist world view is simply cultural suicide!
    The west world is heading in that direction you just need to open your eyes to see it!

    Sometimes traditions are equally important.. what we see in many European secular nations do is step on all the past traditions in favor of modernity I think we have to be more moderate here as our forefathers might have been seriously wrong on many things they were also right on many other things so we need to find our balance between traditions and modernity and how remove the bad ones and keep the good ones!

    Humanity coming to the conclusion after thousand of years that something like usury is evil or incest or homosexual acts are seriously wrong must have a good reasons for that but when you see so many people revolting against stuff like these ones makes you wonder where are we heading!

    So what sets our ethical boundaries? reasoning alone?
    What sets the boundaries for political correctness for example that wont allow it to reach crazy exaggeration levels..
    What stops something like LGBTQ movements from eventually accepting other out of the norm stuff?

    These are all never ending questions once you do not set boundaries you leave the possibilities open to literally everything!
    Meaning we are not protected without boundaries and logically speaking without protection means eventually deficiency!
     
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    Dude, what? Sufism is not a sect. It’s simply the metaphysical/inner spiritual aspect of Islam. It’s most probably the only solution for Islam in the modern world, however.
    Sufism is not a sect nor a movement..

    Sufism/Tasawwuf is the Islamic spirituality that deal with inner dimensional of Islam!
    In Sufism there are different Tariqah/way (a journey to the Truth that takes place within the qalb/heart) it is lead by a teacher and can only be learned from a teacher who masters the same particular Tariqah not by reading books on sufism etc.

    A Sufi Tariqah do not claim to be solely the right one which proves that sufism is not a sect!
    Sufism existing within all Muslim sects is another key point to why it is not a sect of its own!
     
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    Also let me add to the topic of secularism..
    That once you give the highest supreme authority to the State instead of God as being the highest authority we end up with countries like China who are extreme surveillance states who will try to control every aspect of our lives!
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    Part of our inheritance from Ottomanism is reflected not only in the structure of the Lebanese state, but in the desire among many to defend its legacy. The deference to any semblence of Ottoman authority is striking.



     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    Also let me add to the topic of secularism..
    That once you give the highest supreme authority to the State instead of God as being the highest authority we end up with countries like China who are extreme surveillance states who will try to control every aspect of our lives!
    ur allah already surveils if u eat during the random moon month definition of ramadan, hala2 zoghrit 3aynak 3ala china?
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Fact: Lebanese only care about their sect.

    Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Sunni, Shia, Druze, Maronite, Orthodox, etc kello akhra men ba3do. You all make me suck with your sectarianism.

    Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Since the remarks of Sheikh Ahmad Qabalan on the illegal National Pact and the expired Taef Accord and the opening of this thread, the patriarch has repeatedly endorsed the national pact. He sounds worried, instead if looking for modern, promising and fair solutions for a brighter future for all Lebanese. He prefers dwelling in the past and ensuring we are buried in a sectarian shithole with unabating conflicts. He is right now holding a press conference and within 2 minutes he has repeatedly the national pact and how Lebanese "adopted" it for the sake of Christian - Muslim coexistence as if it was pact sent from God.

    My dear frowning patriarch, the Lebanese did not adopt that shit. My ancestors, and my village and my community did not adopt anything. It was adopted by some elites under foreign colonial tutelage. It was a colonial project that was imposed on the people of Lebanon. This National Pact was not put to referendum for people to decide. The people were completely sidelined. And we are still suffering from that (mis)understanding. The (mis)understanding itself is not constitutional but goes against the constitution which projects the idea that Lebanon does not have a state religion. The institutionalization of sectarianism through the confessional system which the National Pact promotes has caused us repeated disasters. Until when would we continue to be stupid in trying the same mistake over and over while expecting a different result?
     
    Last edited:
    NAFAR

    NAFAR

    Legendary Member
    I can see some progress in FPM open speech about developing the system into a wide financial and administrative decentralization.......... finally FPM are on the right path.
    The imminent collapse will sweep the complete current political class and system......it is now the time for major changes.
    The challenge now for Christians is to hold their ground with the help of the diaspora and the Church until the political change is achieved............otherwise expect a mass exodus of Christians as they can't withstand extreme poverty as other sects can.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    I can't wait for the religious police. Can you?

    Also, I hope you don't believe all that taqiya.
    I knew that @SeaAb didnt post that LBC report out of goodwill but I didnt want to beat you and your likes to it.

    Apparently, you too didn't see all those hundreds and thousands of contrasting people at the beach in Tyr - some in very revealing clothes and others in hijab - as a reflection of our society and how people actually feel free to dress. The same is the case in the entire South, Dahiey, Beirut, the Beqaa and Jbeil and everywhere Shia are found in Lebanon. You have the very religiously observant ones who practice their religion to the letter. But we also have the non religious or irreligious ones who dont observe the rules of religion and are liberal and wear revealing clothes. Our society is made up of different individuals and Hezballah, the group you like to dislike, doesnt interfere in our personal lives and how we choose to live. We have that freedom. More freedom than in western countries, where hijab is banned or the veil is. In areas which are Hezballah constituencies, the freedom to wear a veil, as well as the freedom for a lady to wear a dress revealing her bellybuttom are both respected. @SeaAb An atheist from Shia background should know more that the Shia are generally very liberal and religious practices and observation are based on personal or individual choices and you rarely find examples where families enforce religion on its members.

    You also consider what the Sheikh interviewed by LBC said to be "taqiyyah". To both of you despicable creatures of mental cloudiness, only the Sheikh who made a post to reveal his own personal thoughts on his Facebook account represent the Shia of Tyr and Lebanon. You are both stupid.

    Can anyone get any more prejudiced than this?
     
    Top