Do you support a regime change in Syria?

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by Saladin

The Syrian regime is taking policies that are completely against the interests of the Sunna in Syria and in the Middle east. I'm not willing to discuss them now.

This is the right thread to discuss them... Take your time, I'm interested, and we're all here to learn!

And when I call for a Sunnite rule or when I classify Syria as an Islamic state this doesnt mean I intend on discriminating other religious minorities. They have their rights and they must be preserved, no doubt about that.

Still, calling it an "Islamic" country is already discriminating! It is the equivalent of calling Christians and Alawites (coz I assume you do not consider them in your definition of "Islamic") second class citizens!

Why do you try so hard to prevent the creation of a democratic and secular Syria where all individuals will have their individual and religious rights?

What does "Islamic" stand for you in terms of policies?

When I hear that a country is "Islamic", it means that the country will have Islamic rules based on the Sharia! Women, regardless of their religion, will have to be veiled, and all other laws will rely on Sunni rule! (Take a look at KSA and Iran)

And these ideas may not seem moderate to you, however when I hear somebody calling for preventing the Sunna from taking charge of Syria, I feel as if there is an attempt to extract or change Syrias Identity. And to me this is the peak of extremism and anti-moderation. And it's also against democracy which you support (I presume).

I did not call for "preventing" the Sunna from taking charge of Syria. What I did call for preventing, was the establishment of an "Islamic" and/or "Sunni" rule over the country! Minorities should not feel threatened by a change of rule, but you and your allies keep spreading fear and hatred, so it is hard to support democratic change in a country where the only alternative to secular dictatorship is Islamic rule!

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by dodzi

This is the right thread to discuss them... Take your time, I'm interested, and we're all here to learn!



Still, calling it an "Islamic" country is already discriminating! It is the equivalent of calling Christians and Alawites (coz I assume you do not consider them in your definition of "Islamic") second class citizens!

Why do you try so hard to prevent the creation of a democratic and secular Syria where all individuals will have their individual and religious rights?

What does "Islamic" stand for you in terms of policies?

When I hear that a country is "Islamic", it means that the country will have Islamic rules based on the Sharia! Women, regardless of their religion, will have to be veiled, and all other laws will rely on Sunni rule! (Take a look at KSA and Iran)



I did not call for "preventing" the Sunna from taking charge of Syria. What I did call for preventing, was the establishment of an "Islamic" and/or "Sunni" rule over the country! Minorities should not feel threatened by a change of rule, but you and your allies keep spreading fear and hatred, so it is hard to support democratic change in a country where the only alternative to secular dictatorship is Islamic rule!

Im more than interested in continuing this discussion, however i have a football match now and i have to go. However think about this while I'm gone.

The reason for which I call Syria an Islamic State, seek to establish an Islamic rule and don't tolerate secularism is simply because my religion says so. Separating religion from politics in a country whose majority is formed by Muslims is not an option. Islam dwells in every aspect of a Muslims life.

[Souss]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Ok, How do you define tolerance and moderation? If 90% of a countrys' demography is of a single sect, doesnt this give the sect a right to rule and form a regime, kingdom or a state of his preferences?

I think you'll agree that a country where 10% of the population does not have the same rights as the other 90% is neither tolerant nor moderate. The barriers to equal treatment can be structural, cultural or other. In countries where religion plays a dominant role in the state like in KSA or Iran, there exists a significant structural problem.

Even countries that have eliminated these structural obstacles, certain segments of the population are still discriminated against. For example, look at women rights in France. While huge advances have been made (just 50 years ago they couldn't even vote) there is still discrimination on equal-pay issues for example.

Your question "doesn't this give the sect..." in itself has the seed of discrimination, because you look at citizens through their sect. People are people before belonging to a sect, and as long as that's not recognized, tolerance is not truly possible.

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Ok, How do you define tolerance and moderation? If 90% of a countrys' demography is of a single sect, doesnt this give the sect a right to rule and form a regime, kingdom or a state of his preferences?

No it doesn't! I gave my answer to this question before you asked it:

Originally Posted by dodzi

The only way I can agree that a country is Islamic, is if at least 99.9% of the people are part of one sect (Sunnite, Shiite, Alawite or other, but not a mixture of them), and that 99% of that sect agrees religiously and politically with their country being "Islamic"!

Souss gave you a perfect answer but still you stand by your archaic ideas!

As for the last part of the question, it is not up to a religious majority to rule over the country, but to a political majority to do so!

Democracy does not only stand on the principle of voting rights. It includes the rule of law, the religious, political freedoms as well as the freedom of expression!

[Samy]

Est ce que vous soutenez le changement de regime en France, aux Etats Unis?
Voilà qui montre combien la question est absurde.
Il ne s'agit pas d'une question de droits de l'homme, de politique exterieure, ou autre agissement qui donne le droit à quiconque de donner son avis et de le défendre. Se demander s'il faut que le régime syrien change est une INGERENCE flagrante dans les affaires internes d'un pays étranger, ce qui est interdit internationalement et condamnable.
Seuls les syriens sont aptes à répondre à cette question dans un monde ou la loi de l'Etat-Nation règne en maitre.
Ne nous ingérons pas dans les affaires des autres car nous n aimerions pas en plus nous meme subir la meme pratique

[Souss]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Im more than interested in continuing this discussion, however i have a football match now and i have to go. However think about this while I'm gone.

The reason for which I call Syria an Islamic State, seek to establish an Islamic rule and don't tolerate secularism is simply because my religion says so. Separating religion from politics in a country whose majority is formed by Muslims is not an option. Islam dwells in every aspect of a Muslims life.

It's your right to support such a form of government. However, it would be false for you to claim that it is not discriminatory, again because a country where 10% of the population doesn't have the same rights as the other 90% cannot be called tolerant.

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by Samy

Est ce que vous soutenez le changement de regime en France, aux Etats Unis?
Voilà qui montre combien la question est absurde.
Il ne s'agit pas d'une question de droits de l'homme, de politique exterieure, ou autre agissement qui donne le droit à quiconque de donner son avis et de le défendre. Se demander s'il faut que le régime syrien change est une INGERENCE flagrante dans les affaires internes d'un pays étranger, ce qui est interdit internationalement et condamnable.
Seuls les syriens sont aptes à répondre à cette question dans un monde ou la loi de l'Etat-Nation règne en maitre.
Ne nous ingérons pas dans les affaires des autres car nous n aimerions pas en plus nous meme subir la meme pratique

Je ne suis pas d'accord...

Si ton voisin bat sa femme et ses enfants et les séquestre, ne te sentirais-tu pas moralement obligé d'appeler la police?

Pour cette même raison, il est dans notre devoir de nous ingérer dans les affaires de pays tiers!

Imaginons que les Américains aient laissé les allemands faire, imaginons que nous laissons les israéliens faire, imaginons que nous laissons les Khmer Rouge faire, imaginons que nous laissons les Sud Africains blancs faire, imaginons que nous laissons les américains faire...

Le principe de non-ingérence est dépassé (Traité de Westphalie, 1648). Il a été inventé par les régimes dictatoriaux pour se préserver et commettre des crimes impunément!

[erzallubnan]

Originally Posted by Salome

Sorry but this theory can not stand. The above mentioned countries can not form a nation state, it would be good already if Lebanon could agree to form a nation on its territory.

Even when the theory was born it was wrong already, as aside the language (if we want to pressure ourself so much to find a common ground) there is nothing to unite these countries into one nation. These are various people with various background with various heritage etc...

With time there could be though an economic cooperation area between these countries, but not a political union.

With due respect Salome, you should read your history (something they don't teach in our school most probably ) or maybe pay Baalbak museum a visit, you will learn allot.

These states, since the early civilization were united, the only geographical barrier was the desert “Saudi Arabia” in the south and mountains in “Turkey” & “Iran” in the north which made natural seperation. The Arabs called it the Fertile Crescent the european called it Levant. Then came Sikes & pico agreement in 1916 to practically divide the region into sectarian states, and this is how Lebanon came into existance, through the pen and paper of the french.

What combines these states culturally is way more than what bring the french and german together or any european country together. We share the same language, food, tradition, history etc otherwise you think lebanese are french by origin, which pathetically some lebanese think like that.

ps: am not that expert in it, but as far as I know it was Lebanon only where the people expressed their wish for a separate nation state, separate from the surrounding arab territories. While in the other present arab countries such wish from the people's side never existed, their state was created artificially (ie no loyalty existed before of belonging to Syria, Iraq etc...they were part of an arab/muslim community - consisting of various people and tribes - and without exact borders)

The political system in Lebanon was designed to achieve a balance between the various sectarian communities in the country. For this purpose, it was established on the basis of “confessionalism.” The confessional formula allocated political positions to the various communities in accordance with an arbitrary population ratio (6 to 5) based on the 1932 census taken under the French mandate, which found that Christians exceeded non-Christians in a ratio of six to five. This formula was formally embodied in the unwritten National Pact (al-mithaq al-watani) of 1943, "worked out by the Maronite president Bishara al-Khuri and the Sunni Prime Minister, Riyad al-Sulh, in order to establish the unity needed to push out the French Mandatory power

We have to thank the french for planting the seed of sectarianism and maintaining feudalism in Lebanon, actually in all our region.

[3asheq Beirut]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Im more than interested in continuing this discussion, however i have a football match now and i have to go. However think about this while I'm gone.

The reason for which I call Syria an Islamic State, seek to establish an Islamic rule and don't tolerate secularism is simply because my religion says so. Separating religion from politics in a country whose majority is formed by Muslims is not an option. Islam dwells in every aspect of a Muslims life.

Saladin,

This is your interpretation of Islam and not a rule set in stone. Other Muslims in Syria don't share your view; are you going to impose it on them also? At one point the Church believed that having a Christian state was part of the Christian religion, but this thought was eventually defeated in Europe precisely because it led to oppression and suppression of the population. The bottom line is that unless your view of your nation is one where all citizens are equal in rights and duties under the law, then you are by definition discriminating. A view of your society where the majority should rule the minority is a backwards view that is based on divisive, fragmentary mentalities. Your right to impose your interpretation of your own religion on yourself is protected under a secular system of civil laws, but you definitely do not have the right to impose this interpretation on the population at large.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by Saladin

The above mentioned countires were united for the past 1400 years you know.

Originally Posted by erzallubnan

With due respect Salome, you should read your history (something they don't teach in our school most probably ) or maybe pay Baalbak museum a visit, you will learn allot.

These states, since the early civilization were united, the only geographical barrier was the desert “Saudi Arabia” in the south and mountains in “Turkey” & “Iran” in the north which made natural seperation. The Arabs called it the Fertile Crescent the european called it Levant. Then came Sikes & pico agreement in 1916 to practically divide the region into sectarian states, and this is how Lebanon came into existance, through the pen and paper of the french.

What combines these states culturally is way more than what bring the french and german together or any european country together. We share the same language, food, tradition, history etc otherwise you think lebanese are french by origin, which pathetically some lebanese think like that.




The political system in Lebanon was designed to achieve a balance between the various sectarian communities in the country. For this purpose, it was established on the basis of “confessionalism.” The confessional formula allocated political positions to the various communities in accordance with an arbitrary population ratio (6 to 5) based on the 1932 census taken under the French mandate, which found that Christians exceeded non-Christians in a ratio of six to five. This formula was formally embodied in the unwritten National Pact (al-mithaq al-watani) of 1943, "worked out by the Maronite president Bishara al-Khuri and the Sunni Prime Minister, Riyad al-Sulh, in order to establish the unity needed to push out the French Mandatory power

We have to thank the french for planting the seed of sectarianism and maintaining feudalism in Lebanon, actually in all our region.

Somehow history is interpreted differently? My history book says they lived under the same empire for centuries but never formed or wished to form a nation state, let alone not separately.
Language and religion binded them together, but from that they were still different people.
Even when I say language and religion is a bit exaggeration, as many dialects are spoken and the sects are numerous and not really supportive of each others, right?

erallubnan,
I didnt think of the lebanese history as something which started with the french, the idea of nationalism goes back for much earlier.
What the french did was nothing more than what the lebanese particularly the christians lobbied for, due to fearing to loose influence.