"To the impartial eye, the world not only seems an unlikely one-off phenomenon, but a constant strain on reason. If reason exists, that is, if a neutral reason exists. So speaks the voice from within. So speaks Joker's voice." - Jostein Gaarder

Sunday, May 14, 2006

On the rule of Majority

Update:
Read the last comment..

Update 2:
Last reply by Abdul Rahman.

A very vibrant discussion is going on the side of Ghalia's Martyrdom Day brilliant post. With Abdul Rahman Hilmi, A Fellow blogger.
I think it is very important to share it with the people who are still checking this blog.

I'm gonna post the full discussion here, so u can share ur views... and maybe i'll comment about it later.

It started, with my comment about the Quranic Verses on the Unknown Soldier Monument on Mount Qassioun. And it was a response to another comment, that I wont post because it's a bit irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Yazan...
Yaman, This day was first found to honor the Martyrs of ottotmans that were hanged in Marjeh Square, I'm sure u know that.. and then it became the day for all martyrs, who died for their country.
No matter how u put it, u cant say that Yousef al-Azmeh, died for a "regime"...
It would've been better if they've expressed it with real poetry rather a religious symbol [I would've been more comfortable with that]...
For me, This is a monument for those who die for their people, not Allah nor the regime...
This momenument is just as much, also for the people who are dying inside syrian jails because of this regime, because those too are fighting for their people.
They can control everything, except the slight moments and symbols in our lives, this day is one of them...


Abdul Rahman...
@Yazan: I don't mean to sound rude and I'm seriously trying to make this as polite as the point can possibly be, but you don't have to feel comfortable with the Quranic ayat written down on the monument. I read a couple of your posts in your blog and I have to say, you and the people who think like you are a very small minority in Syria. Secularists tend to call for democracy, and in a democracy you would have very little (if not absolutly nil) voice since the majority would rule and alhamdullilah, the majority in Syria are not interested in people who think the Quran is not important. So it's a great thing the ayat were written down, it's actually a wonderful thing and I would pray for the day it would be written down all over the walls all over the place.


Yazan...
@Abdul Rahman Hilmi,
I respect that, I was only sounding my own very-personal opinion, which I'd be allowed to sound it out in a democracy even if the majority doesnt want to take it...
It's as simple as that.. I respect that the majority wants quranic verses. but I do have the right to say that "I" this one person doesnt.
I believe in the rule of majority in a society [taking the basic principles of human rights and personal freedom into consideration]... and this is no different. ;)
And this is written all over my blog btw.


Abdul Rahman...
@akhi Yazan: I was in agreement with everything you said until I reach the following part.
Yazan said: "I believe in the rule of majority in a society [taking the basic principles of human rights and personal freedom into consideration]"
Correct me if I missunderstood, but you mean by this statement that if the "basic principles of human rights and personal freedom" is at stake, the rule of majority should not be applied? Coming from a person who does not believe the Quran should be applied as a rule of law, I take your definition of "basic principles of human rights and personal freedom" to mean those rights put down by other men (mainly European and American politicans and activists) throughout the years where they themselves state in the Human Rights Act 1998 protocol 1 article 3 that people should have the right to free elections with no such restrictions as those you're mentioning. So in other words, if humans in a society refuse the Western view of human rights and wish to have another view of the rights of man implemented on them, you will agree in breaking that very rule of the "human rights" that you stand for and inforcing some sort of forced freedoms? Don't you think such a view can only be labeled as (forgive me but) hypocritical? Don't you think this is a 'you can do what you want as long as what you want agrees with me' mentallity? It reminds me of the recent Palestinian elections. The West boasts democracy and the freedoms and when the Palestinians vote Hamas into office in a free election, the West boycotts the country from the very first day. This is the problem with man made laws, I can understand an atheist following them, but I will never be able to understand a Muslims who follows them.


Yazan...
Abdul Rahman,
I dont wanna stray off the topic too... and let's be specific.

Basic Human Rights, tayyeb, u refuse to take the standards set by "europeans and americans".. fine I understand. When intitiating a democratic system there should a conference to set these standards. Now let me put out my version.

-The Right To Live
-The Right to chose one's religion, or any other belief system.
-The right to live in "equality" against the law, regardless from race, color, sex or religion.
If an Islamic state, allows me to live freely as an athiest, with no discrimination against me, then that is my friend what they call "Secularism" the same term u use as an "insult" maybe.
To be secular does not necessarilly mean to be anti-religion, or not religious... and I have MANY examples.
My favorite is Khaled Al-Azm, who is by all means A religious, Muslem, believer, but when it comes to the state issues, his main goal was to serve his country, and country men, regardless of their beliefs...

I'm just calling out My basic right, to express my Belief, without fear of emotional or physical discrimination.

Would an Islamic state allow me to have a sexual relationship with my girlfriend with calling it, Adultry... without the fear of goin to prison, for something that is very human and normal and mutually agreed upon.

Am I gonna be allowed to form a Secular party?
Am I gonna be prosecuted because I dont agree wih u that god created earth in 7 days?
Is my future wife, or gf or whatever will have to wear Hijab, even if she didnt believe in it?
Are other people who are not Muslems, will be called "Kuffar" as it was until last year in Saudi Arabia?
Do u think that the Majority has the right to tell me what to believe in?

The funny thing is, I would use the same argument U USED. I believe in Man-Made laws, EXACTLY because they're man made, because I believe that Human Race is limit-less, they created soo many Gods through History and they've destroyed them. That's how great we are, we ARE GOD. "Personal Opinion"


Abdul Rahman...
You still didn't answer my question ya Yazad. If the majority of the people do not agree with those rights that you listed (which I will go through later in the post inshallah) what would your reaction be? Something similar to the Algerian government back in 1992 "elections". Read the period between 1989 and 1992 if you don't know what I'm talking about. This is actually the only way what you're saying could be possible. Call for an election like any democratic person would, and when it is obvious to you that the people don't like what you like, bring in the army and call a state of emergency; the typical response of any Arab country.

Yazan said: "When intitiating a democratic system there should a conference to set these standards."
Where did you conclude that from? Nowhere does it say in any human rights act that there are basic principles that cannot be changed through regular elections. And anyway, going along with you, let us say just hypothetically that that is true, who opens the conference? Who attends the conference? Only people that agree with you and the Western human rights acts? Who gives those people the power to establish such unbreakable standards? The people? What if the people don't want these human rights? Like, as I showed above, what happened in Algeria. Or as I showed in my previous post, what happened in the last Palestinian elections. And I'm sure there are alot of other examples which I am not aware of.

As for your first three points of what you believe is human rights; the first two I have no problem with, but I do not understand the third:
Yazan said: "-The right to live in "equality" against the law, regardless from race, color, sex or religion."
The right to live in equality AGAINST the law?

Yazan said: "If an Islamic state, allows me to live freely as an athiest, with no discrimination against me, then that is my friend what they call "Secularism" the same term u use as an "insult" maybe."
First of all, I didn't insult you neither did I intend to insult you. I called you a secularist because I knew you were, not out of offence.

Secondly, that is not what secularism is. Secularism is the seperation of church from state. It is a reaction Europe was forced into after several years of Papal tyranny and dictatorship. A reaction whose consequences is something which some people wish to import into our own lands when we were never in our history forced into such circumstances as the Europeans were under Papist rule.

Yazad said: "To be secular does not necessarilly mean to be anti-religion, or not religious... and I have MANY examples."
Religous schools and the freedom to worship, build temples and the freedom of speech and meetings? That really amounts to nothing when the "obeying" part is in question. This is especially so in the case of Islam. Under secularism you have the right to lock yourself in a room and pray as long as you want, however, this is but a small part of our deen. Islamic law also delves into political, economic, judicial as well as societal rules and laws. It is a comprehensive system that deals with every part of human life and under secularism, only a part of it will be allowed, the rest is to be thrown into the dustbin of history.

The reason why Europe went through the reneisance and the reformation, which actually is the basis point of secularism, is because the Catholic church simply had no guidance as to how to rule and thus it was left for the Pope to be a dictator by his own rights. This never happened on our lands, neither did we ever go through what Europe went through. Thus I do not see the sense in importing an ideology which was the consequence of something we never experienced.

As for the other questions you gave, it will all fall under the shariah of Allah. Would you be allowed to fornicate? No. Would you be allowed to be an atheist? Yes. Would you be allowed to form a secular party, if you're talking about a political party (as opposed to simply a secularist gathering) then no. Would you be prosecuted for not believeing that god created the Earth in 7 days, no. Does your wife have to wear hijab in public? Yes. Would an athiest be called a kafir? Yes, according to Lisan al 3arab, al kafir is a person who disbelieves, refuses or witholds. With respect to a Muslim, you are one just like with respect to an Athiest, I am one. Finally, does the majority have the right to tell you what to believe? No.

Yazan said: "I believe in Man-Made laws, EXACTLY because they're man made, because I believe that Human Race is limit-less, they created soo many Gods through History and they've destroyed them. That's how great we are, we ARE GOD. "Personal Opinion""
For an athiest, creating so many gods throughout histroy should amount to absolutly nothing. I don't see how an athiest would take it as an inspiration that humans have the ability to carve statues and make up stories. On the contrary, the fact the humans created so many religions show not only that we disagree in alot of fundemental matters, but also that we are not perfect, neither mentally nor physically and are elligable to make millions of errors. Not even in a million years can we attain the position of perfection simply because of our limited capabilities and this is evidenced throughout the world's bloody history.


Yazan...
The Algerian example and the Hamas example are almost the same, and I agree with u.. almost about everything about them, they won the election. and they should have their chance to rule.. and the people WILL decide, but are they gonna be allowed to decide?...

Tell me exactly, what if the Majority wins the election and changes the law into a NON-Majority law, into a law that constitues that THEY and only they will rule, somewhat like what's in Syria right now [and they werent a majority when they did that, but nevermind]... They ARE a majority at that point of time, and they changed the law, and that IS legal. now tell me what happens now?

"-The right to live in "equality" against the law, regardless from race, color, sex or religion."

Against here is not, in confrontation with the law, it means that infront of the Law, am I gonna be equal to Muslims, I think I have my answer, becuz ur obviously talking about a Sharia law... and that will never let me, in a million years, be equal to a Muslim.

btw, I have a pretty clear idea about the history of secularism, I was just giving an example.

A conference of all the aspects of the society, and talking about Syria in particular, Secularists are not a few.
And, btw, here's the difefrence in the use of vocabulary,
When u say that I'm not allowed to form a political party, I call that discrimination and prosecution for my beliefs.

Let's go to the Sharia,
Me, I was obviously born muslim, and at some point in time, I turned Atheist, "Murtad". In that imaginary state, How would u handle my case?

Well, I believe in the genuisess of Man Kind, I believe in it cuz I believe in evolution.. and still amzed by the facts that come up everyday in that field, I can not explain that belief, just as much as u cant explain ur belief in a Godu've never seen, beliefs are simply beliefs, and should respected as it is.
I believe in Man Made laws, because they got through thousands of years of fights and struggles and they are still moving forward.
My point is, if they could creat gods like Aphrodite and Zeus [which are not The STATUES of them btw,.. they are gods just like Allah, for the people of that era] and they can destroy them and create new gods... that is quite genuis for me... considering the Concept of GOD...

To answer ur question, what would I do if the majority does not approve me as a member of their state?
I will leave thay state, and will grant my life to try to change, cuz I deeply belief that a state like that is not gonna survive... and the same people who elected them, will throw them away... but the thing is, ur not gonna give them the right to do that through ELECTIONS? are u?
I mean, ur not gonna let secular political parties... and possibly other religions will face the same, Christianity, Yazidieh, Jeudism... how exactly are the people gonna be given the choice to CHANGE, in case "just in case... have u considered that tiny possibility, that they will not like it that way?".. how are they supposed to change?


Yazan
Mr. Abdul Rahman,
I'm sorry, I read around ur blog, and to be honest, I can not continue this discussion with u...
I read some parts of ur Ideal Constitution, and they're soo disturbing that they fucked up my whole day.
This is not a 20th century state what ur calling for, is "litterally" and NOT in a Sarcastic way, is to be back to the tents and horses.
I'm sorry, Wish u all the luck in fighting for ur beliefs, but I can not respond to that kind of thinking. And I really dont mean any offense. I just can not find any argument that might work. because to me it's purly disturbing.

http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/english/constitution.htm

I'll just put some of the Articles in the constitution that are just way over the line.

Article 19
No one is permitted to take charge of ruling, or any action considered to be of the nature of ruling, except a male who is free (Hurr), i.e. not a slave, mature (baaligh), sane (‘aaqil), trustworthy (‘adl), competent; and he must not be save a muslim.

(SLAVE??? EXCUSE ME?.. Too Much(

Article 112
Women are not allowed to take charge of ruling, thus women cannot hold the positions of Khaleefah mu’aawin, waali, ‘aamil nor to practice any actions of ruling. She is not allowed to be a chief judge, a judge in maHkaamat ul-MuDHalim nor ameer of Jihad.

This even worse than Whabism...
I'm sorry, I respect ur ideas, but I simply can not respond to them, because I simply dont know how.


Abdul Rahman...
I know you said you do not wish to continue the discussion, but I just thought I'd reply to your comments in your previous post and then get into your next one.


Yazan said: "Tell me exactly, what if the Majority wins the election and changes the law into a NON-Majority law, into a law that constitues that THEY and only they will rule, somewhat like what's in Syria right now [and they werent a majority when they did that, but nevermind]... They ARE a majority at that point of time, and they changed the law, and that IS legal. now tell me what happens now?"
When a party wins elections they win for a reason, it is because the majority of the people agree with what they stand for. Now if this party changed its stance after the elections and started doing things that are completely against the constitution they got elected for, then they shouldn't be surprised if a mass revolt took place like that in Algeria. This ofcourse, is not necessarily effective and the people would most likely be silenced under the pressure of the army, however at that point, the ruling party no longer has the support of the majority nor is the country democratic in anyway. You're giving me senarios which could happen anywhere any time and in any system. What would stop that same party doing what they will do when there is "fixed human rights laws" as you claim?


Yazan said: "Against here is not, in confrontation with the law, it means that infront of the Law, am I gonna be equal to Muslims, I think I have my answer, becuz ur obviously talking about a Sharia law... and that will never let me, in a million years, be equal to a Muslim."
What equality are you talking about? Indeed there are certain rules that differentiates between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, however this certainly does not mean the Muslims will be stepping all over the non-Muslims. You should realise that such seperation of the people exists in every secular country in the world. It's call citizenship rights. The difference is, in a secular country the basis of who has more rights than who depends on where your mother gave birth to you (as a basis and then each country gives citizenships with respect to its laws). The reason they have such laws is purely economical and to be able to control labour values. This is a country that is based on the market and this is how it divides people within it's boundaries. Now compare a country whose basis is Islam, it will indeed divde people, but not on the basis of where your mother laid birth to you, but on the basis of how you think. These values do not change (as citizenship laws change) with according to the market and unemployment. The standard the Islamic country stands on is not the market, it is the ideology, the pure Islamic ideology. Add to that, we will not be stripping the non-Muslim of his citizenship, the mercy of Islam extends over everyone that lives within the boundaries of the state for our deen is for the whole of mankind. What rights are you worried that we will strip away from a non-Muslim? Since you have already seen the constitution, let me quote a few things from there:
Article 7 section b states;
Non-Muslims are allowed to follow their own beliefs and worships.

secton d:
In matters of food and clothing the non-Muslims are treated according to their religions within the limits allowed by aHkam Shara’iah.

section e:
Marital affairs (including divorce) among non-Muslims are settled in accordance with their religions, but between non-Muslims and Muslims they are settled according to the aHkaam shar’iyyah.

section f:
All the remaining shar’i matters and rules, such as: the application of transactions, punishments and evidences (at court), the system of ruling and economics are implemented by the State upon everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. This includes the people of treaties (mu’aahid), the protected subjects (ahludh dhimmah) and all who submit to the authority of Islam. The implementation on these people is the same as the implementation on the subjects of the State. Ambassadors and envoys enjoy diplomatic immunity.

Article 20 states:
Calling upon the rulers to account for their actions is both a right for the Muslims and a farD kifaayah (collective duty) upon them. Non-Muslim subjects have the right to make known their complaints about the rulers’ injustice and misapplication of the Islamic rules upon them.

Article 101 states:
The members of the Majlis al-Ummah are those people who represent the Muslims in respect of expressing their views to the Khaleefah when consulted. Non-Muslims are allowed to be members of the Majlis al-Ummah so that they can voice their complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of the Islamic laws.

Article 140 states:
Jizyah (head-tax) is collected from the non-Muslims (dhimmis). It is to be taken from the mature men if they are financially capable of paying it. It is not taken from women or children.

And as in article 145, the Muslims and non-Muslims both would pay the same amount of tax. The non-Muslims will pay the jizyah when the Muslim will have to pay the Zakaat. So no one is being singeled out and tortured.


Yazan, as for your question on political parties, murtadoon, and any others, these are Islamic laws. Read this;
"Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political group and not a priestly one. Nor is it an academic, educational or a charity group." This is from the party's website. I am not here to convert anyone to Islam so I will not spend too much time trying to convince a non-Muslim on every aspect or every single Islamic law. There are rules that have been clearly stated in the Quran and sunnah and I believe there is no argument about that. If the law is not clearly put, then there is ijtihaad to research and come up with an understanding and interpretation. Ijtihaad is open for all the people of knowledge and they can change what could be changed of the laws as Islamically allowable. It is the progress and the pumping life of Islam.


Yazan said: "To answer ur question, what would I do if the majority does not approve me as a member of their state?
I will leave thay state, and will grant my life to try to change, cuz I deeply belief that a state like that is not gonna survive... and the same people who elected them, will throw them away... but the thing is, ur not gonna give them the right to do that through ELECTIONS? are u?
I mean, ur not gonna let secular political parties... and possibly other religions will face the same, Christianity, Yazidieh, Jeudism... how exactly are the people gonna be given the choice to CHANGE, in case "just in case... have u considered that tiny possibility, that they will not like it that way?".. how are they supposed to change?"
Change from what? Islam? So that we will be thrown to another 80 years of horrid disunity, war, blood, famine and oppression? Have you not realised that the only time in history that we ever lived in security was under the Islamic rule? That the only time in history that we were at the forefront of technology was under Islamic rule? Poetry, art and architecture? We have tried everything since the fall of the Uthmanees, socialism, communism, tribalism and even facism under Nasser. We tasted the bombs of Capitalism or what you call democracy and felt the direct colonisation of the past and the indirect colonisation of today. Even though the last years of the uthmanees were indeed oppresive, yet they are nothing compared to today.

Now for your second post.

Yazan said: "This is not a 20th century state what ur calling for, is "litterally" and NOT in a Sarcastic way, is to be back to the tents and horses."
We are calling for the re-establishment of the Khilafah. We are calling for placing a Khalifah for all the Muslims from Indonesia to Morrocco. We are calling for the unity of people who speak the same language, have the same belief, pray in the same direction, working towards the same aim and love one another as brothers and sisters like no other nation on Earth. Why shouldn't a unity such as this be possible to materialise?

“There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.” - 1902 - Sir Campbell Bannerman, Prime Minister of Britain [1905-08]

As for article 19 and the mentioning of slaves in the constitution, this is a general rule that has been placed in full in the article. This does not mean we endorce slavery in anyway, on the contrary there is sufficient evidence that slavery is to be abolished Islamically. Add to that, the Arabic version does not mention slaves, it only says hurr (ie, free) and does not mention aabd (slave) this could apply to any restrictions which the ruler must not have on him in order to carry out his ruling.

As for article 112; again, this is Islamic concepts. Article 9 states that ijtihaad is the right of every Muslim. If a Muslim does not agree with one of the concepts and can prove it from the Quran and Sunnah, then the rule will be changed.

This is a short biography of the founder of the Islamic Liberation Party, Taqi ul Deen al Nabahani if anyone's interested. The party was established in the 1930s, we are not Wahabees, nor are we militant jihadees.

12 Comments:

Blogger Omar said...

I actually read the discussion today on Ghalia's blog. I have nothing to add, other than that I agree with you

May 14, 2006 2:42 PM

 
Blogger AhmadK said...

i wrote about 10000 comment, and then i delete it...

"NO COMMENT"

May 15, 2006 3:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

first of all Finally a new post!
and second No Comment!
Tso

May 15, 2006 4:24 AM

 
Blogger Omar said...

how come I never heard of this post?

man.. I should have been there shouting with you in the face of this guy who just woke up after 800 years of sleeping... revive the khalifate? wtf? I didn't think they were serious before..

let me tell you one thing before I go on ranting. whoever wrote the Quranic verses on that establishment, also turned Al Abed's building to storage areas and sweets shops (al abed building is the house of the first Syrian Government.. and from its balcony, the announcement of the birth of independant Syria was read in 1946).. which also turned Al Brazil coffee shop (which was the vibrant body of Syrian intellectuals in the 50's)into a 5 stars coffeeshop with a different name and synthetic marbles on the walls, and put pink ceramics on Sameramis hotel, and turned al laterna restaurant into a 4 stars exotic coktail.. a quest to erase the identity.....!!!!!!!!!

This, my friend, is a sneaky way to erase Syria's history as a prticular entity in the region, and replace it with a virtual islamic being that is based on the sole purpose of control.. just because people can't make history anymore, they want to revive the old days...

I have said this before, and I will say it again, Islam is not a tolerant religion.. not when it comes to acknowledging the existence of people who don't want to follow it (they should be beheaded by shari'a, right?).. or those whose lives flow in a different direction than what the islamic rules say.

the problem with this virtual entity they are trying to create is the assumption that religion is enough to create a nation.. which is ironic after spending 60 years fighting the existence of the state of Israel that was found on the basis of religion.
how the hell do they expect syrians to indentify with indonisians as fellow citizens? for heaven's sake.. Syrian and Lebanese can't co-exist these days.. do they really think that people would want to see damascus or beirut or Cairo with tents and camels again???

I had a similarly heated argument today that I was going to blog about, but I guess this is more immideate and dangerous... I will try to keep track of any developments in this post, in case another angry Syrian is needed :)

May 15, 2006 12:24 PM

 
Anonymous Mr.Z said...

Yazan, Thank you for this post! I totally agree with you. I'm even surprised for how patient you are and how you were able to handle this discussion with such a flathead!
I hate Whabbis and it hurts me so much that their numbers are increasing in Syria.
I'm so glad there are still people like you, Omar, ahmadK,Omar 2nd, agree with what you said, i'm so thrilled to know that some fellow Syrians believe the same!

keep up the good work, Yazan! Good luck to you

May 15, 2006 5:12 PM

 
Blogger Yazan said...

Thank you all for commenting,

@Omar Faleh,
I can NOT agree more, did u hear the last news bit, they're actually "sponsoring" the Qubayseya movement, so much for a secular regime...
They're the worst thing that ever happened to syria on all aspects, They played the "leftism" card, they played the "religion" card, "military" card, "sectarian" card... it's so sickening.

M. z,
thanx for ur support, but it wouldve been nicer if u didnt insult the guy ["Flathead"]. The vibrant thing about this discussion was that 2 people from oviously FAR FAR standing points on every single aspect of life, could sit down and talk about it. in a civilised manner. In a time like this, it's an accomplishment.

May 15, 2006 5:20 PM

 
Blogger AhmadK said...

I didn't want to add my comment on this post, but, as Hilmi send me an email askin for my opinion, so am gonna give my opinion...

first of all i HATE religion posts, and religion subjects...

i got my own thoughts about God and religion...

4 years ago, i was sure that God exist, and since that time i started to worship that God, IN MY OWN WAY

i do NOT need a book or a person to guide my relation with MY GOD.

about ur subject...

أنا مع يزن, لأنو الصراحة كلامو منطقي أكتر, ليش؟؟؟ لأنو عنجد هادا الصرح انعمل منشان يكرم الشهداء يلي حكا عنهن يزن, طيب بركي كان في من هالشهداء, شهداء مسيحيين, أو يهود أو حيلا دين تاني...
طيب معؤول المسيحيين ما عندهن شهيد؟؟؟
هلأ المسيحي يلي بفلسطين ازا استشهد...ما اسمو شهيد؟؟؟
لاء يا سيدي اسمو شهيد و نص.
و لما كتبو آيات قرآنية, فهنن كرمو الشهداء المسلمين, و هادا غلط, هي تفرقة بين الشعب, الشهيد شهيد لو كان دينو شو ما كان, شو دخل بهي؟؟؟
لكن معؤول منشان جمع تبرعات للشعب الفلسطين, تكون الطريئة منشان يحفزو الشعب و يشجعو انو يتبرع.
تكون الحملة الإعلانية عن طريق القرآن و الأحاديث؟؟؟
شو يعني ما بدنا نشجع المسيحيين كمان؟؟؟
ولا فلسطين بدها بس أموال مسلمة؟؟؟
لازم يكون في فصل بين الدين, و بين بعض الأمور الدنيوية.
و هادا الفصل مو نحنا يلي عم نطالب فيه, مشايخكن يلي ما عم تئبل فيه, لكن معؤول شيخ بالسعودية بيطلع منشان يخطب يوم الجمعة, و عم يقرا الخطبة من اللاب توب, معؤول يتبهدل على التصرف الشنيع (ركز على كلمة شنيع) يلي عملو؟؟؟

ازا انتو بدكن تخلو الدين قديم و حجري و على أيام الرسول...
اي بعتزر منك, الحياة اتجاوزت هالمرحلة من زمان.

May 15, 2006 5:41 PM

 
Blogger Mirzade said...

well hun it's not as bad as i thaught u know wat i am talkin about
cant say that i wasnt a bit surprised!!
bahebak
may

May 16, 2006 6:43 PM

 
Anonymous Mr.Z said...

@Yazan:

With every other visit to your blog; I grow more interested in it. It is in my “favorites list” and I read it whenever I have time.
Thank you for your replay. However I have become too tired of such extremists and I care no more of sitting with them to "discuss". The party that this guy supports wants to behead every "opponent" and restore Islamic caliphate (putting it in a very short way); so please don't blame me for calling the guy a "flathead" :(
I agree with you that YOU both are from totally two different worlds; and I agree with you that it is an achievement to "sit" with this guy and be able to discuss something; I don't believe, though, that this guy will ever re-think his ideology because this ideology means for him an "eternity in paradise", something that will NOT be compared to all of those points you tried to show him about free-thinking, minorities ,……, and democr…, wait… demo WHAT? Do you really think he gives a damn about it? I don’t!!
So I apologize for using foul language on your blog, because I don’t like to use such language in my daily life, believe me! But I don't think he isn’t what I called him anyway; I’ll keep that view to myself, don’t attack me, ok? :)

Shukran for you and for your answer to my comment!
P.S I would love to visit Japan; I like that country. I'm glad that you can now BLOG from there; I wonder how many Syrians blog from Japan, you must be the ONLY ONE:):) So, Yazan, why don't you post for us some nice photos from Japan and write us a bit about your observations of life and people? It will be so interesting to read that because:
1. It is Japan
2. It's written by a moderate, intelligent, and interesting person like you :)
So, why don't you give us (your poor readers:) ) a break from Syrian torture , I mean politics, and POST SOME NICE PICS FROM JAPAN:)

P.S Since I am a guy; there should go a typical question: How are the girls there?:)
And since I am Syrian; there should go another question, a question that you, as a Syrian, must be familiar with, you will hear it from relatives and friends once back home from ANY destination in the world:

"Tell us about Jewish involvement in Japan and Japanese politics and how they run the entire country secretly :):)"

I know you are laughing now, lol!

May 19, 2006 8:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»

July 22, 2006 10:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

尖锐湿疣
排铅
尖锐湿疣
中国康网
成人用品
尖锐湿疣治疗
中国癌症网

肺癌
胃癌
肝癌
肾癌
食道癌
子宫颈癌
乳腺癌
卵巢癌
直肠癌
结肠癌
皮肤癌
甲状腺癌
胰腺癌
前列腺癌
膀胱癌
骨癌
鼻咽癌
脑瘤

癌症
乳腺癌
肺癌
胃癌
食管癌
肿瘤
直肠癌
结肠癌
肝癌
宫颈癌
脑瘤
甲状腺肿瘤
胆囊癌
胆管癌
前列腺癌
白血病
鼻咽癌
肾癌
恶性淋巴瘤
皮肤癌
喉癌
舌癌
胰腺癌
膀胱癌

健康网
癌症
抗癌中药
肿瘤
胶囊类
片剂类
丸剂类
口服液类
散剂冲剂
针剂类
外用药类


牛皮癣
白癜风
鱼鳞病
脂溢性皮炎
脂溢性脱发
斑秃脱发
湿疹
阴虱
带状疱疹
狐臭
青春痘
中国文秘网
皮肤病
皮肤病医药网
牛皮癣
脂溢性皮炎
斑秃
白癜风
鱼鳞病
脂溢性脱发
阴虱
生殖器疱疹
皮癣
湿疹
青春痘
螨虫

健康
播客天下
华东信息网
牛皮癣
白癜风
鱼鳞病
脂溢性皮炎
脂溢性脱发
斑秃脱发
湿疹
阴虱
带状疱疹
狐臭
青春痘

这里有名言警句 名言警句
这里是菜地 菜地有很多菜
他是兽人皇帝grubby 兽族皇帝grubbyorc,fighting!
想要美丽健康,去美丽健康网 美丽健康网

October 19, 2006 6:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

保健
健康
心理健康
健身
保健
老年
男性健康
女性健康
两性健康
大众健康
婴儿健康
心理
中医中药
养生
美容
医药
肝癌
肝癌

癌症
尖锐湿疣
尖锐湿疣
排铅
成人用品
尖锐湿疣治疗
好狗网
糖尿病
高血压
心脑血管

肿瘤
肺癌
胃癌
肝癌
食道癌
直肠癌
结肠癌
乳腺癌
宫颈癌
贲门癌
肺癌
胃癌
肝癌
肾癌
食道癌
子宫颈癌
乳腺癌
卵巢癌
直肠癌
结肠癌
皮肤癌
甲状腺癌
胰腺癌
前列腺癌
膀胱癌
骨癌
鼻咽癌
脑瘤
癌症
乳腺癌
肺癌
胃癌
食管癌
肿瘤
直肠癌
结肠癌
宫颈癌
脑瘤
甲状腺肿瘤
胆囊癌
胆管癌
前列腺癌
白血病
鼻咽癌
肾癌
恶性淋巴瘤
皮肤癌
喉癌
舌癌
胰腺癌
膀胱癌
抗癌中药

青春痘
皮肤病
皮肤病医药网
牛皮癣
脂溢性皮炎
青春痘
螨虫
中国医改(医疗改革)与网上医疗
女人世界
喜欢做爱做的事
网上医院网上医疗
想要美丽健康,去美丽健康网中华康网
他是兽人皇帝grubbygrubbyorc,fighting!

最好的健康
健康
女性
康网
大众
男性
男性
保健
保健
成人保健
中医中药
中药
养生
健康
健康保健
肿瘤
健康管理
医疗
尖锐湿疣
养生
保健
健康
健康保健
养生
中华康网
健身
治疗

November 27, 2006 9:49 AM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home