Jump to content
JermainTaylor

Balanced piece on the Assad regime by Mehdi Hasan

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

By the same logic Saddam should've stayed in power forever then? Why did Iran support his overthrow?

Your saying saddam and assad are one?

Earth to Mohammed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, King said:

This doesn't make any sense.  If you do not have the intelligence to discern right from wrong in what is elementary morality, why should you even trust your own judgement to determine who is knowledgeable and truthful enough?  Furthermore your last statement has 0 validity because of your own admission in the first statement.

It is comparative brother,  some things are more tricky and complicated than others and hence require greater depth in all those fore mentioned fields.  

Further when you understand the first you will begin to understand that contrary opinion only carries weight when the field and skill levels are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IbnSina said:

Your saying saddam and assad are one?

 

Assad may be less bad, he's still bad, certainly is a dictator and if on principle, you oppose tyranny you must oppose all forms of it. If the argument is the alternative to Assad is worse, then tell me when the alternative won't be worse? How long do you support Assad for? Till when? To what end? How many civilians dead are too many? How many refugees are too many? 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Assad may be less bad, he's still bad, certainly is a dictator and if on principle, you oppose tyranny you must oppose all forms of it. If the argument is the alternative to Assad is worse, then tell me when the alternative won't be worse? How long do you support Assad for? Till when? To what end? How many civilians dead are too many? How many refugees are too many? 

 

I am going to support him for as long as those FAR more knowledgeable than you and me, in all regards: political, religious, historical, etc, supports him.

These people are called the islamic scholars, one of the most notable ones is Ayatullah Khamenei, the supreme leader of the strongest Shia nation and the back bone of the Shia power house on planet earth. I trust in his wisdom and that he has far greater knowledge of what actually transpires on the ground in Syria, thru his many channels of information, than you and I might have thru the news we read online a day after it happened. 

You are judging the situation and subsequently Assad and his government based on the information you have. I believe Ayatullah Khameini has more information regarding the reality of matters than you, I also believe that the information he has is more accurate. I also believe he and those around him has a greater religious knowledge bank than you to be able to analyze and morally judge this information than you and me.

I also recognize the enemies involved in this conflict and their own agendas, they do not care for the Syrian people, they have no moral conviction to care to begin with, no codex, it is a matter of power for them. There is no moral aspect to it. You see how involved America is in Syria and its fate? They say they care for the syrian people of course, how many Syrian refugees have they taken in? Well, this year they have taken in 11 Syrians.... 11 freaking syrians....

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/04/12/602022877/the-u-s-has-welcomed-only-11-syrian-refugees-this-year

 

I recognize my own level of knowledge and my limited feed and scope of information.

I recognize those with far greater levels of knowledge and their feed and scope of information.

I recognize my own level religious knowledge and my ability to judge information morally.

I recognize those with far greater levels of religious knowledge and their ability to judge information morally.

I recognize the parties involved in the conflict and I question each parties agenda and why they would care to begin with.

 

No country in the ME will ever be left alone to be free to chose as they want, not in modern history and it wont be left alone until the western powers decide to leave it alone and they wont until they have become so weak that they wont have an option.

I remember the other day a guy from some UN organization for refugees came to my parents door as I was about to enter and he was telling me about how refugees need financial help, about the refugees running away from bombs. And I just asked him one question that ended his nice speech, which was: I wonder where they get their weapons and bombs from that causes refugees to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IbnSina said:

I am going to support him for as long as those FAR more knowledgeable than you and me, in all regards: political, religious, historical, etc, supports him.

 

Cool then, I wonder why we're having a discussion to begin with then, since you'll always support someone so long as Iran supports them. At least you've made that clear, but that renders any discussion about the Assad regime and its crimes with you effectively useless, because you're just going to be like well as long as Iran supports him, I will still do the same. There is no consensus on the Syrian crisis when it comes to maraja, and as is obvious Sheikh Nimr has condemned him, but you're willing to make excuses in that regard by saying he didn't have all the information at the time. Isn't he more knowledgeable than you though? Or are you now saying he lacked foresight? Wouldn't you be deeming yourself more knowledgeable than him by stating that? Even if now the situation in Syria is different from what it was in 2012, it still doesn't change the fact that a tyrannical regime doesn't grow any less tyrannical because the alternatives to it are bad. In 2011, Iran still supported the Syrian government, even though back then according to Sheikh Nimr it was a tyrannical government. 

4 hours ago, IbnSina said:

I also recognize the enemies involved in this conflict and their own agendas, they do not care for the Syrian people, they have no moral conviction to care to begin with, no codex, it is a matter of power for them. There is no moral aspect to it. You see how involved America is in Syria and its fate? They say they care for the syrian people of course, how many Syrian refugees have they taken in? Well, this year they have taken in 11 Syrians.... 11 freaking syrians....

 

I don't support US foreign policy, so I don't really understand what relevance this has here to begin with. Not every news source I read comes from a website that pushes US war propaganda, there are Syrians themselves that will tell you about the vicious nature of the regime. There are inconsistencies you can clearly see when it comes to the Syrian government and its anti-zionist/anti-imperialist/anti-terrorism stance, particularly when you look at how it has behaved in the past. The problem is assuming everyone that is critical of the Assad regime is an American war propagandist that reads pro-imperialist propaganda. 

4 hours ago, IbnSina said:

I remember the other day a guy from some UN organization for refugees came to my parents door as I was about to enter and he was telling me about how refugees need financial help, about the refugees running away from bombs. And I just asked him one question that ended his nice speech, which was: I wonder where they get their weapons and bombs from that causes refugees to begin with?

Who gets weapons or bombs? The UNHCR solely deals with refugees, if the guy was a credentialed UNHCR member you should've asked him for his credentials and looked him up. Are you blaming the UNHCR for the Western governments selling arms to armed groups in Syria? 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Cool then, I wonder why we're having a discussion to begin with then, since you'll always support someone so long as Iran supports them. At least you've made that clear, but that renders any discussion about the Assad regime and its crimes with you effectively useless, because you're just going to be like well as long as Iran supports him, I will still do the same. There is no consensus on the Syrian crisis when it comes to maraja, and as is obvious Sheikh Nimr has condemned him, but you're willing to make excuses in that regard by saying he didn't have all the information at the time. Isn't he more knowledgeable than you though? Or are you now saying he lacked foresight? Wouldn't you be deeming yourself more knowledgeable than him by stating that? Even if now the situation in Syria is different from what it was in 2012, it still doesn't change the fact that a tyrannical regime doesn't grow any less tyrannical because the alternatives to it are bad. In 2011, Iran still supported the Syrian government, even though back then according to Sheikh Nimr it was a tyrannical government. 

 

Brother I give up when you say that Ayatullah Khameini and Sheikh Nimr are of the same level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2018 at 4:07 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Cool then, I wonder why we're having a discussion to begin with then, since you'll always support someone so long as Iran supports them. At least you've made that clear, but that renders any discussion about the Assad regime and its crimes with you effectively useless, because you're just going to be like well as long as Iran supports him, I will still do the same. There is no consensus on the Syrian crisis when it comes to maraja, and as is obvious Sheikh Nimr has condemned him, but you're willing to make excuses in that regard by saying he didn't have all the information at the time. Isn't he more knowledgeable than you though? Or are you now saying he lacked foresight? Wouldn't you be deeming yourself more knowledgeable than him by stating that? Even if now the situation in Syria is different from what it was in 2012, it still doesn't change the fact that a tyrannical regime doesn't grow any less tyrannical because the alternatives to it are bad. In 2011, Iran still supported the Syrian government, even though back then according to Sheikh Nimr it was a tyrannical government. 

I did not say as long as Iran supports Assad, Iran is a country consisting of millions of people with millions of opinions from all walks of life. I said as long as Ayatullah Khamenei and men like him, such as Seyyed Sistani, see the need to fight the invaders in Syria. I see how it would be tempting to try and make this into a discussion of nationalism, it is not. The discussion is not that simple. 

In this case it is your personal opinion versus the opinions of people far more knowledgeable and informed than you, and no, I am not talking about myself, I am just relaying their words. So if you want to say something, bring something other than your personal opinion because you have no merits nor credentials to speak regarding geopolitical matters and its moral implications according to Islam, not when its your opinion versus theirs. Or do you have some merits and credentials you have not told us? Or are you Mohamed1993 from Tanzania that in between doing his life to life chores reads the news online every now and again and wants to correct everyone now?

Because so far you whole argument seems to be based on emotional conviction but when asked about your argument, your answer is that "syria should be left alone" or "assad and saddam are the same" and more thought thru statements... I understand your heart is in a good place but your "solutions" and statements also needs to have some anchoring in reality and what is actually feasible in this reality.

 

On 4/30/2018 at 4:07 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

I don't support US foreign policy, so I don't really understand what relevance this has here to begin with.

Nor did I say that you did. I said: recognize the powers involved and question their agendas. When from one side they do not take in refugees and from the other side proclaim their care for the people which is supposedly their justification for their involvement, we need to use our brains and question the situation. 

 

On 4/30/2018 at 4:07 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Who gets weapons or bombs? The UNHCR solely deals with refugees, if the guy was a credentialed UNHCR member you should've asked him for his credentials and looked him up. Are you blaming the UNHCR for the Western governments selling arms to armed groups in Syria? 

You missed the point of the text that you quoted and I believe this is because you are more concerned with replying than actually reading what your replying to.

Brother, what I was saying is that: The same people who are in the middle east to "free the people" are the same people selling weapons and putting them into circulations that is causing the peoples suffering. 

 


Anyways, sheikh Nimr(RA) was not a marja, did you know that? If you do then you also see how that comparison between his opinion and the opinions of the marajas does not stack up. I further believe it is completely wrong to quote sheikh Nimr(ra) on a situation of today that he spoke of more than 6 years ago. Do you know how much has gone down in the last 6 years in this complex geopolitical situation? I am more than convinced his words and opinions would reflect the present if he was present but he is not and may God be pleased with him and his martyrdom.

But since you like sheikh Nimr(RA) and his opinions, just like I do, then here is some more opinions of him you might want to listen to:

 

Edited by IbnSina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2018 at 6:26 PM, IbnSina said:

I am going to support him for as long as those FAR more knowledgeable than you and me, in all regards: political, religious, historical, etc, supports him.

These people are called the islamic scholars, one of the most notable ones is Ayatullah Khamenei, the supreme leader of the strongest Shia nation and the back bone of the Shia power house on planet earth. I trust in his wisdom and that he has far greater knowledge of what actually transpires on the ground in Syria, thru his many channels of information, than you and I might have thru the news we read online a day after it happened. 

This is the most absurd argument I have heard when it comes to figuring out what is really going on in the world.  It wouldn't hold a candle in any rational discussion about world affairs.  

Knowledgeable != speaking truth.  Furthermore it is generally the most intimately knowledgeable of men who best distort the truth.  This is almost a truism in world affairs and a constant theme in world history.  There is a reason why the most powerful nations have the most potent propaganda programs, because they know what is going on and want to keep it from the public.

What does strongest nation and being a power house have to do with truth or falsehood? Nothing.

Notice I am not claiming whether Khamenei or Nimr are speaking truth or falsehood, just pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IbnSina said:

In this case it is your personal opinion versus the opinions of people far more knowledgeable and informed than you, and no, I am not talking about myself, I am just relaying their words. So if you want to say something, bring something other than your personal opinion because you have no merits nor credentials to speak regarding geopolitical matters and its moral implications according to Islam, not when its your opinion versus theirs. Or do you have some merits and credentials you have not told us? Or are you Mohamed1993 from Tanzania that in between doing his life to life chores reads the news online every now and again and wants to correct everyone now?

I don't claim to be anything else but someone that does research and develops an independent opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but I try to argue based on what I have researched, that's how you have an academic discussion on issues as controversial as these. In a court of law where Assad is being tried, a statement by Ayatollah Khamenei will not be enough to prove him innocent. 

1 hour ago, IbnSina said:

Brother, what I was saying is that: The same people who are in the middle east to "free the people" are the same people selling weapons and putting them into circulations that is causing the peoples suffering. 

Why did you tell this to a UN official and pretended it was a smart thing to say to him? What does a UNHCR employee have to do with the western governments? He was asking for help for refugees, the refugees being created is not his fault, the organisation and its employees can't change the policies what they can do is deal with the situation as it is and try and offer basic services to people that desperately need it. I'm curious why the official had to hear your statement? Were you speaking to Obama? 

2 hours ago, IbnSina said:

asked about your argument, your answer is that "syria should be left alone" 

I think we need to help Syrians create an option that doesn't leave them with two miserable choices, are there no Syrians that can lead Syria apart from Assad? Is everyone that opposes Assad an extremist? What has the Astana process yielded thus far? Nothing significant, syria will remain under Assad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions are everywhere, but truthfully speaking, the majority of us have no clue what’s going on. Most of us don’t have direct personal connections to the events at hand, and even if we did, it’s easy to miss the bigger picture beyond the bridge of our nose.

We rely on media sources throughout the spectrum for insight, but often they too rely on indirect information, or are subject to the limitations stated above when they try to report from the ground.

Like the media, we fill the gaps in our knowledge with our personal logic and hunches, and extrapolate from there.

I suspect very few truly grasp this conflict in its entirely, including short and long term issues. If they ever talk, it’s rapidly drowned out by the non stop talking heads. Perhaps that’s by design. The more chatter, the less everybody seems to know, opacity increases, and the resulting ignorance is exploited for whatever agenda henceforth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 3:45 AM, King said:

Notice I am not claiming whether Khamenei or Nimr are speaking truth or falsehood, just pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument.

When I am speaking of people far more knowledgeable in this discussion and with regards to THIS situation, I am clearly and obviously referring seyyed Khamenei and other marjas who have not condemned assad, such as seyyed Sistani.

As for your statement of the obvious, yes, just because anyone is knowledgeable does not mean they will speak the truth but as you by now hopefully understand, I am not speaking about just anyone, I am not referring to the calculus teacher at your university.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 3:48 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

I don't claim to be anything else but someone that does research and develops an independent opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but I try to argue based on what I have researched, that's how you have an academic discussion on issues as controversial as these. In a court of law where Assad is being tried, a statement by Ayatollah Khamenei will not be enough to prove him innocent. 

You judge the situation based on the information you have, correct? Your research is based on things your read and have seen online published most often by a third hand source, I do not think you have been in Syria.

Well, I am more than convinced that ayatollah Khamenei has more information about the situation than you do, especially because he is more involved and invested than you. I also believe that he knows better how to judge the information he reviews based on islamic teachings than you do. It is your words against the words of ayatollah Khamenei. We trust his words before we trust yours, is that hard to swallow?

 

On 5/2/2018 at 3:48 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Why did you tell this to a UN official and pretended it was a smart thing to say to him? What does a UNHCR employee have to do with the western governments? He was asking for help for refugees, the refugees being created is not his fault, the organisation and its employees can't change the policies what they can do is deal with the situation as it is and try and offer basic services to people that desperately need it. I'm curious why the official had to hear your statement? Were you speaking to Obama? 

The fact that he was from the UNHCR has little not relevancy to what I was telling you and the point I was making. The question was not a critique towards him but towards the situation as a whole with regards to actions and consequences and their respective motivations. The fact that your still talking about who he was and where he was from just tells me you are not interested in getting the point of the story, so I am not going to waste my time repeating it, you can go read what you "replied" to again if you still dont get it and wish to do so.

 

On 5/2/2018 at 3:48 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

I think we need to help Syrians create an option that doesn't leave them with two miserable choices, are there no Syrians that can lead Syria apart from Assad? Is everyone that opposes Assad an extremist? What has the Astana process yielded thus far? Nothing significant, syria will remain under Assad. 

Brother, first of all, non of your "solutions" are actually statements, they just end with question marks, why dont you try and give some concrete solutions instead of vague ideas based on your "research". Some feasible solutions that are actually doable without interference. The options you have in the real world, especially when it comes to politics, are usually limited to different shades of gray, you will never be able to make everyone happy.

But I still dont think your getting it. Syria and its government, whether its assad or anyone ells, will NEVER be left in peace so long as it is not a slave to the super powers, to the zionist regime and their slaves. Non of the middle eastern countries will ever be left in peace if it does not wish to obey. That is the reality of matters backed by the last 100 years of middle eastern history, which includes the two world wars and soon the third.

Edited by IbnSina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IbnSina said:

The fact that he was from the UNHCR has little not relevancy to what I was telling you and the point I was making. The question was not a critique towards him but towards the situation as a whole with regards to actions and consequences and their respective motivations. The fact that your still talking about who he was and where he was from just tells me you are not interested in getting the point of the story, so I am not going to waste my time repeating it, you can go read what you "replied" to again if you still dont get it and wish to do so.

No I actually don't get it because if some organisation asked me for refugee donations, I wouldn't think to tell him let me make some smirk remark about who creates these refugees unless he was involved it. You said you made this comment that shut him up, what purpose did your comment achieve? The way you say you made it, makes it sound like you put him in his place, except that you didn't target the right person. The person matters, you don't just go blabber on about the geopolitical situation of the world to a humanitarian worker, what is he supposed to do? Not ask for donations because western governments are arming terrorist groups? Also, perhaps he should've responded that many refugees also flee Assad, just look at some polls. 

2 hours ago, IbnSina said:

Well, I am more than convinced that ayatollah Khamenei has more information about the situation than you do, especially because he is more involved and invested than you. I also believe that he knows better how to judge the information he reviews based on islamic teachings than you do. It is your words against the words of ayatollah Khamenei. We trust his words before we trust yours, is that hard to swallow?

Speak for yourself, don't say things like "we trust", because some users don't agree with you, but like I said in a court of law, your argument wouldn't hold any water, you would make your statement and be asked to produce this information, which you cannot do. I had this discussion with you because you started off by saying Assad is the only alternative and a lesser evil, but when I challenged that assertion, you turned your argument into one that's based on blind faith. Had you started your argument with I will follow whatever Ayatollah Khamenei decrees, then I wouldn't have had this argument with you, but you start off with a questionable claim and then when people try to debate with you, you change your argument to one that's driven by adherence to a figure of authority. It's intellectually dishonest, maybe you should just say you support Assad because of certain maraja's opinions about fighting invaders, instead of trying to use this lesser evil argument that you can't really defend with an argument that would hold in a court of law.

2 hours ago, IbnSina said:

Brother, first of all, non of your "solutions" are actually statements, they just end with question marks, why dont you try and give some concrete solutions instead of vague ideas based on your "research". Some feasible solutions that are actually doable without interference. The options you have in the real world, especially when it comes to politics, are usually limited to different shades of gray, you will never be able to make everyone happy.

And yours are? So Syrians should just be ruled by Assad forever then because the west won't allow them to be independent? Is that your claim? The fact that no government will be left alone unless it is a puppet is understood, however a government being anti-imperialist does not mean it should be defended regardless of how it acts. The whole point of being anti-imperialist is you fight for your people against greedy foreign corporations looting your resources, but if you're already involved in gross abuses against your own people that loses all credibility. Mugabe was also an anti-imperialist, yet people used to go to markets with bags of money to buy bread, Maduro in Venezuela is also anti-imperialist, but they have an inflation rate of 2000%, because of government policies. In Syria, the security forces detained anyone that spoke a word against the Baathist regime, even academics and intellectuals that merely criticised economic policies were imprisoned. So should the people have to suffer just because xyz is anti-imperialist? If Syria's problems were all manufactured by outside powers and Assad was blameless, I would agree with you, however he is partly (not fully) to blame for the situation becoming the way it is, and so, I don't see why Syrians should have to put up with him. Are you arguing that the Middle East's only options to anti-imperialist resistance are dictatorial regimes which if done away with will become western puppet states? Is Tunisia a client state of the West? They got rid of their pro-American dictator in 2011, now they have a representative government and Tunisia was one of the few Arab countries that condemned the Arab league's decision to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Is the government perfect? No it isn't, and they have significant problems with their economy, but compared to one-family rule for 50 years where you can't even say a word against your government, the comparison isn't even worth making. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Speak for yourself, don't say things like "we trust", because some users don't agree with you, but like I said in a court of law, your argument wouldn't hold any water, you would make your statement and be asked to produce this information, which you cannot do. I had this discussion with you because you started off by saying Assad is the only alternative and a lesser evil, but when I challenged that assertion, you turned your argument into one that's based on blind faith. Had you started your argument with I will follow whatever Ayatollah Khamenei decrees, then I wouldn't have had this argument with you, but you start off with a questionable claim and then when people try to debate with you, you change your argument to one that's driven by adherence to a figure of authority. It's intellectually dishonest, maybe you should just say you support Assad because of certain maraja's opinions about fighting invaders, instead of trying to use this lesser evil argument that you can't really defend with an argument that would hold in a court of law.

When I say we, I say we as those who listen to Ayatollah Khameneis wisdom and they are far more than you and the people here that agree with you. No need to get defensive.

The argument is still the same: Assad is the best option at this moment of time and what we should go for, just like ayatollah Khameneis has said. It is one continuous argument, if you think I would have the arrogance to think myself more wise and with more insight than ayatollah Khamenei, then you are wrong. I and people who follow him "we" trust him more than that. To call it blind faith is insulting, it is not blind faith, its faith backed by reason and the reality of matters. I am sorry you cannot see that.

 

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

And yours are? So Syrians should just be ruled by Assad forever then because the west won't allow them to be independent? Is that your claim? The fact that no government will be left alone unless it is a puppet is understood, however a government being anti-imperialist does not mean it should be defended regardless of how it acts. The whole point of being anti-imperialist is you fight for your people against greedy foreign corporations looting your resources, but if you're already involved in gross abuses against your own people that loses all credibility. Mugabe was also an anti-imperialist, yet people used to go to markets with bags of money to buy bread, Maduro in Venezuela is also anti-imperialist, but they have an inflation rate of 2000%, because of government policies. In Syria, the security forces detained anyone that spoke a word against the Baathist regime, even academics and intellectuals that merely criticised economic policies were imprisoned. So should the people have to suffer just because xyz is anti-imperialist? If Syria's problems were all manufactured by outside powers and Assad was blameless, I would agree with you, however he is partly (not fully) to blame for the situation becoming the way it is, and so, I don't see why Syrians should have to put up with him. Are you arguing that the Middle East's only options to anti-imperialist resistance are dictatorial regimes which if done away with will become western puppet states? Is Tunisia a client state of the West? They got rid of their pro-American dictator in 2011, now they have a representative government and Tunisia was one of the few Arab countries that condemned the Arab league's decision to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Is the government perfect? No it isn't, and they have significant problems with their economy, but compared to one-family rule for 50 years where you can't even say a word against your government, the comparison isn't even worth making. 

I dont think assad nor his family are the ideal leaders of Syria but I also think that at this point of time, with whats going on, finding a proper leader without the influence of the west that all the Syrians will be happy with is simply impossible. InshaAllah they will get a good shia muslim leader in the future that does not have a questionable past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

To call it blind faith is insulting, it is not blind faith, its faith backed by reason and the reality of matters. I am sorry you cannot see that.

There is no other way to call it really, we make our own judgements all the time, why watch the news and follow what's going on in the world then, just listen to figures of authority and develop your opinion based on that then. Reality doesn't work that way. We're told to seek knowledge from cradle to grave, that's all I'm doing, it isn't arrogance, I'm presenting my opinion and you're presenting yours, that's all there is to it. What you seem to be saying is people shouldn't have opinions or shouldn't voice them if they run contrary to what religious scholars say. Sorry, I disagree. I'm less educated than a lot of people on earth and I certainly don't claim to be the most educated person on earth, that doesn't mean I can't question what people more educated than me say. Economists are experts in their field, yet the vast majority failed to predict the financial crisis, does that now mean I can't have an opinion that is different from what they say? Your argument isn't based on reason, because the moment I asked you to what end will you support Assad by this notion of lesser evil, you didn't respond with an academic argument, you relegated your decision to that of a figure of authority. That argument wouldn't hold in a debate or a court. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, IbnSina said:

When I am speaking of people far more knowledgeable in this discussion and with regards to THIS situation, I am clearly and obviously referring seyyed Khamenei and other marjas who have not condemned assad, such as seyyed Sistani.

As for your statement of the obvious, yes, just because anyone is knowledgeable does not mean they will speak the truth but as you by now hopefully understand, I am not speaking about just anyone, I am not referring to the calculus teacher at your university.

Again, that is not you how a rational person assesses what is going on in the world or even a specific issue.  You keep repeating this argument over and over in all your posts but it is inherently fallacious:

Appeal to Authority

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. 

You have to look at the facts, you cannot just blindly trust figures of authority.  This is why the most serious academics and experts who are worth anything always offer ample facts/resources/evidence while making bold claims, especially when it comes to political affairs.


Another inherent weakness in your core argument is home side bias, which is incredibly strong.  The scholars in Iran are not an independent neutral party offering their perspective on what is happening in Syria.  They are an active participant which are fighting for a specific outcome, and that is backing Assad to remain in power.  No rational minded individual would expect either side in a conflict to be perfectly truthful about what is going on.  Take a look at every single war record in history, both sides exaggerate other sides losses and their victories.  They also downplay their own atrocities and exaggerate crimes of the other side.


What rational minded people do is take a look at the facts, and if you do not have direct access to facts, you at the very least refer to neutral independent observers who have a strong track record in covering these conflicts.  At the moment such sources are journalists like Patrick Cockburn and Robert Fisk.  They have a lengthy record of sound and intellectually honest reporting on the middle east, and the vast majority of the time they have been critical of the Western powers and Arab states.  In fact even on Syria they have been extremely critical of Saudi Arabia and the US backed rebels.  No one is perfect, but any sensible person would rather trust independent journalists with a strong track record than people actively involved in the conflict, as being honest is not the highest priority.

Also, we are well aware of Western propaganda, any criticism of Assad or his father here has not been made based on CNN/BBC reporting, and certain not the white helmets or whatever.  And no, we don't just believe Assad is behind every single chemical attack.  There has been serious doubt about a lot of crimes Assad has been accused of, that doesn't mean some of his other crimes are not obvious.  There are credible people out there doing courageous work, not everyone is willing to blindly trusts religious scholars as a source of all their information.

Edited by King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 5:43 PM, Mohamed1993 said:

 

Listen brother, there are two points to this story that we should both keep in mind:

1. Right now in Syria, you have the turks coming in from the north with their own agenda supporting the FSA, the kurds from the east claiming land with the support of the US, the israelis(la) from the south west freely bombing targets in syria as they feel, the western coast of Lebanon filled with american and french boats as well as british submarines and jets from their military base in Cyprus, missiles lined up from the Jordanian border and then on top of that you have daesh(la) still skirmishing the land and having the media redefine them as "freedom rebels".

Syria needs stability before anything ells at this point of time and right now Assad is the most feasible option, that does not mean he is ideal or an angel, but that out of all the options in this war thorn land and in this very situation with several different forces roaming freely, each with their own agenda, Assad is the most stable choice right now who does not immediately serve the enemies of Islam and the axis of oppression. InshaAllah the Syrians will get a leader they are all (majority) happy with once Syria is stabilized and if they were to vote, perhaps Assad would get a majority of the votes either way. But right now there is no possible situation for a unbiased voting, not when there are so many fingers on the board trying to influence the outcome. Syria needs to stabilize and foreign powers/forces that are not invited needs to leave before the land can start to heal and the people with it.

2. Second point is that when such a ayatollah like Imam Khamenei which, whether you like his choices or not, have created a powerful shia nation thru his choices, says that Assad is the best option at this point of time, then we need to pay respect although you as a laymen in all senses might not understand the wisdom behind it, even if you do not fully agree you should reserve yourself the right to be wrong at least and thus remain humble in your opinion but you are not.

His opinion is most definitely related to the first point which is that Syria is in chaos and needs stability before it needs change and that change will later come from the citizens will, not at the hands of foreign powers influencing the change. Unfortunately you seem to underestimate and undermine ayatollah Khamenei. When I say his name you say "Iran", when I say his name again you say "scholars". He is not just any random Iranian scholar, its sad that you do no realize the wisdom he has. The battle for the future of Syria concerns subjects far greater than just Syria. To realize the actual truth of matters, the agendas of the different factors and what actions will cause what consequences, it takes Basira, and it is something that both you and I lack, but not him.

Furthermore, when we look at groups of unknown people who are most likely to speak truthfully we should look at their level of taqwa first and foremost. If I have to chose who to believe between a kafir and a person with high taqwa on the same subject, I will rationally thinking be more prone to listen to the person with taqwa as he understands that although he might trick me, there is someone who he cannot trick and that is recording his actions. I dont believe the entire administration of ayatollah Khamenei are angels but I believe that he is a truthful man with a lot of taqwa and he does have the last word when it comes to Iranian politics.

The above two connected points is my standpoint and perspective and it is a perspective I share with ayatollah Khamenei as well as those scholars who have not condemn Assad in your manner because they see the truth of matters, such as seyyed Sistani and more. We are ready to follow their wisdom when it comes to halal and haram matters but when it comes to their wisdom regarding matters that will shape the future of islam and its prosperity, then we are ready to be "free thinkers" and respecting their wisdom now is called "blind faith"...

Maybe you see these men as mere politicians or some other random figures of authority and that is truly a shame that the world has done that to you because not all humans are the same, even though you might have ran into the same type of people throughout your life.

 

If you still do not see what I am echoing from people with far greater taqwa and basira than us, then we will have to agree to disagree and inshaAllah Allahسُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى will be the one judging the situation and making His judgement clear to us before we die so that we may correct us in efforts to please Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×