Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
fanduiyisilanjiao

Are Baath And Hisbollah Allies?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Where did you read that?

And it may refer to the syrian baath party, who were a completely different kettle of fish to the iraqi scum who went by that name. Only arab country to support Iran in the Holy Defence, and they cut off relations with Saddam (la) from 1982 on.

Sunni-shia doesnt come into it. Many iraqi baathis were 'shia'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read somewhere that Nasrallah is supporting the Baath party. Can this really be true? I mean he is Shia and Baath are Sunni. Can someone please explain the relation between Baath and Hizbollah?

Good question .

Nasrullah is friend to any one fight USA , as he said year ago that he is ready to allie with Shafiz in vinswella . Sayyid Hassan was disagree with those who co operate with USA to drop Saddam Hussein ,but his opinion was to return relationship between Saddam and the Opposition .

He doesn't care about the Interests of the others ,but his only .

I would like to tell him that we are not enemies of America and do what ever you wish .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Fand,

You are most likely talking about the Syrians and if Hezbollah has good relations with them or not,

The simple answer is They are mutual relations of interest.

Hezbollah has formal but good strategic relations with Syria, it is a mutual understanding and Syria is a strategical asset for Hezbollah, Lebanon and vice versa. But they are not at all warm friends, especially considering their violent past and today with the alliance between Aounists and the islamist party. However today it has normalized.

They are not exactly hand in hand as most would like to believe. But when we speak of the Islamic republic Iran, it is a different story. They Do have warm relations.

Edited by Rubaiyat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good question .

Nasrullah is friend to any one fight USA , as he said year ago that he is ready to allie with Shafiz in vinswella . Sayyid Hassan was disagree with those who co operate with USA to drop Saddam Hussein ,but his opinion was to return relationship between Saddam and the Opposition .

Proof that he said this please.

Edited by Hassan kachal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did you read that?

And it may refer to the syrian baath party, who were a completely different kettle of fish to the iraqi scum who went by that name. Only arab country to support Iran in the Holy Defence, and they cut off relations with Saddam (la) from 1982 on.

Sunni-shia doesnt come into it. Many iraqi baathis were 'shia'.

I have made some research. My conclusion (so far) is that the Baath party is a secular pan-arabic party. This ideology is the same in Syria and Iraq or anywhere else. But as usual there are big differences between ideology and reality. So although from the ideologic point of view it does not matter whether you are Sunni, Shia, Christian or anything else, the Shias in Iraq were prosecuted by the Baath party. But theoretically Baath party recognizes freedom of religion.

But as far as I understand,Hizbollah does not. It is a Shia Islamic Party.

Please correct me if you think I am wrong!

This is one source that I have consulted:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...-shia-baath.htm

What do you think about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have made some research. My conclusion (so far) is that the Baath party is a secular pan-arabic party. This ideology is the same in Syria and Iraq or anywhere else. But as usual there are big differences between ideology and reality. So although from the ideologic point of view it does not matter whether you are Sunni, Shia, Christian or anything else, the Shias in Iraq were prosecuted by the Baath party. But theoretically Baath party recognizes freedom of religion.

But as far as I understand,Hizbollah does not. It is a Shia Islamic Party.

Please correct me if you think I am wrong!

This is one source that I have consulted:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...-shia-baath.htm

What do you think about it?

The Baath party in Syria is substantially different to the Iraqi one. The major difference is what defines an Arab to either group, and ultimately what culture is to be promoted in a Pan-Arab state. To the Syrian Baathis (and I have this on good authority from someone who translated a transcript of a Syrian Baath conference earlier this year), Arab culture is purely Islamic. This is not to say that Christians, Jews or even Druze are not accepted in a Baathist society, but that they hold that what bonds all Arabs together is Islamic culture. Most living in the Middle East will tell you that Muslims, Christians and Jews live pretty similarly, with all holding many core beliefs/cultural norms and practises. For example, many Christian and Jewish women will even wear Hijab in alot of communities in Syria and Lebanon, despite there not being Islamic law dictating them to - it is merely because their respective societies have chosen to adopt Islamic traits over the period of many centuries. Thus, it does not matter what ethnic group you are, as long as you adhere to Islamic culture you can be considered an Arab. Therefore, you can be at the same time a Persian and an Arab. In my opinion, this is far more progressive and beneficial to our people than what the Baathis preach in Iraq, which is a borderline fascist ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Baath party in Syria is substantially different to the Iraqi one. The major difference is what defines an Arab to either group, and ultimately what culture is to be promoted in a Pan-Arab state. To the Syrian Baathis (and I have this on good authority from someone who translated a transcript of a Syrian Baath conference earlier this year), Arab culture is purely Islamic. This is not to say that Christians, Jews or even Druze are not accepted in a Baathist society, but that they hold that what bonds all Arabs together is Islamic culture. Most living in the Middle East will tell you that Muslims, Christians and Jews live pretty similarly, with all holding many core beliefs/cultural norms and practises. For example, many Christian and Jewish women will even wear Hijab in alot of communities in Syria and Lebanon, despite there not being Islamic law dictating them to - it is merely because their respective societies have chosen to adopt Islamic traits over the period of many centuries. Thus, it does not matter what ethnic group you are, as long as you adhere to Islamic culture you can be considered an Arab. Therefore, you can be at the same time a Persian and an Arab. In my opinion, this is far more progressive and beneficial to our people than what the Baathis preach in Iraq, which is a borderline fascist ideology.

So this is not about Islam as a religion, but only as a cultural tradition? Similar to the notion of Christian countries?

In s.c. Christian countries it does not matter nowadays if you are a believer or not. You may even publicly deny the existance of God or promote Islam or any other religion, as long as you respect Christian values. But I think we need to define "Christian values". As far as i can see they seem to be the same as secular human rights. I also think it would be necessary to define Islamic values. But I believe this is impossible, as there are so many different opinions about that.

E.g. some days ago I met a woman from Somalia who refused to shake hand with me. I told her such behavior is rude and unacceptable in my country. And my Muslim friend from Iraq agreed with me. But she insisted that this was written in the Quran. She also said it is a sin to make music. Which kind of Islam is the correct one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So this is not about Islam as a religion, but only as a cultural tradition? Similar to the notion of Christian countries?

Yes and no. Islam is both a religion to those who practise it, and a culture to most in the Middle East - regardless of religious affiliation. Christian culture in 'Christian' countries is substantially different to culture in the Middle East. Whilst those in the ME tend to follow Orthodox sects which have evolved in tandem with Islamic culture and society, Christian culture in the West is directly rooted in Liberalism and Lutherism. Furthermore, Western nations only have a very recent history of non-White immigration, which means that Christian culture had previously evolved isolated from any interaction with anything else. To put it short, Arabs in the Middle East share Islam as a culture because it's dominated areas of science, art, literature and so on for so long. This is why one can live as a practising Christian, as well as use Islamic terminology such as "Mash'Allah" when their kid draws a picture, or wear Hijab.

But I think we need to define "Christian values".

Definitely.

As far as i can see they seem to be the same as secular human rights.

The notion of secular human rights is a very curious one, being that those that are seen as the original proponents of universal human rights used deeply theological arguments to back up just why we all deserve basic human rights. John Locke, for example, argued that because man is the property of God he is not able to sell his fellow human being. John Stewart Mill argued similarly, and the Liberal tradition is rich with theological arguments - so for me, secular human rights are impossible.

I also think it would be necessary to define Islamic values. But I believe this is impossible, as there are so many different opinions about that.

True, but this is not about Islamic values - it is about Islamic culture, which is different.

E.g. some days ago I met a woman from Somalia who refused to shake hand with me. I told her such behavior is rude and unacceptable in my country. And my Muslim friend from Iraq agreed with me. But she insisted that this was written in the Quran. She also said it is a sin to make music. Which kind of Islam is the correct one?

Simply put? The Somali woman was right. This probably wouldn't be a problem in Syria because Christians and Jews as well as Muslims would observe this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and no. Islam is both a religion to those who practise it, and a culture to most in the Middle East - regardless of religious affiliation. Christian culture in 'Christian' countries is substantially different to culture in the Middle East. Whilst those in the ME tend to follow Orthodox sects which have evolved in tandem with Islamic culture and society, Christian culture in the West is directly rooted in Liberalism and Lutherism. Furthermore, Western nations only have a very recent history of non-White immigration, which means that Christian culture had previously evolved isolated from any interaction with anything else. To put it short, Arabs in the Middle East share Islam as a culture because it's dominated areas of science, art, literature and so on for so long. This is why one can live as a practising Christian, as well as use Islamic terminology such as "Mash'Allah" when their kid draws a picture, or wear Hijab.

But Christianity is also both a religion to those who practise it, and a culture to most people in the West - regardless of religious affilation. Maybe the modern Christian culture is rooted in Liberalism and Lutheranism. But not long ago even Lutheran Christianity was very orthodox and in many ways similar to Islam. Even today fundamentalist Christians e.g. in USA share many moral values with Islam. And I don´t think the Catholic Christianity is rooted in Liberalism. I believe this is the reason why the Protestant countries have been so much more successful than the Catholic ones.

It is true that Western nations only have a very recent history of non-White immigration. But as far as I understand the Middle-East (with the exception of Israel) has no history at all of non-ME immigration. So people in ME have had no choice but to accept ME culture, while in the West we have cultural clashes. E.g. in Sweden we have had some cases of "murders of honour" (don´t know what it is called in English). This is obviously accepted in ME culture. But in our country murder is murder, no matter what the motive is. Another example is the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

Simply put? The Somali woman was right. This probably wouldn't be a problem in Syria because Christians and Jews as well as Muslims would observe this.

Do you mean she was right from a religious point of view or from a cultural? And do you really mean that music is a sin in ME?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Christianity is also both a religion to those who practise it, and a culture to most people in the West - regardless of religious affilation.

I beg to differ. I live in the West, and I find it hard to think of many people that I know that follow Christian principles. As for Christian culture - what do you define as Christian culture?

Maybe the modern Christian culture is rooted in Liberalism and Lutheranism. But not long ago even Lutheran Christianity was very orthodox and in many ways similar to Islam.

Lutheran Christianity did away with outdated hierarchy which had infested the Catholic Church - so for me, it's hard to see it as Orthodox. If you mean that it was Conservative; again, I struggle to see how it conserved any of the corrupt Catholic hierarchy, which was the basis for Christian society at the time.

Even today fundamentalist Christians e.g. in USA share many moral values with Islam. And I don´t think the Catholic Christianity is rooted in Liberalism. I believe this is the reason why the Protestant countries have been so much more successful than the Catholic ones.

I agree with the first part, and you are quite right in thinking that Catholicism isn't rooted in Liberalism (it probably predates Mercantilism). I don't agree that it has any correlation with how 'succesful' a country is. This is the same outdated modernisation theorist [Edited Out] that Samuel P Huntington tried to make popular, and anyone with an understanding of economics will agree that the reason that the West is 'succsesful' is not because they are good Christians. In fact, I'd argue that it's because they're bad Christians.

It is true that Western nations only have a very recent history of non-White immigration. But as far as I understand the Middle-East (with the exception of Israel) has no history at all of non-ME immigration.

This is because your understanding of Middle Eastern history begins with when it was carved up by the French, English, Russians and so on. Before there was even an Israel, communities migrated between towns, cities and even entire regions of Arabia regardless of religion because they all shared an Arab identity.

while in the West we have cultural clashes. E.g. in Sweden we have had some cases of "murders of honour" (don´t know what it is called in English).

This is not a clash of culture because there are no two cultures clashing. Incidents of honour killings happen in Islamic societies throughout the world, it's a sad fact - but a reality which occurs everywhere. To associate the practise with the actual Islamic faith would be similar to be associating Western levels of prostitution and homosexuality with Christianity. Honour killings are only an issue when a) a European is killed as a result, or c) the media decides to make them an issue.

This is obviously accepted in ME culture.

I can assue you that if you are found guilty of honour killing in Iran, you'll have a noose round your neck before the judge bangs his gavel.

Do you mean she was right from a religious point of view or from a cultural? And do you really mean that music is a sin in ME?

Religious. Why should she shake hands with you if she's not comfortable with it? Do you force yourself on all women this way? And regardless of whether it is music, or pork or whatever - a sin is a sin. There is no difference between a sin that a Muslim commits or a Christian commits - they are both sin. This is from an Islamic viewpoint, mind. However, if one regards one thing as a sin, and another does not - it is not the responsibility of the person that does not see it as a sin to force the sin on the person who sees it as one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I beg to differ. I live in the West, and I find it hard to think of many people that I know that follow Christian principles. As for Christian culture - what do you define as Christian culture?

Christian culture can be defined in many different ways. But here I refer to the principles of our present community governed by law.I believe those can be derived from our Christian heritage. Whether they are called christian or not is not important, and as we have freedom of religion I think it is better to call them humanistic. They have developed as times have changed. And I think definitely to the better - e.g. we do not execute people for having sex before marriage.

I agree with the first part, and you are quite right in thinking that Catholicism isn't rooted in Liberalism (it probably predates Mercantilism). I don't agree that it has any correlation with how 'succesful' a country is. This is the same outdated modernisation theorist [Edited Out] that Samuel P Huntington tried to make popular, and anyone with an understanding of economics will agree that the reason that the West is 'succsesful' is not because they are good Christians. In fact, I'd argue that it's because they're bad Christians.

I don´t know what you define as good or bad Christians. But I believe the authoritarian catholic governments have hampered the free thought in those countries. Lutheran governments were also authoritarian, but less so. During 19th century many Europeans who did not accept this lack of freedom, emigrated to USA. USA benefited from those people. But today there is no less freedom in Europe than in USA, which makes it possible for us to compete with them.

As for the Islamic governments of today, I cannot think of any that is not authoritarian. And naturally they cannot compete with us in the free world. People from those countries are coming to our countries because they cannot accept to be oppressed and they also wish to enjoy our wealth.

This is because your understanding of Middle Eastern history begins with when it was carved up by the French, English, Russians and so on. Before there was even an Israel, communities migrated between towns, cities and even entire regions of Arabia regardless of religion because they all shared an Arab identity.

This is my point. They were very few Swedes or Russians or other non-ME immigrants. So the culture clashes cannot be compared with what we have in the West today.

Religious. Why should she shake hands with you if she's not comfortable with it? Do you force yourself on all women this way? And regardless of whether it is music, or pork or whatever - a sin is a sin. There is no difference between a sin that a Muslim commits or a Christian commits - they are both sin. This is from an Islamic viewpoint, mind. However, if one regards one thing as a sin, and another does not - it is not the responsibility of the person that does not see it as a sin to force the sin on the person who sees it as one.

I do not force anyone to shake hands with me. But to refuse to shake hands is very impolite in Sweden. If you cannot avoid being impolite, why would you wish to live in my country? Would it be wise for women to insist to wear bikini in Iran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian culture can be defined in many different ways. But here I refer to the principles of our present community governed by law.I believe those can be derived from our Christian heritage. Whether they are called christian or not is not important, and as we have freedom of religion I think it is better to call them humanistic. They have developed as times have changed. And I think definitely to the better - e.g. we do not execute people for having sex before marriage.

What you are talking about is western humanistic culture. This is NOT Christian culture at all. Read your Bible. The values that Christianity advocates are starkly the polar opposite of what the present western culture, especially in Europe where christianity is dying fast, is.

Perhaps as a christian you would like to think that the humanistic way of thinking owes something or is part of Christianity, but it really isn't. If anything the humanistic ways of thinking evolved in the West in order to escape the shackles of Christianity. You gotta thank the works of Ibn Rushd for that ^_^

I do not force anyone to shake hands with me. But to refuse to shake hands is very impolite in Sweden. If you cannot avoid being impolite, why would you wish to live in my country? Would it be wise for women to insist to wear bikini in Iran?

So what? What are you losing by not shaking hands? If anything it shows ample arrogance for to assume that just because she is living in Sweden she has to adopt your values. Does her not shaking hands with you bother you that much? Be reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you are talking about is western humanistic culture. This is NOT Christian culture at all. Read your Bible. The values that Christianity advocates are starkly the polar opposite of what the present western culture, especially in Europe where christianity is dying fast, is.

Perhaps as a christian you would like to think that the humanistic way of thinking owes something or is part of Christianity, but it really isn't. If anything the humanistic ways of thinking evolved in the West in order to escape the shackles of Christianity. You gotta thank the works of Ibn Rushd for that ^_^

Yes, I am talking about western humanistic culture. We have freedom of religion. You can belong to and missionize any religion. But I cannot see in which way the western culture is opposite to Christianity. Could you give some examples?

Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance. The shackles you mention are the opposite of Christianity. This was how Sweden was like 150 years ago - very similar islamic countries today.

So what? What are you losing by not shaking hands? If anything it shows ample arrogance for to assume that just because she is living in Sweden she has to adopt your values. Does her not shaking hands with you bother you that much? Be reasonable.

I don´t lose anything. But she loses a lot by refusing to adapt herself to our conventions. She will probably never get a job in Sweden. And if she educates her kids in the same way they will have problems. Our schools already have problem with narrowminded Muslim parents.

BTW what do you say to women who would refuse to wear hijab in Iran. Is it safe for them to go there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I am talking about western humanistic culture. We have freedom of religion. You can belong to and missionize any religion.

Great! Then you realize it has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity as these are not christian values but humanistic ones. You just like calling them christian values because you like to believe these new values represent christianity but they don't; they represent the secular world-view

But I cannot see in which way the western culture is opposite to Christianity. Could you give some examples?

Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

1 Corinthians 11:3 -

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

(Head of every woman is the man)

________________________________________

1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9*

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35*

34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

(Woman to be silent in church. A woman is not to speak in church)

________________________________________

Ephesians 5:22 - 25*

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

(Wives must submit themselves to their husband, afterall he is the head of the wife)

________________________________________

Colossians 3:18 *

18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

(Wives submit to their husband -- the Lord expects it)

________________________________________

1 Timothy 2:9 - 15*

9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

(Women not to wear braided hair, gold, pearls, or costly array.

Women must learn in silence. Women are not to teach and not have

authority over men. Women must be silent. Adam was created first,

then Eve. A woman was deceived, but Adam was not deceived)

________________________________________

Romans 7:2

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.

(woman bound to her husband for life)

________________________________________

Titus 2:3 - 5*

3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

(Women to obey their own husbands)

________________________________________

1 Peter 3:1 -3

1. Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

1 Peter 3:5 -7*

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Genesis 3:16*

16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

(Women will be ruled by men)

________________________________________

Leviticus 12:2 *

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Leviticus 12:5

5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

(Woman unclean for 7 days if she gives birth to a man child.

She is unclean for 14 days to 66 days if she gives birth to woman child)

________________________________________

Esther 1:22

22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that [it] should be published according to the language of every people.

Job 25:4 *

4 How then can man be justified with God? or , how can he be clean [that is] born of a woman?

(Any man born of a woman is unclean)

________________________________________

Ecclesiastes 7:26

26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.

( Women can be source of evil for men. Men source of evil for

women? -- doesn't say)

The shackles you mention are the opposite of Christianity. This was how Sweden was like 150 years ago - very similar islamic countries today.

You replaced your old shackles for new ones

As I understand 90% of swedish boys over 15 have access to pornography. Its misogyny at its worst.

I don´t lose anything. But she loses a lot by refusing to adapt herself to our conventions. She will probably never get a job in Sweden. And if she educates her kids in the same way they will have problems. Our schools already have problem with narrowminded Muslim parents.

BTW what do you say to women who would refuse to wear hijab in Iran. Is it safe for them to go there?

I don't agree with Iran forcing hijab on anybody; as I think it should be done by freedom hence "no compulsion in religion". Try not seeing all muslims as one homogeneous group

why should she have to adapt herself to your conventions? Just respect her right to behave the way she feels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 Corinthians 11:3 -

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

(Head of every woman is the man)

________________________________________

1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9*

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35*

34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

(Woman to be silent in church. A woman is not to speak in church)

________________________________________

Ephesians 5:22 - 25*

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

(Wives must submit themselves to their husband, afterall he is the head of the wife)

________________________________________

Colossians 3:18 *

18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

(Wives submit to their husband -- the Lord expects it)

________________________________________

1 Timothy 2:9 - 15*

9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

(Women not to wear braided hair, gold, pearls, or costly array.

Women must learn in silence. Women are not to teach and not have

authority over men. Women must be silent. Adam was created first,

then Eve. A woman was deceived, but Adam was not deceived)

________________________________________

Romans 7:2

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.

(woman bound to her husband for life)

________________________________________

Titus 2:3 - 5*

3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

(Women to obey their own husbands)

________________________________________

1 Peter 3:1 -3

1. Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

1 Peter 3:5 -7*

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Genesis 3:16*

16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

(Women will be ruled by men)

________________________________________

Leviticus 12:2 *

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Leviticus 12:5

5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

(Woman unclean for 7 days if she gives birth to a man child.

She is unclean for 14 days to 66 days if she gives birth to woman child)

________________________________________

Esther 1:22

22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that [it] should be published according to the language of every people.

Job 25:4 *

4 How then can man be justified with God? or , how can he be clean [that is] born of a woman?

(Any man born of a woman is unclean)

________________________________________

Ecclesiastes 7:26

26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.

( Women can be source of evil for men. Men source of evil for

women? -- doesn't say)

Yes, I know these verses. I believe most Christians find them rather embarrassing. I have heard explanations like: "this reflects only the personal view of Paul", "this only reflects the society that time. but times have changed and of course we cannot have such laws "etc.

My uncle who was a priest used to cite those verses to explain why women could not become priests. But he represents a minority. Today there are even more female priest than male priests in Sweden. Would you say they are not Christians?

Sweden is a country with equal rights for all human being. If you discriminate women you are breaking the law. I don´t wont to live in a society where women are discriminated. I believe the discrimination of women and the general lack of freedom in Muslim countries is the main reason why they cannot compete with our enlightened countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not my intention to digress from the subject. I wanted to find out the ideologies of Baath and Hizbollah. The reason I asked the question is that I read in an arabic newspaper about plans of uniting the Baath parties in Syria and Iraq. It also said that Nasrallah supported this. Whether true or not, of course I cannot judge. But as i have understood this will be very difficult, as the ideologies of the two Baath are so different. So for the Iraqi Baath the Arab identity is important, while for the Syrian Baath the Islamic identity is important. Right? But is it the Islamic religion or the Islamic culture? I think the difference need to be defined. And also the Islamic religion needs to be defined. Does it conclude both Shia and Sunni? What about Alewites etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know these verses. I believe most Christians find them rather embarrassing. I have heard explanations like: "this reflects only the personal view of Paul", "this only reflects the society that time. but times have changed and of course we cannot have such laws "etc.

My uncle who was a priest used to cite those verses to explain why women could not become priests. But he represents a minority. Today there are even more female priest than male priests in Sweden. Would you say they are not Christians?

YES I WOULD

What they are doing today is practicing cherry-picking; taking the few verses they like and discarding the rest. Stop calling yourselves Christians. You don't practice Christian values at all!

You practice secular humanism and somehow color code it with the label of Christianity

Sweden is a country with equal rights for all human being. If you discriminate women you are breaking the law. I don�t wont to live in a society where women are discriminated. I believe the discrimination of women and the general lack of freedom in Muslim countries is the main reason why they cannot compete with our enlightened countries.

If your people are so enlightened why does Sweden have one of the highest rates of conversion to Islam. Clearly your people are lacking something that islamic values fill up. As for the BS about women; fact is the stats shows that 4 women convert to islam for every 1 male. Why would more women choose islam if it truly was guilty of the misogynistic character you wish to believe it is.

I'm the last person to pretend that conditions in muslim countries are perfect; but I really hate this pompous attitude you and your ilk have of being "enlightened" over us. You don't worship Jesus (pbuh), you worship Sweden. Its pride in Sweden that has you so upset about immigrants not following your ways, and you as christian should know what your Bible says about pride ;)

Like I said the fact that 90% of the average boy below 15 in Sweden having access to porn shows that Sweden is really no better than any other country when it comes to misogyny; which has various forms.

Edited by koroigetsuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian culture can be defined in many different ways. But here I refer to the principles of our present community governed by law.I believe those can be derived from our Christian heritage. Whether they are called christian or not is not important, and as we have freedom of religion I think it is better to call them humanistic. They have developed as times have changed. And I think definitely to the better - e.g. we do not execute people for having sex before marriage.

Neither do we, as far as I know. And fair enough, you think your 'culture' is better - and that is because you are born into a specific part of the world with your own paradigm. However, to claim that humanism is anything but loosely derrived from Christianity is abit much. Humanism relies on theological principles, but not on anything distinctively 'Christian'.

I don´t know what you define as good or bad Christians. But I believe the authoritarian catholic governments have hampered the free thought in those countries.

As far as I know, there is only one 'Catholic government' on earth right now (if you can call it that), and it's in The Vatican.

Lutheran governments were also authoritarian, but less so. During 19th century many Europeans who did not accept this lack of freedom, emigrated to USA. USA benefited from those people.

Who in the US? The thousands of native Indians that were forcibly converted to Christianity? I can assure you that they were alot happier when the Europeans were in Europe. Is this the freedom of religion that Christianity ensures?

But today there is no less freedom in Europe than in USA, which makes it possible for us to compete with them.

Here in the UK, I've been searched 4 times in the last 3 weeks by armed policemen at trainstations. They don't care about my White and English wife, but feel that they have to 'randomly' search me incase I plan on blowing up the train. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that these searches are anything but random, but directed at a certain ethnic group and anything that looks like it. Big deal, you might think - but I ask you to actually think for a second about what that does to a person's self asteem when they can't even take a train without being considered different to everyone else. You may think that freedom in the West is perfect, but as I said earlier in this post - you are born into a certain background, ethnicity and social group which makes it impossible for you to see how others live in this world. Just like how Israelis living in settlements cannot possible understand what life is like in a Palestinian slum.

As for the Islamic governments of today, I cannot think of any that is not authoritarian. And naturally they cannot compete with us in the free world. People from those countries are coming to our countries because they cannot accept to be oppressed and they also wish to enjoy our wealth.

The key part of this is the last part "wish to enjoy our wealth". I definitely agree with this, as I feel it is the major reason that people leave for the West. I have friends of all backgrounds, Iranians, Iraqis, Chileans, Nigerians, etc. What they all agree on is that they substantially prefer their homeland to living in the UK. The only reason they are here is for economic reasons, because their own nations don't have their own independent economies with welfare states to ensure that they are guaranteed a good standard of living. This is what you in the West wanted our countries to do - to squander our wealth under monarchies, corrupt military dictatorships and private corporations so that only a small faction of the population benefit from the nation's natural resources. This has nothing to do with fleeing Iran because they have liberal hearts - I can guarantee that 99% of Iranians in the West feel exactly the same about things like homosexuality and the death penalty as I do. The primary attraction to go to the West is money and education, not it's culture. Why do immigrant communities live in such proximity with each other if it was a matter of wanting to adopt another culture? This is not to say that people don't flee their countries sometimes - they do, but the West has managed to convince the public that economic immigration is the same as fleeing backwardness.

This is my point. They were very few Swedes or Russians or other non-ME immigrants. So the culture clashes cannot be compared with what we have in the West today.

But then why is this less severe than what we have in Europe right now? You were just arguing that Europeans enjoy a pan-Christian culture which bonds them in the guise of humanism and respect for secularism. So, why is the culture clash so severe if you all share a Christian culture?

I do not force anyone to shake hands with me. But to refuse to shake hands is very impolite in Sweden. If you cannot avoid being impolite, why would you wish to live in my country?

For the money, perhaps?

Would it be wise for women to insist to wear bikini in Iran?

Is this one of the Christian values that you claim every European holds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know, there is only one 'Catholic government' on earth right now (if you can call it that), and it's in The Vatican.

I was referring to the governments that were loyal to the Vatican before religion and politics were separated. So there were Protestant countries and Catholic countries. Sweden was officialy a Lutheran country until 2000. But now the Swedish Lutheran Church and the state are separated. I think this is very good, but it should have been done long time ago.

Who in the US? The thousands of native Indians that were forcibly converted to Christianity? I can assure you that they were alot happier when the Europeans were in Europe. Is this the freedom of religion that Christianity ensures?

I am of course refering to the present majority of the USA.

Here in the UK, I've been searched 4 times in the last 3 weeks by armed policemen at trainstations. They don't care about my White and English wife, but feel that they have to 'randomly' search me incase I plan on blowing up the train. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that these searches are anything but random, but directed at a certain ethnic group and anything that looks like it. Big deal, you might think - but I ask you to actually think for a second about what that does to a person's self asteem when they can't even take a train without being considered different to everyone else. You may think that freedom in the West is perfect, but as I said earlier in this post - you are born into a certain background, ethnicity and social group which makes it impossible for you to see how others live in this world. Just like how Israelis living in settlements cannot possible understand what life is like in a Palestinian slum.

Yes, I agree that British authorities are overreacting. But Muslims who refuse to adapt to our society are defenitely contributing to this Islamophobia.

The key part of this is the last part "wish to enjoy our wealth". I definitely agree with this, as I feel it is the major reason that people leave for the West. I have friends of all backgrounds, Iranians, Iraqis, Chileans, Nigerians, etc. What they all agree on is that they substantially prefer their homeland to living in the UK. The only reason they are here is for economic reasons, because their own nations don't have their own independent economies with welfare states to ensure that they are guaranteed a good standard of living. This is what you in the West wanted our countries to do - to squander our wealth under monarchies, corrupt military dictatorships and private corporations so that only a small faction of the population benefit from the nation's natural resources.

I don´t understand what you want to say. Is it our fault that your countries have not developed any welfare system? And just about all immigrants coming to Sweden are seeking asylum because they have been oppressed in their home countries. At least this is what they say. Do you mean they are lying?

But then why is this less severe than what we have in Europe right now? You were just arguing that Europeans enjoy a pan-Christian culture which bonds them in the guise of humanism and respect for secularism. So, why is the culture clash so severe if you all share a Christian culture?

Well, the clashes are of course with those who do not respect humanism and secularism.

Is this one of the Christian values that you claim every European holds?

It is part of human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was referring to the governments that were loyal to the Vatican before religion and politics were separated. So there were Protestant countries and Catholic countries. Sweden was officialy a Lutheran country until 2000. But now the Swedish Lutheran Church and the state are separated. I think this is very good, but it should have been done long time ago.

Thought you might have, thanks for clearing that up though.

I am of course refering to the present majority of the USA.

What exactly do you know of the majority of the US? I for one don't know much of people's standard of living there, despite having lived there for a year in Dallas. I do know, however, that there is a serious gap between rich and poor in the United States, which proves that not everyone in the US is content with the current system.

Yes, I agree that British authorities are overreacting. But Muslims who refuse to adapt to our society are defenitely contributing to this Islamophobia.

In the 1950's and 1960's, the same was said about Black immigrants. Would anyone dare say that Black people in France or Britain contribute to racism against them by not acting European?

I don´t understand what you want to say. Is it our fault that your countries have not developed any welfare system?

Yes, it is very much your fault. It is your fault because our countries act as the periphery to your core - we are a natural resource which you exploit, and that's why you are in the position that you are today. One pole of the world enjoys enormous wealth, whilst the other goes through tourment. Whenever we get a socially aware and progressive leader, you either support a coup to topple the guy or have him killed. Mossadegh, Ortega, Allende, countless attempts to kill Castro and now an open campaign against the democratically elected Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa and Evo Morales. The list goes on of European and US intervention whenever we try to grab hold of our own economies and use the money to actually build a good system. To put it simply, whenever we try to build a welfare system - you tell us that it is against our interest (read as your interest) and suppress it.

And just about all immigrants coming to Sweden are seeking asylum because they have been oppressed in their home countries. At least this is what they say. Do you mean they are lying?

I thought they didn't intergrate - how do you manage to speak to such reclusive people?

Well, the clashes are of course with those who do not respect humanism and secularism.

Or those that don't agree with being scapegoated because they do not feel what you shove down their throat as secularism is compatible with their religion.

It is part of human rights.

I've read both the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the Cairo Declaration, and in neither does it say choice of clothes is a basic human right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it is very much your fault. It is your fault because our countries act as the periphery to your core - we are a natural resource which you exploit, and that's why you are in the position that you are today. One pole of the world enjoys enormous wealth, whilst the other goes through tourment. Whenever we get a socially aware and progressive leader, you either support a coup to topple the guy or have him killed. Mossadegh, Ortega, Allende, countless attempts to kill Castro and now an open campaign against the democratically elected Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa and Evo Morales. The list goes on of European and US intervention whenever we try to grab hold of our own economies and use the money to actually build a good system. To put it simply, whenever we try to build a welfare system - you tell us that it is against our interest (read as your interest) and suppress it.

Our former prime minister Olof Palme supported Castro. I think this was wrong. Because Castro was a dictator. As for campaigns against Chaves, this belongs to democratic rules. I believe Allende was a democrat. But I have never heard of any swedish involvement in the murder of him. As for the other leaders you mention, I know too little.

But if you really wish to have democracy in your countries, you have my support. And I am convinced you have the support of most western governments too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our former prime minister Olof Palme supported Castro. I think this was wrong. Because Castro was a dictator

Castro is only a dictator because his country doesn't subscribe to the division of labour being applied to politics. However, I won't go into a digression.

. As for campaigns against Chaves, this belongs to democratic rules. I believe Allende was a democrat. But I have never heard of any swedish involvement in the murder of him. As for the other leaders you mention, I know too little.

But if you really wish to have democracy in your countries, you have my support. And I am convinced you have the support of most western governments too.

We don't want your Western sponsored democracy. We want our own system of rule, and if that turns out to be something totally the opposite of democracy - it will be whatever the people will. Whether or not the West supports it or not is irrelevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't want your Western sponsored democracy. We want our own system of rule, and if that turns out to be something totally the opposite of democracy - it will be whatever the people will. Whether or not the West supports it or not is irrelevent.

Please explain how to know the will of the people if there are no free democratic elections! You are living in a democracy (I wonder why you want do do that) so I believe you are capable to compare different opinions and judge what you think is right or wrong. But do you really think brainwashed Iranians in Iran are able to do that?

And if you prefer dictatorship to democracy, how can you be sure it will be the kind of dictatorship you want? What about Marxist ateist dictatorships like in China?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please explain how to know the will of the people if there are no free democratic elections!

Since when do the people vote on anything other than presidential/prime ministerial candidates every 4-5 years? The last referendum held in the UK was almost a decade ago, and that was merely to rubber stamp what the government already knew. Do you honestly think that any Western government knows the will of it's people? How many of the UK's people opposed the war in Iraq, yet they still bombed it anyway. Some democracy...

You are living in a democracy (I wonder why you want do do that)

Because I was born in this country (as was my mother and sister), and am currently studying to receive my degree. How many people do you know emigrate at 19?

But do you really think brainwashed Iranians in Iran are able to do that?

How can you talk of my people when you've never even set foot in Iran? What do you even know of my culture, political system or society?

And if you prefer dictatorship to democracy, how can you be sure it will be the kind of dictatorship you want? What about Marxist ateist dictatorships like in China?

Through direct participation by the people at all levels of government, without the division of labour being applied to the political system.

As for China being Marxist - I'll leave you to do your own reading about why China isn't even Marxist anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when do the people vote on anything other than presidential/prime ministerial candidates every 4-5 years? The last referendum held in the UK was almost a decade ago, and that was merely to rubber stamp what the government already knew. Do you honestly think that any Western government knows the will of it's people? How many of the UK's people opposed the war in Iraq, yet they still bombed it anyway. Some democracy...

The participation in the war in Iraq had the support of the majority of the British parliament. But many members of the parliament were opposed to it. Who did you vote for?

Because I was born in this country (as was my mother and sister), and am currently studying to receive my degree. How many people do you know emigrate at 19?

Well, I know at least 5 personally. And I know there are a lot more who have come to my country, most of them escaping from Muslim regimes.

But maybe emigrating the other way is another thing. And I understand you wish to benefit of the advantages of the West. But I suppose you will emigrate to Iran as soon as you have recieved your degree. Right?

How can you talk of my people when you've never even set foot in Iran? What do you even know of my culture, political system or society?

I have some Iranian friends. They have told me many things. E.g. about discrimination of women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Through direct participation by the people at all levels of government, without the division of labour being applied to the political system.

As for China being Marxist - I'll leave you to do your own reading about why China isn't even Marxist anymore.

Could you please explain what you mean by "division of labour"?

As for China, at least they say they are Marxists. And Marxism is still a compulsory subject in Chinese schools. Or do you mean that their Marxism is not real Marxism? Similar to what Muslims like to say about Christian religion in the West - that it is a fake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The participation in the war in Iraq had the support of the majority of the British parliament. But many members of the parliament were opposed to it. Who did you vote for?

I was not old enough to vote at the time of the Iraq war. It doesn't matter anyway, as democracy isn't as narrow a definition as your liberal principles lay it out to be.

But I suppose you will emigrate to Iran as soon as you have recieved your degree. Right?

I currently have an application to a university in Latin America, as it happens, to continue my education after degree level before travelling the Middle-East - Inshallah.

I have some Iranian friends. They have told me many things. E.g. about discrimination of women.

Excuse me if I laugh at your pitiful "experience" of Iran.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Lebanon there are Two separate and different Baath Parties one is Pro Saddam Hussein and supports the political line and ideology of The Saddamist Baath Party of Iraq and The Other Baath Party in Lebanon is Pro Syrian and follows The political line and Ideology of The Arab Baath Party of Syria and the Leadership of President Bashar Al-Assad and it is This Baath Party that is allied to Hezbollah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hezbollah supports the Communist party of Lebanon, the Syrian Baath party, Mourabitoun (not sure), some Druze (the ones headed by the legend Wi2am Wahab) and the SSNP. Why? Because these are all non-sectarian or non-extremist parties. They also support the secular but Christian-dominated "Free Patriotic Movement".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...