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

Syria without Bashar Al-Assad

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Do you think if one day Assad died and Syria had to elect a new leader. Do you think Syria would shift toward a pro-Western approach, and weaken ties with Iran immediately. Or would you say they would have a leader like Erdogan, who is not anti-Iran, but also favors relations with the West. Also assuming he would be gone, would this be a huge blow for Hezbollah and the Shia world. Assad has great support for them, so it's possible if someone else comes to power, they can change their view on Hezbollah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Banned

Afterall, it is a nusairi that supports the twelver plans in Greater Syria? But let me put things in a bit of context. How big is Hezbulla ? What does the twelver world have to do with Syria?

What do the twelvers in Iran/Iraq/Pakistan/India/Afghanistan have to do with Syria? Why are Syrian Sunnis and nusairis so important to the twelver shia world. Or do you just want Syria without its Sunnis and Nusairis? Remember Damascus has 7 million Sunnis. Lebanon has not even 1.5 million twelvers.

Syria is the land of Sunnis. Bashar the nusairi, when he enters a Sunni mosque in Aleppo, prays as a Sunni, yes as a Sunni, with his hands on his chest!

Edited by (_Sijistani_)
Link to post
Share on other sites

storm large ,massacres against who ?

btw ,yazid had been a succesful warrior during the battle of cyprus ,if you restrict him to the sad events of kerballa in which he played an indirect role and especially his attack against the holy sites in his end ,his rule was not only dark,he was a reformer,a man of letter,and was a true muslim.If you want to compare him with today rulers ,like your super star khomaini ,he was far better ruler than him.And i tend to believe that he respected hussain despite the quarrel and despite what we could read here and there,hussain was victim of the so called shi'at ali cowards,the legendary half men....

Bani Ummayya defeated bigger than the small zionists of today,they are the builder of the Islamic nation.

Edited by Omar Khayyam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
storm large ,massacres against who ?

btw ,yazid had been a succesful warrior during the battle of cyprus ,if you restrict him to the sad events of kerballa in which he played an indirect role and especially his attack against the holy sites in his end ,his rule was not only dark,he was a reformer,a man of letter,and was a true muslim.If you want to compare him with today rulers ,like your super star khomaini ,he was far better ruler than him.And i tend to believe that he respected hussain despite the quarrel and despite what we could read here and there,hussain was victim of the so called shi'at ali cowards,the legendary half men....

Bani Ummayya defeated bigger than the small zionists of today,they are the builder of the Islamic nation.

If Yazeed respected Husayn [a] then he would have not tried to get allegiance after the death of his father, nor would he have paraded his family around in the streets of Kufa and Damascus.

All these acts display disrespect and enemity and very far from respect.

And if you believe drinking, fornicating and indulging in all other acts of haram makes one a true muslim then you must be dreaming. Yazeed not only did that but also went further in attacking Medina and Mecca in his time. That is not how true muslims are or behave.

And history knows people through their actions, you wish to ignore Karbala and look at Yazeed which is a grave injustice to humanity and to the aspect of justice itself. Karbala displayed the true nature of Yazeed and his direct role in the killing of the Grandson of the Prophet [p].

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
storm large ,massacres against who ?

btw ,yazid had been a succesful warrior during the battle of cyprus ,if you restrict him to the sad events of kerballa in which he played an indirect role and especially his attack against the holy sites in his end ,his rule was not only dark,he was a reformer,a man of letter,and was a true muslim.If you want to compare him with today rulers ,like your super star khomaini ,he was far better ruler than him.And i tend to believe that he respected hussain despite the quarrel and despite what we could read here and there,hussain was victim of the so called shi'at ali cowards,the legendary half men....

Bani Ummayya defeated bigger than the small zionists of today,they are the builder of the Islamic nation.

No Yazid is the coward. A coward is someone who attacks people who are clearly out numbered, and to try and bring genocide to them. Even today you coward Sunnis try to raise your wrath upon Iran. Iran defeated you in the Iran-Iraq war, when 40 + nations sided with Iraq to destroy Iran, so don't call us cowards, when it is apparent who the real cowards are.

The Safavid gave you a taste of your own medicine, by getting rid of your ideology out of Iran. Had Iran been a Sunni country today, we would be just another Egypt. A country with large size, but can't use it's own potential, because it is being spoon fed by powers in the West.

If this Yazid person and his followers built Islam, why are their successors allowing Palestine to get bombed everyday?? Why are these Arab leaders succumbing to the policies of the West?? What kind of successors are they?? They seem pathetic to me. Now look at the successor of Shah Ismail, Iran a strong and powerful independent force, that the rest of the Sunni Arab world can't even compare to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

shiasoldier,they are british born and british citizens.why should they suffer the consequences in the future ? better for president bashar to ensure a peaceful transition by returning the power to the syrian civil society and people.

shiaben,do you know who destroyed the sefevid state ?

Iran will be back in the camp sooner or later.

follower, what would you tell to the khawaridj who insult Ali and use the same kind of stories and even less lies than yours?

both of you are haters ,la3nists...today the khawaridj left their extremist views on Ali.

As for Yazid nobody can be sure how he really was ,for some he was bad ,for others he was not as bad than we can read in the early abassi era literature.So better to avoid speculating on him ,Allah will judge him,so was the opinion of the great Ghazali.

one thing is sure ,his sons had great esteem for the alid familly,as many other among bani ummayya ,it's not all black or white.

Edited by Omar Khayyam
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think if one day Assad died and Syria had to elect a new leader. Do you think Syria would shift toward a pro-Western approach, and weaken ties with Iran immediately. Or would you say they would have a leader like Erdogan, who is not anti-Iran, but also favors relations with the West. Also assuming he would be gone, would this be a huge blow for Hezbollah and the Shia world. Assad has great support for them, so it's possible if someone else comes to power, they can change their view on Hezbollah.

I think the Syrian regime has a difficult balancing act with their own salafi scum terrorists. Syrian intelligence is quite tight, and they have the salafi filth on a leash for the moment, but who knows...

As bad as he is, I suspect Asad is the lesser evil.

I very much doubt anything like Turkey would come through. Iraq and Iran should go to great lengths to strengthen their relationship with Turkey. The Turks are very well aware of the cancer of Sunni Islamism, and would no doubt do everything in their power to keep it out of their borders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dirac ,both societies ,the syrian and turk are similar ,the turkish government is of islamist nature.

Salafis in both ,Syria and Turkey are minorities ,but salafism has helped to make reforms of sufism.

Salafi non mazhabi approach will help islam to evolve towards more rationality.

Rafidism will never be accepted by the muslim societies,salafis ,rationalists or sufis.

Edited by Omar Khayyam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Qaim ,i disagree ,the regime is a familly regime and it uses pan arabism and even islam in order to hide its real nature,so baath ,it's a cover.

In Today Syria ,Islamism is very obvious ,everywhere ,even in the richest districts of Damascus,no body believe in Baath.

President Bashar should not resist peaceful democratic transition ,because it's the only way of salvation for them.

I hope we will have a secular democracy that could be led by an alliance that may include parties of islamic nature, reformed islamists and liberal seculars who accept the rule of the democratic game and the secular nature of the state ,like in Turkey and better.

Islamic nation will retrieve strenght only throught an union of advanced secular democracies and the people is the guardian of religion.

Edited by Omar Khayyam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
follower, what would you tell to the khawaridj who insult Ali and use the same kind of stories and even less lies than yours?

both of you are haters ,la3nists...today the khawaridj left their extremist views on Ali.

Prove what I have said is lies. Go ahead, let us see what you have to prove my statement is false about your beloved Yazeed [la]. If you wish to call me a hater and la3nist then what are you? Revering the epitome of evil who bought nothing but destruction to Islam through his evil ways.

No wonder for 1400 years you and your like have found it hard to distinguish truth from falsehood.

As for Yazid nobody can be sure how he really was ,for some he was bad ,for others he was not as bad than we can read in the early abassi era literature.So better to avoid speculating on him ,Allah will judge him,so was the opinion of the great Ghazali.

one thing is sure ,his sons had great esteem for the alid familly,as many other among bani ummayya ,it's not all black or white.

You can follow the opinion of the great Ghazali, however I would follow the view of the Ahlul Bayt [a]. You wish to assert that only Allah will judge him even though his character is as black as the darkness of the night yet it did not stop you from judging me in earlier part of your post. No wonder you have a screwed sense of justice.

Btw, the actions of a son has no relation to that of the father. His son was much different than him and hence it was no surprise that Marwan did what he had to do to save the legacy of Umayyads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

follower ,the people you follow are far worse than was Yazid ,at least Yazid had great qualities as warrior,tolerant governor towards the christians and jews and man of state.

these exagerated writings on his character may contain some truth ,but for sure he was not the devil ,if shiat ali betrayed hussain and killed him ,you should send your la3n to these hypcorit auto proclaimed partisans of ali.

Yazid could be not the killer ,there is a difference between sending an army in order to stop Hussain arrival to Iraq and the killing in which Yazid is indirectly responsible, the beheader was not Yazid.

No need to curse him nowadays ,if he really intended to kill Hussain ,so we will curse him after the judgement of God.

Marwan is the second Yazid ,he was among the controversial people in the Ummayyad family.

never be a blind follwer of these traditionalist rafidi clerics ,make your own opinion and use some criticism .

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3128941

Edited by Omar Khayyam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
follower ,the people you follow are far worse than was Yazid ,at least Yazid had great qualities as warrior,tolerant governor towards the christians and jews and man of state.

these exagerated writings on his character may contain some truth ,but for sure he was not the devil ,if shiat ali betrayed hussain and killed him ,you should send your la3n to these hypcorit auto proclaimed partisans of ali.

Yazid could be not the killer ,there is a difference between sending an army in order to stop Hussain arrival to Iraq and the killing in which Yazid is indirectly responsible, the beheader was not Yazid.

No need to curse him nowadays ,if he really intended to kill Hussain ,so we will curse him after the judgement of God.

Marwan is the second Yazid ,he was among the controversial people in the Ummayyad family.

never be a blind follwer of these traditionalist rafidi clerics ,make your own opinion and use some criticism .

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3128941

we have here a clear cut nasibi spreading his fifth about yazid, he has been here for 800 posts and yet he still gets away with calling yazid better then our scholars and leaders? is this shiachat or nasibichat? every post he spouts out is full of hate for the shia.

Edited by AlwayS-Dhik'r
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
follower ,the people you follow are far worse than was Yazid ,at least Yazid had great qualities as warrior,tolerant governor towards the christians and jews and man of state.

Far worse than Yazid? I do not think so. Yazid had great qualities of breaking the back of Islam and nothing more. Had he really been a great warrior then he would have come to Karbala rather than send Umar ibn Saad or Shmir.

As for being a tolerant governor that is laughable to say the least. Maybe you should look into history and see how he removed any opposition to him be it Al Husayn [a] or others.

these exagerated writings on his character may contain some truth ,but for sure he was not the devil ,if shiat ali betrayed hussain and killed him ,you should send your la3n to these hypcorit auto proclaimed partisans of ali.

Shias of Ali [a] did not betray Al Husayn [a]. That is misinformation which has been cooked up by you and your likes for over centuries to hide the truth and which is repeated over and over again by the likes of ansar.org and others. Had anyone looked into the historicity or authencity of these claims they would know how dubious they are.

Yazeed was the epitome of evil, the words of Al Husayn [a] are clear; A man like myself cannot give allegiance to a man like him. That shows the big difference between the two. You can assume good about him in whichever way you wish but I do hope that Allah raises you next to Yazeed on the day of Judgement.

Yazid could be not the killer ,there is a difference between sending an army in order to stop Hussain arrival to Iraq and the killing in which Yazid is indirectly responsible, the beheader was not Yazid.

No need to curse him nowadays ,if he really intended to kill Hussain ,so we will curse him after the judgement of God.

So just because Yazeed did not behead Al Husayn [a] does not remove the responsibility from him of his martyrdom. The known fact is that Yazeed sent the army, Yazeed dispatched Shmir to bring the head of Al Husayn [a], it was the head of Al Husayn [a] that was paraded around in the cities of Damascus. Surely if he was not responsible or had no role in his murder then why bring his family in his court and try to humiliate them? Why have the head of Al Husayn [a] and that of the other martyrs be paraded amongst the streets of Damascus?

You would justify any sort of evil action of Yazeed and pass it off as him not being responsible. If he was really qualitive like you make out to him then he would not have stooped such low. But I guess what does it matter to you anyways? Your love for him has blinded you from seeing the reality about his disgusting lowly character.

Marwan is the second Yazid ,he was among the controversial people in the Ummayyad family.

He was no less given his atrocities to Yazeed.

never be a blind follwer of these traditionalist rafidi clerics ,make your own opinion and use some criticism .

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3128941

I am not a blind follower of 'traditionalist rafidi clerics' as you may like to assume so about nor is the rest of the ShiaChat.

I make my views based on history, the statements of the Ahlul Bayt [a] and intellect. I do not justify something which is wrong because of so called good that it may display in an illusionary fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
^Dude, why waste your time? From this Omar guys statements, it's clear he's blind as a bat. I don't see this argument going anywhere...

True! He is the best example of Arab haters. For him to take the opposition side and stand against Shias and Iran, he even does not refrain to praise Yazeed and make a case to claim Yazeed was innocent or this and that. This shows how low a person can get, else, he sometimes pretend to be close to Suffi ideology, where I seen almost all Sunni Suffis always condemned Yazeed and declared him as a Kafir; their videos, fetwahs and statements could be found in 100s online.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you said :I make my views based on history, the statements of the Ahlul Bayt [a] and intellect. I do not justify something which is wrong because of so called good that it may display in an illusionary fashion

I say :for you ahl bayt are technically liars and religiously praticed taqiya ,for me they were not the cowards and liars ahl bayt rafidi version,they were orthodox muslims ,who followedd the teaching of al quran and they had no hidden masahef ,as i said ahl bayt are even closer to wahhabi than rafidis,this is for sure ...imagine their reaction if they see these carnavals of latem ,ta3ziyat ,and faces ,shatem, their portraits with indo european forms ,as zarathoustra or even jesus.

and you are still told ,that the mahdi is hidden and meets the ayatollahs and common people ,is that not an obvious lie ,or you force yourself to believe in ?

what do you win by insulting yazid instead of attacking the repetitive betrayers of ahl bayt the so called ali's partisans ?

The Ummayads at least recognized their past mistakes(from the own sons of Yazid) and corrected them by themselves ,this is a great quality worth of praise.

Unlike the remaining la3nists of today .you are damned to remain marginals.

Edited by Omar Khayyam
Link to post
Share on other sites
you said :I make my views based on history, the statements of the Ahlul Bayt [a] and intellect. I do not justify something which is wrong because of so called good that it may display in an illusionary fashion

I say :for you ahl bayt are technically liars and religiously praticed taqiya ,for me they were not the cowards and liars ahl bayt rafidi version,they were orthodox muslims ,who followedd the teaching of al quran and they had no hidden masahef ,as i said ahl bayt are even closer to wahhabi than rafidis,this is for sure ...imagine their reaction if they see these carnavals of latem ,ta3ziyat ,and faces ,shatem, their portraits with indo european forms ,as zarathoustra or even jesus.

and you are still told ,that the mahdi is hidden and meets the ayatollahs and common people ,is that not an obvious lie ,or you force yourself to believe in ?

what do you win by insulting yazid instead of attacking the repetitive betrayers of ahl bayt the so called ali's partisans ?

The Ummayads at least recognized their past mistakes(from the own sons of Yazid) and corrected them by themselves ,this is a great quality worth of praise.

Unlike the remaining la3nists of today .you are damned to remain marginals.

I am all for the carnivals if the ''true'' Islam that you represent indulges is beheading and blowing yourself up. So when's you turn to hit that red button? Just make sure you are alone in the basement when you do finally go for the 72 year old virgin.

Edited by Thurston
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Banned
justice itself. Karbala displayed the true nature of Yazeed and his direct role in the killing of the Grandson of the Prophet [p].

why do not shias ever send la'na on the shia in Kufa? They also had a role in the injustice against Imam Husain alaihisalam. They called him and then betrayed him, and then watched everything from far off as bystanders. Some of them even joined yazeed!

All I see is la'na on yazeed, but what about the shia in kufa, don't they deserve la'na? these shia of kufa were running around hysterically right after the tragedy in Karbala, beating their chests, doing matam in agony, because they were guilty for being too coward to fight with Imam Husain.

Edited by (_Sijistani_)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
  • Advanced Member

You guys are all pathetic.

When bashar is removed, and the free syria army gets donimated as well, we all know whos to rise to power

Imam AL-Baqir a.s said

Al abqa(free syria army), ashab (bashar al asad) will fight and neither will win until sufyani comes and doninates both sides.

So for u morons who think bashar collapsing will rid us of problems, think again.

After bashar gets killed, the major wars will start and our awaited one will rise.

Once this happens infront of ur eyes, i want u to look at urself in a mirror and look at ur pathetic face in shock and then slap urself out of humiliation! Yazeed was a kafir u retard(s)

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.

×
×
  • Create New...