maclatunji:

Guilty as charged.

That 'Italian Mafia' reporter you have there has stated her own side of the story. You know that majority of people think otherwise.

Let's face it, Bashar is one ruthless bad/sharp guy. He should know that power comes from Allah and they are better ways of achieving whatever his objectives are than killing innocent people.

Sure, you claim he is not responsible but the bloodshed has to stop and he as the leader of Syria has the major responsibility for that!

you are talking not intelligently my friend.

what makes you think bashar is ruthless is what you hear on CNN and other western backed media.also what influences your beliefs are those wahhabi sheikhs paid with saudi petro-dollars to issue fatwas in the name of being religious and being sunni (not forgetting that syria is majority sunni,but majority of syrians including sunnis support their president).nothing more and nothing less.there is nothing to face here.

for you to even call a swiss journalist who was present in homs "italian mafia" shows you have being infected with the propaganda.this isnt the first time independent western journalists are reporting a different story than the one prevailing in the media.

now placing the blame or responsibility on Bashar to restore order is okay.holding him responsible for all the carnage is ridiculous and unacceptable.Bashar is the man of the people and with russian and chinese help,no force on earth will bring him down without a very nasty war that could engulf the entire middle east region.simple! you must see that this man must be given the time and the right to defend his people and his country.saudis and libyans have being caught in syria fighting.french military men have also been arrested by the syrian army in syria aiding the rebels and wahhabi militants otherwise known as "terrorists" when they are atacking western interests.

LagosShia, must Bashar remain in power? The Syrian situation is not very much different from what was present in Yemen. Abullah Saleh showed tremendous restraint. The attack on him could have killed him (in fact may ultimately kill him). However, we saw a genuine attempt to limit the confrontation and number of civilian casualties with Saleh eventually leaving power.

Yes, people died but in Yemen but it could have been much worse without Saleh's restraint. We see no such restraint from Bashar.

Note Saleh was a very important American ally in the region.

As for my 'Italian Mafia' statement. I was joking, the reporter obviously has Italian heritage looking at the name.

maclatunji: LagosShia, must Bashar remain in power? The Syrian situation is not very much different from what was present in Yemen. Abullah Saleh showed tremendous restraint. The attack on him could have killed him (in fact may ultimately kill him). However, we saw a genuine attempt to limit the confrontation and number of civilian casualties with Saleh eventually leaving power.

Yes, people died but in Yemen but it could have been much worse without Saleh's restraint. We see no such restraint from Bashar.

Note Saleh was a very important American ally in the region.

As for my 'Italian Mafia' statement. I was joking, the reporter obviously has Italian heritage looking at the name.

no one is saying Bashar must remain in power or should remain forever.it is very good you brought in the yemen situation to compare with syria and see the evident double standard of the west.i hope you are sincere enough in this dialogue to see the truth of the matter.

in yemen you had a majority of yemenis against their president.in syria,it is not the case.the so called revolution in syria is manufactured from the outside and imposed.

in yemen,the president was fighting against protesters and there was no outside meddling to oust him.you rightly mentioned he was an american ally and he was convinced to step down at his own pace.that shows you the extent to which the people were against him and he couldnt survive it even with outside backing.

in syria,there is no honest or sincere initiative from the international community particularly the western powers and their tyrannical puppets in the wahhabi kingdoms.they even made sure the arab league initiative failed and syria's membership was suspended with american order to do that.now can you imagine saudi arabia and qatar of all countries aiming to fight for democracy in syria?that is crazy!

talking about sincerity,saleh did not want to leave until his own allies saved him from destruction.there was no outside force arming rebels and trying to blackmail the president as we see in syria.saleh was given the time to act and implement what he wanted.later on his own VP succeeded him.

in syria we see concerted effort from the outside to make sure every means to diaolgue and any attempt at reform fail.aparently as we can see,it is not in the interest of the west and their puppets to see bashar peacefully implement the necessary reforms and transition to democracy.from day one,they knew that bashar got the majority of syrians backing him.and from day one the small and insignificant protests were quickly turned into an armed struggle by the outside forces.in every country,no president has 100% support or approval rating from the people.there is always opposition but that doesnt mean there should be regime change.why not give bashar the time to implement reforms and a transition to democracy as saleh was pampered to do? it goes to show that there is already a plot for syria by the outside powers.bashar has already implemented many reforms since the protests started and syria has a new constitution.but all you hear is bashar is this and that and the will to arm the terrorists against him.there is outside war on syria.the outside is not neutral in this case and not pro-people.

moreover,bashar al-assad is a progressive young leader and british trained.since he inherited power from his father,syria has witnessed many improvements.syria has seen economic progress and advancement.you cannot compare syria to an impoverished country like yemen that is made up of illitrates.syrians are very civilized and educated people.little wonder the west and the saudis cannot win in syria or convince the syrian people in turning their country into another stronghold of wahhabism and its terror reign.

it takes a lot of courage for a leader to tell you that his country is not democratic.that is the confession bashar made.and he said he is willing to reform and change things for syria to become democratic.but the west obviiously for zionist interests,needs bashar to go.then iran,and hezbollah in lebanon would be next on the list.it is all programmed and calculated.dont be deceived that the west is pro-people,otherwise the palestinians should have their country or rather israel should cease to exist in its present racist form as a "jewish state".

^I think we have now reached the middle point. So how do you think the dispute can be resolved?

i believe the dispute can be resolved not through violence or arming rebels or anyone attacking syria which can lead to regional or world war if the super powers interfere directly-with the russians and chinese on the syrian side against the west.

i think parliamentary elections should be conducted and the opposition in exile should take part in it.a new parliament where all sides are represented will form.the new constitution has already defined the president's tenure and the president cannot rule indefinitely as bashar's father did.presidential election should be conducted on a stipulated date with international and regional observers.the new constitution has also allowed multi-party system for the first time.bashar will most likely win because he got the popularity and is currently being seen as a "freedom fighter" against western hegemony.the good thing is he wont be able to serve for more than two terms.then democracy will take hold syria no matter how bad the situation or how poorly the elections are conducted.at least,we can accept that inspite of bad elections, Nigeria is presently a democracy!

@Maclatunji

we have compared syria to yemen.now i want you to tell me what you think of the situation in bahrain and the popular peaceful,non-violent revolt there.i hope to see fairness and objectivity.thanks.

I think the roles are reversed in Bahrain. The Saudis are not willing to tolerate Shia rule in Bahrain and rolled-in tanks to ensure that conditions on the ground are in their favour. It is obvious that without Saudi backing, the Bahraini monarchy would in all likelihood fall like a park of cards.

I am sure that is you want me to say. I say it because it is factual. I have no problems with being candid.

maclatunji: I think the roles are reversed in Bahrain. The Saudis are not willing to tolerate Shia rule in Bahrain and rolled-in tanks to ensure that conditions on the ground are in their favour. It is obvious that without Saudi backing, the Bahraini monarchy would in all likelihood fall like a park of cards.

I am sure that is you want me to say. I say it because it is factual. I have no problems with being candid.

and you know bahrain is majority (70-80%) shia.

the revolt is popular and peaceful.

the question is why has the world ignored the people of bahrain while they are being killed? innocent protesters who have never thus far (over a year) lifted no gun (unlike in syria) are being killed.who is saying anything? where are the muslim scholars? where is the media?

oh i see,bahrain houses an american military base so the tyrannical monarchy is protected by the puppet saudi regime.

so,it is not what i want you to say but it is good to see the truth of the matter.

what is the solution to the dispute in bahrain in your opinion?the same question you asked me on syria.

It is simple, the ruling monarchy need to allow the majority have a greater say in government and allow free and fair elections. They need to understand that you cannot suppress the majority of your country indefinitely. It is just not feasible.

maclatunji: It is simple, the ruling monarchy need to allow the majority have a greater say in government and allow free and fair elections. They need to understand that you cannot suppress the majority of your country indefinitely. It is just not feasible.

the key issue here is fair election.when you have proportional representation in bahrain's parliament,then it could as well mean the end to the monarchy or limited monarchy with no absolute power.imagine 2/3 of parliament being Shia wanting an end to the monarchy.presently the bahraini parliament is based on quota of 50% seats for sunnis who barely make up to 30% of the population and 50% for the Shia.so you now see the oppression and tyranny from which side its coming.this is the same usurpation the Ahlul-Bayt (as) faced in SAQIFA BANU SAEDA and it is the legacy of the Ummayyad dynasty.

You raised a point that saudi arabia cannot tolerate Shia rule in bahrain,as you put it.do you have an idea why?

LagosShia:
the key issue here is fair election.when you have proportional representation in bahrain's parliament,then it could as well mean the end to the monarchy or limited monarchy with no absolute power.imagine 2/3 of parliament being Shia wanting an end to the monarchy.presently the bahraini parliament is based on quota of 50% seats for sunnis who barely make up to 30% of the population and 50% for the Shia.so you now see the oppression and tyranny from which side its coming.this is the same usurpation the Ahlul-Bayt (as) faced in SAQIFA BANU SAEDA and it is the legacy of the Ummayyad dynasty.

You raised a point that saudi arabia cannot tolerate Shia rule in bahrain,as you put it.do you have an idea why?

@bolded, that one na you sabi.

The Saudi ruling elite will not willingly tolerate Shia rule in Bahrain because it would mean having "the enemy" (Iran) at their door step by proxy. You, people like you and the Saudis seem not to be able to let go of the past and therein lies half of the problems we see in the Middle East. There is a subtle war going-on between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Quite frankly, I am almost bored to stupor with it.

maclatunji:

@bolded, that one na you sabi.

Subhanallah!

but i sincerely hope you are joking.that won't be the answer you will give to Almighty Allah and His Prophet (sa) on the resurrection day when you are asked how you treated this Quranic verse:

Holy Quran 42:23
"That is of which Allah gives the good news to His servants, (to) those who believe and do good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Grateful".

and here is a more explicit verse and its tafsir:

Holy Quran 102:8
"Then on that day you shall most certainly be questioned about the boons".

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 102:8]

Allamah Bahrayni, in Ghayah al Maram, chapter 48, narrates three traditions reported through Sunni sources, showing that in this verse the word bounty (na-im) means the blessing of the guidance through the Holy Prophet and the Imams of his Ahl ul Bayt.

Imam Ali bin Musa ar Rida said:

"It is beyond the generosity and grace of the Lord-cherisher (rabbul alamin) that He will take account of the bounties given as gifts. In fact man will be questioned about his belief in the oneness (tawhid) of Allah and acceptance of the Holy Prophet and his Ahl ul bayt as his masters (mawla). "

In Hayatul Hayawan, Damiri narrates that one day Abu Hanifa went to Imam Jafar bin Muhammad as Sadiq and discussed with him the standard procedure and technique of ijtihad. The Imam told him:

"I have heard that you rely upon your qiyas (conjecture) to decide issues of jurisprudence. I am sure you are aware of the fact that it was Iblis who first used qiyas to disobey the command of Allah, therefore he was cursed for ever.

You have also told me that if a man gives food and other useful things as free gift to a needy person and then puts the burden of obligation on him, you will not hesitate to call him a miser. So how can you say that (in verse 8 of Takathur) mankind will be questioned on the day of reckoning about the bounties Allah gives man as gifts? You should therefore agree that na-im means that Allah shall examine mankind about their belief in Him and their acceptance of the Holy Prophet and his Ahl ul Bayt as their masters (mawla) in order to obey them and follow them."
http://quran.al-islam.org/

I will stop short here and only present to you for revision an article i wrote over a year ago here:

"Shia Justice And The Sunni Predicament On The Popular Middle East Revolutions":

https://www.nairaland.com/616702/shia-justice-sunni-predicament-popular

remember,Allah (swt) does not change the condition of a people until they change what is in their selves.

The Saudi ruling elite will not willingly tolerate Shia rule in Bahrain because it would mean having "the enemy" (Iran) at their door step by proxy. You, people like you and the Saudis seem not to be able to let go of the past and therein lies half of the problems we see in the Middle East. There is a subtle war going-on between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Quite frankly, I am almost bored to stupor with it.

the main answer i think is the reason is the fact that saudi arabia has it own sizeable indigenous Shia population of about 25% (of the population) mainly inhabiting the oil rich eastern region very close to bahrain.you can consider the indigenous saudi Shia and the bahraini Shia as one and the same people.the saudi Shia are majority in the oil rich eastern region and are marginalized and oppressed to unimaginable extents.they have already started their own protests and demonstrations which largely go unnoticed and unreported for obvious reasons.

^The issue of the Shia in Saudi Arabia you stated above is not new to me. It buttresses the point I am making. Having a Shia controlled Bahrain is seen by Saudis as the great opportunity for Iran to create a major insurrection on Saudi soil. They will do all in their power to prevent this.

The hypocritical shia won't talk of the poor oppressed sunnis in Iran, it seems only shias are the ones deserve pity in their theology, the shias of saudi enjoy economic and political integration as in terms of employment to govt, but the nasibi won't tell everybody that generally the citizens of Saudi are being oppressed rather then the shias alone. It is simple truths like these that discredit people that claim to practice the religion of nawasibs.

vedaxcool: The hypocritical shia won't talk of the poor oppressed sunnis in Iran, it seems only shias are the ones deserve pity in their theology, the shias of saudi enjoy economic and political integration as in terms of employment to govt, but the nasibi won't tell everybody that generally the citizens of Saudi are being oppressed rather then the shias alone. It is simple truths like these that discredit people that claim to practice the religion of nawasibs.

keep barking!!!

the shias of saudi enjoy economic and political integration.And all saudis are oppressed and not the shia alone.that must be saudi arabia in mars not the one on earth others in saudi arabia may face oppression but only the shia face oppression for being shia.

sunnis in iran are oppressed,or really? how so? you have digested much $hit from the salafists aka wahhabis that hate will not allow you to think straight.

maclatunji: ^The issue of the Shia in Saudi Arabia you stated above is not new to me. It buttresses the point I am making. Having a Shia controlled Bahrain is seen by Saudis as the great opportunity for Iran to create a major insurrection on Saudi soil. They will do all in their power to prevent this.

i think that is called "iranophobia".

personally,what is your view on "monarchy" in Islam? what does the Quran say?

LagosShia:

i think that is called "iranophobia".

personally,what is your view on "monarchy" in Islam? what does the Quran say?

The concept of monarchy is alien to Islamic teachings. However, it is not the essence of this thread so let us leave it at that.

maclatunji:

The concept of monarchy is alien to Islamic teachings. However, it is not the essence of this thread so let us leave it at that.

very sincere admission.the wahabi wannabe's should take note.