Egypt: from 2011 demonstrations to today (22 Viewers)

[Bianconero81]

Should a law made by men be imposed on the people? If you are a Muslim you believe that Sharia is the law of God. And to pick it before another law should IMO be the goal, ok if you live in Thailand or in Sweden as I do. Then it's harder ofcourse, and if I don't like the laws and the tradition here, I am free to leave. But Egypt has 90% Muslims and in a country like that it would be normal to have Sharia Law. Are you a Muslim?

I am a Muslim, albeit a very liberal one, and while I respect your viewpoint I strongly disagree with it. Religion should not influence any aspect of society, and that is how I feel. You also seem to forget that Egypt has around 12-15 million Christians, which is a sizable minority, so why should they be subjected to Sharia law?

- - - Updated - - -

'Religion is for god' does not make sense at all. It is for people to practice. Allah doesn't need your praying so it's for you. Not to mention you can't be a Muslim if you're against Sharia.

As for second part,

'Who voted? The ignorant masses who lack basic knowledge and education to actually make a sound choice?'

I have had enough of this elitist crap. Similiar shit is happening in my country as well, those who can't win an election always question the other one's qualification by saying shit like 'my vote can't be equal with a shepherd's'. You will either accept it like that or turn your back to elections.

That is a very narrow minded and extremist view of things.

Elitist. Dude, my family were one of the wealthiest in the nation, until Nasser partitioned our land, and yet many in my family still love him. It has nothing to do with being elitist ffs. If you can't read, write, or feed your family. If you are unable to supply the basic needs for your own family, what gives you the basic right of voting?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Turk_Bianconero]

I am a Muslim, albeit a very liberal one, and while I respect your viewpoint I strongly disagree with it. Religion should not influence any aspect of society, and that is how I feel. You also seem to forget that Egypt has around 12-15 million Christians, which is a sizable minority, so why should they be subjected to Sharia law?

- - - Updated - - -



That is a very narrow minded and extremist view of things.

Elitist. Dude, my family were one of the wealthiest in the nation, until Nasser partitioned our land, and yet many in my family still love him. It has nothing to do with being elitist ffs. If you can't read, write, or feed your family. If you are unable to supply the basic needs for your own family, what gives you the basic right of voting?

No it is not. There is no debate about it at all. You can't be a Muslim if you oppose Sharia.

You're judging them by beign unable read write etc(don't think many illiterate left in today's world btw), don't forget they can judge you by other things as well. Then what, chaos? Either everyone will be able to vote or there will be no voting.

 

[Hist]

What happened in Egypt was mass demonstrations (the largest in the nation's history) followed by what is technically a coup only the military neither kept the power nor instigated the demonstrations. Since this is more than just a coup, the more comprehensive term of revolution is a better description of what happened. Bear in mind that every coup is a kind of revolution but not all revolutions are coups.

 

[Bianconero81]

No it is not. There is no debate about it at all. You can't be a Muslim if you oppose Sharia.

You're judging them by beign unable read write etc(don't think many illiterate left in today's world btw), don't forget they can judge you by other things as well. Then what, chaos? Either everyone will be able to vote or there will be no voting.

I will let God judge me, not a fellow human with his own failings and interpretations, thank you very much

There are many illiterate people in Egypt still, whether you choose to believe it or not. That isn't really my concern or problem now, is it? What can they judge me by then? I am perfectly open to constructive criticism.

 

[Hist]

No it is not. There is no debate about it at all. You can't be a Muslim if you oppose Sharia.

You're judging them by beign unable read write etc(don't think many illiterate left in today's world btw), don't forget they can judge you by other things as well. Then what, chaos? Either everyone will be able to vote or there will be no voting.

Ofcoarse you can as long as you don't care about rational consistency. I know a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible is the word of God.

I respect fundamentalists rational consistency in every religion.. apart from you know the first leap of faith. but I give them credit for taking the full leap.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It is utterly depressing to see people holding God's law above man's law. Utterly depressing.

 

[Bisco]

an interesting read

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/03/the_c_word_egypt_morsy_coup

- - - Updated - - -

I will let God judge me, not a fellow human with his own failings and interpretations, thank you very much

There are many illiterate people in Egypt still, whether you choose to believe it or not. That isn't really my concern or problem now, is it? What can they judge me by then? I am perfectly open to constructive criticism.

 

[Hist]

It is utterly depressing to see people holding God's law above man's law. Utterly depressing.

If I believed in God I'd definitely hold his law above man made law. As I said, I don't adhere to that view but If God is the source of moral commands and moral judgement therefore God's law is THE just law and THE best law.

Without God you have moral relativism, with God you have moral absolutism. Since God declared in his text that X,Y,Z are divine laws then as a believer I would see these as absolute truths in the realm where rationality admits of no absolutes. If I had this absolute truth then I would be as extreme as I can about it since this is fucking absolute truth and not some relative man-made truth that admits error even if man made law proved empirically more effective.

Some islamists today implicitly recognize the shortcomings of Islamic law but they have a very good defense for it that slightly resembles the argument for amnesty that UN officials love to make. These Islamists say that the purpose of applying divine law is obedience to God (pleasing God) and that does not necessarily entail the economic prosperity of the people who apply it or the general happiness of the population.

They value pleasing and obeying God higher than economic prosperity or the happiness of mankind and that drives them to apply God's law even if it leads to the utter misery of many people and the economic collapse of a nation/state. Their minds and eyes and hearts are set on the after life more than this life

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

If I believed in God I'd definitely hold his law above man made law. As I said, I don't adhere to that view but If God is the source of moral commands and moral judgement therefore God's law is THE just law and THE best law.

Without God you have moral relativism, with God you have moral absolutism. Since God declared in his text that X,Y,Z are divine laws then as a believer I would see these as absolute truths in the realm where rationality admits of no absolutes. If I had this absolute truth then I would be as extreme as I can about it since this is fucking absolute truth and not some relative man-made truth that admits error even if man made law proved empirically more effective.

Some islamists today implicitly recognize the shortcomings of Islamic law but they have a very good defense for it that slightly resembles the argument for amnesty that UN officials love to make. These Islamists say that the purpose of applying divine law is obedience to God (pleasing God) and that does not necessarily entail the economic prosperity of the people who apply it or the general happiness of the population.

They value pleasing and obeying God higher than economic prosperity or the happiness of mankind and that drives them to apply God's law even if it leads to the utter misery of many people and the economic collapse of a nation/state. Their minds and eyes and hearts are set on the after life more than this life

What they fail to see is that gods' moral absolutism simply makes him a celestial dictator. He's no better than Morsi or any other evil dictator in that he has laws that he wants the people below him to obey. So to see a set of people revolt against one dictator, while embracing another one due to the claim of being perfect and flawless is just bullshit.

Also, the fact that men have to make laws means that there are moral holes that gods' law leave open, which have to be covered up by man-made laws. If god really was so omniscient, then why didn't he use his foresight to concoct a law that was in every sense Divine? This to me is proof that gods' laws isn't the greatest law or the greatest source of morality.

 

[Ahmed]

it has nothing to do with God or religion, it is simply the most effective way of manipulating people.

though nice try by Sheik to go on his atheist troll mission.

 

[swag]

It's a fucking military coup. If they didn't intervene nothing would happen even if 'Egyptian people' keep protesting on streets for 90 years.

I'm half thinking that if this leads to a more inclusive, less corrupt government for Egypt without much bloodshed, I'm half ready to give the Egyptian military the Nobel Peace Prize.

Would certainly deserve it more than Obama.

Maybe because of the remnants of old regime such as judges, police department and intelligence did everything to ensure it. You should have wait until the next election, armed forces just robbed people of their right to vote and that could eventually make people to seek another way other than the politics, like in Syria. You simply can't go down the streets whenever you don't like the actions of the fairly elected governments. One year is a ridiculously short period to gone mad. That's why i said in my first post, Egypt have a long way to become a state. Years from now, this coup will be remembered as a shameful event in Egypt history as the ones like in past of Turkiye.

Do you think a ruler who lost the faith of most of its people, who saw him alter the constitution and run roughshod over dissenting political opinions, and with no sufficient checks and balances in a brand-new democracy yet to curtail major abuses of power, could tolerate three more years of that damage before they next had a window to clean up?

President Nixon won a popular election in a landslide in the U.S. in 1972, but his corrupt power had him kicked out of the White House the next year. The difference was that there were checks and balances in place to counteract abuses of power where they currently don't exist in Egypt.

Three more years of Morsi on his current track in Egypt could have more frightening consequences than even what Mubarak represented. Given the tools a fragile, new Egyptian democracy has available, how else is a new democratic nation supposed to reign in someone who has made an unconstitutional power grab? Do they just let him run roughshod for three years, send the country back to the Stone Age, and say, "Oh, fuck it."?

I'm an opponent of 'Sharia Law' because everyone differs in their definition of what Shariat is. There are 73 sects in Islam and each and everyone interprets Sharia differently. Besides, in a multicultural world such as today where you have people of different faiths, creed, ethnicity, nationalities, etc. living side by side it wouldn't be fair or right to impose Sharia on them. That being said, it's scary how misinformed opponents of Sharia Law are.

I understand your point, it would be hard to agree on the Sharia law, but still as a Muslim in a Muslim country. It's should be the goal for every Muslim. Because as a Muslim to pick another system before sharia, seems wrong. From a muslim perspective picking a law made by men before law and rules coming from Allah subhana wa ta'ala, just seems wrong. But ofcourse it should be done i the right way, and it's not easy, but still it should be the goal of every muslim.

I agree that opponents are misinformed thought.May Allah guide us to the right path

A somewhat ignorant question. But Jews, Christians, etc., all have no issue with observing their 10 commandments or whatnot and not feeling they've violated their religious beliefs by following a political law of man above all in the nations they live within. Why is it different for Muslims? Is it because Sharia -- at least in some interpretations -- dictates things at such a detailed level that conflicts and inconsistencies are inenvitable at multiple major areas, especially in a modernist society where races, genders, and social roles today resemble nothing like they did in the 12th century?

 

[Martin]

I understand your point, it would be hard to agree on the Sharia law, but still as a Muslim in a Muslim country. It's should be the goal for every Muslim. Because as a Muslim to pick another system before sharia, seems wrong. From a muslim perspective picking a law made by men before law and rules coming from Allah subhana wa ta'ala, just seems wrong. But ofcourse it should be done i the right way, and it's not easy, but still it should be the goal of every muslim.

What exactly is a "Muslim country"? One where everyone is a Muslim?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

it has nothing to do with God or religion, it is simply the most effective way of manipulating people.

though nice try by Sheik to go on his atheist troll mission.

It doesn't even come close to trolling. I was merely responding to the point raised by Hist.

But it has everything to do with god. Why else would anyone give a damn about the Sharia law? Or pretty much anything written in the Quran or any holy book?

 

[swag]

What exactly is a "Muslim country"?

Is that like a Western starring Omar Sharif?

 

[Zé Tahir]

I'm half thinking that if this leads to a more inclusive, less corrupt government for Egypt without much bloodshed, I'm half ready to give the Egyptian military the Nobel Peace Prize.

Would certainly deserve it more than Obama.



Do you think a ruler who lost the faith of most of its people, who saw him alter the constitution and run roughshod over dissenting political opinions, and with no sufficient checks and balances in a brand-new democracy yet to curtail major abuses of power, could tolerate three more years of that damage before they next had a window to clean up?

President Nixon won a popular election in a landslide in the U.S. in 1972, but his corrupt power had him kicked out of the White House the next year. The difference was that there were checks and balances in place to counteract abuses of power where they currently don't exist in Egypt.

Three more years of Morsi on his current track in Egypt could have more frightening consequences than even what Mubarak represented. Given the tools a fragile, new Egyptian democracy has available, how else is a new democratic nation supposed to reign in someone who has made an unconstitutional power grab? Do they just let him run roughshod for three years, send the country back to the Stone Age, and say, "Oh, fuck it."?



A somewhat ignorant question. But Jews, Christians, etc., all have no issue with observing their 10 commandments or whatnot and not feeling they've violated their religious beliefs by following a political law of man above all in the nations they live within. Why is it different for Muslims? Is it because Sharia -- at least in some interpretations -- dictates things at such a detailed level that conflicts and inconsistencies are inenvitable at multiple major areas, especially in a modernist society where races, genders, and social roles today resemble nothing like they did in the 12th century?

What exactly is a "Muslim country"? One where everyone is a Muslim?

Ffs @swag, you've mixed my quote with Fellas'

Now it looks like I opposed and supported Sharia law in the same thought.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand your point, it would be hard to agree on the Sharia law, but still as a Muslim in a Muslim country. It's should be the goal for every Muslim. Because as a Muslim to pick another system before sharia, seems wrong. From a muslim perspective picking a law made by men before law and rules coming from Allah subhana wa ta'ala, just seems wrong. But ofcourse it should be done i the right way, and it's not easy, but still it should be the goal of every muslim.

I agree that opponents are misinformed thought.May Allah guide us to the right path

But where does it say in the Qur'an or the Hadith that man has to live by Shariat? Who said it should be a goal for every Muslim as you say?

 

[Turk_Bianconero]

But where does it say in the Qur'an or the Hadith that man has to live by Shariat? Who said it should be a goal for every Muslim as you say?

There are a lot but this one should be sufficient.

Al Maidah 5 : 44

Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah , and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.

 

[Zé Tahir]

There are a lot but this one should be sufficient.

Al Maidah 5 : 44

Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah , and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.

Ok, so no one is stopping you from following this. Where does it say that this has to imposed on others?

 

[swag]

Ffs @swag, you've mixed my quote with Fellas'

Now it looks like I opposed and supported Sharia law in the same thought.

:doh: Sorry about that, Ze T. Something didn't look right when I used multiquote, and I trimmed off the wrong quote.

 

[Martin]

Weird that swag would commit such a simple error.

 

[jukazem]

any new popular political platform shaping up yet? of the people of Tahrir Square...