Cracking bit of commentary from Maajid Nawaz on the need for reform in Islam
Scroll to see replies
Original post by drogon
wait so you want change and you are so critical of islam but when someone wants to reform Islam you put him down?
It's clear islamophobes like you aren't seeking peace and just want to hate. Disgusting.
It's clear islamophobes like you aren't seeking peace and just want to hate. Disgusting.
You sound Islamophobic. I think that pro-Islam education camps should be created by the government and anyone that does not support every single element of Islam should be forced to attend.
Original post by Jebedee
They do have the choice of quitting their ideology. If it is more important than living in the west then it is their choice to leave.
You mean you want to let Muslims stay in the country if they quit Islam?
Do they have to quit every single thing about it and start drinking lots of booze and eating lots of bacon sandwiches if they want to stay? Or are they cool with you if they just give up murdering people and stuff?
Original post by Jebedee
They haven't worked fast enough so they have failed, and it is ultimately their own community which will end up paying the price for that.
This just proves my point: you're impatient; you're overreacting; and you're not thinking straight because you're looking at this as a massive problem in isolation.
My point about the media was that you're seeing these attacks on the media and thinking that they're a huge problem that needs to be dealt with in the quickest way possible, however stupid that way may be. Terrorist attacks happen. Plane crashes happen. People can overreact to both, but if you were really concerned about preventing deaths, you'd spend much more time making threads about road safety and why people should have adhesive mats placed in their bathtubs.
We've been kind of swimming against the tide when, as I said, our policies have directly led to more terrorism. That's why I said you've got to look at everything we've done in the Middle East in the past few decades as having been the wrong way to go about things. Our wars in the Middle East, as numerous terrorism experts have found, directly led to the rise of ISIS and further radicalisation.
Robert Pape, a prominent political scientist at the University of Chicago, analysed every known case of suicide terrorism between 1980 and 2003, concluding: “there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions... Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland”.
He later expanded on this work by looking at all of the suicide terrorist attacks between 2004 and 2009. He found that “overall, foreign military occupation accounts for 98.5% -- and the deployment of American combat forces for 92% -- of all the 1,833 suicide terrorist attacks around the world in the past six years.” Tellingly, between 1980 and 2003, less than 15% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States and its interests; between 2004 and 2009, after the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the United States' continuedpresence in Afghanistan, 92% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States.
So, let's address the real causes of terrorism. Let's listen to what the experts actually have to say. For instance, in 2008, MI5's behavioural science unit concluded that “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes”. MI5 also concluded that a well-established religious identity may protect against radicalisation. In other words, let's do what I've been saying: work with Muslim communities.
Original post by Jebedee
The Jews owned that land first.
You now need a History 101 class, but let's not get into that. Presumably, though, you're up for giving the land "belonging" to the United States back to the Native Americans? Great!
Overall, you need to start making threads about car safety, and fast. Thousands die every year due to car accidents, far more per year than those who die due to terror attacks in the United States! My point about the media is this: you and people like you falling prey to the availability heuristic - terror attacks are fresh in your mind because they're talked about almost daily in the media, so you're now, like good little sheep, rushing to support whatever demagogue (Trump) who claims he can solve the problem instantly, just like that! Funnily enough, as per usual when the talking points of people like you are refuted, you didn't reply to any of my own policy suggestions; instead, you continue to spout the same vacuous nonsense which others have pointed out will not work.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
This just proves my point: you're impatient; you're overreacting; and you're not thinking straight because you're looking at this as a massive problem in isolation.
My point about the media was that you're seeing these attacks on the media and thinking that they're a huge problem that needs to be dealt with in the quickest way possible, however stupid that way may be. Terrorist attacks happen. Plane crashes happen. People can overreact to both, but if you were really concerned about preventing deaths, you'd spend much more time making threads about road safety and why people should have adhesive mats placed in their bathtubs.
We've been kind of swimming against the tide when, as I said, our policies have directly led to more terrorism. That's why I said you've got to look at everything we've done in the Middle East in the past few decades as having been the wrong way to go about things. Our wars in the Middle East, as numerous terrorism experts have found, directly led to the rise of ISIS and further radicalisation.
Robert Pape, a prominent political scientist at the University of Chicago, analysed every known case of suicide terrorism between 1980 and 2003, concluding: “there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions... Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland”.
He later expanded on this work by looking at all of the suicide terrorist attacks between 2004 and 2009. He found that “overall, foreign military occupation accounts for 98.5% -- and the deployment of American combat forces for 92% -- of all the 1,833 suicide terrorist attacks around the world in the past six years.” Tellingly, between 1980 and 2003, less than 15% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States and its interests; between 2004 and 2009, after the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the United States' continuedpresence in Afghanistan, 92% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States.
So, let's address the real causes of terrorism. Let's listen to what the experts actually have to say. For instance, in 2008, MI5's behavioural science unit concluded that “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes”. MI5 also concluded that a well-established religious identity may protect against radicalisation. In other words, let's do what I've been saying: work with Muslim communities.
You now need a History 101 class, but let's not get into that. Presumably, though, you're up for giving the land "belonging" to the United States back to the Native Americans? Great!
Overall, you need to start making threads about car safety, and fast. Thousands die every year due to car accidents, far more per year than those who die due to terror attacks in the United States! My point about the media is this: you and people like you falling prey to the availability heuristic - terror attacks are fresh in your mind because they're talked about almost daily in the media, so you're now, like good little sheep, rushing to support whatever demagogue (Trump) who claims he can solve the problem instantly, just like that! Funnily enough, as per usual when the talking points of people like you are refuted, you didn't reply to any of my own policy suggestions; instead, you continue to spout the same vacuous nonsense which others have pointed out will not work.
My point about the media was that you're seeing these attacks on the media and thinking that they're a huge problem that needs to be dealt with in the quickest way possible, however stupid that way may be. Terrorist attacks happen. Plane crashes happen. People can overreact to both, but if you were really concerned about preventing deaths, you'd spend much more time making threads about road safety and why people should have adhesive mats placed in their bathtubs.
We've been kind of swimming against the tide when, as I said, our policies have directly led to more terrorism. That's why I said you've got to look at everything we've done in the Middle East in the past few decades as having been the wrong way to go about things. Our wars in the Middle East, as numerous terrorism experts have found, directly led to the rise of ISIS and further radicalisation.
Robert Pape, a prominent political scientist at the University of Chicago, analysed every known case of suicide terrorism between 1980 and 2003, concluding: “there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions... Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland”.
He later expanded on this work by looking at all of the suicide terrorist attacks between 2004 and 2009. He found that “overall, foreign military occupation accounts for 98.5% -- and the deployment of American combat forces for 92% -- of all the 1,833 suicide terrorist attacks around the world in the past six years.” Tellingly, between 1980 and 2003, less than 15% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States and its interests; between 2004 and 2009, after the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the United States' continuedpresence in Afghanistan, 92% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States.
So, let's address the real causes of terrorism. Let's listen to what the experts actually have to say. For instance, in 2008, MI5's behavioural science unit concluded that “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes”. MI5 also concluded that a well-established religious identity may protect against radicalisation. In other words, let's do what I've been saying: work with Muslim communities.
You now need a History 101 class, but let's not get into that. Presumably, though, you're up for giving the land "belonging" to the United States back to the Native Americans? Great!
Overall, you need to start making threads about car safety, and fast. Thousands die every year due to car accidents, far more per year than those who die due to terror attacks in the United States! My point about the media is this: you and people like you falling prey to the availability heuristic - terror attacks are fresh in your mind because they're talked about almost daily in the media, so you're now, like good little sheep, rushing to support whatever demagogue (Trump) who claims he can solve the problem instantly, just like that! Funnily enough, as per usual when the talking points of people like you are refuted, you didn't reply to any of my own policy suggestions; instead, you continue to spout the same vacuous nonsense which others have pointed out will not work.
That is some fantastic apologism, congratulations, nobody will call you Islamophobic, you can sleep easy at night, knowing that the most important thing to avoid in the world, being called names, will not happen to you.
At the end of the day, 50 dead gays don't really matter right?
Original post by The_Opinion
That is some fantastic apologism, congratulations, nobody will call you Islamophobic, you can sleep easy at night, knowing that the most important thing to avoid in the world, being called names, will not happen to you.
At the end of the day, 50 dead gays don't really matter right?
At the end of the day, 50 dead gays don't really matter right?
That is a fantastic strawman argument, congratulations. Every life matters, and if people actually understood that, and understood statistics, then they wouldn't be overreacting to terror attacks, and trying to find quick and easy solutions when there are none.
I'm not concerned about being called names, I'm concerned about actually reducing the amount of suffering in the world, and people like Trump and that poster, I'm afraid, don't help. But, they can sleep easy at night, knowing that the most important thing in the world is to take on those evil PC liberals, never mind the fact that, in this particular case (I'm extremely concerned about the suppression of freedom of expression on university campuses by mainly leftist groups of people), they're closer to the truth, and thoughtful "liberals" like Obama are spot-on when it comes to dealing with terrorism.
Original post by viddy9
That is a fantastic strawman argument, congratulations. Every life matters, and if people actually understood that, and understood statistics, then they wouldn't be overreacting to terror attacks, and trying to find quick and easy solutions when there are none.
I'm not concerned about being called names, I'm concerned about actually reducing the amount of suffering in the world, and people like Trump and that poster, I'm afraid, don't help. But, they can sleep easy at night, knowing that the most important thing in the world is to take on those evil PC liberals, never mind the fact that, in this particular case (I'm extremely concerned about the suppression of freedom of expression on university campuses by mainly leftist groups of people), they're closer to the truth, and thoughtful "liberals" like Obama are spot-on when it comes to dealing with terrorism.
I'm not concerned about being called names, I'm concerned about actually reducing the amount of suffering in the world, and people like Trump and that poster, I'm afraid, don't help. But, they can sleep easy at night, knowing that the most important thing in the world is to take on those evil PC liberals, never mind the fact that, in this particular case (I'm extremely concerned about the suppression of freedom of expression on university campuses by mainly leftist groups of people), they're closer to the truth, and thoughtful "liberals" like Obama are spot-on when it comes to dealing with terrorism.
Yes, import more people into the West that mainly dislike / hate gays, that will make a similar attack less likely
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Strawmen and sarcastic jibes are not substitutes for good arguments. Mind addressing the content of his post?
You really are a hysterical little angry man, aren't you?
You really are a hysterical little angry man, aren't you?
White knight to the rescue! You have earned the white knight award, you missed out on the cash prize as you failed to call anybody racist.
I also notice that you didn't address the point I made. I wonder why that is.....how many innocent people must die before people like you will learn.
Original post by The_Opinion
White knight to the rescue! You have earned the white knight award, you missed out on the cash prize as you failed to call anybody racist.
I also notice that you didn't address the point I made. I wonder why that is.....how many innocent people must die before people like you will learn.
I also notice that you didn't address the point I made. I wonder why that is.....how many innocent people must die before people like you will learn.
Pot, kettle, black.
Your point was addressed in the post(s) you failed to address above.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Pot, kettle, black.
Your point was addressed in the post(s) you failed to address above.
Your point was addressed in the post(s) you failed to address above.
You clearly don't know how to use that phrase, you didn't address my point, a SJW not addressing points, what's new.
Original post by The_Opinion
You clearly don't know how to use that phrase, you didn't address my point, a SJW not addressing points, what's new.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know pointing out fallacious reasoning and not condoning outright discrimination made me a pesky little SJW. Please forgive me for challenging your useless strawmen!
Here's the post that addresses your "point": http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4166553&page=3&p=65819783#post65819783
Please address the content as opposed to making nonconstructive jibes and meaningless appeals to emotion. I look forward to your well-thought-out reply, so we may continue the discussion
Original post by rockrunride
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html?via=desktop
This is the kind of thing we need today
Just sensible, educated discussion. No reactionary ********. It'll take time, yes, but what doesn't?
This is the kind of thing we need today
Just sensible, educated discussion. No reactionary ********. It'll take time, yes, but what doesn't?
We as muslims believe Islam is the absolute truth and God needs not others to reform the religion he has perfected for us.
It's a well articulated write up but don't let them pull the wool over your eyes.
> Just as we Muslims expect solidarity from wider society against anti-Muslim bigotry and racism, likewise we must reciprocate solidarity toward victims of Islamist extremism.
Boom. False equality. He's putting being maimed, killed, burnt alive (not that I think terrorism is a big deal here) up against oh noes, my fee fees, peoples likes nots that me a pious religious devotee worthy of the 19ths century and any period that came before. They so mean! How dare they not let me win popularity contests on account of my primitive and backwards belief systems! Hoooooooow dare they insult the perfection I inherit and therefore me? No one could possibly insult and criticise such absolution and perfection legitimately!? It must be bigotry, xenophobia, mental disease! I demand that all people like me despite my psychological affliction. Nay, how dare they not love me for following the master ideology, the superior belief system of Islam!
Seriously, you want to pitch dystopian leftist, racist body language crap and the thought crime of Islamophobia against brutal violence? Really? Bloody really?
How can anyone even respond to this pathetic excuse for a human? But yes. Point received. Given that we figuratively fellate them as a society the best they can do is actually acknowledge that maybe, you know just maybe, they have a little responsibility when it comes to the worst of the worst in the short run expressions of their ideology no?
He's made a start on attacking this whole, it's nothing to do with Islam stuff but boy does he have a long way yet to go.
> Just as we Muslims expect solidarity from wider society against anti-Muslim bigotry and racism, likewise we must reciprocate solidarity toward victims of Islamist extremism.
Boom. False equality. He's putting being maimed, killed, burnt alive (not that I think terrorism is a big deal here) up against oh noes, my fee fees, peoples likes nots that me a pious religious devotee worthy of the 19ths century and any period that came before. They so mean! How dare they not let me win popularity contests on account of my primitive and backwards belief systems! Hoooooooow dare they insult the perfection I inherit and therefore me? No one could possibly insult and criticise such absolution and perfection legitimately!? It must be bigotry, xenophobia, mental disease! I demand that all people like me despite my psychological affliction. Nay, how dare they not love me for following the master ideology, the superior belief system of Islam!
Seriously, you want to pitch dystopian leftist, racist body language crap and the thought crime of Islamophobia against brutal violence? Really? Bloody really?
How can anyone even respond to this pathetic excuse for a human? But yes. Point received. Given that we figuratively fellate them as a society the best they can do is actually acknowledge that maybe, you know just maybe, they have a little responsibility when it comes to the worst of the worst in the short run expressions of their ideology no?
He's made a start on attacking this whole, it's nothing to do with Islam stuff but boy does he have a long way yet to go.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by MiniCfc
We as muslims believe Islam is the absolute truth and God needs not others to reform the religion he has perfected for us.
As Muslims you just have to give in and let what happened to Christianity happen to you.
Original post by oShahpo
Middle-Easterners and south-Asians (apart from Indians). A ban on Muslims will have to be a ban on Middle-Easterners because you literally can not differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim Middle-Easterners. You can't tell the difference between an Arab Muslim, Christian, Ex-Muslim, Ahmadi or the rest.
Not so clear cut as some countries require you to declare your faith on your documents
For example (I can show others)
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/5468/passport-woes-does-the-world-need-to-know-we-are-muslim/
so as point of fact (and it's just a fact I'm not supporting the stance nor suggest we start doing the same as it's a human rights issue) for some countries you could differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim Middle-Easterners. So you probably can tell the difference between an Arab Muslim, Christian, Ex-Muslim, Ahmadi or the rest.
Original post by The_Opinion
Yes, import more people into the West that mainly dislike / hate gays, that will make a similar attack less likely
Yes, ban Muslims from entering the country, make Muslim-Americans feel as if they're not really Americans, and frame this whole situation as a clash of civilisations between Islam and the West. Congratulations, you've just done IS's job for them.
Alternatively, we could deal with the problem in the way in which I've outlined.
And, once again, you fail to understand statistics. The prior probability of a terror attack occurring is so low anyway, meaning that any so-called increased risk of terror will make no discernible difference to the absolute risk of a terror attack occurring. In addition, this particular attack was conducted by someone who appears to have been a mentally ill, repressed homosexual, and who wasn't particularly religious either. He claimed allegiance to multiple terrorist organisations, including some who are actually completely opposed to each other.
So, this really isn't a data-point in favour of your notion that an increased risk will occur if we do that. In any case, if you're consistent, you should also be seriously looking into Christian communities in the United States, who are the biggest threat to homosexuals in the United States, and you should be looking to ban anyone who is homophobic from entering the United States, whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish or atheist. How would that work out in practical terms? Probably as well as banning all Muslims would work out in practical terms, i.e. it wouldn't work. But, I'll leave the details to you and Mr. Trump.
Original post by BaconandSauce
Not so clear cut as some countries require you to declare your faith on your documents
For example (I can show others)
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/5468/passport-woes-does-the-world-need-to-know-we-are-muslim/
so as point of fact (and it's just a fact I'm not supporting the stance nor suggest we start doing the same as it's a human rights issue) for some countries you could differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim Middle-Easterners. So you probably can tell the difference between an Arab Muslim, Christian, Ex-Muslim, Ahmadi or the rest.
For example (I can show others)
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/5468/passport-woes-does-the-world-need-to-know-we-are-muslim/
so as point of fact (and it's just a fact I'm not supporting the stance nor suggest we start doing the same as it's a human rights issue) for some countries you could differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim Middle-Easterners. So you probably can tell the difference between an Arab Muslim, Christian, Ex-Muslim, Ahmadi or the rest.
It depends on the country. In Egypt, you are either Muslim or Christian. You can't be an atheist, agnostic, or any other thing, it doesn't even show denominations. Also, suppose that the government was willing to put Atheist on ID cards, only someone willing to **** their life up big time styley would be willing to put atheist on his ID card, specially if they have a Muslim name, however, human rights for atheists are improving slightly in Egypt, the same could not be said for other countries.
Look at this bit :
Changing religion on one's card is extremely difficult, especially for those who are converting from Islam. The Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need, claims that conversion to Christianity remains prohibited in practise even though Article 46 of the Constitution says that the state guarantees freedom of belief and religion. Therefore, according to the Vital Statistics Office, a Muslim who is baptised a Christian is still a Muslim. This means that a former Muslim cannot change his or her identity papers to show a new religion or name. The charity claims that the lack of a law on conversion from Islam to another religion leaves the matter in the hands of judges who must choose between Sharia and the principle of equality of all citizens before the law.
[10]In 2008 Christian convert Mohammed Higazi was not allowed to have his identity changed to register his change of religion from Islam to Christianity. During a trial to have his religion changed on his identity papers, the opposing lawyer made death threats against Mr Higazi for converting to Christianity. The judge made no objection to these statements and expressed his loathing of the accused because of his conversion. The judge stated that he would never let Higazy be registered as a Christian. He defended his decision by saying that Islam is the principal religion in Egypt.[11]
Also:
ID cards are also required to pass through police checkpoints, and individuals without such cards are accordingly deprived of freedom of movement.[1] The national identification cards contained a field for religion, with only Islam, Christianity and Judaism acceptable as a religion.
So fundamentally, if I weren't British and I had hoped to visit the US to be a student or for any other reason, I would be banned on the sole basis of my race.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by oShahpo
I agree with you absolutely. I think having a secular, liberal and modern dictator is a much better way towards democracy than a "democratic" theocracy, which is what we were heading towards with Morsy.
I completely agree with you. If it looked like an extremist religious cult was going to take over the British state by way of an election, I would support a coup that brought to power a technocratic government rather than allow the country to vote itself into a dark age.
I am totally against what Sisi's been doing by capturing protesters and jailing journalists, but he seems to be the only possible way out of the dark age politics of Islam that we have succumbed to for the past 100 years. In fact, I had lost all hope when Baradei was disqualified from the presidential race and Morsy was elected, but Sisi gives me a bit of hope towards a better future, specially since he replaced the hellish constitution the Muslim Brotherhood came up with.
Absolutely. The MB seemed to be engaging in many of the behaviours the Mubarak government had, which undermines their democratic claims. And the disqualification of Baradei (who seems like a genuinely decent guy, and obviously highly intelligent) was obscene. From what I've picked up from Egyptian friends is that many people who were willing to give the MB a chance changed their views and that they believe Sisi probably does have majority support, even if people wish the government were less authoritarian.
I dream of the day where Egypt regains its place outside the Arab world and maintains a secular identity, and with Sisi we are much closer to this than with Morsi or other similarly idiotic groups.
I really hope for that too. Egypt has an astonishing history, and its own identity outside of Islam and the Arab world. In fact it's probably the only ancient civilisation whose people still exist as a cohesive unit. There is no modern Sumerian people, or modern Carthaginians. Making Egypt just another Arab Muslim nation undermines its uniqueness and its cultural heritage, in my opinion
If the Islamists had their way, they would do to Giza, Saqqara and Deir el Bari what they did to Palmyra. That cannot be allowed to occur.
(edited 7 years ago)
the roast here is blistering 
There is a shade of naivety if you think banning muslims are going to eliminate terrorism from a country.
Fact checking websites are not a stronghold for anti-trump (or liberal) propaganda.
Original post by Jebedee
And what is that way? IMO liberals should come up with this plan because they are the ones who take issue with Trump's muslim ban policy. That would be guaranteed to work so if liberals have a problem then they should take the burden of coming up with the alternative plan that ensures zero terrorism and doesn't upset any muslims. If they can't then we should proceed with the ban.
There is a shade of naivety if you think banning muslims are going to eliminate terrorism from a country.
Fact checking websites are not a stronghold for anti-trump (or liberal) propaganda.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Thutmose-III
I completely agree with you. If it looked like an extremist religious cult was going to take over the British state by way of an election, I would support a coup that brought to power a technocratic government rather than allow the country to vote itself into a dark age.
Absolutely. The MB seemed to be engaging in many of the behaviours the Mubarak government had, which undermines their democratic claims. And the disqualification of Baradei (who seems like a genuinely decent guy, and obviously highly intelligent) was obscene. From what I've picked up from Egyptian friends is that many people who were willing to give the MB a chance changed their views and that they believe Sisi probably does have majority support, even if people wish the government were less authoritarian.
I really hope for that too. Egypt has an astonishing history, and its own identity outside of Islam and the Arab world. In fact it's probably the only ancient civilisation whose people still exist as a cohesive unit. There is no modern Sumerian people, or modern Carthaginians. Making Egypt just another Arab Muslim nation undermines its uniqueness and its cultural heritage, in my opinion
If the Islamists had their way, they would do to Giza, Saqqara and Deir el Bari what they did to Palmyra. That cannot be allowed to occur.
Absolutely. The MB seemed to be engaging in many of the behaviours the Mubarak government had, which undermines their democratic claims. And the disqualification of Baradei (who seems like a genuinely decent guy, and obviously highly intelligent) was obscene. From what I've picked up from Egyptian friends is that many people who were willing to give the MB a chance changed their views and that they believe Sisi probably does have majority support, even if people wish the government were less authoritarian.
I really hope for that too. Egypt has an astonishing history, and its own identity outside of Islam and the Arab world. In fact it's probably the only ancient civilisation whose people still exist as a cohesive unit. There is no modern Sumerian people, or modern Carthaginians. Making Egypt just another Arab Muslim nation undermines its uniqueness and its cultural heritage, in my opinion
If the Islamists had their way, they would do to Giza, Saqqara and Deir el Bari what they did to Palmyra. That cannot be allowed to occur.
Could not agree more. I would Egypt, Greece and China are probably the three only remaining ancient cohesive civilisations. It kind of is mad though how the greatest ancient civilisations, the primers of the modern world, are themselves struggling in modern times, I hope the future holds better luck for them.
Original post by viddy9
Utter nonsense. A constitution that expressly outlaws any "insulting" of the prophet (Article 44) and makes religious statements about the scope of sharia law (Article 219) is, on its face, theocratic.
There's a reason Morsi's strongest supporters outside the Brotherhood were Salafists
Whether you like it or not, the majority of people in Egypt supported the constitution
Actually, a small minority supported it. Only 64% of the people who actually turned out (33%) supported it. 21% support. So clearly not a majority.
And if democracy is important to you, you should be reminded that President Sisi was subsequently elected. I don't deny that Sisi is the head of an authoritarian government, but your denial of the Muslim Brotherhood's anti-democratic acts and agenda is bizarre and easily dismissed.
and the majority of people had a favourable rating of Morsi
Government by opinion poll. Interesting.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Art Exhibitions in London to Check Out!
- Don't know how to revise GCSE (short course) Religious studies
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- A Level AQA English Literature and Language help?
- LearnDirect Access to Social Science Unit 8 Introduction to Cognitive Psychology
- Being black (Somali), gay and Muslim
- muslim sister's doing aalimah course..
- What is the scope and future of RE in schools?
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- Law at SOAS
- TSR I-SOC (Islamic Society) Mk. XVII
- LAND LAW ESSAY PLAN please help me
- SQA Higher Modern Studies Assignment
- A level English language paper 2 NEA ideas
- my boyfriend is Muslim and i'm Catholic
- MH Nurse vs Adult nurse
- Evaluate the interpretations
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 3 (9HI0 30-39) - 13 June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- English language NEA commentary help
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
