danivon wrote:Until Morsi contradicts his own organisation, we can't assume he doesn't agree. Another example of the null hypothesis.

As reluctant as I have been to engage in the thoughtful discussion of the forum next door, I agree that they are very similar situations. Both Morsi and Romney are in boxes, although different boxes. Neither wants to refudiate their base, but I think both men are more nuanced then their base and want to appeal to a wider audience.

As a result, viewers all over the specturm see what they want to see. I'd like to know where Romney stands as it relates to preexisting conditions. And I'd like to know whether Morsi is willing to engage in policy based on the reality of militant islamic terrorism, or based on the prejudices of the Arabic and/or Islamic culture from which he derives his power. It should be an easier task for Romney than Morsi.

The tunnels betweeen Gaza and Egypt have been sealed by the Egyptians and suspects have been arrested in the Egyptian border town...
For Morsi, who news reports say, ordered these actions ...it would place him in conflict with Hamas. And the MB.
Don't these actions also contradict the linking of the posting on the MB web site with Morsi?
moreover

Meanwhile, Hamas condemned the killings of the Egyptians and said it was sealing the tunnels from its side while helping Egypt to identify those behind the attack.

Seems like even Hamas wants nothing to do with those who conducted the attack.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.456654

This analyis from AP, is more likely the outcome of the attack... Which isn't good news for the MB.

The new president has promised to open the Rafah border crossing — Gazans' only gateway to the outside world — round the clock and allow goods to move to and out of the coastal territory. With their shared enmity for Israel, Morsi and Gaza's rulers had appeared ready to strike an enduring alliance.
But Sunday's attack and the Egyptian military's assertion of Palestinian involvement may already have undermined that prospect. If Morsi maintains close ties with Hamas now, he could come under criticism for prioritizing the Brotherhood's agenda over the nation's interests.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Israel+ ... z22xfGf45D

Ricky:

For Morsi, who news reports say, ordered these actions ...

Source? I didn't see that in the articles that you posted.

Has the Muslim Brotherhood website been updated? Has Morsi condemned the notion that this was carried out by Israel? Has Hamas indicated that it wasn't done by Mossad? I think the AP article (not an analysis) just points to the tension, and the general unhappiness over the killing of 16 Egyptian security guards, but they don't indicate Morsi's view of who is responsible, do they? Is he willing to say that terrorism is bad? Or is it only bad when it is done by the wrong faction, and they only succeed in killing Egyptians as opposed to the Israeli civilians who were their ultimate target?

You're actually taking the posting on the MB site, and the loose link this has to Morsi (who resigned from the MB a while ago) as a significant indication of Morsi's intentions over all the actual actions taken by Morsi, and the Armed forces? for example: Morsi recently fired a lot of commanders..

In a major shakeup, Morsi also asked Defense Minister Hussein Tantawi to replace the commander of the military police.
The changes followed the killing on Sunday of 16 soldiers at a post in Sinai along the border with Israel and the Gaza Strip. The attack raised questions about the readiness of Egyptian forces in the area, particularly after Israel warned the country several days earlier of an imminent attack.
The attackers killed the soldiers as they were breaking their daily fast for the holy month of Ramadan fast with a sunset meal. Their attackers commandeered an armored vehicle which they later used to storm across the border into Israel, where they were targeted by an Israeli airstrike.
The intelligence chief that Morsi fired, Murad Muwafi, was quoted in Wednesday's newspapers as saying his agency was aware of the Israeli warning but did not think that Muslims would attack Muslims while breaking their fast during Ramadan.
Wednesday's decisions were announced hours after Egyptian attack helicopters carried out missile strikes against militants in Sinai as part of an offensive to restore control over the territory, according to a military statement.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... r-1.456893

rickyp wrote:Y...Morsi (who resigned from the MB a while ago)...

Huh? I'd like to know what you mean by this - see a citation - something like that. According to Wikipedia:

Morsi was a Member of Parliament in the People's Assembly of Egypt from 2000 to 2005 and a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. He became Chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), a political party, when it was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in the wake of the 2011 Egyptian revolution. He stood as the FJP's candidate for the May–June 2012 presidential election.

On 24 June 2012, the election commission announced that Morsi won Egypt's presidential runoff... Morsi resigned from his position as the head of the FJP after his victory was announced.

Are you talking about that last sentence? If not, what? He was the leader and candidate of a party "founded" by the MB. That would seem to make him a part of the MB. A member. A leader. In what way did he "resign a while ago"? I can't figure it out. Help me.

Ricky:

You're actually taking the posting on the MB site, and the loose link this has to Morsi (who resigned from the MB a while ago) as a significant indication of Morsi's intentions over all the actual actions taken by Morsi, and the Armed forces?

No, I'm really not. I think that Morsi is doing a good job as a politician trying to balance his limited powers vis-a-vis the military, with the views of his supporters, and the views of the western world, all of whose support he needs. This is not meant to be a discussion of Egypt's political situation. Unfortunately, you keep misquoting me or posting inaccuracies (e.g. he resigned, a low level functionary is in charge of the website, etc., etc.) that force a response, (most recently by Purple) resulting in the hijacking of this thread.

The Egyptian political situation is interesting, but I'd like this thread to be about Arab and Islamic culture; Morsi is a popularly elected politician, so how he plays to his base is a lens to that culture.

The Muslim Brotherhood said in a statement that Morsi had resigned his positions in both the Brotherhood and its Freedom and Justice Party, fulfilling a campaign pledge.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 90400.html

ray

The Egyptian political situation is interesting, but I'd like this thread to be about Arab and Islamic culture; Morsi is a popularly elected politician, so how he plays to his base is a lens to that culture.

To understand Morsi's position is to understand that he may be democratically elected , but he serves at the indulgnce of the military, just as Mubarak served.
Tantawi wields ultimate power, and he will, or his successor until there is more change in Egypt. Morsi needs to be careful about how he advances the use of his office, and if he's wise that means the Military will accede power a little at a time. Part of this, is ensuring that he isn't seen to be affiliated strongly with MB, as fundamental religions offer a challenge to the status quo even more than increasing democratization.
read : A Dictators Handbook for a chapter on the Egyptian military.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm under the impression that we cannot truly understand the war on terrorism, or our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or several other places, or even the Arab-Israeli conflict without first understanding Islamic society and culture. I just wanted to post somewhere some of the articles that I read about the Islamic world.

We're in those places because we're an empire and empire's grind up against the hard parts of the world. So is the question how can we do empire better than we're doing it now?

Perhaps if we better understood Islamic culture we would not have wasted thousands of lives and billion of dollars committing ourselves to trying to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into democracies?

ray

Perhaps if we better understood Islamic culture we would not have wasted thousands of lives and billion of dollars committing ourselves to trying to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into democracies?

Almost any culture. Countries turn themselves into democracies. Often from the bottom up. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I think that almost always democracy cannot be forced onto a nartion unless certain fundamental instituions have already developed. Primary among them are a centralized authority that can provide fundamentals like; rule of law, respect for property and individual rights...
All of these things came to the first democracies before true democracy. (England and the US and others). The invasions that Neal enumerates simply placed into positions of power elites who were interested in extracting wealth and power as the previous holders of power did....
In other cases, the cases of Imperial colonization, the invaders set up governments that they could use to help in the extraction of wealth from the colony. Until the elites start to see a benefit in hiving off rights to the populace at large (to stave off revolution) you don't see an evolution towards true democracies. (I mean a true democracy involving universal suffrage and universal individual rights. The US wasn't born a true democracy, but its Constitution was a remarkable instrument that eventually got close to a true democracy. England, didn't have the Constitution, but got there nonetheless. European nations started later, but often got there sooner.)
So when you talk specifically about Islam, you have to understand that its just a religion being used to prop up elites who have a privileged postion. For 1600 years, thereabouts, the Catholic Church was exactly the same thing. (And remarkably similar in that it protected the elite ruling class, and the position of men in society, just as Islam has served to do in many places.) And the protestant churches served this purpose too, as did Judaism in its society. There is nothing unique about Islam in this context. Its just that its the religion in places where today the ruling elites (both political and religious classes) are busy protecting their interests and using Islam to do so...
The outlier of Al Queda using Islam to justify violence and propigate "rebellion", is of little long term consequence in that it hasn't been successful, isn't popular and meets with opposition from the elites in both the religion and government when it starts to distrupt the status quo too much. (Perhaps the local Al Queda in the Sinai is an example of that in that Morsi will now have to crush these elements to protect both the status quo for the military and the chance that he can advance democracy. (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on the democracy thing. Not sure where he really wants to go yet.)

Ricky, that all sounds cogent to me, and I think it is mostly correct. By the way, I certainly have no intent of criticising another group's faith or religion. I'm really concerned about culture. There are certainly holy and good people of all faiths.

I think this bit is important to examine further:

There is nothing unique about Islam in this context. Its just that its the religion in places where today the ruling elites (both political and religious classes) are busy protecting their interests and using Islam to do so...

Have we seen examples in Islamic countries that suggests there is something more going on in these cultures that make them particularly susceptible to corrupt elites? The violence unleashed from reports of cartoons depcting their prophet come to mind. There were mass protests over this and I believe death threats, and maybe even assasinations.

ray

Have we seen examples in Islamic countries that suggests there is something more going on in these cultures that make them particularly susceptible to corrupt elites? The violence unleashed from reports of cartoons depcting their prophet come to mind. There were mass protests over this and I believe death threats, and maybe even assasinations.

Religions using shocking acts to inspire violence against a minority is as old as mankind.
Christians burnt down the Library at Alexandria after concocting stories about the pagans who ran the library.
Its similar to how Jews became the first targets for the Crusades. Pogroms began in France even before the first Crusade, after a Catholic priest made up stories about Jews killing children for use in their sacrements. All the victims possessions were stolen or seized by the Church or local nobility.
I could identify hundreds of examples of religions conducting themselves in the same fashion.
And we could identify national leaders who used ethnicity or nationalism the same way.
What makes religion such a useful tool, is that appeals to logic or rationale thought aren't necessary for belief in religion.
But as adherents to religion evolve the way they practice their religion, and work out the difference between its positive values, and the stories that founded the religions, there becomes a greater tolerance of practice. And a greater tolerance for those who are different and not of your religion.
Islam is younger than Judaism or Christianity. And its been practiced primarily in places that have been feudal in nature for hundreds of years. The totalitarian Ottoman Empire used Islam as a tool to help control its populace - in the same way Romans used Christianity, particularly after Theodeusseus made it the state religion. And the feudal nations of Europe used Catholicism.
What you call corrupt, is from a modern western view point. It is the nature of all elites to extract power and wealth from most people. It took an evloution of power of hundreds of years for England and later the US and the rest of the West to widen power and wealth from a small elite. And it took a great many events for the conditions to occur that encouraged people to act to change society to a more inclusive and one where elites had to surrender some of the levers that allowed them to extract power and wealth. Democracy, the rule of law and human rights are always on the side of greater empowerment of the mass of people.
Islam, can be a theocracy. But then so, essentially was Catholicism in places like the Holy Roman Empire.

I think you're right when you say that Islam is being used as a way to control people in certain regions. I beleive in each region, there is an elite group, often the religious leaders such as Iran, who want to maintain their primacy. They are able to continue to extract power and wealth from the nation as long as the population remains compliant to their wishes, made valid by the peoples adherence to the religion.
However Isalm, like every religion faces constant challenges.
The Catholic Chuirch faced the renaissance, and the Reformation. Protestant churches have had to evolve . No more witch burnings... No more use of scriptures to validate slavery...
Islam will as well. The way an adherent worships and lives their life in a western nation like the USA or England is largely affected by the society around them and is therefore significantly different than how a Saudi lives his religion. But with exposure to different ideas, and different beliefs the religion will evolve, as will the society.
This past week, there was a young Saudi woman competing in the Olympics. It wasn't so long ago that conservative Protestant religions demanded that Western women dress and behave in very conservative fashion. Why? Well, once you let women get a sense of freedom, and empowerment, all hell breaks loose..... Next thing you know they are voting and running for office.
The world evolves. Islam will too.
Until it evolves we will have to endure elites in some areas using Islam to continue to secure their place in their society. Often in horribly destructive fashion.
But it will evolve past that. Its inevitable. As men, and especially women, become aware of a better way of living .... they aspire to that and change begins with that awareness.

Regarding the most recent issue about the Coptic Christian Egyptian American film, I'm under the impression that those protesting in Islamic countries want the US to arrest the man for developing this film. To their mind, it seems that the sanctity of religion is more important that the right of free speech. However, I think there are very few westerners who feel that the man should be arrested. We disagree with him, think he's a jerk, etc., but fundamentally there is a different attitude on what the state should do in such a situation. This is a clash of cultures, or even a clash of civilizations, right?

To be honest, I think that's a function of being in a country where authoritarian governments would do that, not necessarily just an 'arab' or 'islamic' thing. Also, I doubt many of the protesters have seen the film to really know what it's 'crimes' are, and will have been hearing about it from others.

Ironically, he may well be liable for something, given his past history of fraud and criminal activity. Allegedly his parole conditions include not using computers or the internet, which would make it hard for him to have made a film and get it on to You Tube.

I don't think he should be arrested for the film's content, but there appears to have been at least some deception involved in the way it was made.

In many countries, blasphemy is or has been a crime, although in the West we have drifted away from it. Blasphemy against the Christian faith was a crime in the UK until 2008 and the last successful prosecution was in 1977 (although there was an arrest in 1992 which resulted in a teacher losing his job). It was replaced by a law against inciting hate on the basis of religion, which is a different test and perhaps would cover this film, especially if there is clear intent, were it to have been made in the UK

Those are interesting comparisons and help put it in perspective. You aren't saying that the protesters are upset that he specifically violated the terms of parole. That's an interesting detail, but not relevant to the Islamic public's reaction.

Were people in the streets burning your country's flag when a teacher said anti-Christian things?