What you are posting is the reporting of one incident, by one evangelist group in the US, and some how this is supposed to represent all of Egypt?

American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights.

Ray, when I see the storey sourced some where else, and where an Egyptian government official is actually aware of what happened, then it will be important.

Sharia Law is not prescriptive set of laws. As such it is highly interpretative. It is based upon the Quran, which had very few prescriptive laws outside personal conduct, the Haditha, which has only a few more and the Sun-nah, which was really just a description of how the prophet lived his life and therefore a model for others..
Imams interpret and consult and there is supposed to be a general consensus about how legal matters are conducted. The Fundamentalists amongst Islam do not accurately represent a consensus on religious or secular legal matters . And the Imam in the small Egyptian city your evangelists are reporting on, isn't likely to represent most moderate Muslims. If indeed this event actually happened and wasn't a creation of the ACLJ.
If you compare the rhetoric and actions of fundamental practitioners of Judaism or Chritianity, you can find equally dangerous intolerance of other religions. It doesn't mean that any religion is inherently intolerant sine the religions can be practiced differently.

Although Egyptians appear to be a conservative Muslim country, the teachings and traditions of islam have usually been tolerant of minorities living in their midst. There were thriving Jewish and Christian communitied throughout the Islamic Middle East for centuries...
There have been, at ttimes, periods of xenophobia and lashing out at minorities. However fundmanental Islamic teaching really didn't exist until the past century. Just as Christian Fundamentalism wasa product of the late 19th century US, fundamental Islam was a product of the second half of the 20th century.
And its really only the fundamentalists (esp. Taliban, Wahabi) who are intolerant. And their interpretation of the three books of islam is questioned by the vast majority of the islamic world.
So again, your posting of the extreme language of Morsi and this individual news story is suppossed to say what about the Arab Spring?

So again, your posting of the extreme language of Morsi and this individual news story is suppossed to say what about the Arab Spring?

I'm commenting on "Egypt's Spring" which is the subject of this thread. I'm saying that there's a good chance that it isn't going to be a sunny and warm pleasant spring with lots of blooming flowers and birds chirping.

As oppossed to what the Arab Spring has replaced?

Egypt is a semi-presidential republic under Emergency Law (Law No. 162 of 1958)[4] and has been since 1967, except for an 18-month break in 1980s (which ended with the assassination of Anwar Sadat). Under the law, police powers are extended, constitutional rights suspended and censorship is legalized.[5] The law sharply circumscribes any non-governmental political activity: street demonstrations, non-approved political organizations, and unregistered financial donations are formally banned. Some 17,000 people are detained under the law, and estimates of political prisoners run as high as 30,000.[6] Under that "state of emergency", the government has the right to imprison individuals for any period of time, and for virtually no reason, thus keeping them in prisons without trials for any period. The government claimed that opposition groups like the Muslim Brotherhood could come into power in Egypt if the current government did not forgo parliamentary elections, confiscate the group's main financiers' possessions, and detain group figureheads, actions which are virtually impossible without emergency law and judicial-system independence prevention.[7]
The Emergency Law remained in force during Mubarak's presidency and provided a basis for arbitrary detention and unfair trials.[19] In 2009 Human Rights Watch estimated between 5,000 and 10,000 Egyptians were held without charge. Police and security forces regularly used torture and brutality.[19] According to the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, 701 cases of torture at Egyptian police stations were documented from 1985 to 2011, and 204 victims died of torture and mistreatment.[20] The group contends that crimes of torture `occur in Egyptian streets in broad daylight, at police checkpoints, and in people's homes in flagrant violation of the people's dignity and freedom.` [21]

An analysis of Egypt's new constitution:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/zaid-al-al ... -and-flaws

Ricky:

As oppossed to what the Arab Spring has replaced?

No, I didn't say that. You just need to create dichotomies and put words into my mouth for some mysterious reason. I think democracy is better than dictatorship, and I think it was very bad under Mubarak, although probably better for the Copts.

Ricky earlier:

That you continual see the problem as the nature of the Arabs ... is startling to me.

No, I think it's nurture, not nature. I hope that I've been clear on that.

ray

No, I didn't say that. You just need to create dichotomies and put words into my mouth for some mysterious reason.

Ray, all I did was ask a question. Notice the ?

You haven't been clear Ray, All you've done is post links to Morsi ranting (to his base) and a story from an evangelical Christian site. Apparently we are all supposed to draw some conclusion from this that to you is obvious...
If you could expound on what you mean about the nurturing of Islam and what it means for the Arab Spring.... I'd appreciate it.
However, remember that the Arab Spring also refers to other parts of the Arab world where the first steps toward democracy are also being taken. Examine Tunisia and one might be optimistic.
Examine the constitution in Egypt, as the author in the link Freeman gave us, and one might be cautious. But still hold some optimism.
Examine the progress in Bahrain and pessimism will reign.

so far the "progress" in Egypt is stunning. Stunning in how little real progress was made and stunning in how far it looks like they are actually regressing. I think we were all optimistic in hoping real democracy would "spring" but so far it looks like the Islamic fundamentalists are winning the battle. Fundamentalism is the root of the problem in the entire Arab/Muslim world, Yes you can point to similar times in Christianity and other religions but those times are behind us, this is now and Muslim fundamentalism is a very real concern.

rickyp wrote:ray

No, I didn't say that. You just need to create dichotomies and put words into my mouth for some mysterious reason.

Ray, all I did was ask a question. Notice the ?

Yeah, right. All you've done is ask a question. The other 40 lines after quoting me in response were exactly what then? How do you live with yourself?

You haven't been clear Ray, All you've done is post links to Morsi ranting (to his base) and a story from an evangelical Christian site. Apparently we are all supposed to draw some conclusion from this that to you is obvious...
If you could expound on what you mean about the nurturing of Islam and what it means for the Arab Spring.... I'd appreciate it.

I've been remarkably consistent in my posts on this topic:

p.3

I think you ruin your credibility when you refer to Egypt as a democracy.In other words, to be a democracy you also need an agreed upon rule of law, an independent judiciary, and other checks and balances.

on page 4 I wrote:

I'm certainly not demeaning the achievement of the Egyptian people. Egypt did have a democratic election. Morsi was elected by popular vote. However, since Morsi has been in power he has behaved undemocratically. Hence it is premature to call Egypt a democracy. Gaza and the West Bank also had democratic elections, but they are also not democracies, chiefly because they have postponed the next scheduled elections.

In Morsi's case, he has granted himself immune from judicial review. A few months back he had other power grabs. There is no constitution to check his powers. There is no legislature to check his powers. He declared himself above the rule of law.

on page 5 I quoted a scholarly source:

Applying this analysis to the Middle East and North Africa, we infer that in the absence of stable institutions or external assistance, new governments are in danger of facing increasingly insurmountable challenges and reverting to autocracy.

On page 6 I revealed the recent videos showing Morsy preaching hate and sitting by while others recommended genocide of all Jews.

If you think I'm not being clear, what else can I do?

Ricky:

However, remember that the Arab Spring also refers to other parts of the Arab world where the first steps toward democracy are also being taken. Examine Tunisia and one might be optimistic.
Examine the constitution in Egypt, as the author in the link Freeman gave us, and one might be cautious. But still hold some optimism.
Examine the progress in Bahrain and pessimism will reign

That's all very interesting about the Arab Spring, but this topic is Egypt's Spring. Re Freeman's link, I appreciate it, and I agree you can hold some optimism. However, based on the links I've provided, my view is pessimistic. That's a function of Morsy's heart, and Egyptian/Islamic culture, and the historical pattern that it is very hard to go from dictatorship to democracy without democratic institutions.

ray

That's all very interesting about the Arab Spring, but this topic is Egypt's Spring

.
If you understand Islam, and especially the MB's form of Islam, then you know its not different. For the MB, nation states should not exist within the Islamic polity. That's part of their difficulty in actually ruling in a nation. And why their affinity for their Palestinian brethren is particularly close.

When, Egypt and all other Arab nations were dictatorships, and the Muslim Brotherhood began; the Muslim Brotherhood offered alternative institutions for the citizenry.. The preaching and activism of the Brotherhood set the stage for a new kind of Muslim reformer, one who engaged society and confronted the state on a broad spectrum of issues - Through its array of clinics, schools, businesses, and mosques, the Brotherhood tried to create a mini-society that modeled the power of the Islamic alternative to Western-style modernization. They actually offered an alternative government providing basic services better than the government. Particularly in Palestine by the way,... These institutions, along with the institutions that the military and the dictators maintained offer a structure to build upon. Libya, by comparison, has nothing...
As Freemans article noted, they are building upon the 72 Constitution in their attempts to draft a workable document today.

The MB alternative included the rejection of the nation-state as a legitimate form of Muslim political organization.
In short the MB sought the return to the polity that existed under Mohamed and the original Imams. (hence its "fundamentalism") So Morsi comes from an alternative that would have originally eschewed the nation of Egypt, and now he and his party are the ruling majority in Egypt. Its a contradiction worth remembering. And in order to move forward, they have to maintain order and justice where there is a significant minority of non-Muslims and "secular" Muslims. If the MB holds true to their fundamental view of Isam, that is one reflective of Mohamed, they need to create a tolerant society.

BTW, to call them, and the Taliban, fundamental in the same sentence is confusing in that the Talibans version of Islam is quite perverse. Or to hold that Saudi wahabism is similar is also perverse.

Now, Morsi and his brethern may not hold a sympathetic view of the West and they hate Israel. But their societies' goal is first and foremost to build a nation that the majority of Egyptians can support. Most Egyptians share Morsi's view of what the West did for or to Egypt. Even secularists who might view the modernization under Mohamed Ali as a marvel, still bear a grudge at the way the west took control then, and what they did to the nascent democracy in the 50's. .... And they all have and share genuine reasons (from their point of view) to hate the state of Israel.
We might not like the values and the foreign policy of Egypt under Morsi. But that doesn't mean they aren't meeting the needs of the majority of Egyptians. Nor does it mean that the experience of democracy won't inevitably change the nation, offering greater freedom and tolerance as the decades pass.
You seem to be judging the progress of change in singular events and a handful of speeches... Democratic institutions and growth takes decades of practice.
Why there are centuries old democracies that still engage in undemocratic behaviours like gerrymandering, and who, not so long ago targeted enemies they were at war with, with incredible racial slurs... Even in cartoons seen by children at the movies..

ok. Ricky:

If you understand Islam, and especially the MB's form of Islam, then you know its not different. For the MB, nation states should not exist within the Islamic polity. That's part of their difficulty in actually ruling in a nation. And why their affinity for their Palestinian brethren is particularly close.

Yet throughout the Muslim world they keep the Palestinians in refugee status and do not resettle and integrate them into their countries. It's quite a contradiction.

Ricky:

You seem to be judging the progress of change in singular events and a handful of speeches...

That seems like an overstatement. I and others have talked about the nautre of the constitution, the independence of the legislature, and the independence of the judiciary. We haven't sufficiently discussed freedom of the press and freedom of religion, but those are also worth paying attention to. Am I being pessimistic, or are you being pollyanna?

ray

Yet throughout the Muslim world they keep the Palestinians in refugee status and do not resettle and integrate them into their countries. It's quite a contradiction.

This is the responsibility of the curent nation state governments, not the MB.

ray

Am I being pessimistic, or are you being pollyanna?

I think you are being pessimistic.
I may be overly optimistic in the short run.... but I think in 30 years we will see flourishing democracies in several Arab states. They may be more Islamic in nature, especially in Egypt. And by that I mean that Islamic traditions and values will shape how laws are written and enforced. But it won't be nearly as draconian as you seem to think they'll be.... For that, you need to go to authoritarian states like KSA where the religion helps prop up the regime...
Islam didn't grow as a religion and culture because it was forced upon people. People experienced it and it met their spiritual and cultural needs. In the modern world, thats the only way a religion can thrive. For example: you don't see too many severe sects of Pilgrims around anymore, and witch burning is a lost art.
And democracy brings more modernity to Egypt and the rest of the Arab world...

The one thing that is certain is that Israel (and RJ given his attachment to Israel)cannot afford to be wrong. One would expect that RJ, given two reasonable interpretations (one pessimistic and one optimistic) with regard to how democracy in Egypt is found to turn out, is going to take the pessimistic view. There is also the fact that however brutal Mubarak was as a dictator he posed less of a threat to Israel than an Egypt controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Ricky you may be proven right in your prediction that Egypt will become freer and more tolerant, but can you put a percentage chance on that? No, of course not. So why not stipulate that RJ is probably going to be prone to be pessimistic about Egypt when there is conflicting evidence. It is not unreasonable for him to be pessimistic; it is not unreasonable for you to be optimistic, either. I guess I see no reason to be arguing about the future when either interpretation is plausible.

rickyp wrote:ray

That's all very interesting about the Arab Spring, but this topic is Egypt's Spring

.
If you understand Islam, and especially the MB's form of Islam, then you know its not different. For the MB, nation states should not exist within the Islamic polity. That's part of their difficulty in actually ruling in a nation. And why their affinity for their Palestinian brethren is particularly close.

RickyP,
What is your understanding in Islam? What background do you have in that area?

freeman2 wrote:The one thing that is certain is that Israel (and RJ given his attachment to Israel)cannot afford to be wrong. One would expect that RJ, given two reasonable interpretations (one pessimistic and one optimistic) with regard to how democracy in Egypt is found to turn out, is going to take the pessimistic view. There is also the fact that however brutal Mubarak was as a dictator he posed less of a threat to Israel than an Egypt controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Ricky you may be proven right in your prediction that Egypt will become freer and more tolerant, but can you put a percentage chance on that? No, of course not. So why not stipulate that RJ is probably going to be prone to be pessimistic about Egypt when there is conflicting evidence. It is not unreasonable for him to be pessimistic; it is not unreasonable for you to be optimistic, either. I guess I see no reason to be arguing about the future when either interpretation is plausible.

Can we just look at the evidence of who Morsi is and what's he's said, and who he hangs out with, and what he does? Ricky has provided a lot of theory (which he's good at), but I don't think he's provided any evidence. Hey, I hope for the best for Egypt and its people, and I tend to be a very optimistic person, but I'm forming my opinion based on evidence, not hope.

freeman2

The one thing that is certain is that Israel (and RJ given his attachment to Israel)cannot afford to be wrong

I get that... But there is only one military super power in the Middle East. Israel. Does Egypt represent a serious military threat by itself? I think not. (Besides, the Egyptian military doesn't want to get involved in actual wars. its bad for business.) And today, there is no effective Arab military alliance at the level of 67. And we saw how that turned out..
The conventional threat to Israel is not all that great. The threat from unconventional means, terror, is large. But that threat isn't to the existence of the state of Israel.
What I'm saying here, is that the Israelis right likes to exaggerate the military threat for domestic political reasons. And Israel needs to exaggerate the military threat within the international community for strategic reasons.
But realistically, there is no Arab nation capable of making successful war on Israel. Including Egypt. Nor would any be foolish enough to start a war.
Arab politicians have used the Palestinian situation for their own domestic political uses for years. But, as Ray points out, they do nothing for the Palestinians and have made little progress diplomatically on the situation. Morsi falls into this category of contemptible demagogue.
But, as an Arab saying goes, The dogs bark, and the caravan moves on...
All they do is generate hate in their countries, and strengthen the hand of conservatives in Israel who have zero interest in cooperative solutions, as its easier to ignore those who spew hate.
Succinctly, Israel is a far stronger strategic position then they are willing to admit to, when discussing the solution to Palestine.

Ricky has provided a lot of theory (which he's good at), but I don't think he's provided any evidence.

The history of the evolution of democracies is all the evidence I need to demonstrate that democracies usually evolve into tolerant societies .. And that as they evolve more and more liberties for their citizens this circle grows and tolerates more minorities as full citizens. I'll offer the book "Why Nations Fail" as the blueprint for how this has proven, over time. I'll again, emphasize, over time. You couldn't evaluate the success of many democracies based upon their first few years, often spent in turmoil or war. Some lucky few began and grew in relative harmony, but not that many.
http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/8/1 ... david.html

There is no question that Egypt has hurdles to over come, not the least of which is a lack of experience with democracy in its institutions. Another is that is one of only a few democratic Muslim nations, with a majority that wants their society to be dominated by Islamic values. That will be a new path.

Ray

Can we just look at the evidence of who Morsi is and what's he's said, and who he hangs out with, and what he does?

If you are an average Egyptian, having experienced the MB neighborhood clinics and schools and perhaps seen how their welfare programs have benefited your neighborhood .... you'd think pretty highly of Morsi.
If you sympathized with your Arab Muslim brothers in Palestine about their great loss, you'd probably agree with Morsi's views on Israel.
You aren't seeing him from this perspective.
He's getting elected to do the best he can for his constituents .
And he, and the MB, will be judged on what they deliver to average Egyptians to improve their lives. As in Iran, the country outside the capital is very conservative.... But in Cairo he needs to deal with a very significant minority of Copts, Intellectuals and army officers... etc.
He's going to need to moderate to avoid constant turmoil...

Ad B.I read a lot on the history of religions. Most recently Karen Armstrongs "A Short History of Islam". Written before 9/11
I think I look at religion objectively, since I affiliate with none of them.