What's happening in Egypt?

[humbert]

Religious extremists of any persuasion have been around forever and will never go away completely. The good part is that they are inevitably a small minority who do nothing more than give others a bad name, not to even mention their desire to impose their will by force.

One thing I've been saying about Syria is that it's biggest problems will begin the day Bashar is overthrown. The only thing those in the Free Syrian Army agree on is the overthrow of the Assad regime, they are very divided on what happens next. I don't know why I keep thinking that we're going to have a similar situation as has happened in many other countries whereby the removal of a dictator is followed by a far worse situation.

@Scarface - there is no English word for "coup d'etat", so they simply borrowed the term from French. Spanish, by comparison, does have a word for it: golpe de estado.

[scarface]

to humbert:
in fact, a lot of english words are coming from the french because there have been french kings in UK. for example: orange, influence, perception, surprise, suggestion, administration, marine, colonel, lieutenant, initiative, routine (same words in french), dog (coming from dogue), cat (chat), pear (poire)...
but other words have changed their sense in english (fastidious means meticulous), in french fastidieux means boring. Others are not generally used in english (fatigue, used in medicine, tiredness is more widespread in english)

[humbert]

You're right. As I understand it, modern English began after the Norman invasion in 1066. It was the result of mixing French and its Latin root with the more Gemanic dialects of Old English spoken at that time. Phonetically speaking, both French and English are absolute disasters - at least when compared to [for example] Italian and Spanish, in which most often their words are pronounced just like they're spelled.

[aa1234779]

Here is my take on what happened & is happening up to now in Egypt, it's natural that some may not agree with me..

In short, the old regime is back. It never left the seen even during the year when the moderate Islamic brotherhood ruled.
The revolution occurred on Jan. 25 2011. Supreme Council of the Armed Forces took over in Feb. 12 (Mubarak's Men).

A plan was set then to let the Islamists rise then fall miserably.

Five times the general public went to the ballot box, all of which the Islamists won by a majority (Constitutional Amendments, Parliament, lower house, Presidency, and the 2012 constitution).
President Muhammad Mursy came to power in an Egypt taken over by what is called "The Deep State".

SCAF, intelligence, the courts, the interior ministry, the media, Al Azhar (Muslim's religious establishment) & Church leaderships, soar losers in the presidential election & rival opposition parties, all took part in what came to be the 3rd of July military coup, or the July 30th revolution if you wish (who are we kidding?  ).
Not to mention certain uncooperative Arab states, their propaganda machines, and petro-dollars.

The Supreme Constitutional Court, who Mursy tried to immunize his decisions from, crippled democracy by dissolving both houses of parliament, and taking part in deposing Mursy a few days after millions took to the streets protesting Mursy. The head of the court became a temp-president until elections took place.

The leader of the coup, now president Abdelfatah El-Sisi was a member of SCAF, and a high ranking intelligence officer during Mubarak's time who was ironically trusted & promoted to minister of defense by Mursy.

Many massacres occurred in the last year. Tens of thousands were imprisoned. Many of the corrupt regime members & business men of Mubaraks era are either in government posts, found not guilty, or on the road to being freed by the corrupt justice system. The economy is bad. Austerity measures have been taken which is making angry many of those who supported El-Sisi before.

At the end of Al Midan (The Square) documentary, the revolutionary kid starring in the film said "We took down Hosny Mubarak, and now Mursy, and will take down whomever comes after"..

Egypt could be looking at another revolution.. God knows..

Anyways, history will remember that Mursy was a president like no other when it comes to tolerating protesters anywhere & anytime, even at the door steps of the presidential palace or during Friday prayers. He kept the leash on the police.

[humbert]

aa1234779 -> Is it or is it not true that the Islamic Brotherhood's aim was to impose Sharia law and declare Egypt an Islamic Republic similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia? I do remember there were huge protests at Tahrir Square against Morsi. Please answer this for me.

As for what's going on in Gaza, I have a question. First, I am no fan of Israel and I'm highly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The Israelis argue 2 points: (1) that the Hamas-controlled government doesn't stop launching rockets at Israel, often at non-military targets; and (2) that Hamas hides by using the civilian population as human shields and in the process causing any retaliation to be focused on cities. How would you respond?

[aa1234779]

aa1234779 -> Is it or is it not true that the Islamic Brotherhood's aim was to impose Sharia law and declare Egypt an Islamic Republic similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia? I do remember there were huge protests at Tahrir Square against Morsi. Please answer this for me.

Iran is not an example when it comes to implementing the laws of Islam or Sharia. The Shia sect ruling Iran & what's left of Iraq is a minority in the Islamic world, about 20% of Muslims, that adhere to a completely different set of laws. The rest are Sunni following the teachings of Quran & the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Saudi Arabia on the other hand is a monarchy that implements Sharia in the courts.

Sharia law has ruled all of the Arab world & other parts of the world until colonists visited and stayed. After independence, they or the world powers behind them made sure Sharia stays in the libraries, not in government.

In Egypt, it was the Egyptian public through the ballot boxes that brought the Islamists to power because the people want Sharia. Then voted yes for the 2012 constitution which reasserts the idea of being ruled by it instead of secular laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Constitution_of_2012

And yes, millions took to the streets to protest Mursi after one year of being democratically elected.

Does that justify prematurely ending his 4-year-term? The slaughtering of a few thousand of his supporters who are by the millions similar to those in Tahrir?

BTW, after the coup, Tahrir has been a fortress occupied by the Army & Police.. Only Sisi's supporters are allowed there!

As for what's going on in Gaza, I have a question. First, I am no fan of Israel and I'm highly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The Israelis argue 2 points: (1) that the Hamas-controlled government doesn't stop launching rockets at Israel, often at non-military targets; and (2) that Hamas hides by using the civilian population as human shields and in the process causing any retaliation to be focused on cities. How would you respond?

Hamas is only a faction of the resistance. To be clear, the Zionist entity started this war on Gaza after the killing of 3 Israelis in the west bank. Israeli airstrikes target civilians intentionally. The struggling/suffering Palestinian people fully support the resistance & will not give up defying the occupation. As to them being human shields that  is not completely true, but so are the Israeli occupiers, many of whom are military or reservists.

[humbert]

I'm aware of the differences between Shia and Sunni Islam. What differences exist in the Sharia law in Iran and that imposed by Sunnis such as the Taliban? Is it that in Iran you get 100 lashes for drinking alcohol, where as in Afghanistan you get only 50? Or is there more to it than that?

In all history, theocracies (governments based on religion) have been far more brutal that secular dictatorships. They rationalize their acts by saying it is the will of God. Sharia law is a perfect example. Had the Muslim Brotherhood had its way I would fear greatly for Coptics and for those Egyptians who choose to be secular. I should stress that this sort of thing is by no means limited to Islam. The people of Spain endured the Holy Inquisition for 350 years.

Constitutional guarantees exist precisely to protect the right of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. I agree that Morsy was freely elected, but was he being pushed by the Brotherhood to create a theocratic Islamic state, or where the rights of minorities protected under the constitution?

[aa1234779]

I'm aware of the differences between Shia and Sunni Islam. What differences exist in the Sharia law in Iran and that imposed by Sunnis such as the Taliban? Is it that in Iran you get 100 lashes for drinking alcohol, where as in Afghanistan you get only 50? Or is there more to it than that?

There are a great number of differences between sunni & shia, but the two in your example both do practice deviancies & extremities in their implementation of Sharia.

In all history, theocracies (governments based on religion) have been far more brutal that secular dictatorships. They rationalize their acts by saying it is the will of God.

The Islamic justice system is not theocratic nor secular. The scholars' job is to interpret the laws Quran & Sunnah (1400+ years old) rather than write it. Iranian clergymen on the other hand can come up with new stuff at anytime desirable and claim it is holy.

Here is a book about secular extremism, something the brotherhood has been dealing with non-violently in Egypt for many decades:
http://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/return-of-the-pharaoh-memoir-in-nasirs-prison/

Nowadays, Egypt is a police state no different then that time.

Sharia law is a perfect example. Had the Muslim Brotherhood had its way I would fear greatly for Coptics and for those Egyptians who choose to be secular. I should stress that this sort of thing is by no means limited to Islam. The people of Spain endured the Holy Inquisition for 350 years.

Christians, Jews, and people of other non-Muslims have lived in peace for hundreds of years under the rule of Sharia everywhere it ruled.
You do know that Jews suffered the same as Muslims in the Inquisition which was carried out by Catholics?
Islam forbids forcing religion on anyone and will let anyone live in Islamic lands protected for nothing but a small fee.

Constitutional guarantees exist precisely to protect the right of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. I agree that Morsy was freely elected, but was he being pushed by the Brotherhood to create a theocratic Islamic state, or where the rights of minorities protected under the constitution?

These are only assumptions. Even if the constitution did not clearly point to that, the constitution forbids discrimination against anyone. I'm afraid it's the majority needs protection nowadays from the ruling secular extremists in Egypt. The people that were democratically elected are all now in prisons or abroad. They are a terrorist organization as pronounced by the law!!!

[humbert]

Let's clarify a point to be sure we're talking about the same thing. You're saying Muslims lived in peace for many years with non-Muslims under Sharia law? Was everybody subject to Sharia law or just the Muslims. For example, if a Christian or Jewish man was caught drinking would he have been given [for example] 50 lashes despite the fact that these religions have no prohibition on alcohol? Would a non-Muslim woman be stoned to death for adultery even despite the fact that she and her husband had reached some sort of solution among themselves?

As for everything else, I strongly believe one thing: religion and government can never be mixed. Doing so is a recipe for disaster. I mean any religion, certainly not just Islam. Religion is a private matter that cannot ever be enforced by the rule of law. Let's go back to alcohol as an example. Suppose I were Egyptian and the Muslim Brotherhood remained in power and established some sort of Islamic rule. If they now told me I could no longer drink, I consider this a gross violation of my rights. I am not a Muslim and therefore not subject to their rules, not to mention the fact that I drink responsibly and hurt nobody in the process.

I strongly agree with freedom of religion, but even more with freedom from religion, in fact, you can't have one without the other. I fail to see how Islam can be called a religion of peace and tolerance if they try to forcibly impose their rules on the rest of us.

[Ahmad]

Sorry for interrupting but let me say that I don't think so.
Non-Muslims can do what they want as long as they don't harm others, like drinking alcohol for example. (although it's a crime in Sharia for Muslims).
In short, as long as Muslims are not involved in the crimes of non-Muslims, non-Muslims can solve their matters using their rules.

I remember a story that happened during our prophet's era (peace be upon him and all the prophets).. in which a Muslim is the one who is involved not non-Muslim. However, the penalty could be cancelled too.

Someday, a Muslim man came to our prophet confessing to him that he had committed adultery. Our prophet responded to him saying that he might kissed only and told him to go back and pray for forgiveness..
The man came back to the prophet 3 times saying the same thing, and the prophet also responded the same in the 3 times.

I understand from this that our merciful prophet didn't want to hear the whole story and he saw that the man became sad about his crime and wanted Allah to forgive him,
All of this are signs of repentance and he is a good man,
so the prophet wanted to forgive him, so he told him to go back and pray for forgiveness..
So, we can conclude that in crimes in which the Muslim doesn't harm others, forgiveness is allowed and penalty is not always necessary.
Also, he should cover himself (not telling others) as long as nobody had seen him, and pray for forgiveness and Allah will forgive him if he truly regrets what he has done and decides not to do it again.
.. Allah wants first to cover people's mistakes (as long as they don't harm others) until they repent, because Allah told us that his mercy precedes his anger.

If the man did what he was told, Allah would forgive him too.
But since he came back again and again and people knew about his crime, the penalty must have been executed so as not to let others think that the prophet was not applying Allah's rules and  the adultery is easy and they can do it and earn forgiveness !!

This man was pure because although nobody had seen him doing his crime, he knew that Allah had seen him and he wanted his forgiveness even if the cost was his life, so I think our prophet saw this in the man and by that, he deserved forgiveness without any penalty. But the man didn't understand this tolerance.