Egyptians & Supporters of Egypt's Constitution

[Assad91]

You appear to be attempting to sidetrack the question that started this

How is answering your question, an attempt to sidetrack the discussion

 

[Meow Mix]

Does it need to be fair? It is not obligated to protect them, and their opinions are best to themselves in such country. In an Islamic country, it is not okay.

TO put it in perspective;

Do you think it is okay for a muslim to preach jihad in America?

Depending on what "jihad" means in this context. Does it mean to try to peacefully get people to see the light of Islam?

Then ABSOLUTELY, yes -- it's fair for Muslims to be able to express their opinion to their hearts' content so long as they violate no one else's rights to do it.

Does it mean to incite people to attack people who aren't Muslim or something like that? Then of course not, but that wouldn't be fair or just *anywhere.*

 

[Assad91]

Depending on what "jihad" means in this context. Does it mean to try to peacefully get people to see the light of Islam?

Then ABSOLUTELY, yes -- it's fair for Muslims to be able to express their opinion to their hearts' content so long as they violate no one else's rights to do it.

Does it mean to incite people to attack people who aren't Muslim or something like that? Then of course not, but that wouldn't be fair or just *anywhere.*

The American government disagrees. It is very dangerous for an Imam to preach against American foreign policy.

I am just pointing out that in certain places, you know you can't say certain things.

 

[Meow Mix]

As Imam Anwar AlAwlaki said in his last message to America which went roughly, 'Do you expect to be able to ruin thousands of lives and not get slapped back?'

I would expect anyone's retaliation to be geared towards the *perpetrators,* not against innocent civilians. Only monsters of the absolute worst sort attack civilians, period.

I mean, if I'm wronged by someone from... say, Walmart, I can't just run to a random Walmart and start shooting every Walmart employee I see with the "reasoning" that they're all the same entity because they're tied to the same name. (It's equally as monstrous to attack Americans because of wrongdoing by American military, especially when most Americans disagree with what their military is doing!)

 

[Assad91]

I would expect anyone's retaliation to be geared towards the *perpetrators,* not against innocent civilians. Only monsters without excuse or justification attack civilians, period.

I mean, if I'm wronged by someone from... say, Walmart, I can't just run to a random Walmart and start shooting every Walmart employee I see with the "reasoning" that they're all the same entity because they're tied to the same name. (It's equally as monstrous to attack Americans because of wrongdoing by American military, especially when most Americans disagree with what their military is doing!)

And I agree with you completely! No doubt, I don't even try to justify it. All I said is that according to some, the interpretation of attack them the way they attack you, is used in this sense. It is no doubt, wrong.

Innocent civilians shouldn't be the target period.

 

[Meow Mix]

The American government disagrees. It is very dangerous for an Imam to preach against American foreign policy.

I am just pointing out that in certain places, you know you can't say certain things.

But the question is about what's "fair" and about what's "just."

What my government does isn't necessarily the fair or just thing, and I fight every year to change it for the better as do many Americans.

I don't support my government's unjust policies.

This isn't an attempted insult, but it does appear that you support injustice against non-Muslims in your government though, am I right? Because you feel Allah requires it of you?

That's pretty unfair though for non-Muslims born in the country through no fault of their own! People can't help where they're born or what communities they belong to, so it's not really fair to say anything like "well they should convert or leave then." Is that at least agreeable?

 

[Assad91]

As an example, Boston Bombings. IF, and that is IF, it was done for reasons of Jihad, then I wouldn't be down with it. And do not agree with the target.

 

[Meow Mix]

And I agree with you completely! No doubt, I don't even try to justify it. All I said is that according to some, the interpretation of attack them the way they attack you, is used in this sense. It is no doubt, wrong.

Innocent civilians shouldn't be the target period.

Agreed then

I am doing my part within the power given to me to try to elect leaders that will stop this massacring nonsense, you have my word on that, for what it's worth! I'm right there with you in standing against this death and misery.

 

[Assad91]

But the question is about what's "fair" and about what's "just."

What my government does isn't necessarily the fair or just thing, and I fight every year to change it for the better as do many Americans.

I don't support my government's unjust policies.

This isn't an attempted insult, but it does appear that you support injustice against non-Muslims in your government though, am I right? Because you feel Allah requires it of you?

That's pretty unfair though for non-Muslims born in the country through no fault of their own! People can't help where they're born or what communities they belong to, so it's not really fair to say anything like "well they should convert or leave then." Is that at least agreeable?

Well, they have their options . I wouldnt get too worried over Egypt, because MB=/= Khalifate.

 

[Assad91]

Agreed then

I am doing my part within the power given to me to try to elect leaders that will stop this massacring nonsense, you have my word on that, for what it's worth! I'm right there with you in standing against this death and misery.

I am American. There is no way to stop such. Obama is just as bad as Bush, and I have no hope for America.

 

[Meow Mix]

As an example, Boston Bombings. IF, and that is IF, it was done for reasons of Jihad, then I wouldn't be down with it. And do not agree with the target.

Yeah I think we're on the same page then. And I do not agree with American military operations that either directly target civilians or which present a risk to civilians.

People who target civilians of ANY stripe, even US military, must be held accountable.

 

[Meow Mix]

I am American. There is no way to stop such. Obama is just as bad as Bush, and I have no hope for America.

Sadly this is true on foreign policy, but it's too early to lose hope completely. Various movements have started to form, and whether we agree with them or not (tea party, occupy, etc.) it's an indication that Americans are getting more and more dissatisfied with the way things are. (Granted, these movements deal with the way things are at home; but it's a step towards defeating the corrupt parties in charge!)

"All" it will take is some centralization to a movement and charismatic leadership and a cultural revolution could get some wind in its sails!

 

[cocolia42]

I think this topic is difficult for a non-Muslim to understand. Muslims should follow God's command whether they agree with it or not. We cannot rationalize these things because God's wisdom is greater than ours. So if God tells us to protect Christians and Jews but not Pagans, then it really doesn't matter if we personally think it's fair or not.

Also, Muslims should not help sin. So, in other words, since the worship of anyone or thing other than the God of Abraham is a sin, we cannot "allow" it. It may be oppression, but for us it's obedience to God.

As for whoever brought up the topic of Muslims being oppressed in America...
First, I am a Muslim American and we are oppressed. America can talk all it wants about freedom of religion, but if I get passed up for a job, or fired from one, because I am wearing niqab or hijab or because I need private time to pray throughout the day...that's oppression. When I can't rent an apartment because people think I'm a terrorist...that's oppression. When I can't buy halal food to feed my family with...that's oppression.

And when we look at groups like al-Qaeda, they are against America for the oppression of Muslims in OTHER NATIONS.

And when we talk about how it's never ok to kill innocent civilians...tell that to our military who kills innocent civilians on a regular basis through drone strikes because someone they suspect of having ties to terrorism is spotted walking out of his house, or at the market or wherever.
So to get to the original questions

Why did the finalized constitution only incorporate protections for "the divine religions" or "the heavenly religions" (depending on translation) -- why not for all religions?

Again, the worship of anyone or anything other than the God of Abraham is a sin, so other religions cannot be protected or they would be guilty of the same sin for promoting it.

Was this an oversight, or was this a deliberate exclusionary tactic on the legislating and ratifying body to protect the religions they happened to like while failing to protect those they don't like? (If it was an oversight, how could it possibly have been so particularly written then?)

It was deliberate, but not a tactic. Islam puts God above ALL things.

Do you consider this to be just? I mean, is Egypt interested in justice, equality, and freedom for ALL -- or is it just interested in freedom for the majority population? i.e., are you satisfied with mob rule?

I do consider it to be just. It's a matter of protecting ourselves and our children from the shaytan. Some people don't like it, but I don't want my kids to end up in Hell.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also, Muslims should not help sin. So, in other words, since the worship of anyone or thing other than the God of Abraham is a sin, we cannot "allow" it. It may be oppression, but for us it's obedience to God.

Then why even have the pretense of calling a society free if it's really about theocracy and oppression of the minority? Why even bother with something that's like a bill of rights if really the state is religion-fascist? Isn't that paying lip-service to civil liberties without having the actual intent of protecting civil liberty?

As for whoever brought up the topic of Muslims being oppressed in America...
First, I am a Muslim American and we are oppressed. America can talk all it wants about freedom of religion, but if I get passed up for a job, or fired from one, because I am wearing niqab or hijab or because I need private time to pray throughout the day...that's oppression. When I can't rent an apartment because people think I'm a terrorist...that's oppression. When I can't buy halal food to feed my family with...that's oppression.

It is de jure unlawful for you to be denied employment because of your religion in America -- the country's law is just, and it's repugnant that some individuals have been unjust to you (they should be held accountable).

Having just laws in some areas doesn't always mean people will abide by them unfortunately -- that's a cultural problem, and I agree much of America has cultural ignorance of Islam and Muslims, sadly. I am not among that demographic, nor are many from my area; which is a college town with tons of Muslims/Muslimahs, and tons of others too

This thread and debate is about whether the law of the land is just, whether or not citizens will respect the law (and whether or not they should be fully accountable for their disrespect!) is another thing.

Again, the worship of anyone or anything other than the God of Abraham is a sin, so other religions cannot be protected or they would be guilty of the same sin for promoting it.

But "not oppressing x" isn't the same thing as "promoting x," do you agree? If you disagree, can you explain a little more in depth?

If a friend of yours says something that you don't like (to take a non-religious example) for instance, and you don't immediately tell them to shut up and keep them from saying it -- are you "promoting" it with your tolerance and inaction against them?

I do consider it to be just. It's a matter of protecting ourselves and our children from the shaytan. Some people don't like it, but I don't want my kids to end up in Hell.

Does "justice" mean "in accordance to Islam only" to you?

How about a term like "reasonable fairness" instead, would your answer be the same?

Do you fundamentally disagree with the notion of civil liberties -- for instance, do you believe only those who agree with you should be protected from oppression?

 

[cocolia42]

Then why even have the pretense of calling a society free if it's really about theocracy and oppression of the minority? Why even bother with something that's like a bill of rights if really the state is religion-fascist? Isn't that paying lip-service to civil liberties without having the actual intent of protecting civil liberty?

I suppose I should ask you what are the boundaries for freedom? Should everyone be free to do absolutely whatever they want? And if not (and of course not) then what are your boundaries? I could say that my boundaries are where harm begins. But what harms me and what harms you are not the same.
The Egyptian constitution (I believe) does not claim freedom of religion as a right.

Freedom is a right: freedom of thought, expression and creativity; freedom in housing, property and travel; its principles laid down by the Creator in the motion of the universe and human nature.
​

It is de jure unlawful for you to be denied employment because of your religion in America -- the country's law is just, and it's repugnant that some individuals have been unjust to you (they should be held accountable).

Yet the law does nothing to protect me. Isn't that paying lip-service to civil liberties without having the actual intent of protecting civil liberty?

But "not oppressing x" isn't the same thing as "promoting x," do you agree? If you disagree, can you explain a little more in depth?

Being silent is the same thing as support.

If a friend of yours says something that you don't like (to take a non-religious example) for instance, and you don't immediately tell them to shut up and keep them from saying it -- are you "promoting" it with your tolerance and inaction against them?

Well, I wouldn't tell them to shut up, but yes. I would have to tell them that I disagree and why. And I cannot join them in whatever it is. For example, someone invited me to a bar for a "girls night out". I don't drink alcohol and it's a sin. I won't go. You might say I can go to the bar and just not drink alcohol. But then I'd be sitting there watching my friends sin. This is a sin.

Does "justice" mean "in accordance to Islam only" to you?

I would say that, yes, because Islam is just.
When we talk about who we are required to protect, it doesn't necessarily mean we should oppress or mistreat the others.

How about a term like "reasonable fairness" instead, would your answer be the same?

My answer is the same

Do you fundamentally disagree with the notion of civil liberties -- for instance, do you believe only those who agree with you should be protected from oppression?

No, I don't believe only those who agree with me should be protected from oppression. I believe that Allah's law should be the law for everyone, even if we don't like it. There are laws in Islam that I don't rationally agree with. But I am aware that God knows better than I do so I'm not going to argue with Him.

Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded. (An-Nahl 16:90)
​

 

[Meow Mix]

I suppose I should ask you what are the boundaries for freedom? Should everyone be free to do absolutely whatever they want? And if not (and of course not) then what are your boundaries? I could say that my boundaries are where harm begins. But what harms me and what harms you are not the same.

I would agree with a boundary involving harm, but let me further add that the harm must be involuntary, involve suffering, and must be inescapable.

By involuntary, I mean that while eating cheesecake is undoubtedly "harmful," it's voluntarily ingested, and so not a crime.

By involving suffering, I mean that someone who enjoys participating in -- say -- martial arts might experience pain, but they don't suffer as perhaps it's part of the experience they enjoy about it -- and so not a crime.

By inescapable, I mean that someone who is offended over a joke can choose to escape the situation by walking away or asking the joker to stop -- so there was no crime.

Crimes then would be those that are involuntary (involve victims), cause suffering (unwanted pain of some sort), and are inescapable (the victim can't just choose not to experience the harm by asking the perpetrator to stop, leaving the area, changing the channel, leaving the website, etc.)

Is this agreeable to you?

The Egyptian constitution (I believe) does not claim freedom of religion as a right.

Freedom is a right: freedom of thought, expression and creativity; freedom in housing, property and travel; its principles laid down by the Creator in the motion of the universe and human nature.
​

Does freedom of thought not indicate having a freedom of opinion, and so freedom of religion? Does freedom of expression not indicate having the freedom to worship freely; and freedom of property not indicate the freedom to use property to build a house of worship regardless of being for an Abrahamic religion or not?

Why even bother pretending this is about freedom whatsoever if it's really about religious fascism and oppressing everyone into agreeing with the majority?

Yet the law does nothing to protect me. Isn't that paying lip-service to civil liberties without having the actual intent of protecting civil liberty?

Haha -- touche!

However, you do have protections from the law. If someone attacks you and their overt intentions are motivated by your religion, it is a hate crime. (Whether or not hate crimes are a good idea or not is for another thread). You can make complaints to OSHA if you believe you've been discriminated against because of your religion. The law very much does offer you protection, and many businesses that might not have hired you anyway (for being Muslim, or even for being a woman!) will now because they fear the law backing you up (as it should).

I work at a Lutheran hospital -- I'm disabled (I'm functionally aphonic/mute), female, and openly atheist (which is repugnant to some of my coworkers) -- but the law is very much on my side. The law is very much on your side too. There will be unscrupulous people who do everything they can to avoid the law (such as firing for minor offenses cited as a reason, when the real reason is bigotry or something like that); but that is tough for *any* country to avoid: what matters is that the country has just laws and at least makes reasonable attempts to implement them, which USA has done in this regard at least.

In fact, I do urge you to report to OSHA if you legitimately feel you have been discriminated against. I think you'll be surprised how much the law is on your side here.

Being silent is the same thing as support.


Well, I wouldn't tell them to shut up, but yes. I would have to tell them that I disagree and why. And I cannot join them in whatever it is. For example, someone invited me to a bar for a "girls night out". I don't drink alcohol and it's a sin. I won't go. You might say I can go to the bar and just not drink alcohol. But then I'd be sitting there watching my friends sin. This is a sin.

Ah -- but see the difference? Instead of shutting them up by force, you simply disagree with them and attempt to persuade them otherwise. There is nothing wrong with either of those things, but when you talk about things like a country's laws that discriminate against people and oppress them, you are talking about "shutting people up" by fundamentally using force against them (as laws = governmental force).

Bearing this in mind for the analogy, is refraining from forcing your friend to shut up about the thing you disagree with the same thing as supporting them?

Can't you refrain from oppressing them while still disagreeing with them, and making it known you disagree with them, and thus not be supporting them? Isn't this a valid, happy middle ground where everybody wins and nobody is oppressed?

No, I don't believe only those who agree with me should be protected from oppression. I believe that Allah's law should be the law for everyone, even if we don't like it. There are laws in Islam that I don't rationally agree with. But I am aware that God knows better than I do so I'm not going to argue with Him.

Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded. (An-Nahl 16:90)
​

Well, what about those who don't believe "Allah's" law is divine; why do they have to follow it?

Can't you choose voluntarily to follow what you believe are Allah's rules, yet refrain from oppressing or supporting the oppression of others in a country?

Nobody can choose where they are born: it makes sense for, in order to be a member of a religious community for instance, people to all agree on the terms of that community. But that's a mature, informed, consensual choice. Nobody makes a mature, informed, consensual choice on what country they're born in, so countries can't have laws that operate on that principle: in order to be fair for everyone, countries must consider that even if a majority believes in x taboos, that there will always be citizens who do not believe x is a taboo -- it's not fair to oppress people simply for being born in the wrong place.

Tyranny is tyranny.

 

[cocolia42]

I would agree with a boundary involving harm, but let me further add that the harm must be involuntary, involve suffering, and must be inescapable.

By involuntary, I mean that while eating cheesecake is undoubtedly "harmful," it's voluntarily ingested, and so not a crime.

By involving suffering, I mean that someone who enjoys participating in -- say -- martial arts might experience pain, but they don't suffer as perhaps it's part of the experience they enjoy about it -- and so not a crime.

By inescapable, I mean that someone who is offended over a joke can choose to escape the situation by walking away or asking the joker to stop -- so there was no crime.

Crimes then would be those that are involuntary (involve victims), cause suffering (unwanted pain of some sort), and are inescapable (the victim can't just choose not to experience the harm by asking the perpetrator to stop, leaving the area, changing the channel, leaving the website, etc.)

Is this agreeable to you?


Does freedom of thought not indicate having a freedom of opinion, and so freedom of religion? Does freedom of expression not indicate having the freedom to worship freely; and freedom of property not indicate the freedom to use property to build a house of worship regardless of being for an Abrahamic religion or not?

Why even bother pretending this is about freedom whatsoever if it's really about religious fascism and oppressing everyone into agreeing with the majority?



Haha -- touche!

However, you do have protections from the law. If someone attacks you and their overt intentions are motivated by your religion, it is a hate crime. (Whether or not hate crimes are a good idea or not is for another thread). You can make complaints to OSHA if you believe you've been discriminated against because of your religion. The law very much does offer you protection, and many businesses that might not have hired you anyway (for being Muslim, or even for being a woman!) will now because they fear the law backing you up (as it should).

I work at a Lutheran hospital -- I'm disabled (I'm functionally aphonic/mute), female, and openly atheist (which is repugnant to some of my coworkers) -- but the law is very much on my side. The law is very much on your side too. There will be unscrupulous people who do everything they can to avoid the law (such as firing for minor offenses cited as a reason, when the real reason is bigotry or something like that); but that is tough for *any* country to avoid: what matters is that the country has just laws and at least makes reasonable attempts to implement them, which USA has done in this regard at least.

In fact, I do urge you to report to OSHA if you legitimately feel you have been discriminated against. I think you'll be surprised how much the law is on your side here.



Ah -- but see the difference? Instead of shutting them up by force, you simply disagree with them and attempt to persuade them otherwise. There is nothing wrong with either of those things, but when you talk about things like a country's laws that discriminate against people and oppress them, you are talking about "shutting people up" by fundamentally using force against them (as laws = governmental force).

Bearing this in mind for the analogy, is refraining from forcing your friend to shut up about the thing you disagree with the same thing as supporting them?

Can't you refrain from oppressing them while still disagreeing with them, and making it known you disagree with them, and thus not be supporting them? Isn't this a valid, happy middle ground where everybody wins and nobody is oppressed?


Well, what about those who don't believe "Allah's" law is divine; why do they have to follow it?

Can't you choose voluntarily to follow what you believe are Allah's rules, yet refrain from oppressing or supporting the oppression of others in a country?

Nobody can choose where they are born: it makes sense for, in order to be a member of a religious community for instance, people to all agree on the terms of that community. But that's a mature, informed, consensual choice. Nobody makes a mature, informed, consensual choice on what country they're born in, so countries can't have laws that operate on that principle: in order to be fair for everyone, countries must consider that even if a majority believes in x taboos, that there will always be citizens who do not believe x is a taboo -- it's not fair to oppress people simply for being born in the wrong place.

Tyranny is tyranny.

I don't agree with anything here, but I'll get to the point.
Just because it is a theocracy, doesn't mean anyone will be oppressed. I'll use the simplest example I can think of. In Islam alcohol is forbidden. Therefore, alcohol is banned in Egypt EXCEPT in certain circumstances. A non-muslim can manufacture alcohol in his home for his own personal use. And the Coptic church can use alcohol (wine) in ts services. But you can't purchase or consume alcohol in public. Do you consider this oppression? Is it any different than the drug laws in the US? Is someone oppressed because they aren't allowed to smoke opium?

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't agree with anything here, but I'll get to the point.
Just because it is a theocracy, doesn't mean anyone will be oppressed. I'll use the simplest example I can think of. In Islam alcohol is forbidden. Therefore, alcohol is banned in Egypt EXCEPT in certain circumstances. A non-muslim can manufacture alcohol in his home for his own personal use. And the Coptic church can use alcohol (wine) in ts services. But you can't purchase or consume alcohol in public. Do you consider this oppression? Is it any different than the drug laws in the US? Is someone oppressed because they aren't allowed to smoke opium?

It's not as simple as alcohol though, we're talking about people having the ability to express their opinions, to love those whom they love without fear of repression (I can't imagine I would receive a warm welcome as a lesbian, for instance), etc.

I can't fathom how you disagree that forcing everyone to abide by Muslim taboos isn't "oppression."

Would it be oppressive to force Muslims born in Madeupland to abide by Madeupreligion's taboos of not being able to... say, wear hijab on Tuesdays? Of course, they'll say that women can wear hijab in their own home for personal use, maybe -- but not in public! But isn't that still oppression?

What's so wrong with, as in a secular government, Muslims choosing to abstain from purchasing or distilling alcohol, yet non-Muslims having the freedom to do as they choose regardless of Muslim taboos?

Can I get a more in depth response to my analogy with the friend doing something you don't like, for instance -- as I think that's an apt analogy? Why did you say you would try to dissuade the friend, or voice your disagreement -- but, tellingly, NOT opt to FORCE them to shut their mouths about it?

Why do you ostensibly support using the state to force oppression, but wouldn't oppress your friend from doing things you don't personally want to do for yourself (say, your example of the friend going to the bar).

When you talk about the state having laws to oppress people into following taboos they don't believe in, then you're talking about using FORCE to stop your friend instead of just disagreeing with them. So, is that something you would do? If not, then do you think it's a poor analogy -- and if so, what's the difference?

(Also, though this isn't important to the argument, yes I do consider US drug laws to be oppressive. It is just to prevent people from operating machinery and putting people in danger under the influence, but if people partake of substances safely, responsibly, with moderation, etc. then indeed, I think it's oppressive for the state to tell them what to do. There are a lot of nuances involved in such a thing, such as "what about REALLY hardcore drugs that cause people to basically go nuts like speed?", so I get the legitimacy of your question, but the short answer is "yes, I think US drug laws as they currently exist are oppressive.")

 

[Meow Mix]

(Shameless bump) I'm still curious about this mindset that somehow not using force against someone is the same as supporting them?

 

[cocolia42]

(Shameless bump) I'm still curious about this mindset that somehow not using force against someone is the same as supporting them?

Ok, I'll try to explain this further. But first let me ask you this...
When is someone's opinion not an acceptable opinion?