Muslim Brotherhood takes lead in Egypt vote.

[CynthiaCypher]

Tell that to the Libyans.

They have the right to self-detremination too. If they choose a Muslim rather than secular government that's their choice

 

[Bismillah]

I wonder how an ex terrorist group is going to govern democratically?

Really the Ikhwan in Egypt was considered a terrorist organization? When and on what basis? You do realize that the Ikhwan is founded on the idea of a populist party and gaining a legitimacy on popular vote or not?

s this a religious thing, or do the people just not know the history?

I suppose you know their history better than they do, do you?

 

[Godobeyer]

Tell that to the Libyans.

honestly there were whom with , and whom against Gaddafi , the involete of the NATO change the situation to rebels . which will give more "free" oil to the west .

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Or Hitler's Germany.

I cite Godwin's law on you

 

[England my lionheart]

Again, in all fairness, Osama Bin Laden was once allied with the US.

Thats true,at the time they had a common goal, just as the Muslim Brotherhood had a common goal they shared with the Nazi party,the Hamas charter begins with these words from the MB founder:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

 

[Photonic]

I cite Godwin's law on you

Why? It's being used as an example along with others, not a comparison.

 

[Photonic]

honestly there were whom with , and whom against Gaddafi , the involete of the NATO change the situation to rebels . which will give more "free" oil to the west .

Sometimes when you have a lot of power, the strength of the people isn't enough to incite change.

NATO evened the playground.

 

[Photonic]

Really the Ikhwan in Egypt was considered a terrorist organization? When and on what basis? You do realize that the Ikhwan is founded on the idea of a populist party and gaining a legitimacy on popular vote or not?

I suppose you know their history better than they do, do you?

The Brotherhood's credo was and is, "God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."

Sounds peaceful.

 

[Bismillah]

Sounds peaceful.

Let me help you out there. The idea of Jihad is not something for you to fear just as the idea of sovereignty and right to self-defense. I as a Muslim living in the West see o problem with that statement and if I was presumptuous enough would like to say that I live by its principles.

I'm not sure if you realize when the MB was formed, it was during the British colonization of Egypt. As I am sure you know, the British do not "administer" such colonies humanely and later they were against and heavily persecuted by the military dictators of Egypt. Thus Banna set out and emphasized the importance of Islam, the Ummah, and Jihad which is both internal and external.

To understand their goal it is the establishment of a popularly elected Shari'ah abiding state and it was started as a local movement

started off as a religious social organization, preaching Islam, teaching the illiterate, setting up hospitals and even launching commercial enterprises

Regarding whether the movement is violent or not

Since its inception in 1928 the movement has officially opposed violent means to achieve its goals.[6][7] The MB's non-violent stance has resulted in breakaway groups from the movement, and been criticized by al-Qaeda for its support for democratic elections rather than armed jihad.[8]

So please, do not tar with a broad brush unless you have a strong basis and evidence to do so. Otherwise you only cement my understanding that Western views on right to rule are hypocritical and eternally set against those of Muslims.

 

[Photonic]

Let me help you out there. The idea of Jihad is not something for you to fear just as the idea of sovereignty and right to self-defense. I as a Muslim living in the West see o problem with that statement and if I was presumptuous enough would like to say that I live by its principles.

I'm not sure if you realize when the MB was formed, it was during the British colonization of Egypt. As I am sure you know, the British do not "administer" such colonies humanely and later they were against and heavily persecuted by the military dictators of Egypt. Thus Banna set out and emphasized the importance of Islam, the Ummah, and Jihad which is both internal and external.

To understand their goal it is the establishment of a popularly elected Shari'ah abiding state and it was started as a local movement

Regarding whether the movement is violent or not So please, do not tar with a broad brush unless you have a strong basis and evidence to do so. Otherwise you only cement my understanding that Western views on right to rule are hypocritical and eternally set against those of Muslims.

A lot of Islamic countries say one thing and do the opposite. How am I to believe this will be any different?

Especially considering the history of the Muslim brotherhood.

I want you to understand, their religion isn't what is under question here, it's THEM.

Always "the West." On what moral grounds do you claim superiority over the "West?"

"On the issue of women and gender the Muslim Brotherhood interprets Islam conservatively. Its founder called for "a campaign against ostentation in dress and loose behavior", "segregation of male and female students", a separate curriculum for girls, and "the prohibition of dancing and other such pastimes..."

 

[Bismillah]

A lot of Islamic countries say one thing and do the opposite. How am I to believe this will be any different?

It is not the fact that they "say" it is the fact that they have done. The MB in Egypt has been horribly persecuted and its members tortured simply for holding onto their political ideals. They have been disowned and rejected by the violent political factions that you hold as prime examples of violent parties (Al-Qaeda for example). Does this not indicate something to you? Is this not enough evidence to take them at their word? Or have they not used a democratic process to earn a majority?

Especially considering the history of the Muslim brotherhood.

Please feel free to show me examples of their violent past.

Always "the West." On what moral grounds do you claim superiority over the "West?"

Who said anything about superiority? Lkum dinukum waliyadin to you is your way and to me is mine, however do not interfere in how I see it best to run my household. And yet we have people here questioning, implicitly, whether their right to rule should be respected.

Its founder called for "a campaign against ostentation in dress and loose behavior", "segregation of male and female students", a separate curriculum for girls, and "the prohibition of dancing and other such pastimes..."

Exactly, it's founder. He is a man, I happen to agree with some things he says and other things I do not agree with, such as this instance. However, does this reflect on the current day party yes or no? For example

Al-Shater: Representation of Women in the MB Higher Than Any Other Organization

And

In Parliament, much of the controversy surrounding the Brotherhood’s stance toward women was the result of MP Ragab Abou Zeid, who said the law discriminates between men and women, while “Islam has never differentiated between men and women. On the contrary, Islam has many times described woman as equal to men in rights.”

Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood and Women

 

[Photonic]

It is not the fact that they "say" it is the fact that they have done. The MB in Egypt has been horribly persecuted and its members tortured simply for holding onto their political ideals. They have been disowned and rejected by the violent political factions that you hold as prime examples of violent parties (Al-Qaeda for example). Does this not indicate something to you? Is this not enough evidence to take them at their word? Or have they not used a democratic process to earn a majority? Please feel free to show me examples of their violent past. Who said anything about superiority? Lkum dinukum waliyadin to you is your way and to me is mine, however do not interfere in how I see it best to run my household. And yet we have people here questioning, implicitly, whether their right to rule should be respected.Exactly, it's founder. He is a man, I happen to agree with some things he says and other things I do not agree with, such as this instance. However, does this reflect on the current day party yes or no? For example

Al-Shater: Representation of Women in the MB Higher Than Any Other Organization

And Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood and Women

Should one stand by while a man in a house beats his wife to death and kills his children?

 

[Bismillah]

Should one stand by while a man in a house beats his wife to death and kills his children?

Are you going to ask me have I stopped beating my wife next? What is the point of such a question and from what logical line of thinking did it come from?

 

[Photonic]

Are you going to ask me have I stopped beating my wife next? What is the point of such a question and from what logical line of thinking did it come from?

:sarcastic

 

[Bismillah]

What? I don't understand the loaded question or why you would ask me that. This is, by the way, exactly what I meant when I said

So please, do not tar with a broad brush unless you have a strong basis and evidence to do so. Otherwise you only cement my understanding that Western views on right to rule are hypocritical and eternally set against those of Muslims.

 

[Riverwolf]

I cite Godwin's law on you

The law doesn't forbid talking about it; just that, given enough time, any conversation will inevitably mention Hitler and Nazis.

But the point still stands: Hitler gained power through the democratic process.

 

[Flankerl]

But the point still stands: Hitler gained power through the democratic process.

Depends what you call democratic process.
The NSDAP never had the majority of seats in the parliament when germany was still a democracy.


Hitler got appointed by the president as chancellor. He wasnt elected into office.

 

[Viker]

Depends what you call democratic process.
The NSDAP never had the majority of seats in the parliament when germany was still a democracy.


Hitler got appointed by the president as chancellor. He wasnt elected into office.

They called that democracy?

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I wonder how an ex terrorist group is going to govern democratically?

Is this a religious thing, or do the people just not know the history?

"terrorist" it's a stereotype ... thanks to oriented media

 

[sandandfoam]

"terrorist" it's a stereotype ... thanks to oriented media

All the parties in the Irish parliament are traceable to terrorists.