"...And your Lord is never forgetful..."

[smaneck]

I would feel more sympathetic towards Morsi had he not tried to dismantle the entire justice system in Egypt and rule by fiat. Democracy isn't just about popular vote, it also requires a proper balance of power. This was something Morsi was not willing to respect.

His second appearance was January 28th of this year. They put him in a soundproof cage:

"The installation of the cage, a novelty in Egyptian courts, underscored the extent of the effort by the new government to silence the former president and his fellow defendants, about 20 fellow leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. It dominated the courtroom debate, with lawyers for the defendants arguing that it deprived the accused of their right to hear or participate in their own trial...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/world/middleeast/egypt-morsi-trial.html?_r=2

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

The muslim brotherhood outlawed belly dancing during their reign in Egypt.
That alone ought to tell you a lot about the regime, and why urban, well-cultured Egyptians were so opposed to their rule (while rural egypt is overwhelmingly mired in iron age morality).

.....Because urban, well-cultured Egyptians are so much superior with their support of the military coup that killed at least 1,000 people in a matter of a few months.

(I'm not even going to bother correcting the mistaken notion that the majority of urban, well-cultured Egyptians opposed his rule and only the primitive savages supported him)

I would feel more sympathetic towards Morsi had he not tried to dismantle the entire justice system in Egypt and rule by fiat. Democracy isn't just about popular vote, it also requires a proper balance of power. This was something Morsi was not willing to respect.

Dismantle the justice system in Egypt that was put into place by the ruthless military dictator Hosni Mubarak? If only he had, if only he had. Then maybe he wouldn't have forgiven many of the previous government members and allowed them to keep their posts.

Anyway, what exactly did he do? And democracy IS about waiting until the next election if you don't like the current leader. That was something the military, police, and the usual so-called proponents of democracy were not willing to respect.


I wasn't the biggest fan of Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood before, but this past summer's events have made me respect them more. It also made me look at Erdogan more favorably. I still disagree with them on quite a few aspects, but I think much more kindly of them.

 

[smaneck]

Dismantle the justice system in Egypt that was put into place by the ruthless military dictator Hosni Mubarak?

The Justice System proceeded Mubarak and it has been the most functional part of the government, the only part which has made any attempt to protect the rights of minorities. Mubarak always had to find ways to work around them because they often ruled against him.

Anyway, what exactly did he do? And democracy IS about waiting until the next election if you don't like the current leader.

Not if they declare martial law and attempt to dismantle democracy. At that point you can't wait for elections because by then the dictator will have complete power.

Mind you, I think there are all kinds of problems with the military seizing power the way they did. I especially want to see the journalists freed and freedom of speech honored. And I'm not sure Morsi should be treated like a criminal. IMV he was more incompetent than malicious. On the other hand, the fact he would arrest comedians etc. and deny them free speech, does not speak well for his democratic intentions.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This brings up an interesting question:

How much undemocratic "reforms" can a democracy take before it ceases to be one?
And is a democratically elected would-be dictator to be tolerated when he starts to dismantle democratic structures and imposes autocratic laws? If the majority gave him the vote, and he obtains his goals by legal means, does that render him any less of a threat?

Now, the next paragraph might incite a lot of people, especially supporters of the ousted Muslim Brotherhood. So allow me to introduce a little caveat right beforehand:
I will bring up Nazi Germany now, but the purpose of this comparison has got nothing to do with tarnishing Morsi by association, suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood is genocidal, or in any other way equating the NSDAP and the Islamists.

For the purpose of this thread, I'm only concerned with the way the first German democracy died and was replaced by a totalitarian dictatorship, NOT with what followed after.

See, the Weimar Republic wasn't destroyed by illegal means. Hitler was democratically elected Chancellor, and used existing emergency laws to grant himself an increasing amount of power (while simultaneously curbing press freedom, liberty of speech and other fundamental democratic rights).

Interestingly enough, one of his predecessors in office planned to avert the threat of anti-democratic parties from both ends of the political spectrum with a military coup - yet failed and had to resign. Who knows what would have happened if he had succeeded?

 

[wn123455]

.....Because urban, well-cultured Egyptians are so much superior with their support of the military coup that killed at least 1,000 people in a matter of a few months.

(I'm not even going to bother correcting the mistaken notion that the majority of urban, well-cultured Egyptians opposed his rule and only the primitive savages supported him)



Dismantle the justice system in Egypt that was put into place by the ruthless military dictator Hosni Mubarak? If only he had, if only he had. Then maybe he wouldn't have forgiven many of the previous government members and allowed them to keep their posts.

Anyway, what exactly did he do? And democracy IS about waiting until the next election if you don't like the current leader. That was something the military, police, and the usual so-called proponents of democracy were not willing to respect.


I wasn't the biggest fan of Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood before, but this past summer's events have made me respect them more. It also made me look at Erdogan more favorably. I still disagree with them on quite a few aspects, but I think much more kindly of them.

The New Muslim Brotherhood four-fingered R4BIA symbol isn’t what Muslims want you to think it is | BARE NAKED ISLAM
Why are you using a muslim brotherhood picture as your picture avatar?
Egyptian President Morsi Joins Preacher in Prayer for Dispersal of the Jews - YouTube
Muslim Brotherhood tweets video alleging Jews control U.S. media, in apparent dig at Jon Stewart

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, whose Freedom and Justice Party is the most powerful in Egypt and is allied with President Mohamed Morsi, posted a message from its official Twitter feed late Tuesday that linked approvingly to a video that suggests Jews control the U.S. media.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As a rule of thumb, democracy and religion do not tend to mix well.
(Neither do democracy and so-called "free markets", but that's a different topic altogether).

 

[BruceDLimber]

As a rule of thumb, democracy and religion do not tend to mix well.

EXCEPT, of course, for religions like the Baha'i Faith whose administrations directly operate through democratic procedures....

Peace,

Bruce

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

The Justice System proceeded Mubarak and it has been the most functional part of the government, the only part which has made any attempt to protect the rights of minorities. Mubarak always had to find ways to work around them because they often ruled against him.

Unfortunately the majority wasn't protected under Mubarak even though Mubarak is supposed to be a Muslim. Having beards was essentially a crime. There were tons of prisons where the government tortured religious Muslim people. I mean, America used to send prisoners from here to Egypt to be tortured.

Thankfully, Morsi did get rid of those aspects as well as the secret police that made people disappear (secret police are back thanks to the pro-coup people). I was more referring to the people of the judicial branch, I guess, and the military & police and not the entire justice system. Hindsight is 20/20 and it's very easy to dictate what Morsi should have done now (from the comfort of my own home, no less), but I hope that the next religious Muslim leader in the Muslim countries takes heed of the lessons learned here and cleanses the government positions of people like the loyalists to Mubarak. I think that's easier said than done because if the military gets a whiff of this plan, they'd have the leader removed.

Not if they declare martial law and attempt to dismantle democracy. At that point you can't wait for elections because by then the dictator will have complete power.

1.) The martial law was temporary. If you remember, Boston was pretty much under martial law temporarily. Now do you think that we should overthrow Obama, the dictator?

2.) Who decided for the majority of Egyptians what they want? Just because a couple million people had the military on their side, they get to go against what they claimed to supporters of (democracy which means abiding by the wishes of the majority of the people)?

Mind you, I think there are all kinds of problems with the military seizing power the way they did. I especially want to see the journalists freed and freedom of speech honored. And I'm not sure Morsi should be treated like a criminal. IMV he was more incompetent than malicious. On the other hand, the fact he would arrest comedians etc. and deny them free speech, does not speak well for his democratic intentions.

1.) It's the military and all the helpers of the coup who should be treated like criminals since they are the ones who killed more than 1,000 people in 2 months and all.

2.) He was not incompetent. It's like saying Obama's incompetent for not being able to fix the mess that Bush left him overnight.

3.) The pro-coup Egyptians could handle decades under a military dictator but they could not handle 1 year under a democratically elected leader and preferred the same military that operated under the dictator to take the country back by force against the wishes of the majority of the voters?

4.) http://www.christianforums.com/t7767980-4/#post64434755

It is the pro-coup people who made the comedian flee.

How much undemocratic "reforms" can a democracy take before it ceases to be one?
And is a democratically elected would-be dictator to be tolerated when he starts to dismantle democratic structures and imposes autocratic laws? If the majority gave him the vote, and he obtains his goals by legal means, does that render him any less of a threat?

Who dictates what form democracy should take? Isn't democracy supposed to be for the people, by the people. It's supposed to consist of the majority voting and the one getting the majority vote being the one who takes the leadership role.

The majority of the people voted for a more religious leader. So just because the democracy in Egypt wouldn't take a secular approach, it's the wrong type of democracy? Just because democracy in Egypt wasn't like the democracy the West likes it means that it should be abandoned? The West doesn't get to decide how the rest of the world interprets democracy.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Who dictates what form democracy should take? Isn't democracy supposed to be for the people, by the people. It's supposed to consist of the majority voting and the one getting the majority vote being the one who takes the leadership role.

"Democracy" is not synonymous with a tyranny of the majority. In order for a democracy to work, it needs to take the interests of the WHOLE populace into account, protecting minorities and seeing to it that certain boundaries aren't crossed.

This is why a clear separation of church and state is so fundamentally important: otherwise, you'll always end up with one religion discriminating against others, and forcing its tenets upon people who do not share them.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

"Democracy" is not synonymous with a tyranny of the majority. In order for a democracy to work, it needs to take the interests of the WHOLE populace into account, protecting minorities and seeing to it that certain boundaries aren't crossed.

So would you be willing to say that allowing abortion is tyranny of the majority since there are many who believe that abortion is murder?

What happened to protecting that minority and seeing to it that certain boundaries aren't crossed when it comes to them?

This is why a clear separation of church and state is so fundamentally important: otherwise, you'll always end up with one religion discriminating against others, and forcing its tenets upon people who do not share them.

That's your opinion. I don't think separation of church and state is fundamentally important. Nor do majority of the Egyptians as proven by Pew Research (which showed that the majority of Egyptians polled wanted at least some influence of Islaam to be present in the law).

Anyway, my point remains that the majority of the voters of Egypt voted for the religious Muslim. Why did a few million get to decide for the majority of Egypt what is right for them (even though these few million would claim to be staunch supporters of democracy). Where did their democracy go all of a sudden?

And why does democracy in these Muslim countries have to conform to your definition and/or the West's definition of what democracy should be?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I just realized I never posted this article regarding the US supporting the pro-coup people financially (click on the link at the end for more juicy information):

"But a review of dozens of US federal government documents shows Washington has quietly funded senior Egyptian opposition figures who called for toppling of the country's now-deposed president Mohamed Morsi

Documents obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley show the US channeled funding through a State Department programme to promote democracy in the Middle East region. This programme vigorously supported activists and politicians who have fomented unrest in Egypt, after autocratic president Hosni Mubarak was ousted in a popular uprising in February 2011.

The State Department's programme, dubbed by US officials as a "democracy assistance" initiative, is part of a wider Obama administration effort to try to stop the retreat of pro-Washington secularists, and to win back influence in Arab Spring countries that saw the rise of Islamists, who largely oppose US interests in the Middle East."

and

Some US-backed politicians have said Washington tacitly encouraged them to incite protests.

"We were told by the Americans that if we see big street protests that sustain themselves for a week, they will reconsider all current US policies towards the Muslim Brotherhood regime," said Saaddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian-American politician opposed Morsi.

Exclusive: US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists - Features - Al Jazeera English

 

[Aristocles X]

I just realized I never posted this article regarding the US supporting the pro-coup people financially (click on the link at the end for more juicy information):Exclusive: US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists - Features - Al Jazeera English[/url]

You seem to be Pro-Brotherhood

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

You seem to be Pro-Brotherhood

More like anti-coup. Plus, despite my disagreements with Ikhwaan al Muslimeen, I know that the people fighting against them in this case are those who are against Islaam. The reason the pro-coup supporters didn't want him was because he was introducing more Islaamic concepts into Egypt (than there were before).

And the coup also suspiciously happened when Morsi was going to provide aid to the Sunni Syrians (I think it was to help the refugees but my memory is a bit fuzzy....it could also have been about supporting the Sunni rebels).

 

[Aristocles X]

espite my disagreements with Ikhwaan al Muslimeen

Thats what i was looking for. Was just checking if you were one of those Qutbis who are pro-ikhwan. I think we share a similiar view though i would not use symbols.

 

[TG123]

I just realized I never posted this article regarding the US supporting the pro-coup people financially (click on the link at the end for more juicy information):

"But a review of dozens of US federal government documents shows Washington has quietly funded senior Egyptian opposition figures who called for toppling of the country's now-deposed president Mohamed Morsi

Documents obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley show the US channeled funding through a State Department programme to promote democracy in the Middle East region. This programme vigorously supported activists and politicians who have fomented unrest in Egypt, after autocratic president Hosni Mubarak was ousted in a popular uprising in February 2011.

The State Department's programme, dubbed by US officials as a "democracy assistance" initiative, is part of a wider Obama administration effort to try to stop the retreat of pro-Washington secularists, and to win back influence in Arab Spring countries that saw the rise of Islamists, who largely oppose US interests in the Middle East."

and

Some US-backed politicians have said Washington tacitly encouraged them to incite protests.

"We were told by the Americans that if we see big street protests that sustain themselves for a week, they will reconsider all current US policies towards the Muslim Brotherhood regime," said Saaddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian-American politician opposed Morsi.

Exclusive: US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists - Features - Al Jazeera English

I would not be surprised if that was the case. The US helped overthrow many democratically elected leaders, so they could put in friendly dictators. Just look at the history of Latin and South America. Some say that they are influencing protesters in Ukraine who are opposed to Yanukovich.

 

[smaneck]

Unfortunately the majority wasn't protected under Mubarak even though Mubarak is supposed to be a Muslim. Having beards was essentially a crime. There were tons of prisons where the government tortured religious Muslim people. I mean, America used to send prisoners from here to Egypt to be tortured.

I'm quite sure there was more to the actions of these Muslims than wearing beards, but I don't doubt that torture was going on. These things happened by circumventing the court system, not because they permitted it. If the executive arm chooses to ignore the court's rulings there is no much that can be done. For instance the courts have consistently upheld the right of Baha'is not to mention religion on their government-issued ID cards (since Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the only ones they can list.) But nonetheless Baha'is are still not being issued these IDs in accordance with the court order, not under Mubarak, not under Morsi.

I was more referring to the people of the judicial branch, I guess, and the military & police and not the entire justice system.

That's a problem. A judiciary must be independent from the executive arm for democracy to work. If any administration has the authority to remove previously appointed judges that can't happen. More importantly Morsi insisted that presidential decrees would not be subject to judicial review an act clearly in violation of the separation of powers essential to democracy.

The military and police are part of the executive not judicial functions of government.

1.) The martial law was temporary. If you remember, Boston was pretty much under martial law temporarily. Now do you think that we should overthrow Obama, the dictator?

Where did you get that from? The last time anyone declared martial law in the US was in 1963 when the Governor of Alabama declared it against Freedom Riders trying to end segregation.

2.) Who decided for the majority of Egyptians what they want?

Well, once you declare martial law there is no more democracy to preserve. Which is not to say I support the heavy-handed way the military has handled things. I especially deplore the treatment of journalists like those from al-Jazeera.

2.) He was not incompetent. It's like saying Obama's incompetent for not being able to fix the mess that Bush left him overnight.

No, but when one seeks to circumvent the judiciary and declares martial law they are demonstrating they have no real understanding of the nature of democracy.

3.) The pro-coup Egyptians could handle decades under a military dictator but they could not handle 1 year under a democratically elected leader and preferred the same military that operated under the dictator to take the country back by force against the wishes of the majority of the voters?

Even democratically elected leaders can become dictators and that is what Morsi did.

It is the pro-coup people who made the comedian flee.

It's Morsi who had him arrested.

Who dictates what form democracy should take? Isn't democracy supposed to be for the people, by the people. It's supposed to consist of the majority voting and the one getting the majority vote being the one who takes the leadership role.

It is not only that. It is also about the protection of basic human rights, especially those of minorities. The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority. It is also about the separation of powers. Those are things that preserve a democracy.

The majority of the people voted for a more religious leader.

What in Islam calls for circumventing the judiciary and declaring martial law? What in Islam allows for the oppression of minorities?

 

[smaneck]

Muslim Brotherhood tweets video alleging Jews control U.S. media, in apparent dig at Jon Stewart

Gee, they think just like you do. Just replace Jews with Muslims.

 

[wn123455]

Gee, they think just like you do. Just replace Jews with Muslims.

I believe islamists influence a lot of the media. I do not believe muslims influence a lot of the media.

 

[TG123]

I believe islamists influence a lot of the media. I do not believe muslims influence a lot of the media.

What is the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist, in your opinion?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So would you be willing to say that allowing abortion is tyranny of the majority since there are many who believe that abortion is murder?

It would be tyranny the moment one or both of these factors apply:

1. People are forced to get abortions.
2. Physicians are forced to perform the procedure (in cases where it is not a life-or-death situation).

As long as it is ascertained that those who feel strongly about these issues can live by their beliefs, their liberty is not infringed upon.

That's your opinion. I don't think separation of church and state is fundamentally important. Nor do majority of the Egyptians as proven by Pew Research (which showed that the majority of Egyptians polled wanted at least some influence of Islaam to be present in the law).

Well, then what they'd get would not be a democracy, since their religion would assert and force its idiosyncratic beliefs upon everyone, regardless of whether they share them or not.

Anyway, my point remains that the majority of the voters of Egypt voted for the religious Muslim. Why did a few million get to decide for the majority of Egypt what is right for them (even though these few million would claim to be staunch supporters of democracy). Where did their democracy go all of a sudden?

Morsi was seizing absolute power with emergency laws. By the time the coup struck, Egypt had already ceased to be a democracy.
And again, I point you to the Weimar Republic in 1933: Hitler became the democratically elected president, backed by less radical conservative parties, with nearly one-third of the voters behind him.

And why does democracy in these Muslim countries have to conform to your definition and/or the West's definition of what democracy should be?

Because it would be a farce to call an undemocratic system anything other than that. A genuine democracy needs to protect the rights of the WHOLE populace, and not just legislate the particular beliefs of whoever holds the majority at the time.
By your "logic", Nazi Germany remained a democracy by virtue of the fact that Hitler was democratically elected, and the Nuremberg laws were a legitimate act of seeing the will of the people put into law.