Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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.
1.) Why should he be subjected to judicial reviews if the judicial branch is still the same as it was under Mubarak. What faith have they inspired?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.
Perhaps you missed the word "and" in what you quoted.The military and police are part of the executive not judicial functions of government.
I didn't say it was declared. I said it was pretty much: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.
1.) But you support the coup in and of itself?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.
Nor do people who support the military coup have a real understanding of the nature of democracy. The coup that killed more than 1,000 protesters in less than 2 months.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.
Not really. If that's a dictator, I wish all dictators were like him. And if he's a dictator, I assume you would call Obama and the rest of this government one too. Right?Even democratically elected leaders can become dictators and that is what Morsi did.
Some people from the public wanted to take him to court but all charges were dropped. His show was never canceled indefinitely to the best of my knowledge. And he was fully attacking Morsi (not holding back at all).It's Morsi who had him arrested.
Neither does the minority have the right to decide for the majority what's best for the country in a democracy. Respecting the majority-vote is a pretty big aspect of democracy that's supposed to be preserved. If you don't like the current leader, you wait for the next. Simple as.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.
Judiciary and martial laws are not terms that existed during the Prophet's time. What I do know is that nothing in Islaam allows for allowing people to rule by other than Islaam in a Muslim country, though. Islaam does not allow for preferring man-made laws to God's laws.What in Islam calls for circumventing the judiciary and declaring martial law? What in Islam allows for the oppression of minorities?
Judiciary and martial laws are not terms that existed during the Prophet's time. What I do know is that nothing in Islaam allows for allowing people to rule by other than Islaam in a Muslim country, though. Islaam does not allow for preferring man-made laws to God's laws.
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.
Why would it not be a democracy? Democracies in the West also have laws that are asserted and forced upon their populations regardless of whether everyone agrees with them or not.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.
lol, Egypt did not cease to be a democracy until the usual pro-democracy secularists supported the military coup that killed 1,000+ of the anti-coup (actual pro-democracy in this case) protesters when overtaking the country against the majority voters' wishes because they thought that their voices and opinions were more important than democracy and the majority voters.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.
A genuine democracy is when the majority of the population elects a leader and then letting that ruler stay the allotted time even if a minority hates him. That's what happens every 4 years in America even though a significant portion of the country probably strongly dislikes the elected leader.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.
Hitler wasn't democratically elected by the majority of the voters. Nice try, though.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.
1.) No, it was very much just due to having beards:
In the new Egypt, beards appear where they were once banned - The Washington Post
Thanks again, pro-coup supporters, for bringing back the same "government" the Egyptians had under Mubarak.
2.) You really think that Mubarak didn't have a large influence over every aspect of the government?
I mean, these are the same courts that have freed Hosni Mubarak from prison during his retrial even though he's been sentenced to life in prison.
And it's not even like they had pressure from the public - the public didn't WANT him out.
1.) But you support the coup in and of itself?
2.) Would you give the same arguments if there was a coup in the US? That there wasn't any more democracy to preserve therefore a coup is justified?
Nor do people who support the military coup have a real understanding of the nature of democracy. The coup that killed more than 1,000 protesters in less than 2 months.
Not really. If that's a dictator, I wish all dictators were like him. And if he's a dictator, I assume you would call Obama and the rest of this government one too. Right?
What I do know is that nothing in Islaam allows for allowing people to rule by other than Islaam in a Muslim country, though. Islaam does not allow for preferring man-made laws to God's laws.
Uh, that article indicates that you could lose your job working for the government if you wore a beard, not that you would be tortured and beaten. However, women are being tortured and beaten in many Muslim countries for not adopting "Islamic dress" sometimes even when they are not Muslims.
I'm not interested in how much more or less influence relative to other branches he had over the judicial branch. He just had a lot of influence over it.I think he had less influence over the judicial system than any other, which is why he looked for so many ways to sidestep it.
He was already convicted to life in prison. He was given a retrial after the toppling of Morsi. Convenient, to say the least.Egyptian law only allows a person to be incarcerated for two years pending a trial. Mubarak had already been held that long. It was not like he was set free to do whatever he wanted. He was transferred to a military hospital.
The law doesn't say that they have to grant him a retrial. Especially right after the violent toppling of the actual democratically elected leader who replaced the dictator who was given life in prison.What you don't seem to understand is that courts aren't suppose to bow to public pressure, they are suppose to uphold the law, which they did in this case.
1.) Extended the Patriot ActNo, I've never seen Obama do anything equivalent to undermining democracy like Morsi did.
Where did the women come from? Does that go on in Egypt? Because as far as I know, the Egyptian government (post-coup) is targeting women who wear the niqaab (and perhaps hijaab) and men who grow beards.So beating men for wearing a beard=bad
Beating women for not wearing hijab or niqab=good
Have I got that right?
4.) Extrajudicially approved of the assassination of not just one, but two, American citizens. And yet another one (the 17 year old son of one of the American citizens assassinated I mentioned in the previous sentence) was "unintentionally" killed by a drone strike in Yemen and we still don't know who they were intending to kill by that strike.
Where did the women come from? Does that go on in Egypt? Because as far as I know, the Egyptian government (post-coup) is targeting women who wear the niqaab (and perhaps hijaab) and men who grow beards.
No.I would say the babies' liberty is totally infringed upon. So would you be willing to say that this is tyranny of the majority?
Biologically/medically speaking, they would be wrong.Also, these anti-abortion people probably don't see a difference between innocent adults being murdered for silly reasons vs. babies in the womb being murdered for silly reasons.
These laws are based on a constitutional foundation of civil liberties, ascertaining that minority rights are protected and that the majority does not simply bulldoze over everyone who stands in the way of their idiosyncratic beliefs.Why would it not be a democracy? Democracies in the West also have laws that are asserted and forced upon their populations regardless of whether everyone agrees with them or not.
I don't believe in black-and-white conflicts where one side is clearly "good" and the other "evil". And the role of the military in Egypt certainly gives me a stomach ache. Much of the criticism you level at the current Egyptian goverment is definitely valid - yet that does not change the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood abused their position to gradually turn Egypt into an Islamist state.lol, Egypt did not cease to be a democracy until the usual pro-democracy secularists supported the military coup that killed 1,000+ of the anti-coup (actual pro-democracy in this case) protesters when overtaking the country against the majority voters' wishes because they thought that their voices and opinions were more important than democracy and the majority voters.
Within the limitations set by a constitution founded on specific civil liberties that must not be infringed upon.Going by your standards,, there is no democracy in the world because every party that comes in through the majority vote implements their specific values.
He was democratically elected, as part of a right-of-centre coalition that handed him the position of Reichskanzler. And no other single party gathered as many votes as his in the last free and fair election in November, 1938. The NSDAP lost many votes, but still emerged with a whopping 33.09%, WAY ahead of the Social Democrats (20.43%), the Communists (16.86%), and the Centre party (11.93%). Nice try, though.Hitler wasn't democratically elected by the majority of the voters. Nice try, though.
If those "religious muslim leader" accept civil liberties instead of erecting an autocratic theocracy that forces their particular taboos upon the populace as a whole, they are very welcome to hold any political office they want. When their first goal is to dismantle a democracy and replace it with an autocratic regime founded upon Islamic values, however, that's a problem.Why don't you just admit that you want democracy everywhere unless the majority votes for a religious Muslim leader? Vote for anyone you like - republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, 3rd parties, etc. (who will push to have things passed that are in line with their personal values) - just not "Islamists"!
No, that is not how it works.As I said in my initial post, it's a war against Islaam. We've seen it in Algeria, in Gaza, and now Egypt. People like you will claim you want democracy but when Muslims try to implement democracy (even though we don't really have such a concept in Islaam), it's not good enough because they're not electing the types of people you want them to elect. So basically, "You must vote democratically for the officials I want you to elect or else!!!!"
Maybe you didn't read thoroughly. The article indicated that it was banned either by law or by custom in some places in Egypt.
All I said was that a government that claims to be Islaamic must rule by Allaah's laws and not their own. Muslims are not supposed to twist our scripture to fit our beliefs.
1.) Extended the Patriot Act
Only after Congress passed a bill calling for its extension. Had he done so without Congressional approval you could accuse him of acting in a dictatorial manner.
He signed something unconstitutional into law. What happened to the protection of basic human rights? So to add on to your above quotes:2.) NDAA
What does that have to do with Obama?
"no more democracy to preserve"?3.) NSA leaks
Unfortunately the Patriot Act gave the NSA this kind of power.
All these excuses for Obama and the US government, none for Morsi. Huh...Well, I'm sure if he had voluntarily turned himself in we would have been happy to give him a fair trial. As it was he was operating as an enemy combatant outside the US borders. In such a case, the rules of war apply. I don't much like drone attacks but they sure beat invading and occupying other countries.
"It is also about the protection of basic human rights, especially those of minorities."
So...."no more democracy to preserve"?
He signed something unconstitutional into law.
What happened to the protection of basic human rights? So to add on to your above quotes:
1.) Anwar al Awlaki was not even charged. And why the heck was his son killed weeks later??
4.) I don't think the Yemeni or Pakistani victims differentiate between drone strikes and being occupied/invaded. They are occupied and invaded by drones.
"It is also about the protection of basic human rights, especially those of minorities."
So...."no more democracy to preserve"?
He signed something unconstitutional into law. What happened to the protection of basic human rights? So to add on to your above quotes:
"The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority."
"no more democracy to preserve"?
All these excuses for Obama and the US government, none for Morsi. Huh...
Anyway:
1.) Anwar al Awlaki was not even charged. And why the heck was his son killed weeks later??
2.) "the central reason the Obama Administrations act was lawless is that in all the scenarios where the intentional killing of a U.S. citizen is permitted, there is a legal principle at work: the principle of immediacy."
In assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, Obama left the Constitution behind - The Daily Beast
3.) "The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice...."
--
"Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability."
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com
4.) I don't think the Yemeni or Pakistani victims differentiate between drone strikes and being occupied/invaded. They are occupied and invaded by drones.
Oh, well I take Indonesia as a Muslim country (and West Papua is part of Indonesia).
I listened to an NPR segment on West Papua and I did some research on the country itself. That's about it for now.
You have said in the past that the fact that I am not outspoken about West Papua & Indonesia but am about Palestine (or whatever countries), I am hypocritical. So would it be hypocritical of you to support marriages between men and women but not between those of the same gender? Would you protest in favor of one but not the other in terms of marriage rights?
Enemy combatants don't have to be charged. We don't "charge" enemy soldiers before we kill them. But actually he had been charged in Yemen and a judge there had authorized him to be caught "dead or alive." Aside from that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country.
What a profound coincidence. 16-year-old AbdurRahman al-Awlaki was murdered just a few weeks after his father was murdered without even being charged but the government said someone else was the target. Given the government's terrible track record, I'm finding it hard to believe them.As for the killing of his son, that was apparently an accident. The real target was Ibrahim al-Banna, head of al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.
The families of those killed are also victims of drone strikes.Well, the victims are too dead to do any differentiating. But I think the people of Yemen or Pakistan as a whole would rather not be occupied or invaded.
1.) You mentioned Awlaki should've turned himself in. Turn himself in for what? He wasn't charged.
2.) You ignored points 2 and 3. Point 3 is from a well-known civil rights lawyer.
3.) What happened to the concepts:"Democracy isn't just about popular vote, it also requires a proper balance of power." and "an act clearly in violation of the separation of powers essential to democracy."
If there was no more democracy left to preserve/protect in Egypt, then by virtue of all the things I mentioned in the past few posts, there is no more democracy left to preserve in the US.
What a profound coincidence. 16-year-old AbdurRahman al-Awlaki was murdered just a few weeks after his father was murdered without even being charged but the government said someone else was the target. Given the government's terrible track record, I'm finding it hard to believe them.
"....they have claimed they were targeting Ibrahim al-Banna. Though AQAP reported that he was never at the site.
But here’s what a former Obama official told Jeremy Scahill about Abdulrahman’s killing.
...John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, “suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review.”
In other words, it sounds like some in the Administration suspect that someone within the targeting chain of command may have invented the Ibrahim al-Banna presence as a way to get at Awlaki’s son."
What “Not Specifically Targeted” Means for Abdulrahman al-Awlaki | emptywheel
The families of those killed are also victims of drone strikes.
The only people that it affects differently are the US soldiers because they don't even have to look at their enemies' faces anymore before killing them. Apparently all they need to know is that there are males of military age in the vicinity and they can strike.
As for the people in Yemen or Pakistan, what difference does it make to them whether their invaders and occupiers are humans or drones? It seems less obvious? Or maybe it takes up less space?
The families of those killed are also victims of drone strikes.
The only people that it affects differently are the US soldiers because they don't even have to look at their enemies' faces anymore before killing them. Apparently all they need to know is that there are males of military age in the vicinity and they can strike.
I don't think the problem of terrorism can ultimately be solved by military means.
Oh, so NOW it's ok to have laws that are asserted and forced upon everyone whether they agree with them or not.These laws are based on a constitutional foundation of civil liberties,
This is what it sounds like to me, "As long as you pay lip-service, it's absolutely fine. Just don't base yourself off a religion."Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find any state that lives up to this lofty ideal all the time, in all cases. But at least they are trying, which is something that cannot be said about Islamic theocracies.
....Islamic state? Hardly.the Muslim Brotherhood abused their position to gradually turn Egypt into an Islamist state.
But they'll still be trying to implement their values that not everyone agrees on.Within the limitations set by a constitution founded on specific civil liberties that must not be infringed upon.
"Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933. This was the result of backroom dealing and power politics, not any kind of popular vote."He was democratically elected, as part of a right-of-centre coalition that handed him the position of Reichskanzler.
Islaamic values and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. But instead of the subjective values of man, these civil liberties are based off of an All-Knowing God's revelations which give us the best morals. Different countries have different civil liberties. What makes it so different here?When their first goal is to dismantle a democracy and replace it with an autocratic regime founded upon Islamic values, however, that's a problem.
You want democracy? Fine! Then keep it democratic.
As defined by whom?
No, they are a great deal more selective than that. The truth is that these drones, along with a few Special Forces actions, are succeeding in taking out our problem whereas ten years of occupation have accomplished nothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?