Egypt Elects Islamist President

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
fgalkin
Carvin' Marvin
Posts: 14557
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:51pm
Location: Land of the Mountain Fascists
Contact:

Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by fgalkin »

Named Egypt’s Winner, Islamist Makes History

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK


CAIRO — Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood moved Monday into the presidential office last occupied by Hosni Mubarak, claiming a symbolic triumph and a potent weapon for the Islamists in their struggle for power against the country’s top generals.

Egypt’s military rulers on Sunday officially recognized Mr. Morsi, 60, an American-trained engineer and former lawmaker, as the winner of Egypt’s first competitive presidential election, making him the first Islamist elected as head of an Arab state. He becomes Egypt’s fifth president and the first from outside the military. But his victory, 16 months after the military took over on the ouster of Mr. Mubarak, is an ambiguous milestone in Egypt’s promised transition to democracy.

After a week of doubt, delays and fears of a coup after a public count showed that Mr. Morsi had won, the generals showed a measure of respect for at least some core elements of electoral democracy by accepting the victory of a political opponent over their ally, Ahmed Shafik, a former air force general. “Today, you are the source of power, as the whole world sees,” Mr. Morsi, pointing into the television camera, said in his victory speech.

Mr. Morsi’s status as president-elect, however, does little to resolve the larger standoff between the generals and the Brotherhood over the institutions of government and the future constitution. Two weeks before June 30, their promised date to hand over power, the generals instead shut down the democratically elected and Islamist-led Parliament; took over its powers to make laws and set budgets; decreed an interim Constitution stripping the incoming president of most of his powers; and reimposed martial law by authorizing soldiers to arrest civilians. In the process, the generals gave themselves, in effect, a veto over provisions of a planned permanent Constitution.

For much of Sunday, the capital was tense with apprehension that the panel of Mubarak-appointed judges overseeing the election might annul the ballot count and declare Mr. Shafik the president, completing a full military coup. Banks, schools and government offices closed early for fear of violence.

Tens of thousands of Brotherhood supporters and their allies against military rule gathered in Tahrir Square for the sixth day of a sit-in, demanding that the military roll back its power grab. Around 3:30 p.m., hushed crowds gathered around portable radios to hear the election commissioner’s rambling introduction of the official result.

Then they leapt to their feet: Mr. Morsi had won 51.7 percent of the runoff votes.

“Morsi, Morsi!,” the crowd chanted. “Down, down with military rule!”

Smiling riot police officers put down their helmets to exchange congratulations with bearded protesters. Beaming Brotherhood supporters streamed in, swelling the crowd to perhaps 100,000 by nightfall. In a carnival atmosphere, fireworks were set off and vendors hawked cotton candy or threw pieces of fruit into the laughing crowd.

After 84 years as a secret society struggling in the prisons and shadows of monarchs and dictators, the Brotherhood is now closer than ever to its stated goal of building an Islamist democracy in Egypt. “In my dreams, I wanted this to happen, but it is unbelievable,” said Hudaida Hassan, a 20-year-old from Menoufiya who was rejoicing in the square.

Brotherhood leaders emphasized that their struggle was far from over. They promised to continue the sit-in and fight on in the courts and the streets to reinstate the Parliament. In his short first statement as president-elect, Mr. Morsi vowed to take the oath of office before the reseated Parliament, and not the Supreme Constitutional Court, as the generals had decreed.

Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the chairman of the military council, congratulated Mr. Morsi. The official presidential guard, which once protected Mr. Mubarak, arrived at Mr. Morsi’s home to take up their new role. Until 16 months ago, their appearance at the home of a Brotherhood leader could only mean a trip to one of Mr. Mubarak’s jails. Mr. Morsi himself was jailed for a time in 2008 and again during the revolt last year against Mr. Mubarak.

State television, long a wellspring of propaganda against the Brotherhood, broadcast Mr. Morsi’s victory speech on Sunday. In it, he pledged repeatedly to be “a president for all Egyptians.” He quoted the first Muslim caliph to describe his authority in Islamic terms, but he also extended a hand to Egypt’s large Coptic Christian minority, many of whom remain dubious of him. “We as Egyptians, Muslims and Christians, are preachers of civilization and building; so we were, and so we will remain, God willing,” he said. “We will face together the strife and conspiracies that target our national unity.”

“We are all equal in rights, and we all have duties toward this homeland,” he added. “But for me, I have no rights, I have only duties.” He also repeated his pledge to uphold all international agreements, an apparent reference to Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel.

The Coptic Church formally congratulated him, calling the election a victory for democracy.

Fulfilling a campaign promise, Mr. Morsi resigned on Sunday from the Brotherhood and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party. He is expected to appoint a prime minister and cabinet in the next few days. He has promised that the prime minister and an advisory council would come from outside the Brotherhood as part of a unity government based on a rebuilt alliance with liberals and other secular activists.

At the same time, however, Mr. Morsi has always campaigned not as an individual with a vision of his own but rather as an executor of the Brotherhood’s platform. He was the group’s second-choice nominee, put forward after the disqualification of its leading strategist and most influential leader, Khairat el-Shater. Mr. Morsi, a close friend and protégé of Mr. Shater’s, has vowed to carry out the “renaissance” program that Mr. Shater devised to overhaul Egypt’s ministries. The two did little to dispel the assertions of critics that Mr. Shater and the Brotherhood’s board would wield the true power in a Morsi government.

Even after the two-month presidential campaign, Mr. Morsi remains an unfamiliar figure to most Egyptians. He was living and working in Los Angeles during the tumultuous period after Islamic militants assassinated Anwar Sadat and his successor, Mr. Mubarak, cracked down on the Brotherhood. Those who knew him in America say Mr. Morsi never appeared notably political or religious. But he became a leader in the Brotherhood after his return to Egypt, and he won election in 2000 to the Mubarak-dominated Parliament, and was chosen to lead the Muslim Brotherhood’s small bloc of 18 members, playing a key role in the group’s experiments in multiparty democracy and coalition-building. But as he rose in the leadership, he gained a reputation as a conservative enforcer, known for discouraging dissent.

Five years ago, when the Brotherhood adopted a draft party platform that called for barring women and non-Muslims from the presidency, Mr. Morsi was a chief defender of the controversial planks, inside and outside the group. He argued that Islam required the president to be a male Muslim, in part because the head of state should promote the faith.

Since Mr. Mubarak’s ouster, the Brotherhood has jettisoned those proposed restrictions from its platform, but during the campaign Mr. Morsi said that he personally still thought that only a male Muslim should hold the office.

Even so, the jubilation and relief at Mr. Morsi’s victory swept up not only Brotherhood supporters, but also some more secular Egyptians who had stayed on the sidelines of the Brotherhood’s tug of war with the military. Alaa al-Aswany, a writer who campaigned against Mr. Morsi before the runoff and has been a sharp critic of the Brotherhood, wished him well on Sunday. “Congratulations for the Egyptian people,” Mr. Aswany wrote in an online commentary. “The will of the people was able to topple the old regime once more. Long live the revolution.”

Inside the prison where Mr. Mubarak’s sons and former allies are being held, there was “sadness and tears” at the election result, the Web site of the state newspaper Al Ahram reported. It said, however, that Mr. Mubarak himself, now under guard in a hospital, reacted stoically.

Early in the week, when the vote counts were still unofficial, Mr. Shafik had declared himself the true winner of the election, but on Sunday he sent Mr. Morsi a congratulatory telegram, wishing him luck with “the difficult task assigned by the Egyptian people,” a Shafik spokesman said.

Mr. Morsi’s designation as president-elect will hand the Brotherhood and its more secular and liberal allies an important megaphone in their struggle for power with the military. Mr. Morsi will become the chief figure negotiating with the generals on behalf of both the group and its allies, Brotherhood officials say.

“I feel like there is hope again,” said Mohamed Ahmed, 20, an activist with the secular April 6 Youth Movement, one of many demonstrating with the Brotherhood in Tahrir Square. He was celebrating, he said, but not because he supported Mr. Morsi. “I hate Ahmed Shafik,” he said. “He is from the old regime.”

President Obama called Mr. Morsi to congratulate him and offer support, the White House said in a statement. A separate statement urged the generals to speed the transition to democracy and recalled Mr. Morsi’s pledges of inclusiveness: “We believe in the importance of the new Egyptian government upholding universal values, and respecting the rights of all Egyptian citizens — including women and religious minorities such as Coptic Christians.”

Mr. Obama also telephoned Mr. Shafik to commend him on his campaign and to encourage him to help “unify the Egyptian people,” the White House said. Official reaction in Israel was muted; Israeli officials have watched events in Egypt with trepidation over the past year and a half, reflecting concern that a new government would reassess the peace treaty that Egypt’s generals have long honored. In the Gaza Strip, governed by the militant Islamist group Hamas, an offshoot of the Brotherhood, wild celebrations broke out on Sunday. Celebratory gunfire accidentally killed a 24-year-old man and wounded two girls in Rafah, near the border crossing to Egypt.

Mr. Morsi’s victory is unlikely to end the fierce polarization of Egyptian society. Many of the young secular and liberal activists who started the revolt against Mr. Mubarak have come back together to support the Brotherhood against the military’s grab for power, but older secular political leaders are more divided.

A counterprotest in support of the ruling generals reportedly grew to 10,000 people Saturday night, and a group of lawmakers who call themselves liberals held a televised news conference to declare their support for the generals and for the dissolution of the Brotherhood-led Parliament.

The secular politicians accused the Brotherhood of “hijacking” the revolution, called the group a threat to the “civil” character of the state, and charged that the Brotherhood would impose religious rule.

And incongruously, given Washington’s history of antagonism toward the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, the secular lawmakers argued that the United States had improperly tried to sway the presidential race in Mr. Morsi’s favor. American officials and diplomats say the United States supported only the democratic process, regardless of the election’s result.


Reporting was contributed by Mayy El Sheikh, Liam Stack and Kareem Fahim from Cairo, and Fares Akram from Gaza.
Linky

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
User avatar
General Mung Beans
Jedi Knight
Posts: 854
Joined: 2010-04-17 10:47pm
Location: Orange Prefecture, California Sector, America Quadrant, Terra

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by General Mung Beans »

I suppose the generals decided that with dissolving the parliament and neutralizing much of the president's powers, letting the Muslim Brotherhood win was tolerable.
El Moose Monstero: That would be the winning song at Eurovision. I still say the Moldovans were more fun. And that one about the Apricot Tree.
That said...it is growing on me.
Thanas: It is one of those songs that kinda get stuck in your head so if you hear it several times, you actually grow to like it.
General Zod: It's the musical version of Stockholm syndrome.
User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5496
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Ritterin Sophia »

And the EBIL ISLAMIST quit the Brotherhood.

PS Why is it when we talk about Muslims we refer to them as 'Islamists', but when we're talking about Christians, Jews, or other denominations we just call them Christians and Jews instead of 'Christianists' and 'Jewists'?
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by weemadando »

Because if you don't say Islamists then you might accidentally use a word like rag head or sand nigger which you actually mean.
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Blayne »

General Schatten wrote:And the EBIL ISLAMIST quit the Brotherhood.

PS Why is it when we talk about Muslims we refer to them as 'Islamists', but when we're talking about Christians, Jews, or other denominations we just call them Christians and Jews instead of 'Christianists' and 'Jewists'?
We would actually use "Judaic" in this context as Jewish is a ethnicity not a religious affiliation, Judaism is the religion. Also it has to do with having religious laws having the force of government behind them as both de facto and de jure law of the land only has mainstream currency with Islam of the three; Judaisms equivalent is different as it has very specific prerequisites' namely that (I'm simplifying) we need to re enter the age of prophecy with the coming of the messiah before we can reinstitute religious law over the land, it cannot be done without their being a King of Israel again and the temple rebuilt or something along those lines.

Sure there's places like England with a offical state religion but the law of the land is passed by a secular institution, not interpreted by religious courts.

So that's why, because there is no movement to have Rabbinical law made the law of the land, because doing so would be considered by definition to be blasphemy.

As for why there's no mainstream "Impose Christian Law" that's probably because secular law is somewhat Christian law in terms of its evolution; because beyond the ten commandments there's not very much to run society off of so that task is delegated to the King of the country; and the King then delegated that to Parliament. Which eventually turned to secular civil society through the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

To paraphrase a very long and complex legal/cultural history. Sure there are plenty of fundies everywhere for both of them, but they aren't the mainstream.
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Blayne »

Sorry to double post but upon rereading my post I just wish to clarify an ambiguous point; I do not mean to imply that fundies are the mainstream in Islam or among Muslim's; only that Shariah Law does have a wider mainstream currency with Muslim's than the equivalent among Christians or Jews, albeit with a large amount of caveats probably; I don't have the training to interpret the polls I find with my googlefu.
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Spoonist »

General Schatten wrote:PS Why is it when we talk about Muslims we refer to them as 'Islamists', but when we're talking about Christians, Jews, or other denominations we just call them Christians and Jews instead of 'Christianists' and 'Jewists'?
weemadando wrote:Because if you don't say Islamists then you might accidentally use a word like rag head or sand nigger which you actually mean.
You are both wrong.
In common usage it falls into the pattern so it doesn't have to have racist undertones. Hinduism - hindu, christianity - christians, judaism - jewish, it follows that the pattern seeking brain tries to find something similar Islam - Islamist follows that pattern where Islam - Muslim simply doesn't. If it would have been Islam - Islams then I don't think that we would see Islamists in a flawed context as often as we do.
Why people wouldn't use christianists or jewists is because those words doesn't really exist. Sionist does and it also has negative associations.

But most importantly, why it is used specifically in the context of the muslim brotherhood is because they are islamists, from Islamism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1340699499
2: a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam

Looking at the Muslim Brotherhood's own website they refer to Islamism and themselves as Islamists officially and repeatedly. Go put this into your search [islamist site:http://www.ikhwanweb.com/] [islamism site:http://www.ikhwanweb.com/]

Instead you are both subjects to a trend in anglosphere media to portray islamism and thus islamists as something purely negative because of sharia laws etc, where moderate islamists aren't that bad compared to some of their existing governements.
While I would personally always advocate secular laws over religious laws any day, and the tenent of religious freedom to include freedom from religion as well.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Simon_Jester »

A variant on sharia law which allows the people of the country to speak freely, vote freely, and discuss among themselves what kind of law they want to have has one thing going for it: if people decide sharia law stinks, they can stop using it and write something else, without having to fight a civil war.

A military dictatorship doesn't have that going for it: Mubarak made it basically impossible to even talk about whether Mubarakracy was the right government for Egypt, and it's pretty clear that the new military junta plans to do exactly the same thing.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Spoonist »

Blayne wrote:As for why there's no mainstream "Impose Christian Law" that's probably because secular law is somewhat Christian law in terms of its evolution; because beyond the ten commandments there's not very much to run society off of so that task is delegated to the King of the country; and the King then delegated that to Parliament. Which eventually turned to secular civil society through the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
To paraphrase a very long and complex legal/cultural history. Sure there are plenty of fundies everywhere for both of them, but they aren't the mainstream.
I would disagree with most of the snippet above.
1) There are plenty of "impose christian law" in the US. Abortion and pornography comes to mind instantly. As well as "one nation under god" etc. It isn't a small fringe either but a really big movement, luckily for the US most US christians wouldn't recognize biblical laws as they haven't really read the bible.
2) Secular law has nothing to do with christian law. This is a totally flawed construct. Even during the height of medieval christian rule the law was not biblical. Even the christian ideal as in the virtues and vices doesn't come from biblical law but rather from the holy see's ramblings and from muslim poetry.
3) Laws regulating stuff like what is in the 10 commandments was covered waaaaaaay before the existance of judaism or christianity. Check out Mesopotamia and Hammurabi for the inspiration of biblical law, but also check out China and other civs who had similar laws without any trace of any christian influence.
4) Beyond the ten commandments (which isn't 10 in the bible) there are literally hundreds of biblical laws which very much regulate how to run society. Heck check out the new testament after JC was gone for how to run socialistic communes etc. The letters, o my god* the letters, lots of laws and regulations coud be written off of them. (*pun)
5) King delegated to parliament? This is very conceited in that it assumes the anglosphere being the source of secular law.
6) Secular laws existed looooooooooong before the reformation and the enlightenment.
7) Some religions didn't "interfere" with lawmaking at all, so even though they would be what one swore upon etc the laws would be made by councils, courts and what we now would call legislative branches...
8] US fundies are mainstream.
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Blayne »

Alright, so I just contacted and asked my Theologian friend who is the closest thing to an expert on the subject matter that I know and he largely agrees with the crux of my assessment. That it is simply a recognition that there is a difference between the Islam of today and the Christianity and Judaism of today, in the same way we're not looking for Buddhist terrorists we're not seeing any broad national movements by Christians or Jews to impose religious law on the land.

The assertion that culture war single issue voter wonks is equivalent to Sharia Law is demonstrably false and falls into the fallacy of treating all religions the same.

Also I'm referring to ancient rome as being the origin of much of modern secular law, yes, yes Babylon, etc, but Western civilization has more in common with Rome which became Christian than it does with Babylon which got destroyed before Rome was founded, King->Parliament is simply because of local reference, I am referencing the development of the divine right of king's to rule and act in god's steed as being a major influence in the development of Western civilization and the impact of Christianity in general.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Simon_Jester »

Blayne wrote:Alright, so I just contacted and asked my Theologian friend who is the closest thing to an expert on the subject matter that I know and he largely agrees with the crux of my assessment. That it is simply a recognition that there is a difference between the Islam of today and the Christianity and Judaism of today, in the same way we're not looking for Buddhist terrorists we're not seeing any broad national movements by Christians or Jews to impose religious law on the land.
What do you call Pat Robertson then? Or the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel? It's not that there are no such movements. It's that they're pretty unsuccessful. There's a difference.

I think the biggest source of the difference is that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions aimed at different things.

Judaism is a survivor from classical times, and is in some ways typical of classical religions. It's an ethnic religion, as much so as the Greek or Norse pantheons. In essence, one that worships the god of the tribes of Israel. It has plenty of rules and taboos about how Jews ought to live, but the rules don't apply to gentiles- and Jews have spent most of the last two thousand years living embedded in societies full of gentiles. That forced them to become very cosmopolitan- they know they cannot enforce their religious law on unwilling masses, and probably wouldn't want to try.

Christianity isn't an ethnic religion: it tries to convert all races of people to itself equally. On the other hand, the real focus of Christianity is spiritual. It's about saving your soul. If everyone's soul is saved, then the details of how they dress, or handle contract law, or occasionally drink some wine don't matter. So there aren't a lot of actual religious laws in Christianity which are essential to the nature of the religion. What there is, is a host of inherited cultural prejudices that are treated by whichever specific subgroup that follows them as if they were divine commands- but that's not the same thing, because it isn't universal. Southern Baptists who are directly descended from 17th century Puritans may think dancing is the work of the Devil, but they're never going to be able to enforce that except in the small parts of the country where they're a majority, because most Christian sects either don't believe them or don't worry about it. When you strip out all the stuff that Christians wouldn't agree to ban, there's plenty of room for a complete secular law, with religious influence affecting only a small part of the social legislation.

Islam is as global as Christianity and has that same dream of universality. But the focus is different. It's not just about saving your soul, or even mainly about it. It's about building a divinely organized community on Earth. God will, in Islamic tradition, reward you for that, but that's not the reason you're doing it.

Because of that, Islam has (and needs) lots of law about how to organize that community. A tremendous amount of such material is detailed in the Koran, or from other documents dating back to the first years of the Islamic religion. And anyone who's really serious about their Islam pretty much has to try and follow those laws- so in a society where most people are serious about Islam, even if they're not fanatics, Islamic law gets a lot more headway. Especially because it's already the accepted model: Islamic law was the only law of much of the Middle East for a thousand years or more, except for whatever one-off arbitrary decisions were made by local rulers on a case by case basis.

So Islamic fundamentalism is more oriented around changing all laws in a country to support its own ideas of how things ought to work, and has an easier time making sure that less radical members of the religion will go along with it.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Blayne »

Quite right, but your first paragraph supports the point of there being a complete lack of a mainstream Sharia analogue in Christianity and Judaism; that fringe wackos exist doesn't mean its mainstream or equivalent, while correlation is not causation a lack of success should be indicative of this without having to break out the scriptures and compare class notes.

The implication posted somewhere above that because religion A has yockels who want to change the laws and religion B also has yockels who want to change the laws must mean that both sides have the same or similar theological underpinnings that motivate this is just complete nonsense.
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Spoonist »

*disclaimer saw that simon and blayne had posted some of this but can't be bothered to rewrite so assume this is above simon's post, thank you.
Blayne wrote:Alright, so I just contacted and asked my Theologian friend who is the closest thing to an expert on the subject matter that I know and he largely agrees with the crux of my assessment.
So what? Whatever did you think the relevance would be of you telling us that you have been talking to some random friend about this?
If that truly is the case, then please instead of giving a subjective view of the conversation, give him a link to this topic and ask him to join instead, or at least quote stuff. You giving him your subjective interpretation and then responding that he agrees with that proves nothing without giving us that conversation.
Otherwise such input is useless "my friends could kick your friend's arse" stuff.
Blayne wrote:That it is simply a recognition that there is a difference between the Islam of today and the Christianity and Judaism of today,
Since telepathy is not my forte, please tell me how could that be anywhere near what I disagreed with? I even numbered them for easy reference and yet you give me this bland generic nonsense?
Yes there is a difference between Islam/christianity/judaism/asatru/confucious/FSM/whatever, there is also a difference in culture between regions, countries, continents etc. It was so during history, it is so today and it will must certainly be so in the future. Just as each of those religions and cultures have changed and will continue to change over time.
Now, since I never claimed the opposite, why would you point that out as it was some sort of revelation? It's human nature... :roll:
Blayne wrote:in the same way we're not looking for Buddhist terrorists
"We" are not looking for Buddhist terrorists, but the chinese are. So again, why bring it up? Are you claiming that there are no buddhist terrorists? Or that buddhist cannot be terrorists? Or did you think that I claimed any such thing or the reverse? This simply adresses none of the points I gave.
and if this is some sort of stupid reference to islam friendly then I'd point out that europe and us have had more terrorist acts from christians than it ever had from muslims. We don't see them as scary though because they are "our terrorists".
Blayne wrote:we're not seeing any broad national movements by Christians or Jews to impose religious law on the land.
:wtf: I just told you that this is wrong and gave you examples, how could you possibly think that repeating it would somehow win me over?
The jews trying to impose religious law would be these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shas
among others. Are you claiming that 11/120 seats is not a broad national movement? If we include include the United Torah and others of similar views, then these people that you don't see has almost 20% of the knesset.

The christians trying to impose religious law would be people like this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Opinions like that has some serious funding and is increasing. More and more people like this guy say that the US should go back to its christian roots. (Which is flawed on so many levels, but still...) As evidenced by the GOP and people like Palin and Santorum.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/1 ... 69922.html
Etc.
For you to claim that we don't see this is simply ignorant.
Blayne wrote:The assertion that culture war single issue voter wonks is equivalent to Sharia Law is demonstrably false and falls into the fallacy of treating all religions the same.
Are you so uninformed that you think that people like Palin and Santorum does not come from the same mindset as muslims wanting to impose parts of Sharia?
Are you so blind that you don't think that if they could get away with it people like Santorum would indeed try to impose their interpretation of biblical law?

What you are completely missing is what I already pointed out to you, (thanks for ignoring that).
Why so many muslims are islamists is because they percieve it as an IMPROVEMENT over what they have now. They believe (falsely, see Iran) that religious law will sort out most problems with their current law enforcement.
As a defacto example, the Taliban was a relief for a lot of afghani because they implemented order over the chaos that was the warlords. They were murdering fuckheads but they were orderered and consistent murdering fuckheads.

Why christian parties in euroland and the americas etc are not trying to fully implement biblical laws is because they would be a DETRIMENT to what they have now.
Blayne wrote:Also I'm referring to ancient rome as being the origin of much of modern secular law, yes, yes Babylon, etc, but Western civilization has more in common with Rome which became Christian than it does with Babylon which got destroyed before Rome was founded,
This is stupid. I told you the relevance of that. It was the basis of BIBLICAL LAW. As in we can see passages of BIBLICAL LAW which is basically copy&paste of mesopotamian laws. Why do you ignore people who are trying to teach you stuff? What parts of what I said didn't you understand? Why not ask questions instead of trying to defend your flawed assumptions?
Yes, Rome had a big influence on modern law, but that relates almost nothing christianity, rather the opposite. Justinian didn't impose christian laws, he imposed religious prosecution of anything but his denomination of christianity, which no denomination would recognize today. Christianity like everything else have evolved through the ages.
Rome and most of the world had laws looooong before the arrival of christianity and those formed the basis, why this stupid insistance on christianity?
See this related post where we can see traces of germanic/nordic pagan culture permeating into modern secular law.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4#p3690714
So could I now claim that asatru influenced the formation of secular law? Hel* no. (*As in the norse godess)
The exception which comes to mind would be confucious, who indeed did influence secular law in china BEFORE THE INVENTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
Blayne wrote: King->Parliament is simply because of local reference,
Which was exactly the kind of narrowmindedness that I objected to.
Blayne wrote:I am referencing the development of the divine right of king's to rule and act in god's steed
Which isn't biblical law, instead just like I pointed out to you is the ramblings of the holy see and predates christianity. The germanic/nordic tribes which I linked to above also had this and they sure as Hel* was not christians.
Someone who claims to be talking about the history of such law should have heard about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Zhou
Guess when he lived? A MILLENIA BEFORE the first anno domine.
Guess what he came up with?
The Mandate of Heaven is based on four leading ideas:
The right to rule China is granted by Heaven.
There can be only one legitimate ruler of China.
The right to rule is based on the virtue of the ruler and his good performance as a steward for Heaven.
The right to rule may be passed down from father to son, but only on the conditions established above. Once the Mandate is lost, the will of Heaven towards a successor will only be known by the working out of the imponderable force of events in human history.
These four leading ideas have important implications:
Legitimization of the ruling house in the eyes of the people who come under its sway
Times of divided rule require some rationalization after the fact to establish which ruler can claim truly to have the Mandate
The rulers put checks on their own behavior, and are encouraged to invest in the well-being of their subjects.
The rulers necessarily fear rebellion, possibly because they believe in active intervention from Heaven, and/or possibly because they know that misbehavior will give positive sanction to attempts by others to overthrow them.
So tell me, how can something that predates christianity by a millenia be a christian invention?
Blayne wrote: as being a major influence in the development of Western civilization and the impact of Christianity in general.
Again, which I with examples have shown is baseless and ignorant of history.

Please go back to your friend and give him all of this and see if he still agrees with you.
:roll:
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Blayne »

I just told you that this is wrong and gave you examples, how could you possibly think that repeating it would somehow win me over?
The jews trying to impose religious law would be these guys:
Did you read the link and then the accomponying link regarding the Halakha?

1) The punishments for breaking these laws can only be done by the Sanhedrin which no longer functions since the fall of the temple; reinstituting it is as such impossible and in fact blasphemy until we enter the messaniac age.
2) Since Jewish religious law only applies to jews I think this automatically disqualifies comparison.

As for Christians it seems to be nearly entirely an issue of semantics, there are "Christians" who want to impose various punishments written within the Bible. But I do not see them advocating taking everything from it, nor do I see them as being under a reasonable definition of what constitutes the mainstream on a global level, that sort of thing stopped over a hundred years ago. Which I also feel still makes it very different from what Sharia law is.
"We" are not looking for Buddhist terrorists, but the chinese are. So again, why bring it up? Are you claiming that there are no buddhist terrorists? Or that buddhist cannot be terrorists? Or did you think that I claimed any such thing or the reverse? This simply adresses none of the points I gave.
and if this is some sort of stupid reference to islam friendly then I'd point out that europe and us have had more terrorist acts from christians than it ever had from muslims. We don't see them as scary though because they are "our terrorists".
My point is that there are fundamental theological difference that makes one concerned with Islamic political-religious ideology that just doesn't apply to Buddhism. I'm well aware that Buddhists were once militant, for example Warrior Monks in Japan, but it's not the same. I am objecting to drawing a false equivalence between them.
So what? Whatever did you think the relevance would be of you telling us that you have been talking to some random friend about this?
If that truly is the case, then please instead of giving a subjective view of the conversation, give him a link to this topic and ask him to join instead, or at least quote stuff. You giving him your subjective interpretation and then responding that he agrees with that proves nothing without giving us that conversation.
Otherwise such input is useless "my friends could kick your friend's arse" stuff.
I shouldn't have phrased as "So I reported the conversation and he agreed with me so there." I was however disturbing him at work (I didn't know when I called) and had to make it brief, when he next returns to his computer I'll forward him the thread and see what can be arranged but the forum culture wouldn't suit him.
Are you so uninformed that you think that people like Palin and Santorum does not come from the same mindset as muslims wanting to impose parts of Sharia?
Are you so blind that you don't think that if they could get away with it people like Santorum would indeed try to impose their interpretation of biblical law?

What you are completely missing is what I already pointed out to you, (thanks for ignoring that).
Why so many muslims are islamists is because they percieve it as an IMPROVEMENT over what they have now. They believe (falsely, see Iran) that religious law will sort out most problems with their current law enforcement.
As a defacto example, the Taliban was a relief for a lot of afghani because they implemented order over the chaos that was the warlords. They were murdering fuckheads but they were orderered and consistent murdering fuckheads.

Why christian parties in euroland and the americas etc are not trying to fully implement biblical laws is because they would be a DETRIMENT to what they have now.
You've lost me here, how are they the same?
Which was exactly the kind of narrowmindedness that I objected to.
That's fair, but I wasn't being narrowminded I was making a point.
So tell me, how can something that predates christianity by a millenia be a christian invention?
It's quite the reach to presume I've said this in anyway. My argument is that Christianity largely lacks a Sharia Law analogue because of historical developments of Europe.
Again, which I with examples have shown is baseless and ignorant of history.
Are you saying that Rome becoming Christian has had no impact on the evolution of Western Civilization as we know it today?
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Blayne wrote: As for Christians it seems to be nearly entirely an issue of semantics, there are "Christians" who want to impose various punishments written within the Bible. But I do not see them advocating taking everything from it, nor do I see them as being under a reasonable definition of what constitutes the mainstream on a global level, that sort of thing stopped over a hundred years ago. Which I also feel still makes it very different from what Sharia law is.
From a practical stand-point, Sharia law is little different than Catholic writ. Sharia law is not a document that lists all the laws, it varies widely between countries and cultures. It is a blanket term referring to the implementation of religious law based on the Qur'an, the teachings and hadith of Mohammad, as well as the interpretations of local imams and qadis.

Catholic writ is actually a good analogue for Sharia law. Neither applies to all members of the faith (Islam is not a monolithic entity, though it is not as "fractured" as Christianity), but are still important political and social forces. They are global, but are only mainstream on local levels. There are important historical and geopolitical differences between them, but for the purposes of what you are arguing they are quite similar in theory.
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Blayne »

Yeah I was thinking that as well but I didn't know enough, I'll be sure to ask my friend about that as he should know.
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Spoonist »

Why the useless strawmans? Go to my first post with the numbers. You can see my disagreement clearly counted out. Why do you try to go beyond that?
Again, we are not telepaths, we judge your posts on their face value not on whatever you want them to have said.
Blayne wrote:
The jews trying to impose religious law would be these guys:
Did you read the link and then the accomponying link regarding the Halakha? *snip*
Lets recap, you made the false claim that christians and jews are not trying to impose religious laws, I pointed out that is wrong with examples. I then pointed out why some muslims think that replacing their current laws with sharia would be good (which it isn't). To finish it of with giving a reason why christians usually don't want to implement full biblical law.
You respond with some strange version of true scotsman fallacy. Why are you changing the goalposts?
I was not claiming that they are the same, I was showing you that your post was dead wrong. I even elaborated on that with the religions and cultures thingie, why did you ignore that?
This was my quote of your post that I disagreed with:
Blayne wrote:As for why there's no mainstream "Impose Christian Law" that's probably because secular law is somewhat Christian law in terms of its evolution; because beyond the ten commandments there's not very much to run society off of so that task is delegated to the King of the country; and the King then delegated that to Parliament. Which eventually turned to secular civil society through the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
To paraphrase a very long and complex legal/cultural history. Sure there are plenty of fundies everywhere for both of them, but they aren't the mainstream.
Nowhere did you make any caveats about the stuff you now claimed that you said.
Instead its just like usual for you - after someone shows you that you are wrong you try to retcon what you actually said... You do realise it only makes you look like an asshole when we can just scroll up and see what you did say?
Care to point out exactly where you said that any religious excuses would have any validity?
Care to back up any of that bullshit in that quote which was adressed by my first post to you?
Blayne wrote:As for Christians it seems to be nearly entirely an issue of semantics, there are "Christians" who want to impose various punishments written within the Bible. But I do not see them advocating taking everything from it, nor do I see them as being under a reasonable definition of what constitutes the mainstream on a global level, that sort of thing stopped over a hundred years ago. Which I also feel still makes it very different from what Sharia law is.
Which was not what you said in the post above, nor was it what I refuted in my response to the post above. Plus another true scotsman fallacy. This is why I included "by their interpretation" in most of my post. Most people have their own interpretation of their religion and make their own excuses for the silly bits.
This adressed exactly zero of my points above.
Then you have missed the whole range of islamism, it goes all the way from moderate to extremist. Its not the same everywhere. So your claim on Sharia should have dozens of caveats for it to be even remotely true.
But yes I agree that lots of sharia law interpretations in the islamist movement is more on the extreme side than most of the christian ones. Which was why I pointed out IMPROVEMENT vs DETRIMENT, which sailed like a star destroyer over your head.
None in their right mind would try to remove compounded interest on loans just because some silly text mentions it. But they did just that for a couple of hundred years in euro (with the nice addition of allowing non-christians to do so, dooming jews to get shafted some hundreds of years later for doing that service to euro society).
Blayne wrote:My point is that there are fundamental theological difference that makes one concerned with Islamic political-religious ideology that just doesn't apply to Buddhism. I'm well aware that Buddhists were once militant, for example Warrior Monks in Japan, but it's not the same. I am objecting to drawing a false equivalence between them.
No that was not your point, that is your retcon. See above.
And no, I did not drawe a false equivalence between them, hence the religions and cultures thingie.
Of course its not the same, but human nature and thus psychology is. So we can easily show that they are similar although they are not the same. Just like you sometimes can replace religion with ideology.
Blayne wrote:I shouldn't have phrased as "So I reported the conversation and he agreed with me so there." I was however disturbing him at work (I didn't know when I called) and had to make it brief, when he next returns to his computer I'll forward him the thread and see what can be arranged but the forum culture wouldn't suit him.
He doesn't have to post, its just that if he truly has studied this outside of a diploma mill I would find it very strange if he agreed with what you said in what I quoted above.
Blayne wrote:You've lost me here, how are they the same?
My religion is true, therefore what is tought by my religion must be true, therefore my interpretation on my religion's text should be implemented as law.
The mindset is the same, but due to local political reality and local cultural differences the totallity of such a view is different.
Blayne wrote:That's fair, but I wasn't being narrowminded I was making a point.
A narrowminded point?
Blayne wrote:It's quite the reach to presume I've said this in anyway.
Did you miss that I quoted you in that response? If you had kept the quote you'd see yourself saying that:
"King->Parliament is simply because of local reference, I am referencing the development of the divine right of king's to rule and act in god's steed as being a major influence in the development of Western civilization and the impact of Christianity in general."
The divine right of king's is not a development of christianity. Thus it can not be attributed to a christian influence. So it is not a valid counter to me saying "Secular law has nothing to do with christian law. This is a totally flawed construct. Even during the height of medieval christian rule the law was not biblical. Even the christian ideal as in the virtues and vices doesn't come from biblical law but rather from the holy see's ramblings and from muslim poetry."
Instead its another example of how something that people think is a christian influence really isn't. Instead I again point out a probable muslim influence on christian dogma.
Blayne wrote:My argument is that Christianity largely lacks a Sharia Law analogue because of historical developments of Europe.
No this is your retcon which has nothing to do with my criticism of your post. See above.
Blayne wrote:
Spoonist wrote:Again, which I with examples have shown is baseless and ignorant of history.
Are you saying that Rome becoming Christian has had no impact on the evolution of Western Civilization as we know it today?
Irony, FTW.
Strawman, retcon, see above.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Simon_Jester »

Ziggy Stardust wrote:
Blayne wrote:As for Christians it seems to be nearly entirely an issue of semantics, there are "Christians" who want to impose various punishments written within the Bible. But I do not see them advocating taking everything from it, nor do I see them as being under a reasonable definition of what constitutes the mainstream on a global level, that sort of thing stopped over a hundred years ago. Which I also feel still makes it very different from what Sharia law is.
From a practical stand-point, Sharia law is little different than Catholic writ. Sharia law is not a document that lists all the laws, it varies widely between countries and cultures. It is a blanket term referring to the implementation of religious law based on the Qur'an, the teachings and hadith of Mohammad, as well as the interpretations of local imams and qadis.

Catholic writ is actually a good analogue for Sharia law. Neither applies to all members of the faith (Islam is not a monolithic entity, though it is not as "fractured" as Christianity), but are still important political and social forces. They are global, but are only mainstream on local levels. There are important historical and geopolitical differences between them, but for the purposes of what you are arguing they are quite similar in theory.
Catholic writ is a lot less comprehensive than sharia- see previous post.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Spoonist »

Simon_Jester wrote:Catholic writ is a lot less comprehensive than sharia- see previous post.
Here I'd disagree and so would the holy see.
Check out the vatican's version of Canon Law, especially the work leading to the reform from Corpus Juris Canonici to Codex Iuris Canonici in 1917. (Don't know latin enough to know which spelling is the correct one for Juris Iuris )

After you have read up on that and if you still feel Sharia Law > Canon Law then please name a legal concept in Sharia that is not covered by Canon.
Remember that the Sunnah is interpreted differently by Sufi, Sunni and Shiit so don't pull such a fast one on me.

After all Canon Law rules the vatican state and incorporates lots of state-ish laws, just like Sharia. So this quote of yours is equally true for Canon Law as it is for Sharia Law:
simon wrote:Because of that, Islam has (and needs) lots of law about how to organize that community. A tremendous amount of such material is detailed in the Koran, or from other documents dating back to the first years of the Islamic religion. And anyone who's really serious about their Islam pretty much has to try and follow those laws- so in a society where most people are serious about Islam, even if they're not fanatics, Islamic law gets a lot more headway. Especially because it's already the accepted model: Islamic law was the only law of much of the Middle East for a thousand years or more, except for whatever one-off arbitrary decisions were made by local rulers on a case by case basis.
Just exchange middle east for mediterranean and you are ready to go.
User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Ryan Thunder »

Spoonist, you do realize that its only a scotsman fallacy if he changes his statement from "no scotsman" to "no true scotsman", right?
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Spoonist »

Ryan, it's late and I don't get it in reference to the above, could you elaborate please?

Here is how I interpreted it and I might be missing something;
Blayne claims that jews and christians are not trying to implement religious laws like the muslims do.
Me saying that is not necessarily so and quoting examples of jews and christians saying they want to implement religious laws,
Que Blayne saying that those are not "true" religious laws because of X and Y, while he does not allow muslims the same excuses.

Where did I go wrong?
User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Ryan Thunder »

Ah, my bad. I see that fallacy misused a lot in this context and misread a few things as a result.
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Simon_Jester »

Spoonist wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:Catholic writ is a lot less comprehensive than sharia- see previous post.
Here I'd disagree and so would the holy see.
Check out the vatican's version of Canon Law, especially the work leading to the reform from Corpus Juris Canonici to Codex Iuris Canonici in 1917. (Don't know latin enough to know which spelling is the correct one for Juris Iuris )

After you have read up on that and if you still feel Sharia Law > Canon Law then please name a legal concept in Sharia that is not covered by Canon.
First example that pops into my head- does canon law say anything to mandate proportions of an inheritance given to various relatives of the deceased?

"Comprehensive" doesn't just mean "has a concept of X," it means "tells you what to do."
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Blayne »

Lets recap, you made the false claim that christians and jews are not trying to impose religious laws
This is not what I said?
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: Egypt Elects Islamist President

Post by Spoonist »

@Ryan,
Probably just means I wasn't clear enough in my responses leaving room to other interpretations than the one I intended.

@Blayne,
After another poster pointed out to me that I was too adverserial I've reviewed my responses to you in this topic and I tend to agree. I let our previous exchanges color my response in this one without explaining myself on why I got adverserial over these nitpicks.
Sorry about that, your responses in this topic alone shouldn't have had me detoriate as fast as I did. I'll make a new response outlining my reasoning and hope to restart the dialog that way.

@Simon,
Comprehensive - since I'm not a native english speaker I did check it out in MW before posting my response to you so I'm quite suprised that you'd think I misunderstood that word. *goes to recheck*
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprehensive
1: covering completely or broadly : inclusive <comprehensive examinations> <comprehensive insurance>
2: having or exhibiting wide mental grasp <comprehensive knowledge>
Nope, nothing on "tells you what to do", so how could you come to that interpretation? Is it some legal jargon I'm missing? Cause it makes no sense to me in this context.
My interpretation would be all-including, as was why I asked for examples of something included in Sharia not included in Canon.

What you might be missing is that in the creation of Canon Law up to 12th cen, it not only incorporated most of the existing roman laws and concepts, it also reviewed a lot of other laws including Sharia (see Spain as for why). So it would suprise me greatly to find anything in Sharia not covered by Canon Law. Even if they did come to different conclusions at the end.

Inheritance in medieval Canon Law is quite complex compared to Sharia. If we are talking history then yes and no but for a reason, Canon law incorporated the first instance of Ius Testandi, or a Will if you will. Something which didn't have a similtude in Sharia. So if we are talking comprehensive then yes it had distribution of inheritance to the relatives, BUT, it was more than that. It provided a way for the person to write a will of where his/her inheritance would end up. Usually with a big note about thinking about your eternal soul etc, so using the will to give to the poor and to the church could alleviate your time in pergory.
Which means that, no, if the person willed it he/she could leave his relatives pretty much inheritless. Some parts mentioned 3/4 as by will and 1/4 by nature, the nature part excluded the wife though so widows were not covered. However the code of 12th cen is explicit about you "providing" for relatives etc, so the smaller your estate was the less power over it you had and only the really rich could really cut their relatives from their will. See 19cen britain made fameous by Austen and Brontë for good examples on how Canon Law was interpreted (in that case by the anglican church, but still), with allowances per annum to siblings etc while still being able to will the manor/castle to the oldest male heir.
So yes the concept exist and more.
However please note that Canon Law when it comes to inheritance completely ignores Biblical Law related to inheritance both in the old and new testament. So here we can clearly see secular law influencing papal interpretation of the written law. Something which would trigger Luther et al some centuries later. It's not really until the 1917 reform that Canon Law on inheritance even mentions biblical text.

You see why this became very important in christianity vs islam was due to the Franks. The laws of gaul/frankland still remained a male split even inheritance, so when he died it was split among the sons (even a recognized "bastard") into effectively four kingdoms. Etc etc by the merovingian dynasty. Similar thing after Charlemagne.
This was not seen as good for christendom, so they changed it. Fast forward to the 5th and later crusades we can see the disparity in the change of inheritance laws, providing christianity with lots of second and third etc sons going the military career option while first sons got vast economies to rule, facing a lot of fragmented muslim holdings.

But if we look at modern reformed Canon Law of 1980s then of course that includes inheritance of relatives as well as the right of a will over the estate, but it does this by defering to the natural law of the country.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
This is in some parts due to the EU.
Post Reply