Right-wing America's double standard on terrorism

[PointOfViewGun]

The world was watching them, but, they still imposed some Sharia rules. Religious freedom only applied to Muslims, Jews and Christians, and it was illegal to insult Islam.

Egyptian Constitution of 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By that standard there is not a single nation that doesn't have some Sharia rules.

[snuggans]

dr legend you dont understand why that constitution was passed in the first place, it was because there was so much impetus for something, anything new, after Mubarak. when egyptians realized what the muslim brotherhood was trying to pull off through Morsi, they went back to the plazas and started protesting right again. and the military stepped in and had to force Morsi out. so what's going on is Egypt is gaining some valuable experience here with democracy that occurs more frequently. Mubarak's reign was almost 30 years, they denied the Muslim Brotherhood as the replacement, and are now in a sort of limbo

the newer 2014 constitution includes parts such as "political parties may not be based on "religion, race, gender or geography", of course it is not perfect but constitutions are amended throughout time.

[Prodromos]

A law can be in compliance with Sharia without being Sharia. Sharia is a broad term referring to rules and regulations in Islam. The idea that an Islamic country's laws are in compliance with Sharia purely as a freak coincidence is amusing. If you read the Constitution it makes it very clear what the source of the laws is.

dr legend you dont understand why that constitution was passed in the first place, it was because there was so much impetus for something, anything new, after Mubarak. when egyptians realized what the muslim brotherhood was trying to pull off through Morsi, they went back to the plazas and started protesting right again. and the military stepped in and had to force Morsi out. so what's going on is Egypt is gaining some valuable experience here with democracy that occurs more frequently. Mubarak's reign was almost 30 years, they denied the Muslim Brotherhood as the replacement, and are now in a sort of limbo

How do you explain the fact that the new Constitution post-Morsi is still based on Sharia?

[Harith]

The world was watching them, but, they still imposed some Sharia rules. Religious freedom only applied to Muslims, Jews and Christians, and it was illegal to insult Islam.

???

All Islamic countries have laws derived from Islam..... just like Jewish states (Israel), Christian states (Eastern Europe, Balkans, Russia, Parts of Africa and South America). In fact, many Christian majority states still have blasphemy laws.

And it still disapproves his point.

[tgoodenow]

???
In fact, many Christian majority states still have blasphemy laws.

Examples.

The study on Muslim support for apostasy was done in 2013.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...-about-sharia/


The age of the study simply does not change the fact that hundreds of millions of Muslims support the fact that this woman was imprisoned for converting and desired her to be killed instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam..._Ibrahim_Ishag

There are no examples of Muslims in Christian prisons for converting because Christians don't support death for apostasy like Muslims do.

[Harith]

Examples.

Since you like to cite wikipedia so much, here's a world map for you.

The age of the study simply does not change the fact that hundreds of millions of Muslims support the fact that this woman was imprisoned for converting and desired her to be killed instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam_Yahia_Ibrahim_Ishag

???? Please rephrase your sentence in a more coherent way. I genuinely cannot understand it.

As for the link, the women is Christian.... she didn't convert. What a Sudanese judge thinks or decides doesn't speak for all Muslims. Last year, a judge in Alberta (Canada) told a rape victim that sometimes pain and joy go together during sex. I don't consider him speaking on behalf of all christians, mormons, Albertans, Canadians or Westerners.

[PointOfViewGun]

A law can be in compliance with Sharia without being Sharia. Sharia is a broad term referring to rules and regulations in Islam. The idea that an Islamic country's laws are in compliance with Sharia purely as a freak coincidence is amusing. If you read the Constitution it makes it very clear what the source of the laws is.

Most of Western laws could very well be in compliance with Sharia. It's not just one or two there. Don't hide behind your lack of knowledge on what Sharia is. Nobody said here that a Muslim majority country's laws are in compliance with Sharia based on a freak coincidence either. Though, in some examples like Turkey, civil and criminal codes have been taken directly from European states in the past. Until you realize that Sharia doesn't mean a single set of rules, that it's not something alien to the Western world, I'll keep on pointing the idiocy in your points. So, carry on.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Islam is under attack the same way that a dog gnarls as he bites and snaps at you.


The muslim cries out in pain as he blows you up.

[Prodromos]

???

All Islamic countries have laws derived from Islam..... just like Jewish states (Israel), Christian states (Eastern Europe, Balkans, Russia, Parts of Africa and South America). In fact, many Christian majority states still have blasphemy laws.

And it still disapproves his point.

Most of Western laws could very well be in compliance with Sharia. It's not just one or two there. Don't hide behind your lack of knowledge on what Sharia is. Nobody said here that a Muslim majority country's laws are in compliance with Sharia based on a freak coincidence either. Though, in some examples like Turkey, civil and criminal codes have been taken directly from European states in the past. Until you realize that Sharia doesn't mean a single set of rules, that it's not something alien to the Western world, I'll keep on pointing the idiocy in your points. So, carry on.

I have no idea what your point is here. I'm just responding to a claim in the previous page. Someone said that the Islamic parties that rose to power in Egypt didn't impose violent Sharia laws. He was wrong. Egypt is still another Sharia hellhole.

[PointOfViewGun]

I have no idea what your point is here. I'm just responding to a claim in the previous page. Someone said that the Islamic parties that rose to power in Egypt didn't impose violent Sharia laws. He was wrong. Egypt is still another Sharia hellhole.

The violent part of Sharia laws is your addition now. You didn't make that classification before. You criticized Egypt for having Sharia laws. So, I'm pointing out to you that many other non-Muslim nations have some Sharia laws as well. Yet, we don't see you whining about them.

[Prodromos]

The violent part of Sharia laws is your addition now. You didn't make that classification before. You criticized Egypt for having Sharia laws. So, I'm pointing out to you that many other non-Muslim nations have some Sharia laws as well. Yet, we don't see you whining about them.

Tgoodnow mentioned extremists killing in the name of Islam. He was not talking about inheritance laws. Harith asked why the Egyptians didn't implement laws punishing unIslamic activities with death. And I gave you a bit of evidence from their own Constitution stating that religious freedom is for Abrahamic religions only and that insulting Islam is illegal and officially or unofficially punishable by torture and imprisonment at the hands of the security services.

[PointOfViewGun]

Tgoodnow mentioned extremists killing in the name of Islam. He was not talking about inheritance laws. Harith asked why the Egyptians didn't implement laws punishing unIslamic activities with death. And I gave you a bit of evidence from their own Constitution stating that religious freedom is for Abrahamic religions only and that insulting Islam is illegal and officially or unofficially punishable by torture and imprisonment at the hands of the security services.

So, basically you're cherry picking to alter what Sharia is. It's like if I use Western law in a negative way just because certain states in USA still have capital punishment. A lot of EU states still have blasphemy laws as well. You didn't give me a bit of evidence. You gave me a Wikipedia article that not just didn't talk about blasphemy being punishable by torture or imprisonment but talked about how there were provisions against torture and arbitrary imprisonment. Are we to conclude that Sharia exists in Europe because they have blasphemy laws?

[Prodromos]

So, basically you're cherry picking to alter what Sharia is. It's like if I use Western law in a negative way just because certain states in USA still have capital punishment. A lot of EU states still have blasphemy laws as well. You didn't give me a bit of evidence. You gave me a Wikipedia article that not just didn't talk about blasphemy being punishable by torture or imprisonment but talked about how there were provisions against torture and arbitrary imprisonment. Are we to conclude that Sharia exists in Europe because they have blasphemy laws?

Human rights organizations say that torture is endemic among the security forces and that anybody who is undesirable (nonMuslim, political dissident, even petty criminals) can expect to be tortured. It is officially illegal but the law is hardly enforced and the police and military are practically immune.

I have already explained the difference between a Sharia law and a law that is compliant with Sharia and am not going to explain again. No Western country I am aware of has banned an activity because it is against the Sharia.

[PointOfViewGun]

Human rights organizations say that torture is endemic among the security forces and that anybody who is undesirable (nonMuslim, political dissident, even petty criminals) can expect to be tortured. It is officially illegal but the law is hardly enforced and the police and military are practically immune.

I have already explained the difference between a Sharia law and a law that is compliant with Sharia and am not going to explain again. No Western country I am aware of has banned an activity because it is against the Sharia.

Yawn... Then you should have actually posted a source that supported your claims. You made a claim and provided a link that you claimed to show evidence. It didn't. You should first acknowledge that. Then you can go on about your crusade.

Nobody would really question if we said that Western laws has a lot of basis in Judeo-Christian principles. Since many of those principles exist in Sharia as well, a lot of it is compatible with Sharia. So, if you oppose Sharia in general then you could very well oppose having laws against incest as well. This isn't really rocket science to understand.

[Prodromos]

Uh what are you talking about? Maybe my mind isn't too good today but I'm pretty sure we aren't discussing the same thing.

[Harith]

Uh what are you talking about? Maybe my mind isn't too good today but I'm pretty sure we aren't discussing the same thing.

That's probably the only time I will ever agree with you. You ARE discussing two different things. He is discussing Sharia and your discussing Jeff Dunham's Achmed Sharia

[Prodromos]

I must be hallucinating because I keep seeing arguments that I have already addressed a few times.

I have already explained the difference between a Sharia law and a law that is compliant with Sharia and am not going to explain again.

[PointOfViewGun]

I must be hallucinating because I keep seeing arguments that I have already addressed a few times.

I have already explained the difference between a Sharia law and a law that is compliant with Sharia and am not going to explain again.

You didn't provide such an explanation and such an explanation would be irrelevant anyways. You simply don't want to accept Sharia for what it is and want to continue to making ignorant points on it. I'm merely pointing it out. No need to whine.

[Prodromos]

One guy said that Egyptians like that there violent Sharia rule. Another guy said that Egyptians didn't impose any violent Sharia rules after taking over the government. I gave proof that Egyptians did indeed impose violent Sharia rules.

Sigh.

[PointOfViewGun]

One guy said that Egyptians like that there violent Sharia rule. Another guy said that Egyptians didn't impose any violent Sharia rules after taking over the government. I gave proof that Egyptians did indeed impose violent Sharia rules.

Sigh.

Except the link you gave as proof didn't support your claims... One guy didn't say that Egyptians didn't impose any Sharia rules either... Seriously, say one thing right. (Your first sentence is incoherent.) One thing.