Egypt strikes 'terrorist camps' in Libya in response to attack on Coptic Christians

It's really tragic. Poor Egyptians are left to clean up the mess left by utterly incompetent Obama and Hillary Clinton. They really should be tried before the international court for crimes against humanity committed in Libya as a result of their idiotic and reckless actions.

 

That's ridiculous. Neither Obama nor any US president could have controlled what happened in Libya, Egypt or Syria.. That's magical thinking for children.

 

Those who are truly interested in seeing an actual reformation of what would be considered regressive and repressive precepts in certain schools of thought within Islam, should leave the best approach to the problem to those within the Islamic world who know and understand the challenges and conditions better than you would ever hope to know. In this regard, I totally reject the idea that separation of "church and state" is the correct model for much of the Islamic world. Let me explain this, using Iran's example among others to illustrate my point:

1- When you separate church and state, you insulate doctrine that is repressive, backward, and impractical in the modern world from any responsibility to reform itself. Instead, those regressive doctrines are kept alive within society and, in the process, the ruling establishment which -- regardless of whether it is secular or not -- is forced to heed the force of religion in its society, will simply appease those doctrines without the ability to reform them. The example of Iran is quite illustrative, as numerous precepts are forced to adjust themselves to the realities of the modern world, with approaches that essentially reform those precepts and bring them in line with the needs of a modern society. I can give a hundreds of examples in terms of what I mean, but perhaps one that illustrates the point most clearly is comparing and contrasting the teaching of evolution in Iran with the teaching of evolution not merely in Wahhabi Arabia, but even Turkey.

2- You can never have a democratic society if that society runs counter to the beliefs and ideas among the majority of its people. A so-called secular government has to rely on instruments of force and repression to contain the power of religion and that will inevitably turn that system into a dictatorship. As the examples around the region show.

3- The best way to find the necessary reforms is to have a system that properly trains and educates a clerical class, makes them educated in the so-called "liberal arts" and jurisprudential thought across various traditions (Islamic and western), receiving their education in an educational environment that does not restrict their ability to think freely and out of the box, and which then elevates those who have been properly educated to a position to bring enlightened ideas and given them the "moral stamp" of approval as being the ideas which are Islamic. Never mind if those ideas might actually run counter to past beliefs and traditions on the issues. Such a system essentially paves the way for an enlightened clerical class to act as Platonic guardians in a Republic that nonetheless is also imbued with democratic traditions and has representative government.

I can expand on each of these if necessary, but I have no doubt that while Iran's system requires certain important reforms, the best and most hopeful path for the future of the Islamic world is charted in Iran and no where else. And that system is certainly not one that has separation of church and state. Instead, it is a system whose path on these issues can easily follow the British model, where you have an official church (Church of England) (in Iran, you have the Shia clerical establishment) but instead of a hereditary monarchy on top, having a Platonic guardian chosen by an elected body of so-called experts (Assembly of Experts) and following otherwise the same path in restricting the reach of actual and traditional religious dicta on how society's affairs are run. Of course, over time, the powers of Iran's Platonic guardian can evolve to be more or less akin to the powers of the British monarch, who enjoys in theory powers that even Iran's supreme leader doesn't enjoy (e.g., royal prerogative and the power to dismiss and dissolve parliament) but who in practice occupies a rather symbolic role.

 

Well, that wasn't my point. My point was that in the Western world, those from Islam that want to join our society, have to recognize and accept that in OUR society, there is separation of Church of State. What they do in their own counties, as long as they respect our national rights, is up to them.

Now as reasonable as my point is, it is not affirmed in unreformed Islam. They view the world as a division of two camps: One is called the Dar al-Islam and the other is called the Dar al-Harb. That first means the House of Submission – those are the lands or nations that are brought into submission to Islam, and the other is called the House of War. Those are the lands that have not yet been brought into submission to Islam. This perception of the world as in these two camps – the House of Submission, the House of War – speaks volumes about the nature of Islam and its command to bring the world by force if necessary into submission to Allah. And any that seek to bring us into submission, must be met with resolve, force, and even effective violence, if necessary. And their religion absolutely advocates conversion and forced submission by violence: When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful” (Qur’an 9:5).

When we welcome them in and bring them into our social safety network, they do not view this as an act of charitable goodwill, but of submission which reinforces their commitment to this violent system of conquest.

Our government was formed to secure the rights that no human being can forced to surrender. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of OUR dreams (not the dreams of a small minority that would like to rule over us, because in our system WE are sovereign, not the government). And most certainly we can order our society in opposition to the majority. The majorities of many US States, in our early history were quite happy to enslave the minority, and until the post civil war amendments forbid it, forming a more perfect Union, they were free to do so.

The Leader of Egypt is calling for Islam to reform itself, hopefully others will follow suit and I don't know what form this will take. Certainly we need to do what we can to help Egypt in this endeavor.

To be free, I think Iran will need revolution.

 

From Sisi's speech before the strikes on the terrorists' camp:
“If Egypt falls, so will the rest of the world.”

So true.

If I was in charge of the war on terror, first thing I'd do is recruiting and training young women to track down and kill terrorists. The gates of heaven stay locked for terrorists killed by women. Good bye virgins, hello fiery furnaces of hell. I'd call my female force "virgins' bane".

The sultan doesn't like Sisi. Relations between Erdogan's Turkey and Egypt have been rather tense since the ousting of Morsi. I'd say the sultan is more comfortable with Islamic extremists than secular leaders.

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/n...schist-president-sisi-in-al-jazeera-interview

 

Good response.

 

Good. I don't disagree with that statement, but I think it should run both ways. In other words, how you manage your affairs isn't the business of anyone outside your own realm, as long as you respect our national rights and not try to speak for people who have given you no mandate or right to do so.

Please. The concept of Dar al Harb and Dar al-Islam reflected the kind of imperialism that was in vogue when the Muslim world was more powerful and felt itself capable of doing what all imperialistic powers have done under various fig leafs. It has no real relevance to actual thought among Muslims today, or in the past few centuries, when in fact the Muslim world has been trying to fend off against western imperialism and not the reverse.

A society that is truly against its majority is despotic and will have to employ despotic measures to rule over the majority. But the majority can voluntarily agree to certain basic rights for the minority and reach compact about what those rights are. But ultimately you need an institution which is not answerable to the majority to enforce those rights. In the US, that institution is ultimately the federal judiciary with the Supreme Court sitting on top. Still, any institution entrusted with such powers can abuse it. You have had judicial activism in the US in different directions in different periods of time from Dred Scott and the actions to frustrate FDR's New Deal (before the switch on the court) to Roe v Wade and other judicial pronouncements which haven't really followed the constitutional text or original intent or anything of the sort. But regardless, as long as the institution - here the Supreme Court - does what it does in a manner that is acceptable to the majority in the society, even when it is theoretically frustrating majority rights, it keeps its legitimacy and advances (or regresses) societal norms in the direction of its dictates. It is the same in the case of Iran. Our Platonic guardians can be progressive or regressive. But taking a lesson from Alexander Bickel's argument in the "Least Dangerous Branch", the thing that - besides Hamilton's argument about the court having neither power over the purse or sword -- that made many progressives trust the court more than the majoritarian institutions was the educational and intellectual upbringing of many of America's judges. The same court be true in Iran, as the educational and intellectual upbringing of Iran's clerical class can be made quite progressive as well (the seeds of such progressive intellectual discourse exist both in the method of education (Socratic method) in Iran's Shia seminaries, in its curriculum, as well as in the fact that Shia Islam (unlike Sunni Islam) considers "reason" and consensus of Shia scholars to be among the main pillars or sources of law. As such, and with "justice" being regarded as the objective of Shia jurisprudence, the seeds for an Islamic natural law tradition are easily in place within the confines of Shia Islam.

1- Mind your own business about Iran. Besides the fact that your intentions are suspect for good reason, there is also the fact that most of those who speak the loudest about Iran in the West are those who know the least about it.
2- I am no fan of the Muslim Brotherhood but they represent the actual, mainstream, and more democratic tradition, in the Sunni Islamic world. Egypt's Sissi represents the kind of tradition that is ultimately about doing foreign bidding and establishing a dictatorship under various pretexts.

 

Why was Obama trying to install the Muslim Bros in Egypt? Thank God, he failed.

 

That's the problem.

Aussie Imam Openly Declares Koran Commands Beheadings and Massacres of Infidels

 

Unfortunately it is still written in their doctrine of the Koran and Hadiths and dictates the thoughts of Islamic fundamentalist who follow a strict literal interpretation.

 

We are witnessing the reformation. The protestant reformation used the text of the bible to return Christianity to the doctrine of the bible and away from the inventions of the men of the Catholic church. JUST AS the Islamic fundamentalist are using the text of the Koran and Hadiths to return Islam to the texts of the Koran and Hadiths and away from the inventions of other men in Islam.
The rule of Islamic Caliphates applying Islamic doctrine as law, as they existed from 632 until the 1920s and now again for the last few years, is the rule in Islam. Its 80 years of absence was the exception.

 

Being that Iran is one of the lead supporters of terrorism world wide, I would say that Iran is a case study in what NOT to do.

 

If you want matters settled according to Sharia law, go somewhere else. There was a Minnesota court of appeals recently ruled on an inheritance case involving the widow of a Muslim man who was killed in an accident in Minnesota. The estate of the man filed a wrongful-death claim resulting in a settlement of $183,000.

Since the husband left no will, according to Minnesota law, the man’s widow was entitled to the entire amount. However, the man’s brother claimed the money should be split according to sharia law, which would have amounted to the widow inheriting only 25 percent of the money with other family members inheriting the remainder.

The Minnesota court told the former bro in law to pound sand, we apply American law, in America.

 

We aren't seeing Islamic nations taking up arms against infidels.
Didn't the USA just sign a yyuuuge arms deal with one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world?

What we have are large groups of radicals trying to inflict their interpretation in Islam. They are killing other muslims also. More muslims, than non muslims.

 

Well, now you see the bloody obvious.. US law takes precedence over Sharia.

 

Those who follow this kind of thought aren't part of the mainstream and would exist regardless of any reformation in Islam. These kind of selective reading of verses and arguments, in any case, in the hands of people in the western world who are trying to find polemical points to fuel a war on Islam are no different than the kind of justifications used by Islamic rulers in the Middle Ages to expand their realm. The dynamics are largely the same; the actors are different. Otherwise, it would really take someone to be utterly brainwashed not to realize that there is no serious pretension or movement in the Islamic world to encroach and capture any part of the so-called Dar al-Harb while the past few centuries have seen a clear encroachment by the West in various forms of imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism aimed at taking control and establishing hegemony over the Islamic world.

 

I don't know how anyone can take you seriously .. I guess when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

 

I can easily throw mindless labels around as well, but that is not really what I am interested in.

 

Are you saying my comment was inaccurate? Or just not what part of Iran you want highlighted?

 

I agree to a point... and there are a lot of old clerics still around. The Ottoman Empire left much of the Arab world behind in literacy. Today you have many well-educated young scholars who are looking at what is Islamic and what tribal customs are assumed to be Islamic.. It will be a process and it won't happen over night, but the ME is improving in terms of healthcare, education, jobs and infrastructure. Women marry later and have smaller families. That is a reformation.

 

Iran has supported Hezbollah, Hamas, and supports the regime in Syria. I certainly don't view Iran's support of these groups as terrorism, but if you feel you need the label as a crutch to advance some propaganda points, so be it. A non-polemical and accurate description of Iran's foreign policy ideology is that Iran fancied itself as the leader of the "axis of resistance" to US/Israeli hegemony in the region. Now days, however, certain parts of Iran's government aren't really interested in playing that role, while others are.

 

The fact that you dont see Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists says everything I need to know about you. You think the whole sale slaughter of non muslims as the right of muslims.

 

Hezbollah is allied to certain Christian factions in Lebanon who hold the presidency in Lebanon and the idea that anyone in Iran or the groups Iran support is interested in the wholesale slaughter of non muslims is absurd and ridiculous. But continue with your mindless nonsense. It doesn't change anything in the real world, except to perhaps further misinform and prejudice the few dozen people who read these pages.

 

Does Iran have any influence over Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas or the al Houthis?

 

I'm allergic to Obama as much as the next Obamaphobe, but I don't think that he tried to install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. That was the Egyptians' doing. Obama being happy about it was just another proof of his extraordinary incapacity to understand the Middle East.

The Muslim Brotherhood, viciously repressed during Mubarak's reign, symbolized the resistance to the old hated regime, the change Egyptians so desired. In addition, like other extremist Islamic organizations, the Muslim Brotherhood is also a charity. For instance, they provided free healthcare for the poor. Their meteoric ascension was not that surprising. Nothing to do with Obama.