Hello, this thread is created inshallah to bring the facts to the table about Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-ikhwan Al-muslimin). What have they contributed to the muslims in Egypt and where have they gone wrong?
Do you have to be a disbeliever or a munafiq to disagree with the Muslim Brotherhood and their actions (whatever they may be)? Because many muslims have been labeled as kuffar and traitors because they disagree with the Muslim Brotherhood. Is it Islamic to call people disbelievers for not agreeing with a political party, which may by the way have made a negative impact on the muslim ummah.
Hello, this thread is created inshallah to bring the facts to the table about Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-ikhwan Al-muslimin). What have they contributed to the muslims in Egypt and where have they gone wrong?
Do you have to be a disbeliever or a munafiq to disagree with the Muslim Brotherhood and their actions (whatever they may be)? Because many muslims have been labeled as kuffar and traitors because they disagree with the Muslim Brotherhood. Is it Islamic to call people disbelievers for not agreeing with a political party, which may by the way have made a negative impact on the muslim ummah.
We want to hear every muslim's side of the story.
First, I am a non-Muslim. If you want only Muslims to post on this thread I will remove myself.
I have seen opinions on other thread that Muslims who do not advocate politics based on Islam are apostates. If the Muslim Brotherhood did represent the ideal form of Islam in politics I suppose such a logic might be valid. However, there are a couple of other issues. I have seen several others express the opinion that democracy is not compatible with Islam. Does that mean that the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in elections in Egypt was an un-Islamic act? Even if their participation in elections was permitted, what about the way they governed? Did they truly govern as Islam dictates or did they produce policies that were un-Islamic. If the Muslim Brotherhood functioned like a non-Islamic party, would they become kuffar or tratiors themselves.
I think it is sad that the Muslim Brotherhood was removed from power by the military. If they had been left in office many lives might have been saved.
I posted this article some days ago to other islamic forum (and there some of the members wanted to me because of it). I might not agree all of it but partly yes. Let´s see what reaction it causes in this thread:
Morsi Is Not Arab World’s Mandela
By: Hani Sabra and Bassem
August 12, 2013
Tawakul Karman is a brave press-freedom advocate and a worthy Nobel Peace Prize winner. She was a powerful voice in the Yemeni people’s struggle against President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s 34-year autocracy and remains an important figure in Yemen’s march toward democracy. However, Karman’s recent comparison of deposed Egyptian leader Mohammed Morsi to Nelson Mandela, one of the most influential and inspirational figures of the latter half of the 20th century and whose name is synonymous with courage, struggle and wisdom, is astoundingly wrongheaded. Mandela remains a global moral authority. Morsi is not worthy of such praise — not even close. If the defining feature of Mandela’s presidency was the unification of his people, the defining feature of Morsi’s one-year presidency was the intensifying and perilous polarization of the Egyptian people.
This is not a personal attack on Karman (though there is, regrettably, a deluge of unproductive and troubling ad hominem bullying on social media), but a disagreement about a bold and false assertion. Karman is certainly free to defend the former president and criticize the wisdom of the military’s decision to oust him and express serious concerns about the current trajectory of democracy in Egypt. And there is indeed, most certainly, ample cause for concern.
However, equating Morsi with Mandela is myopic, cynical and betrays a deep misunderstanding of Morsi’s brief presidency and Mandela’s long struggle for freedom. Mandela is everything Morsi is not. Following a career as an anti-apartheid revolutionary and almost three decades of imprisonment before his election, then-President Mandela moved swiftly to heal the deep rifts that plagued South African society. He led a national unity government and oversaw the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that, despite criticism, succeeded in turning the focus of the country toward the future. Mandela was not perfect, but he proved particularly adept at taking the long view, at understanding the symbolism and impact of each of his actions, and he consistently strived to build bridges and create consensus without losing sight of his principles.
Morsi, on the other hand, is a member of a group that has at best a questionable commitment to and a skewed understanding of democracy, and that — following a razor-thin electoral margin — moved quickly and aggressively to consolidate power. Mandela was a visionary, while Morsi was a short-term tactician who refused to see the benefits of building and reinforcing coalitions. A telling and ironic example was his approach to security-sector reform. Morsi could have begun to reform the feared security apparatus had he at least maintained the electoral coalition that ushered him to power, and would likely have succeeded if he had broadened it. Today, that apparatus, which he heaped praise upon when he believed he could eventually bring it under his control, is being used against him and his supporters. Additionally, Mandela was — and remains — a popular national leader, earning the respect and admiration of even his one-time critics and affectionately referred to as "Tata," meaning "father."
While Morsi still maintains a bloc of support, prior to his ouster this support base was shrinking as a result of his bullheaded approach to leadership and his insistence on maintaining an inept cabinet that even spokesmen in his own party rejected. In fact, by the end of his first year in office, his list of critics included the Nour Salafist Party, the media, the judiciary, civil-society activists, the police, the military, the leaderships of Al-Azhar and the Christian church and very likely a majority of the population. Essentially, Morsi’s very legitimacy was rapidly deteriorating.
None of this was foreordained. When Morsi was first elected, many Egyptians believed that he was cognizant that his narrow margin of victory was largely a result of the support of millions of non-Islamists that didn’t necessarily trust him, but who wanted a clean break from the era of deposed president Hosni Mubarak. These same people pinned their hopes on the belief that the broad January 2011 "revolutionary coalition" would remain intact and thus were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even many others that didn’t vote for him also were willing to suspend their pessimism and hoped to be positively surprised.
However, to say that Morsi proved to be a disappointment would be an understatement. His government made little progress delivering the "bread, freedom and social justice" its slogans promised. And less than five months after his inauguration, Morsi squandered his political capital when he committed a disastrous strategic blunder that would permanently dissolve the coalition of supporters that brought him to power, severely damage his legitimacy and mark the beginning of his downfall. Morsi’s infamous November 2012 presidential decree, which established him as above the law and forcefully installed a political ally as prosecutor-general, was ultimately used to ram through a divisive constitution. The bloody clashes that followed and the sequence of events that ensued left Egypt dangerously polarized and the January 2011 revolution in tatters.
In her piece, Karman says that she originally supported the June 30 anti-Morsi protests (despite her allegiance to a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party in Yemen), because she wanted to see the end of "the rift within Egyptian society, and building a country led by partnership rather than narrow majority rule." Karman, whose sincerity we’re not questioning, therefore clearly recognized that Morsi did not take a Mandela-like approach to leadership. She made passionate references in social media supporting the June 30 protests, stating that the "Revolutionary legitimacy is in Tahrir, and is stronger and greater than any [other] legitimacy," pointedly criticizing the Brotherhood and calling on Morsi to resign. While committed to political inclusiveness, she even appeared not to be averse to the notion of the military ousting Morsi and creating a presidential council while suspending the constitution. All of this makes Karman’s sudden heaping of praise on Morsi incomprehensible and incompatible.
Remarkably, following her previous sharp criticism, Karman now presents a broadly positive and democratic image of Morsi’s tenure that contradicts her previous positions. She writes that during his year in power, for example, freedom of speech was guaranteed. This is demonstrably untrue. Numerous "insulting the presidency" cases were filed during Morsi’s year in power, including some by the president's office itself before it withdrew them under local and international pressure. Quite tellingly, the Brotherhood dominated the legislature and ignored the calls by pro-revolutionary forces for the repeal of these laws. And instead of liberating state-owned media from political influence, Morsi and the Brotherhood instead worked to increase their influence over it.
One need not be a Morsi supporter to be critical of much of what is taking place in Egypt. One is free to argue Morsi that was a dangerous leader who was taking Egypt down a dark path, or alternatively that he was an elected president that was unfairly ousted by a military seeking political power, or take a position somewhere in between. However, one thing is certain: Mohammed Morsi is not the Arab world’s Nelson Mandela.
Hani Sabra is a New York-based political analyst. The views represented here are his own. On Twitter:
@hani
sabra
Bassem Sabry is an Egyptian political writer and commentator. On Twitter:
@Bass
em_Sabry
First, I am a non-Muslim. If you want only Muslims to post on this thread I will remove myself.
I have seen opinions on other thread that Muslims who do not advocate politics based on Islam are apostates. If the Muslim Brotherhood did represent the ideal form of Islam in politics I suppose such a logic might be valid. However, there are a couple of other issues. I have seen several others express the opinion that democracy is not compatible with Islam. Does that mean that the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in elections in Egypt was an un-Islamic act? Even if their participation in elections was permitted, what about the way they governed? Did they truly govern as Islam dictates or did they produce policies that were un-Islamic. If the Muslim Brotherhood functioned like a non-Islamic party, would they become kuffar or tratiors themselves.
I think it is sad that the Muslim Brotherhood was removed from power by the military. If they had been left in office many lives might have been saved.
I have personally seen people calling muslims munafiqs for being against the Muslim Brotherhood, even on this forum, but I'm not going to point any of them out.
The part that I've marked in bold is the issue that I wanted to discuss. They've ruled in about a year, what exactly did they accomplish and where have they gone wrong. And a subquestion: What led the military to take down the Muslim Brotherhood and risk having a revolution against the military like in Syria? What led them to make that compromise? Why did the military allow an election to happen in the first place if they knew that the Muslim Brotherhood could win?
I posted this article some days ago to other islamic forum (and there some of the members wanted to me because of it). I might not agree all of it but partly yes. Let´s see what reaction it causes in this thread:
The only parts that I liked was: "Morsi’s infamous November 2012 presidential decree, which established him as above the law" and that she mentioned that the Muslim Brotherhood was not the real majority of the people. The rest is just secularist propaganda. She made the majority unknown so that she could give place to her imaginary non-existent secularist friends (which btw are in millions). We all know what the majority of the Egyptians are, it's not really a secret: They are muslims.
First, I am a non-Muslim. If you want only Muslims to post on this thread I will remove myself.
I have seen opinions on other thread that Muslims who do not advocate politics based on Islam are apostates. If the Muslim Brotherhood did represent the ideal form of Islam in politics I suppose such a logic might be valid. However, there are a couple of other issues. I have seen several others express the opinion that democracy is not compatible with Islam. Does that mean that the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in elections in Egypt was an un-Islamic act? Even if their participation in elections was permitted, what about the way they governed? Did they truly govern as Islam dictates or did they produce policies that were un-Islamic. If the Muslim Brotherhood functioned like a non-Islamic party, would they become kuffar or tratiors themselves.
I think it is sad that the Muslim Brotherhood was removed from power by the military. If they had been left in office many lives might have been saved.
I don't know why your going into so many threads asking similar questions, but it is best to create your own thread with your question and stick with it, as your turning everything about how Islam governs. If your still not sure here are a few points to start with, if not satisfied then open a new thread;-
1. There is no such thing as democracy in Islam, ie when Prophet Jesus peace be upon him comes back he is in charge (which is accepted by the Christians).
The Prophets are in charge, when they are not here, then the religious who follow Islam choose amongst themselves. As they follow Islam, this ensures that they run the areas well.
There is no such thing as democracy, the UK government for example has rejected a petition for the death penalty, did not have the public agreement to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, so its rather that vote for us to do anything. It reminds me of the advertisements for charity were they say if you care about this starving child then you would give etc, treating people as simpletons. Also don't tell me that the public actually all read up on the parties manifestos etc.
2. I myself stay away from joining in conflicts created by governments, it is best to wait for the arrival of the Mahdi and the Prophet Jesus peace be upon him, for someone like me who is not participating, not trusting why people who prefer Islam but happy to wear the suits and ties of the west is strange. Remember that Saudi Arabia's Royal family governs with Islam, but they are distrusted with the pro-western ties (as anyone who is willing to stand idly by whilst other Muslims are attacked are not trusted). So if we're not going to trust them, what makes others assume that we would trust the Muslim Brotherhood??
To the Muslims if you can't even sort out the "little things", then people shouldn't be quick to aim to build a nation, I am not comfortable with supporting anyone who does fgm (don't see anything that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him arranged for his daughters to go through that). Lowering the age of consent for marriage (especially today when people are growing up learning about Islam less, I don't agree). There have been complaints about treatments of Christians -and that they are not treated equally in terms of living in the life of this world-this should be resolved. Regardless of media bias ie Pakistan even has part of their flag marked for non-Muslims.
3. In Islam, Prophets did not come and say we need to build a nation first and then get people to become Muslims, with Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him the focus was the spreading of the message, and with that led to the areas being governed under Islam law with agreement to the Muslims. Even though people use the word Islam and Muslims, not many people care about Islam, even at the last time they were rioting in Egypt-it wasn't for Islamic law, but for jobs etc. You can't force someone to help you find work. You don't say that someone should die because they won't give you money or a job. If they were so upset over Hosni Mubarak not being religious enough then they wouldn't have waited that long to complain.
I think it was yourself that questioned why the military threw them out, well after the US agreeing with what Muslims have been telling them that they were involved with the coup in Iran, your actually asking that question?? Even the military in Turkey is not caring about Islam, and there is a clash of even women wearing headscarves.
The western governments support governments around the world to be pro-western, the people carry on living without much contact from the governments, ie no welfare state etc. Its so bad that even in many countries they desire to make their countries look good for the western world rather then for their own people.
I rather remember Allah and the Day of Judgement much, I cannot say that so and so is not a Muslim, but I don't have to support them if I don't want to, as I am responsible for following the right people and for me that is now only the Mahdi and the Prophet Jesus peace be upon him.
"Allah! There is no god but He - the Living, The Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him Nor Sleep. His are all things In the heavens and on earth." Quran , Surah Baqarah 2:255
The following is from the July 6th, 2013 issue of the Economist. Obviously recent events have negated some of the hopes about the military relinquishing power.
WHEN Muhammad Morsi was elected president of Egypt a year ago, this newspaper was wary. As fervent supporters of liberal democracy, we are uncomfortable with the belief of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr Morsi’s party, that politics are subsidiary to religion, and are downright hostile to the attitudes towards women and minorities that pervade the Islamist movement. We would have preferred the secularists who led Egypt’s revolution to have won. Yet we recognised that Mr Morsi’s 52% of the vote—a stronger endorsement than Barack Obama got five months later—gave him the right to rule. And, most of all, we were delighted that after 30 years of dictatorship, Egypt was on its way to becoming a democracy.
That is why we regard the events of the past few days with trepidation. Mr Morsi’s ouster by a combination of street power and soldiers sets a dreadful precedent for the region. The army, which is in part responsible for the situation, must start Egypt on the path towards new elections as swiftly as possible, or the prospects for the country will be bleak.
Mr Morsi’s rule started unravelling when crowds massed in the streets of Egypt’s cities on June 30th, the first anniversary of his time in power. The protests turned violent; the Brotherhood’s headquarters were burned; 48 people have died. On July 1st, the army gave Mr Morsi 48 hours to resolve his dispute with his opponents. Mr Morsi responded by defending his legitimacy and refusing to step down. On July 3rd, the chief of army staff, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, announced that the constitution had been suspended. Mr Morsi was taken into military custody.
Most of the blame for the disaster that has befallen Egyptian democracy lies with Mr Morsi. The very size of the protests—some estimates claim that as many as 14m took to the streets—shows that his opponents were not a small bunch of discontents. Most of the country seems to have turned against him. One reason for that is his incompetence. He did nothing to rescue the economy from looming collapse. The Egyptian pound and foreign exchange reserves have both dwindled, inflation is rising and unemployment among those under 24 is more than 40%. The IMF has despaired of agreeing on a big loan that would have opened the way to others. In the broiling summer heat, electricity cuts have become maddeningly frequent. Queues for petrol have lengthened. Farmers are often not being paid for their wheat. Crime has soared—the murder rate has tripled since the revolution.
The Brothers’ failure to include a wide range of views in its first government was even more foolish. Egypt, at the best of times, is hard to govern because society is polarised. Secular-minded and better-educated Egyptians generally want the country to be dragged into a modern, pluralistic and outward-looking world. A more conservative and religious stratum looks to political Islam rather than socialism or capitalism as the answer to centuries of injustice, inequality and corruption. In addition, Egypt has a large and nervous minority of Christians, perhaps a tenth of the populace of 84m, along with a much smaller minority of Shia Muslims, both of whom have been rattled by an Islamist government.
Instead of trying to build up the independent institutions—the courts, the media, a neutral civil service, army and police—that check the power of government in mature democracies, Mr Morsi did his best to undermine them. He legislated through a senate that was elected by only 10% of the voters. He made false, inept or cowardly choices at every turn, finagling constitutional issues, pushing fellow Brothers into key appointments and feeding the secularists’ fears that his brethren were determined, by hook or by crook, to Islamise every aspect of society. He stayed silent when bigots and thugs threatened and attacked religious minorities. He allowed foreigners working for advocacy groups promoting human rights and democracy to be hounded, prosecuted and convicted (most of them in absentia) on patently false charges.
That so many Egyptians should wish to get rid of Mr Morsi is therefore entirely understandable. That they have succeeded in doing so could well turn out to be a disaster, and not just for Egypt.
The precedent that Mr Morsi’s ouster sets for other shaky democracies is a terrible one. It will encourage the disaffected to try to eject governments not by voting them out but by disrupting their rule. It will create an incentive for oppositions all over the Arab world to pursue their agendas on the streets, not in parliaments. It thus will reduce the chance of peace and prosperity across the region.
It also sends a dreadful message to Islamists everywhere. The conclusion they will draw from events in Egypt is that, if they win power in elections, their opponents will use non-democratic means to oust them. So if they are allowed to come to office, they will very likely do their ****edest to cement their power by fair means or foul. Crush your opponents could well be their motto.
How to make it less bad
That damage is done, and cannot be undone. But there are better, and worse, ways for the story to unfold. If the army holds on to power, then Egypt will be back where it was before Hosni Mubarak was ousted—but without the hope that prevails before revolution has been tried and has failed. If the army announces a timetable for elections and sticks to it, then Egypt has a chance. The soldiers will need to make credible promises to the Islamists that if they win (which, given their performance over the past year, the Brothers are unlikely to) they will be allowed to take power. Persuading them of that will be hard: holding an election quickly would help.
Egypt’s army played a pivotal role in the revolution, standing by while people power pushed Mr Mubarak out. It still has the trust of many Egyptians, who are still inclined to turn towards it in times of crisis. If the generals are to repay that trust, they must get the country back on the path towards democracy as swiftly as possible.
that politics are subsidiary to religion, and are downright hostile to the attitudes towards women and minorities that pervade the Islamist movement.
That's funny, these aren't Islamic attitudes in fact they're secular ones -- I am sick of outsider threads who pretend to know what's going on when they haven't the slightest clue, they just have an agenda at any cost, thousands of lives and across the decades that is!
The rest of the article can be binned. 6th of October and tamarud and other moron groups don't speak for the masses that voted five consecutive elections for the president, his party and the constitution which begs the Q as to who these types of articles address exactly, and the one before this one is even more absurd .. but I guess any idiot can write anything and get away with it.. why not it is a free market and mockery of Islam sells.
Last edited by جوري; 08-21-2013 at 02:13 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
That's funny, these aren't Islamic attitudes in fact they're secular ones -- I am sick of outsider threads who pretend to know what's going on when they haven't the slightest clue,
I don't think the writer meant that those attitudes were inherent in Islam. Just that the move using Islam in Egypt had traits along those lines. And attitudes like that can be found amongst both secular groups and religious groups.
I don't think the writer meant that those attitudes were inherent in Islam. Just that the move using Islam in Egypt had traits along those lines. And attitudes like that can be found amongst both secular groups and religious groups.
Well the brotherhood doesn't have traits along those lines in fact if you look at most of its members, they're the top 10% elitest education wise.. those aren't morons hanging in the mountains to acquiesce to that pathetic western view of them and I don't think any Muslim woman in Egypt wants someone to tell her what her attitutde should be toward the party she voted for. Secularists in Egypt are utterly are underdevloped and can't sell their merchandise unfortunately save for smear campaigns and through unadulterated violence and genocide while the entire world watches and does nothing.. quick though to either sweep it under the rug or condemn the other parties with traits inherent to only them!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
There is no denying that the Muslim Brotherhood has a substantial number of college educated individuals in its leadership. However, it is possible for someone to be college educated and yet still harbor horrifying attitudes. I've know several Christians like this, they could speak fluent Greek, Latin, and Herbrew but you talk with about women or gays it would seem that their knuckles scrape the ground. Looking on the Muslim Brotherhood's official English site I found this lovely statement. While there are some items that are relatively unobjectionable (abortion is still a controversial issue in my country, and feelings of tenderness towards the unborn are valid to have) that are things in this statement that chill my blood.
The 57th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), taking place from March 4 to 15 at UN headquarters, seeks to ratify a declaration euphemistically entitled ‘End Violence against Women’.
That title, however, is misleading and deceptive. The document includes articles that contradict established principles of Islam, undermine Islamic ethics and destroy the family, the basic building block of society, according to the Egyptian Constitution.
This declaration, if ratified, would lead to complete disintegration of society, and would certainly be the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries, eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies.
A closer look at these articles reveals what decadence awaits our world, if we sign this document:
1. Granting girls full sexual freedom, as well as the freedom to decide their own gender and the gender of their partners (ie, choose to have normal or homo- sexual relationships), while raising the age of marriage.
2. Providing contraceptives for adolescent girls and training them to use those, while legalizing abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, in the name of sexual and reproductive rights.
3. Granting equal rights to adulterous wives and illegitimate sons resulting from adulterous relationships.
4. Granting equal rights to homosexuals, and providing protection and respect for prostitutes.
5. Giving wives full rights to file legal complaints against husbands accusing them of rape or sexual harassment, obliging competent authorities to deal husbands punishments similar to those prescribed for raping or sexually harassing a stranger. 6. Equal inheritance (between men and women).
7. Replacing guardianship with partnership, and full sharing of roles within the family between men and women such as: spending, child care and home chores.
8. Full equality in marriage legislation such as: allowing Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, and abolition of polygamy, dowry, men taking charge of family spending, etc.
9. Removing the authority of divorce from husbands and placing it in the hands of judges, and sharing all property after divorce. 10. Cancelling the need for a husband’s consent in matters like: travel, work, or use of contraception.
These are destructive tools meant to undermine the family as an important institution; they would subvert the entire society, and drag it to pre-Islamic ignorance.
The Muslim Brotherhood urges the leaders of Muslim countries and their UN representatives to reject and condemn this document, and to call upon this organization to rise to the high morals and principles of family relations prescribed by Islam.
The Muslim Brotherhood also calls on Al-Azhar (the highest seat of learning for Muslims) to take the lead, condemn this declaration, and state clearly the Islamic viewpoint with regard to all details of this document.
Further, we urge all Islamic groups and associations to take a decisive stand on this document and similar declarations. In conclusion, we call on women's organizations to commit to their religion and morals of their communities and the foundations of good social life and not be deceived with misleading calls to decadent modernization and paths of subversive immorality.
God Almighty says: "God wants to forgive you, but those who follow whims and desires want you to deviate far away from the Path). {Quran 4 : 27} The Muslim Brotherhood Cairo: March 13, 2013
It doesn't matter who declares what, all of them have been caught on camera lying and have been called out on their lies by westerners out of all people and lying in an official manner which is what goes on these funny meaningless documents
here is one of their *****s lying now:
not sure who elected her to speak out on behalf of women before, or the protesters after.. but I think sane involved people can see through the transparency of this charade and others for the sake of their projects or superficial education or to satisfy some sickness in their own psyche and/or foster some foreign country's agenda will stick to this crap.. that is the crap that goes on documents!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
That's right and I love our "7th century" Islam as well. I don't think a united ummah who lives according to Qu'ran and Sunnah needs the U.N. to tell us what we need.
Salam alaykum
We muslims are still waiting that this United Ummah would even exist. Where it is now? It is defending Al-Aqsa against daily insults against zionist inviders? Is it saying that it is against islam to shoot muslim school girl to head (who just wanted to study)? Is it in China or in yemen helping people against oppressers?
Truly to say; our Islamic Ummah is missing. And it is not fault of The West or the zionists - it is fault of us all. It is always so easy to find enimies outside, even the time when we should just look the mirror and find the biggest enemy from there.
Yes it's greatly their fault read the game if nation how a little cockroach state managed to set shop in our midst is them and the puppets they've placed as leaders to keep it running that way by force in spite of the will of the people!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
^^ And there is no mistakes what Morsi/MB did during they time they were in rule?
What are the basics of the economy of the Egypt? Tourism? Pyramids? Before some islamists gave the idea that all those idols of the older worships should destroy as they are un-islamic statues. Is there oil or natural gas in Egypt? Any other natural resources? What are the basics of the economy in Egypt?
Please, hopely we could stop some personal attacks here - here is no team herb at all. Could we try to discuss here without too high tensions?
Just wanted to point out that Nelson Mandela is not a 'global moral authority' as mentioned in one post. I can respect how he fought against apartheid - it doesn't go any further than that. I don't know why some people think they can speak for the whole world.
In sha Allah I will respond to some other points made in this thread later.
So what did the Muslim Brotherhood accomplish to the muslim ummah? The so called "best muslims" with their "high education" did get 1 year to prove themselves, what did they accomplish?
So what did the Muslim Brotherhood accomplish to the muslim ummah? The so called "best muslims" with their "high education" did get 1 year to prove themselves, what did they accomplish?
Of my mind they showed great lack of understanding of realism of the political economy.
So what did the Muslim Brotherhood accomplish to the muslim ummah? The so called "best muslims" with their "high education" did get 1 year to prove themselves, what did they accomplish?
Well...Morsi named Abdul Fatah al-Sisi as the Minister of Defense. Obviously that didn't work out so well...
In international affairs I know that he was a strong supporter of the Syrian rebels. Whether this was to the benefit of the Egyptian people or the Islamic community is of course a matter of interpretation.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
me because of it). I might not agree all of it but partly yes. Let´s see what reaction it causes in this thread:
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks