Has the Arab Spring in Egypt turned into an Islamist nightmare?

[Weeping Wyvern]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

The claim that Israel is "the only real democracy in the Middle East" is flatly untrue. Turkey and Tunisia are democracies as well as Egypt.

I wouldn't consider Tunisia part of the Middle East. It's in the Arab and Muslim worlds, yes, but geographically it's still just North Africa.

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

You were the one who rather foolishly decided to attack Egypt for not having separation of Church and State without realizing that most western states, including the one you're from as well as your beloved Israel don't have it. (emphasis added)

Just for the record, although Israel is a self-declared Jewish state that does not even pretend that it separates Church and State, Israeli Jews are 37% agnostic or atheist. Many Jews in Israel become atheists every year. Have you ever heard of an Israeli Jew being executed or imprisoned because he rejected Judaism as a religion?

Israel does not have civil marriage (although there is a strong movement in favour of it) but its courts have ruled that gay marriages performed in other countries must be recognized inside Israel. Israel is a Mecca (pun intended) for Palestinian gays who take refuge in Israel from Muslim and Arab homophobia.

Comparing Israel to the fascist theocracies that exist and that are increasing in the Muslim world is frankly ridiculous.

Reality-based thinking anyone?

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Valteron

Here are some examples of gross violations of the individual's freedom of conscience and religion under Islam. See if you can find equivalent violations in western countries.

Oh goody, it's everybody's favorite hit band Valteron and the Moving Goalposts again.

Let's review the bidding:

1. Valteron (post #67) complains that the new Egyptian President Morsi "seems to have no idea what is meant by separation of Church and State".

2. Ibn Warraq (post #71) quite rightly points out that "separation of Church and State" per se is not the problem here, because many liberal western democracies also don't maintain a strict legal separation between government and religious institutions, and it doesn't prevent their citizens from enjoying the full exercise of religious liberties and mutual religious toleration with members of other faiths.

3. Valteron apologizes for his misstatement, thanks Ibn Warraq for the clarification, and explains that what he really meant was that Morsi seems dangerously inclined not just to disregard strict Church/State separation but actively to promote a hardline radical-Islamist theocracy. The thread participants then go on to have a lively and well-informed debate about how to weight the different political factors affecting Morsi's government and what the odds are of various potential changes in Egypt's domestic and international policy.

Ha ha ha ha haaaa!! You spotted that one was fake, right? Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, of course what really happened next was this:

3. Valteron (posts #73, 76, 90, 100, 102, and whatever he's said in the meantime before I get around to submitting this) goes off in a frothy fit about how radical Islamist theocracies are much worse than moderate western democracies, without ever admitting that he shouldn't have originally mischaracterized the problem as merely the absence of formal separation of Church and State.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Weeping Wyvern

I wouldn't consider Tunisia part of the Middle East. It's in the Arab and Muslim worlds, yes, but geographically it's still just North Africa.

Yeah, but it's as much "Middle East" as Egypt is. Which is why many people, myself included, prefer the designation MENA (Middle East and North Africa) as a more accurate regional delimiter.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Weeping Wyvern

I wouldn't consider Tunisia part of the Middle East. It's in the Arab and Muslim worlds, yes, but geographically it's still just North Africa.

Yes, but it's still generally considered to be part of the Middle East(or Near East for our British posters).

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Valteron

1) In March 2006, an Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was charged with apostasy and could have faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. His case attracted much international attention with Western countries condemning Afghanistan for persecuting a convert. Charges against Abdul Rahman were dismissed on technical grounds by the Afghan court after intervention by the president Hamid Karzai.

Two other Afghan converts to Christianity were arrested in March 2006 and their fate is unknown. In February 2006, yet other converts had their homes raided by police.

2) According to US think tank Freedom House, since the 1990s the Islamic Republic of Iran has sometimes used death squads against converts, including major Protestant leaders. Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the regime has engaged in a systematic campaign to track down and reconvert or kill those who have changed their religion from Islam.

3) Also in Iran, 15 Ex-Muslim Christians were incarcerated on May 15, 2008 under charges of apostasy. They may face the death penalty if convicted. A new penal code is being proposed in Iran that would require the death penalty in cases of Apostasy on the Internet.

4) Saudi Arabia: "An Apostate will be suppressed three days in prison in order that he may repent ..... otherwise, he should be killed, because he has changed his true religion, therefore, there is no use from his living, regardless of being a man or a woman, as Mohammed said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him"

5) On March 21, 2006, the Algerian parliament approved a new law requiring imprisonment for two to five years and a fine between five and ten thousand euros for anyone "trying to call on a Muslim to embrace another religion." The same penalty applies to anyone who "stores or circulates publications or audio-visual or other means aiming at destabilizing attachment to Islam."

6) Turkey: On 18 April 2007, two Turkish converts to Christianity, Necati Aydin and Uğur Yüksel, were killed in the Malatya bible publishing firm murders. Having tortured them for several hours, the attackers then slit their throats. The attackers stated that they did it in order to defend the state and their religion. The government and other officials in Turkey had in the past criticized Christian missionary work, while the European Union has called for more freedom for the Christian minority.

7) Egypt: In February 2009, convert to Christianity Maher Ahmad El-Mo’otahssem Bellah El-Gohary, who attempted to officially convert to Christianity, faced opposing lawyers who advocated he be convicted of "apostasy," or leaving Islam, and sentenced to death.

8) In the west: The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain is the British branch of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims, who represent former Muslims who fear for their lives because they have renounced Islam. It was launched in Westminster on 22 June 2007. The Council protests against Islamic states that still punish Muslim apostates with death under the Sharia law.

Here's the difference between you and me: I see these terrible human rights abuses and I condemn them. I believe a person's inherent right to freedom of conscience allows them to think that apostasy is a terrible crime, or that life begins at conception, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands that mankind eat pasta on Fridays. I don't care. What I do care about is people forcing their beliefs on others so as to carry out criminal punishments for changing religions, performing abortions, or eating a hamburger on the wrong day.

You look at these instances and post screeds about how evil Muslims are and how anyone who doesn't agree with you is an apologist who tacitly endorses gross human rights violations.

See the difference?

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

3. Valteron (posts #73, 76, 90, 100, 102, and whatever he's said in the meantime before I get around to submitting this) goes off in a frothy fit about how radical Islamist theocracies are much worse than moderate western democracies, without ever admitting that he shouldn't have originally mischaracterized the problem as merely the absence of formal separation of Church and State.

You are twisting, misrepresenting, complicating and reinterpreting everything to the point of absurdity and incoherency. I am not going to try to untangle the ridiculous pile of verbiage you have just served up.

Let's bring it back to the basic debate. Bringing you back to reality is not "moving the goalposts."

1) I said that Muslim states fail to separate church and state.

2) Ibn Warraq said that my own country Canada as well as many other western states fail to do so, which presumably means I have no moral right to criticise Muslim states.

3) I admitted that while it is true that no state appears to practise the principle with absolute perfection (the US has "In God we Trust" on their money, the Province of Ontario, Canada has publicly funded RC schools, etc.) there is NO COMPARISON between the way Muslim states impose Islam and punish apostates, and the imperfections of western states who have crosses on their flags, who have their Queen as head of the Anglican Church, etc. BTW, two Canadian provinces, Newfoundland and Quebec, abolished their faith-based schools in favour of a secular system in the last decade. So obviously, Canada is moving towards greater C/S separation.

If you think that the cases of persecution of non-Muslims and apostates that I have just cited are morally equivalent to the minor examples of church and state mixture you can identify in western democracies, you have absolutely no sense of proportion.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Valteron

Let's bring it back to the basic debate.

Your idea of "the basic debate" seems to be "If you dare to correct even my grossest falsehoods and overgeneralizations about anything involving Muslims, then you are an Islamist apologist who thinks that minor civil liberties infractions in western democracies are morally equivalent to oppressive persecution in radical Islamist theocracies."

Operating under this premise, since you are doubtless going to go on posting gross falsehoods and overgeneralizations about Muslims and brave but doomed ignorance fighters are doubtless going to go on correcting them, you should have no trouble winning the debate to your own satisfaction.

Allow me to extend my congratulations in advance.

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Your idea of "the basic debate" seems to be "If you dare to correct even my grossest falsehoods and overgeneralizations about anything involving Muslims, then you are an Islamist apologist who thinks that minor civil liberties infractions in western democracies are morally equivalent to oppressive persecution in radical Islamist theocracies."

Operating under this premise, since you are doubtless going to go on posting gross falsehoods and overgeneralizations about Muslims and brave but doomed ignorance fighters are doubtless going to go on correcting them, you should have no trouble winning the debate to your own satisfaction.

Allow me to extend my congratulations in advance.

The points you aqre presenting above have descended to the point of pointless, puerile invective. No point in addressing them.