The Power of the Common Cause- The Free Copts
The power of the common cause
Written by Neferteeti,
The Free Copts
Friday, 14 July 2006
Ask any Egyptian who grew up in the 30s or 40s and they’ll tell you that they did not experience sectarian tension in Egypt as we know it today. Many of them observe horrific events like Imbaba, El Kosheh or Udayssat and simply ask “what happened to us?"
Please see HERE for the full article.
Written by Neferteeti,
The Free Copts
Friday, 14 July 2006
Ask any Egyptian who grew up in the 30s or 40s and they’ll tell you that they did not experience sectarian tension in Egypt as we know it today. Many of them observe horrific events like Imbaba, El Kosheh or Udayssat and simply ask “what happened to us?"
Please see HERE for the full article.
posted by Bent El Neel at ١١:١٦ ص
15 Comments:
أزال أحد مشرفي المدونة هذا التعليق.
Hi Law Student
Thanks for your comment. From reading your comment I get the feeling you are not Egyptian...perhaps never lived in an Arab country? I could of course be wrong but this is what I summed up.
The treaty or charter you cited sounds really good!! Great in fact! with the following exceptions:
+ As far as I know, Egypt was not invaded by the Arab?islamic armies until after the death of prophet Mohammed. It was during the rule of Khailph Othman Ibn Affan that the Arabs took control of Egypt.
+ Regardless of whether he wrote or Othman wrote...you do realise this was a treaty written centuries ago? It doesn't by any means prove that injustice doesn't happen today...in the name of Islam. (also the history of how the Arabs invaded Egypt is a pretty bloody one...but thats besides the point)
As an example...Christian teachings consistantly speak of love, forgiveness and peace. Even to your own enemy!! Jesus never told anyone to fight, or kill.
Yet the Crusaders took the holy cross as their symbol...and the Spaniards carried out the attrocious inquisition crimes in the name of the Church.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
If I had lived in the time of the Inquisition, and heard about the Jews getting tortured so they would denounce their faith...and I simply just said "oh well, not my responsibility. My Bible says to be good, loving, forgiving, and pray for my enemy....these Sapniards must be Un-Christians"
Do you think a Jewish person would find this acceptable?
If Islam preaches love and tolerance...why is there a sweeping advance of fundamentalist thought in the Muslim world?
More importantly, why aren't those peaceful tolerant messages being taught to Muslims themselves?
Why do we only hear them directed at the Western world and at the non Muslim minorities living in the Muslim world...as proof that Islam is really a good religion?
Basically, as a non Muslim, I don't really care what's Islamic or not Islamic. That's not my concern or responsibility.
I do however know that the guys who tortured the Christians of Al Kosheh did so because the victims were Christian
The gangs that attacked the worshippers of Udayssat...attacked, ransacked and burnt a church
What about the guy who stormed into a church and killed a Christian man while he prayed
What about the thugs who kidnap and Islamise our young girls?
The list goes on my friend. I for one don't blame all Muslims for these crimes. That would be ridiculous. But it isn't my fault those thugs advertise that their actions are in the name of Islam.
Finally
I'd like to clarify that as a Christian I don't hate Muslims...the good or the bad Mulsims. As I do not hate any of God's creation.
Law Student, the issue is not that Copts make it a religious problem...it is first and foremost that the fundamentalist Muslims already made it a religious problem when they decided to fight all that is not Muslim proclaiming it is God's will!!!
Forgive me for the lengthy reply.
God Bless
:)
Dear Law Student
Before I go any further, there is a correction i need to make. I mentioned it was Khaliphe Othman Ibn Affan who was ruling when the Arabs invaded Egypt. It was actually Omar Ibn ElKhattab.
_________________
I'll try to clarify my point of view on this...
you are a law student, right? So imagine if you will, a crime has been committed. Someone murdered his neighbour for example.
The law says murder is a crime.
What good does it do for the killer's family, or even the police to sit the victim's family down and say:
"but its not the fault of the law. the law already says murder is a crime. this guy obviously has no respect for the law"
So?
In other words, don;t preach the victims about the greatness of Islam. Concentrate on preaching those who commit the crime.
There is no one version of history.
Does this mean you don't trust historical accounts of anything?
Taking this logic, I also disregard your or anyone else's claims that Islamic invasion of other countries was carried out with minimal aggression.
Whats good for the goose!
Well that's sad. Because, when you see something bad being committed by a Muslim/Muslims, then your mind will automatically associate the deed and view it as the teachings of Islam.
That would probably be more a result of the fact that person is yelling "Allah Akbar", than it is a result of my lack of understanding of Islam.
Well if you would "care" to know what the difference between Islam and Muslim is, then you would know how evil and wrong their actions are and they're far from being Islamic.
A little something most Muslim guests take for granted, is the fact I have grown in Egypt and studied Islam over there as well as later on in my life in Australia.
And before you assume my "version" of Islam has been corrupted by biased "evangelical" sources...I learnt Islam from Muslim people and make sure I only go back to explanations of Quran, Hadith and Sunna which are approved by Muslim scholars themselves.
What do you mean a Fundamentalist Muslim?
This is what we Egyptians call radical groups...extremists. Probably not them most accurate representation, you are correct...but it is what I grew up hearing them called in Egyptian media. So what I mean is people who adopt Bin Laden's or Zarqawy's principals for example.
Not necessarily. See:
2 Chronicles 15:13
Numbers 31:17-18
Numbers 13:26-28
1 Samuel 17:46
Matthew 10:34-36
Luke 12:49,51-53
Luke 14:26
Each of these verses has a meaning far from the meaning you allude to. It's too bad you decided to opt out of a discussion on the Bible earlier. This could have been a fruitful discussion.
Am i correct to say the Orthodox Church which encouraged the Seberinica was due to the Christians making it a religous problem?
I don't really know too much detail on this one...and so I'll have to refrain from offering an opinion. In the absence of understanding the issue, my opinion would be purely biased!
Great article, Bent!
And thanks for adding me as a good mate of the blog - I'm flattered. :)
LOW student !! said "how low can you get. go to the whole you come from"- you know f... all about "law", language or logic. With a future lawyer !!! like you, who needs crims. You scum you make us all sick, what a well earned "compliment" for a Muslim bastard like you- You and Islam are ideal companions for each other
Law, Egypeter, and Red --> You are all insane. I am an Arab, born to a Coptic Egyptian father and Orthodox Lebanese mother.
What happened to me when i said to them that God doesn't exist and i dont want to be a Christian? Dad threw a cup in my face and Mum kicked me out of the house. My brothers called me a bitch and a whore. And my sister called me filth.
What happened to my cousin when she fell in love with a Muslim boy? Her family taunted her and called her a traitor.
My family is prominent and active in Sydney's Arab Christian Community. They're as bad as Muslims.
Monotheism is false. Christianity and Islam have split mankind more than anything else. Religion is the worst divider amongst mankind.
Fuck Christianity.
Fuck my Copt family who exiled me and my cousin.
Fuck Islam.
Viva Humanism and Human Intellect!!!
Hmmm...Under 'net protocol, wouldn't a reductio ad pedophilium automatically invalidate all prior statements made by the poster?
Your replies were well stated as usual; it's too bad some visitors don't seem to be able to debate without falling into illogic and ad hominems.
Excuse me,
that 'your replies' was of course directed to Bent.
I knew giving up the typewriter was a bad idea.
After reading this series of comments,
Bent, I expect you'll need a little levity. A suggestion:
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/006959.php
It even addresses that 'not peace but division' quote that seems to be so popular with some commenters!
Bent:
A few clarifications:
1) The Crusades were a belated (2 centuries) response to retake Christians lands that the Moslems conquered. Yeah there were atrocities but when there were peaceful times, the Moslem chroniclers freaked out because the Crusaders traeted their Moslem subjects humanely. That led some of the chronichlers to come up
2) On the Spanish inqusition, there's been a lot of exaggeration. You need to take into account a few factors:
3) It was a papal concession to the Spanish kings because unlike the other European countries at the time, there were Jews and Moslems. The inquistion was there to ensure that the converts didn't apostize as well as to keep an eye on the Moslems (until the mid 1500s) there was a sizeable Moslem minority in Valencia. They were the orange and fruit growers.
4) compared to the secular justice system of the time, the inquistorial courts prohibited tourture and didn't allow condemnation to the galleys. So inquistorial justice was mild.
5) comapred to the witch hunts in the Germanies, the Spanish inqusition only executed 5 or so people. Yeah too much but when compared to what happened in the Germanies in the late 1500s, that's a remarkedly low execution rate.
Great comments as always :)
Hi everyone
If I’d known what I was missing by being away from the blog I would have given up sleep to catch up :)
So entertaining Law Student!
Are you sure you are actually a law student? Because for a law student you are remarkably unable to maintain a discussion without turning it into a personal attack on those you disagree with!
If your using that lame scenario as a platform to compare the concept of being Muslim with being Islamic; it is very illogical. Think about it. How exactly did the above make sense to you? Are you going to say the Law is evil and bad because some lunatic committed murder? Ahem. Way to go Bent.
I was trying to say no such thing!!! I was actually, if you took the time to read my comment properly, agreeing with exactly what you are saying.
In response to your and most other moderate Muslims preaching to us non Muslim about the beauty, tolerance and peace in Islam…I was making the point that your claims are wasted on us and would probably be better directed to those who adopt extremist Islamic thought.
Well let me school you Bent.
I have probably attended Bible School more than you would ever have.
Please mate!!! Arrogance, whilst a trait of many in your future profession, is very unbecoming! (so is profane language by the way ;p)
Listen, I have stated to you before that your participation is most welcome. However I will ask you to refrain from insulting my faith.
I ask you this, but if you do insist on continuing to hurl insults at my faith, Bible and church I will not delete your comments or kick up any fuss…God forbid I should prevent you portraying yourself an intolerant, biased and arrogant “lawyer”! Besides, it IS most entertaining.
Yes i am. Therefore, dont try arguing with a law student. You will fail with mediocre. Save a shred of dignity.
You know, a wise man (or woman) once said:
“Never argue with an idiot!! They’ll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience”
Perhaps I shouldn’t have discussed anything with you after all!
Anonymous
Welsome and thanks for your contribution. I’m sorry that your experience with faith hasn’t been a positive one.
Although religious myself, I believe that we all are free to make our own choices in matters of faith. Faith is a deeply personal relationship with God…if it ain’t there…it ain’t there! You can’t force it.
I salute your honsety and refusal to live a lie. Not so sure about your language though ;)
And to save the best for last ;)
Pete
Good to see you Pete :)
You know what? You ARE a character…a great character, and that’s why we love you! LOL.
Carolanne
Are you kidding? Of course you are a good mate of this blog …thanks fpr stopping by.
Cminor
Thanks for the clarification. I did think you directed that compliment to Law Student.
Red
I missed your comments Red!!! Good to see ya again.
Xavier
Thanks for your comments Xav! I was just trying to show our good friend that the presence of peaceful teachings in Islam doesn’t change the reality of the pain and suffering of non Muslims in Islamic societies. But point well made as always :)
I am adding this as an FYI, just because I think some clarification is needed on Biblical verses listed above:
I must say, it never occurred to me that the ancient Hebrews might be in the business of debauching 3-year-old girls. Of course, as even among many ancient cultures the sexual abuse of prepubescent girls seems to have been regarded as somewhat outre, I can't imagine why that image would have come to mind unless either the behavior were plainly described as such in the Biblical texts or I had a bit of an unhealthy fascination with the subject.
Although I am no Bible scholar, I am not entirely unfamiliar with Mosaic Law. It had always been my impression that the Law of Moses placed some of the strictest limitations on sexual excess of its time (cf. Lev. 20, 9-21.) It was also progressive for its day in that it gave a modicum of rights to women, Hebrew slaves, and even non-Hebrew slaves and battle captives. Refer, please, to:
Lev. 19: 20-22 which declares the sexual abuse of a married female slave a sin requiring atonement;
Deut. 21: 10-14, which gives non-Hebrew female battle captives a period of mourning before they can be taken advantage of by their captors and moreover grants them a degree of status as legal wives (with the rights inherent therein) of their captors;
Deut. 22: 25ff. which offers some recourse against rape to women;
Deut. 23:16-18 which offer some protection to runaway slaves and prohibit the practice of temple harlotry;
Deut. 24: 14 which prohibits the defrauding of any slave, Hebrew or non-Hebrew and 17ff which defend the rights of orphans.
Thus even a female battle captive taken as a slave could claim some basic human rights.
While no reference to age is made and the terms 'women' and 'girls' tend to get used interchangeably ('girl' probably being applied specifically to a young woman who is a virgin) there is certainly nothing to indicate that prepubescent children were considered sexually exploitable under the law. References to children are pretty consistent in the Pentatecuch: children are not to be sacrificed to Molech (Lev. 20: 3-5--common practice among the Hebrews' near neighbors,) and orphans (i.e. children who do not have a parent to protect them) are not to be abused. Period. (Deut. 24: 17 and 28: 19.)
Now, a little context for Numbers 31: 13ff. If you go back to Num. 25, you will find the roots of the conflict. The Moabites and Midianites worshipped a fertility god called Baal. Some of their rites probably included full-scale bacchanals, and some Hebrew men, allowing their brains to be ruled by their gonads, got caught up in these rites to the point at which they posed a threat to their culture. Moses raised an army to clean out that hornet's nest once and for all, and that army killed all adult males but kept "the women of the Midianites with their little ones (note the distinction) as captives." Moses was enraged by this because, of course, the Midianite women were the cause of all the trouble to begin with, and ordered the slaughter of all male children (not nice, I know; but he probably saw them as a future fighting force against him) and all females who were not virgins (i.e. any female who was old enough to have participated in those fertility rituals--I will not speculate as to what constituted Midianite sexual maturity.) He then ordered that the remaining females be distributed as chattel with the rest of the booty from the battle. There is nothing in the account that would remotely suggest that girls as young as 3--or of any age, were then summarily ravished by their captors, and much in Mosaic Law that would indicate that this would not have been tolerated. [Note that although the Lord frequently speaks to Moses and instructs him on how to proceed throughout this chapter, in this case the order is cast as coming directly from Moses. It is not presented as any sort of divine injunction. Moreover, it is clear that Moses is uncomfortable with the idea of slaughtering noncombatants, as he also orders a period of ritual purification for the participants--with the idea, presumably, of staving off the wrath of God.]
I have used the New American Translation of the Bible as a resource for this. The helps section in the supplementary material notes that this translation is made from the original language sources with an effort to clarify obscure readings. The editorial staff consists of many Biblical and language scholars who are, I suspect, not in the business of bowdlerization and would be scandalized at the thought of doing so.
Thank you, Bent, for the opportunity to shed some light on this matter.
Pete;
Thanks mate. Of course I'll address everyone who comes along...well, at least once anyways :)
By the way our friend the Law Student is male not female.
Cminor
Thanks so much for your contribution and explanation of the verses. You are welcome to use this space anytime :)
إرسال تعليق
<< Home