Print Page | Close Window

Egypt

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Politics
Forum Name: Current Events
Forum Discription: Current Events
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23603
Printed Date: 17 September 2014 at 2:40pm


Topic: Egypt
Posted By: Caringheart
Subject: Egypt
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 4:42pm
Fatwa Bans Christian Priests from Public Transportation to Church
Dr. Yassir al-Burhami, a prominent figure in Egypt's Salafi movement and vice president of the Salafi Call has just issued a fatwa, published in the "Voice of the Righteous Salaf," forbidding Muslim taxi-drivers and bus-drivers from transporting Coptic Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as "more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar."
Comments?



Replies:
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 10:18am
Democratically elected Islamist radicals are slowly taking over Egypt. This absurd fatwa is just the beginning. I fear for all the Christians in Egypt. It will open our eyes how intolerant Muslims can become. And the moderate Muslims are just silent. We don't hear their voices.

Yet the Egyptian army is still paid by the United States, so two things can happen. Either the army intervenes and removes the Islamists or they don't and then the US will pull the plug. No more money for Egypt. Then the army will eventually be controlled by Islamists.


-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 11:24am

In the latest Uncommon Knowledge, Dennis Prager (at around the 17 minute mark) begins telling a story to emphasize a point he was making about how Islam does not value liberty.  He mentioned the Somali cab drivers at the airport in Minnesota refuse to allow passengers who carry alcohol or have dogs into their cabs.

By contrast, Mr. Prager got a call from a mailman in Colorado who is a fundamentalist Christian who said he, as a mailman, has to deliver pornography, and he is at least opposed, as a Christian, to pornography as Muslim is to alcohol or dogs.  But, he delivers the pornography because he believes in freedom.

Forgive me, but am I the only one who noticed problems with this?

First of all, that man delivers pornography because he is paid to do so.  It is his job.  He is paid a generous salary, very generous benefits and will collect a very generous pension on my dime.  So, while he may believe in freedom, he delivers it because he is paid.

Second, as far as I am able to tell (with limited research), those Minnesota Somali cab drivers, unlike the sanctimonious mailman, are not federal employees suckling on the public teat.  More likely they are independent operators or they work for a cab company.  If they are independent operators, who own or lease their cabs, itís their business if they refuse, because of their belief system, to serve some customers.  

This is a measure of values.  Those cab drivers believe enough in Islam to stand on their principles refuse money and risk the economic consequences.  This mailman may claim to have an objection to pornography, but obviously not enough to stand on principle and refuse that government pay check, those generous government benefits or that pension.

That is what freedom is.  The freedom to associate or not associate with whom you choose based on your own personal values system.  Those taxi drivers value Islam, the mailman values his government pension.  To each his own, but it doesn't prove Islam is anti-freedom.



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 3:54pm



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 4:07pm
Don't get me wrong... I will support businesses that support my values and will do my best to avoid those that go against my values... that is freedom.   It is how free enterprise is meant to work.  The people support you, you survive.  If they don't support you, you won't.
But I won't try to tell you about how tolerant I am and that everyone else is prejudiced.

Denying a service to someone because of their different belief's... that is not the same.  That is a different matter.  Especially when it is the government legislating that free choice.

Where does that lead... doctor's who refuse to save lives?  Is that Godly?


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 2:38pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

He mentioned the Somali cab drivers at the airport in Minnesota refuse to allow passengers who carry alcohol or have dogs into their cabs.



Greetings Abuayisha,

Here is a great article for you to read, written by:  Mugtedar Khan
http://www.ijtihad.org/Impose-Islam.htm

I also recommend this:
http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1052

It is about ijtihad  - Islam's tradition of critical thinking

Salaam
Heart


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 3:27pm
Critical thinking at best is a loose translation of ijtihad.  Khan's article is indeed critical thinking, but far from ijtihad, and he isn't a mujtahid.  There is a big difference between a blog entitled "Ijtihad" and ijtihad in Islamic jurisprudence.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

Critical thinking at best is a loose translation of ijtihad.  Khan's article is indeed critical thinking, but far from ijtihad, and he isn't a mujtahid.  There is a big difference between a blog entitled "Ijtihad" and ijtihad in Islamic jurisprudence.


Did you bother to read anything I shared?
anything about the Golden Age of enlightenment?

mujtahid - was one of the very things addressed in my reading today.
" Critical thinking at best is a loose translation of ijtihad. "
What is your translation?

Every reference I researched gave this as the definition of ijtihad.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 6:13am
Originally posted by Caringheart


Denying a service to someone because of their different belief's... that is not the same.  That is a different matter.  Especially when it is the government legislating that free choice.
 
With respect to the Egyptian government they have not made the opinion of one individual policy.  In other words, it is not a law that cabbies are not allowed to transport cab customers to church.
 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/should-following-your-god-mean-losing-your-job -



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 6:25pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

Originally posted by Caringheart


Denying a service to someone because of their different belief's... that is not the same.  That is a different matter.  Especially when it is the government legislating that free choice.
 
With respect to the Egyptian government they have not made the opinion of one individual policy.  In other words, it is not a law that cabbies are not allowed to transport cab customers to church.
 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/should-following-your-god-mean-losing-your-job -



Is the government of Egypt not governed by the Fatwa's?  I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the governments of the mid-east.


Regarding the article you linked to it raises the question...
So how do people with different beliefs share and live in a country together?

Regarding the pharmacist... I can see why they would object to assisting with abortion.  So I don't know the answer there either.  If they refer the matter to another worker they are helping another to sin(both the worker and the one receiving the drug), and is this what God would want?  God does give free will to all, to make their own choices, even if those choices will send them to hell.  The pharmacist must do what his employer requires.  We can hope that employers can be sensitive to the needs of their employees.

Regarding the cab drivers I think it should be their choice, but only if they own their own cab and are not running the cabs owned by another who has the right to tell them what is expected.  In that case they must find an employer they can work for.  Again we can hope for sensitivity on the part of the employer.  The problem is that some people will use a religious claim to hide real prejudice, but then again aren't they entitled to have their prejudice according to free will?  They are however not entitled to inflict their prejudice on others, which means, if they are prejudiced, they need to find some other work or find a way to change themselves. 

What I fail to see is what is the real danger to the cab driver?  What is his objection?  Is his soul in danger simply for transporting someone to their place of destination?  Same rule as above applies... Does not God give each free will to follow their own vices even if it is to their destruction?

So what is the answer?  I don't know.  This is the world we live in.





Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 6:35pm
Abuayisha,

Did you see my last post to you?

You didn't answer my questions.

Did you read anything at the links I shared?
anything about the Golden Age of enlightenment?

and your statement;
" Critical thinking at best is a loose translation of ijtihad. "
What is your translation?

Thanks.
Caringheart



Print Page | Close Window