Thread: Attacks in Egypt

...and elsewhere. There are a lot of Christian martyrs today and have been since at least the 20th century. The media does a good job of reporting the attacks on Christians objectively rather than using biased diction. The only time they ever apply that to their trade with integrity. Just imagine if four rowdy Irish American kids pummeled some Muslim Indonesian immigrant in New York City because he was Muslim and swarthy. I bet there won't be too much objectivity in that reporting, and words will be selected to "lead" the reader.

Gotta let people know what they should think. Wouldn't be American and secular if you didn't do that.

Now, I know secular people like to yap on about, "That's not Christian!," if a Christian strikes offensively or defensively. Maybe. But some Christians, or those raised Christian, like me, aren't saints. The Pope may not hit your a$$ but I'll try to beat you so bad you'll feel like you were being raped to death. At best I'm getting into heaven by ways of Purgatory. That's at best. There's a good chance I might end up in hell.

So, what's the take away listen here? For atheists, Muslims, or Hindu mobs of men dressed like women, I'm not the "Christian" you wan't to f*%* with.

Semper to those young Coptic men running around with butcher knives.


Bomb hits Egypt church at New Year's Mass, 21 dead - Yahoo! News

I may or may not be understanding, Writ. You are angry because people/Christians are dying by the actions of extremists, that they are being singled out. And then you are saying that people had better not mess with you, because you will beat them? Hurt them?
Who are you going to hurt? I read the whole article you posted, and after so many senseless deaths, the people of both sides begin attacking each other too, attacking other churches causing more senseless hurt. Was the church they then attacked responsible for the bombing? Were the people out on the street responsible? I doubt it. Do you really think the damage you do to a couple people is going to change or help any part of this situation? And what are your chances against a mob? Sounds like yours would just be another useless death.
I know you are really angry, but, with respect, what is it you would like us to debate specifically?

Originally Posted by Eluixa

I may or may not be understanding, Writ. You are angry because people/Christians are dying by the actions of extremists, that they are being singled out. And then you are saying that people had better not mess with you, because you will beat them? Hurt them?

No, that's not quite what I was saying, Eluxia, at least not in that context. I'm also not angry.

I realize it's only a minority of Muslims in the world that attacks Christians. A minority of Hindu too. Certain mob attacks or images of mobs attacks have angered me I'll admit. Two or three of them were in India with Hindu mobs. What partly fueled my anger was that from a Western stand point the men in the Hindu mob had inferior fighting skills. They were successful predators, with increasing confidence as they assaulted and or toyed with their human prey, because their prey were even weaker in physical ability than them. Some of these prey were Nuns and lay (some Protestant) women and even little girls that various attacks were either beaten, raped, or set on fire. The other incident that angered me was the stoning of a Muslim woman depicted in the movie The Stoning of Soyora M.

I doubt 20 of those men would have taken their chances attacking 10 Irish men veterans of the IRA or 10 young English lads groomed in one of London's football gangs. And I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have ran up on 5 of those tattooed faced Central Americans living in L.A. as members of MS-13.

Outside of Boston, maybe Italy, and pretty much all of Latin America and the Philippines, the rest of global male Christendom have grown pretty wimpish. Wimpish is the new Christian "cool." Yes, I know technically Christendom long ago ceased to exist. Fine. But if it weren't for Mexican and Colombian men reared on Christian machismo I don't what "we'd" do.

I'm somewhat Darwinian in my view. The world is not kind because people are kind its kind because men of violence protect the world and make it so.

Secular people in the Western world fear Muslim boys and men. They are afraid they might get slapped across their chops disrespecting one or more. They don't fear Christians and hence the reason they single them out with verbal taunts. They know Christians will grovel and apologize for all past wrong immemorial. Had these secular people any balls they'd taunt equal their predator. But they don't. Because they're cowards.

Who are you going to hurt? I read the whole article you posted, and after so many senseless deaths, the people of both sides begin attacking each other too, attacking other churches causing more senseless hurt. Was the church they then attacked responsible for the bombing? Were the people out on the street responsible? I doubt it. Do you really think the damage you do to a couple people is going to change or help any part of this situation? And what are your chances against a mob? Sounds like yours would just be another useless death.
I know you are really angry, but, with respect, what is it you would like us to debate specifically?

I can't beat bullets or explosives. I'm not superman. And even of unskilled, terrible fighters, enough of them in a mob and I can't defeat them either.

But I fight well enough that I can tell when one or more men swinging are afraid to get popped. So, rather than 5 Hindu men walking in sandals and cloths wrapped around their waists, attacking 3 or 4 Nuns or a 12 year old Protestant girl, why don't they come try their luck with me? With me that is if I'm for some reason near by in their little Hindu village. I'm not Christian - in no practicing sense - but if I am to be considered Christian I'd one of those we might call walking on the road of perdition. So, rather than jump on that poor Christian bloke in India or Egypt that can't fight very good, come take your swings on some "Christians" like me. That I can tell you ain't going to happen.

And again, I'm not angry, except as I think about images like the little Protestant India girl that was set on fire by an adult mob of Hindu men.

But other than that new report objective professionalism on these recent attacks in Egypt and Nigeria tickle me. Let some Catholics in Baltimore hit an old Muslim lady in the face with a frosted cake and the media will be up in Rome asking the Pope about it.

I can see the headlines now: "Vatican Denies Ruthless Assault and Poor Muslims Fear for Lives."

The "Vatican of the Islamic world" is located in Egypt. Notice how the media has not went to that university asking questions about this attack in Egypt?

You might note not even the American press has ever, since 9-11, through this long so-called "War on Terror" asked a single question of the "Vatican of the Islamic world" about publicly and internally condemning and policing for Muslim extremists within Islam. Why?

I only started this thread in the debate section because I realize the subject matter can easily turn into debate.

What, exactly, is, 'the Vatican of the Islamic world?'

Edit - And, what attacks in Egypt are you talking about?

Edit - And, what attacks in Egypt are you talking about?

See link at end of OP.

I didn't realise that was a link. Here is a better one with an update:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...553109742.html

I only read U.S. based news sources when I want to read about the U.S. - that's about once a month. Otherwise I use one of the reliable regional sources. Al Jazeera is the best for news from the Mid-East.

Originally Posted by garza

Al Jazeera is the best for news from the Mid-East.

You might want to check out additional sources when it has something to do with Israel. They tend to do things like not mention rocket launches from the Gaza strip and Israeli casualties.

Originally Posted by garza

What, exactly, is, 'the Vatican of the Islamic world?'

Don't worry, garza, I only recently learned about it myself and that was by happenstance. If I recall correctly I was reading some book or material written by some Catholic on some topic I don't even recall. At any rate they mentioned this university in Egypt which apparently is referred to sometimes as the "Vatican of the Islamic world."

Secular news doesn't do a good job covering the Vatican. So, it's no wonder U.S. news totally ignores the most prestigious religious university in all of the Islamic world.

If I want to learn about Islam from a non-Islamic source, hands down, I'll pick a Catholic one (presumably a scholar) over any article coming out of Times or the New York Times. After all, one reason so many nation-states on earth want diplomatic ties with the Holy See (aka - incorrectly - "the Vatican") is because it's intelligence arguably rivals the CIA if not surpasses the CIA.


Here's a member - within the structure of the institutional Catholic Church - that teaches at the university I'm talking about.

1. Samir Khalil Samir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samir Khalil Samir (born 1938 in Cairo, Egypt) is an Islamic scholar, Semitologist, Orientalist and Catholic theologian based in Lebanon.

2. Al-Azhar University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al-Azhar University (pronounced "AZ-har", Arabic: جامعة الأزهر الشريف‎; Game'at Al-ʾAzhar al-Šarīf, "the Noble Azhar University") in Egypt, founded in 970~972 as a madrasa, is the chief centre of Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning in the world.[1] The oldest degree-granting university in Egypt after the Cairo University, its establishment date may be considered 1961 when non-religious subjects were added to its curriculum.[2]
It is associated with Al-Azhar Mosque in Islamic Cairo. The university's mission includes the propagation of Islamic religion and culture. To this end, its Islamic scholars (ulamas) render edicts (fatwas) on disputes submitted to them from all over the Sunni Islamic world regarding proper conduct for Muslim individuals or societies (a recent example being the clarification and thus prohibition of female genital cutting). Al-Azhar also trains Egyptian government appointed preachers in proselytization (da'wa).

If you scroll down to politics you'll see:

Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, the former Imam of Al-Azhar, declared that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and suicide bombers to be "heretics" who are deviating from the true path of Islam.[citation needed] At a conference in Indonesia, he called on all "true believers" to deny proponents of extremist and heretical forms of Islam the opportunity to give speeches in mosques, with a view to preventing the spread of violent ideologies.[citation needed]

Ali Goma'a, the Egyptian Mufti associated with Al-Azhar, has also declared that Islam authorizes the thwarting and eradication of those who kidnap and kill civilians in Iraq since they wreak havoc on Earth.[citation needed]

I don't use wikipedia. I have heard of Al-Azhar University but know little aobut it. I'll find some original sources and look into it.

To call it the 'Vatican of the Muslim world' seems a bit strange, as the Vatican is not a university and while Al-Azhar is associated with a mosque, the university itself is not the seat of any one dominant Muslim leader, so far as I know. Also, Al-Azhar is Sunni, which means its influence likely is not universal among Muslims. Are there Shia teachers at Al-Azhar?

Originally Posted by garza

I don't use wikipedia. I have heard of Al-Azhar University but know little aobut it. I'll find some original sources and look into it.

To call it the 'Vatican of the Muslim world' seems a bit strange, as the Vatican is not a university and while Al-Azhar is associated with a mosque, the university itself is not the seat of any one dominant Muslim leader, so far as I know. Also, Al-Azhar is Sunni, which means its influence likely is not universal among Muslims. Are there Shia teachers at Al-Azhar?

I don't know. I'd doubt it. Those two don't get along together from my understanding.

I don't know a whole lot about Islam but I would hazard to guess opinions and or fatwas coming out of that university hold some weight.

The Vatican is not a university but it is something of a center that issues its own fatwas of sorts.

Fortunately for diabolical Priests like the brilliant minded Hans Kung those are not fatal.

I'm sure he (Kung) has no equivalent at Al-Azhar. To be analogous to him you'd have to be a boastful member of the KKK employed by the NAACP that seeks every opportunity not just to contradict your employers, the objectives and beliefs of the organization that employs you, but maliciously seek to destroy that organization and do all in your power to render it humiliated and impotent. Good thing the Catholic Church epitomizes "intolerance" otherwise it might demonstrate the "tolerance" of most news organizations and corporations or government bodies and terminate the employment of these numerous maniacal employees - these numerous college degree holding clergy like Hans Kung.

Then again... I guess Muslim extremist listen to Al-Azhar about as good as most Catholic laity when it comes to condoms and abortion not to mention actively gay Priests.

Once again I've not made myself clear. When I say 'the university itself is not the seat of any one dominant Muslim leader' I mean there is no Muslim 'Pope' at Al-Azhar. The Vatican is the administrative centre of Roman Catholicism with the Pope at the top of a structured hierarchy. He is the supreme administrator. There is no equivalent centre, hierarchy, or position in Islam.

Originally Posted by garza

Once again I've not made myself clear. When I say 'the university itself is not the seat of any one dominant Muslim leader' I mean there is no Muslim 'Pope' at Al-Azhar. The Vatican is the administrative centre of Roman Catholicism with the Pope at the top of a structured hierarchy. He is the supreme administrator. There is no equivalent centre, hierarchy, or position in Islam.

I'll go ahead and acknowledge that. At least to whatever degree it holds true.

But at the risk of over speculating on a subject I have very limited knowledge on (global Islam), I'll say that I think the label applied to Al-Azhar likely has to do with it's influence in Islam. If not the center of gravity in global Islam it is probably one of the few major center of gravities in global Islam.

I say that because after our discussion here on this thread I've done some internet searching. It seems that Al-Azhar does have some socio-political influence outside of Egypt. I might have also tracked down my source of that label, "the Vatican of the Islamic world," because the phrase turned up under a google, in article produced by National Catholic Reporter journalist John Allen. I've read one of his books in the past. In fact his book is the source of most of my information on Vatican City and the Holy See. At any rate, the National Catholic Reporter interviewed the Israeli ambassador to the Vatican. It appears he an the state of Israel were not pleased when John Paul II issued a joint statement with one or more Imams of Al-Azhar on his visit to that university that were understood to be pro-Palestinian.

Certainly Al-Azhar has enormous influence in Egypt. To some extent it's an arm of the Egyptian government. And Al-Azhar possibly has significant doctrinal influence on global Sunni Islam. Which to some extent makes it analogous to the Holy See (the government of Vatican City). I think over 90% of global Islam is divided between Sunni and Shia. I know the vast majority of global Islam is either Sunni or Shia. In contrast Christianity is divided up into various ethnic Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, and of course the billion or so strong Catholic Church.

If the American press can find the preacher of a small Baptist Church to speak to in rural Mississippi then they can find the Imams of Al-Azhar that with the snap of their finger can bring the whole of Egypt into a descent of civil war or ethnic cleansing.


Here:

1. Egypt Cuts a Deal: Christians Fed to Muslim 'Lions' :: Middle East Forum

To further exacerbate matters, on September 26, Al Azhar, a formal state body of Egypt, denounced a remark on Koran 5:17, which accuses Christians of being "infidels," made by a Coptic clergyman at an internal meeting on dogma, as "blasphemous." It further took this opportunity to state formally that citizenship rights in Egypt "are conditional to respect for the Islamic identity" of Egypt, thereby reversing any modern progress made regarding Egyptian equality and reinforcing the Copts' historical role as dhimmis (i.e., conditionally tolerated religious minorities). Pope Shenouda was further compelled to publicly apologize "if our Muslim brothers' feelings were hurt."

2. Muslims protest the statement of Bishop Bishoy, secretary of the Coptic

The Pope in practical terms has little influence on lay Catholics today. The parish Priest as absolutely none. Even if Malachi Martin was wrong about a hundred things I think he certain was right about one, the Catholic Church is enormous in population size but thoroughly impoverished in any evangelical vibrancy. The Pope could not call a jihad today. Five people out of a billion would show up. Islam is far more evangelically vibrant. The cry of jihad can have young men from all over the planet - including the United States - to slay infidels and send them into the arms of the devil.

If religious leaders in Islam were as divided as the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, and if they had little influence on Muslims they lead in prayer and teaching, then in my mind liberal attitudes would probably have swept over most the Islamic world faster than it has Europe.

Al-Ahzar certainly has none of the global diplomatic and political connections as the Vatican, and certainly it holds no place of prestige and history in the Western World like the Vatican does. However, I think within Islam - especially Egptian and or Sunni Islam - it does carry some influence (to whatever degree that influence great or small might be).

Two women, both from the "Arab" world, one Christian and the other reared Muslim (but probably a apostate now, it sounds like it). I'll acknowledge both are too biased and prejudicial due to being to close to their own pain, painful experiences within the Islamic world. So, they are not objective I don't think.

They are two strong women though and they fear no political correctness. Nor would they be easily persuaded that Islam lacks a robustness that fails to arouse the passions within man and woman.


1. Moderate Islam: Western Ally or Western Myth?: A Debate :: Middle East Forum (video of debate)

Can there be a truly moderate Islam compatible with liberal-democratic notions of human rights and democracy? Is "radical Islam" a modern phenomenon or is Islam itself inherently radical? Such were the questions addressed in a recent debate between Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, and Dr. Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-born American psychiatrist. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal moderated.

2. YouTube - Brigitte Gabriel

My point with these two videos is not to disparage Islam. I'm sure you can find plenty of feminist videos online complaining about Christianity.

I think my point is when leaders within Al-Azhar or elsewhere in Islam put out statements like, so long as non-Muslims don't disrespect Islam or make themselves an "enemy" of Islam no Muslim ought harm non-Muslims, but that does not hold for those that disrespect Islam or make themselves and "enemy" of Islam, it's a bit of B.S. that American press shrug it off and don't press them with questions. If a Polish Catholic cat slapped a Muslim woman in Cleveland it would make national news - literally - LMAO but the press would hound the Bishops of Cleveland for statements and makes calls to the Vatican.

You need to study the Qur'an a bit more. So long as Christians and Jews do nothing to disrespect the prophet Mohammad and Islam, then Muslims are to live in peace with them. This same armistice does not extend to other people. I may not be as familiar as you with Egypt, never having been there, but I have spent a good deal of time amongst Muslims and in areas where Islam is the dominant religion. Al-Azhar is one of many centres of influence in the world's Muslim community.

The Baptist preacher who threatened to hold a public burning of the Qur'an is in Georgia, not Mississippi.

One point I do not understand is why the continued concern with how the U.S. media react? U.S. media is a minority voice in world media.

Originally Posted by garza

You need to study the Qur'an a bit more. So long as Christians and Jews do nothing to disrespect the prophet Mohammad and Islam, then Muslims are to live in peace with them. This same armistice does not extend to other people. I may not be as familiar as you with Egypt, never having been there, but I have spent a good deal of time amongst Muslims and in areas where Islam is the dominant religion. Al-Azhar is one of many centres of influence in the world's Muslim community.

The Baptist preacher who threatened to hold a public burning of the Qur'an is in Georgia, not Mississippi.

One point I do not understand is why the continued concern with how the U.S. media react? U.S. media is a minority voice in world media.

Muslims kill Muslims (how many innocent folks killed by bombs in marketplaces in Iraq), Christians kill Christians, Jews kill Jews.

Hate is hate.