Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Egyptian church torched over mixed-religion romance

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/world/contentposting/egyptian_church_torched_over_mixed-religion_romance/fbcd60ad

CAIRO, Egypt — Egyptian security officials say Christian and Muslim families have clashed south of Cairo in a dispute over a romance between children from the two families. The fathers from both families have been killed and a crowd of Muslims has torched a church.

Mixed relationships are taboo in Egypt, where the Muslim majority and sizable Christian minority are both largely conservative. Such relationships are often the source of deadly clashes between the faiths. Christians also complain that they face discrimination.

Officials say a crowd of Muslims encircled the church in Soul on Saturday and set the building on fire after police and soldiers took those inside to safety.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

A tragic case in the style of Romeo and Juliet (minus, of course, the two groups coming together in the end). Understandably, with the state of things in Egypt right now, it's understandable that people aren't thinking rationally. But to see these two groups throw away a chance to set an example of peace, especially during such a period of rapid and sweeping change, is just... well... depressing, really.

Mn, muslims don't react well to having their daughters marry a non-muslim. Dunno if that's the case here, but it's part of most of the common interpretations of Sharia law. It's linked to Apostasy, which is punishable by death.

Don't just blame the Muslims for this. It's pretty clearly stated that it was between Muslim and Christian families. As the old saying goes, 'It takes two to fight'

Just sad that they would both see only Religious Taboo and resort to violence before looking at the positive aspects of an inter-religious couple.

Wait, there's conflict in the middle east? When did this happen?

metallifan wrote:Don't just blame the Muslims for this. It's pretty clearly stated that it was between Muslim and Christian families. As the old saying goes, 'It takes two to fight'

Just sad that they would both see only Religious Taboo and resort to violence before looking at the positive aspects of an inter-religious couple.

I'm most assuredly not skipping over the blame of the Christian family. Mostly I was just musing on the fact that the relationship was pretty much doomed from the start due to Sharia law, though Egypt doesn't necessarily follow strict Sharia law so eh.

Melissia wrote:
It's linked to Apostasy, which is punishable by death.

It isn't linked to apostasy, its linked to the concept of the man as head of household. In many readings of Sharia the man is regarded as sovereign, and therefore any move by a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man (homosexuality isn't even a significant topic here) is regarded as placing oneself into servitude with respect to another world-view/religion (depending on who you talk to). This is only connected to apostasy in the sense that knowingly defying any perceived Koranic commandment is connected to apostasy. Some people think this is punishable by death, but others do not.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Wait, there's conflict in the middle east? When did this happen?

I think you overshot the point of the thread by a mile. What I'm saying is that the fact this happened so soon after sweeping reforms (That were -mostly- peacefully achieved, I might add), is rather stunning. How do people change from watching their country go through a velvet revolution, to killing eachother over something as comparatively trivial as an inter-religious union?

Baffles the mind, really. You'd think that a nation that just threw off an opressive government would be looking at the bigger picture. Evidently, Westboro exists in many forms

metallifan wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Wait, there's conflict in the middle east? When did this happen?

I think you overshot the point of the thread by a mile. What I'm saying is that the fact this happened so soon after sweeping reforms (That were -mostly- peacefully achieved, I might add), is rather stunning. How do people change from watching their country go through a velvet revolution, to killing eachother over something as comparatively trivial as an inter-religious union?

Baffles the mind, really. You'd think that a nation that just threw off an opressive government would be looking at the bigger picture. Evidently, Westboro exists in many forms

When did they throw off a repressive government? The army was still in charge last I checked. Mubarak was raised by the military, and scapegoated and thrown away when it looked like supporting him was more trouble than it was worth. Make no mistake, the power of the land still firmly resides with the Army.

Yes, it is, psychologically speaking. The fear that their daughter when marrying a man outside her religion will adopt his religion and become an apostate.

Melissia wrote:...though Egypt doesn't necessarily follow strict Sharia law so eh.

Egypt only sort of has social law. Their legal code is basically as follows: "Do what we say with your money, and we don't care as long as you don't try to usurp state power."

Ketara wrote:
When did they throw off a repressive government? The army was still in charge last I checked. Mubarak was raised by the military, and scapegoated and thrown away when it looked like supporting him was more trouble than it was worth. Make no mistake, the power of the land still firmly resides with the Army.

The army may be in control -now-, but elections are due in September, 2011. Should September pass without such elections, or should said election end with questionable results, then I'll gladly side with you on this. But there's a difference between an oppressive Gov't and a militarily controlled interim Gov't. One claims to have free elections, yet the leader of the party is often the only candidate, the other promises elections later that same year. Sometimes those elections happen, sometimes they don't. If the latter occurs, then we'll make claims like that. For now, I prefer to remain optimistic that the highly educated student body at the core of the Egypt revolution will settle for nothing less than a free government.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:...though Egypt doesn't necessarily follow strict Sharia law so eh.

Egypt only sort of has social law. Their legal code is basically as follows: "Do what we say with your money, and we don't care as long as you don't try to usurp state power."

Well that went well didn't it.

Weak authoritarians aren't very good at holding power.

Yeah Shakespeare warned us!

metallifan wrote:

Ketara wrote:
When did they throw off a repressive government? The army was still in charge last I checked. Mubarak was raised by the military, and scapegoated and thrown away when it looked like supporting him was more trouble than it was worth. Make no mistake, the power of the land still firmly resides with the Army.

The army may be in control -now-, but elections are due in September, 2011. Should September pass without such elections, or should said election end with questionable results, then I'll gladly side with you on this. But there's a difference between an oppressive Gov't and a militarily controlled interim Gov't. One claims to have free elections, yet the leader of the party is often the only candidate, the other promises elections later that same year. Sometimes those elections happen, sometimes they don't. If the latter occurs, then we'll make claims like that. For now, I prefer to remain optimistic that the highly educated student body at the core of the Egypt revolution will settle for nothing less than a free government.

I sincerely doubt that the military will surrender power after holding the reins for so many years. There's is no difference between an oppressive government and the interim military government when the oppressive government was in effect controlled by the military.

Without the religious flavour... this story is still about people behaving irrationally and ridiculously...

KILLING?

Seriously, just because you do not approve of who your kid is dating?

Melissia wrote:Yes, it is, psychologically speaking. The fear that their daughter when marrying a man outside her religion will adopt his religion and become an apostate.

A big flaw in your argument here though is that this may not have necessarily have been a case of a Muslim female marrying a Christian male. And there is almost nothing to go on with the nature of the issue regarding who instigated the violence and how it escalated into burning down a church.


That this should occur so soon after those positive news reports on Muslim and Christians banding together against bombers is saddening.

Ketara wrote:

metallifan wrote:

Ketara wrote:
When did they throw off a repressive government? The army was still in charge last I checked. Mubarak was raised by the military, and scapegoated and thrown away when it looked like supporting him was more trouble than it was worth. Make no mistake, the power of the land still firmly resides with the Army.

The army may be in control -now-, but elections are due in September, 2011. Should September pass without such elections, or should said election end with questionable results, then I'll gladly side with you on this. But there's a difference between an oppressive Gov't and a militarily controlled interim Gov't. One claims to have free elections, yet the leader of the party is often the only candidate, the other promises elections later that same year. Sometimes those elections happen, sometimes they don't. If the latter occurs, then we'll make claims like that. For now, I prefer to remain optimistic that the highly educated student body at the core of the Egypt revolution will settle for nothing less than a free government.

I sincerely doubt that the military will surrender power after holding the reins for so many years. There's is no difference between an oppressive government and the interim military government when the oppressive government was in effect controlled by the military.

Well, then we agree to disagree. Any person, any nation, any faith, can redeem themselves. We've seen it before, and this could be no different. Just because a few among us forget history doesn't mean we all do. Regardless of your opinions of the current political situation, that isn't the subject of this thread. If you'd like to post something relevant -to- the actual events covered in the original news story, be welcome.

http://www.myweku.com/2011/02/muslims-and-christians-chant-we-are-one-in-egypt/

http://www.myweku.com/2011/02/woman-demonstrator-in-niqab-standing-in-egypt-holding-a-sign-egypt-is-for-everyone-muslims-and-christians/

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Muslims+protect+churches/4078614/story.html

hope RESTORED

metallifan wrote:Well, then we agree to disagree. Any person, any nation, any faith, can redeem themselves. We've seen it before, and this could be no different. Just because a few among us forget history doesn't mean we all do. Regardless of your opinions of the current political situation, that isn't the subject of this thread. If you'd like to post something relevant -to- the actual events covered in the original news story, be welcome.

An intelligent, sane dictator is no worse than the average "good" democracy, and a far sight better than the "democracy" you tend to get in embattled third world countries. Considering the military leaders' recent actions, especially in comparison to the Stupid Evil meets "shooting yourself in the foot because you hallucinated that it gained sentience and was trying to eat your shoes" behavior Qaddafi is showing off, we can tell that they're at least cunning and capable of restraint, as well as aware of the importance of morale and good PR. So the resulting military dictatorship/"democratic" puppet state might not be as bad as it was when it was guided by Mubarak, who while not a gibbering lunatic like Qaddafi was still a little unhinged. Still entertaining to point out that it was a military coup, not a democratic revolution, when some people start getting all teary-eyed about the beauty of popular revolutions against the Evil Government, even if it does look to be the "good" kind of military coup...


On topic: this does seem like a fairly unusual problem within a region that seems to actually buck the trend of unhinged free-for-all religious conflict that effectively defines most of the Middle East. I suppose living under a fairly secular dictator for a few decades tends to do that right, at least...

I don't agree with metal, I think its entirely acceptable to blame the Muslims. This is based on the overwhelming evidence that strict Muslims act like absolute savages.

mattyrm wrote:I don't agree with metal, I think its entirely acceptable to blame the Muslims. This is based on the overwhelming evidence that strict Muslims act like absolute savages.

Ok, we need to look at this two ways, societally and theologically both.

The outrage that led to the killing of the two fathers and the burning of a church appears to be the work of the Moslem side of the conflict, not only by choice of 'venue' but the methodology of action and who is targeted. However this action appears to be sectarian rather than truly religious in nature. A bit like a conflict between an intermarrying of two people across the divide in Northern Ireland in the not too recent past. There the sectarianism made no sense on a theological level as the conflict did not reflect the teachings of Catholicism or protestantism in any way.
It is harkening to see groups of both Moslems and Christians taking to the streets in defence of each other though, and indication that Egypt wants to avoid the fundamentalist route .

Theologically there is a case to answer though neither side would condone the torching of a religious building the killing of the fathers appears in concert with Islamic religious ideals of punishment for allowing apostasy to happen. This leads me to believe that the groom was the Christian. You see in Islam it is perfectly acceptable for a Moselmk man to marry a non beleiver on the condition they are mebers of 'religions of the book' i.e. Jews and Christians only. It is also expected that as man of the house he is intended to make sure that the children as raised as Moslems. Christianity makes no such appeal at all, one 'must not be yoked to unbeleivers' at all and marrying outside the faith is strongly discouraged though not absolutely illegal.
From a Christian view the Christian bride or groom is making a serious mistake, though not a sin per se. Though to an extremist there is no distinction. From an Islamic view if the bride was Christian no error has occurred unless against convention the groom adds to the brides family rather than the convention. If the groom was Christian that is apostasy and forfeits the lives of the bride and groom and the fathers as well for arranging this 'travesty'.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, it is, psychologically speaking. The fear that their daughter when marrying a man outside her religion will adopt his religion and become an apostate.

A big flaw in your argument here though is that this may not have necessarily have been a case of a Muslim female marrying a Christian male. And there is almost nothing to go on with the nature of the issue regarding who instigated the violence and how it escalated into burning down a church.


That this should occur so soon after those positive news reports on Muslim and Christians banding together against bombers is saddening.

After a bit of research, even muslim males aren't necessarily allowed to marry non-muslims depending on their own beliefs about Sharia. So eh.

metallifan wrote: How do people change from watching their country go through a velvet revolution, to killing eachother over something as comparatively trivial as an inter-religious union?

Because to them it's not a comparatively trivial thing. It's a big fething thing.

metallifan wrote:Don't just blame the Muslims for this. It's pretty clearly stated that it was between Muslim and Christian families. As the old saying goes, 'It takes two to fight'

Just sad that they would both see only Religious Taboo and resort to violence before looking at the positive aspects of an inter-religious couple.

The old saying is wrong. Two is a fight. One is an ambush.

In the 21st Millennium there is only pointless violence.

Orlanth wrote:Ok, we need to look at this two ways, societally and theologically both.

The outrage that led to the killing of the two fathers and the burning of a church appears to be the work of the Moslem side of the conflict, not only by choice of 'venue' but the methodology of action and who is targeted. However this action appears to be sectarian rather than truly religious in nature. A bit like a conflict between an intermarrying of two people across the divide in Northern Ireland in the not too recent past. There the sectarianism made no sense on a theological level as the conflict did not reflect the teachings of Catholicism or protestantism in any way.
It is harkening to see groups of both Moslems and Christians taking to the streets in defence of each other though, and indication that Egypt wants to avoid the fundamentalist route .

Theologically there is a case to answer though neither side would condone the torching of a religious building the killing of the fathers appears in concert with Islamic religious ideals of punishment for allowing apostasy to happen. This leads me to believe that the groom was the Christian. You see in Islam it is perfectly acceptable for a Moselmk man to marry a non beleiver on the condition they are mebers of 'religions of the book' i.e. Jews and Christians only. It is also expected that as man of the house he is intended to make sure that the children as raised as Moslems. Christianity makes no such appeal at all, one 'must not be yoked to unbeleivers' at all and marrying outside the faith is strongly discouraged though not absolutely illegal.
From a Christian view the Christian bride or groom is making a serious mistake, though not a sin per se. Though to an extremist there is no distinction. From an Islamic view if the bride was Christian no error has occurred unless against convention the groom adds to the brides family rather than the convention. If the groom was Christian that is apostasy and forfeits the lives of the bride and groom and the fathers as well for arranging this 'travesty'.

If the father of the Christian family was the only one killed then your assumptions would be more reasonable. However, both heads of the family have been killed here, meaning that to an extent both parties are two blame. As it is there simply isn't enough to go on regarding who initiated the violence which culminated in the burning of the church. It's just as possible that the two familes were opposed to the marriage for different reasons, existing fueds or even ethnicity may have played a part rather than a solely theological viewpoint.

There were problems between muslim and christian groups before the revolution. There will be problems for some time to come. There is a wonderful movement that is trying to rise above the sectarian infighting, but it takes time.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:An intelligent, sane dictator is no worse than the average "good" democracy, and a far sight better than the "democracy" you tend to get in embattled third world countries.

"A consistent pessimism in regard to humanity's rational capacity for justice invariably leads to absolutistic political theories; for they prompt the conviction that only preponderant power can coerce the various vitalities of a community into a working harmony. But a too consistent optimism in regard to humanity's ability and inclination to grant justice to others obscures the perils of chaos which perennially confront every society, including a free society.

Humanity's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but humanity's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. In all non-democratic political theories the state or the rules is invested with uncontrolled power for the sake of achieving order and unity in the community. But the pessimism which prompts and justifies this policy is not consistent, for it is not applied, as it should be, to the ruler. If humans are inclined to deal unjustly with others, the possession of power aggravates this inclination. That is why irresponsible and uncontrolled power is the greatest source of injustice."

For some reason people have been making these crazy claims that dicatorships aren't so bad lately, and I have to point out that Reinhold Niebuhr explained most brilliantly that their entire line of thinking is completely wrong, and that he did it some 70 years ago.

Still entertaining to point out that it was a military coup, not a democratic revolution, when some people start getting all teary-eyed about the beauty of popular revolutions against the Evil Government, even if it does look to be the "good" kind of military coup...

It may be entertaining but it's wildly misleading. Mubarak wasn't thrown out by the military, he stepped down. Agreements with between the protest groups and government have seen the military take temporary control.