Muslim Brotherhood Sets St. George Church Ablaze

[arfink]

Oh, so because I think it's stupid to go around suppressing Muslims with violent force that means I don't care? I'm sorry but the Holy Roman Empire is dead and the Crusades are over, and Christians aren't supposed to be the kind of people who resort to violence.

[Apotheoun]

Coptic Christian girl being attacked by Muslims in broad daylight. The men cry about "Nasara" which means Christian, and then chant Allahu-Akbar as they attack the girl.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibDJTq1bleM

[Apotheoun]

Oh, so because I think it's stupid to go around suppressing Muslims with violent force that means I don't care? I'm sorry but the Holy Roman Empire is dead and the Crusades are over, and Christians aren't supposed to be the kind of people who resort to violence.

I haven't seen the Coptic Church resorting to violence. The Egyptian authorities have, but they have done so in order to protect the Copts. The Copts are being persecuted and as a minority they have little ability to protect themselves from the Muslim majority.

[Apotheoun]

From a NC Register article in July:

 

"Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches in Egypt have rejected Western media descriptions of the revolution as a military coup, and they have praised the Army for supporting the will of the people, just as they did in the January 2011 revolution against Mubarak.

 

'They took the side of the people against Morsi,' Assaad said. Without the Army’s intervention, he said, nothing would have stopped the Muslim Brotherhood’s militia from attacking the protesters. 'The Army is faithful to the Egyptian people. They did a good job with Mubarak and did an even better job with Morsi.'"

 

Click here to read the full article

Edited August 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

It is sad, but I think any objective observe would have to say that Egypt is in a civil war, and the outcome of the conflict will probably not be good for Christians either way. Although it will be far worse if the Muslim Brotherhood is restored to power than if the Egyptian military wins.

[Aloysius]

remember there were a lot of Muslims among those protesting on June 30 against Morsi.  Tamarod, the organization that called for that protest, has called for people to come out and protect the churches.

 

the Muslim Brotherhood are not a majority now, many of the people protesting against them in Tahrir Square had actually voted for them but now regretted it.  the Rabaa Square protests were not a bunch of peaceful protesters, either; yes, there were many that were peaceful there, but there has also been a lot of evidence coming out even from some independent human rights organizations which shows that there were people in Rabaa Square kidnapping anti-Morsi people and torturing them, and it's anyone's guess how many of the weapons the military found were actually being stockpiled there, but more than 50 police died in the clashes yesterday and there is video of the MB people with weapons, so I'm sure there were some.

 

it is the Islamists that need to be dealt with.  they have no right to rule this country, ballot box or not.  the biggest mistake we ever made was trying to tell the middle east that majoritarian democracy was a good thing, because the Islamists got a hold of that idea and figured if they just won an election they could transform the country into an Islamist paradise.  but that is utter nonsense, majority vote does not have the right to rule against minority opinions... and scores of Muslims, Copts, and secular Egyptians took to the streets on June 30th to send that message to the Muslim Brotherhood--they don't have the right to rule them that way, no matter what kind of election they win.

 

The crackdown on Rabaa could have been done better.  the way it was done was too bloody, and moreover, it stirred up the hornets nest of the people who are, in fact, terrorists (no further proof is needed than the attacks by the MB around the country on police stations and churches).  El Baradei should've been listened to (he resigned as Vice President because they did not break up Rabaa through more nonviolent means).  Rabaa couldn't have been allowed to fester forever, it would have just kept stockpiling weapons and torturing people and terrorizing the surrounding neighborhood.  it was not like Tahrir--at Tahrir, the leaders negotiated, they were working towards a feasible goal and they talked.  the MB refused to talk, refused to work towards any feasible goal, and they were festering and encouraging violence (their statements in English are a lot more benign than their statements in Arabic)

 

anyway, this is not about Islam (leaving aside any philosophical argument as to whether "real Islam" is the violent kind or not, my point is that most actual Muslims here on the street are disgusted by the Muslim Brotherhood and want them to go away).  Al Azhar Mosque is the highest religious authority here, and its lead cleric stood alongside Pope Tawadros II and General Sisi when they announced Morsi was being removed from power.  This is about wreckless Islamists who need to be pushed back against.  honestly it'd have been much better if they had followed El Baradei's suggestions, they could have peacefully broken up Nahda first and gradually weened the people out of Rabaa.

 

Hopefully it doesn't turn into a civil war.  I don't think it's that certain... the military is in control mostly, and huge amounts of the people side with the military.  I think there may be some terrorism by the MB but I don't think it will be able to organize any kind of organized resistance to fight the army...at least I hope not.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It is sad, but I think any objective observe would have to say that Egypt is in a civil war, and the outcome of the conflict will probably not be good for Christians either way. Although it will be far worse if the Muslim Brotherhood is restored to power than if the Egyptian military wins.

 

Your position confuses me. Can't you at least admit that your sports team did something wrong? It's simple. Just say, "I don't approve of the slaughter of innocent people". You brought up the Nazis. If the Nazis taught us anything, it's that our ideals can be twisted to make us do/allow horrible acts. Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil.

Edited August 15, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[KnightofChrist]

Your position confuses me. Can't you at least admit that your sports team did something wrong? It's simple. Just say, "I don't approve of the slaughter of innocent people". You brought up the Nazis. If the Nazis taught us anything, it's that our ideals can be twisted to make us do/allow horrible acts. Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil.

I'm confused how an Atheist can invoke words like evil. It would also be evil to not protect innocent people like the Copts, from the aggressors like the Muslim Brotherhood. Which seems to be what you are advocating.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'm confused how an Atheist can invoke words like evil. It would also be evil to not protect innocent people like the Copts, from the aggressors like the Muslim Brotherhood. Which seems to be what you are advocating.

 

"Protect" =/= murder.

[arfink]

Well, what is happening in Egypt is pretty horrible. I agree. Well, I shall do something.

 

This is clearly the fault of Obama's foreign affairs policies. I know, I shall vote for a Republican! Yes! That will do it! Oh wait, there isn't another election for a while. Hrmmmm....

 

I know, I will give money to the... oh wait. I don't have any money. Hrmmmmmmmm...

 

Oh! Yes! Yes! I will make a post on the Internet! In a place where no Muslims ever visit. Oh yes, this is the best idea I have had yet!

 

/begins typing furiously

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

"Protect" =/= murder.

Murder is knowingly killing innocent people. Innocent people don't kill cops, burn down Churches, rape women, and other violent acts of aggression like the Muslim Brotherhood.

[arfink]

Murder is knowingly killing innocent people. Innocent people don't kill cops, burn down Churches, rape women, and other violent acts of aggression like the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

It's fairly obvious by now that the folks who were killed by the Egyptian army yesterday were only tenuously connected to the Brotherhood. So let's just be quiet on this issue now. Kthx.

[Lilllabettt]

The military is the "savior" character in modern Egyptian political history. A military coup in America would be looked on as a sin. But in Egypt  the generals have moral authority. Egyptians who don't give that authority to the generals give it to a political ideology which does not embrace pluralism.  In western democracy liberality is a sign of nobility. Parties brag about how tolerant they are. The Muslim Brotherhood brags about how pure they are. Tolerance, pluralism -- those are weaknesses.

 

So we have a political culture where the conservatives want theocracy and  the "liberals" cheer military take overs.

 

Perhaps they are just not ready for democracy.

 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

It's fairly obvious by now that the folks who were killed by the Egyptian army yesterday were only tenuously connected to the Brotherhood. So let's just be quiet on this issue now. Kthx.

Perhaps for the American media, who like to ignore reality when it doesn't fit their templates. But I do not trust them after they pretty much supported the first military coup, praised the Arab spring, ignored the reality that Morsi was not dully elected and ignored the bloodshed brought on by the Muslim Brotherhood against Christians and Moderate Muslims.

[KnightofChrist]

Paying the price

 

Source: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/3713/17/Paying-the-price.aspx

 

Egypt’s Copts and other Christians face tough times. Since the ouster of Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi on 3 July churches and the homes of Christians have been the targets of regular attacks, some of them under the eyes and ears of an indifferent police force.

The attackers identify themselves as Islamists. Indeed, the writing on the walls of burned churches and houses in Upper Egypt over the last month has conveyed a single, chilling message — that Egypt is exclusively an Islamic country and Copts should move elsewhere.

“This is collective punishment. The message is that Copts should find themselves somewhere else to go,” says Suleiman Shafik, a researcher into Coptic affairs. “The fact is, though, that Egypt is their home and Copts are staying.”

Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly in the wake of growing numbers of attacks on Christians, Shafik is less concerned about the slogans daubed on walls than he is with the identity of the attackers.

“For the first time in decades we are seeing Muslim Brotherhood members directly involved in attacks against Copts. Previous attacks against Copts have been by and large the doing of other Islamist groups, Jihad and Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiya. The Muslim Brotherhood has not been directly involved in any such attacks since 1950,” says Shafik.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which was established in 1928, instigated some attacks against Christian targets in the 1930s and 1940s. Otherwise, says Shafik, relations between the Islamist group and Egypt’s Copts, while they witnessed ups and downs, have remained manageable.

In the run-up to the presidential elections of 2012 Muslim Brotherhood leaders, including Morsi, tried to solicit Coptic support through positive public statements and appearances at the Coptic Cathedral.

“We are talking about a serious shift in positions here, and it’s very disturbing,” notes Shafik . He adds that “there is no doubt” in his mind about the “Muslim Brotherhood identity of the attackers” not only because there is no attempt to conceal this identity but also because “it is a well-known fact” that the villages in Upper Egypt where the attacks have happened “fall squarely in the area of Muslim Brotherhood influence”.

Equally disturbing for Shafik is the context in which the attacks take place. “I am not just talking about a police force that stands by while churches and houses are being burned down. I am talking about people being attacked for no reason other than the fact that they are Copts, and Copts participated in the 30 June demonstrations that led to the ouster of Morsi.”

During the final months of Morsi’s year in office, Muslim Brotherhood leaders began to complain about the presence of Copts in anti-Morsi demonstrations. Mohamed Al-Beltagui, whose anti-Coptic statements from the Rabaa Al-Adaweya sit-in fall squarely within the realms of hate speech, was among the most vociferous.

What people like Al-Beltagui fail to realise, argues Shafik, is that “Copts are fully-fledged Egyptian citizens who have the right to protest against anything they happen to dislike, especially when it comes to a president determined to deny their existence.”

The size of Egypt’s Christian population has been the subject of debate for decades, not least because the national census studiously avoids any religion-based count. According to many independent sources, Christians, whether Copts, Catholics or evangelicals, constitute one fifth of the population rather than the officially touted 10 per cent.

“To put things in black and white, Copts are being punished for exercising the perfectly legitimate citizenship right of protesting against the president,” Shafik says. “And the only body that is intervening to stop this is the army.”

During the past month army vehicles have been deployed in the villages of Upper Egypt where attacks have taken place to provide the Coptic community with a sense of security. Such scenes are in sharp contrast to the images Copts have lived with since 9 October 2011 when military vehicles were used to kill Coptic demonstrators in front of the Maspero television headquarters.

“During the first interim phase churches and people were attacked in the context of disputes between neighbours or feuds over a love affair between a Muslim and a Copt. Now we are seeing attacks for no reason at all,” says Shafik .

Sectarian violence against Copts has been a recurrent story since the late 1970s. Indeed, late president Anwar Al-Sadat is blamed by many historians for inciting sectarianism as he courted Islamist groups as a counterbalance to the lingering influence of leftists.

Sadat himself criticised the Coptic Patriarch Shenouda III and placed him under house arrest. Shenouda remained secluded until Hosni Mubarak came to power in 1981 and turned a new page in relations with the Church. Implicit in the new dispensation was the understanding that the patriarch would keep the Coptic population “within the walls of the church”.

“For years Copts would demonstrate inside the walls of the Cathedral grounds. All that changed when they took part in the 25 January Revolution. There were repeated attempts to force them back inside the churches but neither the Copts nor the Church complied. Instead, the opposite happened. They defied these attempts. One result of this was the marked presence of Copts in every demonstration that led the way to 30 June,” argues Shafik.

Now, he says, the homes and places of worship of Copts and other Christians are being attacked as a form of “collective punishment”.

“We now see all the houses of Copts in a village being attacked. This signals a shift from the individual discrimination faced by many Copts towards wholesale persecution. The state needs to interfere, strongly, to stop this.”