That was no argument. An argument is a discussion between people trying to reach the truth. Your entire post, comment, and replies were here is a monologue, and you responded with passive aggressiveness until I got angry. I deleted my comments because that was a shit slinging contest at that point, and I am not interested in that. Next time, instead of trying to attack Sherif Gaber as a person, attack his arguments, and then I will entertain your “arguments”.
Uh no. You were cheeky since the beginning of our conversation.
Good arguments were provided for you to attack but instead you screamed Salafist 7 times and tried to leave the argument twice before you finally left.
There is no argument of Sherif to attack either.
The debate is on whether or not he is honest and credible.
Please tell me how science is incompatible with Islam.
Your point makes no sense. These scientific miracles not being true has nothing to do with Islams view of science. It doesnt matter if the quran tells us things about science. Are you going to say that science is stupid and we should not care about it and that its contradicting our beliefs?
No, science does not contradict our beliefs and no I didn't say science is stupid.
Excellent article mate. Couldn't have said it better myself. One thing I would add is that Muslims need to create more YouTube edutainment videos that can engage with the youth on both faith and non- faith based content. We need more people like Mustafa Mahmoud and Ahmad Al Shugairi. So basically instead on focusing on how to prevent the influence of people like Sherif we need to create equally influential videos with positive content.
I'd like to say that I feel there is a myth of an epidemic of persecution of ex-Muslims across the Muslim world. It rarely is the case that ex-Muslims are actually persecuted because they are ex-Muslims.
Do you realize in Egypt you can't legally be an ex-muslim, you can't go replace you religion on the ID?
Hell, if you're not a Muslim, Christian or Jew you can't legally get an ID without pretending to be one of those 3 religions.
So I'm really sure where you got your information about ex-Muslims in the "Muslim arab world".
Try replying to him not me.
But for the sake of the argument read past that,
Details of the stories show that these cases were far more complex, including the fact that many of these bloggers were part of a pro-government movement (Shabagh) that openly called for the persecution and executions of leaders of the minority Islamist party. While not a justification for their murders, it is far different than the narrative that they were simply killed because "Muslims are sensitive".
Honest question: Are people afraid to speak out about incidents of this nature for risk of being accused of antisemitism? I never really got this aspect.
Edit with follow up: It's the same bad logic as getting mad at X country = getting mad at X's majority religion. When I say something anti-Italy (picking a non-politicized country) nobody thinks I'm speaking out against Catholics.
Yes, there is an organization called canary mission which doxxes individuals who support Palestine.
Great considering I had to leave Egypt due to Islamic oppression. I feel very free in the West.
How about you?
Yeah dictators really do suck.
You're right. How can I continue living under this horrible American dictatorship where blasphemy laws don't exist and freedom of speech is the first amendment?
Send me dua, brother. Secular non-sharia society is bad for me. I only hope for a constitution where Islam is the religion of the country one day. May Allah provide and may the Ummah strengthen.
When did I say American dictatorship, akhi? I was talking about the "President" of Egypt, Sisi. 😂
That's what happens when you lose wars. You lose land and your people get killed. There is no such thing as illegal occupation. There is no world police. If Israel's stupid neighbors didn't attack it then they wouldn't have lost land. You don't just get land because you say it is yours. This is why wars are fought. For supremacy.
Myth #5 – The Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973 The fact of the matter is that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the “Six Day War”. Early on the morning of June 5, Israel launched fighters in a surprise attack on Egypt (then the United Arab Republic), and successfully decimated the Egyptian air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.
It is virtually obligatory for this attack to be described by commentators today as “preemptive”. But to have been “preemptive”, by definition, there must have been an imminent threat of Egyptian aggression against Israel. Yet there was none.
It is commonly claimed that President Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric, blockade of the Straits of Tiran, movement of troops into the Sinai Peninsula, and expulsion of U.N. peacekeeping forces from its side of the border collectively constituted such an imminent threat.
Yet, both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would actually attack was low. The CIA assessed that Israel had overwhelming superiority in force of arms, and would, in the event of a war, defeat the Arab forces within two weeks; within a week if Israel attacked first, which is what actually occurred.
It must be kept in mind that Egypt had been the victim of aggression by the British, French, and Israelis in the 1956 “Suez Crisis”, following Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. In that war, the three aggressor nations conspired to wage war upon Egypt, which resulted in an Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula. Under U.S. pressure, Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1957, but Egypt had not forgotten the Israeli aggression.
Moreover, Egypt had formed a loose alliance with Syria and Jordan, with each pledging to come to the aid of the others in the event of a war with Israel. Jordan had criticized Nasser for not living up to that pledge after the Israeli attack on West Bank village of Samu the year before, and his rhetoric was a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world.
That Nasser’s positioning was defensive, rather than projecting an intention to wage an offensive against Israel, was well recognized among prominent Israelis. As Avraham Sela of the Shalem Center has observed, “The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser’s defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike.”
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged that “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
In 1973, in what Israelis call the “Yom Kippur War”, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake the Sinai and the Golan Heights, respectively. This joint action is popularly described in contemporaneous accounts as an “invasion” of or act of “aggression” against Israel.
Yet, as already noted, following the June ’67 war, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 242 calling upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel, needless to say, refused to do so and has remained in perpetual violation of international law ever since.
During the 1973 war, Egypt and Syria thus “invaded” their own territory, then under illegal occupation by Israel. The corollary of the description of this war as an act of Arab aggression implicitly assumes that the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip were Israeli territory. This is, needless to say, a grossly false assumption that demonstrates the absolutely prejudicial and biased nature of mainstream commentary when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
This false narrative fits in with the larger overall narrative, equally fallacious, of Israeli as the “victim” of Arab intransigence and aggression. This narrative, largely unquestioned in the West, flips reality on its head.
Off topic but "fun" fact: the justice minister suggested Palestinian mothers ought to be unfertilized to prevent them from giving birth to snakes.
Can you add onto that? I don't want to give you the wrong answer.
It's completely free.
Members will be assigned to different roles depending on how many people join. If enough join we can ask members to call/send letters to their own local MPs, Congressmen and etc. Upvote, like or RT content helping the Palestinian cause as a group and call out predatory organizations like canarymission.
Most of the tasks will take a few minutes to complete so all that is required for activity is a daily visit to fulfill assigned tasks & objectives.