Muslim Brotherhood Statement Denouncing UN Women Declaration

[delrem]

Muslim Brotherhood Statement Denouncing UN Women Declaration for Violating Sharia Principles

The 57th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), taking place from March 4 to 15 at UN headquarters, seeks to ratify a declaration euphemistically entitled ‘End Violence against Women’.

That title, however, is misleading and deceptive. The document includes articles that contradict established principles of Islam, undermine Islamic ethics and destroy the family, the basic building block of society, according to the Egyptian Constitution.

This declaration, if ratified, would lead to complete disintegration of society, and would certainly be the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries, eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies.

A closer look at these articles reveals what decadence awaits our world, if we sign this document:

1. Granting girls full sexual freedom, as well as the freedom to decide their own gender and the gender of their partners (ie, choose to have normal or homo- sexual relationships), while raising the age of marriage.

2. Providing contraceptives for adolescent girls and training them to use those, while legalizing abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, in the name of sexual and reproductive rights.

3. Granting equal rights to adulterous wives and illegitimate sons resulting from adulterous relationships.

4. Granting equal rights to homosexuals, and providing protection and respect for prostitutes.

5. Giving wives full rights to file legal complaints against husbands accusing them of rape or sexual harassment, obliging competent authorities to deal husbands punishments similar to those prescribed for raping or sexually harassing a stranger.
6. Equal inheritance (between men and women).

7. Replacing guardianship with partnership, and full sharing of roles within the family between men and women such as: spending, child care and home chores.

8. Full equality in marriage legislation such as: allowing Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, and abolition of polygamy, dowry, men taking charge of family spending, etc.

9. Removing the authority of divorce from husbands and placing it in the hands of judges, and sharing all property after divorce.
10. Cancelling the need for a husband’s consent in matters like: travel, work, or use of contraception.

These are destructive tools meant to undermine the family as an important institution; they would subvert the entire society, and drag it to pre-Islamic ignorance.

_____________________
From the official English site:
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731

What a bunch of fecking arses.

[delrem]

2. heh. yes. go UN!

[ZombieHorde]

4. We definately have different opinions on civil rights. nt

[delrem]

5. I would say that by making this statement, by opposing the UN on this,

the MB shows that it doesn't understand the distinction between religious and civil rights.

According as the civil rights that the UN espouses a person can freely choose to join with a religion, in their endeavor to gain the most from life. A dingbat religion or a profound religion. And a religion may freely choose to demand that certain rules of conduct must be observed (that's what a religion IS) for a person to live within the order. Within the parameter of such a religion people may freely choose to work on changing the rules for the better, or if they find that to be impossible the over-riding rule of civil rights says that a person has the right to an apostate. To quit. This right *has* to be over-riding. But that over-riding rule of civil rights is often challenged by various religious authorities. History shows that in trying to enforce their demands religions can get pretty awful. In fact, a lot of horror literature owes to that source. And quite some few supposed justifications for torture owe to identical justifications for past religious inquisitions. We don't really move on...

For that reason I don't agree with the essential rightness of any religious state.
I can't argue this logically as from first principles, because I don't know what such high principles are, but to my mind the establishment of a religious state doesn't do justice to the notion of 'religion', which to my mind has feck all to do with any state, any system of government.

So in sum I think that by becoming politically active and making such a political statement the MB is overstepping the bounds between religion and general politics.

[pelsar]

7. wow do you not understand MB...

MB is a not about your "universal western civil rights"..they have their own version and god gave it to them...which in terms of poker, beats your man made version any day.

So in sum I think that by becoming politically active and making such a political statement the MB is overstepping the bounds between religion and general politics.

the sum of it, is actually that your being self-centered ethno centric in believing that MB simply made a poor political statement or has a poor policy when in fact what they stated, is the core of their society, their culture and they been planning this "take over" of egypt since the 1920's based on their core religion and values.

the question at hand, is do you accept that their values, their beliefs which in fact reject your western values and everything they stand for.

the won in egypt, based on their values, and actions since the 1920's not some vague political promises that can be flipped as per the western system...and elections have consequences.

[delrem]

8. Either you didn't read my post, or you're nuts.

Or most likely, you're probably both.

[pelsar]

9. you post is clear....

So in sum I think that by becoming politically active and making such a political statement the MB is overstepping the bounds between religion and general politics.

you believe MB made a poor "political statement" or that they made a "misstep"

Your using your western 'logic" on different culture which meshes religion with life style, they are one and the same.....your seperation does not exist within the MB

[delrem]

11. ...

(shakes head, blinks hard... nope, post 9 is still there...)
(tries again... still there... oh fuggit I'm not gonna try answering such a wooooosh)

[Scootaloo]

13. And you do not understand Egypt

First off, Morsi won the presidency, by a slender 2-point margin. Over Mubarak's prime minister who was tossed out by the revolution. This is sort of like if in the US' first presidential election, Adams had run against the British prime minister and just squeaked by.

Second, this does not make Morsi, or his party the supreme power in Egypt. His attempts at power grabs have been the impetus behind the recent spate of protests in Egypt, as Egyptians basically tell him "oh fuck no." The courts seem on the side of the people in this, having recently cancelled parliamentary elections due to Morsi having jiggered up an obfuscatory electoral law, demanding the law be repealed before elections are enacted.

Unsurprisingly for a nation that has been under military dictatorship for all the time it wasn't under a monarchy, democracy is still being shaken out and bolted onto the chassis of the country. Maybe you expected Sweden on the Nile in a few days' time?

Point is, despite your sad and predictably myopic attempts to characterize them otherwise, Egyptians are busting their asses off to create a democratic and free nation. If you expect it to be perfect right out the box, that speaks far more of your unreasonable standards than it does of the efforts and beliefs of Egyptians

[azurnoir]

6. yikes take out the references to Islam and this could nearly a Tea Party statement

but maybe these guys are even a bit to the right of them

[msongs]

10. kinda depends on whetehr women are more like dogs or humans perhaps nt

[Scootaloo]

12. Ironically they sound like Michelle Bachmann. n/t