Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Ennahda Party Wins Election In Tunisia

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

TUNIS (Reuters) - The leader of the Islamist party which won Tunisia's first free election appealed for calm in the town where the "Arab Spring" began, accusing forces linked to the ousted president of fanning violence there.

Party officials said coalition talks were already under way and they expected to form a new government within 10 days.

Troops fired in the air on Friday to disperse a crowd attacking government offices in Sidi Bouzid, where 10 months ago vegetable seller Mohamed Bouazizi set fire to himself in a protest that ignited revolts around the Arab world.

The Ennahda party, which was banned for decades and its leaders forced to flee abroad, will lead Tunisia's new government after an election victory likely to set a template for other Middle Eastern states rocked by uprisings this year.

Ennahda has tried to reassure secularists by stressing it will not impose a Muslim moral code.

It will not impose the wearing of the Islamic headscarf, or hijab, on women because all attempts to do that in other Arab states have failed, the party's leader said on Friday.

Rachid Ghannouchi said women would have jobs in the new government "whether they wear a veil or don't wear a veil".

Ennahda would honor an undertaking to finish writing a new constitution within one year, he said at his first news conference since the election. It would respect all Tunisia's international treaties when it forms a new government.

He blamed the Sidi Bouzid clashes on forces connected with ousted president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.

The unrest was not linked directly to the Ennahda win, but to the fact that a party headed by a businessman popular in the town, a former supporter of Ben Ali, had been eliminated from the ballot over allegations of campaign finance violations.

UNREST IN TOWN OF "MARTYR"

Two witnesses in Sidi Bouzid told Reuters a large crowd had tried to attack the local government headquarters.

"The military are trying to disperse the people with shots in the air and tear gas," one of the witnesses, Attia Athmouni, said by telephone.

The witnesses said shops and schools were shut and a security forces helicopter was hovering overhead.

Late on Thursday, after officials announced they would cancel several seats won by the Popular List, a crowd set fire to an Ennahda office and the office of the mayor. The party had been running in fourth place in the election, according to preliminary results, before its seats were canceled.

An Interior Ministry source said a night curfew would be imposed in the town from 7 p.m. (1800 GMT) until 5 a.m.

Ghannouchi paid tribute to the town's role in the revolution which forced Ben Ali to flee the country.

"We salute Sidi Bouzid and its sons who launched the spark and we hope that God will have made Mohamed Bouazizi a martyr," said the Islamic scholar, who spent 22 years exiled in Britain.

Announcing the results, election commission members said Ennahda had won 90 seats in the 217-seat assembly, which will draft a new constitution, form an interim government and schedule new elections, probably for early 2013.

The Islamists' nearest rival, the secularist Congress for the Republic, won 30 seats.

TURKISH PM IS MODEL

The complex election system that replaced the rigged, one-horse races conducted before the revolution made it impossible for one party to win a majority of seats. Ennahda is expected to form a government with two of the secularist runners-up.

The Islamists have already said they will put forward Hamadi Jbeli, Ghannouchi's deputy and a former political prisoner, for the post of prime minister. Jbeli said on Friday the economy would take priority in coalition negotiations.

"We are going to speed up to build the new government," he said. "It will take between a week and 10 days."

Ghannouchi told Reuters in an interview he would pursue a liberal economic policy, including making the dinar currency convertible.

Ennahda lies at the moderate end of the spectrum of Islamist parties in the Middle East. Ghannouchi models his approach on the that of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.

His officials say there will be no restrictions on foreign tourists -- a big source of revenue -- drinking alcohol or wearing bikinis on the country's Mediterranean beaches.

The victory is the first for Islamists since the Hamas faction won a Palestinian election seven years ago.

It will resonate in Egypt, where a party with ideological ties to Ennahda is expected to do well in a multi-stage parliamentary poll that starts in November.

One of the party's most prominent candidates is a businesswoman who does not wear the Islamic veil, or hijab, and this week sang along to pop songs at a party rally.

Ennahda has also reached out to anxious investors by saying it will not impose Islamic banking rules. It says it is inclined to keep the finance minister and central bank governor in their posts when it forms the new government.

(Additional reporting by Abdelaziz Boumzar; Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Andrew Roche)

Naturally, on the comments sections in American news media (just look at the comments section on the Source link), a bunch of people are complaining about "Islamists" winning in Tunisia, but as long as they have support some decent liberal and/or secular policies, doesn't seem like a bad deal. Heck, in a country that is predominately Muslim, it makes sense to me that an Islamic party holds the most sway in a representative government. What do you all think? Do you think some American critics of "Islamist parties" are getting too bent out of shape over Ennahda winning the election?

Source:http://news.yahoo.co...cnlwYWdl;_ylv=3

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Bismillah Salam Insha'Allah this leads to more of an Islamic nahdha (revival) all over the world amen

I hope so too, if the Ennahda are a sincere and tolerant party like they claim. The trouble with the Islamic world at this point in time is the clash between more conservative and the more liberal elements of Islam itself in my opinion. Islamic values cannot be forgotten or disregarded in a predominately Muslim society and we should always seek to live in a society that caters to our values as much as we can, but like our Lord, the god of Heaven and Earth, we must be lenient and not starve or repress the people with strict fundamentalism nor should we force our ways on others who want no part of them. We should also not become full of pride and not be willing to make compromises with people whose beliefs and values are not like ours whether they are different Muslim sects or different religions altogether, without sacrificing the basic moral tenets of our faith in the process of course. Balance is the key to a greater Middle East, not just going far right or far left. How can you say you want one wing and not the other and still expect to fly? You need both wings, not just one.

My main fear though is that I do not trust the new Libyan government, especially now that they recognize the Syrian National Council in Turkey as the legitimate government of Syria rather than the Ba'ath party and the role of Al-Qaeda in Qaddafi's being overthrown. I worry about how trustworthy Ennahda is especially with how close to Libya it is. If Ennahda's relationship to the new Libyan regime is too close for comfort, I worry about Egypt's fate as well.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Naturally, on the comments sections in American news media (just look at the comments section on the Source link), a bunch of people are complaining about "Islamists" winning in Tunisia, but as long as they have support some decent liberal and/or secular policies, doesn't seem like a bad deal. Heck, in a country that is predominately Muslim, it makes sense to me that an Islamic party holds the most sway in a representative government. What do you all think? Do you think some American critics of "Islamist parties" are getting too bent out of shape over Ennahda winning the election?

Not Islamists but, 'moderate Islamists' as they are being labeled. What kind of Islamic party in a majority Muslim country would say, once we get power we will not ban alcohol or wearing bikinis. I am not saying they should ban those, if people want them, they are free to have them. BUT, then plz do not call it an Islamic government.

But anyhow, this. Ennahdha party DID NOT win the election. The party won the biggest numbers of seats. They won only close to 40% of the seats. The party now has to make coalition with other parties to form a government, just like Maliki in Iraq couldn't win the majority, but was on the top of the list by numbers.

Plus, Turkish PM or his party could be a role model for secular-Islamist coexistence under a 'SECULAR' government and secular society. Other than that, AK of Turkey is only Islamists by name, the party is not able and never could implement a 'single' Sharia law within the government or in society. The party was even failed several times to remove Hijab ban at the universities. I have no idea why people say current Turkish government is an example of moderate Islamists. The government has nothing to do with being Islamic at all. Only the AK party known as Islamists won the elections and are 'in charge' of the secular government whose certain laws are very opposite to Islamic laws. According to this process even in Europe and in the US an Islamists or Christian party could win an election and then follow everything on the constitution and secular laws and run the government.

Edited by Noah-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Currently Tunisia bans polygamy, forbids marriage under the age of 17, and gives women the right to divorce. Laughably, some Tunisians are so brainwashed that they see this as 'progress'.

Actually, women are granted that right in the Quran.

As for the other things, seems obvious that some Tunisians are just trying to appease Western society through imitation.

Not Islamists but, 'moderate Islamists' as they are being labeled. What kind of Islamic party in a majority Muslim country would say, once we get power we will not ban alcohol or wearing bikinis. I am not saying they should ban those, if people want them, they are free to have them. BUT, then plz do not call it an Islamic government.

I think it greatly depends on your definition of what constitutes Islamic law. Afterall, there are plenty of Muslims who do not forbid alcohol and their respective sects believe drinking alcohol, according to the Quran as well as their tradtions is completely permissible in moderation. Therefore, if a party that represented this sect took power as an "Islamist party," it is perfectly Islamic, in their minds that is, to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages as opposed to banning it, which would be seen by said party as non-Islamic. "Islamist" parties' policies are subject to whatever the members of those parties see as Islamic law which is not the same for every Muslim or group of Muslims in the world today. It's perfectly reasonable that there would be those who are more liberal in some areas than other Islamist parties, as well as more conservative in some areas than others.

As for Ennahda, I don't know what kind of Muslims they are or what they interpet as true Islamic law. Their allowing of certain things to slide may just be them compromising with their political and/or religious opponents, who take up the rest of the seats of power in the new government, who'd they rather get along with than just kill them for being unbelievers, which they may feel is non-Islamic and thus not right for an "Islamist," that expects to follow Islamic law to do. It may not be a case of them allowing it because they think it's okay, but just because they don't want to enforce their ways onto others but instead wish to progress their goals democratically.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Actually, women are granted that right in the Quran.

As for the other things, seems obvious that some Tunisians are just trying to appease Western society through imitation.

I think it greatly depends on your definition of what constitutes Islamic law. Afterall, there are plenty of Muslims who do not forbid alcohol and their respective sects believe drinking alcohol, according to the Quran as well as their tradtions is completely permissible in moderation. Therefore, if a party that represented this sect took power as an "Islamist party," it is perfectly Islamic, in their minds that is, to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages as opposed to banning it, which would be seen by said party as non-Islamic. "Islamist" parties' policies are subject to whatever the members of those parties see as Islamic law which is not the same for every Muslim or group of Muslims in the world today. It's perfectly reasonable that there would be those who are more liberal in some areas than other Islamist parties, as well as more conservative in some areas than others.

As for Ennahda, I don't know what kind of Muslims they are or what they interpet as true Islamic law. Their allowing of certain things to slide may just be them compromising with their political and/or religious opponents, who take up the rest of the seats of power in the new government, who'd they rather get along with than just kill them for being unbelievers, which they may feel is non-Islamic and thus not right for an "Islamist," that expects to follow Islamic law to do. It may not be a case of them allowing it because they think it's okay, but just because they don't want to enforce their ways onto others but instead wish to progress their goals democratically.

Bro, I guess you did not read my reply well. It is not about my definition or your definition. It is a general definition. Alcohol CAN NEVER BE ISLAMIC and I have no idea where you get your information from! According to Quran and their tradition? Ok. Whose tradition? You are not referring to Agha Khan's fatwa, because he has nothing to do with Quran. I hope you either proof your point or refrain from stating according to Quran.

As you said, they wish to progress their goals democratically, so that is it. That is not an Islamic based Sharia government. That is a secular government run by SECULAR parties in managing their countries affairs. I CLEARLY MENTIONED, if you READ my REPLY, that I do not want to say if it is GOOD OR IF IT IS BAD, but it is not ISLAMIC. For example can Taliban claim they have a secular party and had secular government? NO! Because, they DID not. They clearly ran their government on the basis of Sunni Islamism. Good or bad, that is a different topic! But, on the basis of standard norms we can tell if a government is secular, Islamic, socialist, capitalist, and etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Actually, women are granted that right in the Quran.

Could you quote me the verse where women are given that right? As far as I know, the Quran only speaks of men divorcing women, not the other way around.

I think it greatly depends on your definition of what constitutes Islamic law. Afterall, there are plenty of Muslims who do not forbid alcohol and their respective sects believe drinking alcohol, according to the Quran as well as their tradtions is completely permissible in moderation. Therefore, if a party that represented this sect took power as an "Islamist party," it is perfectly Islamic, in their minds that is, to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages as opposed to banning it, which would be seen by said party as non-Islamic. "Islamist" parties' policies are subject to whatever the members of those parties see as Islamic law which is not the same for every Muslim or group of Muslims in the world today. It's perfectly reasonable that there would be those who are more liberal in some areas than other Islamist parties, as well as more conservative in some areas than others.

I don't think anyone who considers alcohol permissible can be considered a Muslim (since it is clearly forbidden in the Quran and the hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh)), and such people are in no danger of gaining power in any Muslim country since there just aren't enough of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I do not consider it permissible to drink alcohol in any way. But whether a Muslim country should ban alcohol is another question, because for example, there may be non Muslims, should alcohol be banned for them too? Also, if we criticize other nations for forbidding the hijab, then I don't think its fair to want to impose hijab in our countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I think banning alcohol can come under 'enjoining the good and forbidding the evil'. Most countries have a ban on drugs, so why not ban alcohol? Otherwise, to be consistent, you would have to legalise drugs as well as alcohol.

As for hijab, that is more complicated. Personally, I don't think it should be forced on society, and I think a decent argument can be made for such a position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I do not consider it permissible to drink alcohol in any way. But whether a Muslim country should ban alcohol is another question, because for example, there may be non Muslims, should alcohol be banned for them too? Also, if we criticize other nations for forbidding the hijab, then I don't think its fair to want to impose hijab in our countries.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AND WHAT SHOULD NOT BE DONE!.

Yes, if you ban Hijab, then you are not Islamic! Why is it so complicated for some? But, if you impose Hijab, then you are not secular, why this one is confusing too?

The difference between an Islamic state and a secular state is that one imposes certain laws and the other one imposes certain different laws! Part of Islamic government is to impose Sharia laws within the judiciary system of a government. Part of a secular government is to exclude religious laws from judiciary system and any governmental institution.

It is not about criticism here, it is about giving them the right name and label.

But, why here we call and name them for what they are not? You CANNOT simply call Iranian gov. a secular government, and you CANNOT call Turkey an Islamic or moderate Islamic government, because IT IS NOT. It is a majority Muslim country with a secular government, unIslamic and in some cases even anti-Islamic government. The AK won the election and they are in charge of the government, SO WHAT? AK CAN NEVER impose its own party's regulation in the government. Same thing with this Tunisian one.

Btw: alcohol in Islamic countries like Iran, it is only banned for Muslims, non-Muslims can drink alcohol

________

Back to your criticism of Hijab in secular or Islamic government!

1. It is part of Islamic government to control Hijab code.

2. it is part and duty of secular government as they claim, not to get involved with people's personal beliefs, which Hijab is part of it. It should not discriminate between people of different faiths. But, it clearly does when it comes to Muslims, violating secularism norms and standards. Then, why the heck they still call themselves secular?

Edited by Noah-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hijab ban is there in the Turkish Constitution, and the Supreme Court is tasked with defending each and every single clause iof the Turkish constitution, under Turkish Law, Supreme Court can impose martial law and declare emergency if it feels secularism is under threat, so not even Erdogan's daddy cn do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Bro, I guess you did not read my reply well. It is not about my definition or your definition. It is a general definition. Alcohol CAN NEVER BE ISLAMIC and I have no idea where you get your information from! According to Quran and their tradition? Ok. Whose tradition? You are not referring to Agha Khan's fatwa, because he has nothing to do with Quran. I hope you either proof your point or refrain from stating according to Quran.

As you said, they wish to progress their goals democratically, so that is it. That is not an Islamic based Sharia government. That is a secular government run by SECULAR parties in managing their countries affairs. I CLEARLY MENTIONED, if you READ my REPLY, that I do not want to say if it is GOOD OR IF IT IS BAD, but it is not ISLAMIC. For example can Taliban claim they have a secular party and had secular government? NO! Because, they DID not. They clearly ran their government on the basis of Sunni Islamism. Good or bad, that is a different topic! But, on the basis of standard norms we can tell if a government is secular, Islamic, socialist, capitalist, and etc..

I think you actually didn't read my reply well. What I was saying was that what constitutes an Islamic government is subjective to the individual's own interpretation of what constitutes Islam and Islamic law. Whether you personally feel alcohol is Islamic or not has relevance whatsoever. If you feel that truly Islamic government would ban alcohol outright, that's what YOU feel truly Islamic government would do. For example, the Alevi Shia drink as part of religious ritual and recreation. If an Alevi political party rose up and created an Alevi state in which alcohol was permitted, then that government would be, technically, an "Islamic government," regardless because it rules the country according to its interpretation of Islamic law. Even a figure like Khomeini, who considered the Alevi, whether their views were right or wrong, to be under the umbrella of Shia Islam, would acknowledge such a state as an "Islamic state," albeit of the Alevi branch specifically. That's just an example.

I was criticizing the attitude you seem to have that if an Islamic government were to permit alcohol in its state, that it would be universally recognized, even by non-Muslims, as not an Islamic government when that's not true at all. I'm saying that what defines an "Islamic government" is very subjective, you have no right to say, nor do I think any of us have the right to say, that because an Islamic government allows the consumption of alcohol that that alone is proof it is not an Islamic government.

Yes, if you ban Hijab, then you are not Islamic! Why is it so complicated for some? But, if you impose Hijab, then you are not secular, why this one is confusing too?

Because not every Islamic sect imposes the hijab, even among the Shia. If a sect that doesn't require women to wear hijab creates a state for itself, it's allowing of women to not wear hijab is not considered non-Islamic by that state. Actually, according to that state, the imposing of the hijab as a law of the state would be non-Islamic. Whether you personally feel what they allow is not Islamic has no relevance.

The difference between an Islamic state and a secular state is that one imposes certain laws and the other one imposes certain different laws! Part of Islamic government is to impose Sharia laws within the judiciary system of a government. Part of a secular government is to exclude religious laws from judiciary system and any governmental institution.

I don't think anybody here said Tunisia was an exclusively Islamic state or was going to be. The discussion is more on whether Ennahda could be considered an Islamic political party or "Islamist" movement even if it has a more "moderate" stance according to a Western news source.

Could you quote me the verse where women are given that right? As far as I know, the Quran only speaks of men divorcing women, not the other way around.

Sorry, I meant to say more specifically that the woman has the right to petition for divorce, not that she can legally put into effect the divorce by herself. The Quran speaks of divorce as a mutual agreement between both the man and the woman. The man doesn't have the right to force the woman to stay with him nor does he have the right to force her away, unless she is guilty of some serious crime. The woman doesn't have those rights either against the man.

I can provide verses, but I'm a bit busy right now to look up the exact verses. The chapters that mention divorce are The Cow, Women, and Divorce though if you can't wait for me to post them myself.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Sorry, I meant to say more specifically that the woman has the right to petition for divorce, not that she can legally put into effect the divorce by herself. The Quran speaks of divorce as a mutual agreement between both the man and the woman. The man doesn't have the right to force the woman to stay with him nor does he have the right to force her away, unless she is guilty of some serious crime. The woman doesn't have those rights either against the man.

I can provide verses, but I'm a bit busy right now to look up the exact verses. The chapters that mention divorce are The Cow, Women, and Divorce though if you can't wait for me to post them myself.

Yes, a woman can petition for divorce, but she cannot divorce her husband in the same way he can divorce his wife unless that is made part of the marriage contract. However, in Tunisia it seems women by default have the same powers of divorce as a man, and that is unislamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
For example, the Alevi Shia drink as part of religious ritual and recreation. If an Alevi political party rose up and created an Alevi state in which alcohol was permitted, then that government would be, technically, an "Islamic government," regardless because it rules the country according to its interpretation of Islamic law.

Yes, if they do that, then it is going to be an Alevi Islamic state, not a Shia Imamia or Sunni Islamic state. Just like we Shias allow 'muta' and going to 'graves' under a Shia Islamic government, but for example Sunni Salafis do not allow that. Tunisia is a majority Sunni country, if an Islamic party wants to implement Sharia, alcohol must be excluded from public's reach. That is not my opinion or your opinion, that is a FACT.

I was criticizing the attitude you seem to have that if an Islamic government were to permit alcohol in its state, that it would be universally recognized, even by non-Muslims, as not an Islamic government when that's not true at all. I'm saying that what defines an "Islamic government" is very subjective, you have no right to say, nor do I think any of us have the right to say, that because an Islamic government allows the consumption of alcohol that that alone is proof it is not an Islamic government.

I have no idea bro what you are trying to say here.. But, if I eat a chocolate, then I cannot call it a banana. This is as simple as that. I don't know why you try to make it like kind of personal interpretation of individuals or someone having a right to say something or not.

There are clear standards and basis for a: Communist government, Capitalist system, Islamic government, secular government, monarchy, and you name it. I am kind of getting tired of repeating myself.

Because not every Islamic sect imposes the hijab, even among the Shia. If a sect that doesn't require women to wear hijab creates a state for itself, it's allowing of women to not wear hijab is not considered non-Islamic by that state. Actually, according to that state, the imposing of the hijab as a law of the state would be non-Islamic. Whether you personally feel what they allow is not Islamic has no relevance.

Who said every Islamic sect imposes Hijab? Those sects who do not impose Hijab, they will not have imposing Hijab in their constitution and will not follow it. But, Iran, Turkey, and Tunisia do. Majority of Turks are Sunni Hanafi and majority of Iranians are Shia Imamia, and when it comes to Sharia ruling these two governments, they will and been implementing that. A country cannot follow or represent every single sect.

I don't think anybody here said Tunisia was an exclusively Islamic state or was going to be. The discussion is more on whether Ennahda could be considered an Islamic political party or "Islamist" movement even if it has a more "moderate" stance according to a Western news source.

So, that is what I said from the beginning. Ennahda in Tunisia and AK in Turkey can only be Islamic in their own backyards, that is it, period. They are Islamic parties in secular countries who will take charge in the government where they cannot implement any Sharia law, by law. The same as Hizbullah in Lebanon, a religious political party in a secular based government. Because of Hizb being Islamic, we cannot call Lebanon an Islamic state, because it only maintains secular laws in all sectors of the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody here said Tunisia was an exclusively Islamic state or was going to be. The discussion is more on whether Ennahda could be considered an Islamic political party or "Islamist" movement even if it has a more "moderate" stance according to a Western news source.

Enhada is "moderate" according to al-Jazeera, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Yes, if they do that, then it is going to be an Alevi Islamic state, not a Shia Imamia or Sunni Islamic state. Just like we Shias allow 'muta' and going to 'graves' under a Shia Islamic government, but for example Sunni Salafis do not allow that. Tunisia is a majority Sunni country, if an Islamic party wants to implement Sharia, alcohol must be excluded from public's reach. That is not my opinion or your opinion, that is a FACT.

Yes, but you didn't clarify that. You just kinda said "If they're not trying to ban alcohol or impose hijab, they can't be called an Islamist party." And I just pointed out "It depends on which sect and/or subsect they represent and its interpretation of Islamic law."

I have no idea bro what you are trying to say here.. But, if I eat a chocolate, then I cannot call it a banana. This is as simple as that. I don't know why you try to make it like kind of personal interpretation of individuals or someone having a right to say something or not.

There are clear standards and basis for a: Communist government, Capitalist system, Islamic government, secular government, monarchy, and you name it. I am kind of getting tired of repeating myself.

Again, your comments suggested that you felt there was some universal definition of what conistituted an Islamist party and that one of the determining factors was a law imposing hijab, or rather I should say more specifically headscarves and such, as "hijab" doesn't necessarily refer to a specific article of clothing so much as it does to just modest dress in general, the definition of which, again, depends on the sect. Or the banning of alcohol. If said Islamist party didn't do these two things at least, they couldn't be called an Islamist party. If this was not what you meant, I apologize, but your posts gave that impression as you did not say that not doing those two things was just not something you'd expect from a specifically Tunisian Islamic political party but rather you said that it didn't do those two things you expected from such a Tunisian party and that meant, unanimously, it was not an Islamic party, 'nuff said. You see the two different impressions the statements give off. I apologize if you didn't mean what I was given the impression of.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This group is a joke, "Ennahda" are pretty much the new Ben Ali under the control of the US and France. These silly "Ennahda' people have made sure to come out and assure everyone that usurious banking and alcohol will still be flowing from the tap in Tunisia so all the Western tourists can come continue to spread filth and debauchery in Tunisia. What a true "Islamist" party out to implement Islam, NOT!

Edited by Haidar Saafi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a woman can petition for divorce, but she cannot divorce her husband in the same way he can divorce his wife unless that is made part of the marriage contract. However, in Tunisia it seems women by default have the same powers of divorce as a man, and that is unislamic.

So human rights cannot be accepted under Islam? If so - what a disgusting and dangerous religion!

What can be done to enlighten backward Muslims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

So human rights cannot be accepted under Islam? If so - what a disgusting and dangerous religion!

What can be done to enlighten backward Muslims?

What does having equal right to divorce have to do with human rights? Islam is very pro-human rights, it just has a different idea of what that means that the secular West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does having equal right to divorce have to do with human rights? Islam is very pro-human rights, it just has a different idea of what that means that the secular West.

If you wish to refuse your women equal rights, this might be up to you and your women. But it is a very good reason for your wives to demand divorce. And don´t try to force us to oppress our women or prevent us from trying to convince your oppressed women that they should not obey their stupid men! Or do you also mean that freedom of speech and religion has nothing to do with human rights?

(I really hope most Muslims are more tolerant than you.)

Edited by hejsansvejsan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

If you wish to refuse your women equal rights, this might be up to you and your women.

Men and women are different, so why should they have the same rights? In Islam, men have some rights that women don't, and vice-versa. This is normal, in view of the natural difference between the sexes. Men and women also have very different responsibilities in Islam, which don't at all favour men, however that is conveniently forgotten.

But it is a very good reason for your wives to demand divorce.

Islamic laws are a very good reason to ask for divorce? What kind of sense does this make? Surely it would be a better reason to leave the religion altogether?

And don´t try to force us to oppress our women or prevent us from trying to convince your oppressed women that they should not obey their stupid men!

You are actually oppressing your women, but you don't realise it. Forcing women to work and teaching them to value their career over a family is oppression, as is making them believe that they are little more than sex objects..

Or do you also mean that freedom of speech and religion has nothing to do with human rights?

Challenging what someone says is not the same as trying to silence them. If I wanted to do that, I would have reported you for calling Islam disgusting and dangerous.

(I really hope most Muslims are more tolerant than you.)

If you mean more tolerant in the sense of more secular, then sure, most of them probably are. However, if you mean tolerant in the real sense of the word, then no, probably not. But I don't find you to be very tolerant either, based on your reaction to any world view that differs from yours. This is also common among secular Muslims as well. Secularism is truly one of the most intolerant world views that exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men and women are different, so why should they have the same rights? In Islam, men have some rights that women don't, and vice-versa. This is normal, in view of the natural difference between the sexes. Men and women also have very different responsibilities in Islam, which don't at all favour men, however that is conveniently forgotten.

Islamic laws are a very good reason to ask for divorce? What kind of sense does this make? Surely it would be a better reason to leave the religion altogether?

You are actually oppressing your women, but you don't realise it. Forcing women to work and teaching them to value their career over a family is oppression, as is making them believe that they are little more than sex objects..

Challenging what someone says is not the same as trying to silence them. If I wanted to do that, I would have reported you for calling Islam disgusting and dangerous.

If you mean more tolerant in the sense of more secular, then sure, most of them probably are. However, if you mean tolerant in the real sense of the word, then no, probably not. But I don't find you to be very tolerant either, based on your reaction to any world view that differs from yours. This is also common among secular Muslims as well. Secularism is truly one of the most intolerant world views that exists.

You seem to have reading problems. Or are you just intentionally misinterpreting what I write:

I did not say Islamic laws is reason for divorce and I did not say Islam is a disgusting and dangerous religion!

But if Islam is incompatible with equal rights - which seems to be your interpretation (right?) - then it is not only a good reason for divorcing an oppressive husband, but a very good reason to leave the religion altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

You seem to have reading problems. Or are you just intentionally misinterpreting what I write:

I did not say Islamic laws is reason for divorce and I did not say Islam is a disgusting and dangerous religion!

But if Islam is incompatible with equal rights - which seems to be your interpretation (right?) - then it is not only a good reason for divorcing an oppressive husband, but a very good reason to leave the religion altogether.

What I am saying about Islamic law is fact, not interpretation, so therefore you are saying Islam is disgusting and dangerous. The standard Islamic mariage contract allows the husband to divorce his wife, but not the other way around. If she wants a divorce, then she would need to take her case to an Islamic judge, which the man doesn't have to do. On the other hand, she can be given the power of divorce in the marriage contract if the man agrees to it. There is nothing oppressive about any of this. As I said before, men have some rights that women don't have, while women have some rights men don't have. Men have many responsibilities in marriage, while women have very little. All you talk of equal right and oppression presupposes that men have all the rights women have, plus some extra ones, which is completely incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard Islamic mariage contract allows the husband to divorce his wife, but not the other way around. If she wants a divorce, then she would need to take her case to an Islamic judge, which the man doesn't have to do.

Even though I wanted to stay out of this topic on this particular thread....this sentence in the quotes above made me recall the day when my husband and I were in the sharia court in Beirut to register our marriage. While we were waiting for our turn there was a woman with her soon to be ex husband and some family members in the office, she was presenting her case. This woman was very loud so we could hear everything she was ranting about....BTW......everything worked out to her advantage :D much more so than if she would have been able to get a divorce without the judge.....her ex husband got the short end of the stick (but if what she was screaming and ranting about is true he deserved it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I am glad there are sensible Muslims who interpret Islamic law different. May God protect us from fanatics like you!

Who says it was interpreted differently? I never said it was impossible for a woman to divorce her husband in Islam, just that she can't do it in the same way a man can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says it was interpreted differently? I never said it was impossible for a woman to divorce her husband in Islam, just that she can't do it in the same way a man can.

Are you really unaware of the existance of different Islamic sects or that law can be interpreted in many different ways? Just compare e.g. the sharias of Iran and Saudiarabia!

In Sweden we have Muslims who interpret sharia in such a way that they are respectable Swedish citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

What I am saying about Islamic law is fact, not interpretation, so therefore you are saying Islam is disgusting and dangerous. The standard Islamic mariage contract allows the husband to divorce his wife, but not the other way around. If she wants a divorce, then she would need to take her case to an Islamic judge, which the man doesn't have to do. On the other hand, she can be given the power of divorce in the marriage contract if the man agrees to it. There is nothing oppressive about any of this. As I said before, men have some rights that women don't have, while women have some rights men don't have. Men have many responsibilities in marriage, while women have very little. All you talk of equal right and oppression presupposes that men have all the rights women have, plus some extra ones, which is completely incorrect.

Haider Husayn, I'm on your side, but I must add that the man has no right to just divorce the woman without reason. The Quran forbids the man to just divorce the woman with no real cause. hejsansvejsan most likely assumes you are saying the man can divorce a woman anytime and the woman has no say in the matter, which is completely non-Quranic. Divorce is a very serious matter that is not taken lightly and every step should be taken to prevent it from happening between two partners, provided it is not at the cost of another mandate of the religious marriage law. The man can't just divorce the woman because he's now bored of her. That's why we have temporary marriage in the first place because it doesn't require unexpected and complicated things like divorce to end once each partner has had their fun and wishes to move on.

Anyway, we should really get back to discussing Tunisia's future.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Haider Husayn, I'm on your side, but I must add that the man has no right to just divorce the woman without reason. The Quran forbids the man to just divorce the woman with no real cause. hejsansvejsan most likely assumes you are saying the man can divorce a woman anytime and the woman has no say in the matter, which is completely non-Quranic. Divorce is a very serious matter that is not taken lightly and every step should be taken to prevent it from happening between two partners, provided it is not at the cost of another mandate of the religious marriage law. The man can't just divorce the woman because he's now bored of her. That's why we have temporary marriage in the first place because it doesn't require unexpected and complicated things like divorce to end once each partner has had their fun and wishes to move on.

Technically, the man can divorce his wife for no reason, but he would then be committing a grave sin. There is nothing physically stopping him from divorcing her however.

Are you really unaware of the existance of different Islamic sects or that law can be interpreted in many different ways? Just compare e.g. the sharias of Iran and Saudiarabia!

Yes, I'm familiar with the different sects, but among mainstream Muslims that form the overwhelming majority, there is no difference that I know of on this issue. In fact, it is far easier to divorce a woman in Sunni Islam than in Shia Islam. In certain Sunnis schools of thought, simply jokingly saying to your wife three times that you want to divorce her would constitute an irrevocable divorce. You could even do it by phone. On the other hand, Shia law requires 2 witnesses in order for divorce to be valid, and so-called 'triple talaq' is not allowed.

In Sweden we have Muslims who interpret sharia in such a way that they are respectable Swedish citizens.

I fail to see how any of my beliefs would prevent me from complying with Swedish law. A woman can go and get a secular divorce if she wants, but it won't be a valid Islamic divorce, and if she marries anyone else without an Islamic divorce, she will be committing adultery in the eyes of God and other Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see what the big deal about all of this divorce talk is because even in most secular countries you have to go through a process and wait. Here they have no fault divorce or irreconcilable differences, but you still have to wait a few months and up to a year and sometimes even see a judge before the process is complete. Besides this topic is about Tunisia's new elected party not divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a non issue, I am sure the women will still be able to get divorced if they want, even if the process is different than before. Also if a man goes and divorces a woman for no reason she is better off without him. Point being even if secular countries there is still a process for divorce and alot of the time it takes longer than people would like it to take, on top of that most of the time they even divorce for stupid reasons like being bored. So I don't see why people have to complain about it if this is what the people who actually live there elected.

Edited by ImAli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...