Hey now, my local DMV (and general government bureacracy) is extremely efficient. I was shocked as I've never seen anything close to the level of organization they have in this state in the places I've lived before. ;) That being said, I don't believe in the illuminati. I'm sure there are shady dealings, things that go on behind the scenes, and corporations reaping financial benefits off the misfortune of others, however a global worldwide conspiracy seems unlikely. I don't entirely know what people who believe in the illuminati think as it isn't something I've ever spent a significant amount of time looking into.

Yes, definitely. I did a final project, years ago, for an international studies course on what could be done to remedy human rights' situations like this without forcing compromises in religious beliefs for the population and with respect to cultural norms. It is still something I'm very interested in pursuing but it is a long-term issue that will take time, not a quick fix IMO.

Here is a case where DNA and physical evidence was used without a confession: http://www.emirates247.com/crime/local/death-for-employer-who-raped-job-seeker-2012-07-31-1.469605 Unless they changed the law since 2012 (when they were still regularly using DNA to prove rape cases), then they accept those things as proof.

And they are wrong. And don't have legitimate evidence to back themselves up. They are using the illusion of a religious basis to further political and misogynistic aims as many groups do all over the place. I know that you aren't CR, but I meant that the reference was to her, not you. I am NOT blaming the victim. I suppose you hear what you want to hear rather than what is actually said. I said I couldn't fathom why they would act the way they did and then, because I am from a similar cultural background, I theorized that perhaps the reason was because the idea of date rape is foreign to them. That isn't OK. It doesn't make it acceptable for them to treat a victim that way even if they don't understand it. I was trying to provide some possible context for how they might've gone so wrong, not to excuse their behavior or give them some sort of justification. I was simply trying to point out that it wasn't so much the idea of rape in general that they had trouble with but that they don't yet grasp this form of rape as a concept because it is not very common within the culture itself since their are pretty strict rules regarding interaction between genders. I hope this clarifies and does not seem like I'm further blaming the victim. My point was, as La Texican said, not the UAE is behind and backwards in this regard (50+ years), but not quite as behind as she originally thought at first read (ie thousands of years). Um, no. I never in any way, shape, or form said that. Way to pull something out of something else and completely warp it out of the realm of sensibility. If you know that a country has a law that criminalizes extramarital sex, maybe don't take a guy out to the beach and have (consensual) sex with him there and then get caught, and then protest the fact that you were arrested despite knowing you were breaking a law. Rape is a completely different animal. I believe the wiki picture was of the Taliban in Afghanistan and they did do those kinds of things so probably factual. I don't know why they didn't label it as the Taliban.

I think it is their law and it is not OUR business. It is the law of the country as desired by the people who inhabit it. I think that people should respect the laws of the countries they visit as they, in turn, expect others to respect the laws of their own country when they visit. I acknowledge that the interpretation of shariah law differs. The way it differs however, is not a major difference and never falls into the category of the types of things we are discussing. It may differ in what it IS, but it is clear in what it is NOT. And it is not charging or persecuting rape victims.

That is a stunning lack of self-awareness if I ever saw one.

The pre-marital/exta-marital sex laws are pretty well known. They usually don't prosecute expats for it though. However, I'd assume that if you find a law that does not allow extramarital consensual sex problematic and don't want to risk prosecution for it, you would not go to the UAE and have sex, particularly not in a public manner. I don't necessarily think they need to change their laws (though those laws should NEVER apply to rape and personally, I don't care for them to apply to expats) on that matter but that they should be consistent instead of making people unsure of whether that would actually be an issue (speaking consensual here). There are many laws people obey that they disagree with and find unfair. I think the same courtesy should be extended when going to a country where something is clearly illegal and not breaking the law. And here I go again before someone accuses me of victim blaming above, I am referring to ChocolateReign's point that they should get rid of the extramarital sex laws in the first place for consensual encounters. Rape should be prosecuted, rape victims should NEVER be prosecuted, even if you can't prove rape and it is clear that a sexual encounter happened and you suspect it might have been consensual. The rape allegation should be enough to void the sex charge. Seriously, did you read the other posts or are you just assuming what I've said. Firstly, I mentioned in one of the earlier posts that I was using the term "date rape" although it was not a date as I did not know a better term to encompass the situation. I think I mentioned in my first post that, just as in the US it is still hard for some people to grasp the idea that is it never OK to force a woman to have sex, even if she's been drinking, flirting, or you think she's giving you some sort of invitation, no means no, many ME countries are still behind the times in understanding what rape is when it doesn't take place in the way they traditionally see it. Many would hear that she had been drinking and asked the guy to take her to her room and see that the medical exam does not show signs of rape (probably because she was unconscious) and he says it was consensual but she just regretted it and not understand that that could still be rape. I've said repeatedly and in depth that prosecuting the women is wrong headed. It isn't attacking Islam to say that these women shouldn't have been treated like that, my entire posts and point were based on the fact this may be the law of the land but it isn't sharia. My references were to ChocolateReign's responses to me in which she has made it clear that Qur'anic law is the cause of all misogyny and female oppression in those countries, not the misapplication of that law because the common thread is that they're calling it shariah.

Wow, just lovely. I'm done with this thread (though I owe Dandelion a revisit for the info she requested). I don't know how else I can NOT blame the victim since I'm practically jumping up and down saying 'it isn't her fault, it doesn't matter whether she was drunk or even if she had invited him to her room or tried to initiate something! but I suppose I'll just be accused of it because I won't say that my religious book is flawed as you'd like me too. Awesome tolerance there. I'll say it anyway, just for kicks. Yes, the second case, sharia was misapplied. There is no circumstance in which you would charge a rape victim even if you didn't have enough to prosecute the offenders. The UAE does prosecute rapes on physical evidence so the 'only 4 witnesses' thing is not correct. I don't know why they are treating these specific cases in this way but like La Texican said, it is more likely they just don't understand or recognize date rape. A female witness is not worth less than a male witness except in one specific instance regarding business matters. This applies to Muslim societies where the family role tends to be different (and even then, the business contract aspect seems to be seldom enforced from what I've seen). Most scholars would not apply it to other cultures/faiths. Before Islam came along, most cultures did not allow women to get any inheritance at all. The reason that inheritance is in different amounts is that Islamically the husband/father bears complete financial responsibility for his family and the woman is not required to pay for household expenses, any money she gets is her own to spend as she wishes and the burden of support is on the male-relatives. Even if she has a job, her income is hers and her husband is still supposed to support her financially. She could help out of the goodness of her heart but she cannot be compelled to. Rape can be prosecuted with EVIDENCE. And I just said that many say a female witness is sufficient (some say only one woman, for example) to prove the case. You're generalizing a whole faith based on the views of some. I don't understand why you continue to ignore my point that in the same cultures you are claiming sharia is the common thread, other faiths have similar atrocities (some even worse) because it is CULTURE and they are using the word sharia to represent their actions so they will appear that they cannot be questioned. If you look at half the cases in Pakistan and Iran, for example, there are many cases (like forcing a victim to marry her rapist or prosecuting rape victims or raping a woman to restore honor to the family for something her brother did) where you cannot find a shred of textual evidence to support it and plenty against it, yet you insist that it is sharia and it is just my say-so that it is wrong. Honestly, I'm not bothered a tad that you so vehemently disagree with me, that is totally your right. I do think, though, that some of your posts are pretty rude and hope that I'm not taking personal jabs at you or your intellect. 1. UAE DOES prosecute with physical evidence and DNA. Gender of witnesses is an issue in Emirati law, not necessarily religious law. 2. Actually, local women DO report. The UAE tends to be more modern in some cases than others. When I looked it up, the majority of cases prosecuted ending in death penalty involved locals. In one case, a woman was interviewing for a job and was raped by the boss (prosecuted on physical evidence, no witnesses), in another, she was grabbed and raped in the desert (physical evidence + confession when confronted with physical evidence). The issue is that they do not understand the concept of date rape but will generally take pains to prosecute (or at least, leave alone a victim in a case they can't prove) rape when it occurs under those type of scenarios.

Just to answer you, some countries do use different capital punishments that are more compatible with their system. I don't know of any Muslim countries using lethal injection because it isn't an efficient means for them, I suppose they are sticking in their comfort zone for lack of a better word. My point was that the punishment for a rapist tends to be a pretty rough death if you're looking for the actual punishment for the offense and stoning is the more merciful of the means. I don't really see why a rapist or cold-blooded murderer deserves a painless death. I don't know that UAE actually enforces the capital punishment on rape (I'm really not sure though I am not saying it isn't) but the most recent high profile case I remember was one of the first instances of capital punishment in a long long time and I believe it was done by firing squad. The crime was the rape and murder of a 3 year old boy, so personally, I think even that was kinder than what he deserved. Additionally, the family of the victim has the option to 'pardon' the killer to life in prison and a financial settlement. OK, I just looked it up and it appears the have awarded death penalty in rape cases and they did NOT require 4 witnesses or a confession. The victim had DNA and medical evidence proving that she was raped upon examination and they prosecuted the attacker and sentenced him to death.

I don't believe my religion sees women as lesser human beings. Don't put words in my mouth. Your interpretation is that women are less based on what I've said. I'm sure you would have the same interpretation of Christian faiths that have similar views (like women submitting to their husband or the like). In some cases, I might even feel the same as you on those beliefs (of other faiths) because they are different from my own. Martha mentioned upthread that different cultures and different faiths have different views on how they respect women. They still see it as giving them equal respect but in terms of how that respect is done, it is different. You have your definition of respect and others have theirs. In your eyes, that might not be respect at all but in their eyes, they still believe women are equal (and women ARE equal in the sight of God). Perhaps to you, that is not true equality, and you are entitled to feel that way. But, I am by no means saying that I see women as lesser beings and it doesn't matter. Not that anything I say under the circumstances will convince you otherwise.

Naturally, you will think a difference between a woman and man witness would be unfair, I can understand your feelings on that. As I mentioned, not everyone agrees that there is a difference, whether the concept applies generally or specifically on the one issue (contractual business matters). That is a far cry from sharia law prosecutes women for crimes differently or has different punishments depending on the gender. The punishment and crimes are viewed as the same, regardless of the gender of the one who committed it. As to why many nations that CLAIM to practice some form of sharia have discriminatory laws and practices that are directed solely at women, it is a matter of culture. The same countries that implement it in some form are culturally oppressive toward women and find that it is easier to make people (especially people who are uneducated in religious matters) complacent toward things that are clearly abhorrent if they believe that these laws are in place because God ordained them. In many of these countries, one sees that non-Muslims do the same things and have similar laws and practices despite the fact that they don't claim "sharia". Examples that come to mind are the instance of Christian honor killings (I believe the Druze might do this as well) in Arab countries, bride-burning and sati for Hindus, forced marriage and prosecution for rape victims in rural Hindu villages...etc.

She admitted she was drinking in her own relation of the story and a blood alcohol test confirmed that when they did the medical exam. Of course, that is irrelevant because it didn't make it OK for her to be raped, regardless of whether she had drank or not. They were drinking there because alcohol is not criminalized in the Emirate of Dubai (the other emirates, yes) and it is extremely common for expats and business people to drink in the hotel bars. There are laws against be intoxicated in public spaces that are seldom enforced. Yes, they should stay home if that is a problem for them. Islam puts the burden of men keeping it in their pants on the men, they have no right to make such a rule but when you're talking about rural villages in Pakistan, that is far from the most egregious thing they've done under the banner of Islamic law. Many would disagree with you considering that many people (from all countries) are in favor of capital punishments and many would not mind to see it enforced on rapists. I will say that is one law I am very proud of in my faith. IMO, a rapist deserves the death penalty. Because it isn't illegal in Dubai. Intoxication in public spaces is. Actually, this is an area of contention and a common misconception. In the Qur'an, it doesn't explicitly say there needs to be 4 adult male witnesses only to prove a crime. What is referred to is regarding business contracts that they would be carried out by 1 male witness or 2 women witnesses. Many schools of thought take this to mean that the same would be applied in cases of criminal matters. However, there are other schools of thought who believe that the male and female witness are equal in validity in criminal matters or that, at very least, when it is a matter of which the woman would have intimate knowledge (such as witnessing a rape since a woman would clearly know what a rape looks like), that her testimony is sufficient. If a woman is accused of adultery, her testimony cancels out the one against her. There are other cases referring to witnesses where females and males are not differentiated from. For the schools of thought that DO differentiate, it is based on the fact that many Muslims believe in complementarianism, that men and women are equal in status but have different strengths and weaknesses, and in some cases, different roles. The 'male witness' was a way to ease the burden of testimony off of women dealing with burdens (like pregnancy, nursing, PPD...etc). Obviously, many will disagree and I'm not asking you to change your views or even respect these views but just to explain where that is coming from and that it is not something written in stone, some scholars do not differentiate between the testimony of either gender. Additionally, testimony (of men) requires other specific traits. These days, judicial system will often take anyone but in the past, the person had to be of upstanding moral and religious character and could not ever have been known to speak a word of untruth. I agree though I don't think these laws are so much based on scholars as they are based on politicians and lawmakers who implement their own bias. That can happen with any law in any system and had they been following the religious law as written, they would not be prosecuting her.

This explains the actual story pretty well according to her: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/20/world/meast/uae-norway-rape-controversy/index.html Essentially, she had a bit to drink at the bar and asked the male co-worker (who I think had also been drinking) to walk her to her hotel room as the hotel was large and she thought she might get lost. When they got to a door (she said it wasn't her room door but a different one) he yanked her inside by her purse. She then sat down and drank a bottle of water she had been sipping with the intention to excuse herself in a bit and say she felt fine. That is the last thing she remembers before she woke up to him assaulting her. When a hotel employee came for a wakeup call she ran down and asked for the authorities to be called. They took statements, insinuated that she just didn't enjoy the sex, and did a medical exam. Afterwords she was charged and, on the advice of her lawyer, withdrew the allegation of rape and said the sex was consensual (which I think caused the perjury charge to be added).

Sure thing. It may get me a day or 2 to write up a good response and find a place that has direct sources (as I have a big paper to do tomorrow) but I will try to get some together (unless someone beats me to it). I mentioned that *some* people interpret 4 witnesses OR a confession OR concrete evidence (an example of this would be an accusation of rape accompanied by DNA/forensic evidence and physical/medical evidence of rape) as being necessary to prosecute rape since rape is a capital offense in actual shariah law (and by capital, I don't mean lethal injection, but likely stoning the rapist. A few other options are given but stoning is probably the most pleasant of them). Other scholars have said simply the accusation of the woman is enough and that if she is not truthful then she will answer for it before her Lord. I tend to err on the former because, although I think it is well deserved in the case of rape and would like to see rapists prosecuted and do not want women to feel their words is not enough, there should still be some sort of burden of proof when you're talking about executing someone. In addition to the punishment (ie death), a rapist is required to make a financial settlement to the woman before it is carried out. I don't understand why she is being prosecuted for participating either. Obviously that is not Islamic law. I'm not sure why, even according to Emirati law they are doing it, especially given how rarely they actually prosecute such things there, why on earth would they do that to a rape victim? I think that is why some people are questioning whether there is more to the story or if they are really just incompetent buffoons acting completely nonsensically. I would say that what I read was not clear regarding an investigation so we don't actually know whether or not they found evidence to support or exonerate. The article I read mentioned that she was examined at the hospital and everything so it seemed to start off like an investigation and go downhill from there. I'm sticking by my guess that it may have been what I mentioned above and the authorities just don't understand the concept of date-rape (for lack of a better word, rape under circumstances where the person might've originally thought things were going to be consensual and were turned down or asked to stop and went on to the rape the woman). She was also charged with perjury, which again seems weird. It appears they are trying to make it out as though she made a false allegation after consensual sex but even so, if you can't prove that she lied and you also can't prove she was raped, it makes no sense whatsoever to arrest her and prosecute her.

Oh dear. Read the article the other day, saw the post here today and didn't have the time to respond nor did I want to see what kind of insults it devolved into but seeing the way the thread turned, I supposed it would be better that I did respond. Yeah, offensive and not based on fact. I don't think your understanding of sharia is based on what is actually in the Qur'an that you claim to have read. Additionally, many who are familiar with the laws in the UAE (including myself and many I know who live there) would not imagine that they'd actually prosecute a rape victim, especially given that they tend to turn a blind eye to extramarital sex particularly when it is amongst expats and almost never prosecute intoxication in Dubai since alcohol is not criminalized there the way it is in the other emirates. Just to clarify for those of you who continue to equate shariah and laws of specific countries that contain the bias of the lawmakers: - In a case like this, if there isn't enough evidence to convict on rape, shariah still wouldn't allow you to prosecute the woman for adultery. Both parties are innocent until proven guilty. - The reason many countries make it so difficult to prove rape (ie requiring confessions or a ton of witnesses) is that, as opposed to here where a rapist convicted on testimony might sit in prison for some years and possibly get parole, under actual Islamic law, the crime of rape would carry a death sentence so people need to have irrefutable proof. Many countries are incorporating dna and medical evidence in more too and some countries do lifelong imprisonment instead of execution. Now, personally, I'm lost as to why they would charge her. It seems truly ridiculous and is made even more absurd that they wouldn't be thinking 'politically' about the international ramifications of charging a "possible" (in their eyes) rape victim who is a Western expat and will therefore be an international incident. Ok, I have to say, I understand how everyone got this impression and why it was quite upsetting. I read through Um Musa's post and I was nodding my head and thinking 'I agree' until the last 2(?) paragraphs when it DID sound like victim blaming. HOWEVER, she has clarified multiple times that that was not at all what she meant. I think that she did not realize what it sounded like when she wrote it. I know Um Musa from elsewhere and she is a big advocate for women's rights in Islam and would NEVER blame the victim, if I didn't know that I'd probably think otherwise of the post, but I do believe she didn't mean this at all. The one thing I was going to mention regarding the alcohol and the co-worker being in her room is that perhaps it was a case similar to a date rape case where there was some sort of relationship or something that would give witnesses the idea of a relationship but at some point she did not want to sleep with him and he forced himself on her and raped her. The reason that came to mind is that it is not uncommon for some people from other cultures to not understand the concept of date rape. I don't find that surprising at all given that surveys have shown a huge number of Americans still believe that it is OK for a man to force a woman to have sex with him if she invited him to her room or was making out with him on the bed and she refused to sleep with him. You and I know that it doesn't matter how far they went together or what she did, if she told him no, it was rape. However, like I said, while rape is a familiar idea in most cultures, in conservative Muslim cultures where dating is not a societal norm in itself and it would be almost unheard of for that situation to occur, the idea of date rape is not one that many people understand or are familiar with. Islam does not diffrentiate between how rape occurs. The act of forcing a woman to perform a sexual act of any sort, no matter the circumstances, is enough to warrant a punishment (if not proven in this life, then no doubt in the next). Lastly, the point I thought that Um Musa was trying to make was that, in truth, we don't know the whole story and can only make judgments based on the info we have. I remember a case some years ago in one of the Gulf countries that was a big headliner about a rape victim being punished for adultery and being sentenced to lashes. I was so horrified by that, especially reading the news here, and did not understand how someone could possible do such a thing. I then read the Arabic papers (some of which were supposedly translated onto the English articles I first read) and the story painted a completely different picture (ie that the woman DID commit a crime and that she wasn't raped but made a false allegation when she was caught in the act of the crime. Both she and the other person involved confessed AND physical evidence supported that she had lied) that made more sense as to why they were taking the actions they were and this was corroborated by local sources in my own family as it was a high-profile case locally. In the end, international pressure caused the woman to be pardoned. I assume that the same will happen in this case (and hopefully the rapist may be brought up on some actual charges) as the woman is clearly innocent. Shariah law IS fair. The way it is implemented in countries is NOT. Shariah law, to me, is the law laid out clearly in the Qur'an and ahadith. What people are doing in their own governments under the label of shariah is not the same thing. I find it unfortunate how, as much as people criticize other cultures and religions for oppressing their women, I often feel I am oppressed most by people who insist to put me in a box because I adhere to conservative Islam and believe in shariah. I'm also currently pursuing a Social Work degree to work with rape victims and battered women and am trying to volunteer as a rape crisis counselor. Believing in shariah is a large part of what has instilled a strong sense of social justice and the belief that not only are those things wrong, but that I have a personal responsibility to do what I can to stop it in my own community. No. If a woman gets drunk and invites the guy to her room, that does not equal consent and he has no right to rape her. No man ever has the right to rape a woman. Ever. Islam DID give women the right to marry without force. In Islam, forcing a girl to marry someone she doesn't want to is a big sin and if she does not consent to the marriage, the marriage is considered invalid, any sexual relationship is considered unlawful, and the children coming from such a marriage (that the woman was forced into and did not consent to) would be considered illegitimate. People may choose to exploit things for their personal gain and force women into marriages they do not agree to but they will have to answer to God for that and Islam is pretty clear on that matter.

Yes. Clothing regulations aren't enforced until puberty. Before that it is really more based on the comfort of the parents/child. It is not uncommon, though, for children to ask to don religious garb much younger than they would be required at to imitate what they see around them.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

Not everyone who has an opinion let the media make their judgements. Based on the evidence I read and the videos of the trial, my opinion IS that Zimmerman was wrong and that he is not being truthful. However, the prosecution did not do a good job in proving their case and did not, by legal standards, prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is almost like, as with the Casey Anthony case, they just assume that the media has done their job for them and they don't have to work up a strategic prosecution. I'm seriously baffled by the mishandling of these high-profile cases. On the other hand, the law worked and by the standard of the law he should have been acquitted. The problem is that the law likely would not have 'worked' if Travyon Martin was an attractive, teenage, white female and Zimmerman would be rotting in jail. The problem is, a Black woman fired warning shots at a man who had a history of battering her and putting her in the hospital, in 'self-defense' and because she didn't shoot to kill, she is going to be living in a jail cell for the next 20 years. The problem is, the law only seems to work for a select group of people so while the law may be served, justice may not necessarily be.

There is a dress code for both, though the way it is enforced tends to differ and the views of what it encompasses may differ among people (in the same way the way women cover does). The view I follow and the view that I believe is strongest with the evidence is that men have to cover from navel to knee absolutely, they cannot wear clothes that are form-fitting (ie no tight pants for example) and should instead also dress loosely and modestly, some schools believe that it is disliked for them to uncover their chests and as mentioned upthread they should not wear things purposely trying to draw sexual attraction to themselves. Men are also not supposed to remove hair from their beards (shave, trim...etc) and some scholars consider it highly recommended that they cover their head with some sort of covering (be it a 'kufi', 'ghutra', etc). Many try to emulate the dress of the Muslims of the past and wear thawb or a garment that on the bottom is more like a wrap around skirt (very popular in Yemen and South Asian cultures). They cannot wear gold or silk. And they have the responsibility to always lower their gaze (whether he feels desire or not) and behave modestly in interactions with opposite gender. There is a difference of opinion in views on women covering when only around other women but the view I take considers that she is only obligated to cover from navel to knee in front of other women and pre-pubescent boys (so, for example, breastfeeding without a cover in front of other women is no issue), when just around your husband in your home you could walk around in anything (or nothing), and when in the home with male family members (who you don't have to cover your hair in front of) to dress reasonably (ie covered from navel to knee and not topless). Outside and around unrelated men, again scholars differ anywhere from wearing a headscarf and loose, long top w/ loose pants, headscarf and top/skirt, headscarf and abaya (long dress) only, to covering everything except the eyes. There is evidence to support the various points so most tend to go with what they feel is most convincing and what makes the most sense based on the textual evidence. Women are also not supposed to wear perfume outside (or with unrelated men) or makeup. People differ over whether the feet are included in what should be covered or not.

^ This exact thing happened to me at the farmer's market. When my youngest was hospitalized, he was only 3 weeks old and the hospital was very bf-friendly. Since all his nurses were women, I would feed the baby without any cover or anything and he was going through a stage (since he was sick) where all he wanted to do was lay on my chest/stomach, nurse and cuddle the whole day. His doctor in the PICU was awesome and always knocked and waited for me to tell him to come in, that I was covered...etc, and made sure I was comfortable before he came in. One day, I was nursing the baby and he popped off, full and snoozy, so I let him rest on my chest as I laid on the bed they had provided for me and watched the cooking network. Doc came in and asked permission, and I told him it was fine and he had several med students with him. I leaned over to lay the baby on his back on the bed so he could examine him and after a moment, realized, to my horror, that the way my clothes were, the baby was covering up my chest so every person in the room was getting a full shot of the girls (I *think* at least that I had remembered to tuck them back into a bra lol). I quickly grabbed the blanket and pulled it up to my chest and said to the doctor 'um..I...um...*blush blush*' lol and he took mercy on me and turned to the med students and told them all to turn around (toward the wall) and he did the same until I was settled and covered up. LOL.

Thank you! Ramadan Mubarak everyone!

Roadrunner, yep...that is my meaning. Bill, with all due respect (in the US way not the UK way ;) ), when you look at the people who are against Morsi and for the military takeover, they tend to be the type of people you'd be talking about (educated, journalists, liberals...etc), not the common people. There are plenty of Morsi supporters who are not members of the MB. You can see them in the streets protesting (and being shot at right now by the military, 3 people been killed so far by the military for protesting), you can see them even online arguing with the pro-coup people. I don't think either way is going to go well for the Egyptians because a military takeover is very likely to lead back into another Mubarak and they are already acting in ways that most in the West would find objectionable (shutting down media that is not for them, arresting people who are publicly criticising them, attacking protesters...etc). It is not a *good* thing. It is just a different type of bad thing than what they're dealing with with Morsi. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=351466191623389&set=a.351452318291443.1073741826.351446824958659&type=1&relevant_count=1 ^That is a picture of the pro-Morsi protests in Cairo. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201375101831920747.html ^ Interesting op ed. Hopefully it is clear from my posts, I'm not pro-anyone. I honestly don't really care who 'wins', I just feel that it will not be a good outcome either way.

#1 was a complicated pregnancy and ended with a c/s and premature baby. Birth was $35,000 not including hospitalization and care for the premature baby which brought the cost up to 100,000 before insurance. #2 was a natural homebirth with a midwife which was only $3,500, I believe. However, because of the complications I needed high-risk OB care during pregnancy so that bill was probably close to $20,000 before insurance.

I said overthrew or revolted against. All of those people I listed were revolted against or had significant movements against them, whether or not said movements were successful. The excuses used were often the same excuses used in the current revolution. I understand why you're misunderstanding my point, because my point is that Egyptians have a long history of this sort of thing and always end up with some form of autocrat in the end. They aren't ready for 'democracy' if that is truly what they want. On another note, I think the Western media is getting more of an impression that the majority are against Morsi and want him gone. There are some pretty major pro-morsi protests going on right now and the pro-Morsi media has been shut down so people are marching in support of him. The military has already opened fire on the pro-Morsi protesters and now there is widespread fighting between the two groups. I know that a lot of what I've heard on the news here gave me the idea that Egyptians in general do not want him but my friends who are currently in Egypt tell me that there is an extremely large number of people who are pro-Morsi and are demonstrating right now and feel that this is a military coup not based on the wishes of the people. The pro-military people, on the other hand, are saying they are not ready for democracy and don't want one because the majority would choose Morsi. So, make of that what you will.

You're right. Several decades is the wrong term. But they overthrew OR revolted against: King Farouk, Fuad Thani (II), Mohamed Naguib, Gamal AbdelNasser, Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, and now Mohammed Morsi. Hard to be sympathetic for that. They insisted they wanted a "democracy", elected someone (Morsi) and now have decided they don't like him so they've got rid of him too. Kind of defeats the purpose of a democracy. He still has plenty of supporters but it seems like the 'unrepresented minority' was quite large. Right now, my Egyptian friends are pretty split over whether they are for the military takeover or for Morsi and they seem to be arguing amongst eachother on FB so interesting to watch! LOL, that was a funny thing to say. I honestly didn't even catch that.