double standards

tl;dr edition

to any egyptian reading this - vote for whoever you think is best for egypt’s future, but in the process, never forget the importance of respect and character in such difficult times. i find these verses particularly relevant to the situation in egypt today and important for every egyptian to contemplate over (irrespective of who they support in the elections).

i am really saddened by the double standards we are seeing in egypt. we stood in tahrir, had shifts of nightly patrols guarding our homes and suffered a period of instability and turmoil to dispose of a tyrant and bring about better conditions and human rights.

here we are today - you support x and i support y - but guess what, we’re both egyptians, and we both want the best for this country. i completely disagree with you that ‘x’ is best for the country, but you know what, that doesn’t matter - it’s my opinion and i am entitled to it, and that’s what’s awesome - i respect you and you respect me, but we each vote for whoever we think is best.

what’s not awesome, however, is double standards. consider “a person is innocent until proven guilty,” and “a person is entitled to a speedy and public trial with an impartial jury.” should these be part of our new egyptian government or not?

if no, then why did we have a revolution to start with? if yes, then why do we think this should only apply to “those we agree with?”

so regardless of who you or i think is best for egypt’s future, it behooves us as egyptians to ascertain that an unbiased, honorable committee oversees the elections - so that your candidate has a fair shot of winning rather than having fixed elections.

what does this means? it means not believing everything we hear and making these people accountable. take for example dr. 7azem’s case - there are only two possibilities - his mother (ra7imaha Allah) had the us citizenship or she didn’t. it’s a very easy thing for the egyptian government to find out - all they have to do is contact the us department of homeland security and find out.

suppose the department of homeland security says, “yes, she was a citizen, and she gained her citizenship on this particular date.” great - then advertise and make this information publicly available to everyone so there remains no doubt about the matter - fitnah averted and people can move on with their lives. the fact that they refuse to present any evidence to people that is acceptable suggests that this election committee still has ties to the previous government.

speaking of the previous government, they still have their money, their contacts, and they are neither dead nor banished from the country. irrespective of who becomes president, the bigger question is “why aren’t these people being brought to justice?”