This week in Islam

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

???   I was uncertain about something Goddess posted, you clarified, it made sense to me, so I responded and that means "I don't like the answer"?    I feel like I'm missing some whole thought process here.   

 

True, and I suppose they are when people notice them.   Perhaps if terrorists were coming out of those countries, after decades of interference from other, more powerful countries including invasions based on false premises etc, there'd be a ban on Christians along with claims about Christianity being a barbaric religion, and it's adherents possessing anti-Canadian values etc.  

And I'd be called an un-Canadian, mindless defender of a barbaric faith as I pointed out endlessly that the actions of a few hundred thousand Christians against the actions of all 2.2 billion of them did not define Christianity and all Christians.

 

It read like you weren't overly happy with my response.  Sorry if I misinterpreted.

It's not terrorists coming out of countries that make them noticable.  It's the extent of religious control over their societies that does that.  The two things, religious control over the population of a country and Islamic terrorism stemming from that country, are relateable, I suppose, but the relationship is not required to validate a discussion about how wrong is the former.

And no, you wouldn't be called anything if it was demonstrably true.

Edited February 4, 2017 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

When I see neighbor women getting cuffed across the back of the head, have my hand slapped away by a man because I dared to hand food tickets to his wife instead of their 6 year old son, get assaulted because I dared to tell a man No on something he's being clearly unreasonable about, when I can't accept a job offer in Saudi because others who have worked there warn me about how I'll be treated and/or killed, when I see a group of Muslims attack an Israeli girl on a hometown Facebook page telling her she should kill herself and they hope all her family in Israel are killed.....yes, it is tolerated and acceptable. It makes me wonder if they treat their wives like that public, how much worse is it at home? But I dare not say anything or I'm a racist Islamophobe.

 

You are correct, I have never seen any of that among my Muslim family, friends or neighbors.   If I did, I would be extremely upset.   I have seen some of that among non-Muslim people (not friends, family or neighbors), but there are a lot more non-Muslims than Muslims so that's probably why.   I have been both beaten and raped by men (different men), who were not Muslim, while in Canada.

While in Egypt, I was propositioned and groped.   My sister tells a story of being followed and harassed by men in a car not long after moving there.   Being groped and propositioned has also happened to me (and my sister) in Canada, by non-Muslims.  My sister, being significantly cuter than me, had more harassment on the streets of Canada by non-Muslim men.   So it's really hard for me to believe that this behavior is at all specific to Islam, or Muslims.   I think in Canada, it's a holdover from when Christian type patriarchy was much more embedded in Canadian society than it is now.   I think that same patriarchy exists in Islam, and it's still embedded in their society in the same way it was in Canada 50 or 60 years ago.

That's why I find it so hard to understand why people say "It's an Islamic thing" when any even cursory glance around the world shows the same behavior by people who are not Muslim.   This is not a denial of the problems in those countries or even in Muslim families and Muslim communities in Canada.   At the same time, you can find the exact same problems in closed Christian communities in Canada - so again, why focus on Islam as the 'reason'?   That is really what I don't understand.     

If there is a problem with spousal abuse that needs to be addressed, we should address it certainly, but we can't pretend it's only an issue in Muslim communities.   Outreach into communities where patriarchal beliefs are common would be a good idea in my opinion, whether those communities are Muslim, Sikh or Christian.  

 

 

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

It's not terrorists coming out of countries that make them noticable.  It's the extent of religious control over their societies that does that.  The two things, religious control over the population of a country and Islamic terrorism stemming from that country, are relateable, I suppose, but the relationship is not required to validate a discussion about how wrong is the former.

 

1

This Pew Research suggests that disapproval of homosexuality is related to religiosity, regardless of religion practiced.   The more religious a society is, the less acceptable homosexuality is.  This Oxford study found the same relationship among 20 European countries.   Again, this suggests to me that the mere fact of high religiosity in a country is a better predictor of poor human rights than *which* religion holds sway in a society.   Even in Canada the rights of women, minorities, gays and LGBT have increased as religiosity has decreased.

I think that terrorism in this context is much more related to the political situation in the Middle East, and that it would have occurred even if the predominant religion were Christianity, Buddhism or none.  But this is not an idea most people in the West want to entertain since it implies some culpability on our part for creating a situation in which terrorists have come to exist.    This guy explains it rather well, I think.  

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Contrary to your version of the immigration systems both here and in the US, refugees/immigrants are highly vetted

You have zero information to conclude that, especially with regard to immigrants. Whereas I've already posted uncontradicted information to the contary, including snippets which come from a book Kellie Leitch keeps quoting. Here's more.

Dr. Satzewich eventually got the access he required to write his book, Points of Entry: How Canada's Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In, and, as a result, we now have valuable insight into how our immigration system works.

By and large our immigration system works well, but there are some things about the system that are concerning. Immigration officers meet only a handful of the people whose applications they process. The result is the loss of "opportunities to assess credibility and risk" (page 216).

Testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence tells us that "only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants receive an interview with a visa officer before they come to Canada" (page 14). That means that, in a year like last year, when more than 300,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada, only about 30,000 people were interviewed by a trained immigration official.

The reason for the lack of interviews is the focus on achieving predetermined quotas. The immigration bureaucracy, led by immigration ministers of different stripes, has put greater importance on the number of people who are admitted to Canada each year, rather than ensuring that those who are admitted will integrate well into our communities.

Canada's immigration officials are pressured to make decisions on at least seventy-five files a day meaning decisions are made in about three minutes — not including the time spent writing up notes.

As Dr. Satzewich writes, "time and productivity pressures provided the overarching context for decision making" (page 196). One immigration officer said, "Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. … Risk management means closing your eyes" (page 136). Another officer said: "If we didn't have the time demands that are on us, the refusal rate would be much higher. If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate" (page 136).

A deputy manager in an overseas office put it this way:

We have become number freaks. We have to meet our targets, within +/- 3 percent. But you don't want to exceed your target either. If you reach your processing target by September, you can't issue any more visas, and that is a problem. And if you go over your target … they will say next time you can process the target numbers with fewer resources, or increase targets (page 134).

This is a problem. It is a problem because the priority is placed on numbers rather than individuals and some people are, in the words of immigration officers themselves, being allowed into the country that would otherwise not be admissible. The targets also keep out those who might otherwise be admissible because their application came to the top of the pile after the target visas had all been allocated.

To quote Dr. Satzewich: "Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced, nearly all applicants for a permanent resident visa were interviewed by an officer, no matter how strong or weak their paperwork" (page 170). Interviews allow the opportunity to determine credibility through, as Dr. Satzewich writes, "verbal responses…demeanour and body language: how individuals enter an interview booth, how they answer questions, and how they address an officer's concerns…" (pages 55-56).

These interviews were conducted as part of the language proficiency test, which was conducted in-person, face-to-face, with immigration officers.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Any country you wouldn't be blatantly homosexual, adulterous, blasphemous, or atheistic in, I guess. 

That's any Muslim country...

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Oh, I see .. the 'anti-Canadian' values Argus is so fond of.   I agree completely, countries in that region have a terrible record on human rights. 

It's not just countries in that region. The countries in the pacific aren't a lot better.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

This Pew Research suggests that disapproval of homosexuality is related to religiosity, regardless of religion practiced.   The more religious a society is, the less acceptable homosexuality is.  This Oxford study found the same relationship among 20 European countries.   Again, this suggests to me that the mere fact of high religiosity in a country is a better predictor of poor human rights than *which* religion holds sway in a society.   Even in Canada the rights of women, minorities, gays and LGBT have increased as religiosity has decreased.

I think that terrorism in this context is much more related to the political situation in the Middle East, and that it would have occurred even if the predominant religion were Christianity, Buddhism or none.  But this is not an idea most people in the West want to entertain since it implies some culpability on our part for creating a situation in which terrorists have come to exist.    This guy explains it rather well, I think.  

Disapproval of all the things I mentioned is related to religion, but the extent to which a practice is not only disapproved of, but actively punished, seems to be greater in Muslim countries, and seems to be enshrined in their laws more so than those of other religious countries.  Ireland, for instance, has laws against abortion based on the teachings of the Catholic church, as do some Latin American countries, I think.  I don't know of any where blasphemy is punishable by death.

[Goddess]

34 minutes ago, dialamah said:

   

If there is a problem with spousal abuse that needs to be addressed, we should address it certainly, but we can't pretend it's only an issue in Muslim communities.   Outreach into communities where patriarchal beliefs are common would be a good idea in my opinion, whether those communities are Muslim, Sikh or Christian.  

 

 

No one here has said it's a problem exclusive to Muslims. 

It's the scale of it.

And to say "IF" there's a problem with it in Islam.....are you really not sure it is a problem in Islam?

Yes, Canadian men can be pigs, I don't think there's a female here that hasn't been groped and propositioned. Multiple times. That is obviously not what I'm talking about.

I really really really hope you are right, and things like the Muslim Rape Game never happen in Canada. I'd really really really like to believe that if I'm at a New Year's Eve party, 250 Canadian men at the party would not suddenly decide to rape me while 1000 other Canadian men stood by and cheered them on.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Goddess

[Omni]

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

You have zero information to conclude that, especially with regard to immigrants. Whereas I've already posted uncontradicted information to the contary, including snippets which come from a book Kellie Leitch keeps quoting. Here's more.

Dr. Satzewich eventually got the access he required to write his book, Points of Entry: How Canada's Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In, and, as a result, we now have valuable insight into how our immigration system works.

By and large our immigration system works well, but there are some things about the system that are concerning. Immigration officers meet only a handful of the people whose applications they process. The result is the loss of "opportunities to assess credibility and risk" (page 216).

Testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence tells us that "only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants receive an interview with a visa officer before they come to Canada" (page 14). That means that, in a year like last year, when more than 300,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada, only about 30,000 people were interviewed by a trained immigration official.

The reason for the lack of interviews is the focus on achieving predetermined quotas. The immigration bureaucracy, led by immigration ministers of different stripes, has put greater importance on the number of people who are admitted to Canada each year, rather than ensuring that those who are admitted will integrate well into our communities.

Canada's immigration officials are pressured to make decisions on at least seventy-five files a day meaning decisions are made in about three minutes — not including the time spent writing up notes.

As Dr. Satzewich writes, "time and productivity pressures provided the overarching context for decision making" (page 196). One immigration officer said, "Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. … Risk management means closing your eyes" (page 136). Another officer said: "If we didn't have the time demands that are on us, the refusal rate would be much higher. If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate" (page 136).

A deputy manager in an overseas office put it this way:

We have become number freaks. We have to meet our targets, within +/- 3 percent. But you don't want to exceed your target either. If you reach your processing target by September, you can't issue any more visas, and that is a problem. And if you go over your target … they will say next time you can process the target numbers with fewer resources, or increase targets (page 134).

This is a problem. It is a problem because the priority is placed on numbers rather than individuals and some people are, in the words of immigration officers themselves, being allowed into the country that would otherwise not be admissible. The targets also keep out those who might otherwise be admissible because their application came to the top of the pile after the target visas had all been allocated.

To quote Dr. Satzewich: "Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced, nearly all applicants for a permanent resident visa were interviewed by an officer, no matter how strong or weak their paperwork" (page 170). Interviews allow the opportunity to determine credibility through, as Dr. Satzewich writes, "verbal responses…demeanour and body language: how individuals enter an interview booth, how they answer questions, and how they address an officer's concerns…" (pages 55-56).

These interviews were conducted as part of the language proficiency test, which was conducted in-person, face-to-face, with immigration officers.

I have cited info. to support my claim various times but perhaps you chose to ignore things that refute your ideas. Any way here is what the government says they do regarding screening refugees.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/overview/security.asp

And then maybe Kellie Leitch is not the most credible source to use on this issue, especially as she continues to try and flog her so called "Canadian Values" questionnaire. But let's let her Dr. Satzewich describe of how she misses the point regarding his work.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/kellie-leitch-misses-the-point-about-immigration/article32804170/

[Omni]

55 minutes ago, Argus said:

uncontradicted information

Apparently not quite as uncontradicted as you think:

What Ms. Leitch is proposing is a solution in search of a problem. I would encourage her to read more academic research by social scientists, and even “commit sociology.” If she does, she will find that there is considerable evidence that immigrants do actually integrate into Canadian society.

But your timing is interesting since it is Anti-Islamophobia day here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/protest-us-consulate-islamophobia-white-supremacy-1.3967434

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

I have cited info. to support my claim various times but perhaps you chose to ignore things that refute your ideas. Any way here is what the government says they do regarding screening refugees.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/overview/security.asp

What you seem unable to recognize is that nothing in the above cite speaks to what kind of verification or screening is done other than to state in broad categories that they go through the paperwork. And it's about refugees, not immigrants anyway.

But let's examine some of the things it says. It says they do health screening. Excellent! But uhm, what then? What decisions are based upon that screening? We know from press reports that some of the refugees who come in are blind, have mental issues, and are otherwise physically disabled. So what exactly is this health screening in aid of?

An interview was conducted, used to 'validate the applicant's information'. Uhm, so that was like what? Your name is this? Your age is this? You come from where? Okay. You worked as what? Okay.

All that is doing is confirming what the applicant told when they went into the camp. It in no way validates the truth of what the refugee said. To do that you'd have to have people back where the refugee came from to ask around about them.

How exactly is this going to screen out a violent jihadist or someone who is sympathetic to violent jihadists?

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

And then maybe Kellie Leitch is not the most credible source to use on this issue, especially as she continues to try and flog her so called "Canadian Values" questionnaire. But let's let her Dr. Satzewich describe of how she misses the point regarding his work.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/kellie-leitch-misses-the-point-about-immigration/article32804170/

Yes, Dr. Satzewich is pro-immigration. He wouldn't have been given access if he was anti-immigration and I think we both know this. But that doesn't make the things he reported on untrue. The fact that almost no applicants are ever given an interview, the way immigration officers are pressured to pass the files quickly, without the time to check things out more thoroughly. And, as your cite points out, they also can't be certain of their language skills, which are so important in ascertaining an immigrant's likely success in Canada, without an interview.

The fact is if I showed up at a refugee camp and called myself Muhhamed Muhammed and said I was from Aleppo nobody would have any information to say otherwise presuming I spoke Arabic and had browner skin. I'd have no documents on me, and no way to get any, nor would I be expected to have any. If I wasn't on some kind of international watch list nobody would have a clue, especially given the very limited time immigration officers had to check me out.

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

Apparently not quite as uncontradicted as you think:

What Ms. Leitch is proposing is a solution in search of a problem. I would encourage her to read more academic research by social scientists, and even “commit sociology.” If she does, she will find that there is considerable evidence that immigrants do actually integrate into Canadian society.

And yet, YOU haven't been able to produce that evidence! How shocking! Besides, we're not talking about 'immigrants' but 'muslim immigrants'. As I've said before, I think Canada would be better off taking 80,000 Christian Syrians than 40,000 Muslim Syrians.

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

But your timing is interesting since it is Anti-Islamophobia day here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/protest-us-consulate-islamophobia-white-supremacy-1.3967434

From your cite:

Police also said they detained a man on Saturday who was shouting at the protesters, but he will be released later in the day without being charged. He was being held at Toronto Police Service's 52 Division.

"We detained him for his own safety," Const. Victor Kwong said.

In other words, the progressives despise anyone who disagrees with them on immigration and would have gotten violent if the police didn't take the man away. Just another indication of the way progressives hate freedom of speech when it allows people to disagree with them.

 

[Omni]

So poor old Kellie Leitch not only loses the support of the pro immigration prof. she likes to quote, she has now lost her campaign manager, who not surprisingly cut his teeth with Rob Ford. I'd say the "Canadian Values" of hers gets dimmer by the day.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nick-kouvalis-steps-down-1.3964579

[dialamah]

18 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No one here has said it's a problem exclusive to Muslims. 

It's the scale of it.

 

I presume you mean the scale of it in Canada because around the world spousal abuse happens a lot whether the country is Islamic or not.   For example, in Russia domestic abuse is not considered much of a crime and they don't keep statistics, but it's estimated that 14,000 women a year die.

If you are concerned about the scale of specifically spousal violence by Muslim men against women in Canada, then consider this Stats Can study, which found that Aboriginal women were at highest risk of spousal abuse, non-immigrant women were #2, and immigrant women were the least likely to be victims of spousal abuse.  One could make the point on this study that it's based on self-reported crimes, as well as police data and so immigrant women may be less likely to report, but another Stats Can study says that about the same percentage of immigrant, non-immigrant and aboriginal women report spousal abuse.  

Stats Can doesn't seem to separate the various immigrant communities, so we don't know if Muslim men are more likely to abuse their spouse than other immigrants, but it does seem that they're less likely to do so than non-immigrant men.  

 

Quote

 

And to say "IF" there's a problem with it in Islam.....are you really not sure it is a problem in Islam?

 

 

I am certain it is a problem around the world, among Islam and among non-Islam countries.   In Uganda, for example, there is no law against domestic violence and over 60% of women report being abused by their intimate partner.  As noted above, Russia doesn't even keep statistics but in-country organizations claim 10s of thousands of victims per year.   To me, it's the country or even region that can be blamed for the problem, not a particular religion.   

 

Quote

 

Yes, Canadian men can be pigs, I don't think there's a female here that hasn't been groped and propositioned. Multiple times. That is obviously not what I'm talking about.

 

 

So, for some reason Canadian men groping and propositioning women is to be expected, but Muslim men groping and propositioning women is terrible?   I do not understand that double standard.  

Quote

I really really really hope you are right, and things like the Muslim Rape Game never happen in Canada.

 

Tarrabush Game'ai literally means 'group harassment' in Arabic.   It's not a term for a 'rape game', as some media outlets would have you believe.   

 

Quote

I'd really really really like to believe that if I'm at a New Year's Eve party, 250 Canadian men at the party would not suddenly decide to rape me while 1000 other Canadian men stood by and cheered them on.

 

 

Yes, gang rape is an ugly feature of life in Arabic countries, and in Western countries.   Even prior to the refugees coming into Germany police would set up 'sanctuaries' for women during Oktoberfest, to offer them protection from drunken German men.   It's possible you've missed all news reports of women in Canada, Britain and the States in which a woman has been gang raped at a party, whilst other party goers took pics, or simply didn't notice.   Here's just a small sampling:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gang-raped-front-hundreds-clubbers-magaluf-2096376 - 17-year-old raped by 6 British men in Majorca.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8557036/taylor-hirth-gang-rape-independence-missouri/ - a particularly horrific story of a woman who was gang-raped while her two-year-old daughter was in the room.   

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/court-documents-reveal-horrific-allegations-in-toronto-police-gang-rape-case - in Canada, a case where three cops raped a woman.

I don't point these stories out to you because I want to defend rapists or think Islam is some paragon of virtue among the religions of the world, but because I think blaming Islam for these things is misguided.  As long as those things can be found around the world, among all different cultures and beliefs, then the refrain of "It must be something about Islam" is clearly wrong.   We can't solve a problem by looking at the wrong cause.   

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

So poor old Kellie Leitch not only loses the support of the pro immigration prof. she likes to quote, she has now lost her campaign manager, who not surprisingly cut his teeth with Rob Ford. I'd say the "Canadian Values" of hers gets dimmer by the day.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nick-kouvalis-steps-down-1.3964579

The professor never supported her, and the campaign manager didn't leave because he disapproved of her but because he was afraid he was hurting her chances given a remark he made last week.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I presume you mean the scale of it in Canada because around the world spousal abuse happens a lot whether the country is Islamic or not.   For example, in Russia domestic abuse is not considered much of a crime and they don't keep statistics, but it's estimated that 14,000 women a year die.

And how many in the Muslim world? No one is even bothering to estimate.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

If you are concerned about the scale of specifically spousal violence by Muslim men against women in Canada, then consider this Stats Can study, which found that Aboriginal women were at highest risk of spousal abuse, non-immigrant women were #2, and immigrant women were the least likely to be victims of spousal abuse.  One could make the point on this study that it's based on self-reported crimes, as well as police data and so immigrant women may be less likely to report, but another Stats Can study says that about the same percentage of immigrant, non-immigrant and aboriginal women report spousal abuse.  

Stats Can doesn't seem to separate the various immigrant communities, so we don't know if Muslim men are more likely to abuse their spouse than other immigrants, but it does seem that they're less likely to do so than non-immigrant men.  

There is absolutely no evidence or logical basis to make such a statement. The GSS is a survey which is conducted by Stats Canada involves random dialing. Immigrant households are less likely to answer such questions, and it is likely the father would be the one answering in a Muslim household. Muslim women are very unlikely to report spousal abuse to police, especially those who immigrated here and whose culture and religion accepts spousal violence as normal, who are much more likely than most Canadians to not have any means of economic support other than their husbands, and who could face censure from their community and mosque were they to do so.

Simple logic should tell us that a culture which is extremely patriarchal and which accepts and allows for spousal violence would have a higher level of spousal violence than one which has long prohibited it in law and culture.

 

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

So, for some reason Canadian men groping and propositioning women is to be expected, but Muslim men groping and propositioning women is terrible?   I do not understand that double standard.  

It is highly unusual for woman in Canada to face groping and propositioning on the street from strangers. Such behavior is illegal and the authorities would respond immediately. That is a vast difference from many, if not most Muslim countries.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It's Muslims and Americans that are to blame,

Not the British though.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Not the British though.

You didn't understand the post, did you?

[Peter F]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Quote

So, for some reason Canadian men groping and propositioning women is to be expected, but Muslim men groping and propositioning women is terrible?   I do not understand that double standard.  

It is highly unusual for woman in Canada to face groping and propositioning on the street from strangers. Such behavior is illegal and the authorities would respond immediately. That is a vast difference from many, if not most Muslim countries.

So woman in Canada aren't being groped because it is illegal to grope. The difference between here and there is that there is a law here forbidding such practice. If there was no such law would the groping rates be the same here as there?  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Peter F said:

So woman in Canada aren't being groped because it is illegal to grope. The difference between here and there is that there is a law here forbidding such practice. If there was no such law would the groping rates be the same here as there?  

Well, I certainly wouldn't grope anyone. How about you?

[Peter F]

Oh In my pubescent days I have provided attentions where it wasn't welcome.

 

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Peter F said:

Oh In my pubescent days I have provided attentions where it wasn't welcome.

 

Yeah, I was groped a bit back then too.  Did you not know about the law?

[Peter F]

Back in the day 'no' could mean 'yes' depending on circumstance. 

 

edit: What I mean to say is: 'No' was testable

Edited February 5, 2017 by Peter F

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Peter F said:

So woman in Canada aren't being groped because it is illegal to grope. The difference between here and there is that there is a law here forbidding such practice. If there was no such law would the groping rates be the same here as there?  

All crimes are committed in Canada. But Canada is a generally law-abiding country. The difference is not that there are laws against it and that they're enforced. The difference is that kind of behaviour is unacceptable in our culture. Even young men get that, except when they're particularly drunk or stupid.

[dialamah]

This week in Islam, and Egypt specifically, Sisi suggested reforming the divorce law so that men had to apply for divorce instead of just being able to verbally divorce their wives (40% of Egyptian marriages end in divorce within 5 years, who knew).  Good, right?   But the "Islamic authority" said "nothing doing".  Bad, yup.   The article mentions that Sisi is a devout Muslim, so wanting to modernize divorce laws seems pretty progressive.   Unfortunately, he's hamstrung by even more 'devout' Muslims clerics.  

Also interesting is that Sisi has ordered standardized sermons on Fridays in the mosques, as a way to combat radicalization and extremism.  This has been criticized as limiting free speech.