"The Shi[‘]as are more dangerous than naked [women]," MP Tharwat Attallah of the Salafist Nour Party said during the meeting. "They are a danger to Egypt's national security; Egyptians could be deceived into [converting to] Shi[‘]ism, giving it a chance to spread in Egypt," he added.Oh, my. What to say? We've previously discussed the odd Salafi preoccupation with Shi‘ism in a country which has very few, and, well, I guess I probably don't have to cite chapter and verse on how Salafis feel about naked women.
I hope you don't mind the bracketed ‘ayns. I'm not always pedantic, but I refuse to omit consonants.
Now, there are no doubt some dangerous Shi‘a. I'm not, personally, a great lover of Hizbullah or the Iranian Revolution Guards Corps, but I've known plenty of Lebanese and Iraqi Shi‘a who were fine people. Similarly, I suppose naked women can be dangerous, since it was just last month that, during the so-called International Topless Jihad Day, the Ukrainian feminist group Femen proclaimed that their bare breasts (they actually said "tits" but I'm euphemizing) "are deadlier than your stones," and "deadly" = "dangerous" seems fair. But I'm not sure these are really comparable threats. (Or, well, threats at all.)
But then, since this was a case of the Shura Council questioning the Tourism Ministry, by "naked women" the Salafi speaker may have meant "tourists in bikinis," a perennial threat to Salafism, since in Egypt, actual naked women are as thin on the ground as actual Shi‘a. Aliaa Elmahdy left the country some time back (and has most recently gotten naked in Sweden, but I don't think it's considered dangerous there), easing the terrible danger of anyone being naked in Egypt.
My own answer to the "Shi‘a" versus "naked women" debate is, "why can't we have both?"
Though I read Ahram Online daily I nearly missed this gem, so a hat tip to Khalil Al-anani for linking to it, though he has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for my comments on said link.