Sign of the Times Middle East Style

[Selene]

Time for sleep.

A late bulletin. Apparently, rockets have been launched into the Negev at an Israeli wedding. I am sure this is purely a coincidence and is not at all coordinated to the upheavals throughout North Africa and Lebanon and Jordon.

Night all.

[william.scherk]

A late bulletin. Apparently, rockets have been launched into the Negev at an Israeli wedding. I am sure this is purely a coincidence and is not at all coordinated to the upheavals throughout North Africa and Lebanon and Jordon.

Here's a ten-hour old story from Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper of record. Not quite as strong a source as our valiant correspondent and analyst Adam 'I heard it somewhere' Selene, but hey.

Careful readers will note the implicit connection made in the Ha'aretz report to the Brotherhood thugs in Cairo . . .

Grad rockets land in western Negev, four treated for shock

By Haaretz Service

Grad rockets landed near the cities of Netivot and Ofakim in the western Negev on Monday, causing damage to a car and leading to four people being treated for shock.

The attacks came a few minutes apart late Monday. One rocket hit Netivot, which is 9 miles east of Gaza, and the second exploded in Ofakim, 15 miles from Gaza.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

Last month saw an increase in rocket attacks from Gaza, with over 13 rockets striking the western Negev over the course of two days, in one particular instance.

A Qassam rocket that struck near a kindergarten in Ashkelon lightly wounded a teenage girl in a nearby building.

According to the IDF spokesman's office, over 200 Grad missiles, Qassam rockets and mortar shells were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory in 2010.

Rocket fire usually draws retaliatory Israeli airstrikes at Gaza militant facilities or smuggling tunnels.

[Mike11]

I am pleased that Israel is not using this as an opportunity to expand its policy of disappearances, theft, repression and general Israel-ness.

At least one good thing is happening here.

[william.scherk]

I am pleased that Israel is not using this as an opportunity to expand its policy of disappearances, theft, repression and general Israel-ness.

Joel, you should flesh out what you mean by disappearances and theft (we can likely guess at the repression you mean) and spell out what you mean by general Israel-ness.

Bizarro-World Grand Mufti Wiig slops all Islamic people together in a stew pot of bile, in an effort to dim any hope we in the West might feel at the departure of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators. Adam Selene claims a coming Brotherly Muslim Killing Spree under the stooge ElBaradei, and demonizes Carter, the guy who forced peace between Egypt and Israel. We even have the 100 year old Avenging Angel of Kolker dropping in to imply Egypt is a worthless shithole. Did you really mean to add to that kind of raisin-hearted sloganeering? Your comments are a kind of 'all Prods are Motherfuckers' greeting to an already riled and ornery Orange Picnic.

There is lots to question in Israel's socialist land policies, in its Separation Barrier, in its settlements and landgrabs in the territories, and in its extra-legal disappearances, but if you only dodge in and dodge out with a one-liner you will appear to be pitching a cocktail, not adding or aiding discussion. Your comment about 'general Israel-ness is a cheap shot. Not every Jew is Netanyahu, and plenty of Israelis work to prevent and roll back injustice in Israel. Please get back in here and continue your thought, or I will have to write another one of my dreary six thousand word snorefests in aid of reason . . .

[william.scherk]

Congressman Ron Paul weighs in with his policy suggestions for Egypt. They make Correspondent Selene's prescriptions, above, seem like obamarxism . . .

[bmacwilliam]

Bizarro-World Grand Mufti Wiig slops all Islamic people together in a stew pot of bile, in an effort to dim any hope we in the West might feel at the departure of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators. Adam Selene claims a coming Brotherly Muslim Killing Spree under the stooge ElBaradei, and demonizes Carter, the guy who forced peace between Egypt and Israel. We even have the 100 year old Avenging Angel of Kolker dropping in to imply Egypt is a worthless shithole. Did you really mean to add to that kind of raisin-hearted sloganeering? Your comments are a kind of 'all Prods are Motherfuckers' greeting to an already riled and ornery Orange Picnic.

There is lots to question in Israel's socialist land policies, in its Separation Barrier, in its settlements and landgrabs in the territories, and in its extra-legal disappearances, but if you only dodge in and dodge out with a one-liner you will appear to be pitching a cocktail, not adding or aiding discussion. Your comment about 'general Israel-ness is a cheap shot. Not every Jew is Netanyahu, and plenty of Israelis work to prevent and roll back injustice in Israel. Please get back in here and continue your thought, or I will have to write another one of my dreary six thousand word snorefests in aid of reason . . .

Numbers from the Gallop website, polling Muslims:

For example, in Jordan, 54% of men and 55% of women want Sharia as the only source of legislation. In Egypt, the percentages are 70% of men and 62% of women; in Iran, 12% of men and 14% of women;

Notice how much lower the numbers are in Iran and yet look at who's in power. Objectively, the chances of a freedom focused democratic, civilized government seems unfortunately very low.

Bob

[william.scherk]

Numbers from the Gallop website, polling Muslims

If you give a web reference, Bob, you might consider giving an actual link. That allows other folks to approach the issue on the same grounds, and costs you pennies. Gallup is a big site. I mean, I could confidently assert something like this -- 'from the Gallop site, in Turkey 9% want Sharia as the only source of legislation," and you would have a heck of a time finding the context when you went to Gallop.

Of course, if you went to Gallup.com, you might do better.

So, let's see if we can examine whatever it is you cited. We assume, since you didn't give a link, you went to Gallop Gallup and found this story: Do Muslims Want Democracy and Theocracy? An excerpt from the book Who Speaks for Islam?

For example, in Jordan, 54% of men and 55% of women want Sharia as the only source of legislation. In Egypt, the percentages are 70% of men and 62% of women; in Iran, 12% of men and 14% of women;

I will quote the preamble to the report, and let OLers have a look themselves. I mean, having a hysterical Grand Mufti or Emir to tell us what is in the black heart of Islam is surely a good thing, but a better thing might be to think for ourselves, or at least consider what you left out in your cite plagiarism.

Cutting across diverse Muslim countries, social classes, and gender differences, answers to our questions reveal a complex and surprising reality. Substantial majorities in nearly all nations surveyed (95% in Burkina Faso, 94% in Egypt, 93% in Iran, and 90% in Indonesia) say that if drafting a constitution for a new country, they would guarantee freedom of speech, defined as "allowing all citizens to express their opinion on the political, social, and economic issues of the day."

However, while acknowledging and admiring many aspects of Western democracy, those surveyed do not favor wholesale adoption of Western models of democracy. Many appear to want their own democratic model that incorporates Sharia -- and not one that is simply dependent on Western values. Actually, few respondents associate "adopting Western values" with Muslim political and economic progress. Abuses in the name of Sharia have not led to wholesale rejection of it.

In our data, the emphasis that those in substantially Muslim countries give to a new model of government -- one that is democratic yet embraces religious values -- helps to explain why majorities in most countries, with the exception of a handful of nations, want Sharia as at least "a" source of legislation.

In only a few countries did a majority say that Sharia should have no role in society; yet in most countries, only a minority want Sharia as "the only source" of law. In Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, majorities want Sharia as the "only source" of legislation.

Most surprising is the absence of systemic differences in many countries between males and females in their support for Sharia as the only source of legislation. For example, in Jordan, 54% of men and 55% of women want Sharia as the only source of legislation. In Egypt, the percentages are 70% of men and 62% of women; in Iran, 12% of men and 14% of women; and in Indonesia, 14% of men and 14% of women.

Ironically, we don't have to look far from home to find a significant number of people who want religion as a source of law. In the United States, a 2006 Gallup Poll indicates that a majority of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation.

Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source, and 9% believe it should be the "only" source of legislation.

Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no role at all. These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran.

Based on the largest and most in-depth study of its kind, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think presents the remarkable findings of the Gallup Poll of the Muslim world, the first ever data-based analysis of the points of view of more than 90% of the global Muslim community, spanning more than 35 nations.

Notice how much lower the numbers are in Iran and yet look at who's in power. Objectively, the chances of a freedom focused democratic, civilized government seems unfortunately very low.

Bobjectively, yes. Objectively, no. But how about you make an estimation of the chances in Egypt, given your status as one of OL's finest interpreters of Islam?

+++++++++++++++++++++++

In 1979 there was a revolution in Iran that led a longtime US ally to become an implacable enemy. The regime change proceeded roughly like this: Revolution, transitional government...Islamists take over, execute the generals, dissidents in prison, exile other elements. Some people think the present events in Egypt will run through the same course.

Given that background, and considering a post Mubarak Egyptian political landscape, what probability would you assign to the likelihood of the Muslim Brotherhood establishing an Egyptian Islamic state?

0 == zero percent likelihood

100 = one hundred percent likelihood

[bmacwilliam]

Numbers from the Gallop website, polling Muslims

If you give a web reference, Bob, you might consider giving an actual link. That allows other folks to approach the issue on the same grounds, and costs you pennies. Gallup is a big site. I mean, I could confidently assert something like this -- 'from the Gallop site, in Turkey 9% want Sharia as the only source of legislation," and you would have a heck of a time finding the context when you went to Gallop.

Of course, if you went to Gallup.com, you might do better.

So, let's see if we can examine whatever it is you cited. We assume, since you didn't give a link, you went to Gallop Gallup and found this story: Do Muslims Want Democracy and Theocracy? An excerpt from the book Who Speaks for Islam?

For example, in Jordan, 54% of men and 55% of women want Sharia as the only source of legislation. In Egypt, the percentages are 70% of men and 62% of women; in Iran, 12% of men and 14% of women;

I will quote the preamble to the report, and let OLers have a look themselves. I mean, having a hysterical Grand Mufti or Emir to tell us what is in the black heart of Islam is surely a good thing, but a better thing might be to think for ourselves, or at least consider what you left out in your cite plagiarism.

Cutting across diverse Muslim countries, social classes, and gender differences, answers to our questions reveal a complex and surprising reality. Substantial majorities in nearly all nations surveyed (95% in Burkina Faso, 94% in Egypt, 93% in Iran, and 90% in Indonesia) say that if drafting a constitution for a new country, they would guarantee freedom of speech, defined as "allowing all citizens to express their opinion on the political, social, and economic issues of the day."

However, while acknowledging and admiring many aspects of Western democracy, those surveyed do not favor wholesale adoption of Western models of democracy. Many appear to want their own democratic model that incorporates Sharia -- and not one that is simply dependent on Western values. Actually, few respondents associate "adopting Western values" with Muslim political and economic progress. Abuses in the name of Sharia have not led to wholesale rejection of it.

In our data, the emphasis that those in substantially Muslim countries give to a new model of government -- one that is democratic yet embraces religious values -- helps to explain why majorities in most countries, with the exception of a handful of nations, want Sharia as at least "a" source of legislation.

In only a few countries did a majority say that Sharia should have no role in society; yet in most countries, only a minority want Sharia as "the only source" of law. In Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, majorities want Sharia as the "only source" of legislation.

Most surprising is the absence of systemic differences in many countries between males and females in their support for Sharia as the only source of legislation. For example, in Jordan, 54% of men and 55% of women want Sharia as the only source of legislation. In Egypt, the percentages are 70% of men and 62% of women; in Iran, 12% of men and 14% of women; and in Indonesia, 14% of men and 14% of women.

Ironically, we don't have to look far from home to find a significant number of people who want religion as a source of law. In the United States, a 2006 Gallup Poll indicates that a majority of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation.

Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source, and 9% believe it should be the "only" source of legislation.

Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no role at all. These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran.

Based on the largest and most in-depth study of its kind, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think presents the remarkable findings of the Gallup Poll of the Muslim world, the first ever data-based analysis of the points of view of more than 90% of the global Muslim community, spanning more than 35 nations.

Notice how much lower the numbers are in Iran and yet look at who's in power. Objectively, the chances of a freedom focused democratic, civilized government seems unfortunately very low.

Bobjectively, yes. Objectively, no. But how about you make an estimation of the chances in Egypt, given your status as one of OL's finest interpreters of Islam?

+++++++++++++++++++++++

In 1979 there was a revolution in Iran that led a longtime US ally to become an implacable enemy. The regime change proceeded roughly like this: Revolution, transitional government...Islamists take over, execute the generals, dissidents in prison, exile other elements. Some people think the present events in Egypt will run through the same course.

Given that background, and considering a post Mubarak Egyptian political landscape, what probability would you assign to the likelihood of the Muslim Brotherhood establishing an Egyptian Islamic state?

0 == zero percent likelihood

100 = one hundred percent likelihood

The quote that I took from that site was crystal clear. The percentage of Egyptians that favour Sharia as the ONLY source of legislation - simple.

Context? Simple math and numbers do not need your precious context.

In fact, the article, while trying to slant toward a softer impact says:

"Ironically, we don't have to look far from home to find a significant number of people who want religion as a source of law. In the United States, a 2006 Gallup Poll indicates that a majority of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation.

Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source, and 9% believe it should be the "only" source of legislation."

When the numbers demand that the only meaningful comparison is 70% (only source) vs 9% (only source) and reveals almost an order of magnitude difference, regardless of any spin or slant. Your precious context works against you.

"or at least consider what you left out in your cite plagiarism."

You are an ass of the highest order. I clearly stated where the numbers came from. Go fuck yourself.

Bob

Edited February 1, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Knock it off, Bob.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Knock it off, Bob.

Michael

I was accused of plagiarism - offside.

[Mike11]

Ya'll just playing with yourselves.

[william.scherk]

Numbers from the Gallop website, polling Muslims

If you give a web reference, Bob, you might consider giving an actual link. That allows other folks to approach the issue on the same grounds, and costs you pennies.

You are an ass of the highest order. I clearly stated where the numbers came from. Go fuck yourself.

I withdraw the suggestion of plagiarism, Emir McWilliam. But I will underline a point that escapes you, and hope against hope that you pay attention: if you quote something use quotation marks. You clearly took words verbatim from Gallop Gallup and allowed folks to think that they were your own words.

It is basic high-school stuff, Emir. When you quote, quote. When you cite, link. Otherwise you come off as a grade-school ranter and a lazy, sloppy ideologue.

Edited February 1, 2011 by william.scherk

[bmacwilliam]

I withdraw the suggestion of plagiarism, Emir McWilliam. But I will underline a point that escapes you, and hope against hope that you pay attention: if you quote something use quotation marks. You clearly took words verbatim from Gallop Gallup and allowed folks to think that they were your own words.

It is basic high-school stuff, Emir. When you quote, quote. When you cite, link. Otherwise you come off as a grade-school ranter and a lazy, sloppy ideologue.

Bullshit - you don't withdraw at all you reaccuse. I'm so sorry my quotes aren't up to your standards. I assumed you could read

I wrote:

"Numbers from the Gallop website, polling Muslims:

For example, in Jordan, 54% of men and 55% of women want Sharia as the only source of legislation. In Egypt, the percentages are 70% of men and 62% of women; in Iran, 12% of men and 14% of women;"

What could possibly he happening in that lonely little brain cell of yours that would lead you to believe that I pretend that these are MY numbers. Is the Gallop typo that distressing to you? You certainly seem to enjoy repeating it.

and you wrote:

"You clearly took words verbatim from Gallop Gallup and allowed folks to think that they were your own words. "

Nonsense. You accuse me again - Bite me. Even when you know you're wrong you accuse me again. You are completely wrong, you know you're wrong, and you are still a complete ass.

Bob

Edited February 2, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[william.scherk]

You clearly took words verbatim from Gallup and allowed folks to think that they were your own words.

It is basic high-school stuff, Emir. When you quote, quote.

Bullshit - you don't withdraw at all you reaccuse.

Bob, I'll try to explain one more time.

1) If you take a verbatim text passage from a web source (or any source), you should distinctly mark off the borrowed passage somehow. OL's editing widgets let you use indent, quotebox, italic to set off passages from the flow of your own words. If you don't wish to use the editing widgets, you can mark off the borrowed passage with quotation marks: "borrowed . . . material"

2) If you take verbatim information from another site, you should give an actual link to the material you reference as well as marking off the material.

These are simple, straightforward guides. Use them consistently and you will be a better discussant.

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, I'll try to explain one more time.

1) If you take a verbatim text passage from a web source (or any source), you should distinctly mark off the borrowed passage somehow.

Oh yes, thank you so much for "trying to explain". I really didn't understand what you were saying.

You're so right, I should have "somehow" indicated a borrowed passage...

"Numbers from the Gallop website, polling Muslims:"

Um... Would that be somehow? Guess not. I don't care for your stupid game-playing and nonsensical accusations. You accuse and reaccuse of plagiarism, then pretend I just don't understand what you're trying to tell me. Your a dishonest pompous little creep, but I'll tell you what:

I'll try to quote closer to your precious "high school" standards if you can string a coherent thought or two together.

Bob

[Selene]

The visuals of the Square right now on Al Jazeera are eerie, it looks bizarrely medieval with pitch (petrol bombs) being thrown between the two (2) sides. A shield wall is on top of the live shot:

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

[william.scherk]

I'll try to quote closer to your precious "high school" standards if you can string a coherent thought or two together.

Emir McWillliam, if the only two posters and readers in this thread of 2,418 views were you and me, your post would make sense. You can block me from your screen as I now block Grand Mufti Wiig, if you choose, but what you need not block out are the impressions on other readers and discussants.

If you mark off verbatim borrowings from other people and give a URL, it's simply good, standard practice in itself. It has nothing to do with whether or not I am incoherent in your eyes, or whether or not I am incoherent in other people's eyes. It's about your ability to advance your own argument. Improve your game and the benefit accrues to you.

[william.scherk]

More signs of the times in the treatment meted out to journalists in Egypt. The Committee to Protect Journalists website has collected reports that have appeared elsewhere, and characterized the treatment as officially directed:

Mubarak intensifies press attacks with assaults, detentions

The British-based communications company Vodafone accused the Egyptian government of hijacking its text messaging services and sending out text messages supportive of Mubarak, according to news reports.

Multiple journalists for state-owned or government-aligned media have resigned or have refused to work after the government put pressure on them to sanitize the news or to not report on violence against demonstrators, several CPJ sources said. Shahira Amin, an anchor on the state-owned Nile TV channel, said on the air: "I refuse to be a hypocrite. I feel liberated."

The Guardian:

Elsewhere reports filtered in of other institutions perceived to be anti-Mubarak coming under attack, including the Hisham Mubarak law centre, which has previously provided legal services for arrested democracy activists, and the El Nadeem Centre for Rehabiliation of Victims of Violence, which has campaigned against police torture.

New York Times:

The Egyptian government has sought to control information flow in the country since large-scale protests against Mr. Mubarak and his subordinates began in late January. But before Wednesday, overt harassment of reporters had been scattered, and attempts to control the gripping images and narratives from Cairo mostly failed. Wednesday’s attacks appeared to be the most coordinated and widespread effort so far to block foreign reporters from doing their jobs.

“The Egyptian government is employing a strategy of eliminating witnesses to their actions” in a “series of deliberate attacks on journalists,” Mohamed Abdel Dayem of the Committee to Protect Journalists said on Wednesday.

Reporters Without Borders said it had received dozens of confirmed reports of violence against local and international journalists in Egypt on Wednesday, and Ms. Dowlatshahi said the group expected an increase in attacks.

[william.scherk]

From CNN.

[update 2:45 a.m. in Cairo, 7:45 p.m. ET] The U.S. Senate has unanimously passed a resolution calling on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to immediately begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system, including the transfer of power to an inclusive interim caretaker government.

Meddlers.

Edited February 4, 2011 by william.scherk

[Richard Wiig]

From CNN.

[update 2:45 a.m. in Cairo, 7:45 p.m. ET] The U.S. Senate has unanimously passed a resolution calling on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to immediately begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system, including the transfer of power to an inclusive interim caretaker government.

Meddlers.

Not when it comes to the Iranian regime.

[william.scherk]

The Constitution of Egypt, the first articles, from Chapter one: The State.

Art.1*:

The Arab Republic of Egypt is a Socialist Democratic State based on the alliance of the working forces of the people. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab Nation and work for the realization of its comprehensive unity.

Art.2*: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

Art.3: Sovereignty is for the people alone who will practise and protect this sovereignty and safeguard national unity in the manner specified by the Constitution

Art.4*: The economic foundation of the Arab Republic of Egypt is the socialist democratic system based on sufficiency and justice, in a manner preventing exploitation, narrowing the gap between incomes, protecting legitimate earnings and guaranteeing justice in the distribution of public responsibilities and expenditures .

[william.scherk]

The Constitution of Egypt, the first articles, from Chapter one: The State.

Art.1*:

The Arab Republic of Egypt is a Socialist Democratic State based on the alliance of the working forces of the people. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab Nation and work for the realization of its comprehensive unity.

Art.2*: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

Wikipedia gives a brief explanation of how Sharia, established by the Constitution, works to guide Egyptian law at the present time.

There has been speculation about Caliphate/Sharia on this thread and on the Glenn Beck thread. These links to and excerpts from the Egyptian constitution are designed to inform the actual present-day legal frameworks. A case can be made for desire for a reborn Caliphate in Egypt or Tunisia. A case can be made that Sharia is already dominant in the Egyptian constitution, along with socialism.

Another item for consideration in considering Tunisia's future is the Code of Personal Status -- and the actual state of Islamist opposition to the Code. I think it is important for Islamicist watchers to keep their eye on this ball over the coming months, as the new regime takes hold in Tunisia.

I have previously cited the Code in the Revolution in Tunisia thread.

I suggest there is tension in both Tunisia and Egypt between Islamicists and secularists, but that reducing that tension to an all-or-nothing contest between implacable authoritarian proponents on each side is unhelpful. Understanding and preparing for changes in both countries is not easy. Integrating information and correctly identifying concepts is not easy.

I assume, going in, that OLers are on the whole reasonable and intelligent, and do not readily allow emotion to overrule their reason. Moreover, I have confidence that reasonable, Objectivish folk here are mostly silent in the "Revolution" threads because they do not wish to be drawn into emotionalist arguments -- not because they are uninterested. I thank those who have contacted me backstage. I wish you could post your questions and conclusions, but I understand why you want to make up your own minds and stay out of dogfights to the death.

I hope this post and succeeding posts in this thread are useful for the kind of Objectivish folk I have in mind.

The tradition of Egyptian constitutions have been secular in nature since the first modern constitution was founded in 1923. However, an amendment that differs from this tradition was passed in 1980.

According to the 1980 amendment of the Constitution, Islamic law (Sharia) became the principal source of legislative rules. Such wording simply implies that any new law that is being enacted or considered for enactment should not be in contravention of any prevailing principles of Islamic law (Sharia). It is worth noting that laws regulating personal status issues (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.) are derived from Islamic norms, but penal law rules as codified in the Penal Code are entirely western non-religious oriented rules, whether they were ratified before or after the 1980 amendment.

[william.scherk]

A view from a Jew, and a Democrat to boot. Marc Ambinder was a Clinton-era ambassador to Morocco, the first Jew to be ambassador to a Muslim country. He is fluent in Hebrew, English, Arabic, and French.

He originally published this column in the Huffington Post, one of my least favourite websites. It gives a liberal, Jewish perspective on some of the thorny questions about the Muslim Brotherhood and its chances of establishing an Islamic dictatorship in Egypt -- and it lays out the same facts as given above by several contributors this thread. What we can conclude from the facts is uncertain.

I give here only excerpts from the whole article. I recommend another article, Egypt's Bumbling Brotherhood, for another liberal examination of the issues.

The Muslim Brotherhood's "Hood"

Just what role will Egypt's wily, ever-evolving Muslim Brotherhood play in a post-Mubarak era? Is it really the sinister, underground, subversive political force that could potentially hijack the Egyptian peoples' revolution? Or is it an anachronistic, outdated Islamist dinosaur of another bygone era -- so pre-Twitter and 20th century?

As the Brotherhood thrusts itself into a central role in any post-Mubarak transitional coalition, the Brotherhood's rabid ideological brand of Islam is raising the specter of an Egypt potentially slipping into the hands of Islamic extremists.

Much is now being written about the Brotherhood's past as a predicator of Egypt's future.

Indeed, while much of Egypt's modern history has been shaped by the Brotherhood's ever-present and at times lethal role in Egypt's society, nothing occurring in Cairo's Tahrir Square today guarantees that this canny fox of an Islamic political movement will be able to seize the spoils of the revolution.

Ironically, despite the Brotherhood having the most dynamically organized political apparatus in Egypt; it seems to be less directing the revolution as much as slowly positioning itself to be the beneficiary of it. The Brotherhood, along with everyone else, was caught flat-footed by the events that sparked Cairo's "winter-awakening."

Some quick cliff notes on the Brotherhood...

The Muslim Brotherhood is the great granddaddy of Islamist-oriented political movements. Founded in 1928, the MB has spawned identical offshoots throughout the Arab and Muslim world... including in Palestine where Hamas traces its roots right back to the "Hood."

Throughout its history the Brotherhood has championed the conversion of Egypt into a truly Islamist society by imposing Shariah as the only law of the land.

Its philosopher-kings include the Karl Marx of Jihadi-oriented Islam Sayyid Qutb, whose brother Mohammed was Osama Bin Laden's Saudi professor, as well as Ayman al Zaharawi -- the evil doctor and #2 to Bin Laden, who broke with the Brotherhood, accusing it of going "soft" by rejecting violent jihad and subsequently founded Ga'aamat al-Islamiya -- the domestic Egyptian equivalent of Al Qaeda.

[full text here]

[caroljane]

WSS,

You mentioned earlier that Ofolk are mostly silent on this complex and ever-evolving situation because of reluctance to get into emotionalist arguments. I suggest a second reason, an inability to analyze it without our usual frames of reference and bases of knowledge. I for one know plenty about Islam, a lot about Muslims, some modern mideast history and that's it. Everybody knows about Islamism and most here know about American foreign policy in the mideast.

Your providing relevant background and specifics is much appreciated. You know I am not one to do any heavy scholarly or technological lifting when there are so many big strong men around.

[Selene]

WSS,

You mentioned earlier that Ofolk are mostly silent on this complex and ever-evolving situation because of reluctance to get into emotionalist arguments. I suggest a second reason, an inability to analyze it without our usual frames of reference and bases of knowledge. I for one know plenty about Islam, a lot about Muslims, some modern mideast history and that's it. Everybody knows about Islamism and most here know about American foreign policy in the mideast.

Your providing relevant background and specifics is much appreciated. You know I am not one to do any heavy scholarly or technological lifting when there are so many big strong men around.

Carol:

Are there vomitories in Canada because I just started to gag! lol

Adam