Saturday, April 30, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
PROTEST AGAINST THE DENIAL OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
National American coptic Assembly- USA
Washington DC
Mr. Morris Sadek-ESQ President
watch our website
http://www. nationalamericancopticassembly .webs.com/ http://nacopticas1.blogspot. com/
http://nacopts1.blogspot.com/
PROTEST AGAINST THE DENIAL OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
Time Friday, April 29 · 5:00pm - 8:00pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Dearborn City Hall
13615 Michigan Ave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created By Stand Up America with Dr. Terry Jones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stand Up America Now! with Dr. Terry Jones ,Wayne Sapp &Truth Tv , Mr Ahmed ABaza , and National American Coptic Assembly Mr Morris Sadek Esq , will protest on the steps of the City Hall in Dearborn, Michigan, on Friday, April 29, 2011 at 5pm.
We invite every American who still believes in the freedom and rights that our Constitution guarantees to come and stand with us.
Video: VIOLENT JIHAD TO CONQUER THE WORLD (61:9) | newstime.co.nz
newstime.co.nz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqFojCrji4E&feature=player_embedded
"The Quran itself and the hadith teaches violence" (04:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC9MzmyvI9Q&feature=player_embedded
We invite every American who still believes in the freedom and rights that our Constitution guarantees to come and stand with us.
We will be addressing the issues of Jihad and Sharia, our First Amendment Rights, Unconstitutional “Free Speech Zones,” and the Peace Bond. We will be calling for the ban of Sharia Law in America.
We will reiterate our message to the Moslem community of welcome and warning.
The Arab Upheaval: Egypt's Islamist Shadow
Written by Cynthia Farahat
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2011
Will the Muslim Brotherhood seize power in Egypt? This often repeated question, or rather fear, assumes that the Islamist organization does not already wield power yet may be able to hijack the largely secular revolution owing to its superior organization, tight discipline, and ideological single mindedness.[1]
In fact, this situation already exists. For while the Muslim Brotherhood does not formally or organizationally rule Egypt, it has ideologically controlled the country for nearly sixty years since the overthrow of the monarchy by the July 1952 coup d'état (euphemized as the "July Revolution"). The real question, then, is not whether the Muslim Brotherhood will seize power but whether it will continue to hold it, either directly or by proxy.
The Free Officers' Islamist-Fascist Streak
Since it is exceptionally difficult to define ideological differences and allegiances in Egypt's Islamic politics, a simple rule of thumb will suffice: Politicians or institutions bent on implementing the Shari'a (Islamic law), or some elements of it, qualify as Islamists; Egypt's ruling military oligarchy clearly falls into this category.
Not only does the Egyptian constitution make the Shari'a "the principal source of legislation," but the Free Officers, as the perpetrators of the 1952 putsch called themselves, were closely associated with both the Muslim Brotherhood's military wing and the Young Egypt Society (Misr al-Fatat), a nationalist-fascist militia established in 1929 by Ahmad Hussein, a religiously educated lawyer. Both Egyptian presidents hailing from the Free Officers—Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-70) and Anwar Sadat (1970-81)—received their early political schooling in al-Fatat, which in 1940 transformed into the National Islamic Party.[2]
The group spread its xenophobic and militant ideas through its magazine, Scream (al-Sarkh'a),which combined vicious attacks on Western democracy with praise for Fascism and Nazism and advocacy of the implementation of Shari'a rule. In a famous letter, Hussein invited Hitler "to convert to Islam."[3] This outlook was shared by the Muslim Brotherhood's publication, al-Nazir, which referred to the Nazi tyrant as "Hajj Hitler," and by the society's founding father, Hasan al-Banna—an unabashed admirer of Hitler and Mussolini who "guided their peoples to unity, order, regeneration, power, and glory."[4] (As late as 1953, Anwar Sadat, whose staunch pro-Nazi sympathies landed him in prison during World War II, wrote an "open letter" to Hitler in a leading Egyptian newspaper, in which he applauded the tyrant and pronounced him the real victor of the war.) [5]
Misr al-Fatat's attempted assassination in 1937 of Egypt's democratically elected liberal prime minister, Mustafa Nahhas, got the organization banned, and in the 1940s, the officers took their radicalism a step further by collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood's military wing. Some of them even joined the latter organization, notably Nasser, who reportedly did so in 1944. In his memoirs, Khaled Mohieddin, a fellow Free Officer, claimed that Banna had personally asked Nasser to join the Brotherhood, recounting how he and Nasser swore allegiance on a gun and a Qur'an.[6]
This background has continuing relevance because it informs the Free Officers' DNA: The leaders of Egypt since 1952 have pursued means and goals that originated in the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, Misr al-Fatat's Islamic-socialist and fascistic ideas are very much alive and well, and in 1990, the party was re-founded and granted a license to work as a legal entity by Mubarak's regime.
From Nasser to Mubarak
Following Banna's murder on February 12, 1949, by government agents in retaliation for the assassination of Prime Minister Nuqrashi Pasha a few weeks earlier, the military and civilian wings of the Muslim Brotherhood split. Nasser proceeded to form the Free Officers movement, which mounted the 1952 coup. In the coming decades, the military regime and the Brotherhood would maintain a strenuous relationship interrupted by occasional outbursts of violence and terrorism—notably a 1954 attempt by the Brotherhood on Nasser's life—and repressive countermeasures by the regime including mass arrests and sporadic executions. But this should be understood not as a struggle between an autocratic, secular dictatorship and a would-be Islamist one but a struggle between two ideologically similar, if not identical, rival groups, hailing from the same source.
In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that in the past, some elements within the younger generations in the military would collaborate with Islamists groups or devise their own jihadist plots, notably Sadat's October 1981 assassination by Lt. Khaled Islambouli. A military court sentenced Islambouli to death in 1982, but speculations that the death sentence was never carried out continue to circulate, especially after Sadat's daughter Roukaya made that claim on Egyptian television on March 17, 2011, saying that she saw him with her own eyes at a Saudi hotel in 1996 and that the murderer panicked upon seeing her. Roukaya recently filed a complaint with the attorney general in which she accused Mubarak of complicity in Sadat's assassination and asked for the reopening of the investigation into her father's murder.[7] Some other members of Sadat's family have similarly implied that the military was involved in his assassination. One such accusation, by Talaat Sadat, Anwar's nephew and a former member of parliament, led to his incarceration for a year in military prison in 2006 for defaming the military.[8]
Such accusations must have been particularly galling to Mubarak, who was groomed by Sadat as his successor. Mubarak also narrowly escaped an Islamist attempt on his own life while on an official visit to Ethiopia in June 1995, and portrayed himself to the West as a relentless fighter of Islamist radicalism.
To be sure, the Ethiopia incident set in motion a repressive campaign that saw the incarceration of thousands of Islamists and the execution of some. Yet this was aimed at the more militant Salafi groups, such as al-Takfir wa-l-Hijra (Excommunication and Hijra), al-Gama'at al-Islamiya (the Muslim Associations), and Tanzim al-Jihad (Organization of the Jihad), rather than the Muslim Brotherhood, which had transformed during the Sadat years into a parliamentary opposition party.
If Mubarak did indeed ban, threaten, and terrorize some Egyptians, it was the secularists rather than the Brotherhood. As cofounder of a secular political party, the Liberal Egyptian Party, whose political program calls for secularism, human rights, capitalism, the rule of law, and rejection of pan-Arabism and Islamic imperialism, this author saw it rebuffed as a legal entity by court order for being opposed to Shari'a law, which indeed it was. By contrast, not only did Mubarak allow eighty-eight Muslim Brotherhood members into parliament in 2005—as a useful tool for scaring the Western governments into thinking that democracy in Egypt would inevitably bring the Islamists to power—but his regime subtly colluded with Islamists against their more democratically inclined compatriots and religious minorities, notably the Copts.[9]
Current Realties
This background explains why the Muslim Brotherhood initially declared its opposition to the street protests in January 2011, refused to demonstrate against the regime, and issued a formal statement almost a week prior to the mass protests in which it stated that the organization "will not take part in the street protests against Mubarak's regime as a political force or a political entity."[10] Only on realizing the inevitability of Mubarak's fall did it change tack and joined the protest in strength.
Likewise, a statement by the leader of al-Gamaat al-Islamiya, Nageh Ibrahim, urged all members of Islamist groups to shun street protests as these were against the Islamic da'wa (call to join Islam)[11] whereas another group, The Salafi Da'wa in Egypt, rejected the protests as opposed to the interests of Salafis.[12]
For its part, the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has taken several actions after Mubarak's resignation that ensure continuity with past conduct of the regime. These include:
Freeing Col. Aboud al-Zomor, the mastermind behind the Sadat assassination, from prison[13] while arresting a secular classic liberal Egyptian blogger. Maikel Nabil Sanad was arrested on March 28, 2011, and faced trial in a military court for criticizing the ruling military council and the Egyptian army in his latest article. After announcing that they would issue a ruling on April 12, the military authorities almost secretly sentenced him to three years in military prison for practicing his basic right to free speech on April 10, two days before the date they announced in court to his lawyers.
Issued a constitutional declaration on March 30, 2011 and changed articles that were not voted on or mentioned in the referendum while adding the second article in the constitution - making the Shari'a "the principal source of legislation" - to the declaration, so as to combat free speech, suppress secular dissent, and persecute non-Muslims and women.
Consulting with Sheikh Muhammad Hassan before issuing a statement on the rebuilding of a church near Cairo, destroyed by a Muslim mob on March 5, 2011. Hassan is a jihadist known for his radicalism and online incitement of suicide bombings as well as for his support of the Mubarak regime and opposition to the street protests. Hassan and the military have agreed to rebuild the church in accordance with the Shari'a concept of diyah, in which a Muslim is not punished for vandalizing the property of an infidel but can pay a financial compensation.[14]
Not arresting or persecuting any of the Muslims responsible for hate crimes against Christians. In March 2011, for example, a group of Salafi thugs attacked and brutally tortured a Christian man, cutting off his ears, for renting one of his apartments to a single Muslim woman. This suggests that the military plans to continue governing Egypt in accordance to Shari'a law and practice whereby Muslims are not punished for committing any crime against a non-Muslim.[15]
Appointing Tareq al-Bishri, a retired judge, to head a committee for constitutional reform. Bishri has expressed approval of and fondness for the Brotherhood, saying that he personally appreciated the organization; he is also known for radicalism expressed in his book The Secular-Islamic Dialogue in which he stated that a secular-Islamic dialogue was completely pointless.[16]
Fighting the 2011 Egyptian Revolution
All this means that, at the governmental level, the Egyptian revolution has thus far failed for the Mubarak regime, albeit without the person himself, remains very much in place. The constitutional changes approved by the March 19 referendum, aimed at paving the way for parliamentary and presidential elections in the early summer, are not conducive to real democratic reform but pander to those groups opposed to democracy. The changes put the nascent secularist and liberal parties in marked disadvantage vis-à-vis their well organized Islamist counterparts, on the one hand, and the ruling establishment, on the other.
The majority of the fourteen million voters who approved the changes (or 77.2 percent of the total vote) came from the government's six million employees and their families—a massive voting bloc rejecting the revolution and opposed to real change, which sought to preserve the status quo from which it has profited. But the fact that the Islamists cast their vote the same way provides further proof of the communality of goals and interests of the two camps and their eagerness to secure the status quo as the next parliament will write the new Egyptian constitution in the absence of classic liberals and secularists and leave the real reformers out in the cold.
Then there is the Saudi government, whose relations with the Brotherhood date back to the 1930s, which views the protests as a potential threat—not only to its influence in Egypt, currently a major breeding ground of Salafism, but also to the future stability of the Saudi monarchy itself. Small wonder, therefore, that Riyadh rejected Cairo's possible drift toward democracy and criticized Washington's cold shouldering of Mubarak. It also had a leading mufti issue a fatwa (religious edict) against the protest movement, calling this nonviolent dissent "an act of war on Islam, and the collective Islamic nation."[17] It even threatened to cut all diplomatic ties with Cairo, should Mubarak be prosecuted.
Undoing the Totalitarian Mentality
Islamists have long controlled the educational system and mass media in Egypt. As a child in a private Cairo school, I was personally taught intolerance and militancy through my Arabic language textbooks. We were taught, for instance, that hacking necks and limbs was good if done for the "right reasons" and urged to follow the example of Uqba ibn Nafi (622–83), a militant, Arab Muslim hero known for his cruelty, from an Arabic school textbook that carried his name. Later, when I joined other secular Egyptians in publishing a newspaper, al-Insan (The human), the Mubarak government denied us permission—even as it allowed Salafi jihadists daily access to television and other state-sponsored media.
The Egyptian government was not unusual in this regard: Regimes in Arab countries have been united by common crimes, not by common interests or goals. The dismantling of the collective, totalitarian psyche threatens the so-called "moderate Arab regimes," those that justify their existence by systematically inflating the Islamist threat, which they pretend to suppress, while effectively collaborating with Islamists.
Now suddenly, the long subdued, subject populations are uniting to overthrow these regimes—not in the name of Shari'a or pan-Arabism but under the banner of freedom and prosperity. The Tunisian revolution was the first step in dismantling the old repressive, regional order; the Egyptian revolution was the second.
Even if the near future belongs to the enemies of freedom, something profound has changed among Egyptians; none of them will be the same again. Freedom may look like a distant dream, but it is still closer than ever imagined prior to 2011.
Tahrir Square has proven even to sworn skeptics that countries are not inherently Salafist, xenophobic, fascist, suicidal, and intolerant; it takes a ruthless and well organized system of governance to shape them this way; and yet this system never succeeds in killing the natural human yearning for liberty. That is why the Salafi, jihadist line of thought did not exist in Tahrir Square. Disowning Mubarak brought out the best of Egyptians. As Senator John McCain (Republican-Arizona) aptly noted: "This revolution is a repudiation of al-Qaeda."[18]
Cynthia Farahat is an Egyptian political activist and writer.
[1] See, for example, The Washington Times, Mar. 27, 2011.
[2] Anwar Sadat, Asrar at-Thawra al-Misriya (Cairo: Dar al-Hilal, 1957), pp. 44-53, 60-7, 90-2; P. J. Vatikiotis, Nasser and His Generation (London: Croom Helm, 1978), pp. 54, 60, 73.
[3] Al-Masry al-Youm (Cairo), Oct. 8, 2009.
[4] Robert St. John, The Boss: The Story of Gamal Abdel Nasser (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960), pp. 41-2.
[5] Open letter from Anwar Sadat to Adolf Hitler, al-Musawwar (Cairo), Sept. 18, 1953.
[6] Khaled Mohieddin, Memories of a Revolution (Cairo: American University of Cairo Press, 1995), p. 45.
[7] Al-Youm al-Sabe'a (Cairo), Mar. 18, 2011; Misr News (Cairo), Mar. 21, 2011.
[8] The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2006.
[9] Daniel Pipes, "Copts Pay the Price," DanielPipes.org, Jan. 12, 2011.
[10] Al-Dustur (Cairo), Jan. 19, 2011.
[11]Al-Ahram (Cairo), Jan. 24, 2011.
[12] Mawqi as-Salafi, accessed Mar. 30, 2011.
[13] Ahram Online (Cairo), Mar. 11, 2011.
[14] Assyrian International News Agency, Mar. 16, 2011; YouTube, Feb. 26, 2003, Jan. 16, 2009.
[15] Akhbar Misr (Cairo), Mar. 26, 2011.
[16] Al-Jazeera TV (Doha), Feb. 15, 2011; al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, Feb. 15, 2011.
[17] Nabanews (Sanaa), Feb. 5, 2011; goodnews4me (Cairo), Mar. 17, 2011.
[18] Agence France-Presse, Feb. 27, 2011.
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2011
Will the Muslim Brotherhood seize power in Egypt? This often repeated question, or rather fear, assumes that the Islamist organization does not already wield power yet may be able to hijack the largely secular revolution owing to its superior organization, tight discipline, and ideological single mindedness.[1]
In fact, this situation already exists. For while the Muslim Brotherhood does not formally or organizationally rule Egypt, it has ideologically controlled the country for nearly sixty years since the overthrow of the monarchy by the July 1952 coup d'état (euphemized as the "July Revolution"). The real question, then, is not whether the Muslim Brotherhood will seize power but whether it will continue to hold it, either directly or by proxy.
The Free Officers' Islamist-Fascist Streak
Since it is exceptionally difficult to define ideological differences and allegiances in Egypt's Islamic politics, a simple rule of thumb will suffice: Politicians or institutions bent on implementing the Shari'a (Islamic law), or some elements of it, qualify as Islamists; Egypt's ruling military oligarchy clearly falls into this category.
Not only does the Egyptian constitution make the Shari'a "the principal source of legislation," but the Free Officers, as the perpetrators of the 1952 putsch called themselves, were closely associated with both the Muslim Brotherhood's military wing and the Young Egypt Society (Misr al-Fatat), a nationalist-fascist militia established in 1929 by Ahmad Hussein, a religiously educated lawyer. Both Egyptian presidents hailing from the Free Officers—Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-70) and Anwar Sadat (1970-81)—received their early political schooling in al-Fatat, which in 1940 transformed into the National Islamic Party.[2]
The group spread its xenophobic and militant ideas through its magazine, Scream (al-Sarkh'a),which combined vicious attacks on Western democracy with praise for Fascism and Nazism and advocacy of the implementation of Shari'a rule. In a famous letter, Hussein invited Hitler "to convert to Islam."[3] This outlook was shared by the Muslim Brotherhood's publication, al-Nazir, which referred to the Nazi tyrant as "Hajj Hitler," and by the society's founding father, Hasan al-Banna—an unabashed admirer of Hitler and Mussolini who "guided their peoples to unity, order, regeneration, power, and glory."[4] (As late as 1953, Anwar Sadat, whose staunch pro-Nazi sympathies landed him in prison during World War II, wrote an "open letter" to Hitler in a leading Egyptian newspaper, in which he applauded the tyrant and pronounced him the real victor of the war.) [5]
Misr al-Fatat's attempted assassination in 1937 of Egypt's democratically elected liberal prime minister, Mustafa Nahhas, got the organization banned, and in the 1940s, the officers took their radicalism a step further by collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood's military wing. Some of them even joined the latter organization, notably Nasser, who reportedly did so in 1944. In his memoirs, Khaled Mohieddin, a fellow Free Officer, claimed that Banna had personally asked Nasser to join the Brotherhood, recounting how he and Nasser swore allegiance on a gun and a Qur'an.[6]
This background has continuing relevance because it informs the Free Officers' DNA: The leaders of Egypt since 1952 have pursued means and goals that originated in the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, Misr al-Fatat's Islamic-socialist and fascistic ideas are very much alive and well, and in 1990, the party was re-founded and granted a license to work as a legal entity by Mubarak's regime.
From Nasser to Mubarak
Following Banna's murder on February 12, 1949, by government agents in retaliation for the assassination of Prime Minister Nuqrashi Pasha a few weeks earlier, the military and civilian wings of the Muslim Brotherhood split. Nasser proceeded to form the Free Officers movement, which mounted the 1952 coup. In the coming decades, the military regime and the Brotherhood would maintain a strenuous relationship interrupted by occasional outbursts of violence and terrorism—notably a 1954 attempt by the Brotherhood on Nasser's life—and repressive countermeasures by the regime including mass arrests and sporadic executions. But this should be understood not as a struggle between an autocratic, secular dictatorship and a would-be Islamist one but a struggle between two ideologically similar, if not identical, rival groups, hailing from the same source.
In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that in the past, some elements within the younger generations in the military would collaborate with Islamists groups or devise their own jihadist plots, notably Sadat's October 1981 assassination by Lt. Khaled Islambouli. A military court sentenced Islambouli to death in 1982, but speculations that the death sentence was never carried out continue to circulate, especially after Sadat's daughter Roukaya made that claim on Egyptian television on March 17, 2011, saying that she saw him with her own eyes at a Saudi hotel in 1996 and that the murderer panicked upon seeing her. Roukaya recently filed a complaint with the attorney general in which she accused Mubarak of complicity in Sadat's assassination and asked for the reopening of the investigation into her father's murder.[7] Some other members of Sadat's family have similarly implied that the military was involved in his assassination. One such accusation, by Talaat Sadat, Anwar's nephew and a former member of parliament, led to his incarceration for a year in military prison in 2006 for defaming the military.[8]
Such accusations must have been particularly galling to Mubarak, who was groomed by Sadat as his successor. Mubarak also narrowly escaped an Islamist attempt on his own life while on an official visit to Ethiopia in June 1995, and portrayed himself to the West as a relentless fighter of Islamist radicalism.
To be sure, the Ethiopia incident set in motion a repressive campaign that saw the incarceration of thousands of Islamists and the execution of some. Yet this was aimed at the more militant Salafi groups, such as al-Takfir wa-l-Hijra (Excommunication and Hijra), al-Gama'at al-Islamiya (the Muslim Associations), and Tanzim al-Jihad (Organization of the Jihad), rather than the Muslim Brotherhood, which had transformed during the Sadat years into a parliamentary opposition party.
If Mubarak did indeed ban, threaten, and terrorize some Egyptians, it was the secularists rather than the Brotherhood. As cofounder of a secular political party, the Liberal Egyptian Party, whose political program calls for secularism, human rights, capitalism, the rule of law, and rejection of pan-Arabism and Islamic imperialism, this author saw it rebuffed as a legal entity by court order for being opposed to Shari'a law, which indeed it was. By contrast, not only did Mubarak allow eighty-eight Muslim Brotherhood members into parliament in 2005—as a useful tool for scaring the Western governments into thinking that democracy in Egypt would inevitably bring the Islamists to power—but his regime subtly colluded with Islamists against their more democratically inclined compatriots and religious minorities, notably the Copts.[9]
Current Realties
This background explains why the Muslim Brotherhood initially declared its opposition to the street protests in January 2011, refused to demonstrate against the regime, and issued a formal statement almost a week prior to the mass protests in which it stated that the organization "will not take part in the street protests against Mubarak's regime as a political force or a political entity."[10] Only on realizing the inevitability of Mubarak's fall did it change tack and joined the protest in strength.
Likewise, a statement by the leader of al-Gamaat al-Islamiya, Nageh Ibrahim, urged all members of Islamist groups to shun street protests as these were against the Islamic da'wa (call to join Islam)[11] whereas another group, The Salafi Da'wa in Egypt, rejected the protests as opposed to the interests of Salafis.[12]
For its part, the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has taken several actions after Mubarak's resignation that ensure continuity with past conduct of the regime. These include:
Freeing Col. Aboud al-Zomor, the mastermind behind the Sadat assassination, from prison[13] while arresting a secular classic liberal Egyptian blogger. Maikel Nabil Sanad was arrested on March 28, 2011, and faced trial in a military court for criticizing the ruling military council and the Egyptian army in his latest article. After announcing that they would issue a ruling on April 12, the military authorities almost secretly sentenced him to three years in military prison for practicing his basic right to free speech on April 10, two days before the date they announced in court to his lawyers.
Issued a constitutional declaration on March 30, 2011 and changed articles that were not voted on or mentioned in the referendum while adding the second article in the constitution - making the Shari'a "the principal source of legislation" - to the declaration, so as to combat free speech, suppress secular dissent, and persecute non-Muslims and women.
Consulting with Sheikh Muhammad Hassan before issuing a statement on the rebuilding of a church near Cairo, destroyed by a Muslim mob on March 5, 2011. Hassan is a jihadist known for his radicalism and online incitement of suicide bombings as well as for his support of the Mubarak regime and opposition to the street protests. Hassan and the military have agreed to rebuild the church in accordance with the Shari'a concept of diyah, in which a Muslim is not punished for vandalizing the property of an infidel but can pay a financial compensation.[14]
Not arresting or persecuting any of the Muslims responsible for hate crimes against Christians. In March 2011, for example, a group of Salafi thugs attacked and brutally tortured a Christian man, cutting off his ears, for renting one of his apartments to a single Muslim woman. This suggests that the military plans to continue governing Egypt in accordance to Shari'a law and practice whereby Muslims are not punished for committing any crime against a non-Muslim.[15]
Appointing Tareq al-Bishri, a retired judge, to head a committee for constitutional reform. Bishri has expressed approval of and fondness for the Brotherhood, saying that he personally appreciated the organization; he is also known for radicalism expressed in his book The Secular-Islamic Dialogue in which he stated that a secular-Islamic dialogue was completely pointless.[16]
Fighting the 2011 Egyptian Revolution
All this means that, at the governmental level, the Egyptian revolution has thus far failed for the Mubarak regime, albeit without the person himself, remains very much in place. The constitutional changes approved by the March 19 referendum, aimed at paving the way for parliamentary and presidential elections in the early summer, are not conducive to real democratic reform but pander to those groups opposed to democracy. The changes put the nascent secularist and liberal parties in marked disadvantage vis-à-vis their well organized Islamist counterparts, on the one hand, and the ruling establishment, on the other.
The majority of the fourteen million voters who approved the changes (or 77.2 percent of the total vote) came from the government's six million employees and their families—a massive voting bloc rejecting the revolution and opposed to real change, which sought to preserve the status quo from which it has profited. But the fact that the Islamists cast their vote the same way provides further proof of the communality of goals and interests of the two camps and their eagerness to secure the status quo as the next parliament will write the new Egyptian constitution in the absence of classic liberals and secularists and leave the real reformers out in the cold.
Then there is the Saudi government, whose relations with the Brotherhood date back to the 1930s, which views the protests as a potential threat—not only to its influence in Egypt, currently a major breeding ground of Salafism, but also to the future stability of the Saudi monarchy itself. Small wonder, therefore, that Riyadh rejected Cairo's possible drift toward democracy and criticized Washington's cold shouldering of Mubarak. It also had a leading mufti issue a fatwa (religious edict) against the protest movement, calling this nonviolent dissent "an act of war on Islam, and the collective Islamic nation."[17] It even threatened to cut all diplomatic ties with Cairo, should Mubarak be prosecuted.
Undoing the Totalitarian Mentality
Islamists have long controlled the educational system and mass media in Egypt. As a child in a private Cairo school, I was personally taught intolerance and militancy through my Arabic language textbooks. We were taught, for instance, that hacking necks and limbs was good if done for the "right reasons" and urged to follow the example of Uqba ibn Nafi (622–83), a militant, Arab Muslim hero known for his cruelty, from an Arabic school textbook that carried his name. Later, when I joined other secular Egyptians in publishing a newspaper, al-Insan (The human), the Mubarak government denied us permission—even as it allowed Salafi jihadists daily access to television and other state-sponsored media.
The Egyptian government was not unusual in this regard: Regimes in Arab countries have been united by common crimes, not by common interests or goals. The dismantling of the collective, totalitarian psyche threatens the so-called "moderate Arab regimes," those that justify their existence by systematically inflating the Islamist threat, which they pretend to suppress, while effectively collaborating with Islamists.
Now suddenly, the long subdued, subject populations are uniting to overthrow these regimes—not in the name of Shari'a or pan-Arabism but under the banner of freedom and prosperity. The Tunisian revolution was the first step in dismantling the old repressive, regional order; the Egyptian revolution was the second.
Even if the near future belongs to the enemies of freedom, something profound has changed among Egyptians; none of them will be the same again. Freedom may look like a distant dream, but it is still closer than ever imagined prior to 2011.
Tahrir Square has proven even to sworn skeptics that countries are not inherently Salafist, xenophobic, fascist, suicidal, and intolerant; it takes a ruthless and well organized system of governance to shape them this way; and yet this system never succeeds in killing the natural human yearning for liberty. That is why the Salafi, jihadist line of thought did not exist in Tahrir Square. Disowning Mubarak brought out the best of Egyptians. As Senator John McCain (Republican-Arizona) aptly noted: "This revolution is a repudiation of al-Qaeda."[18]
Cynthia Farahat is an Egyptian political activist and writer.
[1] See, for example, The Washington Times, Mar. 27, 2011.
[2] Anwar Sadat, Asrar at-Thawra al-Misriya (Cairo: Dar al-Hilal, 1957), pp. 44-53, 60-7, 90-2; P. J. Vatikiotis, Nasser and His Generation (London: Croom Helm, 1978), pp. 54, 60, 73.
[3] Al-Masry al-Youm (Cairo), Oct. 8, 2009.
[4] Robert St. John, The Boss: The Story of Gamal Abdel Nasser (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960), pp. 41-2.
[5] Open letter from Anwar Sadat to Adolf Hitler, al-Musawwar (Cairo), Sept. 18, 1953.
[6] Khaled Mohieddin, Memories of a Revolution (Cairo: American University of Cairo Press, 1995), p. 45.
[7] Al-Youm al-Sabe'a (Cairo), Mar. 18, 2011; Misr News (Cairo), Mar. 21, 2011.
[8] The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2006.
[9] Daniel Pipes, "Copts Pay the Price," DanielPipes.org, Jan. 12, 2011.
[10] Al-Dustur (Cairo), Jan. 19, 2011.
[11]Al-Ahram (Cairo), Jan. 24, 2011.
[12] Mawqi as-Salafi, accessed Mar. 30, 2011.
[13] Ahram Online (Cairo), Mar. 11, 2011.
[14] Assyrian International News Agency, Mar. 16, 2011; YouTube, Feb. 26, 2003, Jan. 16, 2009.
[15] Akhbar Misr (Cairo), Mar. 26, 2011.
[16] Al-Jazeera TV (Doha), Feb. 15, 2011; al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, Feb. 15, 2011.
[17] Nabanews (Sanaa), Feb. 5, 2011; goodnews4me (Cairo), Mar. 17, 2011.
[18] Agence France-Presse, Feb. 27, 2011.
Were Conquered Christians Really Liberated Muslims
Written by Raymond Ibrahim
Frontpage Magazine
26 April 2011
Imagine if a top American historian appeared on the MSM insisting that the only reason Europeans conquered the Americas was to "defend" the Native Americans--who somehow had adopted Christianity centuries before Jesus was born--from being persecuted by heathen tribes.
While that would create a maelstrom of outrage and derision in the West, in the Arab world--where some think bewitched animals work as infidel operatives--such absurdities regularly pass for "truth."
Copts: Muslims Before Muhammad
Consider the case of Fadel Soliman, a celebrated Sharia expert and Arab media darling, who regularly appears on al-Jazeera. Director of the Bridges Foundation--which teaches Muslims "how to present Islam" to non-Muslims--Soliman also lectures at Western universities, churches, and governmental agencies, including the U.S. Dept. of Defense.
His new Arabic book, Copts: Muslims Before Muhammad, asserts that, at the time of the Muslim conquest of Egypt (c. 640), the vast majority of Egyptians were not, as history has long taught, Christians, but rather prototypical Muslims, or muwahidin, who were actually being oppressed by Christians: hence, the Muslim conquest of Egypt was really about "liberating" fellow Muslims. Soliman's evidence is that the Arian sect, which rejected the claim that Jesus was coequal with God, was present in 4th century Egypt. Therefore, according to Soliman, the indigenous Egyptians were practicing Islam hundreds of years before it was founded in the 7th century.
As with much of modern academia's approach to Islam, this thesis is based on pure fiction. While the Arians were pronounced heretics at the Council of Nicea (325) for their interpretation of the Trinity, they nonetheless accepted all of Christianity's core tenets--including original sin, crucifixion, resurrection, and salvation--all of which directly contradict Islam's teachings. What an imaginative stretch, then, for Soliman to portray the Arians as prototypical Muslims, simply because they did not believe Jesus was coequal with God (a standard that would make many people today "Muslims").
Needless to say, no historian has ever suggested that Muslims invaded Egypt to liberate "proto-Muslims." Rather, the Muslim historians who wrote our primary sources on Islam, candidly and refreshingly present the conquests as they were--conquests, for the glory and empowerment of Islam and its followers at the expense of unbelieving infidels.
Of course, with the weakening of Islam in the modern era, embarrassed Muslims began to euphemize their imperialistic history, portraying jihad as "defensive," "spiritual," etc.--culminating with Soliman's fairy tale. Even the unapologetic Sayyid Qutb, the sheikh of "radical Islam," interpreted jihad and the conquests as "altruistic" endeavors to "liberate" mankind.
Such sophistry is inevitable; for the Muslim conquests pose a thorny problem for Muslims. As David Cook writes in Understanding Jihad, p.167:
[T]he conquests were seen from the beginning as one of the incontrovertible proofs of Islam. To disavow them or to examine them critically--which has yet to happen in the Muslim world--will be very painful for Muslims especially Arabic-speaking Muslims. At every point… when Muslims have tried to abandon militant jihad for the internal, spiritual jihad… the memory of the conquests and the need to rationalize them have defeated this effort. The problem may lie in the unwillingness to confront the fact that the conquests were basically unjustified. They were not a "liberation" and they were not desired by the non-Muslim peoples; they were endured and finally accepted.
Fadel Soliman, Islam expert and "bridge-builder
The question remains: Are Islam's apologists disingenuous or deluded? When it comes to "bridge-building" Soliman--who provides "sensitivity training" to the FBI and Pentagon--one is inclined to answer in the former: his book contains academic crimes, including flagrant mistranslations to support his thesis and wild, but undocumented, assertions (for example, that the Arians, like the Muslims, used to proclaim "There is no god but Allah and Jesus is his prophet").
That said, Muslim self-deception--typified by the impulsive need to always exonerate Islam--is a very real and widespread phenomenon. I am reminded of an Arabic op-ed I read last year in Al-Masry Al-Youm, which opened bluntly by saying: "We Muslims have an inferiority complex…and feel that our Islamic religion needs constant, daily affirmation from Europeans and Americans… What rapturous joy takes us when one of them converts--as if to reassure us that our religion is 'okay.'" Discussing how the Arab world exulted when it erroneously thought that Muslim critic Henryk Broder had accepted Islam--based on sarcastic remarks he had made--the author wrote "but we are a people who do not understand sarcasm, since it is subtle and requires a bit of thinking and intellectualizing; rather, we read quickly, with a hopeful eye, not an eye for truth and reality."
Considering Islam's lax views on deception, this comes as no surprise. After all, whether Muslims consciously deceive infidels or unconsciously deceive themselves, the goal has long been one: empowering Islam and its adherents--reality be damned.
Raymond Ibrahim
Frontpage Magazine
Frontpage Magazine
26 April 2011
Imagine if a top American historian appeared on the MSM insisting that the only reason Europeans conquered the Americas was to "defend" the Native Americans--who somehow had adopted Christianity centuries before Jesus was born--from being persecuted by heathen tribes.
While that would create a maelstrom of outrage and derision in the West, in the Arab world--where some think bewitched animals work as infidel operatives--such absurdities regularly pass for "truth."
Copts: Muslims Before Muhammad
Consider the case of Fadel Soliman, a celebrated Sharia expert and Arab media darling, who regularly appears on al-Jazeera. Director of the Bridges Foundation--which teaches Muslims "how to present Islam" to non-Muslims--Soliman also lectures at Western universities, churches, and governmental agencies, including the U.S. Dept. of Defense.
His new Arabic book, Copts: Muslims Before Muhammad, asserts that, at the time of the Muslim conquest of Egypt (c. 640), the vast majority of Egyptians were not, as history has long taught, Christians, but rather prototypical Muslims, or muwahidin, who were actually being oppressed by Christians: hence, the Muslim conquest of Egypt was really about "liberating" fellow Muslims. Soliman's evidence is that the Arian sect, which rejected the claim that Jesus was coequal with God, was present in 4th century Egypt. Therefore, according to Soliman, the indigenous Egyptians were practicing Islam hundreds of years before it was founded in the 7th century.
As with much of modern academia's approach to Islam, this thesis is based on pure fiction. While the Arians were pronounced heretics at the Council of Nicea (325) for their interpretation of the Trinity, they nonetheless accepted all of Christianity's core tenets--including original sin, crucifixion, resurrection, and salvation--all of which directly contradict Islam's teachings. What an imaginative stretch, then, for Soliman to portray the Arians as prototypical Muslims, simply because they did not believe Jesus was coequal with God (a standard that would make many people today "Muslims").
Needless to say, no historian has ever suggested that Muslims invaded Egypt to liberate "proto-Muslims." Rather, the Muslim historians who wrote our primary sources on Islam, candidly and refreshingly present the conquests as they were--conquests, for the glory and empowerment of Islam and its followers at the expense of unbelieving infidels.
Of course, with the weakening of Islam in the modern era, embarrassed Muslims began to euphemize their imperialistic history, portraying jihad as "defensive," "spiritual," etc.--culminating with Soliman's fairy tale. Even the unapologetic Sayyid Qutb, the sheikh of "radical Islam," interpreted jihad and the conquests as "altruistic" endeavors to "liberate" mankind.
Such sophistry is inevitable; for the Muslim conquests pose a thorny problem for Muslims. As David Cook writes in Understanding Jihad, p.167:
[T]he conquests were seen from the beginning as one of the incontrovertible proofs of Islam. To disavow them or to examine them critically--which has yet to happen in the Muslim world--will be very painful for Muslims especially Arabic-speaking Muslims. At every point… when Muslims have tried to abandon militant jihad for the internal, spiritual jihad… the memory of the conquests and the need to rationalize them have defeated this effort. The problem may lie in the unwillingness to confront the fact that the conquests were basically unjustified. They were not a "liberation" and they were not desired by the non-Muslim peoples; they were endured and finally accepted.
Fadel Soliman, Islam expert and "bridge-builder
The question remains: Are Islam's apologists disingenuous or deluded? When it comes to "bridge-building" Soliman--who provides "sensitivity training" to the FBI and Pentagon--one is inclined to answer in the former: his book contains academic crimes, including flagrant mistranslations to support his thesis and wild, but undocumented, assertions (for example, that the Arians, like the Muslims, used to proclaim "There is no god but Allah and Jesus is his prophet").
That said, Muslim self-deception--typified by the impulsive need to always exonerate Islam--is a very real and widespread phenomenon. I am reminded of an Arabic op-ed I read last year in Al-Masry Al-Youm, which opened bluntly by saying: "We Muslims have an inferiority complex…and feel that our Islamic religion needs constant, daily affirmation from Europeans and Americans… What rapturous joy takes us when one of them converts--as if to reassure us that our religion is 'okay.'" Discussing how the Arab world exulted when it erroneously thought that Muslim critic Henryk Broder had accepted Islam--based on sarcastic remarks he had made--the author wrote "but we are a people who do not understand sarcasm, since it is subtle and requires a bit of thinking and intellectualizing; rather, we read quickly, with a hopeful eye, not an eye for truth and reality."
Considering Islam's lax views on deception, this comes as no surprise. After all, whether Muslims consciously deceive infidels or unconsciously deceive themselves, the goal has long been one: empowering Islam and its adherents--reality be damned.
Raymond Ibrahim
Frontpage Magazine
Collective Punishment of Egyptian Christians For Death of Two Muslims
Written by Mary Abdelmassih
26 April 2011
(AINA) -- After the death of two Muslims on April 18 sectarian violence broke out in the southern Egyptian town of Abu Qurqas El Balad, in Minya Governorate, 260 KM south of Cairo. One Christian Copt was killed, an old woman was thrown out of her second floor balcony and ten Copts were hospitalized.
Coptic homes, shops, businesses, fields and livestock were plundered and torched.
Christians lived in terror, anticipating a blood bath on Friday, April 22 because Muslims as announced their intention to avenge the death of the two Muslims. Rumors spread throughout Abu Qurqas of many strangers and of trucks loaded with weapons coming into the village to carry out the threats during the Easter week. The terrorized Christian villagers sent pleas everywhere, asking for protection, even to Coptic groups in Europe and the U.S.
"Muslims threw my old mother out of the second floor balcony and torched my home," said Adel Abdulllah to Hazem Refaat of Free Copts advocacy. His business and home were torched and his father and three brothers were arrested on suspicion of killing the two Muslims.
Copt Eid Roshdy, was stabbed during the violence and later died in hospital.
According to Bishop Makarious twenty Coptic families had their homes and businesses looted by Muslims then torched, and their livestock was stolen. "One shop was only 50 meters away from the police station," he said. He also confirmed the story of the mother of Adel Abdullah who was thrown out of the second floor balcony.
Curfew was imposed in the village on Tuesday and Wednesday evening, from 7 PM until 6 AM to control the violence but various sources reported that looting and destruction of Coptic property continued after the curfew, even in the presence of the army and police.
According to the villagers a fight broke out on Monday, April 18 between the two Muslim families, Abdel-Kader and el-Gazzar which resulted in the death of two Muslims. Meanwhile an altercation took place in front of the villa of Coptic attorney Alaa Reda Roushdy between a minibus driver and passengers and the guards of the villa over a speed hump built in front of the residence, which the driver claimed was damaging busses. People congregated and the villa guards shot into the air to disperse the crowd. The Copts were accused of killing the two Muslims.
Bishop Makarious of Minya and Abu Qurqas said the first version of the story was the Muslims were killed during the fight between two Muslim families, then the story changed to accuse the Copts.
Ayad Shaban, a local villager told Al Karma TV the two Muslims were killed in the Eastern side of village where the majority of the Muslims live. "Then the story of the speed hump came and Muslims connected the two together and accused the Christians of the killing. There is no proof the Christians killed the Muslims." He added that relationship between Muslims and Christians are usually good and believes whoever created this story came from outside the village and incited the Muslims.
In retaliation, Muslims attacked and looted two tourist coffee shops belonging to attorney Roushdy. One coffee shop was turned into a mosque called the "Martyrs" and the second one was destroyed.
Next day during the funeral of the Muslims hundreds of Muslims from neighboring villages joined and notes were distributed among them saying the Christians were the culprit. After burying the dead the Muslim mob shouted for revenge for their two "martyrs" and attacked Christian homes while shouting "Allahu Akbar." (video shows Muslims looting Coptic property before torching it while chanting "Allahu Akbar." Army soldiers are seen passing through the looters).
Father Rofail of the Saints Church in Abu Qorqas said "It was terrible, the people who were in the funeral left and started shooting in the air and throwing Molotov cocktails at homes and fields belonging to Copts; some homes were demolished. Anything belonging to Christians was destroyed."
According to Coptic activist Nader Shoukry, fifteen Copts and eight Muslims have been detained for the murder of the two Muslims. No one has been detained for the attacks against the Copts. "None of the Muslims who looted and destroyed Coptic property was questioned," said Bishop Makarious. He added it was a miracle that the Copts were not harmed when their homes were torched. "They had to jump over the roofs of the neighboring houses to escape the flames. In one instance a wall had to be broken between two houses to get the people out as they could not escape otherwise." He criticized the police and the army for not bringing the situation under control. "We expected more from the police and army, but they were not impartial."
The new Governor of Minya appeared on Egyptian Hayat TV and said the incidents in Abu Qurqas El Balad was not sectarian but a fight over a speed hump which escalated, and denied the loss of property.
Security forces prevented TV stations from filming inside the village and Muslims also attempted to prevent Christians from filming, but many video clips have been uploaded to youtube (video showing Coptic homes after looting).
Coptic attorney Dr. Ihab Ramzy called on Copts who have had their property damaged or lost to file a complaint with the police in order for him to represents them for compensation. He said they had to name the assailants in their report, but this may be not be possible because the victims were threatened by Muslims not to mention their names.
Attorney Roushdy was arrested by the military two days ago and accused of provoking riots which led to the death and injury of citizens. Today the military ordered him to be detained for 15 days pending investigations.
Mary Abdelmassih
26 April 2011
(AINA) -- After the death of two Muslims on April 18 sectarian violence broke out in the southern Egyptian town of Abu Qurqas El Balad, in Minya Governorate, 260 KM south of Cairo. One Christian Copt was killed, an old woman was thrown out of her second floor balcony and ten Copts were hospitalized.
Coptic homes, shops, businesses, fields and livestock were plundered and torched.
Christians lived in terror, anticipating a blood bath on Friday, April 22 because Muslims as announced their intention to avenge the death of the two Muslims. Rumors spread throughout Abu Qurqas of many strangers and of trucks loaded with weapons coming into the village to carry out the threats during the Easter week. The terrorized Christian villagers sent pleas everywhere, asking for protection, even to Coptic groups in Europe and the U.S.
"Muslims threw my old mother out of the second floor balcony and torched my home," said Adel Abdulllah to Hazem Refaat of Free Copts advocacy. His business and home were torched and his father and three brothers were arrested on suspicion of killing the two Muslims.
Copt Eid Roshdy, was stabbed during the violence and later died in hospital.
According to Bishop Makarious twenty Coptic families had their homes and businesses looted by Muslims then torched, and their livestock was stolen. "One shop was only 50 meters away from the police station," he said. He also confirmed the story of the mother of Adel Abdullah who was thrown out of the second floor balcony.
Curfew was imposed in the village on Tuesday and Wednesday evening, from 7 PM until 6 AM to control the violence but various sources reported that looting and destruction of Coptic property continued after the curfew, even in the presence of the army and police.
According to the villagers a fight broke out on Monday, April 18 between the two Muslim families, Abdel-Kader and el-Gazzar which resulted in the death of two Muslims. Meanwhile an altercation took place in front of the villa of Coptic attorney Alaa Reda Roushdy between a minibus driver and passengers and the guards of the villa over a speed hump built in front of the residence, which the driver claimed was damaging busses. People congregated and the villa guards shot into the air to disperse the crowd. The Copts were accused of killing the two Muslims.
Bishop Makarious of Minya and Abu Qurqas said the first version of the story was the Muslims were killed during the fight between two Muslim families, then the story changed to accuse the Copts.
Ayad Shaban, a local villager told Al Karma TV the two Muslims were killed in the Eastern side of village where the majority of the Muslims live. "Then the story of the speed hump came and Muslims connected the two together and accused the Christians of the killing. There is no proof the Christians killed the Muslims." He added that relationship between Muslims and Christians are usually good and believes whoever created this story came from outside the village and incited the Muslims.
In retaliation, Muslims attacked and looted two tourist coffee shops belonging to attorney Roushdy. One coffee shop was turned into a mosque called the "Martyrs" and the second one was destroyed.
Next day during the funeral of the Muslims hundreds of Muslims from neighboring villages joined and notes were distributed among them saying the Christians were the culprit. After burying the dead the Muslim mob shouted for revenge for their two "martyrs" and attacked Christian homes while shouting "Allahu Akbar." (video shows Muslims looting Coptic property before torching it while chanting "Allahu Akbar." Army soldiers are seen passing through the looters).
Father Rofail of the Saints Church in Abu Qorqas said "It was terrible, the people who were in the funeral left and started shooting in the air and throwing Molotov cocktails at homes and fields belonging to Copts; some homes were demolished. Anything belonging to Christians was destroyed."
According to Coptic activist Nader Shoukry, fifteen Copts and eight Muslims have been detained for the murder of the two Muslims. No one has been detained for the attacks against the Copts. "None of the Muslims who looted and destroyed Coptic property was questioned," said Bishop Makarious. He added it was a miracle that the Copts were not harmed when their homes were torched. "They had to jump over the roofs of the neighboring houses to escape the flames. In one instance a wall had to be broken between two houses to get the people out as they could not escape otherwise." He criticized the police and the army for not bringing the situation under control. "We expected more from the police and army, but they were not impartial."
The new Governor of Minya appeared on Egyptian Hayat TV and said the incidents in Abu Qurqas El Balad was not sectarian but a fight over a speed hump which escalated, and denied the loss of property.
Security forces prevented TV stations from filming inside the village and Muslims also attempted to prevent Christians from filming, but many video clips have been uploaded to youtube (video showing Coptic homes after looting).
Coptic attorney Dr. Ihab Ramzy called on Copts who have had their property damaged or lost to file a complaint with the police in order for him to represents them for compensation. He said they had to name the assailants in their report, but this may be not be possible because the victims were threatened by Muslims not to mention their names.
Attorney Roushdy was arrested by the military two days ago and accused of provoking riots which led to the death and injury of citizens. Today the military ordered him to be detained for 15 days pending investigations.
Mary Abdelmassih
Egypt's Liberals are losing the battle
Egypt's Liberals are losing the battle. (Gideon Rachman) (Financial Times)
by Fredy Benyamin on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 4:26a
All sorts of contending forces rub shoulders in Egypt these days. Last week, I found myself in the lobby of a Cairo hotel, chatting to a square-bearded, pot-bellied, fundamentalist preacher who is eager to see all women in Egypt wear the niqab – the all-encompassing veil that leaves only a slit for the eyes. Just behind him, French tourists ambled around in bathing suits. Then the hotel crooner began belting out “My Way”. I suggested we move to a quieter spot and the preacher agreed, pointing out that, as a Salafi, he objected to all forms of music – and not just Frank Sinatra.
Eventually, after further discussion of the merits of hand-chopping and the possibility of a return to Islam as practised in the seventh century, the sheikh got into his car and drove back to his job as a computer technician.
Egypt’s young liberal middle-classes are discovering that they were not the only forces set free by the downfall of President Hosni Mubarak. One leading liberal politician told me last week that he had been barely aware of Salafism until after the revolution. Suddenly, Salafi spokesmen are all over the media and are organising politically. By some reckonings they could get 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the vote in parliamentary elections planned for September.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the more established and less fundamentalist Islamist organisation, is generally reckoned to be good for at least a third of the vote. Add in a couple of fringe Islamist parties and you could be looking at an Islamist majority in Egypt’s first parliament. “Entirely plausible,” says a western diplomat in Cairo, as he sips his coffee.
The stakes in the coming elections are very high, since the new parliament will have the power to rewrite Egypt’s constitution and so shape the country for decades. But Egypt’s liberals face formidable odds. They are operating in a country where 40 per cent of the total population live on less than $2 a day. Some 30m Egyptians are illiterate. The Muslim Brotherhood is by far the most organised non-state organisation in the country, while the liberal forces are fragmented and disorganised.
Realising this, most liberals opposed the constitutional changes that laid the groundwork for parliamentary and presidential elections this year, arguing that more time was needed to establish a proper constitutional order and to allow new political forces to organise. The Muslim Brotherhood, who know that they are well placed to profit from swift elections, campaigned for a Yes vote – and were delighted to see a 77 per cent vote in favour.
The crushing defeat of the liberal camp in the referendum came as a bad shock to them, since it was the first political trial of strength between Islamists and liberals since the revolution. It should serve as a wake-up call, galvanising liberals to unify and organise.
Unfortunately, much of the energy of liberal Egypt seems to be focused on pursuing the old regime rather than preparing for the future. Earlier this month crowds reoccupied Tahrir Square in central Cairo to demand that Mr Mubarak be put on trial. Now that the demand has been granted, corruption allegations are being pursued against businesses that did well under the old regime.
Some liberals argue that the pursuit of justice and the exposure of the crimes of the old regime are crucial to the establishment of a new Egypt. They also fear that the “deep state” of the Mubarak era will re-emerge and thwart change, unless it is exposed and pursued through the courts. These are legitimate arguments. But an overconcentration on the past risks losing the future. The political dangers are heightened by a serious deterioration in the economy. Tourism is a crucial industry, but many tourists seem too frightened to go to Egypt at the moment. Visiting the Pyramids in Giza last week I virtually had the place to myself.
A lot of foreign and domestic investment is also on hold. Inflation is running at 18 per cent and food price inflation is over 50 per cent. In an effort to maintain stability, the government is pouring money into subsidies for food and energy. But the budget deficit is now about 12 per cent of GDP and foreign reserves are falling, as the central bank struggles to support the currency. Some fear that Egypt is heading for a balance-of-payments crisis. An International Monetary Fund-style austerity regime in an already poor country will not be a great advert for the post-Mubarak order.
Despite all this, there is still plenty of post-revolutionary euphoria in Cairo. People who demonstrated in Tahrir Square are still exhilarated by what has been achieved – and by a new sense of dignity and hope for the future. But the risks of political and economic chaos are rising. Egypt’s liberals need to organise fast in response and to prepare for elections.
As for the west, it cannot afford to let the dramas in Libya, Syria and Yemen lead to the neglect of Egypt. For the fate of the Arab Spring still hangs most of all on what happens in the most populous and culturally powerful country in the Arab world.
Mohamed ElBaradei, one of the frontrunners to be Egypt’s next president and a leading liberal voice, told me last week: “If we succeed here, then the march towards democracy in the Arab world is unstoppable.” On the other hand, if Egypt fails, then the blue skies and optimism of the Arab Spring may swiftly give way to something a lot stormier and darker.
by Fredy Benyamin on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 4:26a
All sorts of contending forces rub shoulders in Egypt these days. Last week, I found myself in the lobby of a Cairo hotel, chatting to a square-bearded, pot-bellied, fundamentalist preacher who is eager to see all women in Egypt wear the niqab – the all-encompassing veil that leaves only a slit for the eyes. Just behind him, French tourists ambled around in bathing suits. Then the hotel crooner began belting out “My Way”. I suggested we move to a quieter spot and the preacher agreed, pointing out that, as a Salafi, he objected to all forms of music – and not just Frank Sinatra.
Eventually, after further discussion of the merits of hand-chopping and the possibility of a return to Islam as practised in the seventh century, the sheikh got into his car and drove back to his job as a computer technician.
Egypt’s young liberal middle-classes are discovering that they were not the only forces set free by the downfall of President Hosni Mubarak. One leading liberal politician told me last week that he had been barely aware of Salafism until after the revolution. Suddenly, Salafi spokesmen are all over the media and are organising politically. By some reckonings they could get 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the vote in parliamentary elections planned for September.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the more established and less fundamentalist Islamist organisation, is generally reckoned to be good for at least a third of the vote. Add in a couple of fringe Islamist parties and you could be looking at an Islamist majority in Egypt’s first parliament. “Entirely plausible,” says a western diplomat in Cairo, as he sips his coffee.
The stakes in the coming elections are very high, since the new parliament will have the power to rewrite Egypt’s constitution and so shape the country for decades. But Egypt’s liberals face formidable odds. They are operating in a country where 40 per cent of the total population live on less than $2 a day. Some 30m Egyptians are illiterate. The Muslim Brotherhood is by far the most organised non-state organisation in the country, while the liberal forces are fragmented and disorganised.
Realising this, most liberals opposed the constitutional changes that laid the groundwork for parliamentary and presidential elections this year, arguing that more time was needed to establish a proper constitutional order and to allow new political forces to organise. The Muslim Brotherhood, who know that they are well placed to profit from swift elections, campaigned for a Yes vote – and were delighted to see a 77 per cent vote in favour.
The crushing defeat of the liberal camp in the referendum came as a bad shock to them, since it was the first political trial of strength between Islamists and liberals since the revolution. It should serve as a wake-up call, galvanising liberals to unify and organise.
Unfortunately, much of the energy of liberal Egypt seems to be focused on pursuing the old regime rather than preparing for the future. Earlier this month crowds reoccupied Tahrir Square in central Cairo to demand that Mr Mubarak be put on trial. Now that the demand has been granted, corruption allegations are being pursued against businesses that did well under the old regime.
Some liberals argue that the pursuit of justice and the exposure of the crimes of the old regime are crucial to the establishment of a new Egypt. They also fear that the “deep state” of the Mubarak era will re-emerge and thwart change, unless it is exposed and pursued through the courts. These are legitimate arguments. But an overconcentration on the past risks losing the future. The political dangers are heightened by a serious deterioration in the economy. Tourism is a crucial industry, but many tourists seem too frightened to go to Egypt at the moment. Visiting the Pyramids in Giza last week I virtually had the place to myself.
A lot of foreign and domestic investment is also on hold. Inflation is running at 18 per cent and food price inflation is over 50 per cent. In an effort to maintain stability, the government is pouring money into subsidies for food and energy. But the budget deficit is now about 12 per cent of GDP and foreign reserves are falling, as the central bank struggles to support the currency. Some fear that Egypt is heading for a balance-of-payments crisis. An International Monetary Fund-style austerity regime in an already poor country will not be a great advert for the post-Mubarak order.
Despite all this, there is still plenty of post-revolutionary euphoria in Cairo. People who demonstrated in Tahrir Square are still exhilarated by what has been achieved – and by a new sense of dignity and hope for the future. But the risks of political and economic chaos are rising. Egypt’s liberals need to organise fast in response and to prepare for elections.
As for the west, it cannot afford to let the dramas in Libya, Syria and Yemen lead to the neglect of Egypt. For the fate of the Arab Spring still hangs most of all on what happens in the most populous and culturally powerful country in the Arab world.
Mohamed ElBaradei, one of the frontrunners to be Egypt’s next president and a leading liberal voice, told me last week: “If we succeed here, then the march towards democracy in the Arab world is unstoppable.” On the other hand, if Egypt fails, then the blue skies and optimism of the Arab Spring may swiftly give way to something a lot stormier and darker.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Dearborn Plans to Deny Pastor Terry Jones' Permit Request for Protest
By RONNIE DAHL
WJBK | myFOXDetroit.com
SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (WJBK) - Security will be tight when Pastor Terry Jones arrives in Dearborn, and it's not going to come cheap. The Koran burning pastor is planning a controversial visit in two days on Good Friday.
FOX 2 has learned the City of Dearborn will most likely deny his permit to hold a demonstration near the Islamic Center of America, but he can still rally at what they are calling free speech zones. If Jones insists on holding it near the Islamic Center, he risks being arrested.
"We are definitely going to go through with our protest, that nothing will stop that," said Jones.
Grey skies loomed Wednesday over the Islamic Center, a peaceful place of worship that Florida pastor Terry Jones wants to use as a backdrop. He's requested a permit to hold a demonstration Good Friday at the city owned lot across the street.
Despite outrage over the Koran burning pastor's visit, Jones says he's coming.
FOX 2's Ronnie Dahl asked him whether he's ready to go to jail for that.
"Yes, of course. We are prepared for whatever consequences they feel are necessary," Jones said.
Dearborn's mayor wrote an open letter to Pastor Jones urging him to cancel. Police claim the visit will put a dent in the city's coffers, estimating security will cost around $46,000.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy is asking a judge to halt the protest to prevent crime. She also thinks Jones should be held accountable for the cost and is requesting that he pay a $100,000 bond.
"It is (an) infringement on our constitutional rights, First Amendment rights," Jones told FOX 2.
"We think what the prosecutor did by ordering him or requesting that he pay a $100,000 bond, we think that's the worst possible thing she could've possibly done for our community. This is America. In America, we're entitled to free speech," said attorney Majed Moughni.
He is supporting Pastor Jones' right to free speech, even if he doesn't like what he has to say. The Dearborn attorney wanted to hold a "Stop the Hate" rally near Jones' protest, but his permit was denied. The event is being moved to the Civic Center, a move he supports after learning Pastor Jones' plans on bringing his gun.
"We're telling our people to stay away from him. He's a violent man. He's a crazy man, and we want to stay away from crazy people," Moughni said.
"If we are, of course, attacked or shot at, then, of course, we would be forced to defend ourselves. That it is definitely, definitely, definitely not our intention to come there in any type of … provocative way," said Jones.
Once again, Jones is not being told, at this point in time, that he can't hold his demonstration. What they're concerned about is just where he wants to hold it. Those free speech zones are at the City Hall, as well as the Civic Center.
The court hearing is still scheduled for 3:00 p.m. Thursday. FOX 2 will, of course, be there and bring you all the latest developments.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/ronnie_dahl/dearborn-may-deny-pastor-terry-jones-demonstration-permit-20110420-wpms
WJBK | myFOXDetroit.com
SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (WJBK) - Security will be tight when Pastor Terry Jones arrives in Dearborn, and it's not going to come cheap. The Koran burning pastor is planning a controversial visit in two days on Good Friday.
FOX 2 has learned the City of Dearborn will most likely deny his permit to hold a demonstration near the Islamic Center of America, but he can still rally at what they are calling free speech zones. If Jones insists on holding it near the Islamic Center, he risks being arrested.
"We are definitely going to go through with our protest, that nothing will stop that," said Jones.
Grey skies loomed Wednesday over the Islamic Center, a peaceful place of worship that Florida pastor Terry Jones wants to use as a backdrop. He's requested a permit to hold a demonstration Good Friday at the city owned lot across the street.
Despite outrage over the Koran burning pastor's visit, Jones says he's coming.
FOX 2's Ronnie Dahl asked him whether he's ready to go to jail for that.
"Yes, of course. We are prepared for whatever consequences they feel are necessary," Jones said.
Dearborn's mayor wrote an open letter to Pastor Jones urging him to cancel. Police claim the visit will put a dent in the city's coffers, estimating security will cost around $46,000.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy is asking a judge to halt the protest to prevent crime. She also thinks Jones should be held accountable for the cost and is requesting that he pay a $100,000 bond.
"It is (an) infringement on our constitutional rights, First Amendment rights," Jones told FOX 2.
"We think what the prosecutor did by ordering him or requesting that he pay a $100,000 bond, we think that's the worst possible thing she could've possibly done for our community. This is America. In America, we're entitled to free speech," said attorney Majed Moughni.
He is supporting Pastor Jones' right to free speech, even if he doesn't like what he has to say. The Dearborn attorney wanted to hold a "Stop the Hate" rally near Jones' protest, but his permit was denied. The event is being moved to the Civic Center, a move he supports after learning Pastor Jones' plans on bringing his gun.
"We're telling our people to stay away from him. He's a violent man. He's a crazy man, and we want to stay away from crazy people," Moughni said.
"If we are, of course, attacked or shot at, then, of course, we would be forced to defend ourselves. That it is definitely, definitely, definitely not our intention to come there in any type of … provocative way," said Jones.
Once again, Jones is not being told, at this point in time, that he can't hold his demonstration. What they're concerned about is just where he wants to hold it. Those free speech zones are at the City Hall, as well as the Civic Center.
The court hearing is still scheduled for 3:00 p.m. Thursday. FOX 2 will, of course, be there and bring you all the latest developments.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/ronnie_dahl/dearborn-may-deny-pastor-terry-jones-demonstration-permit-20110420-wpms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
