A Blow to the Muslim Brotherhood

[sealadaigh]

I am not referring to sharia as an institution rather a system by which law is made and how a country is governed and people are compelled to act as a way of life. The MB has been around in Egypt since 1928 and they have had their opportunity to run Egypt in their fashion. They claimed to be democratic and passed a constitution based on sharia law. Morsy broke his word many times and finally "Egyptians accuse Morsy and the Brotherhood of engaging in a process of "ikhwaninzation" -- or "Brotherhoodization", Ghitis says, describing it as "a quest to take control of state institutions and impose their Islamist views on the population."

The larger question may encompass whether a theocracy can successfully run a country. However, the more pointed question is why did the Muslim Brotherhood lose their support, their people and finally lose Egypt.

The answer can be stated in one sentence: "in June 2013, more people had signed a Tamarod -- or rebel -- petition to withdraw support for Morsy than voted for him in the election".

What is the Muslim Brotherhood?

Technically Egypt's constitution has long supported lawsets based on sharia. Article two supported that under Mubarak. The understanding of what constitutes legitimate sharia though in Egypt is different than what one might think and subject to the court system. Essentially only undisputed sections of the Quran and sunnah can be utilized in this process and that severely reduces how much of the Quran and especially how much of the Sunni hadiths can be used in the construction of Sharia.

It isn't simply up to the legislature and the executive to define what Islam and sharia is, it is up to the courts which have traditionally been fairly restrictive on that issue.

Overall, it wouldn't be a democracy like what we have, but while I tend to favor ours over the proposed Egyptian model, it's their country and shouldn't Egyptians ultimately be the ones who decide how their democracy functions? Does it have to be like ours? Most Egyptians want a government (or wanted back in 2010 and 2011) that is both a democratic institution and one that reflects Islamic principles. That's their model.

I agree it is their country, indeed, they have rejected the former president as he did not perform his duties as promised. What else is there? I do not believe that every country on earth could or should have "a democracy like what we have", nevertheless, do not support any government where people do not have rights which speak to democratic values. Apparently neither do the Egyptian people.

please enlighten me. who was it exactly who suspended the egyptian constitution, which many people would think is the cornerstone of a democracy.

 

[Connery]

I agree it is their country, indeed, they have rejected the former president as he did not perform his duties as promised. What else is there?

"they" is a pretty general term though. The Muslim Brotherhood is by far the most popular and strongest party within the legislature (with the second being another Islamist party, al Nour). Large urban protests in a country of close to 85 million people don't mean that a majority of people want a military coup. Also, since when is temporary unpopularity a justification for a military coup? Should our military oust our president every time his approval rating dips below 50%? Morsi was also in office for only one year. Hardly a term that can truly give a president a chance.

This wasn't simply a popular ousting, it was a coup against a popularly elected president and an even more popularly elected parliament and constitutional council.

From post 75.

"instead of trying to build up the independent institutions—the courts, the media, a neutral civil service, army and police—that check the power of government in mature democracies, Mr Morsi did his best to undermine them. He legislated through a senate that was elected by only 10% of the voters. He made false, inept or cowardly choices at every turn, finagling constitutional issues, pushing fellow Brothers into key appointments and feeding the secularists’ fears that his brethren were determined, by hook or by crook, to Islamise every aspect of society. He stayed silent when bigots and thugs threatened and attacked religious minorities. He allowed foreigners working for advocacy groups promoting human rights and democracy to be hounded, prosecuted and convicted (most of them in absentia) on patently false charges."

 

[Kondor3]

"...please enlighten me. who was it exactly who suspended the egyptian constitution, which many people would think is the cornerstone of a democracy."

Probably the same person (Morsi) and behind-the-scenes support group (Muslim Brotherhood) who kicked the Old Constitution to the curb and rammed a new one (to their liking) down the throats of the Egyptian People - bypassing the courts - at the speed of light.

Rather difficult to formulate a cornerstone of democracy when the act of formulation was in itself an autocratic and uni-partisan act.

 

[sealadaigh]

I agree it is their country, indeed, they have rejected the former president as he did not perform his duties as promised. What else is there? I do not believe that every country on earth could or should have "a democracy like what we have", nevertheless, do not support any government where people do not have rights which speak to democratic values. Apparently neither do the Egyptian people.

nothing like a good military coup to insure the liberties offered by democracy.

The people spoke and Morsi is out.

some of the people rioted against a politically unstable political situation from the get go and the military suspended the constitution.

if that is your idea of democracy?

i am really beginning to wonder i a lot of this discussion on this thread is more about a bigotry against muslims and arabs and not about the ideals of democracy. there are a number of posts that seem to indicate that. some posters seem delighted at this failure of egypt's experiment.

 

[Kondor3]

"...some posters seem delighted at this failure of egypt's experiment."

I'm delighted that the Egyptian People were able to get the Army to back them in correcting a horrible election mistake that might have been irreversible if left untended for another few months.

I'm delighted that the Egyptian People rejected a Radical Islamist political party which trashed their Cobnstitution, in favor of a shot at new elections designed to produce a saner and more Secular State.

I'm delighted that the Egyptian People get a Do-Over at a time when one was badly needed.

Does that count?

 

[Connery]

Technically Egypt's constitution has long supported lawsets based on sharia. Article two supported that under Mubarak. The understanding of what constitutes legitimate sharia though in Egypt is different than what one might think and subject to the court system. Essentially only undisputed sections of the Quran and sunnah can be utilized in this process and that severely reduces how much of the Quran and especially how much of the Sunni hadiths can be used in the construction of Sharia.

It isn't simply up to the legislature and the executive to define what Islam and sharia is, it is up to the courts which have traditionally been fairly restrictive on that issue.

Overall, it wouldn't be a democracy like what we have, but while I tend to favor ours over the proposed Egyptian model, it's their country and shouldn't Egyptians ultimately be the ones who decide how their democracy functions? Does it have to be like ours? Most Egyptians want a government (or wanted back in 2010 and 2011) that is both a democratic institution and one that reflects Islamic principles. That's their model.

I agree it is their country, indeed, they have rejected the former president as he did not perform his duties as promised. What else is there? I do not believe that every country on earth could or should have "a democracy like what we have", nevertheless, do not support any government where people do not have rights which speak to democratic values. Apparently neither do the Egyptian people.

please enlighten me. who was it exactly who suspended the egyptian constitution, which many people would think is the cornerstone of a democracy.

Your question is couched in rhetorical fashion. Kindly quits the games and make your point....if you have one that is.

 

[sealadaigh]

"...please enlighten me. who was it exactly who suspended the egyptian constitution, which many people would think is the cornerstone of a democracy."

Probably the same person (Morsi) and behind-the-scenes support group (Muslim Brotherhood) who kicked the Old Constitution to the curb and rammed a new one (to their liking) down the throats of the Egyptian People - bypassing the courts - at the speed of light.

Rather difficult to formulate a cornerstone of democracy when the act of formulation was in itself an autocratic and uni-partisan act.

perhaps you might want to check into which articles mubarik wanted amended or removed and what articles the egyptian constitutional review committee, as formed by the egyptian military, amended and/or removed.

 

[sealadaigh]

I agree it is their country, indeed, they have rejected the former president as he did not perform his duties as promised. What else is there? I do not believe that every country on earth could or should have "a democracy like what we have", nevertheless, do not support any government where people do not have rights which speak to democratic values. Apparently neither do the Egyptian people.

please enlighten me. who was it exactly who suspended the egyptian constitution, which many people would think is the cornerstone of a democracy.

Your question is couched in rhetorical fashion. Kindly quits the games and make your point....if you have one that is.

your statements have contained nothing but rhetoric and vague platitudes about some people having spoken. i am not playing games.l i am tryin to figure out what you and some of the others are actually saying or what they know because a lot of lip service is being paid to democracy with very little tolerance being given as to the struggle most democracies encounter in their birthing.

so far, the only posts i have read that seem to say anything are coyote's and osomir's.

my point is simple. a military coup is about as far from democracy as one can get and all your flowery rhetoric about "people having spoken" is malarky.

here is a point for you. review the rules of the CDZ.

 

[Connery]

I can only suggest you review the many very well written and substantive posts in this thread. Take what you want and leave the rest.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Osomir]

"instead of trying to build up the independent institutions—the courts, the media, a neutral civil service, army and police—that check the power of government in mature democracies, Mr Morsi did his best to undermine them. He legislated through a senate that was elected by only 10% of the voters.

This seems a bit of an unfair statement. There is no Senate, but I take it you are referring to the Shura Council, and if so it isn't comparable to our Senate here, they don't have as much power, especially over basic domestic legislation. The People's assembly though was elected by more than 10% of the population and was heavily Islamist. The voter turnout for the 2011 elections was 59%.

He made false, inept or cowardly choices at every turn, finagling constitutional issues, pushing fellow Brothers into key appointments and feeding the secularists’ fears that his brethren were determined, by hook or by crook, to Islamise every aspect of society.

I'd be interested in specific examples of this because I remember him struggling to try to pass a constitution that the military kept blocking due to lack of minority support. So he had Islamists give up seats on the council despite the fact that they deserved to be there given their proportional representation in the legislature and even then couldn't come to an agreement that the military was satisfied with.

In fact, you could say the same exact things that you just lobbied against Morsi against the military that has usurped power. They tried to push their guy into power even though he lost elections, they've been obstructionist in the construction of a new constitution, they made requirements that their financial holdings and physical assets couldn't be touched by a civilian government (corruption), and they ousted a popularly elected leader and dissolved the first truly democratically elected parliament that Egypt has had in modern times.

Don't get me wrong, Morsi did many things that I disagreed with vehemently (like trying to break the constitutional crisis by granting himself extraordinary powers); but I still don't think that you are being particularly fair in your assessment of his administration.

 

[Connery]

"instead of trying to build up the independent institutions—the courts, the media, a neutral civil service, army and police—that check the power of government in mature democracies, Mr Morsi did his best to undermine them. He legislated through a senate that was elected by only 10% of the voters.

This seems a bit of an unfair statement. There is no Senate, but I take it you are referring to the Shura Council, and if so it isn't comparable to our Senate here, they don't have as much power, especially over basic domestic legislation. The People's assembly though was elected by more than 10% of the population and was heavily Islamist. The voter turnout for the 2011 elections was 59%.

He made false, inept or cowardly choices at every turn, finagling constitutional issues, pushing fellow Brothers into key appointments and feeding the secularists’ fears that his brethren were determined, by hook or by crook, to Islamise every aspect of society.

I'd be interested in specific examples of this because I remember him struggling to try to pass a constitution that the military kept blocking due to lack of minority support. So he had Islamists give up seats on the council despite the fact that they deserved to be there given their proportional representation in the legislature and even then couldn't come to an agreement that the military was satisfied with.

In fact, you could say the same exact things that you just lobbied against Morsi against the military that has usurped power. They tried to push their guy into power even though he lost elections, they've been obstructionist in the construction of a new constitution, they made requirements that their financial holdings and physical assets couldn't be touched by a civilian government (corruption), and they ousted a popularly elected leader and dissolved the first truly democratically elected parliament that Egypt has had in modern times.

Don't get me wrong, Morsi did many things that I disagreed with vehemently (like trying to break the constitutional crisis by granting himself extraordinary powers); but I still don't think that you are being particularly fair in your assessment of his administration.

You have not rebutted the source nor have you offered your own....(see post 75)

 

[Osomir]

This seems a bit of an unfair statement. There is no Senate, but I take it you are referring to the Shura Council, and if so it isn't comparable to our Senate here, they don't have as much power, especially over basic domestic legislation. The People's assembly though was elected by more than 10% of the population and was heavily Islamist. The voter turnout for the 2011 elections was 59%.

He made false, inept or cowardly choices at every turn, finagling constitutional issues, pushing fellow Brothers into key appointments and feeding the secularists’ fears that his brethren were determined, by hook or by crook, to Islamise every aspect of society.

I'd be interested in specific examples of this because I remember him struggling to try to pass a constitution that the military kept blocking due to lack of minority support. So he had Islamists give up seats on the council despite the fact that they deserved to be there given their proportional representation in the legislature and even then couldn't come to an agreement that the military was satisfied with.

In fact, you could say the same exact things that you just lobbied against Morsi against the military that has usurped power. They tried to push their guy into power even though he lost elections, they've been obstructionist in the construction of a new constitution, they made requirements that their financial holdings and physical assets couldn't be touched by a civilian government (corruption), and they ousted a popularly elected leader and dissolved the first truly democratically elected parliament that Egypt has had in modern times.

Don't get me wrong, Morsi did many things that I disagreed with vehemently (like trying to break the constitutional crisis by granting himself extraordinary powers); but I still don't think that you are being particularly fair in your assessment of his administration.

You have not rebutted the source

I do believe that I absolutely did respond to the copy and paste portion of the economist article you posted. My stance doesn't change whether it came from you or from the Economist.

The legislative elections of 2011 had a 59% voter turnout (about 50 million out of 85 million are registered to vote so over 25 million people voted which is more than 10% of the population).

They are referencing the Shura Council which is partly elected, party appointed, and which is tasked to safe guard the revolution, but it can't legislate the way the People's assembly can, that's not how the legislative process works in Egypt.

Also, whether or not you are using the Economist I'd still like examples regarding what you were talking about in the copy paste portion, so that I have something more concrete than generalities to respond to with specific sources and citations.

 

[Kondor3]

"...perhaps you might want to check into which articles mubarik wanted amended or removed and what articles the egyptian constitutional review committee, as formed by the egyptian military, amended and/or removed..."

Oh, I have no doubt that Mubarek simply side-stepped the Constitution for much of his 30 year reign, and I have no doubt that he sought to amend it to his liking, as well.

But that has zero bearing upon whether the Muslim Brotherhood (and their front-man, Morsi) threw the old one out and conjured-up a new one designed to favor their agenda and to help to keep them in power, and bypassed the courts, and rammed it through within a matter of days, rather than celebrating democracy with a prolonged, substantive and all-inclusive process. Past history of other autocrats is immaterial to the idea that the Brotherhood (Morsi) blew a tasty opportunity to build something better but they reverted to autocracy themselves.

THAT was their biggest mistake in all of this... a painfully obvious sham of Constitutional Reform; hell, if the Egyptians wanted that, they would have just kept Mubarek, and saved themselves the trouble.

 

[Connery]

This seems a bit of an unfair statement. There is no Senate, but I take it you are referring to the Shura Council, and if so it isn't comparable to our Senate here, they don't have as much power, especially over basic domestic legislation. The People's assembly though was elected by more than 10% of the population and was heavily Islamist. The voter turnout for the 2011 elections was 59%.



I'd be interested in specific examples of this because I remember him struggling to try to pass a constitution that the military kept blocking due to lack of minority support. So he had Islamists give up seats on the council despite the fact that they deserved to be there given their proportional representation in the legislature and even then couldn't come to an agreement that the military was satisfied with.

In fact, you could say the same exact things that you just lobbied against Morsi against the military that has usurped power. They tried to push their guy into power even though he lost elections, they've been obstructionist in the construction of a new constitution, they made requirements that their financial holdings and physical assets couldn't be touched by a civilian government (corruption), and they ousted a popularly elected leader and dissolved the first truly democratically elected parliament that Egypt has had in modern times.

Don't get me wrong, Morsi did many things that I disagreed with vehemently (like trying to break the constitutional crisis by granting himself extraordinary powers); but I still don't think that you are being particularly fair in your assessment of his administration.

You have not rebutted the source

I do believe that I absolutely did respond to the copy and paste portion of the economist article you posted. My stance doesn't change whether it came from you or from the Economist.

The legislative elections of 2011 had a 59% voter turnout (about 50 million out of 85 million are registered to vote so over 25 million people voted which is more than 10% of the population).

They are referencing the Shura Council which is partly elected, party appointed, and which is tasked to safe guard the revolution, but it can't legislate the way the People's assembly can, that's not how the legislative process works in Egypt.

Also, whether or not you are using the Economist I'd still like examples regarding what you were talking about in the copy paste portion, so that I have something more concrete than generalities to respond to with specific sources and citations.

You have cited your opinion and nothing more. I have used court cases, recognized and respected sources. Your are entitled to your opinions, without more that is all they are. I am not going to argue in a vacuum, get some back up then we shall continue. Further read my posts, at this juncture our discussion is circular and quite frankly, concluded.

 

[Osomir]

You have not rebutted the source

I do believe that I absolutely did respond to the copy and paste portion of the economist article you posted. My stance doesn't change whether it came from you or from the Economist.

The legislative elections of 2011 had a 59% voter turnout (about 50 million out of 85 million are registered to vote so over 25 million people voted which is more than 10% of the population).

They are referencing the Shura Council which is partly elected, party appointed, and which is tasked to safe guard the revolution, but it can't legislate the way the People's assembly can, that's not how the legislative process works in Egypt.

Also, whether or not you are using the Economist I'd still like examples regarding what you were talking about in the copy paste portion, so that I have something more concrete than generalities to respond to with specific sources and citations.

You have cited your opinion and nothing more. I have used court cases, recognized and respected sources. Your are entitled to your opinions, without more that is all they are. I am not going to argue in a vacuum, get some back up then we shall continue. Further read my posts, at this juncture our discussion is circular and quite frankly, concluded.

How is asking for clarification about the specifics of one of the sources that you are basing your argument on so I know what to respond to a bad thing?

I asked you specific questions concerning the content of your "respected source" that you are relying on for the sake of clarification and you haven't answered them so how do I know what to respond to?

 

[Osomir]

Under Islam the only Law possible is Sharia Law as laid out in the Koran, which means that there is no independent civil law as in all democracies.

Let's hope and pray the next election in Egypt produce a secular government where Sharia Law is disregarded and doesn't have its usual toxic effects.

Most Sharia laws have nothing to do with the Quran. That isn't the primary way in which it is constructed.

 

[Osomir]

What about the TWENTY MILLION Egyptians who signed their names to recall petitions - they don't appear anywhere in Sunni's 'description' ......

That "petition" came from the protest group who refused to have the list audited and authenticated. Not very good evidence of anything. Beside, just because a president goes through a period of unpopularity doesn't justify a coup; deposing even disliked democratically elected presidents is a major blow to democratic institutions and stability (historically).

 

[Kondor3]

What about the TWENTY MILLION Egyptians who signed their names to recall petitions - they don't appear anywhere in Sunni's 'description' ......

That "petition" came from the protest group who refused to have the list audited and authenticated. Not very good evidence of anything. Beside, just because a president goes through a period of unpopularity doesn't justify a coup; deposing even disliked democratically elected presidents is a major blow to democratic institutions and stability (historically).

That argument might have fallen upon more sympathetic ears, if not for the idea that Morsi trashed the old Constitution and then crammed a NEW Constitution down the throats of The People at the speed of light, bypassing the courts, focusing exclusively upon the higher legislative house (Senate, Lords, etc.), appointing a great many Brotherhood cronies to high government posts, resorting to autocratic governance rather than all-inclusive democratic means, and generally being perceived as preparing the way for the Brotherhood to remain in power indefinitely - thus requiring an Intervention; unfortunate but nevertheless necessary and just-in-time.

 

[Osomir]

What about the TWENTY MILLION Egyptians who signed their names to recall petitions - they don't appear anywhere in Sunni's 'description' ......

That "petition" came from the protest group who refused to have the list audited and authenticated. Not very good evidence of anything. Beside, just because a president goes through a period of unpopularity doesn't justify a coup; deposing even disliked democratically elected presidents is a major blow to democratic institutions and stability (historically).

That argument might have fallen upon more sympathetic ears, if not for the idea that Morsi trashed the old Constitution and then crammed a NEW Constitution down the throats of The People at the speed of light, bypassing the courts, focusing exclusively upon the higher legislative house (Senate, Lords, etc.), appointing a great many Brotherhood cronies to high government posts, resorting to autocratic governance rather than all-inclusive democratic means, and generally being perceived as preparing the way for the Brotherhood to remain in power indefinitely - thus requiring an Intervention; unfortunate but nevertheless necessary and just-in-time.

Oh i'm not a big Morsi fan, but part of the problem with the constitution the military set up. The military gave themselves strong powers until Morsi could create a constitution and also demanded a constitution that was quickly established. Not a very good support role.

The military is fairly corrupt too and has, for the most part, been looking after its own (quite considerable) financial interests in terms of its pushing of the constitutional process. It still is and is using popular unrest as a disguise for that. Popular unrest is not a justification for a military coup within a democratic system, and it won't lead to a healthy democracy.

 

[Kondor3]

Well, Osomir, both of us seem to have some good points to make, and valid concerns, but it's out of our hands, and there's not much left to do now but hope for the best to spring from a bad situation. Either way you slice it, it's not very promising.