A Blow to the Muslim Brotherhood

[Gadawg73]

Sunni man keeps telling us when bad things happen to Muslims from other Muslims that "is none of my business, I do not live there" but when it is moderate Muslims running off a fundamentalist Muslim then it IS HIS BUSINESS and he blames Israel, Mossad, CIA, Jason Bourne, Maxwell Smart and James Bond.

 

[Katzndogz]

The muslim brotherhood in Egypt declared intifada putting Egypt in a full scale civil war. Another obama foreign policy **** up.

 

[sealadaigh]

For the first time in history the MB managed to gain control in Egypt....and it quickly found out that governing was a different proposition to being a radical movement in the background responsible of causing terrorism and divisions.The Egyptian people simply did not tolerate the Brotherhood's attempt to completely change their culture and to have to see their economy become bankrupt.

The popular overthrow of the MB was indeed a severe blow for their status as they have been proved unfit to rule!

On the other hand ,the military had shown they are a worthy guardian of looking after Egypt's interests and should be praised!

Nice post!!!



I do not think the military would have acted in this manner if the former president was holding true to the democratic ideals which put him in office.

a military coup is never a victory for democracy.

i wonder how many people would say that obama was not holding true to the democratic ideals that put him in office...or his more immediate predecessors.

 

[Trajan]

well, the thing is, lets say Mohamed ElBaradei were to run in the 'next election' and win.....so, what if the people wind up not liking him because say, he doesn't get the economy ip and running and they take to the streets again?


what, is the military going to jump in there too?


In Algeria in 91 or 92, an Islamic leader was elected and the military did same after the first round results wound up going to the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) , they threw it and out and a 10 year civil war ensued....10 years, 100K dead and after general exhaustion, its a semi republic, whatever that means.....

Obama is in a box, frankly, he should cut aid and let them hash it out, its the only way now, no matter how we sppt. we'll be taken to task anyway, something he should learn now especially after the big Cairo speech etc. seems to have meant exactly- zero.

 

[Sunshine]

well, the thing is, lets say Mohamed ElBaradei were to run in the 'next election' and win.....so, what if the people wind up not liking him because say, he doesn't get the economy ip and running and they take to the streets again?


what, is the military going to jump in there too?


In Algeria in 91 or 92, an Islamic leader was elected and the military did same after the first round results wound up going to the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) , they threw it and out and a 10 year civil war ensued....10 years, 100K dead and after general exhaustion, its a semi republic, whatever that means.....

Obama is in a box, frankly, he should cut aid and let them hash it put, its the only way now, no matter how we sppt. we'll be taken to task anyway, something he should learn now especially after the big Cairo speech etc. seems to have meant exactly- zero.

I was in the University of Cairo 4 days before Obama. I walked where the Pharaohs walked, and Obama walked where I walked. His trip added up to no more than my trip. I know that at least the nurses we met remember what we taught them! They were seeking our knowledge!

 

[Connery]

For the first time in history the MB managed to gain control in Egypt....and it quickly found out that governing was a different proposition to being a radical movement in the background responsible of causing terrorism and divisions.The Egyptian people simply did not tolerate the Brotherhood's attempt to completely change their culture and to have to see their economy become bankrupt.

The popular overthrow of the MB was indeed a severe blow for their status as they have been proved unfit to rule!

On the other hand ,the military had shown they are a worthy guardian of looking after Egypt's interests and should be praised!

Nice post!!!



I do not think the military would have acted in this manner if the former president was holding true to the democratic ideals which put him in office.

a military coup is never a victory for democracy.

Never said it was, but since you brought it up, the next ruler will have a guideline to follow if he wants to stay in power and serve the people whose interests he is duty bound to protect.

 

[sealadaigh]

Nice post!!!



I do not think the military would have acted in this manner if the former president was holding true to the democratic ideals which put him in office.

a military coup is never a victory for democracy.

Never said it was, but since you brought it up, the next ruler will have a guideline to follow if he wants to stay in power and serve the people whose interests he is duty bound to protect.

there seem to be a lot of mixed messages in this thread.

the only guideline i see being established, and let's not forget that they have a parliamentary form of government, is to not anger the military, and that sure doesn't seem to be a guideline designed to serve the people whose interests he is "duty bound to protect". the provisional constitution really is vague in a lot of areas as to governance.

i think though, as an american, that i am reluctant to celebrate a military coup when a democratic process, despite its failures, is in place.

democracy takes time.

 

[Connery]

a military coup is never a victory for democracy.

Never said it was, but since you brought it up, the next ruler will have a guideline to follow if he wants to stay in power and serve the people whose interests he is duty bound to protect.

there seem to be a lot of mixed messages in this thread.

the only guideline i see being established, and let's not forget that they have a parliamentary form of government, is to not anger the military, and that sure doesn't seem to be a guideline designed to serve the people whose interests he is "duty bound to protect". the provisional constitution really is vague in a lot of areas as to governance.

i think though, as an american, that i am reluctant to celebrate a military coup when a democratic process, despite its failures, is in place.

democracy takes time.

You see what you want to see. The Egyptian people whose lives are effected saw it another way.

 

[Circe]

Egyptians are not capable of democracy. Brad Stevens of the Wall Street Journal made that point, and I agree. They never have been, and look what they did as soon as they tried out democracy: elected a fascist Muslim fundamentalist whose people wanted to knock down the pyramids.

We have long supported the Egyptian military heavily so that they backstop this crazy country and keep them out of Israel. We bought this coup and we paid for it and I'd say we got value for money.

Even so, it is still possible Egypt will have a civil war --- the Muslim Brotherhood wants a civil war, of course, and is trying to foment one. But the Army coup is the best protection possible against that.

 

[Kondor3]

A couple of hundred dead Brotherhood folk on the street and it will probably burn itself out.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"...Unless everyone in a country devoutly belongs to the same church, mixing religion and politics is a fools errand..."

That has certainly been the Western experience in recent centuries, although that was not always the case even in the West.

Throughout much of the rest of the world, however - including much of Latin America, Africa and the Muslim-dominated regions of the world, they haven't learned that lesson yet, to an extent that would preclude them from attempting to do just that.

And given that 90% of Egyptians are Muslim, with 10% Christian (mostly Coptics, presumably), their near-homogeneity of Religion gets their demographics in the ballpark of 'everyone devoutly belongs'... close enough to try, from time to time, apparently.

"...The hope should be that quality spiritual leaders are way to ******* busy to run a country."

Agreed... 'quality' or no... it seems to me that Religious Clerics, translated into power in a Secular State, almost always either (a) try to convert that State to a Theocratic one, or (b) screw-up the Secular State with their biases and questionable motivations.

The problem begins when the term 'Egyptian Muslim' is further categorized as 'Shiite', 'Sunni' and whatever other differences Muslims are willing to kill over.

'Islam' is hardly a single minded belief....

 

[Kondor3]

"...The problem begins when the term 'Egyptian Muslim' is further categorized as 'Shiite', 'Sunni' and whatever other differences Muslims are willing to kill over. 'Islam' is hardly a single minded belief..."

We're on the same page on this, or close to it. I wasn't assuming that Islam is monolithic in Egypt; merely applying a coarse-level first filter (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc); most folks (including yours truly) are up-to-speed on subdivisions of the Big Three in that region.

 

[thanatos144]

a military coup is never a victory for democracy.

Never said it was, but since you brought it up, the next ruler will have a guideline to follow if he wants to stay in power and serve the people whose interests he is duty bound to protect.

there seem to be a lot of mixed messages in this thread.

the only guideline i see being established, and let's not forget that they have a parliamentary form of government, is to not anger the military, and that sure doesn't seem to be a guideline designed to serve the people whose interests he is "duty bound to protect". the provisional constitution really is vague in a lot of areas as to governance.

i think though, as an american, that i am reluctant to celebrate a military coup when a democratic process, despite its failures, is in place.

democracy takes time.

everytime I see Egypt I thank God i live in Republican and not Democracy

 

[Katzndogz]

"...Unless everyone in a country devoutly belongs to the same church, mixing religion and politics is a fools errand..."

That has certainly been the Western experience in recent centuries, although that was not always the case even in the West.

Throughout much of the rest of the world, however - including much of Latin America, Africa and the Muslim-dominated regions of the world, they haven't learned that lesson yet, to an extent that would preclude them from attempting to do just that.

And given that 90% of Egyptians are Muslim, with 10% Christian (mostly Coptics, presumably), their near-homogeneity of Religion gets their demographics in the ballpark of 'everyone devoutly belongs'... close enough to try, from time to time, apparently.

"...The hope should be that quality spiritual leaders are way to ******* busy to run a country."

Agreed... 'quality' or no... it seems to me that Religious Clerics, translated into power in a Secular State, almost always either (a) try to convert that State to a Theocratic one, or (b) screw-up the Secular State with their biases and questionable motivations.

The problem begins when the term 'Egyptian Muslim' is further categorized as 'Shiite', 'Sunni' and whatever other differences Muslims are willing to kill over.

'Islam' is hardly a single minded belief....

Islam is a single minded belief. The varying sects have nothing to do with beliefs, a person is born into that caste. If it was a matter of belief in some other interpretation of the koran, any individual could change. In the US a Baptist could become a Methodist, but a Shiite could never become a Sunni. There are no interpretations of the koran. There are no different versions. I keep waiting for gays to come out with a gender neutral gay friendly koran but they value their heads too much.

 

[Kondor3]

"...a Shiite could never become a Sunni..."

And all over who succeeded The Founder 1300 years ago, no less; you'd think they would'a grown out of that in the first 10 or 20 years, fer Crissakes.

"...There are no interpretations of the koran. There are no different versions..."

The Baltimore Q'uran and the King James Q'uran?

"...I keep waiting for gays to come out with a gender neutral gay friendly koran but they value their heads too much."

...and their necks.

 

[Osomir]

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.

 

[Connery]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[Osomir]

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.

 

[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.

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

The people spoke and Morsi is out.