[11Pecepebra]

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: November 30, 2011
CAIRO — Islamists claimed a decisive victory on Wednesday as early election results put them on track to win a dominant majority in Egypt’s first Parliament since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, the most significant step yet in the religious movement’s rise since the start of the Arab Spring.

The party formed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s mainstream Islamist group, appeared to have taken about 40 percent of the vote, as expected. But a big surprise was the strong showing of ultraconservative Islamists, called Salafis, many of whom see most popular entertainment as sinful and reject women’s participation in voting or public life.







http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

[MarythePuppy6]

there goes the neighborhood.

[Weislenalkata]

53 people were killed in the Rodney King riots in LA in 1992. Whats your point?

[Narus63]

I think there was lots of strife and burning during the American revolution too.

Living in a totalitarian society so oppressive that facing armed police on the streets starts to sound like the good option probably precludes any peaceful transaction to a more democratic society.

[MarythePuppy6]

53 people were killed in the Rodney King riots in LA in 1992. Whats your point?

The fact that the Egyptian parliament will be 65% Islamist is what concerns me.

[Weislenalkata]

Yeah yeah, and people were scared cause Kennedy was a catholic.

[Riprincattiva]

The fact that the Egyptian parliament will be 65% Islamist is what concerns me.

Yeah yeah, and people were scared cause Kennedy was a catholic.

It's a more than Kennedy being Catholic. But you have to look at in the context of what already exists in Egypt. Egypt is not a liberal democracy and it never was. There were powerful liberal movements pre-war but they died with military rule that brought nationalism through wars and then led to disillusionment with the military and Islamization of society (in part because the military could not suppress religious institutions in the way it could other parts of civil society). There is a broad range of Islamist political parties. If the FJP is like the AKP then there's little worry that they're Islamist--it would be similar to Christian Democrats running Egypt. They're probably more conservative but there's only so much you can do within the context of Egyptian society. Egypt is not Afghanistan. You have an urban elite who wields a large amount of power. You have a military weakened but clearly has still survived the revolution still with some control. You have a youth movement still out in the streets who overwhelmingly voted more secular. You have labor unions whose strikes (against state run businesses) helped bring protest to the streets in the proceeding years. So while you have huge rural and rural-just-moved-to-big-city populations that are conservative and vote that way it's not going to be uncontested takeover. The FJP platform wanted to promote economic recovery on tourism so they're even bound by those economic necessities. So while Mubarak kept certain conservative, misogynistic social impulses under control it's not sustainable to do that through dictatorship. And all of these impulses which have always existed in Egyptian society will now play out in the politics of the country. It will be interesting to see what happens. It's not all going to look good but plenty about the Mubarak situation wasn't good.

[MarythePuppy6]

It's a more than Kennedy being Catholic. But you have to look at in the context of what already exists in Egypt. Egypt is not a liberal democracy and it never was. There were powerful liberal movements pre-war but they died with military rule that brought nationalism through wars and then led to disillusionment with the military and Islamization of society (in part because the military could not suppress religious institutions in the way it could other parts of civil society). There is a broad range of Islamist political parties. If the FJP is like the AKP then there's little worry that they're Islamist--it would be similar to Christian Democrats running Egypt. They're probably more conservative but there's only so much you can do within the context of Egyptian society. Egypt is not Afghanistan. You have an urban elite who wields a large amount of power. You have a military weakened but clearly has still survived the revolution still with some control. You have a youth movement still out in the streets who overwhelmingly voted more secular. You have labor unions whose strikes (against state run businesses) helped bring protest to the streets in the proceeding years. So while you have huge rural and rural-just-moved-to-big-city populations that are conservative and vote that way it's not going to be uncontested takeover. The FJP platform wanted to promote economic recovery on tourism so they're even bound by those economic necessities. So while Mubarak kept certain conservative, misogynistic social impulses under control it's not sustainable to do that through dictatorship. And all of these impulses which have always existed in Egyptian society will now play out in the politics of the country. It will be interesting to see what happens. It's not all going to look good but plenty about the Mubarak situation wasn't good.

Well, we'll see, but it is for sure bad for Israel and likely the liberal West. I for one am disheartened by the outcome of the Arab Spring so far.

The FJP would have been moderate if they did not have a majority in Parliament. But if they ally with the Salafists, they have no reason to be moderate. There is always the possibility that the army cracks down and doesn't let a presidential election take place.

[cabonuserollyo]

Yeah yeah, and people were scared cause Kennedy was a catholic.

Not the same. When I was there two years ago the level of hate/distrust etc... to the average non muslim walking the street was palatable. Even among the muslims there, if you didn't scar your forehead for allah, shame on you. Trying to brow beat half the population into submissive clothing and telling you what you can and can not eat and drink. That's not right on any level.

[11Pecepebra]

CAIRO — To Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to apply only the broad principles of Islamic law allows too much freedom.

Andrea Bruce for The New York Times
Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, a leader of the ultraconservative Salafi movement, has called for stricter use of Islamic law.
Sheik Shahat is a leader of the ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis, whose coalition of parties is running second behind the Brotherhood party in the early returns of Egypt’s parliamentary elections. He and his allies are demanding strict prohibitions against interest-bearing loans, alcohol and “fornication,” with traditional Islamic corporal punishment like stoning for adultery.

“I want to say: citizenship restricted by Islamic Shariah, freedom restricted by Islamic Shariah, equality restricted by Islamic Shariah,” he said in a public debate. “Shariah is obligatory, not just the principles — freedom and justice and all that.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/wo...spotlight.html

[HilaryNidierer]

CAIRO — To Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to apply only the broad principles of Islamic law allows too much freedom.

Andrea Bruce for The New York Times
Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, a leader of the ultraconservative Salafi movement, has called for stricter use of Islamic law.
Sheik Shahat is a leader of the ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis, whose coalition of parties is running second behind the Brotherhood party in the early returns of Egypt’s parliamentary elections. He and his allies are demanding strict prohibitions against interest-bearing loans, alcohol and “fornication,” with traditional Islamic corporal punishment like stoning for adultery.

“I want to say: citizenship restricted by Islamic Shariah, freedom restricted by Islamic Shariah, equality restricted by Islamic Shariah,” he said in a public debate. “Shariah is obligatory, not just the principles — freedom and justice and all that.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/wo...spotlight.html

No worries ... it's not like Al Qaeda's flags are flying all over government buildings in Libya

[Weislenalkata]

CAIRO — To Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to apply only the broad principles of Islamic law allows too much freedom.

Andrea Bruce for The New York Times
Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, a leader of the ultraconservative Salafi movement, has called for stricter use of Islamic law.
Sheik Shahat is a leader of the ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis, whose coalition of parties is running second behind the Brotherhood party in the early returns of Egypt’s parliamentary elections. He and his allies are demanding strict prohibitions against interest-bearing loans, alcohol and “fornication,” with traditional Islamic corporal punishment like stoning for adultery.

“I want to say: citizenship restricted by Islamic Shariah, freedom restricted by Islamic Shariah, equality restricted by Islamic Shariah,” he said in a public debate. “Shariah is obligatory, not just the principles — freedom and justice and all that.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/wo...spotlight.html

Interesting. Sounds like a pretty similar hard line approach some of our own political parties take. Just replace a "Islamic" with Right Wing or Christian and "interest bearing loans, alchohol and fornication" with increased taxes, drugs and abortion.

[11Pecepebra]

oh yeah, its exactly the same thing.

[byncnombmub]

Sheik Shahat is a leader of the ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis, whose coalition of parties is running second behind the Brotherhood party in the early returns of Egypt’s parliamentary elections. He and his allies are demanding strict prohibitions against interest-bearing loans, alcohol and “fornication,” with traditional Islamic corporal punishment like stoning for adultery.

Interesting. Sounds like a pretty similar hard line approach some of our own political parties take. Just replace a "Islamic" with Right Wing or Christian and "interest bearing loans, alchohol and fornication" with increased taxes, drugs and abortion.

What would you replace "stoning for adultery" with?

[cabonuserollyo]

Or woman not being able to own land, or drive etc...

[11Pecepebra]

Burning down the hope

he deadly weekend clashes in Cairo demand reexamination of some clichés that have distorted our perceptions of the Arab Spring -- and specifically its Egyptian version.

At least 25 people, almost all Christian Copts, were killed Sunday in clashes with the military, which has ruled Egypt since February, when Hosni Mubarak ended his near-30 years of one-man rule. More than 300 people were injured in the clashes, which also involved Islamist militants.

It was the toughest test yet for Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces -- and that interim government flunked it.


Yes, Egypt’s revolution was never as “bloodless” as so glowingly portrayed in some outlets, but Sunday’s bloodbath should end any notion that the Arab world’s transition to democracy will be peaceful.

While we’re at it, let’s also do away with “Facebook revolution.”

Sure, some Cairo students may have initially social-networked for mobilization. But more than 60 percent of Egyptians can’t functionally read or write, so the idea that such modernity could instantly catch on was always a fantasy (and one much more widespread in the West than among Arabs)
.
As this weekend’s events amply demonstrate, the quality of communication is more important than its speed; indeed, events in Egypt are often ignited by mis- and disinformation.

Early on Sunday, Egypt’s state TV started running unfounded stories about Copts shooting and killing government soldiers. This came on top of reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had offered to send troops to protect Egypt’s Christians (a fantasy that any rudimentary familiarity with current US politics would immediately dispel). As they heard the first media “reports” of Copt violence, Salafists and other Islamists immediately joined in fighting the infidels.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...#ixzz1aTk24800









AP
Conflagration: A car burns in Cairo on Sunday in the wake of Egyptian soldiers’ attack on peaceful Coptic demonstrators.
It started when some 10,000 Copts, angry at several recent incidents of religious discrimination, marched peacefully in central Cairo. Troops rushed to the scene, then shot indiscriminately at demonstrators and ran over bleeding bodies with armored vehicles.

Read more: --Benny Avni - NYPOST.com

Meet the New Boss......
Egypt sets up inquiry into Coptic deaths
Updated October 11, 2011 15:01:00

Egypt's military rulers have ordered an investigation into clashes that killed at least 25 people, mostly Coptic Christians. Cairo's main Coptic cathedral was packed with mourners who gathered for the funerals of those killed when military vehicles drove through crowds of protestors on Sunday. There's been fierce condemnation from Europe and the United States, and calls for Egypt's rulers to protect people of all faiths. There are also growing fears of wider sectarian unrest.

[Riprincattiva]

This violence did not just start after the fall of Mubarak. It was around before it so I'm not really sure what it says if anything about prospects for a transition to democracy.