Muslim Brotherhood wins 20 pct. of Egypt vote

This article does not make clear why the Brotherhood is banned in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is a far-right, fundamentalist Islamic movement which supports Islamic terror organizations throughout the world, including Hamas. I am no big fan of the National Democratic Party in Egypt, but I understand their desire to ban a party which seeks to turn Egypt into another Iran.

but, but, Nariz assures us that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't exist.

The Brotherhood and other such groups are proliferating wherever Muslims are found and are also responsible for instigating problems among non-Muslims, ie. accusations of Islamophia, violence against non-Muslims. Sometimes they do the dirty work; other times they convince "Moderate" Muslims that true Islam requires that all Muslims rise up and create the kind of havoc that historical Muslims, and now contemporary Muslims, have used to create a fundamentalist Islamic state where none was before, regardless of the wishes of the population.

If "Democracy Is On the March" in Egypt, any government that results will likely be, at first, less corrupt (what could be more corrupt than the present one) and more openly malevolent toward the United States (and of course Israel) and other Infidel states, than the present one. The secular, rational, doubtful-about-Islam intelligent part of the Muslim population (I am excluding the Copts) is small.

If "Democracy Is On the March" in Syria (as Al-Ghadri and others like to claim, hoping the Americans will do their work for them, just as in Iraq, and perhaps wilfully ignoring or hiding what is certain to follow) the Alawite military caste will be deposed and many Alawites killed by the "real" Muslims.

If "Democracy Is On the March" in Algeria, this may mean the stratokleptocrats in the FLN line, will be overthrown but that hardly means that intelligent secularists will come to power. It might mean more Islam, not less, and with more Islam, that also naturally means more of Arab Islam, and so whatever small gains the Berbers in the Kabyle have made over the past few years, might be reversed -- and that reversal would not be taken lightly.

If "Democracy Is On the March" in Lebanon, would that improve or damage the position of the Maronites and other Christians? Would the Druse and the Sunni elite join with them to squash the threat of the Shi'a Hezbollah, or would appeals to Muslim unity prevail, and the Christians, steadily diminishing in numbers and power, be finally on the run in what was for 1300 years a Christian redoubt, where in the mountains (Mount Lebanon, le mont Liban) the Maronites could, even if the Arabic language was inflicted upon them, resist full arabization as they resisted, or many did, islamization.

If "Democracy Is On the March" in Saudi Arabia the corrupt Al-Saud will be sent packing to villas near Malaga and St. Juan-les-pins, to apartments on Avenue Foch and all over Belgravia, and to estates in the Home Counties, where they will prove once again that "money can buy everything -- except civilization." And that less corrupt government could not be more damaging to Infidels than the current Saudi rulers, and possibly, in redistributing the national revenues (still unearned, still unmerited), might possibly supply less -- it is unclear -- to the Jihad abroad.

"Democracy" in the Muslim world is, for Infidels, not self-evidently a good thing. Sometimes it may be a good thing. In Iraq, the transfer of power to Shi'a was a good thing, for it sticks permanently in the craw of Sunni Arabs and they will work constantly, for as long as it takes, to reverse it. "Democracy" is good for Infidels if it serves to limit, contain, constrain, divide, demoralize, divert resources and attention, or otherwise weaken Islam. Where it does, encourage it.

And where it doesn't -- don't.

Hugh writes:
"In Iraq, the transfer of power to Shi'a was a good thing, for it sticks permanently in the craw of Sunni Arabs and they will work constantly, for as long as it takes, to reverse it. "

Not necessarily. A Shi'ite Iraq aligned with Iran could be troublesome, not only to Sunni's, but to the right thinking people of the world. Iran may
be very close to being nuclear, and has a lot of oil.

I agree with your analysis, but we're not working with a deterministic system, so I'd qualify it by
saying "is very likely a good thing". A few worst case scenarios should be looked at too.

Mister Fitzgerald ~

Why discourage the democratic rise of the Jihadists in all those places? It's as natural as water making for the sea.

Right now, the people who feed on our foreign aid and dance when our citizens are butchered hide like spoiled children behind Hosni (he of the fabulous facelifts), Bashir and all the rest: "but we're oppressed by dictators propped up by the West."

VDH points out that the West wins when all the cards are on the table--shock battle on an open plain, so to speak. Eyeball, to eyeball, the Umma is a pathetic foe.

Let them vote their cover away. Let the brotherhood take a seat in the United Nations.

Bring the deluge right now. Or in the immortal words of Han Solo: "Bring 'em on, I'd prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around!"

As for the Christians of the old Byzantine Empire? Let them fight under American no-fly zones with American weapons and Israeli ground intelligence. If Islam can have a chunk of France, let's help the Copts carve out a nice chunk of Upper Egypt--and maybe the quays and promenades of Alexandria.

Sincerely,

Mad Jack

Posters above--

#1. "American"

No one need worry that the Iraqi Shi'a will anytime soon be submerging themselves in Shi'a Iran. Why not? Well, there is great distaste, among some, such as Sistani, for the role of Islamic clergy, and more than that the primitives who have seized power, in the Islamic Republic of Iran. There is, curiously, in Moqtada al-Sadr's case something almost like Iraqi nationalism. Would Iran, worried about ethnic Arabs in Khuzistan, really wish to attempt to forciby incorporate Iraqi Shi'a, who might not wish that? Everything in a sense can be worried about, but it's a question of likelihood. While Iranian aid going to co-religionists in Iraq is not unlikely, Iraqi Shi'a willingly allowing Iran to simply swallow up the Shi'a parts of Iraq is not.

#2 "Mad_Jack"

Alexandria is up on the coast, therefore it is in Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt, on the other hand is lower down, All very simple. Makes a certain kind of sense. As Gracie Allen used to say: "Before the behind yet under the vast above, the world is in tears and tomorrow is Tuesday." I think she meant "yesterday" for "tomorrow" so of course what she meant was --"and tomorrow (i.e. "yesterday") was Tuesday."

And come to think of it, it was.

Is that clear?

Absolutely.

But we could surely have a Coptic state up the nile in Upper Egypt with access to the Red Sea and a Coptic enclave encompassing Alexandria--in the same vein as, say, Oecussi and East Timor or, come to think of it, Gaza and Judea; or better yet: Neuilly-sur-Marne and Saint Denis.

Speaking of Alexandria, an acquaintance has been there recently and seen the new library, intended as a replacement to the late Great Library. Apparently, it is a jewel of Japanese architecture--and heart-breakingly empty, save for a large section of books on Islam.

Yes, empty is right. But the place that visiting dignitaries like to pronounce on how much the West owes to great Islam. And how the Western world is "at your service" to the Muslim world. Whatshisname, Prodi did it (horrible speech), and then I think possibly D. de V. as well.

The Library of Alexandria. A few hundred million dollars worth of E.U. funds for a big building, some books, and very few readers indeed. The big news for residents of Alexandria has been not the Library, but the riots against the Copts. And in any case what magazines, what journals, what books are in that Library, if not those deemed anodyne enough, carefully judged devoid of the spirit of the free-thinking West, or of anything that might bring to mind the sources of that West. Like the Lenin Library, but far worse -- because even in Soviet Russia some, even many, still knew how, despite the Party, to think. Islam constrains thought far more thoroughly.

There's a story there. Kafka, Borges, Calvino: The Library of Alexandria.

So, "Democracy is on the march in Egypt."

And so, too, are the killer-Zombies of the Muslim Brotherhood and the innumerable other terrorist networks belonging to Islam.

Oh, lucky day!!!

I don't think anyone is disparaging the emergence of democracy in the Islamic nations per se, but democracy by itself is insufficient to change the evil and genocidal nature of this so-called 'religion' called "Islam." Unless it helps in ridding the world of it.

Most Islamic nations wobble back and forth between Islamo-fascism ("fundamental" and undiluted Islam from the Qur'an) and watered-down versions of Islam that vary mainly in their degrees of brutality. Democracy probably will have a limited impact on this pattern despite the brouhaha. Egypt, despite its elections, is a lethal place for non-Muslims to be. So are most Islamic countries.

Islam will assuredly continue its genocidal march through human history, democracy or no (although it most assuredly prefers the latter).

Blood will tell. And the corpses will pile up.

p.s.--If the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't exist, who then was al-Banna? Santa Claus?

Hugh,
My concern is not of Iran swallowing up Iraqi
territory, but of an oil rich, nuclear armed
Shi'ite alliance spreading mischief. The Saudi
Shi'ites also sit on a lot of oil.

I admit that it's unlikely, and in any case,
would be met with a big Sunni backlash, so we'd
have the Sunni/Shia wars all over again, which
are hard to see as a bad thing.

I agree wholeheartedly that democracy in the
middle east is not a good thing, and that divide
and conquer is the safest strategy. We should have pulled out of Iraq shortly after GWB claimed
"mission accomplished" and split the country into
three parts. Any bets on how long this "country"
lasts? Last I heard something like 95% of Kurds
want independence.

YOU WANT MUSLIM COUNTRIES TO BE DEMOCRATIC, BUT WHEN THEY ELECT SOMEONE YOU DON'T LIKE, YOU WANT THEM OUT. YOU GUYS ARE TOTAL HYPOCRITES.

Just a Scenario!!!Al Zawahiri is an Egyptian,originated from the Muslim Brothers Islamic Movement.This explicit movement is a fundamentalist movement and he claims,Egypt for the muslims only under the Sharya!!!Now if they exploit their acomplishment in the very near future they will size power in Egypt,and another Iran type Islamic country will be born!!!The Peace treaty with Israel will be anulled,and clouds of a new war will cover the skiyes.Apocalyiptic but so true.And to RO,DEMOCRATIE and Religion (Muslim)cant dwell together!!!Remember the killing of tourists in Egypt???They dont like tourists they want to live from Allahs food,eating books,and claiming that the wealthy countries never giveth them the chance to develop!!!So patetic!!

From MEMRI:

Following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian Mufti Dr. 'Ali Gum'a, which aired on Iqra TV on November 8, 2005.

Dr. 'Ali Gum'a: Jihad is a comprehensive concept in Islam, which includes the "greater Jihad" - the Jihad of the soul. This Jihad concerns life, building, worshipping Allah, developing the land, and purifying the soul. There is also a "minor Jihad," which has to do with fighting. Unfortunately, some people have reduced this comprehensive concept of Jihad to fighting only, and then they reduced fighting to killing. Just as Allah has permitted us to fight for His sake against those who fight and attack us, in self-defense and to protect one's money, property, and land – at the same time, He has forbidden us to kill, and He has made killing a grave human crime, worthy of punishment.

[…]

I have not soiled my hands with blood, while they have. This is the criterion. He says: "I am God-fearing," and I say the same, but I have not soiled my hands with blood, while he has. Our youth can use this criterion to determine the truth.

[…]

The very presence of a Muslim in a certain place makes it forbidden for Muslims to kill anyone there. In other words, the presence of a Muslim should guarantee everyone's safety.

Ro rants:
"YOU WANT MUSLIM COUNTRIES TO BE DEMOCRATIC, BUT WHEN THEY ELECT SOMEONE YOU DON'T LIKE, YOU WANT THEM OUT. YOU GUYS ARE TOTAL HYPOCRITES."

I never said I want mohammadan nations to be
democratic. I'd like them not t o be a threat.
There's a difference, imbecile. All clear now?

Reply to Ro:

It's not a matter of who we "like". Every democracy has the obligation to preserve its democratic character. That's why many democracies ban political parties or movements that openly aim to use the democratic process to destroy the nation's democratic character. The Muslim Brotherhood, should they come to power in Egypt (or elsewhere), will promptly create an Iran-like system, which insures that only faithful, fundamental Muslims will control the government. Human and civil rights will be quickly eliminated in favor of strict Shari'a law. That is not democracy, and we are not hypocrites.

Attention RO:

Hitler was elected by a popular referendum. Should we have left HIM and the Nazis in power?

IT is NOT 'hypocritical' to force out a Muslim "democratically-elected"leader who has genocidal intents with regards to foreign nations and slaughters his own people on ideological grounds. When governments massacre their own people with impunity for ideological reasons as is commonplace in countries like Indonesia and Egypt for example those who have the power to stop this are morally forced to intervene whether or not you like it and whether or not they belong to that country. And that means fighting to remove supposedly democratically elected leaders (like Hitler). Outsiders also are morally obligated to step in when democratically-elected that governments act to export religious violence, as is the case with Iran threatening to attack Israel with nukes.

Surely, you realize that the Qur'an COMMANDS Muslims to export violence at every possible opportunity. I'll bet you secretly LIKE the idea as it empowers Islam as violence always has. And that is the real source of this conflict. In short Islam IS the exportation of violence and genocide to foreign lands. Democratic elections cannot be used to justify this.

Democracy is meant to be an internal affair but when governments set up "sleeper cells" to destroy non-Islamic societies across the globe as they have been doing in short to "slay the infidels EVERYWHERE" per orders of Mahomet in the Qur'an the rights those on the receiving end have been violated. And they on the receiving end are going to hit back--GUARANTEED.

You want the West to respect democracy in the Islamic nations--that's fair enough. But Islam is most certainly NOT going to mutually respect any such rights of non-Islamic countries as I am sure you are aware. Islam does NOT so much as recognize the rights of non-Muslims to so much as exist.

The Western nations--whether you like it or not--are going to retalliate and destroy any Islamic national government (even if democratically elected)-- that exports religious violence in the name of jihad.

Promise.