In FrontPage this morning I discuss what could follow the end of Hosni Mubarak's rule in Egypt, and how the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to take advantage of the situation:
Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak has been diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer, and is not expected to live beyond a year. After that, the uneasy equilibrium of Egyptian politics could be violently disrupted, with the possibility for escalation in the Middle East and beyond. The Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood, from which sprang both Hamas and Al-Qaeda, could attempt to seize Mubarak's death as an opportunity to try to take power in Egypt. Mubarak's son Gamal, however, appears to be determined not to let that happen. It is by no means beyond the realm of possibility that armed conflict could result - conflict that could be the deadly match in the Middle East's tinderbox.Officially, the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt, but its candidates often run in elections as independents - winning one-fifth of the seats in the 2005 parliamentary elections. Since the presidency of Gamel Abdel Nasser (1956-1970), the Egyptian government has practiced steam control with the Brotherhood, looking the other way as the group terrorized Coptic Christians and enforced Islamic strictures upon the Egyptian populace, but cracking down when the Brotherhood showed signs of growing powerful enough actually to seize power. Shortly before he was assassinated by members of another Islamic supremacist group that was enraged by his peace treaty with Israel, Nasser's successor Anwar Sadat not only released all the Brotherhood political prisoners who had been languishing in Egyptian prisons, but also promised the Brotherhood that Sharia would be fully implemented in Egypt.
The Islamization of Egypt has been proceeding steadily for decades. While in the 1960s women wearing hijabs were rare on the streets of Cairo, now it is rare to see a woman not wearing one; the Brotherhood's societal and cultural influence has long outstripped its direct political reach, and shows no sign of abating. Nonetheless, nearly thirty years after Sadat's promise, the Brotherhood is still waiting for that full implementation of Sharia. Mubarak's son and heir apparent, Gamal Mubarak, said in a July 2008 interview [1] that "religion" was one of the "most important components" of Egyptian society and culture." Yet he maintained that Egypt's "constitution formally prohibits confessional political parties and the use of religion in political discourse." He added, in clear reference to the Brotherhood and allied Islamic supremacist groups:
But this is not enough. During the last months, these groups have been trying to take advantage of the difficulties our country is going through. By multiplying anti-Western references, they are building barriers between the different cultures. They are destroying the bridges between the Eastern and Western worlds that the past generations had so much trouble building. That is the worst thing that could happen.Gamal Mubarak's remedy for this growing Brotherhood influence involved "audacious leaders who are able to prepare their country for the future and implement some reforms even when they are unpopular. Such a leader must be brave enough to remain faithful to his convictions, despite all opposition."
But is Gamal himself such a leader? Middle East analyst Barry Rubin tells Frontpage that "he has some good characteristics-pragmatism and moderation-but his age, lack of military experience, and limited charisma are against him."...
Hopefully, Egypt will now elect a president who will not be afraid to criticize and condemn Israel's apartheid treatment of Gazans.
Nasser's successor Anwar Sadat not only released all the Brotherhood political prisoners who had been languishing in Egyptian prisons, but also promised the Brotherhood that Sharia would be fully implemented in Egypt."
Yes, it is important to inform Americans, most of whom still belong to the cult of Saint Sadat, what Sadat -- who had been arrested by the British during World War II as a "pro-Nazi" agent and sentenced to jail -- was all about. He wanted to get the Sinai, and was delighted to find the Israelis so eager for peace or "peace," so desperate for some sign of semi-decency on the part of an Arab -- any Arab -- leader, that when he arrived in Israel, the game was already over, and the Israelis were ready to be rolled. And what helped was that, by coincidence, in the White House was the malevolent Carter, aptly aided by the nasty Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of them not only indifferent to Israel's claims, but deeply ignorant of the nature of the war being made on Israel, and incapable even of figuring out what, from the viewpoint of American national interest, would have made the most sense. No, Sadat was delighted to find thet Carter and Brzezinski were even harder on the poor, hapless ("they really like me" he said) Begin than he was himself.
And the American government?
Oh, it started round about 1980 to give nearly $3 billion a year to Egypt. Why? Because Egypt, you see, deserved a "reward" for deigning to take back the Sinai, and for signing an agreement, whereby it promised to end all hostile activities and to encourage friendly relations with Israel -- an agreement that was never in the slightest degree observed by Egypt. But the "reward" continues, and continues, and Egypt, whose people are more and more anti-American as they rightly see that the Americans are supplying the wherewithal for corrupt Mubarak, with his Family-and-Friends Plan, to be corrupt about.
Had not Carter, advised by Brzezinski, been in charge, what might an intelligent and farseeing American government have done, in the negotiations between Israel and Egypt?
It might have demanded that part of the Sinai be permanently turned over to the Americans, that the three modern airbases that Israel had constructed be given on a long-term, 99-year-lease, to the Americans -- for after all, why would Egypt need them, an Egypt "at peace"? -- and the use of these airbases, smack in the middle of the Middle East, would help to establish and keep things under control.
Egypt would have objected, but not for long. Sadat had gone to Israel because he was desperate to get back what he had been unable to recover by force in the surprise attack of the Yom Kippur War. If the American government had shown that its offer had to be accepted, else the Americans would suggest to the Israelis that they had no obligation -- true enough - to return the Sinai for the second time, and that furthermore no American aid would be forthcoming, then Sadat would have had to worry that even if the Israelis were willing and eager to play the fools, the Americans were not quite so desperate for a "peace" treaty -- and what if, back in the late 1970s, the American government had had real experts on Islam, people who knew about, and would have been unafraid to bring up the matter of, the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, and its permanent relevance to all agreements made by Egypt or any other Arab or Muslim state, with an Infidel nation-state such as Israel. What if that too had been raised, with Sadat, and the implied threat of discussing that Treaty, and its significance, before the world press, the world public?
Oh, had the American government been different then, had better informed, more intelligent, less Israel-hostile, more farseeing, people been in charge, we might long ago have acquired those three bases -- and the ability to project power, to the Arabian peninsula, to the Persian Gulf, to the Horn of Africa, considerably improved.
And Egypt would have been paid a rent, not exactly a peppercorn rent, but not the nearly $3 billion a year she has been getting for the past quarter-century. It would not have been a disguised Jizyah, but simply a rent, without any of the psychological problems that always accompany aid from Infidels to Muslims, where the latter take as if by right, and exhibit no gratitude, and the former end up being afraid of diminishing or ending the aid -- in other words, the classic attitudes of Jizyah-payments under Muslim rule soon start to be exhibited.
Just one more of those chances lost, because those in power, at a certain time, did not know enough about Islam, and were unable to properly promote American national interest.
The Islamization of Egypt has been proceeding steadily for decades. While in the 1960s women wearing hijabs were rare on the streets of Cairo, now it is rare to see a woman not wearing one; the Brotherhood's societal and cultural influence has long outstripped its direct political reach, and shows no sign of abating.
.....................
In no way to minimize the baleful influence of the Muslim Brotherhood—which, one can well argue, has ushered in the "modern" (modern only in the sense that it is contemporary) reenergization of Jihad and the imposition of Shari'ah in the world today.
But this trend is in full swing in parts of Dar-al-Islam where the Muslim Brotherhood has much less direct influence than in Egypt—Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey (where the push for Shari'ah comes not only from the populace, but also from Erdogan's leadership), and many other places. This gives the lie to the frequently stated idea—hope, really—that Islam is indeed "modernizing", but that you have to give it time. Of course, this is not the case at all—Islam has become much more fervent in many parts of the Muslim world—no to mention its baneful spread to the West.
The loathsome "Islamic Empire" wrote:
Hopefully, Egypt will now elect a president who will not be afraid to criticize and condemn Israel's apartheid treatment of Gazans.
.....................
This appalling Muslim apologist touches on two important points, here—firstly, that while Egypt has hardly been an ally of Israel's under Muburak, that they have at lest refrained from attacking her. That could change, with a change in power.
Secondly, that the West—with all the good will in the world, mind you—will probably push Egypt for "more democracy" in the wake of Mubarak's passing—which, as mob rule, would likely grant the Muslim Brotherhood even more power. Whether that will be a factor in the no doubt very autocratic Gamal's decisions remains to be seen.
And then, of course Sadat got whacked by the same Islamists.
Speaking of eating one's own, it was 19 years ago last week that Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of the Statnic Verses was hacked to death in his office at Tsukuba Univeristy.
Igarashi was a scholar of Arab and Persian history and literature and a convert to Islam who wanted to introduce the diversity of its culture to the Japanese.
A convert to Islam? Well, he did help in his own way to introduce to Japan the "diversity of its culture" -- which turned out to be a bit more than Sa'adi, Hafiz, Firdowsi, and Omar Khayyam, and a lot more than Igarashi bargained for.
"Relatively" secular is right.
A few excerpts about Egypt, from the State Department's International Religious Freedom Report of 2009:
Etc., Etc.
tokyobk wrote:
Igarashi was a scholar of Arab and Persian history and literature and a convert to Islam who wanted to introduce the diversity of its culture to the Japanese.
....................
I *never* knew that Igarashi was a Muslim convert, tokyobk—and I thought I was pretty well-versed on the Rushdie case. In 1989 I lived just around the corner from Cody's Books in Berkeley, which was firebombed for carrying the Satanic Verses.
I also managed to miss this story at JihadWatch, from 2006:
"Coming July 11: Remember Hitoshi Igarashi -- a day for worldwide vigilance against jihadist intimidation"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/06/coming-july-11-remember-hitoshi-igarashi----a-day-for-worldwide-vigilance-against-jihadist-intimidat.html
As surprised as I was to learn that Igarashi was a Muslim convert, I assumed that he was an entirely clueless convert—perhaps one taken in by Sufi romanticism or the poetry of Rumi.
But it is more complicated than this, and more disturbing—he *actually believed that Khomeini was justified in issuing the fatwa on Rushdie*.
This shows—as with Sadat—that it is quite possible to be an enabler of a vicious ideology, and its victim, as well.
Good-by "peace treaty".
Good-by "peace treaty".
Which one? The phony one that Egypt signed, and refused to honor? Or the phony one that the American government, and the entire West, want Israel to sign with "the Palestinians"?
I don't care who runs the rathole, I am just tired of my money going there.
What use is it to give our money to our enemies? Like the alligator, they will eat us last? Does American money stop the re-establishment of Arab Islamic supremacy? You cannot buy freedom or democracy, you have to be willing to fight for it. Can anyone think that the population of any Islamic "Paradise" is willing to throw off the chains and fetters of Islam?
No man (or woman) is free, save they free myself.
Islam is dying in face of modernity, there is no need to subsidize it's death spasms.
Too many of you hater are in to wishful thinking. Islam isnot dieing it is growing and gaining strength as time go by. I hear the Tea Party fire some memder in leadership post for being racist they need to do more to clean up house to be than legimate policial party like the democrate party compare to than illegal GOP party.
@ Islamic Empire
"Hopefully, Egypt will now elect a president who will not be afraid to criticize and condemn Israel's apartheid treatment of Gazans."
Another fool living in that fantasy land where those poor Gazans are the victims of those evil Israelis. Guess you missed this story, eh?
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001127.html
**********
@ DefenderofIslam
We will continue to speak out against the monstrous ideology that is Islam, no matter what it takes. Understand that. You will NOT win. We will NOT submit.
As a side note, it never fails to amaze me how poorly you jihad supporters and apologists write.
Somebody needs to get him in touch with the British government and BP so his cancer can be "cured" and he can live for a few more years.
Why does Defender of Islam have to "Defend" Islam? If it's the perfect faith, it needs no defense. Maybe it's the 270 million kuffar that Islam has killed since it's founding 1400 years ago. If Islam is perfect, why did all those people have to be killed by blood thirsty Islamic killers?
The phony one with Egypt-making the other irrelevant. The Mediterranean crescent of Islam will be complete.
Just how long can one expect a dead man ruling-to rule?
If it was an 11 ship Carrier Battle Group that transited the Suez Canal, then it may not be for long. No point keeping them in harms way under the current climate in office.
The Eastern Med seems a bit chilly for the Season.
Hmm, here I come with another attempt to ask a clarifying question:
We the people, us Americans believe in and globally promote "Democracy", right?
Well, what if "THEY the people" WANT to be ruled by the shari'ah?
Im told that once upon a time in Algiers, the Islamic Party participated in the democratic process, campaigned along with everyone else, and received the win in the vote. But the democratic losers upon learning of their loss, declared the vote invalid and imposed martial law denying the Islamic Party it's "play fair" win.
@ mo I'm a native son, born in the Mid-West, raised in a Protestant denomination, classically educated, Honorably Discharged Combat Veteran, are you getting the picture sir?
Let me use a different tact:
There is NO deity other than Allah, and Muhammad IS His Messenger. Was that well written enough for you, you funny little man?
You folks could stand to be a bit more honest, you wouldn't care if 51, or 75, or 99.44% of the people in this world wanted to be Muslim, and ruled by Shari'ah. No, but if 50 2/3% of the world decided to be American, you'd FORCE it on the other 49 1/3% wouldn't you?
This issue of Islam vs.The World has a foregone conclusion:
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, he was sent with Guidance and the Din of Truth so that it would dominate every other Din, no matter how much the Kufaar hate it!"
I'm not apologizing for A N Y T H I N G,I don't misunderstand the role of Islam in world history, past or present, I'm Muslim.
May Allah Guide You!
Allah or Mohammed? They are both the same.
Muslims are the first victims of Islam. They suffer the worst under Islam's perverted rule. That is why any normal human being objects to Sharia law.
"Dank" wrote:
Hmm, here I come with another attempt to ask a clarifying question:
We the people, us Americans believe in and globally promote "Democracy", right?
Well, what if "THEY the people" WANT to be ruled by the shari'ah?
..................
"Dank", it sounds as though you have no real understanding of democracy, and conflate it with *mob rule*. A proper democracy protects minority and individual rights—*even if* a majority is willing to vote for savagery.
It comes as no surprise that a Mohammedan would have no understanding of the concept of individual rights—notably missing from that benighted creed.
More:
You folks could stand to be a bit more honest, you wouldn't care if 51, or 75, or 99.44% of the people in this world wanted to be Muslim, and ruled by Shari'ah. No, but if 50 2/3% of the world decided to be American, you'd FORCE it on the other 49 1/3% wouldn't you?
..................
Yet more indication that "Dank" has no understanding of individual rights. Yes—if even one percent of humans wished to be free, then 99% percent of barbarians would still have no right to impose savage Shari'ah law on them.
I am, of course, speaking in the moral sense. Far smaller percentages of Muslims have, historically, imposed Shari'ah on Infidel victims in the past, and clearly would do so again.
Interesting, also, that "Dank" sees a fundamental distinction between "Americans" and "Muslims"—despite all the disingenuous nattering about how "Islam is compatible with democracy" or "America is Shari'ah-compliant". This, despite the claim that he is—through accident of birth—American himself.
I think poster "Dank" is well-named—the sobriquet brings to mind the dark, the clammy, the unpleasant, and the unhealthy.