world

Islamists claim lead in Egypt vote count

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2011 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

Where are the posters who were claiming it was all paranoia when fears of this have been raised in the past? I hope the Islamists remember to thank President Obama for all his help.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That is the non-surprise of the day. Those of us who are following the situation have said this from the start.

Great job Mr. Obama.... your much-touted "democracy" is enfolding exactly has you have been warned about.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Where are the posters who were claiming it was all paranoia when fears of this have been raised in the past? I hope the Islamists remember to thank President Obama for all his help.

Islamic parties across the middle east are benefiting from the arab spring, tis true. But that "Islamism" does not automatically make one a terrorist. Many of these parties are described as "moderate" and have pledged to respect plauralism, and the rights of minorities. Hell, even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have mellowed out quite a bit. Yet posters like WilliB would have you believe this is some sort of triumph for Al Qaeda + Friends.

This is a necessary step. The previous authoritarianism which whas the root cause of so much of the Middle East (and thus the world's) problems (including terrorism) could not continue. Perhaps now the these parties, the region, and even Islam itself can evolve in a positive direction.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Triumvere:

" But that "Islamism" does not automatically make one a terrorist. "

Who is talking about terrorism? Only you. Islamists want Shariah rule, and that is what they are getting. Just as predicted.

" this is some sort of triumph for Al Qaeda + Friends. "

Al Quaeda + friends want total Shariah rule, and that is what we are getting. Yes, Al Quaeda is of course supporting all those "democracy" aka Shariah movements all over the Middle East. Read what they have been saying.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

WilliB,

You consistantly refuse to believe that "Shariah" is open to interpretation, despite copious evidence to the contrary. Egypt's pre-revolution laws were proportedly "based on Shariah." Lybia's new gov't wants laws to be based on "Shariah," but is open to certain forms of interest which are techically banned in the Koran. The Koran, much like the Bible, is full of internal inconsitancies and, in practice, open interpretation and cherry-picking. And many of the more unplesant practices often assosciated with Islamic law often turn out to be tribal practices that have no basis in the Koran.

The point is, you do not know what "Shariah" based law will ultimately look like in these countries.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

A follow-up:

That is not to say we shouldn't be apprehensive about Islamist parties or Shariah base law. Certainly, these developments are considerably more worring from a human rights perspective than, say, would have developments based on humanism and liberal democratic principles. What I object to, however, is the idea that Islamic influence automatically translates into human rights abuses and that continued despotism would have been superior.

So, basically. keep your eye on the post-revolution Middle East, but don't write it off yet. (Also, be prepared for set backs, trade-offs, and slow progress. Remember: we are in this for the long haul.)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Koran, much like the Bible, is full of internal inconsitancies and, in practice, open interpretation and cherry-picking. And many of the more unplesant practices often assosciated with Islamic law often turn out to be tribal practices that have no basis in the Koran.

Like spousal abuse?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triumvere:

" The Koran, much like the Bible, is full of internal inconsitancies and, in practice, open interpretation and cherry-picking. And many of the more unplesant practices often assosciated with Islamic law often turn out to be tribal practices that have no basis in the Koran. "

Tragically, you are wrong. Whereever Shariah is practised, the same brutal rules are established. It is not a question of different interpretations, only one of degree. All the unpleasant practises in islamic law are direclty related to the examples described in the Koran and the Haddiths. That is why they appear in societs where "tribal law" is completely removed from medieval Arab society (think Thailand or the Philippines). Show us one Shariah country where a "liberal" version of Shariah is practised... of course there is no such thing.

You are correct that Egypt already had islamic principles in its constitution. But Mubarak put a firm stop to its application, e.g. in regard to the oppression of Copts. With the Muslim Brotherhood in power, you get the fill-blown thing now.

The other North African countries where the the Shariah Spring brought the islamists to power are on top of the slippery slope too. Tunesia already legalized polygamy. Wait for the other niceties to come.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That is not to say we shouldn't be apprehensive about Islamist parties or Shariah base law.

You should check out the Muslim Brotherhood's statements about the future they envision for Egypt. That is not to ignore their very unhealthy views on a future relationship between Israel and Egypt. I would say a healthy does of apprehension would not be out of line. They are a huge block and Obama really has been ignoring the potential for true disaster in the region.

Nothing wrong with pointing these things out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Follow-up:

" The point is, you do not know what "Shariah" based law will ultimately look like in these countries. "

That sounds almost exactly like Nancy Pelosi "you have to pass the healthcare bill to know what is in it".... Fact is, no! You can and should read a bill (and a holy book) before making it into law.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's quite remarkable that posters here (who are obviously American) always find ways to blame US politicians for everything that's wrong in the rest of the world. You chaps should precede your remarks with the phrase, "I realize this one is likely to be deleted for being off topic, but I feel a deep and pressing need to raise my own agenda..."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Virtuoso:

" It's quite remarkable that posters here (who are obviously American) always find ways to blame US politicians "

I did not see anybody blaming US politicians in this thread, but since you bring it up: Yes, Obama is very much on record for endorsing the "Arab Spring" in Egypt and helping to bring down the relatively secular Mubarak regime... and helping to turn Egypt into another islamist hell-hole with an anti-Western agenda. Great job.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

WilliB,

What would you have Obama done, exactly? Should he have shored up Mubarak? Not taken part in the Lybia conflict? Should we try to save Assad from his impending doom?

I don't see any other way forward for the region than the one that was taken, to be honest. At best you might have been able to prop up a few autocrats for a couple of years, supporting a status quo which was bad for us and bad for them - the root cause of terrorism & extremism in my esitmation - only to be on the wrong side of history when the whole thing inevitably came crashing down. I don't see how that would help anyone.

Islam itself, I would argue, has long been coopted by discontented groups looking for a weapon. Political change offers a new (and potentially more effective) avenue where were previously only extremism and terrorism. Perhaps Islam will be allowed to grow in new directions now. Iliberal democracy dominated by Islamists may be the price we have to pay for that in the short term, but I am optimistic about the long term potential.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Shariah would mean a SEVERE drop in the following: -rape rates -murder and homicides -hate crimes -race crimes -robberies -sexual harrassment crimes -homo/bi/tran-sexuality -porn -objectification of women (i.e. women would not be objectified as sex slaves anymore) -death of IMMODESTY and immorality and indecency -crack down on drug user and abusers! -interest free banking system would stabilize the currently deteriorating economy!

In short: eradication of all sorts of moral and social crimes and imposition of justice and peace.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I would say a healthy does of apprehension would not be out of line.

Conceded. (I may indeed be too optimistic for my own good.) However, I put to you the same question I put to WilliB: How would you have had us act otherwise?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Triumvere:

" What would you have Obama done, exactly? Should he have shored up Mubarak? "

Yes, to the degree feasible. As a principle, support secularism, and not Shariah, as he did (and does).

" Islam itself, I would argue, has long been coopted by discontented groups looking for a weapon. "

Islam does not needo to be "coopted". If you are a fundamentalist, you believe that the whole world must be submitted under it. And everything else flows from that.

" Perhaps Islam will be allowed to grow in new directions now. "

There is no precedent for that. Look around the world. The only islamic countries that are relatively liberal are those that set firm limits to islam. Not those that "allow it to grow".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Foxie:

" Shariah would mean a SEVERE drop in the following: -rape rates -murder and homicides -hate crimes -race crimes -robberies -sexual harrassment crimes -homo/bi/tran-sexuality -porn -objectification of women (i.e. women would not be objectified as sex slaves anymore) -death of IMMODESTY and immorality and indecency -crack down on drug user and abusers! -interest free banking system would stabilize the currently deteriorating economy! "

Nice trolling attempt! Especially the bit about homo/tran/bisexuality. Would you care to discuss that with Ahmedinejad? LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How would you have had us act otherwise?

I would have not gotten involved and I certainly would not have stabbed people in the back that I had been shaking hands with and been chummy with not too long before.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

always find ways to blame US politicians for everything that's wrong in the rest of the world.

Personally, I have no memory of writing anything about everything that is wrong in the rest of the world and my opinions have nothing to do with US politicians. My comments were specifically about Mr. Obama and Egypt. I think he was and is being very naive and hypocritical. If people started protesting outside the White House, would it be appropriate for leaders of other countries to demand that he should be made to leave? Please. It is simple hypocrisy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Question: When the Islamists take power, will everyone in Egypt have to follow Islamic law?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Serrano:

Yes, For the Copts, that means live under strict dhimmi conditions. No wonder that 90,000 Copts have already fled Egypt since the wonderful "Arab Spring" began.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"the Muslim Brotherhood, a moderate group"

No worries then, they're a moderate group.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@ Mr. Jackinoff

They are a huge block and Obama really has been ignoring the potential for true disaster in the region.

What would you have him do? If he comes out against the Islamists, it only strengthens them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie:

" What would you have him do? If he comes out against the Islamists, it only strengthens them. "

It is not about him pontificating in his fabled speeches. It is about him putting diplomatic and financial pressure on Mubarak to step down and open the door to the islamists.

US foreign policy has it upside down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Religion and politics should never be mixed. It only causes unnecessary tension and friction.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Nessie,

WilliB basically answered your question to me for me. I think he should have stayed out of it. Now, he is putting pressure on the military to give up all of their influence and this will very possibly open the doors to the Muslim Brotherhood getting into power. This will not be a good thing for the region. Not good at all.

BTW, since when did the Muslim Brotherhood become a 'moderate group'. It is before or after they started making statements about rethinking the present peace agreement between Egypt and Israel? Yes, that sure will make things better in the Middle East. We definitely do have too many peace agreements there, huh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Time for the US to cut the billions in aid we offer these people.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@willi / jackinoff (uh oh!)

It is not about him pontificating in his fabled speeches. It is about him putting diplomatic and financial pressure on Mubarak to step down and open the door to the islamists.

So you think Mubarak was salvagable and the US should have expended political capital trying to salvage him? Go freedom!

Now, he is putting pressure on the military to give up all of their influence and this will very possibly open the doors to the Muslim Brotherhood getting into power.

You don't think that's inevitable? And would you prefer a military government?

BTW, since when did the Muslim Brotherhood become a 'moderate group'.

I never called them that, so I'd have to say: durned if I know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

>It is not about him pontificating in his fabled speeches. It is about him putting diplomatic and financial pressure on Mubarak to step down and open the door to the islamists.

US foreign policy has it upside down.

Yes! They should have pushed HARD to keep the corrupt, unelected Mubarak in power, thus increasing regional hatred toward the West and the US in particular. What the citizens of that country want has no bearing on things whatsoever.

You support democracy or you don't, it's not a matter of "I support democracy when the people exercising their democratic privileges agree with my values." That's not how it works. Good on Obama for supporting the Arab Spring and people's right to freely choose the government they want. One of the few things he's done that I agree with.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Time for the US to cut the billions in aid we offer these people.

Why, because they don't vote the way YOU like?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

pawatan:

" You support democracy or you don't, it's not a matter of "I support democracy when the people exercising their democratic privileges agree with my values." That's not how it works. "

Yes, that is how it works! A simple majority votes leading to radical ideologues taking power is not "democracy". Remember, Hitler was also elected "democratically".

A democracy needs a framework; human rights, institutions, political parties, free speech, courts, boundaries. Simply allowing a radicalized majority to trample on everybody else should not not be our idea of democracy. This is political science 101. The classic example is: Should a mixed group with a male majority have a simple majority vote if it is OK to molest the females in the group?

You see how this simplistic idea now works out in Egypt and its neighbours. Have American politicians really learned nothing from their disastrous experience in introducing "democracy" to Iraq? Apparently not.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Arab Spring was inevitable, like the breakup of the Soviet Union - people eventually want to be off the despots. If the West had clearly opposed it, the West would have been hated more than even now. The result would have been a bunch of new governments that are irreparably unfriendly to the West. That would have been the worse scenario. At least currently, the relation is moderate and salvageable - they could have a working relationship, even if not a familial one.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So you think Mubarak was salvagable and the US should have expended political capital trying to salvage him? Go freedom!

No, I think Obama should have butted out. It was an internal matter and stabbling leaders with whom you have shaken hands and claimed to support (as he and Biden did in January of this year) does not make the US seem very trustworthy.

You don't think that's inevitable?

Yes, but Obama does not need to speed it along. Again, he should butt out.

And would you prefer a military government?

To the Muslim Brotherhood? Yes. The military government has kept an admittedly cold peace in the region and I prefer that over the MB's vision of the region.

I never called them that, so I'd have to say: durned if I know.

The article does:

The Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, a moderate group persecuted and banned during the 30-year rule of president Hosni Mubarak, said they were leading in preliminary results.

IMHO, the Muslim Brotherhood are anything but moderate, unless the article means moderately dangerous. Even there, I would correct and say extremely dangerous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A democracy needs a framework; human rights, institutions, political parties, free speech, courts, boundaries. Simply allowing a radicalized majority to trample on everybody else should not not be our idea of democracy.

It's not OUR idea of democracy; haven't you figured that out yet? It's Egypt's right to self-determine. I'd argue it's a fundamental human right.

Have American politicians really learned nothing from their disastrous experience in introducing "democracy" to Iraq? Apparently not.

American politicians didn't introduce democracy to Egypt. They got out of the way and let Egyptians run Egypt.

The classic example is: Should a mixed group with a male majority have a simple majority vote if it is OK to molest the females in the group?

Of course not. It's also very, very much a strawman argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

pawatan:

" It's not OUR idea of democracy; haven't you figured that out yet? It's Egypt's right to self-determine. I'd argue it's a fundamental human right. "

No, it is THE idea of democracy. Mob rule is not democracy, and not a human right. Do you think the Copts deserve to be abused only because they are in a minority? How about people like homosexuals and apostates, whose fate under Shariah is death?

American friends used to tell me that the USA is not a democracy but a republic precisely for that reason.... to prevent mob rule by a simple majority. What happened? Is that all forgotten today?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

pawatan:

" (The classic example is: Should a mixed group with a male majority have a simple majority vote if it is OK to molest the females in the group?) Of course not. It's also very, very much a strawman argument. "

No, this is not a strawman, this is precisely the situation in Egypt. Just read "islamists" for males and "copts" for females. The situation of the 5% Copts in Egypt is already dicey. Under full-blown Shariah it will be disastrous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pawatan:

" American politicians didn't introduce democracy to Egypt. They got out of the way and let Egyptians run Egypt. "

No, they didn´t. They heavily pushed for Mubaraks removal. In case of Libya they got involved with bombs and special forces on the side of the rebels. Now they are itching to get involved Syria. Again, have they learned nothing from the disastrous experience of bringing "liberty" to Iraq?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ben

I'm inclined to agree with your last post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Foxie was being sarcastic. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure the lack of womens rights, religious freedom, and more will be taken away in the end under any "government" rule that makes its main ideals based on nothing but religous text. The day when the women stop being placed in prison in Islamic governments because they actually tried to get justice for being raped is the day when Islam is on the path to real (not imaginary) reform. As it stands, Egypt will not be anything like Turkey or even Morrocco. Sorry Triumvere, you really don't know anything about Islam. If you knew anything about Mohammed you'd understand Islam is nothing like the other religions even Christianity and Judaism.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How about people like homosexuals and apostates, whose fate under Shariah is death?

...except in the places that practice Shariah where this is not the case. See, you people who are violently anti-Islam think the application of Shariah is black in white - this happens, you must do this. This is true in Iran or Saudi Arabia but it's just not true in the rest of the Muslim world. I can - and have, repeatedly - talked here about places that practice Shariah and the things you just mention do NOT happen. You conveniently ignore this about spout the same lies.

The Copts are threatened because there is basically little government now, they just had a revolution, you might recall. Let's see how things go once there is a functioning government and NOT mob rule, whomever is elected.

Regardless, it's not the US's problem or business. So why bring Obama into it at all?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They heavily pushed for Mubaraks removal.

Words.

In case of Libya they got involved with bombs and special forces on the side of the rebels. Now they are itching to get involved Syria.

Big mistake and wrong.

Again, have they learned nothing from the disastrous experience of bringing "liberty" to Iraq?

Probably not - your Neocon friends never learn, always like intervention. I see you like intervention, too - since you are strongly in favor of the US making sure Mubarak was kept in office.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites