Thread: Egypt's ElBaradei: Liberals 'decimated' in vote

Originally Posted by RoccoR

Yes, I am well aware of the introduction of religious law into the Constitution. In fact, both the Iraqi and the Afghan Constitutions have such a clause. You can see how well that is working out.

Elaborate

Originally Posted by RoccoR

As Einstein says; doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

My point was I think they are using 'introduction of sharia' merely as a slogan.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

Having been to Kuwait, I'm not impressed.

Elaborate

Originally Posted by RoccoR

But I actually do agree that Egypt is not going to move forward in society and will adopt a model similar to Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey is about the only successful country with a secular Constitution.

KSA is unique. It is not similar to Iraq & Afghanistan.

Until i see some concrete moves from Egypt in this direction I don't have a comment.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

In 1979, I was part of Task Force Waterman and played my (less than) minor role in the evacuation of Iran when Islam-o-mania took root and won the day. It was almost overnight that the temperament towards Americans changed.

What factors would you say contributed to that overnight change in temperament ?

Could it have been avoided, in hindsight.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

While I am not saying the sky is falling, and Egypt will turn on us the same as the peaceful people of Iran did; I am saying that if we get involved in the internal politics - we will pay the price.

I get the impression that you continue to allude to american involvement here.

Has there been any since Mubarak ?

Originally Posted by RoccoR

We don't know, and that is the reason we need to be prepared. When you were last in Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you noticed that we are not a beloved people. And if it were not for the strength of the King, Americans would be undoubtedly mistreated. Egypt could turn that way quickly.

Tom Lippman had a few words to say about this. In a word he puts it down to non-immigrant visas. The US perception of KSA took a nosedive after 9-11. The Saudis felt let down as a result at the collective stigmatisation.

Its been very difficult to get visas for Saudis to go to the US, then if they succeed, they get the 2hr 'treatment' at JFK. He thinks if things were improved here perceptions might change.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

I'm not sure this is at all true. Turkey is a secular state. But it will be interesting to see what happens.

Whatever they implement will have to have the support of the people, in marked contrast to the days of yore.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

The Camp David Accords were about 50% successful. While the accords didn't answer the Palestinian autonomy issue, Egypt recovered it territory and Israel got a peace agreement. But, in terms of the Accords themselves, the US had to pay>

The US portion of the Camp David Accords ended more than a decade ago (in 1997), with the last of the bribery payments (several billion dollars) to both sides. Nothing lasts forever.

The cash payments might have stopped but military & other aid still continues to this day.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

Plus, were are not counting the variants to the UNSC Res 242 & 338. That is an entirely different discussion. The "Framework for Peace," a section within the Camp David Accords has been manipulated and worked for the more than a decade, and still no real results in the direction of the expected outcome.

The first framework is still being worked on but the second one is in force and has been successful in maintaining the peace between Israel & Egypt.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

So I doubt that the Camp David Accord is of much value now. We've got about as much as we're ever going to get out of it, unless we can come-up with another briber that was better than the last.

I don' think this means Egypt can walk away from it without a cost.

Some people view it as a cold peace but that is still better than no peace.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

A number of people keep say that we will lose our leverage. In fact, that is completely the wrong angle to play. For better or for worse, right or wrong, good or bad, it is time for the Egyptian People to decide their own fate and choose their own destiny.

The US should not be looking for "leverage" at all. We should not even suggest that.

Abruptly cutting off aid to Egypt would be a bad move.

A Man for All Seasons | Foreign Policy | May 9 2012

Egypt's presidential front-runner is a fascinating political chameleon. But does he have enough real support to win the upcoming election?

BY SHADI HAMID | MAY 9, 2012

In January, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh was a long shot to become Egypt's next president. When I walked into the Islamist candidate's basement in a far-flung Cairo suburb -- which was doubling as a "backup" headquarters -- it made me think back to the early, insurgent days of Barack Obama's campaign, when Hillary Clinton was still the presumptive Democratic nominee. The basement, with its large spare rooms, was packed with young volunteers. It had a chaotic, bustling feel. Aboul Fotouh's supporters may have hailed from radically different backgrounds, but they believed, above all, in the candidate. They wanted to transcend the old battle lines of "Islamist" or "liberal" and reimagine Egyptian politics in the process.

What those grand ambitions mean in practice is, at times, unclear. As Aboul Fotouh has risen to front-runner status in the first ever competitive presidential election in Egypt's history, he has become the Rorschach test of Egyptian politics. Liberals think he's more liberal than he actually is. Conservatives hope he's more conservative.

It's an understatement to say that the Aboul Fotouh campaign is a big-tent movement. A former leader in the Muslim Brotherhood and, for decades, one of Egypt's most prominent Islamist figures, he has become the standard-bearer of many of the young liberals who led Egypt's revolution -- including Google executive Wael Ghonim. He is also, however, the preferred candidate of the country's hard-line Salafi groups, including the al-Nour Party and its parent organization al-Dawa al-Salafiya, one of Egypt's largest religious movements. This is all the more impressive considering that, unlike the United States or most European countries, the primary political cleavage in Egypt has little to do with economics and much more to do with religion.

Aboul Fotouh's success stems in part from his ability to neutralize this religious divide. One of his messages -- and one that has appeal for liberals and hard-line Islamists alike -- is this: We are all, in effect, Islamists, so why fight over it? As he explained to a Salafi television channel in February, "Today those who call themselves liberals or leftists, this is just a political name, but most of them understand and respect Islamic values. They support the sharia and are no longer against it." In a creative attempt at redefinition, Aboul Fotouh noted that all Muslims are, by definition, Salafi, in the sense that they are loyal to the Salaf, the earliest, most pious generations of Muslims.

Aboul Fotouh is able to make this argument, and make it sound convincing, in part because of who he is. He is the rare figure who has been, at various points in his career, a Salafi, a Muslim Brother, and, today, a Turkish-style "liberal Islamist." In the 1970s, he rose to prominence as a leader and founder of al-Gamaa al-Islamiya, the religious movement that wrested control over universities from the once dominant leftists. In his memoirs, Aboul Fotouh recalls the early Salafi influence on his ideas: He and his fellow students aggressively promoted sex segregation on campus. At one point, they tried to "prove" to the Muslim Brotherhood's leader at the time, Umar al-Tilmisani, that music was haram, or forbidden by Islam.

Over the course of the decade, Aboul Fotouh developed close relationships with those who would later become the leading lights of Salafi thought. After the 2011 revolution, Aboul Fotouh, then in the process of splitting with the Brotherhood, was one of the few politicians to take Salafists seriously. It helped that he knew them. While the Muslim Brotherhood tended to treat Salafists as immature, younger brothers in the Islamic family, Aboul Fotouh exaggerated their power -- he once claimed that Salafists outnumbered Muslim Brothers 20-to-1 -- and pledged to seek their vote. Respect, it turns out, can go much further than ideological proximity.

But the ideological tensions within the Islamist camp remain, even if Aboul Fotouh's message tends to paper them over. According to him, all Islamists agree on the usul (the "fundamentals") but differ on the furu (the "specifics") of religious practice. In his February interview on Salafi television, he estimated, implausibly, that Islamists agree on 99 percent of the issues.

Thus far, his liberal supporters have dismissed such comments or explained them away. Part of it is the lack of alternatives. The other front-runner, former Foreign Minister Amr Moussa, is seen as felool, a derogatory term used to describe "remnants" of the old regime. Part of it, however, is that they really seem to believe Aboul Fotouh is who they want him to be. Although Aboul Fotouh is adamantly an Islamist, he has also broken with his former organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamists on key issues. Last year, for instance, Aboul Fotouh asserted that a Muslim has the right to convert to Christianity -- a particularly controversial position for a presidential candidate to take, given that most Sunni scholars hold that the punishment for apostasy is death.

Aboul Fotouh has often insisted on the dangers of mixing preaching and party politics, a position that appeals to liberals as well as some Islamists. When I met with him in 2010 at the height of the Mubarak regime's repression -- and just months before the most rigged parliamentary elections in Egyptian history -- he spoke at length about the need to separate the two. The Muslim Brotherhood, he said, can deal with political issues but should leave competition over power to political parties.

"Putting religion and political authority within one hand is very dangerous. That's what happened in Iran," he told me, peppering his measured Arabic with choice English words for added emphasis. "Historically, famous preachers were not part of the power structure. It's these [autocratic] regimes who put the two together -- putting al-Azhar [the preeminent center of Islamic learning] under the control of the state."

Aboul Fotouh consistently valued the Muslim Brotherhood's social and evangelical work over its accumulation of political power. In July 2008, I asked him what would happen if Hosni Mubarak's regime shut the Brotherhood out of parliament. Faced with the prospect of even more repression, he seemed surprisingly calm. "The Muslim Brotherhood is a social movement in the first place. Its presence in parliament is useful and good, but lack of parliamentary representation does not have an existential effect on the Brotherhood. From 1970 to 1984, we weren't in parliament, and they were 14 of the most active years for the Brotherhood's work of preaching and education."

In this respect, Aboul Fotouh is an old-school Islamist, seeing himself as a faithful heir to Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna's legacy. According to its bylaws, the group's original aim was "to raise a generation of Muslims who would understand Islam correctly and act according to its teachings." Until 1934, the bylaws forbade direct political action. Decades later, General Guide Tilmisani, fearing party politics would corrupt the Brotherhood's soul, prevented the organization from contesting parliamentary elections for many years.

There is a tension, however, between Aboul Fotouh's sometimes liberal pronouncements and his essentially majoritarian understanding of democracy. When I sat down with Aboul Fotouh for the first time in the summer of 2006, I wanted to understand his philosophy of government, to the extent that he had one. He repeatedly emphasized that the people, represented by a freely elected parliament, are the source of authority. On the thorny question, however, of what Islamists would do if parliament passed an "un-Islamic" law, he dismissed the concern: "The parliament won't grant rights to gays because that goes against the prevailing culture of society, and if [members of parliament] did that, they'd lose the next election," he explained. "Whether you are a communist, socialist, or whatever, you can't go against the prevailing culture. There is already a built-in respect for sharia."

This notion has a long pedigree in Islamic thought: Prophet Mohammed is believed to have said, "My ummah [community] will not agree on an error." Likewise, Aboul Fotouh was confident that once Egyptian society was free, the best ideas would rise to the top. There was little need, then, to regulate society from the top down. On their own, without government getting too much in the way, Egyptians would do the right thing. And this would inevitably help Islam. "What happens in a free society?" Aboul Fotouh went on. "I hold conferences and spread my ideas through newspapers and television to try to bring public opinion closer to me.… We have confidence in what we believe."

If people are looking for a consistent strain in Aboul Fotouh's thought, it is this: that Islam has already won out and will continue to win out. Islam is a source of unity and national strength rather than one of division. Depending on where exactly an Egyptian voter stands, this is either reassuring and somewhat banal, or mildly frightening, particularly for the country's Christian minority.

Nevertheless, it is an idea with analogues elsewhere in the region, most notably in Turkey and Tunisia, where "moderate" Islamists came to power by tapping into a religious mainstream that had lost faith in the secular project of previous decades. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for example, used democratization to strengthen the place of Islam in public life. He embraced European Union accession talks while knowing full well that the required liberal reforms would weaken the military's influence and empower Islamic currents in a country where the right to openly express religious values had been severely curtailed. In Tunisia, Rached Ghannouchi and his al-Nahda party have backed off from demands that Islamic law be enshrined in the Tunisian Constitution, perhaps knowing that Islamization of Tunisian society is already well under way, regardless of what the Tunisian Constitution says.

Indeed, the same attacks that follow Aboul Fotouh's counterparts in Turkey and Tunisia will be used against him: that he is a proponent of "stealth Islamization" and that he remains faithful to the project of applying sharia. The critics might be right. If Aboul Fotouh becomes president, there will be a battle -- between his liberal, revolutionary supporters and his Islamist backers -- over the direction his presidency takes. Now that the major Salafi organizations have endorsed him, they are likely to have significant influence in an Aboul Fotouh administration, pushing his presidency to the right on social and moral issues.

But though Salafists are a critical bloc of support for the Aboul Fotouh campaign, they have little presence in the candidate's inner circle and campaign organization, which is composed mostly of ex-Muslim Brotherhood members, liberals, and revolutionary youth. One of Aboul Fotouh's closest aides is Rabab El-Mahdi, a Marxist political science professor, who says her "biggest project" is ending the Islamist-secularist divide and focusing on the bread-and-butter issues that actually matter in people's lives. Another is the 30-year-old Ali El-Bahnasawy, a self-described liberal who is Aboul Fotouh's media advisor. He told me that the Salafists' endorsement was "amazing" and credited them for realizing that "Egypt needs to end the polarization in the country now." For him, this is the essence of Aboul Fotouh's appeal. "We need someone," Bahnasawy said, "who can talk to the Islamists and speak their language and talk to the liberals and gain their trust as well."

The popularity of Aboul Fotouh's campaign is partly a reaction to growing polarization in Egypt, where fears abound of an "Algeria scenario" of annulled elections, dissolved parliaments, and military coups. But just as the high hopes of the Obama campaign were dashed by the political compromises inherent in governing, an Aboul Fotouh administration may find it difficult to transcend the basic realities of Egyptian political life. If he wins, his supporters will soon find that the divisions between Egypt's feuding political currents do not dissipate quickly, if at all.

It is perhaps telling that Aboul Fotouh's rise comes at a time when religious belief has become an easy substitute for real discussion on economic recovery, security-sector reform, or how to fight income inequality. For the vast majority of Egyptians, the debate over sharia has been utterly beside the point. It is an elite debate and, in some ways, a manufactured one. As Aboul Fotouh will be the first to say, all major political forces support Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution, which states that the "principles of the Islamic sharia are the primary source of legislation." Even the most "secular" party -- the Free Egyptians -- took to campaigning in rural areas with banners reading "The Quran Is Our Constitution." Meanwhile, it was the Salafists, and not the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood, who entered into serious negotiations over forming a parliamentary coalition with liberal parties. As a senior official in the Salafi al-Nour Party once put it to me, "Here in Egypt, even the liberals are conservatives."

Sharia has become the "hope and change" of Egyptian politics -- all say they like it, but no one quite knows what it means. As the most powerful man in Egypt and with a bully pulpit to match, Egypt's first revolutionary president will have a fleeting opportunity to redefine the meaning of Islam in public life.

In the introduction to his electoral program, Aboul Fotouh, the candidate, embraces the application of sharia. But there's a caveat: "The understanding of implementation of Islamic law is not, as some people think, about applying the hudud punishments [such as cutting of the hands of thieves]," the program reads. "In its complete understanding, Islamic law has to do with realizing the essential and urgent needs of humankind." The program then goes on to list combating poverty and fighting corruption as two fundamental components of applying Islamic law. For Aboul Fotouh, sharia is both everything and nothing all at once. For now at least, that seems to be exactly the way he wants it.

Shadi Hamid is director of research at the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Originally Posted by troung

A cold one?

You's been hoaxed

Necrophilia law ? | Egypt Independent | May 9 2012

There was never any bill in the Egyptian Parliament that authorized necrophilia, nor was the question ever raised. Instead the whole story has turned out to be based on a bizarre chain of rumors, with journalists seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear, without any fact checking.


The story came to life two weeks ago when the controversial columnist Amr Abdel Sami wrote a column addressing necrophilia in the Egyptian state-owned newspaper, Al-Ahram. In the article, he warned of the Islamization of Egyptian society, specifically what he considered an alarming Salafi success in the parliamentary elections. To heighten the acuteness of his argument, he gave some examples of what such a development might lead to. Among several things, he alluded to a statement from the controversial Moroccan Sheikh Zamzami Abdul Bari, in which the sheikh proposed that it would be halal for a man to have intercourse with his wife after death. It should be noted that Zamzami is infamous for his startling fatwas, having earlier embraced consumption of alcohol for pregnant women, for example. 



Abdel Sami proceeded to state that he was afraid that a proposal like this could be presented in Egypt. He also mentioned that the president of the National Council of Women had sent a letter to the (now dissolved) Constituent Assembly, addressing the importance of protecting women's rights in the new constitution.The day after, Tuesday, the well-known TV host Jaber al-Qarmouty discussed the column in his TV show on the private satellite channel ONTV. After reading the passage concerning necrophilia aloud several times, he also wondered whether the proposal could be introduced as a bill in the Islamist-controlled Egyptian Parliament. Without having any further proof other than the column itself, he asked rhetorically whether Abdel Sami had some access to secret discussions concerning the proposal, as basis for his speculation about the alleged necrophilia bill. Qarmouty’s own assumption on Abdel Sami’s access to “sources” only gave the false story more credibility. 



The day after, the reputable Saudi-owned news channel Al-Arabiya brought up the matter on their English website. By now, all the little fallacies had been synthesized, and the last twist added to articulate yet another bold headline: “Egyptian women urged parliamentarians to reject the draft laws that allow child marriage and sex after death.”



What is puzzling about the spread of this hoax story is that it could not have been that difficult for journalists to fact check it. When we contacted Ziad Bahaa Eddin, MP for the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, he replied within an hour, stating that no such “ludicrous” bill had ever been discussed or brought up in Parliament. But Al-Arabiya has a large audience and many took note of the astounding “news,” which consequently spread around the globe. Soon, the same fallacious story was published by news outlets in the West, such as the Daily Mail, the Huffington Post and the influential American feminist e-zine, Jezebel.

When we got in contact with Sweden’s biggest morning newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, which had also published the necrophilia rumor, they were quick to defend their publication. They argued that they had “trusted the source of the story in earlier occasions” and that they did not see “why they would be dishonest in this case.” Only after being presented with extensive proof that the news was fabricated did they remove the article, and admitted that the whole story was “quite embarrassing.” No such apology has been published by the Daily Mail, the Huffington Post or Jezebel, and none of them has removed their articles to this day. Their adjustments amount to insignificant disclaimers on how the story “provoked widespread skepticism.”

The fact remains, however, that around the world, people are left with the idea that ​​crazy Egyptian Islamists are advocating necrophilia as characteristic of their faith.

Helena Hägglund is a freelance journalist based between Cairo and Stockholm. Sam Carlshamre is an Arabic PhD candidate at Lund University.