Here are some excerpts from a New York Times article on the reactions of Islamists to the coup:
“The Brotherhood went too fast, they tried to take too much,” Sheik Abu Sidra, an influential ultraconservative Islamist in Benghazi, Libya, said Thursday, a day after the Egyptian military deposed and detained Mr. Morsi and began arresting his Brotherhood allies.
But at the same time, Sheik Abu Sidra said, Mr. Morsi’s overthrow had made it far more difficult for him to persuade Benghazi’s Islamist militias to put down their weapons and trust in democracy.
“Do you think I can sell that to the people anymore?” he asked. “I have been saying all along, ‘If you want to build Shariah law, come to elections.’ Now they will just say, ‘Look at Egypt,’ and you don’t need to say anything else.”
From Benghazi to Abu Dhabi, Islamists are drawing lessons from Mr. Morsi’s ouster that could shape political Islam for a generation. For some, it demonstrated the futility of democracy in a world dominated by Western powers and their client states. But others, acknowledging that the takeover accompanied a broad popular backlash, also faulted the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood for reaching too fast for so many levers of power. . . . .
Their account strikes a chord with fellow Islamists around the region who are all too familiar with the historic turning points when, they say, military crackdowns stole their imminent democratic victories: Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954; Algeria in 1991; and the Palestinian territories in 2006.
“The message will resonate throughout the Muslim world loud and clear: democracy is not for Muslims,” Essam el-Haddad, Mr. Morsi’s foreign policy adviser, warned on his official Web site shortly before the military detained him and cut off all his communication. The overthrow of an elected Islamist government in Egypt, the symbolic heart of the Arab world, Mr. Haddad wrote, would fuel more violent terrorism than the Western wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And he took aim at Western critics of the Islamists. “The silence of all of those voices with an impending military coup is hypocritical,” Mr. Haddad wrote, “and that hypocrisy will not be lost on a large swath of Egyptians, Arabs and Muslims.”
In Egyptian Sinai just hours later, thousands of Islamists rallied under the black flag of jihad and cheered widely at calls for “a war council” to roll back Mr. Morsi’s ouster. “The age of peacefulness is over,” the speaker declared in a video of the rally. “No more peacefulness after today.”
“No more election after today,” the crowd chanted in response. . . . . .
“Didn’t we do what they asked,” asked Mahmoud Taha, 40, a merchant. “We don’t believe in democracy to begin with; it’s not part of our ideology. But we accepted it. We followed them, and then this is what they do?”
sheik el-Haddad wrote:democracy is not for Muslims
It should say Islamists instead of Muslims and that is exactly what quite a few of us said. They don't want democracy, they want theocracy with Sharia law. End of the story.
But theocracies come in all forms. Iran is an undemocratic theocracy while Turkey is a democratic theocracy. The difference between Mohamed Morsi and Recep Ergogan is patience. I didn't post all the comments due to space constraints, but many of Morsi's critics are fellow Islamists and even they fault him for going too far too fast.
Other Islamists, though, sought to distance themselves from what they considered the Egyptian Brotherhood’s errors.
As the military takeover began to unfold, Ali Larayedh, the Islamist prime minister of Tunisia, emphasized in a television interview that “an Egypt scenario” was unlikely to befall his Ennahda movement because “our approach is characterized by consensus and partnership.”
Emad al-din al-Rashid, a prominent Syrian Islamist and scholar now based in Istanbul, said that he “expected this to happen” because of the Muslim Brotherhood’s style of governance. “The beginning was a mistake, a sin, and the Brotherhood were running Egypt like they would run a private organization, not a country,” he said. “They shouldn’t have rushed to rule like they did. If they had waited for the second or third elections, the people would have been asking and yearning for them.”
Hisham Krekshi, a senior member of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood in Tripoli, Libya, said the Egyptian Brotherhood “were not transparent enough. They were not sharing enough with other parties. We have to be sure that we are open, to say, ‘We are all Libyans and we have to accept every rainbow color, to work together.’ ”
Translation: It was foolish of Morsi to throw the frog into the pot of boiling water. He should have thrown the frog into a pot of cold water and gradually turned the heat up, because successful democratic leaders are incrementalists, not impatient bulls in a china shop.
jazzcyclist wrote:Iran is an undemocratic theocracy while Turkey is a democratic theocracy.
"Democratic theocracy" is an oxymoron. Erdogan would love to implement an Islamist state, but in nearly 100 years, Turkey's democracy has established just enough checks-and-balances (political, administrative, military...) that he cannot do it.
Pego wrote:Turkey's democracy has established just enough checks-and-balances (political, administrative, military...) that he cannot do it.
But he is doing it, and he's already gone through three election cycles, and the popularity of his party has continued to increase. In 2002, he got 34.26% of the votes. In 2007, he got 46.58% and in 2011 he got 49.83%. I think what you're getting at is whether a country is democratic first and theocratic second, or theocratic first and democratic second. Turkey is in the former group while Iran and Israel are in the latter group. It seems that some of Morsi's fellow Islamists are criticizing him for not following the Erdogan example, believing that if he had shown patience, he could have eventually reached his destination without undermining democratic principles. Morsi gave his critics every reason to believe that he wanted Egypt to be Islamic first and democratic second and that was his big mistake.
EDIT: The anti-abortion Bible thumpers didn't let Roe vs Wade deter them from trying to ban abortion, they just keep chipping away. Every time a court overthrows one of the laws that they get past a state legislature, they regroup and come up with another scheme. Their latest move to put all sorts of restrictions on the clinics that are allowed to do abortions may turn out to be their most clever yet. In Texas, they have the votes, and it doesn't appear that the federal courts will be able to intervene as long as they argue that these restrictions are for medical safety reasons, despite the fact that everybody knows what their true motive is.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think you are giving way too big a slack to the Islamists and way too little to Turkey or Israel. Once again, throwing Iran and Israel in the same bag blows my mind. We clearly disagree on this, let's quit before we both get kicked in the ass .
Pego wrote:I think you are giving way too big a slack to the Islamists and way too little to Turkey or Israel. Once again, throwing Iran and Israel in the same bag blows my mind. We clearly disagree on this, let's quit before we both get kicked in the ass .
Certainly comparing Iran and Israel in similar terms is ludicrous, but there is little doubt that the future of Israel seems to hinge on how the quickly growing Haredim fit in with the still majority secular Israelis. In a democratic country with multi parties a powerful growing minority can wreak havoc with government. Heck look at what's happening with our two party system with archaic congressional procedures that give a losing side power to create deadlock. Interesting piece in the NYT on the Haredim this morning. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/world ... ml?hp&_r=0
jeremyp wrote:Certainly comparing Iran and Israel in similar terms is ludicrous, but there is little doubt that the future of Israel seems to hinge on how the quickly growing Haredim fit in with the still majority secular Israelis. In a democratic country with multi parties a powerful growing minority can wreak havoc with government. Heck look at what's happening with our two party system with archaic congressional procedures that give a losing side power to create deadlock. Interesting piece in the NYT on the Haredim this morning. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/world ... ml?hp&_r=0
1) I never said that Israel = Iran. My point is that in both nations, there are numerous instances in which religious ideology trumps democratic principles.
2) If you think that Haredim is Israel's biggest problem, you're ignoring the giant elephant in the room.