Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Taking The Foot Off The Back Of The Muslim Brotherhood

    Taking The Foot Off The Back Of The Muslim Brotherhood

    The wilful ignorance of the Obama administration to the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists in Egypt is astounding. 

    Just look what happened in Gaza where the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot Hamas was elected to office and proceeded to drown out all other voices, or Lebanon where Hezbollah has intimidated non-Islamist parties, including some Christians, into going along with the Iranian agenda.  Or, of course, Iran, where a coalition was bullied out of power by the Islamists, subjugating generations to strict Islamic law and pushing women’s rights back to the middle ages.

    I have no doubt that many if not most of the people in Egypt initiating the protests against Mubarek were true democrats, who wanted an open, western-style political process, and who harbored no grand plans of the destruction of Israel.  But those democrats will succumb to the hard line Islamists just at democratic people everywhere have faded when faced with Muslim Brotherhood-style forces.

    There is a reason the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has moderated (relatively speaking) its public agenda.  For over 30 years the Egyptian government has kept its foot on the back of the Muslim Brotherhood to prevent it from growing, much as governments in Europe have kept their feet on the backs of neo-fascists.

    The lack of Muslim Brotherhood power in Egypt does not reflect that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a threat, but rather, that the threat has been taken seriously by the Egyptian government. 

    For the Obama administration to treat the Muslim Brotherhood as just another secular and democratic player is profoundly ignorant and dangerous. 

    Now to the videotape:

    These words, reportedly spoken by Mubarek to an Israeli official shortly before his resignation, may be prophetic:

    “We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that’s the fate of the Middle East …. They may be talking about democracy but they don’t know what they’re talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam.”

    It doesn’t need to be this way, and Mubarek bears much responsibility for not laying a foundation for a civil transition, but that doesn’t make him wrong about the risk.

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Libs/progressives/pacifists can whine all they want about the US supporting "tyrants" but very often is a choice between a bad guy and a really bad guy. Or in the Muslim world, between a more modern, less fundamentalist Muslim leader and a REAL fundatmentalist, Sharia loving leader.

    That's why we have supported the likes of Mubarek. And it made and still makes, perfect sense.

    Egypt has been there on the Nile for what, four or five thousand years. Have they ever had a constitutional, representative goverrnment. Answer: No. Prospects for this "revolution" turning out well? Not likely.

    Actually, Mubarak was a victim of his own success much like the Shah of Iran. I saw a really good program on PBS of all places on the run up to the Iranian revolution and the last days of the Shah. It was done from the Feminist perspective and it lends some real insight as to why the Iranians let themselves be sucked into a theocratic type state.

    The parallels between Iran and Egypt are actually very close if you look at this from a social context. Egypt like Iran of it's time under the Shah is the most Western oriented of the M.E. with the resulting social stress that freedom brings. Freedom means individuals making choices for themselves that sometimes conflict with the traditional values one is use to living under. Divorce being one of those Western choices and also dysfunctions. Mubarak like the Shah allowed a secular state that resulted in a divergence between what is "legal" and what is socially "moral". You all heard the saying, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral. Many Muslims intensely dislike the "immorality" of the West, i.e. the legally sanctioned choices that morality based on religion calls dysfunctional. Think about why the Muslim Brotherhood is so popular with Muslims in general and Egyptians specifically.

    I wrote about this:

    The Shah was overthrown because he confused modernization with Western values. The male dominated culture of Iran responded accordingly when their divorce rates rose and the Mullahs pointed the finger of guilt at the Shah for infecting Iran with Feminism. The Iranian people welcomed the Mullahs with open arms to save their culture. They in the end traded the social despotism of moral decline for religious political despotism.

    Most instructive reading from an Iranian POV:


    Timeline of Iranian Government and Revolutionary Actions 1969-Current

    1971-Muhammad Reza Shah celebrates 2,500 years of the empire at Persepolis.

    1975- Economic turmoil begins after Soviet influence and the assist of the U.S. against the soviets. Inflation, Lower oil revunue, and a budget deficit.

    1976- The Shah replaced the Islamic calendar, causing more anti-Islamic revolts.

    1978- The Shah's police is in full force with such instances as killing of hundreds of protestors in Qom, Tabriz and other areas. The Shah institutes martial law.

    1979- The Iranian Monarchy collapses due to the 1979 revolution. The Shah flees Iran. Khomeini returns and the Islamic Revolution begins. Khomeini unified country around constitution. The Islamic Republic was declared on April 1.

    Reliapundit | February 12, 2011 at 10:25 pm



    So, William, your position is that you are not in favor of democracy when it is tried by brown people? AND, you support undemocratic, civil liberties violating policies like outlawing political parties, torture, and censorship when it's used on people you don't like?

    Personally, I'm glad that the conservative fear of a jihadist under every bed has helped expose their latest authoritarianism. You would rather side with a dictator who murders and tortures his own people, than with people who want have a similar political system to yours? Wow. Good thing we invaded Iraq, helped cause several hundred thousand Iraqi deaths, and maim thousands of our soldiers, just so people like you could "bring democracy to the Middle East."

    Wow "Tim", you would prefer that "brown people" be forced to live under an Islamic theocracy in which political opponents are murdered and tortured and women's rights are pushed back to the middle ages? Personally, I'm glad that liberal hypocrisy has been exposed once again.

    But of course, it's not just hypocrisy, is it?

    There was nothing in my post which was in favor of Mubarek or against people who want to have a political system similar to our. Just the opposite. Allowing the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas or Hezbollah or Iranian-backed Mullahs to flourish is the best way to ensure that "brown people" do not get a political system like ours.

    "Tim" – why do you hate "brown people"?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend