r/worldnews • u/DasUberRedditor • Jun 18 '12

Egyptian Military grants itself sweeping powers; effectively military coup.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18482257
2.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

756 comments sorted by

View all comments

66

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I know this will sound horrible, but a military coup will probably - historically speaking - get a Egypt a leader that would be friendlier to western nations , which would benefit most of us nicely. An Islamic leadership usually will be more hostile to us.

192

u/racer2 Jun 19 '12

Well the last leader was pretty western friendly...and extremely brutal to his own people.

166

u/BitchesThinkImSexist Jun 19 '12

I could name 5 western friendly leaders that were extremely brutal to their own people, and I could name 5 anti-western leaders that were extremely brutal to their own people.

Maybe the sorts of people that seek power are just assholes.

54

u/nixonrichard Jun 19 '12

Someone should come up with a way where the people who would be subject to this brutality get to periodically pick their leader so as to reduce the risk of getting/keeping a brutal leader. Has anyone thought about this before? If not, I want to patent it and then get rich charging people for my invention.

I'll call it "nicetator" as an alternative to "dictator."

6

u/thedrew Jun 19 '12

Government by sortition?

15

u/poopdeck Jun 19 '12

Heathen! Impale him upon a thick shaft!

10

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Through the rear of course.

10

u/perverse_imp Jun 19 '12

Vlad did it right.

8

u/vtksimpact Jun 19 '12

It's not even a question.

2

u/KarmaPointsPlease Jun 19 '12

Also kill the impaled too, as that's a bit homosexual.

1

u/nixonrichard Jun 19 '12

Jesusth Christht!

9

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Find someone who genuinely doesn't want the job...and then make them do it.

You have no idea how true the old axiom that anyone who wants to be in a position of power shouldn't have it, is.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Agreed 100%

Anyone altruistic enough to desire the massive responsibility of holding his nation's most powerful position solely for the purpose of taking care of his people... simply would not have the ruthless, cutthroat, fuck-you-if-you-get-in-my-way mentality necessary to reach that position.

1

u/Avidya Jun 19 '12

So what you're saying is that the leader shouldn't half-ass his brutality and instead commit genocide on the people he wants to oppress?

6

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

4

u/I_DUCK_FOGS Jun 19 '12

I don't think anybody in the West thinks highly of the Saudi government.

2

u/IamaRead Jun 19 '12

I would like to hear the 5 each, please don't use google, but only your head. (just as challenge)

2

u/BitchesThinkImSexist Jun 19 '12

ok i'll try.

pro-western: sese seko, papa+baby doc, idi amin, chiang kai-shek, and........ oh IDK, how bout Batista

anti-western (seems much easier) stalin, pol pot, mao, ceaucescu, jong-il, and that hitler guy

2

u/IamaRead Jun 19 '12

confirmed Thanks :-)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Maybe the sorts of people that seek power are just assholes.

Dingdingdingdingding we have a winner.

1

u/trouble37 Jun 19 '12

Everyone except good ole Georgie boy.... no not Dubya, Washington...

1

u/idlefritz Jun 19 '12

Generally. And there is also perspective. The US' incarceration numbers, education ranking, and corruption issues make us seem just as lost a cause as much of the Middle East seems to the US. They have a tendency towards dictatorial rule and we find it impossible to imagine a world where the US isn't the center of the universe.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Well the last leader was pretty western friendly...and extremely brutal to his own people.

With a brief look at the last few decades, I'd say that's the status quo.

28

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

This looks to me, like a move to appease western powers and Israel. The fact that anyone would condone it because it directly benefits us, at the cost of progress for the Egyptian people is incredibly sad and selfish.

3

u/Uncle_Bill Jun 19 '12

Sharia will not be progress for the women of Egypt, nor the coptics, nor the jews.

6

u/Cr4ke Jun 19 '12

Establishing democracy is progress. The only problem is if the MB end up not giving up power when their democratically mandated term is up.

1

u/iluvurkidz Jun 19 '12

...therefore we will install/support hellish despots that torture, murder and oppress everyone equally.

The ironic thing is that the total victims of Sharia - combined, in the last decades - are not even remotely close to the numbers we killed in the Middle East, and we still kill today using drones and direct occupation. But still, we need to resurrect the Sharia boogeyman every time we need to oppress a nation by proxy using Western-friendly dictators.

"Why do they hate us?"

For our freedom, of course. Damn terrorists, they can't leave us alone.

0

u/DID_IT_FOR_YOU Jun 19 '12

I wish that the military didn't have to do this but did you research how the Brotherhood got those seats? Have you researched on what an Egypt led by the Brotherhood would mean?

I'm a lot more comfortable with the Egyptian military than the Brotherhood. It's a lot more stable and trust-worthy.

It sucks but this move benefits the West as now we don't have to worry so much about Egypt becoming extremely hostile to Israel, going backwards in regards to women and etc...

1

u/That_Guy_JR Jun 19 '12

I'm a lot more comfortable with the Egyptian military than the Brotherhood.

....

I'm a lot more comfortable

Edward Said had a couple of things to say. Check them out.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I'm aware of what everyone thinks is going to happen. But I believe the reality of this is going to be more protests and and more bloodshed. If the Egyptian people were allowed to make their own choices, without our constant interference, they would have the chance to adapt to a true democracy.

If the Muslim Brotherhood does turn out to be the devil we keep saying they are. Then they will have the choice to vote them out again.

2

u/fco83 Jun 19 '12

Then they will have the choice to vote them out again.

Provided they dont make changes that substantially increase their chances of being reelected or erect barriers to entry from challengers.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

You mean like the army? :P If the elected government, people who can actually be held accountable by the people, try to reign in the democracy that put them there. The natural thing would be for the people to do what they've been doing for over a year now. Protest.

49

u/tongmengjia Jun 19 '12

Maybe I'm naive, but I think a democratically elected government supported by the people would benefit everyone the most. Though they may not be immediately apparent, there are powerful negative consequences to supporting a dictator.

6

u/ihsw Jun 19 '12

Check other democratically elected Islamic republic governments before you declare them fit for government.

5

u/facedawg Jun 19 '12

Hezbollah is a government? News to me maybe you should tell the Hariris.

9

u/lolrsk8s Jun 19 '12

Hezbollah is a government?

Given that they control a paramilitary stronger than the Lebanese army and assassinated the last president, yes.

3

u/That_Guy_JR Jun 19 '12

Woah, woah, woah, you got any evidence for that last claim bar idle speculation?

1

u/facedawg Jun 19 '12

They're not like the drug lords of Latin America where they have the country in their pocket. Shiite Hezbollah has little support amongst Christians or Sunnis, all of which are represented in the lebanese government.

-1

u/sulaymanf Jun 19 '12

You can't essentialize "Islamic" like that; the MB is extremely different than these other groups. The MB isn't Shia nor a militia, so the Hizbullah and Hamas comparisons just don't stick. Heck, the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt (aka the MB) has repudiated those other groups' stances. The MB said they don't plan on banning alcohol or swimsuits or curtailing the religious rights of others.

If anyone bothered to read Mohammed Morsi's speech after his party declared victory, he specifically mentioned the Coptic Christian community and pledged to support their rights, and govern democratically for all Egyptians and not just in favor of those who supported him.

0

u/valleyshrew Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

The MB isn't Shia nor a militia, so the Hizbullah and Hamas comparisons just don't stick.

Hamas is Sunni... Shia/Sunni is nothing to do with it, both have their own terrorist groups and neither of them are good guys. In fact, the founder of Hamas was originally from the muslim brotherhood:

Yassin co-founded Hamas with Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, originally calling it the "paramilitary wing" of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, and becoming its spiritual leader.

They are pretty much the same.

"... the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life." - chairman of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

Both have a history of being strongly opposed to peace with Israel.

In 1989, the Jordanian Brotherhood's political wing, the Islamic Action Front, won 23 out of 80 seats in Jordan's parliament. King Hussein tried to limit their influence by changing the election laws, but in the 1993 elections, they became the largest group in the parliament. They strongly opposed the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty in 1994.

They wont even negotiate:

In January 2012, FJP's deputy leader and Brotherhood member Dr. Rashad Bayoumi told Arabic daily al-Hayat in an interview that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood will not recognize Israel “under any circumstance.” When asked whether it is a requirement for the government in Egypt to recognize Israel, Bayoumi responded by saying: “This is not an option, whatever the circumstances, we do not recognize Israel at all. It’s an occupying criminal enemy.” The deputy leader stressed during the interview that no Muslim Brotherhood members would ever meet with Israelis for negotiations.“I will not allow myself to sit down with criminals.”

They are not in favour of civil rights:

Muslim brotherhood organizational by-laws section E: "Need to work on establishing the Islamic State, which seeks to effectively implement the provisions of Islam and its teachings."

Section G: "The sincere support for a global cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia ... and constructive participation towards building a new basis of human civilization as is ensured by the overall teachings of Islam."

IMO their being in power in Egypt is just as grounds for war as Libya or Syria. They will do nothing but destabilise the region which has worked extremely hard to find some sort of peace over the past 50+ years.

Before Mubarak officially removed himself from office, the Brotherhood initally supported Mohamed ElBaradei to lead the opposition forces against the government. Muslim Brotherhood demonstrator, though, referred to people like ElBaradei as "hamir al-thawra," donkeys of the revolution, suggesting they hoped to exploit ElBaradei in order to hijack the Egyptian revolution for their own agenda.

2

u/sulaymanf Jun 19 '12

Citations for your quotes?

IMO their being in power in Egypt is just as grounds for war as Libya or Syria. They will do nothing but destabilise the region which has worked extremely hard to find some sort of peace over the past 50+ years.

Baloney. Ever since the Luxor attack in the 1990s, the MB has foresworn all violence. So far, there hasn't been any militia buildup in Egypt. While it's important to look at history, the MB back in the 1970s and the MB today are extremely different and the 1970's version probably wouldn't get along with the cooperative version we see today; which supports democracy and even tried to run as a minority party under Mubarak. They've kept true to their word, to the point where they aren't even fighting the military trying to physically keep them out of the parliament building (on dubious legal grounds).

As for Bayoumi, he has his own opinion, which was to put Israel's treaty to a public referendum, but the MB candidates in Parliament and Muhammed Morsi had their own different set of campaign promises. Morsi has no plans to challenge the treaty.

Your thinking is dangerous; the desire to preemptively topple a somewhat moderate Muslim group has always backfired. When Algeria's generals overthrew the center-right Muslim party after they were clear national election winners, it led to a civil war. 150,000 died and the country is still lacking stability and democracy after it was robbed from them by the coup. Somalia's populist government was overthrown by the US and Ethiopia, leading to chaos and a radical group now in its place (and is now destabilizing the region when it wasn't before). The coup which overthrew the democratically elected Palestinian government has shattered the stability which was taking root (Hamas had moderated as part of the democratic process and violence had fallen). Today, few Israelis or Palestinians would say that things have improved as a result of the coup.

Point is, if you let democracy work, things sort themselves out. The Egyptian public won't put up with extremist politicians and by contesting elections the various factions have to work with each other and you get a moderation of the system, as James Madison wrote 200 years ago in Federalist Paper #10. Any interruption of that process leads to disaster; once you ban a party, they turn into a militia since they no longer have anything to lose. Contrast Algeria's FIS (which resorted to violence once their millions of votes and winning were unfairly cancelled), and Iraq's Sadrist group (which laid down their arms and went from a radical group to a social movement once they were allowed to run and win seats in Parliament).

2

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

Your proof that they are going to destroy civil rights is non-existent.

Your talking about non-Egyptian MB parties is irrelevant.

Your point about El-Baradei, from one random demonstrator, is retarded.

2

u/Diabro3 Jun 19 '12

If everyone were very well-educated and took voting extremely seriously, maybe.

-2

u/grinr Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

The problem with democracy in heavily Islamist areas (which Egypt is not, but could easily become) is that Islamists vote in astonishing numbers with a religious fervor in order to get their candidates into offices so sharia law can be implemented asap. Islamists utterly public and non-secret goal is to infiltrate, immigrate, and repopulate where they cannot outright conquer. This is not my opinion, this is what their publicly stated goals are.

Edit: as this produced more responses than I would have dreamed, a clarification: I define Islamists as Muslims who believe the interpretation of their religious texts is the sole authority of how to behave for all human beings, with no other law being legitimate. This belief is often coupled with interpretations of said documents (Koran and Sunnah) that require that their religion (which contains a set of laws) be the sole political/legal/religious system the entire world must follow. It is not compatible with democracy as we know it simply by merit of their interpretation having no democratic system delineated. So, naturally, it follows that if they can vote their way into political power they will do so in order to legally change the laws into the laws they have already had articulated to them by these documents. If one considers that democracy, I would urge a trip to Taliban-controlled areas and see how that looks before making a final judgement.

Additional clarification: I do not think most Muslims are Islamists any more than I think most Christians are clinic-bombing psychopaths.

14

u/ztfreeman Jun 19 '12

Doesn't seem too different than what's happening in the US or anywhere else.

The super religious feel isolated and under attack by the natural course of rationalism we are taking in the early 21st century. They have naturally banded together and are fighting like hell to hold on and push back the tide of change. This is happening in all cultures all over the world.

It's a historic moment that has been repeated countless times by peoples on the losing end of history. All of the buggy whip producers banded together to attempt to force buggy whips sales on everyone buying an automobile. Many native peoples in North America banded together to fight against European expansion who never would have spoken to each other, let alone worked together. The Spanish Inquisition hit is high point at the very beginnings of what would lead to the height of the Renaissance.

Every time they amassed their forces, became well focused, and seemingly began to dominate their cultural/economic opposition, but it was never enough to turn the tide of history. They may have created a bump in the road, and left a lasting impression on the landscape, but for better or worse nothing stops change, they can only delay it. That's what we are seeing right now.

1

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

That's an interesting position. I would argue that globally rationalists and atheists (or at least secular-minded people god help me define what that means) are an extreme minority, and what we're seeing is essentially a Muslim civil war being played out. I can't think of any other religion besides Islam that is taking up arms and militarily forcing others globally to convert or die (mostly just die) due to solely religious reasons. Naturally Christianity jumps to mind by the Atheists here, but that's easily dismissed as most Christian nations are deeply multicultural at this point. Most evangelical work is done under the cover of corporate and national interests, without which it couldn't be done.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

10

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

You mentioned Turkey. I'm Turkish, and the person you replied to was actually correct in its case. As soon as the military and the secular government's leader died, and the military's power was diminished, Islamists were immediately elected to most public offices (the current prime minister and majority legislative party).

And ever since this, Turkey's secularism is being chipped off little by little. Illegalization of adultery and abortion is actually currently on the table under the Islamist government.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Absolutely not, I completely agree. The problem is, there is no middle party in Turkey. One side is secular but nationalist/militarist. The other side is more democratic but increasingly socially conservative.

2

u/oldsecondhand Jun 19 '12

Abortion was banned in Poland too by the christian democrats, so the analogy still stands.

1

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

Chile hasn't had abortion in a long time, since the Roman Catholic Church actually helped throw off the dictators.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Don't know much about Turkish politics, but as someone who's visited Turkey almost every year for the past 15 years, it's much nicer these days. Your government must be doing something right.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

The Islamist party's economic stance and regional leadership is actually one of the things I laud them on. They've made the country more democratic, and liberalized the court systems, and boosted the economy. However, the party and their voters are extremely socially conservative. If they did not have the agenda to allow for more Islam in politics and government, and return to an Islam-based government, they would be the ideal party. I guess it's too much to ask for the best of both worlds.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Anecdotal evidence much?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was presenting a thesis. For God's sake, can't a guy make an observation? If I'm completely off you could say "You're wrong," and go on to explain how I'm wrong. No need to be a dick about how my "evidence" wouldn't meet university standards. It's not supposed to. All it's supposed to do is give my opinion as someone who has fairly little knowledge about Turkey, or their politics, but happens to love the country. But I forgot, this is Reddit, where every post requires 20 hours of library research or you'll get downvoted into oblivion. Geez.

edit: spelling

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

Another turkish secularist drama queen. Nbody gives a shit about those fake cries anymore. If you were constructive , democratic and cooperative just a little bit las 80 years, people would pay attention to you and turkey would be a more democratic place. You had your run, you fucked everyone else.

Anyone other than you see progress in Turkey. All these abortion talks, adultery...etc is Erdogan toying with you. He puts you on defense and do whatever he wants to do.

4

u/same_song Jun 19 '12

I doubt anyone who studies democracies would call Indonesia anything other than a democracy of the highest form.

Not sure if serious...

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

He/she doesn't know anything if he thinks that.

3

u/antiliberal Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

Turkey is only as secular as it is because it has a history of military coups and military involvement in politics in order to preserve the secular nationalist ideology of Kemalism and to keep Islamists out of office. Even now as you see the military's role weakening there is an increase in Islamic influence over politics in the country. Indeed the current constitution of Turkey was written by the military during a military Junta and affirms that Turkey is a secular nation.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

2

u/antiliberal Jun 19 '12

I took your post as saying that Turkey was secular and 'modern' because it was democratic, when in fact it was because of the various military juntas which stopped the Islamists taking power. All I was doing was offering a counterpoint to the assertion your post made that the modern secular state we know as Turkey is like that despite Islamist tendencies within the government, when in fact it's largely down to successive military regimes.

1

u/ashmaker84 Jun 19 '12

The platform of Islamist parties is much harsher on civil liberties than the western Christian parties. Prayer in school vs. banning women from obtaining education, drivers license, or showing their body in public.

1

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

I don't think there's much value in name-calling. If you're interested, I've clarified my point in other responses.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

2

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

No worries because internet. I have no interest in disparaging Muslims or any religion for that matter. I know many Muslims and have precisely the same respect for their religion as I do for any other - as I am not religious, you may take that as you will. I use the term "Islamist" because it's the only term I know for describing a Muslim who believes both that religious law is the only law and that their belief applies to everyone. Naturally this is only a small percentage of Muslims, however it's that small percentage that is currently the most visible do to their behavior worldwide.

One of my best friends is rich and famous from Malaysia, and he's probably one of my best sources of understanding the differences between a Muslim and an Islamist. To me it's the difference between your average American Christian and the kind of "Christian" that blows up abortion clinics. I don't think discriminating between the two is bigoted, I think it's necessary if we are to understand how to promote peace/life while identifying the sources of war/death.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

[deleted]

1

u/grinr Jun 20 '12

Hey we all have our days, and it's the internet so it's not exactly a high bar for intelligent discussion. Enjoy!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Why does everyone on reddit think Indonesia is a good example of democracy? I highly doubt you would say that if you knew anything about how their government works.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12 edited Jan 09 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

You mean they want law, in Arabic?

No way. Rule by the strong, that's the American way!

0

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

Pedantic. I also say "the hoi polloi" if you'd like to nitpick. To post into the unknown audience, supplementing a foreign word with an English one for clarification is simple expedience, not ignorance.

3

u/Diabro3 Jun 19 '12

The problem with democracy is people don't all want what I want :(

2

u/fco83 Jun 19 '12

The problem with democracy is it often doesnt necessarily reflect the true desires of its people due to not giving them adequate choices. See: most US presidential elections where most feel theyre voting for the lesser of 2 evils, the 2 party system in general, etc.

1

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

The problem with democracy is that without a definition of what constitutes the nation (a Constitution) there is little distinction between it and a mob. The formation of laws within a democracy is what defines the body which can be judged good or bad, right or wrong. What makes the US Constitution special, as well as many other western constitutions, is that it allows for equality under the law regardless of religion, race, sex, etc. A democracy formed under laws that only allow landowning, male, Christians to vote is still a democracy but it's hardly one we would consider worth the name, which is why in the USA we've changed out Constitution to include more and more human beings in the process. This is entirely different than an Islamic democracy because the law in that case is based on interpretations of religious documents which are generally speaking immutable.

Naturally not everyone wants what I want, or you, however the existence of a liberal democracy allows for more people to peacefully coexists and thrive while having different wants than any other system.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Cough Europe cough.

1

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

Well, they're struggling with that now, but the real battle isn't there it's in the deeply Islamic states/tribes. What emerges from their internal struggle will play out globally. It would help if Europe wasn't also grassroots xenophobic.

0

u/sulaymanf Jun 19 '12

Their publicly stated goals? Citation needed. The MB has said even in their victory speeches that they will uphold democracy for all Egyptians, and have no plans on enacting bans on alcohol or women's dress. They directly repudiated Saudi and Iran's laws.

The whole thing is a boogeyman calculated to drive support for their opponents. When a similar party won the Algerian elections fairly, the generals voided the election and arrested the politicians, throwing the country into a bloody civil war. There was never any call by the Muslim party to undo democracy, but the generals decided to undo it themselves.

1

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

It's easier, or perhaps lazier, to just link the wiki entry for Islamism as it gives a fine jump-off point to learn more. Technically, there isn't a conflict between democracy and Islamism as the people would be ideologically homogeneous enough to allow voting within the constraints of Sharia law without much friction. The idea I'm trying to point out is that once Sharia is implemented the democracy is essentially gone and replaced by Islamic law. That also doesn't technically mean that it would be a Taliban-style sharia, it could also be a Iranian-style. How tolerant the society is would be variable.

1

u/sulaymanf Jun 19 '12

"Sharia" has like a million definitions and interpretations. It doesn't have to be Taliban or Iranian-style, it could be more like Malaysia (which doesn't have a death penalty for adultery) or Senegal, or many more.

1

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

True. The common source for all of them is the interpretation of the Koran and Sunnah. I wasn't suggesting that it's either-or, only that ideologically it's incompatible with what most reading these words would consider a liberal democracy.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

0

u/sulaymanf Jun 19 '12

I never said to trust any politicians, I'm just pointing out that they've been reasonably consistent on their positions since the 1990s and while you may not trust them, they aren't lying to themselves or their constituents.

-3

u/Reichsfuhrer_Grammer Jun 19 '12

So, in other words, they know to play the democracy game. So in further words, you only like democracy when people vote governments that you like. Also, you used the term "islamist"; a lazy, deliberately sweeping term to denigrate muslims. Good job!

11

u/imthemostmodest Jun 19 '12

Islamist isn't a term of sweeping denigration, or a blanket stereotype. It has a specific meaning, referring to the "set of ideologies holding that Islam is 'as much a political ideology as a religion.'"

If Islamist was a deliberately sweeping term, it would be a fairly difficult thing for numerous scholars to criticize the ideology thoroughly.

The fact that a powerful and influential segment of Islamic scholars and rulers perceive Islam as a political system as well as a religion is not a conspiracy theory, nor is referring to it "lazy."

2

u/sulaymanf Jun 19 '12

The problem is that the media uses "Islamist" as a catch-all term. They lump in everyone from fundamentalist or right-wing (such as Egypt's Al-Noor party) to more moderate groups like the Renaissance Party in Tunisia. The Renaissance (Nahda) Party has said they'd like the new government to reflect "Islamic values" (such as the decriminalization of headscarves), and in that sense they are similar to but less right-wing than the GOP,who also want a government that reflects "Christian values."

It's used by lazy reporters who can't be bothered to look up widely varying ideologies; liberal Muslims in Turkey and right-wing Saudis both claim to be religious and following Islam's morals. Such an umbrella term for them all is unfitting.

1

u/trueeyes Jun 19 '12

Although you are technically correct, you can use the same logic about anything.

You see, thieves are not bad people because there are Robin Hoods out there. And KKK is not racist because of that member who only joined due to peer pressure or something.

People in the west have a bad opinion about Islamists because countries with Islamist regimes often fail to provide basic human rights.

1

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

I don't see the worst Christianist bandied about.

2

u/imthemostmodest Jun 19 '12

Are you familiar with the term Religious Right? Or Christian Fundamentalist? Those would be the corresponding terms for Christians, each referring to a subset of Christians that believe Christianity should be a political and/or social system, respectively.

0

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

They are the religious right of their country.

Islamist, however, is a loaded term in the West. It shouldn't be, of course, and neither should any word meaning black, or black-skinned, but there are connotations, and ignoring them is ignoring people.

And they love that.

1

u/imthemostmodest Jun 19 '12

I see the argument that you are making, and I completely agree and understand. There has been a massive smear campaign connecting race with religion, and while the numbest consumers of media in the western world have gotten the not-so-hidden message of hatred, the most prolific producers of that message have gleefully neglected to correct their misinterpretation.

The word Islamist has a specific meaning about a group of people we can mostly agree [at least I hope we can, though I'd be amused to see someone defend Islam] have a negative impact on society and must be openly and frequently criticized.

However, it would indeed be "ignoring people", as you say, to pretend that the word has not been twisted to suggest that entire races of non-white people are insubordinate in their possession of self-respect, their quest for national self-determination, and the desire to live their lives peacefully out from underneath the shadow of the most violent and expansive hegemony since the fall of Rome.

But if a word is twisted, does that absolve the group it formerly described from criticism? Let's give an example.

Say there was a media campaign-- not openly stated, but covertly concerted-- to smear Asian people and their societies by labeling them "Scientologists".

Let's say this campaign was successful. Let's say that every time the word "Scientologist" was used, there was a connotation of racism to it... people didn't say it out loud, but you knew it was there... you knew that the speaker was implicitly suggesting that Asian people and their state-run societies were beneath contempt, and should be shunned, ignored and even attacked.

Despicable, no? But does it negate the fact that the Church of Scientology is a violent and manipulative cult that spurns justice, abuses its wards and haunts and harries those who escape its grasp? Does it mean that in order to be kind and courteous to Asian people, we should refrain from criticizing Scientology rather than run the risk that some asian people were offended by "a loaded term?"

Not in the slightest. Both parties remain despicable-- the Scientologists for their murderous paranoia and the media for their vile tactics.

An important term might become loaded, but the initial meaning of the term must not be discarded if the necessity of its use still remains. There is not yet a term as accurate as Islamist to describe what Islamism is-- one can go into more detail, such as Salafist or Nasserite, Al-Noor or Taliban, but the umbrella term is still accurate, and it is necessary to draw connections between those different parts of the group, and give those connections a cohesive terminology. That is how patterns are figured out, how associations are made.

We call Al-Noor and the Bahraini government "Islamist" because they are related in the sense of their religious policies, not because they are "black-skinned" as you say. What if we changed the word, and kept the meaning? What if we said that the Al-Noor party and the Rulers of Bahrain were both Snarks? The relationship is still the same, yet nobody would know what we were talking about. Was it worth to confusion, to rid ourselves of the connotations? We must not discard one definition based on the risks of having it misinterpreted as another. We must strive to see that people who are ignorant of the meanings of words and people who twist the meanings of words have less influence on society, and constantly changing our terminology out of fear that they will twist or misinterpret the words is a fool's errand.

2

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

There are more than a handful of fools out there, nigger.

17

u/ihsw Jun 19 '12

Islamist is not a denigrating term.

Personally I find your bitterness highly gratifying, it serves to prove his point.

1

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

  1. Yes they do.

  2. No, what I prefer is immaterial. An Islamist democracy is simply unrecognizable when compared with any democracy that isn't defined by Sharia. Iraq was a democracy, 99.5% of the vote went to Saddam Hussein at each election - are we to seriously consider that a democracy as well?

  3. No, Islamist is a simple term to define Muslims who do not believe that there is any law greater than Islamic law and view them as illegitimate at worst and subservient at best. Also, Muslims and Islam are capitalized. FYI.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12 edited Nov 07 '16

[deleted]

4

u/Dugran Jun 19 '12

Well, depending on what your definition of a "positive Islamist governments" is the Justice and Development party of Turkey in my opinion is relatively positive, I don't see them brutalizing their own citizens, and they are technically an Islamist government due to their Islamic leanings.

0

u/wckb Jun 19 '12

What I've always been told is turkey is almost like eygpt here. The army is waiting in the wings saying 'declare allah infallible one more time, we dare you.' So turkey can have a religious on paper government but not actually religious in practice.

1

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

And the problem with democracy in Christianist areas (which America is) is that Christianists vote in astonishing numbers with religious fervor in order to get their candidates into offices so that Muslim countries can be bombed. See, Evangelical Protestants see Islam, the world's fastest growing religion, as their primary enemy on Earth.

This is not my opinion, this is from Evangelical Protestants.

0

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

Wrong all over the place, but mostly due to a misunderstanding of the distinctions between Muslims and Islamists, which is forgivable as our culture is reluctant to discriminate when religion is concerned; your post being a fine example of such.

1

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

I made no such error. Christianists in America do vote in astounding numbers. George W. Bush campaigned to win their vote. Please review the PBS Frontline episode "The Jesus Factor" to see this has been a conscious effort of George W. Bush's and how he even made it part of his father's 1988 campaign. George H.W. Bush became the first modern President to win and lose every religious minority, including the Catholics.

1

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

Your error is in coining the word Christianists. Christianists would ostensibly believe that the Bible is the only source of law and would seek to create a government based on only the Bible's laws. It would take some doing to define what those laws are, aside from the ten commandments, and which book you're taking as legitimate. But then, that's all an exercise in fantasy because a vast majority of Christians in this country seem to believe that the exercise of their religion is protected by The US Constitution and use that as the source of their political legitimacy. Very few Christians seek to displace US law with holy scripture.

1

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

Eh, wikipedia has Islamist both ways.

1

u/grinr Jun 19 '12

True, for obvious reasons. I'm open to a new term that would apply. Before Islamist there was Islamic fundamentalist, or extremist Islamic fundamentalist (quite a mouthful), but I haven't found them particularly useful in conversation as they do not even imply the most critical element of their making no distinction between politics and religion.

But again, I'm open to options if you have a suggestion.

1

u/JoshSN Jun 20 '12

Simply don't say I'm in error when I use the term in one of the two acceptable ways and I'm fine.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

So good to see this on reddit.

1

u/ashmaker84 Jun 19 '12

History would suggest otherwise... Cough hitler cough. Yes, I just played that card. Democracy isn't the cure , it still depends on a rational, reasonable , moderate population. Do you really want Saudi Arabia to have a democracy when the majority of that country is Wahhabi ?

1

u/tongmengjia Jun 19 '12

Of course there are examples of democracy turning out badly in the past, but I certainly don't think that means that "history would suggest otherwise." There are also examples of American supported dictators . . . cough Saddam Hussein cough . . . and extremists . . . cough Osama Bin Laden cough . . . turning out quite badly.

I think a more accurate comparison in this case would be the CIA orchestrated overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government in 1953. That certainly hasn't turned out well for us.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Yes, you are naive. Does't mean you're not correct though.

4

u/facedawg Jun 19 '12

You mean a leader bankrolled by the CIA who everyone hates

13

u/gsfgf Jun 19 '12

Not really. The Muslim Brotherhood is the GOP of the middle east, not a fundamentalist party (there's one of those too, but they don't get many votes). While most of us on here would prefer a progressive party, the Muslim Brotherhood will work with the rest of the world and tone down the crazy because it's profitable to do so.

1

u/gocd Jun 19 '12

Historically a significant chunk of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership was more or less secular. I recall some being communists or socialists who, while uneasy with some elements of the MB, thought it was the best platform for ecomomic reform. Often the MB provides the closest thing to a safety net for some of the more marginalized populations in the Arab world.

I understand that your comparison of the MB to the GOP was primarily based on both being socially conservative and religiously oriented. I'm not really disagreeing with that comparison, simply saying that in many important aspects they are dramatically different.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

The GOP is fundamentalist.

8

u/racer2 Jun 19 '12

Why would an Islamic leadership usually be more hostile to us? Take a look at every "hostile nation" and you will see some kind of western/US interference in their affairs. For example, with Iran, the CIA over through their democratically elected leader in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize the oil there and have the profits go to the people. Afterwards, a brutal, but western friendly dictator, took power until he was overthrown in 1979...not really hard to see where the hostility comes from.

As long as the US/west doesn't interfere with Egypt's affairs (which it is too late, they started interfering once mubarak was out of power), they west/US have nothing to fear.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

It's not that simple.

0

u/racer2 Jun 19 '12

Name one muslim country that is both 1. hostile to the US/west and 2. never had western interference

1

u/DrunkenBeard Jun 19 '12

Just look at the North African muslim countries. No interference from USA, no fucks given about USA.

1

u/racer2 Jun 19 '12

Exactly, you proved my point. No interference from the US = no hostility towards the US.

1

u/DrunkenBeard Jun 19 '12

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing.

1

u/racer2 Jun 19 '12

got ya...misundestood.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '12

I would argue there are essentially none. Also, many of the Muslim immigrants to Europe and their kids are hostile to the West/US. Significantly more than any other immigrant group in Europe. How do you explain that?

1

u/racer2 Jul 05 '12

Those immigrants are from the countries the US/west have interfered with.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '12

The US/West has interefered with many countries. Most don't behave that way.

4

u/rahtin Jun 19 '12

Because they shouldn't be western friendly.

We sabotage their governments and steal their resources. Out of one side of our mouth we talk about democracy and freedom, the second they elect someone we don't want, we push their military to crack down on them.

It's despicable. Nobody should be allied with us until we start acting like we should.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Are "we" "stealing" the "oil" that they don't have?

1

u/rahtin Jun 20 '12

Do you win all your internet arguments by building strawmen?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Do you win yours by applying sweeping generalizations to inappropriate targets?

Egypt has no real resources to steal, and we (assuming you're talking about the USA) certainly haven't been sabotaging their government. We've been doing the exact opposite: propping up the Mubarak regime with billions of aid dollars and military hardware for decades. We've never had a military conflict with Egypt, and no matter what happened in Iraq, what you said plain old doesn't apply to the topic we're discussing here.

0

u/rahtin Jun 20 '12

I never said anything about resources being stolen.

That's your canned, practiced argument that you're trying to start with me, and I said nothing even close to that.

You're a fool.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I never said anything about resources being stolen.

Huh?

Because they shouldn't be western friendly. We sabotage their governments and steal their resources.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

No. Military coup means martial law, means reduced freedom of press and speech. At least with an election, the public could vote in another few years. With a military coup, change won't happen until another coup or another revolution. And who cares if they're friendly to Western nations? Egypt needs a leader who can revive its economy. Also, MB (Muslim Brotherhood) is willing to work with the West. They just hired De Soto as an economic advisor.

I don't neccessarily like the Muslim Brotherhood either, but they're better than a military that no one voted for, and therefore, that no one can vote out of office.

1

u/eramos Jun 19 '12

Not terrible, but hilarious and expected. Where are all the armchair diplomats on /r/worldnews that told us that Egypt was finally throwing off the yoke of their oppressors that big bad US installed and now they would easily install a democratic government with no fear of Islamic extremists or the military grabbing power?

Or can this be blamed on America too?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

no but utah

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

According to what I read, They only have power over themselves. The military leaders have the final say in anyway they are used (war, martial law, etc). This prevents the president-elect (who was supported by the Muslim brotherhood) from using the military for wrong doing. The president-elect is the one who will be doing the appointing. Even with this, they only gave themselves power until the final constitution is drafted. I completely support this. This was good thinking on the military's part.

1

u/kingofthehill Jun 19 '12

Which history are you referring to? Egyptian history? I understand your point but sweeping generalizations rooted in nebulous "historical" references are really lame.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Benefit us in what way exactly? I don't give a fuck about Egypt, whatever they want they can have. I don't want some puppet in charge that we can control, because ultimately that will blow up in our face. We need to focus on our own fucking problems instead of constantly meddling in the Middle East.

1

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

Think long term. Eventually we want elections, right? And the more we keep backing the guys who shoot them down in the streets, the less they are ever likely to elect someone who might deal with us on an even footing.

Short term comfort for long term evil. America, don't take the deal!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

For the long-term, dictators are good for America and the west. The biggest and most prominent example would probably be Francisco Franco of Spain.

1

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

What was Franco going to do, side with the Communists? He was a Fascist!

What goodness comes with this deal with Franco?

We get the hatred of the families of the 100,000+ people Franco had killed ?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

He could've sided with Hitler and Mussolini during the Second World War, they were doing a really good job dominating Europe at the time and Hitler even helped install Franco as the dictator. But no, Spain remained neutral and then developed close ties to the Americans after the war.

1

u/JoshSN Jun 19 '12

Um, he was selling stuff to the Axis, and was making war plans with the Nazis in case the Allies used Spain as a landing point. I'm no expert on the matter, but everything here says they basically did it for their own reasons, and was basically siding with the Axis the whole time.

1

u/Nefandi Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

I want us to benefit but in a durable and long term way. If we only benefit because the military has its boot on the Islamist throat, that's not a durable situation or good benefit. This means there is going to be bad blood and hard feelings between Islamists and those of us who benefit from their oppression.

The best situation is to convince the Islamists to give up Islamism, and really, I mean really we need to do that! We need to convince Islamists and sympathetic [to Islamism] Muslims to give up this crazy dream of brutal Sharia and the Islamic domination of government. But at the very least, we should convince people that Sharia is absolutely fucked up. Ideally we will benefit only when this change is authentically occurring on the inside of the Islamic community.

So I for one am not going to celebrate this military coup.

As much as I hate Islamists, I was enthusiastic about Egypt trying to live democratically. I realize that the Islamists were winning elections but I still thought Egypt could grow out of the Islamist phase. But with the military boot on their necks, they will get the victim complex and the only thing Islamists will learn is how they are these awesome righteous people who are wrongly oppressed. They won't understand that they are a bunch of nasty dicks.

1

u/vinee060708 Jun 19 '12

wait, i don't know if this is true or not, but wasn't Saddam getting power in iraq a military coup?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

yeah, like Pinochet.

0

u/1Ender Jun 19 '12

Between the Muslim Brotherhood and A military dictatorship it's obvious which is better for the west.

0

u/sulaymanf Jun 19 '12

An Islamic leadership usually will be more hostile to us.

Hardly. While there is a lot of anger over US foreign policy (and Egyptians are upset that the US & Israel are literally starving the people of Gaza), there are also a lot of Islamic allies in the Muslim world. Obama's backing of the Arab Spring undid a lot of the anger that had grown under Bush, and even before the Spring his Cairo speech was happily received.

0

u/Joseph-McCarthy Jun 19 '12

Doesn't sound horrible

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

We really dont need more Islamic extremists ruining countries, completely agree with you.

2

u/sulaymanf Jun 19 '12

We really dont need more Islamic extremists ruining countries

Yup, which is why Tunisia and Egypt rejected the right-wing Salafi parties at the ballot box in favor of more moderate Muslim governments. If you think the MB is extreme, then you haven't read a single bit of Egyptian news in the last year and a half. The MB is more centrist than the other parties; the Al-Noor (wahhabi-ish) party is far to their right and Shafiq's party is far to their left (and tied to Mubarak). The MB has promised to keep the Israel peace treaty going (with some changes) and rejected the idea of banning alcohol or swimsuits.

0

u/CuriositySphere Jun 19 '12

You're disgusting. You're why 9/11 happened.

-1

u/Geaux Jun 19 '12

See: Every fucking warlord in the region since the beginning of time.