While the media has eagerly accepted the “happy ending” that Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak abdicated—after all, the uprisings were dragging on and it needed a quick denouement to the drama so it could return to Lady Gaga
From Congressman Keith Ellison’s emotional breakdown to Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s accusations of “racism,” last week’s hearings on Muslim radicalization have made it clear that those who oppose the hearings have little of substance to offer. Still, the tactics used by such apologists—namely, appeals to emotionalism and accusations of racism—are influential enough that they need to be addressed and discredited once and for all.
As with Egypt, American sympathies instinctively side with Libya’s oppositional forces as they seek to overthrow the tyrant Qaddafi—and rightfully so.
Mohammad El Baradei, whom many tout as a great reformer, is now on record supporting the Egyptian constitution’s controversial Article 2, which states: “Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).”
Med Egyptens “juli revolution” i 1952 var egypterne for første gang i stand til at prale med at en indfødt egypter, Gamal Abdel Nasser skulle regere deres land: Lige siden deres sidste faraon blev styrtet for næsten 2500 år siden var Egypten blevet behersket af en hoben af fremmede invaderende – perserne, grækerne, romerne, araberne, tyrkerne og briterne for blot at nævne nogle få. Efter 1952 skulle Egypten så endelig være egyptisk, troede man.
Avec la « Révolution de juillet » en 1952, pour la première fois depuis des millénaires, les Égyptiens ont pu se vanter qu’un leader de souche égyptienne, Gamal Abdel Nasser, dirigerait leur pays : depuis le renversement du dernier pharaon près de 2 500 ans auparavant, l’Égypte avait été gouvernée par une foule d’envahisseurs étrangers – Perses, Grecs, Romains, Arabes, Turcs, et les Britanniques, pour n’en nommer que quelques-uns. Après 1952, on croyait que l’Égypte serait enfin égyptienne.
That democracy equates freedom is axiomatic in the West. Say the word “democracy” and images of a free, pluralistic, and secular society come to mind. Recently commenting on the turmoil in Egypt, President Obama made this association when he said that “the United States will continue to stand up for democracyand the universal rights that all human beings deserve”—as if the two are inseparable.
With Egypt’s “July Revolution” of 1952, for the first time in millennia, Egyptians were able to boast that a native-born Egyptian, Gamal Abdel Nasser, would govern their nation: Ever since the overthrow of its last native pharaoh nearly 2,500 years ago, Egypt had been ruled by a host of foreign invaders—Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and Brits, to name a few. After 1952, however, Egypt, it was believed, would finally be Egyptian.
Recent comments by U.S. officials on the threat posed by “radicalized” American Muslims are troubling, both for their domestic and international implications. Attorney General Eric Holder states that “the threat has changed … to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born.”
It is clear that the media and its host of analysts are split in two camps on the Egyptian revolution: one that sees it as a wonderful expression of “people-power” that, left alone, will naturally culminate into some sort of pluralistic democracy, and another that sees only the Muslim Brotherhood, in other words, that sees only bad coming from the revolution. These extremist views need balancing.