Just watched Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) on a couple of Fox shows talking about the Egypt situation with other panelists. They’re debating what will happen: Mubarak said he’d leave in September. He’s had thirty years, himself, of being an autocratic (some say despotic) ruler; he was preceded by another thirty years of someone else doing the same thing. Before that? A monarchy…… ruling autocratically (the Military ended his rule with a coup, culminating with the aforementioned autocrat.) Sensing a Theme here? Welcome to Egypt.
Blogger Sandmonkey believes that if Mubarak stays in power until Fall, he will use the time to crush all dissidents – most notably the pro-democracy folks like Sandmonkey. (BTW – Sandmonkey was just detained, beaten, and released a couple of days ago. Like, two days, maybe three.) But the Foxnews people generally agree that leaving immediately, as the protestors demand, will leave a power vacuum that only one group is prepared to fill: the Muslim Brotherhood.
Theme music: The Clash! Just let it play while you read the rest of this……
The panelists find it a bad thing for the MB to take power. (Good for them!) But one liberal thinks the Egyptian people won’t go for (read: Vote For) the MB, because Egypt is such a moderate, Cosmopolitan country. I guess he wasn’t thinking (or hadn’t even heard!) of all the Copts who are regularly attacked & killed for Being Not Muslim. Robert Spencer talked himself blue in the face, explaining the power of the religious arguments that the MB uses. But he couldn’t get through to the panelists on that score.
Yet islam is the reason that islamic countries REQUIRE an autocratic ruler – and it goes something like this:
Western democratic countries are generally stable, unlike islamic countries. As a Founding Father of the U.S. said (paraphrased), the system of government embodied in the Constitution will only work with a moral & religious people. The religion he was referring to was the Western Judeo-Christian heritage.
Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
. ~ John Adams
The freedom of America is dependent on its citizens recognizing their ethical and moral responsibilities to honor moral behavior – a phrase that would need no explanation, except when discussing a non-Judeo-Christian system of morality. Americans honor Truth above all other qualities – which is what makes us work so hard for honest elections, for instance. But islam values superficial values more than truth – so, saving face is considered a highly honorable motive, even if it involves lying to do it.
Islam has different attributes than those that would foster democracy. For clarity, look for a muslim-majority democracy….. Hmmm….. Still looking? Well, there’s Indonesia – where muslim militants are constantly attacking the other folks in outlying areas and increasing the reach of the repressive sharia laws of islam. Or, there’s Turkey – the oft-cited shining star of Moderate islam. Only…. not so much, any longer.
Turkey’s freedom and much-vaunted modernity is being rapidly eroded by the closet islamists who have taken power….. through the fair elections of the people. All of the signposts of a true islamic government are appearing – women are made to wear the headscarves (which used to be outlawed for most of Turkey’s public life – a person could still wear one at home, but not in government offices or schools.) Christians are being attacked with greater frequency. Outlying rural areas are the scenes of more frequent honor killings. And so it goes…..
Now, it must be said that Turkey’s previous modern life was created by…. an autocratic ruler, Kemal Ataturk. He is the one who outlawed many expressions of muslim life, in order to create a purposely secular country. He didn’t hate islam, but he felt democracy was a good form of government, and that islam made it impossible for a democracy to exist.
Smart man. But notice the common thread: muslim-majority countries can only exist in a stable form with a strong-handed, autocratic ruler. Listen to the Iraqis: “At least when Saddam was here, was had jobs! Stability! There were no militia attacks! We could work & live without fear! We prospered!”
(Unless you were a Kurd…. or any political enemy.) The majority of Iraqis seem willing to live with less political freedom if it means economic & personal security. And, given the same choice, I might also….!
John Adams mentioned “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry” would destroy the Constitution. Revenge is fostered in the rules of islam – hence the multitude of honor killings, and the barbaric system of islamic punishments. These are not designed to reform the wrong-doer, but to provide an equal amount of misery for them as was suffered by the victim. Pride is the winner, when impugning someone’s honor is a death sentence.
Neither avarice nor ambition are discouraged in islam, as they consistently are in Judaism and Christianity. Islamic gallantry is the concept of hiding and beating women for their own good, and killing them for the imagined honor of one’s tribe. Not exactly gallant, when compared to the Western concept of gallantry, especially as thought of in the 1700’s by John Adams.
In short – Egypt’s only hope is to find a benevolent autocrat to seamlessly take over and replace their present less-than-wonderful autocrat. Because the Muslim Brotherhood is ready, willing, and eager to take over. And then Egypt will take the faux-democratic route of Turkey, on its way to Iran.