Egypt's referendum

[Khostai]

that's pretty much how democracy works in the western world. when a candidate and their party wins, they don't start appointing the losing party members to important posts. the secular parties act like they are owed something despite being on the losing end of the parliamentary elections, presidential elections, and referendum.

Listen to yourself LOL. In western world when the oposition wins they don't come whith laws that are undermining the rights of the minorities.
Morsi made laws that gives him more power, he is making himself another dictator. He can have more power than Mubarak if his laws are adopted, so don't say ow this is how democracy works when you clearly don't understand it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Listen to yourself LOL. In western world when the oposition wins they don't come whith laws that are undermining the rights of the minorities.
Morsi made laws that gives him more power, he is making himself another dictator. He can have more power than Mubarak if his laws are adopted, so don't say ow this is how democracy works when you clearly don't understand it.

See the laws in France against hijaab and yarmulkas... laws in other parts of Europe against minarets... Laws that target discussions of unpalatable historical events...

Also in a republic like the US, the portions of the government have the power to override each other's in decisions. For example, if Obama wanted to appoint Susan Rice, the congress can block the decision to make her secretary of state. But if 1 party wins dominance the whole presidential cabinet gets approved without any issues. That is why John Bolton was able to get approved to the UN without any issues.

In a pure democracy though, there is no consideration of minority of majority rights.

The issue the Egyptians like Wael Ghonem, the google exec, have with Morsi is that he extended his power.

The secular extremists merely used the power grab as a pretext to criticize the constitutional referendum before a vote even took place.

Here is Wael Ghonem's commentary in this article:

"The Brotherhood and other Islamists enjoy wide support in most of the 17 provinces voting next Saturday, something that could work in favour of the "yes" vote.

Wael Ghonim, an icon of the 2011 uprising against Mubarak, summed up the Saturday vote in a Tweet he posed on his account: "Out of every 100 Egyptians, 69 did not take place in the referendum, 18 said 'yes' and 13 said 'no."'

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/rights-g...#ixzz2FSDZAWT1

Its really rather childish on the part of some of the Mubarakite Copts and the Secularist extremists to complain due to the fact that they want Mubaraks non native policies to stay in place even though the majority observe completely different ideoreligious traditions.

In the US for instance, a woman cannot walk with her top off in the middle of central park (i.e. reveal her naked breasts). A man on the other hand can. Any US male can walk on public property outdoors with his shirt off without risking arrest for indecent exposure.

Different cultures have different ideas of propriety. So if an African Zulu Tribes-lady generally spends her day with her breasts exposed - if she were to be transplanted into Central Park, the US penal code does NOT allow her to walk around bare breasts because that is the idea of propriety in the US. Now if there were complete equality, why should a female not be able to walk around with bare breasts in the US on a hot summer day? Nude beaches are also illegal in public property. The same goes for certain work place environments and short skirts.

So if the majority in Egypt view certain cultural and dress standards as more native and proper and enshrine that in their penal code why should visitors and the vocal minority not be subject to the same laws that revolve around the ideologies of the majority?

Finally, at the end of the day who cares? Let the Egyptians, brotherhood, military, and secularists battle it out.

[Toramana]

See the laws in France against hijaab and yarmulkas... laws in other parts of Europe against minarets... Laws that target discussions of unpalatable historical events...

Also in a republic like the US, the portions of the government have the power to override each other's in decisions. For example, if Obama wanted to appoint Susan Rice, the congress can block the decision to make her secretary of state. But if 1 party wins dominance the whole presidential cabinet gets approved without any issues. That is why John Bolton was able to get approved to the UN without any issues.

In a pure democracy though, there is no consideration of minority of majority rights.

The issue the Egyptians like Wael Ghonem, the google exec, have with Morsi is that he extended his power.

The secular extremists merely used the power grab as a pretext to criticize the constitutional referendum before a vote even took place.

Here is Wael Ghonem's commentary in this article:

"The Brotherhood and other Islamists enjoy wide support in most of the 17 provinces voting next Saturday, something that could work in favour of the "yes" vote.

Wael Ghonim, an icon of the 2011 uprising against Mubarak, summed up the Saturday vote in a Tweet he posed on his account: "Out of every 100 Egyptians, 69 did not take place in the referendum, 18 said 'yes' and 13 said 'no."'

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/rights-g...#ixzz2FSDZAWT1

Its really rather childish on the part of some of the Mubarakite Copts and the Secularist extremists to complain due to the fact that they want Mubaraks non native policies to stay in place even though the majority observe completely different ideoreligious traditions.

In the US for instance, a woman cannot walk with her top off in the middle of central park (i.e. reveal her naked breasts). A man on the other hand can. Any US male can walk on public property outdoors with his shirt off without risking arrest for indecent exposure.

Different cultures have different ideas of propriety. So if an African Zulu Tribes-lady generally spends her day with her breasts exposed - if she were to be transplanted into Central Park, the US penal code does NOT allow her to walk around bare breasts because that is the idea of propriety in the US. Now if there were complete equality, why should a female not be able to walk around with bare breasts in the US on a hot summer day? Nude beaches are also illegal in public property. The same goes for certain work place environments and short skirts.

So if the majority in Egypt view certain cultural and dress standards as more native and proper and enshrine that in their penal code why should visitors and the vocal minority not be subject to the same laws that revolve around the ideologies of the majority?

Finally, at the end of the day who cares? Let the Egyptians, brotherhood, military, and secularists battle it out.

Lol----despite the effort to conceal, the Akhwani propaganda is all too evident.

[Khostai]

See the laws in France against hijaab and yarmulkas... laws in other parts of Europe against minarets... Laws that target discussions of unpalatable historical events...

Also in a republic like the US, the portions of the government have the power to override each other's in decisions. For example, if Obama wanted to appoint Susan Rice, the congress can block the decision to make her secretary of state. But if 1 party wins dominance the whole presidential cabinet gets approved without any issues. That is why John Bolton was able to get approved to the UN without any issues.

In a pure democracy though, there is no consideration of minority of majority rights.

The issue the Egyptians like Wael Ghonem, the google exec, have with Morsi is that he extended his power.

The secular extremists merely used the power grab as a pretext to criticize the constitutional referendum before a vote even took place.

Here is Wael Ghonem's commentary in this article:

"The Brotherhood and other Islamists enjoy wide support in most of the 17 provinces voting next Saturday, something that could work in favour of the "yes" vote.

Wael Ghonim, an icon of the 2011 uprising against Mubarak, summed up the Saturday vote in a Tweet he posed on his account: "Out of every 100 Egyptians, 69 did not take place in the referendum, 18 said 'yes' and 13 said 'no."'

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/rights-g...#ixzz2FSDZAWT1

Its really rather childish on the part of some of the Mubarakite Copts and the Secularist extremists to complain due to the fact that they want Mubaraks non native policies to stay in place even though the majority observe completely different ideoreligious traditions.

In the US for instance, a woman cannot walk with her top off in the middle of central park (i.e. reveal her naked breasts). A man on the other hand can. Any US male can walk on public property outdoors with his shirt off without risking arrest for indecent exposure.

Different cultures have different ideas of propriety. So if an African Zulu Tribes-lady generally spends her day with her breasts exposed - if she were to be transplanted into Central Park, the US penal code does NOT allow her to walk around bare breasts because that is the idea of propriety in the US. Now if there were complete equality, why should a female not be able to walk around with bare breasts in the US on a hot summer day? Nude beaches are also illegal in public property. The same goes for certain work place environments and short skirts.

So if the majority in Egypt view certain cultural and dress standards as more native and proper and enshrine that in their penal code why should visitors and the vocal minority not be subject to the same laws that revolve around the ideologies of the majority?

Finally, at the end of the day who cares? Let the Egyptians, brotherhood, military, and secularists battle it out.

This post has nothing to do whith what I posted.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Lol----despite the effort to conceal, the Akhwani propaganda is all too evident.

Lol you didn't answer the questions under the Soviet thread? Did the cookie cutter factory in the back of the mad red hatter (see allusion to Alice in Wonderland) factory where senior asfandyaaaaar bakes the dough that mass produces red hatter automatans have the right ingredients for an out of the box response????

Nice try Toramana in Dunderland... Don't confuse our views with the retarded party structure that every fob (not that you are this) clings to when assessing facts.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Lol----despite the effort to conceal, the Akhwani propaganda is all too evident.

This post has nothing to do whith what I posted.

Sure it does. You stated that European democracies automatically enshrine minority rights into governance and that opposition groups must and are incorporated into positions privy to the winners of an election. Both the examples of euro laws targeting minorities and American example of Bolton being our un affiliate show that this is simply not true. A constitution may enshrine certain rights but even the execution of that depends on executive action and supreme court interpretation. The rest pertains to how countries have the right to implement cultural standards into law even if minorities balk

[randolph85]

behold, the "progressive" egyptian archetype

egyptian-nudist-in-new-secularism-stunt

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/egyptian-nudist-in-new-secularism-stunt-1.1121843

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

behold, the "progressive" egyptian archetype

egyptian-nudist-in-new-secularism-stunt
http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egyp...tunt-1.1121843

Hahahahaha! Man, what is wrong with this woman?

Anyway, I've managed to Google the text of this draft constitution. I've found a few interesting things in it:

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-s-draft-constitution-translated


.. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations..

Note how they mention Arab before Islamic. I think this is because for most Arabs, their religion and ethnicity are one and the same and therefore, Islam (in this particular case) is a extension of Arab nationalism.

Sovereignty is for the people alone and they are the source of authority.

How can sovereignty belong to the people in an Islamic state? The Pakistanis had a difficult time with this dilemma, too. After all, if the people want, they can democratically set up a Socialist regime but then that would dismantle the aforementioned Islamic nature of the state. So if Islam is the state religion, it cannot be dismantled. So the Pakistanis concluded that sovereignty belongs to God. Which makes about just as much sense as Pakistan.

Article 2: Principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation.



This might seem very simple. After all, Muslims want to be governed in accordance with their religious laws or, at the very least, they don't want to be governed by laws that are repugnant to Islamic law. But here's the catch - such legislation gives undue importance to the clergy. After all, only they understand Islam. Normal folk like us can't even begin to understand Islamic jurisprudence.

Article 10
The family is the basis of the society and is founded on religion, morality and patriotism.


The State is keen to preserve the genuine character of the Egyptian family, its cohesion and stability, and to protect its moral values, all as regulated by law.

Article 11
The State shall safeguard ethics, public morality and public order, and foster a high level of education and of religious and patriotic values, scientific thinking, Arab culture, and the historical and cultural heritage of the people; all as shall be regulated by law.



This is where the troublesome bit begins. When Islamists dabble into morality, you know it won't end well. They basically want women to stay at home. And what is public morality? Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?

Article 12: The State shall safeguard the cultural and linguistic constituents of society, and foster the Arabization of education, science and knowledge.



More evidence that the Arab Islamists are also Arab nationalists. The Pashtun people should wake up to this. When we try to protect our language, we are called nationalists who would not enter paradise yet over here, the Arab Islamists are vowing to further their own language.

Article 4: ... The State shall ensure sufficient funds for Al-Azhar to achieve its objectives.


How can al-Azhar remain neutral when it receives state funding? It will become a rubberstamp authority just like the Saudi scholars are for the royal family.

Article 48
Freedom of the press, printing, publication and mass media shall be guaranteed. The media shall be free and independent to serve the community and to express the different trends in public opinion, and contribute to shaping and directing in accordance with the basic principles of the State and society, and to maintain rights, freedoms and public duties, respecting the sanctity of the private lives of citizens and the requirements of national security. The closure or confiscation of media outlets is prohibited except with a court order.

Big blow to the free media there.

[Khostai]

Hahahahaha! Man, what is wrong with this woman?

Anyway, I've managed to Google the text of this draft constitution. I've found a few interesting things in it:

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-s-draft-constitution-translated

Note how they mention Arab before Islamic. I think this is because for most Arabs, their religion and ethnicity are one and the same and therefore, Islam (in this particular case) is a extension of Arab nationalism.



How can sovereignty belong to the people in an Islamic state? The Pakistanis had a difficult time with this dilemma, too. After all, if the people want, they can democratically set up a Socialist regime but then that would dismantle the aforementioned Islamic nature of the state. So if Islam is the state religion, it cannot be dismantled. So the Pakistanis concluded that sovereignty belongs to God. Which makes about just as much sense as Pakistan.



This might seem very simple. After all, Muslims want to be governed in accordance with their religious laws or, at the very least, they don't want to be governed by laws that are repugnant to Islamic law. But here's the catch - such legislation gives undue importance to the clergy. After all, only they understand Islam. Normal folk like us can't even begin to understand Islamic jurisprudence.



This is where the troublesome bit begins. When Islamists dabble into morality, you know it won't end well. They basically want women to stay at home. And what is public morality? Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?



More evidence that the Arab Islamists are also Arab nationalists. The Pashtun people should wake up to this. When we try to protect our language, we are called nationalists who would not enter paradise yet over here, the Arab Islamists are vowing to further their own language.



How can al-Azhar remain neutral when it receives state funding? It will become a rubberstamp authority just like the Saudi scholars are for the royal family.




Big blow to the free media there.

For the Islamist this is all good, they like this.

[randolph85]

[QUOTE=Levanaye Zalmaye;658229]Hahahahaha! Man, what is wrong with this woman?

Anyway, I've managed to Google the text of this draft constitution. I've found a few interesting things in it:

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-s-draft-constitution-translated

Note how they mention Arab before Islamic. I think this is because for most Arabs, their religion and ethnicity are one and the same and therefore, Islam (in this particular case) is a extension of Arab nationalism.

this is not a caliphat, this is nation first which is arab. first you say its arab first because islam is mentioned second, then you jump to this being arab nationalism lol. the modern history of egypt has shown that islam and secular nationalism have clashed, today is a perfect example.

How can sovereignty belong to the people in an Islamic state? The Pakistanis had a difficult time with this dilemma, too. After all, if the people want, they can democratically set up a Socialist regime but then that would dismantle the aforementioned Islamic nature of the state. So if Islam is the state religion, it cannot be dismantled. So the Pakistanis concluded that sovereignty belongs to God. Which makes about just as much sense as Pakistan.

the people have voted for the islam oriented constitution, have they not? the "yes" votes will be even higher tomorrow when the votes are held outside of the more urban areas. the people choose the constitution so this means everything in egypt, if the "no's" get the vote then the constitution will be worth less than toilet paper. the current trend though is that it will pass easily and the mustacios will become illegitimate.

This might seem very simple. After all, Muslims want to be governed in accordance with their religious laws or, at the very least, they don't want to be governed by laws that are repugnant to Islamic law. But here's the catch - such legislation gives undue importance to the clergy. After all, only they understand Islam. Normal folk like us can't even begin to understand Islamic jurisprudence.

how is that argument any different than anything else relating to politics? normal folk can't even begin to understand secular western politics which they think they contribute to for instance. it may be harder for the naked egyptian secular protester than the muslim egyptian, i will grant you that.

This is where the troublesome bit begins. When Islamists dabble into morality, you know it won't end well. They basically want women to stay at home. And what is public morality? Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?

the people who voted in the laws which govern a generality of what morality is, decide what morality is. and please don't go there with the same worn out rhetoric of "they want women at home blah blah blah."

More evidence that the Arab Islamists are also Arab nationalists. The Pashtun people should wake up to this. When we try to protect our language, we are called nationalists who would not enter paradise yet over here, the Arab Islamists are vowing to further their own language.

as far as i know, arabic is the only significant language in egypt, this is not the case in pakistan and afghanistan. are you seriously trying to hold something against egyptian muslims for trying to safeguard their culture? if the roles were reversed you would have a boner because "education, science, knowledge" were mentioned.

How can al-Azhar remain neutral when it receives state funding? It will become a rubberstamp authority just like the Saudi scholars are for the royal family.

remain neutral? when has it ever remained neutral? it supported mubarak against the revolution. its always been a state institution, this time its out in the open and is supported by the government that's supported by the majority of egyptians.

[Afghanistan2010]

Randolph im starting to like you... especially since the Egyptian case.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

this is not a caliphat, this is nation first which is arab. first you say its arab first because islam is mentioned second, then you jump to this being arab nationalism lol. the modern history of egypt has shown that islam and secular nationalism have clashed, today is a perfect example.



the people have voted for the islam oriented constitution, have they not? the "yes" votes will be even higher tomorrow when the votes are held outside of the more urban areas. the people choose the constitution so this means everything in egypt, if the "no's" get the vote then the constitution will be worth less than toilet paper. the current trend though is that it will pass easily and the mustacios will become illegitimate.

how is that argument any different than anything else relating to politics? normal folk can't even begin to understand secular western politics which they think they contribute to for instance. it may be harder for the naked egyptian secular protester than the muslim egyptian, i will grant you that.

the people who voted in the laws which govern a generality of what morality is, decide what morality is. and please don't go there with the same worn out rhetoric of "they want women at home blah blah blah."

as far as i know, arabic is the only significant language in egypt, this is not the case in pakistan and afghanistan. are you seriously trying to hold something against egyptian muslims for trying to safeguard their culture? if the roles were reversed you would have a boner because "education, science, knowledge" were mentioned.


remain neutral? when has it ever remained neutral? it supported mubarak against the revolution. its always been a state institution, this time its out in the open and is supported by the government that's supported by the majority of egyptians.

As for sovereignty, yes, the people have voted in the constitution. But can any legislature that the sovereign people propose after this constitution is enforced be accepted if it is found to go against the principles of Islam? So who is sovereign (powerful and unrestrained by law) then?

I'm saying this because in the 1980s, the Pakistani parliament passed the Hudood Ordinance and that discriminatory document cannot be discarded now because its defenders argue that it is Islamic. Egypt is going down this slippery slope.

As for understanding statutes, trust me - the parliaments of the world are full of laypeople. However, as I pointed out earlier, the so-called guardians of Islam believe that only they have the knowledge to interpret scripture and after this constitution, the dark mullah will become an even more powerful force there.

And I won't go on about how they want women at home - they've already said it in their constitution that they want traditional families.

You misunderstand the language bit. The mullahs tell us that language is just a medium of communication and it has no value in itself whatsoever. But the Arabs are particularly proud of their language and openly display their ethno-linguistic pride/nationalism whilst telling non-Arab Muslims to give up their unislamic/unarab culture.

So you accept that al-Azhar will remain the same and that this revolution didn't achieve much in that regard? I have to agree..

My point is that this is Iran 1979 all over again. The Iranian revolution had Socialists, Communists, moderate Islamists, extremists and everyone else. But after the Shah was deposed, the extremist Muslims took over. And Iran is just as bad today as it was under the Shah. The same is happening in Egypt. The young, urbanized liberals and moderates gathered in Tahrir Square to overthrow the government. And now, the Islamists have taken over once again.

[randolph85]

As for sovereignty, yes, the people have voted in the constitution. But can any legislature that the sovereign people propose after this constitution is enforced be accepted if it is found to go against the principles of Islam? So who is sovereign (powerful and unrestrained by law) then?

I'm saying this because in the 1980s, the Pakistani parliament passed the Hudood Ordinance and that discriminatory document cannot be discarded now because its defenders argue that it is Islamic. Egypt is going down this slippery slope.

the same can be asked if any legislature anywhere in the western world can alter or overturn the very system in which they worked within to be voted into office. its a slippery slope indeed but this is democracy, is it not? no one is pretending this is a western style secular democracy where religion is completely detached from the decision making process. the muslim brotherhood have played ball from day one by cementing their legitimacy by the popular vote of the people within the system that the secularists wanted before they knew they would lose.

As for understanding statutes, trust me - the parliaments of the world are full of laypeople. However, as I pointed out earlier, the so-called guardians of Islam believe that only they have the knowledge to interpret scripture and after this constitution, the dark mullah will become an even more powerful force there.

And I won't go on about how they want women at home - they've already said it in their constitution that they want traditional families.

and this is different from high judges being the only anointed people to interpret the law anywhere else in the world...how?

and traditional families = talib-like law where women are forced to stay home? get real. its an amazing thing when the term "traditional families"
is seen as a bad thing. if and when the secularists take egypt, naked lesbians can roam the streets, but until then it is what it is.

You misunderstand the language bit. The mullahs tell us that language is just a medium of communication and it has no value in itself whatsoever. But the Arabs are particularly proud of their language and openly display their ethno-linguistic pride/nationalism whilst telling non-Arab Muslims to give up their unislamic/unarab culture.

so you got all that from egyptian's wanting arabic to be safeguarded in the country? lol now you are grasping at straws my friend. in what world would the egyptian government be able to have the capacity to force non arabic speaking muslims to drop their language and to adopt arabic out of some national pride? where, when, and how would this ever happen?

My point is that this is Iran 1979 all over again. The Iranian revolution had Socialists, Communists, moderate Islamists, extremists and everyone else. But after the Shah was deposed, the extremist Muslims took over. And Iran is just as bad today as it was under the Shah. The same is happening in Egypt. The young, urbanized liberals and moderates gathered in Tahrir Square to overthrow the government. And now, the Islamists have taken over once again.

was khomieni voted into his role by the population? was his constitution?

there is a very simple reason why the islamists have taken over, its because they outnumber the gel haired, skinny jean, baby faced, bi curious, "blogger" by profession egyptian kids.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

As for sovereignty, yes, the people have voted in the constitution. But can any legislature that the sovereign people propose after this constitution is enforced be accepted if it is found to go against the principles of Islam? So who is sovereign (powerful and unrestrained by law) then?

Religion is merely a category of a pattern of behavior. How sovereign are the American people when the slight majority prefer gun control yet the sacred second amendment and lots of NRA lobby money is the barrier? Human beings find ways around laws all the time and find ways to abuse and bend laws in ingenius ways. The Quran recognizes this in spirit and decries those that pursue "Their vain desires" as opposed to interpreting and implementing law according to the spirit of the rulings.

I'm saying this because in the 1980s, the Pakistani parliament passed the Hudood Ordinance and that discriminatory document cannot be discarded now because its defenders argue that it is Islamic. Egypt is going down this slippery slope.

If we accept that historically Omar Ben Al Khattab was an eye witness to the ministery of the Holy of Holies, the Prophet, then we can assume he saw the Prophet implement law and imitated this behavior. We find evidence for this in the famous case of the debate between Omar and the crowd regarding dowry. He saw that marriage was becoming a game and dowry was the dice with which it was played. He had the forsight to understand a day would come when the dowry would become a double edged sword (a way to protect one's female family member by assigning her a high withdrawal price yet also a way to put a married couple in perpetual debt if executed incorrectly). A woman stood up amongst the masses and said how dare you implement or adjust this in a way that neither God nor the Prophet dared to do. Omar begged her pardon and then agreed that the Holy of Holies did not do so and had never remitted without explicit female consent.

He could have argued that the Prophet said a brass ring is better for a dowry gift (indicating the messenger had in a sense defined the spirit of the ruling). But he never saw a governmental override of the law.

YET, when it came to famine and capital punishment the law that everyone utilizes for propaganda purposes on both sides of the aisle today, the cutting of the hand was suspended. Can you imagine that? These days the reactionary militants define one's faith by whether you agree with the punishment or not and ignore the intracacies and the ultra secular militants do the same for defining barbarism.

Omar based such dramatic augmentations and diminishments to the penal code on Prophetic example and left this as a pretext.

There is no doubt that human ingenuity trumps legal codes and jurists would find their way around and between things the way they do in all law systems all over the world.

A great example is that American definitions of obsenity have changed dramatically. These laws were codified in print on state and federal books. When various capitalistic interests began to find that there was a billion dollar market in the sex industry it was not long before lawyers argued the exact meaning of the word obscene and laws stayed on the books but the implementation changed.

As for understanding statutes, trust me - the parliaments of the world are full of laypeople. However, as I pointed out earlier, the so-called guardians of Islam believe that only they have the knowledge to interpret scripture and after this constitution, the dark mullah will become an even more powerful force there.

Not if left alone. Yes, for a while reactionaryism will dominate. But stagnation, indignation, and economic recessions are powerful catalysts. People left with less than a loaf of bread and instability will opt to follow their biology more often than not. A day will come where a certain critical mass is reached and the black mullah will be neutralized if he does idiot-thope. This is the historical pattern. A mullah with a few guns in a third world country will have to reckon with modernity and its temptations one day. The people may find a healthy median and distinguish between black mullahs and the classical theologian and the latter may provide the wedge for the people to simultaneously pursue justice and development.

And I won't go on about how they want women at home - they've already said it in their constitution that they want traditional families.

So? Thats their dominant culture at the moment. traditional as it was a 100 years ago even there is different than now. Traditional may mean something different even now than it meant 10 years ago. 30 years go in parts of Afghanistan and KP traditional meant educated or able bodied man and a girl that got pulled out of school early. Now its equal education but degreed status is a symbol more than a practical tool in the hands of a female. Who knows what it will be in the future.

You also have constitutional state laws on the books now banning gay marriage and claiming marriage is traditionally a husband and a wife. Many many states have passed that law.

Let them come to their own equilibrium.

Jefferson said something to the effect of how the blood of tyrants refreshes the tree of liberty. Thats acknowledgement that change is bloody in general. Human cost gets put in and change is the output.

You misunderstand the language bit. The mullahs tell us that language is just a medium of communication and it has no value in itself whatsoever. But the Arabs are particularly proud of their language and openly display their ethno-linguistic pride/nationalism whilst telling non-Arab Muslims to give up their unislamic/unarab culture.

Once again, propaganda in the Red Mosque fed to you by the Red "Mullah" and his faux Prophet. In a thousand countries across the world you where British hegemony was for but a 100 years you see English as the second or the first in places where anglo saxon genes are rare. Go West to East and places occupied by Arab princes and Caliphs retain their traditional language without ANY semblance of the Arab language as a court langua franca. Incorporations of Arab words into Pashto and other languages is on par with the amount of Persian that has seeped into local tongues as well.

Even local dress and customary ware was not supplanted by Arab head dress and gear. Otherwise not a single Wazir would wear his yellow colored turban and not a single Kandhari would wear his turban.

Rather, Persianization affected the Pashtuns MORE in many cultural and linguistic ways than all of the imperial governers of the Caliphate combined. I can show this to you with primary source evidences:

Here is a description of a first hand account from when pashtuns were still being a discovered peoples.

http://www.archive.org/stream/chroni...fgoog_djvu.txt

Haris posted it here. It describes the accounts of the Ghilzai invasions into Iran by a foreign dignitary that was stationed there.

Here is a description of what the Kandhari Hotakyaan used to wear:

"Their costume is very diflferent to that of other
nations, particularly their long upper garment!^, which
are of an extraordinary shape, and resemble the pro-
boscis of an elephant. They wear coarsely woven socks,
but leave their legs imcovered. Before mounting oh
horseback, they bind some piece of leather round their
feet; men of all ranks throw a cloak over their
shoulders, to defend them and their accoutrements
from the Sim and rain. They wind round their heads
pieces of white, red, and green cotton, joined together,
raising them up in a peak in front, but letting them
hang down behind as far as the loins.Since the con-
quest of Persia, they have assumed the turban of that
country, and adopted gold-embroidered robes, which
reach as far as their knees..."

Here is a picture of the type of turban (pre persianization) that they may be talking about since this is supposedly a picture of the closely wound turban Ahmad Shah would have worn around his head:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=ahmad...0&tx=116&ty=95


And this turban would be worn under the war helmet.

This is supposed to be one of the few contemporary pictures of Ahmad Shah and the turban resembles the one in the picture above under the helmet.

http://expositions.bnf.fr/inde/grand/exp_037.htm

So in summary LZ, the famed silver striped turban of Kandahar and cotton turban of Peshawar and the way its tied actually find their root in Persia. If anything our indigenous people evolved their own culture on their own accord in contact with local powers.

So you accept that al-Azhar will remain the same and that this revolution didn't achieve much in that regard? I have to agree..

Al Azhar under Mubarak was told to issue bans on face veils as a part of a modernisation program being forced on the Egyptian people. Just as the Arab states have their pet clerics, its not too far fetched to say some of the clerics there were state sponsered. BUT there are also renegade clerics and modernized clerics and judged imprisioned and tortured by the Saudis for advocating democratic principles so I assume Al Azhar is complex too and has its share of divergent thought.

That criticism could be leveled at Harvard. It has its share of neocon blood in the form of the Kristol family, the Kagan family, and Danny Pipes but it also has Stephen Walt.

The general trend of Harvard is to not censor Dershowitz who is a loony; but that doesnt negate Harvard beneficial role at times.

Al Azhar will have its various ebs and flows of progress and backstep.

My point is that this is Iran 1979 all over again. The Iranian revolution had Socialists, Communists, moderate Islamists, extremists and everyone else. But after the Shah was deposed, the extremist Muslims took over.

Look at the majority of deaths and tortured and imprisoned. Its a consensus that rigid rural shiites died in the droves. Groups like MEK have a body count from that era that is less than that of the future Baseejee types despite MEKs advanced military style training and craziness. Those that exert their hand and are willing to bleed for a revolution are going to gain the upper hand and propel their leaders upward. If they had all been armed and willing to maim, murder, and kill each other like the muj fighters after the Afghan War then a stalemate might have been seen.

And Iran is just as bad today as it was under the Shah.

You are simplifying again. When Iran beat the imposed stooge and then when Iran fought to survive against Hussein what was left was a nation looking inward and looking for potential regional friends in a hostile area. For a while the rural masses and the Tehrani urbans were beginning to reconcile their viewpoints and more and more elected leaders were orbiting a more liberal viewpoint. They elected Khatami before the pressure got ratcheted up from the outside and once Israel started to take out neighboring states' abilities to go radioactive the US and the Western powers really started to pay a little too much attention again. So Clinton and Dubya start poking the bee hive and the rurals and Baseejees reactivated and began to develop an even more reactionary mentality.

This is exactly why Ron Paul referred to sanctions and the motions the Western powers were going through as the initial acts of war. These were interventional measures and intervention resulted in a response (Newtonian laws are not just limited to inanimate objects but also to human emotion my friend).

Here is an article showing clearly that Ahmadinjaad, despite the propaganda won the rural masses and the votes. And what do you think helped him? It certainly wasnt his economics but rather a sense by the rural people that the West and its local acolytes were attacking their way of life... and they definitly remember Mossadegh and the Shah when they see these actions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061401757.html

This above article pissed off the ANP type interlocuters bargaining on their nation's independence with outside powers for their selfish gains:

"While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead."


The same is happening in Egypt. The young, urbanized liberals and moderates gathered in Tahrir Square to overthrow the government. And now, the Islamists have taken over once again.

I will let Mike Scheuer of the CIA devastate your inadequate analysis again:

http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...ppy-dance-4870

"From CNN to FOX to BBC, journalists performed as weepy, ahistorical cheerleaders, describing crowds of Jeffersonian Egyptians filling Tahrir Square to replicate the events of Philadelphia in 1776 and 1787. And then -- Mubarak left and democracy was installed! The unfinished republican project Americans have labored on for 800 years since Runnymede was completed in Egypt in only 18 days. We live in an age of wonders.

Michael Scheuer: Osama bin Laden and Egypt - YouTube

And his most potent piece in the American Conservative:

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...liberal-islam/

"How has this judgment been reached? Primarily by disregarding facts, logic, and history, and instead relying on (a) the thin veneer of young, educated, pro-democracy, and English-speaking Muslims who can be found on Facebook and Twitter and (b) the employees of the BBC, CNN, and most other media networks, who have suspended genuine journalism in favor of cheerleading for secularism and democracy on the basis of a non-representative sample of English-speaking street demonstrators and users of social-networking sites. The West’s assessment of Arab unrest so far has been—to paraphrase Sam Spade’s comment about the Maltese Falcon—the stuff that dreams, not reality, are made of."

"This does not mean that fanatically religious regimes will dominate the region, but a seven-year Gallup survey of the Muslim world published in 2007 shows that a greater degree of Sharia law in governance is favored by young and old, moderates and militants, men and even women in most Muslim countries. While a façade of democracy may well appear in new regimes in places like Egypt and Tunisia, their governments will be heavily influenced by the military and by Islamist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda. If for no other reason, the Islamist groups will have a powerful pull because they have strong organizational capabilities; wide allegiance among the highly educated in the military, hard sciences, engineering, religious faculties, and medicine; and a reservoir of patience for a two-steps-forward, one-step-back strategy that is beyond Western comprehension. We in the West too often forget, for example, that the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda draw from Muslim society’s best and brightest, not its dregs; that al-Qaeda has been waging its struggle for 25 years, the Muslim Brotherhood for nearly 85 years; and that Islam has been in the process of globalizing since the 7th century.

This is the point at which the West’s jejune expectations for secular democracy in the Muslim world will come dramatically a cropper in the years ahead. By willfully misinterpreting English-speaking, pro-democracy Egyptian, Libyan, and Tunisian Facebookers as representing the Arab world’s welcoming view of secularism, Western leaders, especially the media, have deluded one another into believing that Islam’s doors are open for women’s rights, pornography, blasphemy, man-made law, popular elections, and a host of the West’s other secular-pagan attributes."

You really need to read much much more my friend. To end, Mike predicted nearly a year ago:

"A year from now, we will find that most Arab Muslims have neither embraced nor installed what they have long regarded as an irreligious and even pagan ideology—secular democracy. They will have instead adhered even more closely to the faith that has graced, ordered, and regulated their lives for more than 1400 years, and which helped them endure the oppressive rule of Western-supported tyrants and kleptocrats."