Crazy ideologues Vs Arab liberals: a short comment
The following is a reply to a friend's opinion regarding a recent call by the famous Egyptian liberal and academic Saad Din Ibrahim for his government to convert mosques and schools into prisons to accommodate tens of thousands of the government opponents. My friend's comment was to the effect that that it is natural for a liberal to prefer a military strongman, as he puts it, over 'crazy ideologues' who think they have a mandate from God to create a utopia. He is referring to the MB government.
Here is the text:
The news is somewhat old and quite predictable. Muslim liberals are BY AND LARGE foreign inimical plants. You can always tell from their mood what is good for Muslims, by seeing them unhappy, and what is bad for Muslims, by seeing them cheering. But I think Michael unfortunately is not informed at all about Egypt or perhaps misinformed about it. The "crazy ideologues who thought God was guiding them to a utopia" were, first of all, voted in by the Egyptians in a free and transparent election. They were given also the right by the same people to legislate when they voted them to parliament in an election, again overseen by the military and saw the participation of all parties liberals or otherwise. The same group was further confirmed by Egyptians as the representative of the society, when a controversial constitution, where all the opposition from all groups voted against, but was approved by 63% in free and transparent election. This liberal-hated-constitution gave, among other things, the right to any group making two thirds of the parliament, the right to form the government and impeach the president, should they wish to do so. This was unprecedented in Egyptian history, where whoever occupies the palace was treated as a pharaoh, exactly as you see these days with Sissy!
It sounds very dictatorial, doesn't it?
This is quite different from the current military farce--otherwise known by Egyptian liberals as the 'new civilian constitution, 'which gives immunity to a military leader who is simply a minister of defense. Of course, he is also a putschist who spoke over the phone for hours a day with a defense minister of a foreign power to betray his own country and constitution. Now he is given immunity for decades in the most bizarre constitutional joke known to mankind. It is bizarre, no matter how you look at it, especially when you remember that those who wrote it, and those who defended it were extremely opposed to, what they called, the 'tyrannical' rule of Ikhwan. This was a tyrannical rule where no opposition leader, no matter how insane he acted, visited a prison, or killed or lost a family member.
All these are now the common ways to treat, not just the Islamists, who were voted to power, but also all other opposition groups, which for sometime supported the army. April 6th movement and communist revolutionaries are just two examples.
The ''crazy ideologues," with a mandate from God, have a much brighter record and much humbler attitude to governance. They did not ban any single party, no matter how "liberal" it was. They never closed any TV station, no matter how much they were bashed on it. The show of Basim Yousef is a good example. Basim Yousef, who himself woke up too late for the danger of the nonsense in which he participated, said as much in an interview right around the time when his show was banned within the new 'democratic' atmosphere. This is a "democratic atmosphere" he is yet to critique, in any fashion remotely comparable to his scathing, relentless and merciless campaign against Morsi in power, and even after he was ousted and arrested by a military traitor.
The crazy ideologues with mandate from God were humble. Morsi, in attempt to fight the culture of idolizing whoever is in power, ordered his photos not to be hanged in government offices or anywhere public--quite a sensible move that most liberals who are blinded by sheer "enlightenment" cannot fathom.
The crazy ideologues had also a far better humanitarian record than the current putschists supported by liberals. The starved Palestinians enclave next door, which the world watched as it was starved and carpet-bombed with white phosphorus by the 'only Western democracy in the region' during Mubarak's reign, and is now again under a tight siege and a threat of invasion from Egypt and of course from the 'only Western democracy in the region', enjoyed a good trade and free access to the outside world during Morsi. All international organizations, western or eastern, which wanted to bring food or medical supply were permitted to do so through Egypt.
The Syrian refugees in Egypt were treated with utmost respect, and Morsi issued decrees granting, among other things, free access to their children to Egyptian education from the elementary level to the university. Moreover, the president and his 'crazy ideologues' had a part of their extensive--now banned--charity network dedicate some of its work to making the lives of the Syrian refugees along with millions of poor Egyptian easier. During the liberal era, which Michael seems to like and which Sa'd Din Ibrahim supports, both the Palestinians and Syrians are demonized, hunted down, tortured, imprisoned, and deported. All this is documented, just in case you need proof.
During the short reign of the crazy ideologues of whom you, Michael, speak, Egypt had the most freedom it had since time immemorial. The president of Egypt kept affirming the right of people to protest against him until the day he was ousted in a coup. The president's palace was attacked many times, and people were not gunned down, the way they are gunned down under the rule of the military putschists, which "liberals" such as these defend.
More importantly, the opposition was not described by the official media as terrorists, nor were parties banned, nor were their leaders arrested, as I have stated earlier.
The crazies, which Michael talks about, did not declare a war on anyone. So, I am not sure how Michael arrived at that conclusion, but some conclusions defy logic because they are neither processed nor produced in the brain.
Of course, the same goes for the other Egyptian who commented on the same post, and whom I had on my facebook's friend list. He always spewed his invectives against Morsi, when the latter was in power, and I always debated him with reason. I had to finally unfriend and block him after the coup when he seemed to enjoy seeing thousands of men, women and children being slaughtered or burned alive in the capital of his country. I have never unfriended anyone for disagreement. It was quite a radical step but some people's character is a reminder of the pathology of how mass murderers develop in the midst of human population. These people should be ashamed of themselves for supporting a mass murderer. Yet, they still in their hearts reasons to justify his acts and flog his victims.
It sounds very dictatorial, doesn't it?
This is quite different from the current military farce--otherwise known by Egyptian liberals as the 'new civilian constitution, 'which gives immunity to a military leader who is simply a minister of defense. Of course, he is also a putschist who spoke over the phone for hours a day with a defense minister of a foreign power to betray his own country and constitution. Now he is given immunity for decades in the most bizarre constitutional joke known to mankind. It is bizarre, no matter how you look at it, especially when you remember that those who wrote it, and those who defended it were extremely opposed to, what they called, the 'tyrannical' rule of Ikhwan. This was a tyrannical rule where no opposition leader, no matter how insane he acted, visited a prison, or killed or lost a family member.
All these are now the common ways to treat, not just the Islamists, who were voted to power, but also all other opposition groups, which for sometime supported the army. April 6th movement and communist revolutionaries are just two examples.
The ''crazy ideologues," with a mandate from God, have a much brighter record and much humbler attitude to governance. They did not ban any single party, no matter how "liberal" it was. They never closed any TV station, no matter how much they were bashed on it. The show of Basim Yousef is a good example. Basim Yousef, who himself woke up too late for the danger of the nonsense in which he participated, said as much in an interview right around the time when his show was banned within the new 'democratic' atmosphere. This is a "democratic atmosphere" he is yet to critique, in any fashion remotely comparable to his scathing, relentless and merciless campaign against Morsi in power, and even after he was ousted and arrested by a military traitor.
The crazy ideologues with mandate from God were humble. Morsi, in attempt to fight the culture of idolizing whoever is in power, ordered his photos not to be hanged in government offices or anywhere public--quite a sensible move that most liberals who are blinded by sheer "enlightenment" cannot fathom.
The crazy ideologues had also a far better humanitarian record than the current putschists supported by liberals. The starved Palestinians enclave next door, which the world watched as it was starved and carpet-bombed with white phosphorus by the 'only Western democracy in the region' during Mubarak's reign, and is now again under a tight siege and a threat of invasion from Egypt and of course from the 'only Western democracy in the region', enjoyed a good trade and free access to the outside world during Morsi. All international organizations, western or eastern, which wanted to bring food or medical supply were permitted to do so through Egypt.
The Syrian refugees in Egypt were treated with utmost respect, and Morsi issued decrees granting, among other things, free access to their children to Egyptian education from the elementary level to the university. Moreover, the president and his 'crazy ideologues' had a part of their extensive--now banned--charity network dedicate some of its work to making the lives of the Syrian refugees along with millions of poor Egyptian easier. During the liberal era, which Michael seems to like and which Sa'd Din Ibrahim supports, both the Palestinians and Syrians are demonized, hunted down, tortured, imprisoned, and deported. All this is documented, just in case you need proof.
During the short reign of the crazy ideologues of whom you, Michael, speak, Egypt had the most freedom it had since time immemorial. The president of Egypt kept affirming the right of people to protest against him until the day he was ousted in a coup. The president's palace was attacked many times, and people were not gunned down, the way they are gunned down under the rule of the military putschists, which "liberals" such as these defend.
More importantly, the opposition was not described by the official media as terrorists, nor were parties banned, nor were their leaders arrested, as I have stated earlier.
The crazies, which Michael talks about, did not declare a war on anyone. So, I am not sure how Michael arrived at that conclusion, but some conclusions defy logic because they are neither processed nor produced in the brain.
Of course, the same goes for the other Egyptian who commented on the same post, and whom I had on my facebook's friend list. He always spewed his invectives against Morsi, when the latter was in power, and I always debated him with reason. I had to finally unfriend and block him after the coup when he seemed to enjoy seeing thousands of men, women and children being slaughtered or burned alive in the capital of his country. I have never unfriended anyone for disagreement. It was quite a radical step but some people's character is a reminder of the pathology of how mass murderers develop in the midst of human population. These people should be ashamed of themselves for supporting a mass murderer. Yet, they still in their hearts reasons to justify his acts and flog his victims.
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق