Dictatorships and Revolutions
The pressure in Egypt has been building for a long time and has now finally exploded -- inspired by the events in Tunisia. The fact that the Egyptian government has been taken by surprise is a sign of how disconnected the regime has become from the reality on the ground. Mubarak has wasted many opportunities to transfer power to another administration peacefully. He could have gone down in history as the first Arab leader to conduct a fair election, but instead, he kept ignoring the inevitable and kept re-electing himself for 30 years, followed by grooming his son to take over. Now he will go down in history as just another Arab tyrant in the dysfunctional political history of the Muslim world. Having been born and raised in the Muslim faith during the generation of the 1952 Egyptian revolution, in which my father held a prominent role in the Nasser revolutionary government of that time, I see things repeating themselves. The Nasser 52 revolution promised freedom, democracy, Arab Nationalism and self-rule. Nasser toppled what he called the tyrant King Farouk, promised a new era of freedom, democracy and prosperity, but ended up giving Egyptians more of the same. The era of Nasser was one of the most oppressive periods in Egyptian history, ushering in a long period of wars, socialism, poverty, illiteracy, and a police state. Judging from Arab history, revolutions do not necessarily bring about democracy or freedom. Will the current Egyptian uprising bring what it was intending to bring? Or will it end up in a vicious cycle of uprising and tyranny following the footsteps of the earlier 52 revolution? In a recent poll, over 70% of Egyptians stated that they want to live under Sharia Islamic law. And most of these people do not understand that Sharia law will result not in a democracy but in a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia. That unrealistic expectation by the majority of Egyptians will probably end up in a great disappointment -- the same way the Iranian revolution could not deliver the freedom and democracy the Iranian people had hoped for. Many Egyptians chant "Allahu Akbar" and "Islam is the solution." But the truth is, Islam or more accurately, Sharia, is the problem. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is entrenched in Egyptian society, has announced that it is currently in talks with Mohammed ElBaradei -- the former UN nuclear watchdog chief -- to form a national unity government. They have chosen to ally themselves with a well known moderate international figure which might make them more acceptable to the moderates and reformists in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood will use the democratic process to come to power but the true nature of the Brotherhood will come out as soon as they take power. According to their basic beliefs, they must rule according to Sharia, which is the official law of Egypt anyway. Perhaps the most dangerous law in Sharia that stands in the way of democracy is the one that states that "A Muslim head of State can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force." That law is the reason every Muslim leader must turn into a despotic tyrant to survive, literally. When a Muslim leader is removed from office by force, we often see the Islamic media and masses accept it and even cheer for the new leader who has just ousted or killed the former leader, who is often called a traitor to the Islamic cause. Sadat's assassination followed many fatwas of death against him for having violated his Islamic obligations to make Israel an eternal enemy. He became an apostate in the eyes of the hard-liners and had to be killed or removed from office. This probably sounds incredible to the Western mind, but this is the reality of what Sharia has done and is still doing to the political chaos in the Muslim world. Westerners often described the Mubarak administration as secular when in reality it is not. It is true that Mubarak comes from a military background and neither he nor his wife wear Islamic clothes. But no Muslim leader can get away with or even survive one day in office if he is secular in the true sense of the word. It was during Mubarak's rule in 1991 that Egypt signed the Cairo Declaration for Human Rights stating that Sharia supersedes any other law. So even though Sharia is not 100% applied in Egypt, it is officially the law of the land. Mubarak, like all Muslim leaders, must appease the Islamists to avoid their wrath. According to Sharia itself, a Muslim head of state must rule by Islamic law and preserve Islam in its original form or he must be removed from office. That law leaves no choice for any Muslim leader. Because of that law Muslim leaders must play a game of appearing Islamic and anti-West while trying to get along with the rest of the world. It's a game with life and death consequences. The choice in Egypt is not between good and bad, it is between bad and worse. Many in the Muslim world lack the understanding of what is hindering them as well as a lack of a moral and legal foundation for forming a stable democratic political system. I fear that my brothers and sisters in Egypt will end up embracing extremism instead of true democracy and thus will continue to rise and fall, stumble from one revolution to another and living under one tyrant to another looking for the ideal Islamic state that never was. The 1400 year-old Islamic history of tyranny will continue unless Sharia is rejected as the basis of the legal or political systems in Muslim countries. Sharia must be rejected if Egyptians want true democracy and freedom.

009 01-31-2011 The Middle East's Intifada
Now that the Muslim Brotherhood has begun talks with opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei to form a national unity government after the fall of Mubarak, which apparently all concerned expect to be imminent, the character of the Egyptian revolution has become clearer. Whether or not the majority of demonstrators were pro-Sharia, the Brotherhood was the sole entity in Egypt capable of constituting an organized and energized vanguard that could put an ideological cast on the rapidly unfolding revolt. And so Egypt now stands on the brink of installing in power a group that wants to see it become an Islamic state. Many Western analysts have welcomed the demonstrations currently roiling Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East as an outpouring of democratic sentiment against repressive authoritarian rulers -- and that they are. But it is no coincidence that Islamic supremacist pro-Sharia leaders and groups are also applauding these demonstrations. They know that if the people truly rule in the Middle East, so will Islamic law (Sharia). For belying the widespread assumption in the West that Islamic supremacists, whether violent or stealthy, represent only a tiny minority of extremists among Muslims, in reality the imperative for Islamic rule (which is also the ultimate goal of jihad terror attacks) enjoys broad popular support among Muslims. It thus came as no surprise that when Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was toppled from power and fled to Saudi Arabia, Rached Ghannouchi, the London-based leader of the banned Tunisian pro-Sharia party, the Tunisian Renaissance Party (Hizb al-Nahdah), quickly dubbed the Tunisian uprising an "intifada," claimed it as a victory for Islam, and returned to the country. In Egypt, opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, who has the backing of the pro-Sharia Muslim Brotherhood, adopted the same language, warning that "if the regime does not step down, the people's Intifada will continue." The word intifada in Arabic signifies resistance to oppression, but in this case the oppression that Ghannouchi and others, possibly including ElBaradei, had in mind was clearly that of secular rule and the failure of Ben Ali, Mubarak and other Arab rulers to implement Islamic law fully. The internationally influential Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, also applauded the demonstrations; a website linked to him last week posted a chapter of his 2009 book Laws of Jihad, including this passage: "The laws of Islam instruct us to… oppose the tyrant… All types of oppression [including] of subjects and peoples by their rulers -- are reprehensible and forbidden, and jihad must be waged against them." In Iran, the Ayatollah Mohammad-Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi claimed that the Iranian Islamic Revolution was the model for the new demonstrations: "Today, as a result of the gifts of the Islamic revolution in Iran, freedom-loving Islamic peoples such as the peoples of Tunisia, Egypt and nearby Arab countries are standing up to their oppressive governments." He praised the Egyptian demonstrators, asserting that what they were doing was "based on the principles" of revolution that installed the Islamic regime in Tehran in 1979. Likewise, when the demonstrations first began in Tunisia, pro-Sharia MP's in Kuwait applauded "the courage of the Tunisian people," and Abdelmalek Deroukdal, a leader of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, hailed the revolution as a jihad and expressed solidarity with the Tunisians. In Gaza, the jihadist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad were both thrilled at events in Tunisia. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri hailed the victory for democracy, and Gaza Foreign Minister Fathi Hammad emphasized that "we are with the Tunisians in choosing their leaders, no matter what sacrifices it takes." Islamic Jihad praised the Tunisian people for liberating themselves "through blood, sacrifices and the expression of free will," adding ominously that the toppling of Ben Ali was "a message to Arab and Islamic countries to pay attention to the aspirations of their people that are rejecting hegemony and tyranny before it is too late." Islamic Jihad held a rally in Gaza City, featuring hundreds of jihadists waving Tunisian flags festooned with the words "Revenge against tyranny." With Islamic supremacism comes Islamic anti-Semitism, and that abundantly true in the case of these demonstrations. Islamic Jihad spokesman Dawud Shehab sounded a drearily familiar note in accusing the Ben Ali regime of maintaining "suspicious ties" with Israel. In Egypt, meanwhile, demonstrators toted signs depicting Hosni Mubarak with a Star of David drawn on his forehead. CNN's Nic Robertson, interviewing demonstrators on a street in Alexandria, Egypt, found several who explained that they hated Mubarak for the uneasy peace he maintained with Israel. "Israel is our enemy," one said flatly, explaining why she wanted Mubarak to go. Another added, "If people are free, they're gonna destroy Israel. The country who controls the United States is Israel." Iran's PressTV interviewed a lawyer, Marwan al-Ashaal, in Cairo; al-Ashaal also ascribed much of the popular resentment of Mubarak to his non-belligerence toward Israel: "Currently the Egyptians demand a new rule for the country, a new government, a new leader. The American-Egyptian relationships were based on Israeli security and I think Mubarak has been very dedicated to Israeli security more even than to his own people's security or the national interests." The Iranians, Qaradawi and other Islamic supremacist pro-Sharia elements are excited about the events in Tunisia and Egypt because of the great unacknowledged truth about the Islamic world in general: that Islamic jihadists and pro-Sharia forces, far from being the "tiny minority of extremists" of media myth, are actually quite popular. Any genuine democratic uprising is likely to install them in power. That's why they're hailing recent events in Tunisia and Egypt. That is also why all lovers of freedom should view those events with extreme reserve -- for a Sharia government in either country will be no friend of the United States. If these uprisings continue to spread (there have already been rumblings in Jordan and Yemen), an already hostile anti-American environment could become much, much worse. All this yet again demonstrates the crying need for realistic analysis in Washington of the jihad threat, rather than the fantasy-based analysis that prevails there now. If Washington had been working to limit the influence of pro-Sharia forces in Egypt and elsewhere, events unfolding now might be very different. But it is rapidly becoming too late.