Is The Hamas Coup A Plus Or Minus?

This is musing and speculation on some of the ramifications of the Hamas coup in Gaza. I solicit your thoughts.

1. Hamas is no longer the legitimate government of the Palestinian people, Abbas having dissolved the government and appointed a new Prime Minister under emergency conditions. But, Hamas now, for the first time, has full responsibility for all aspects of governing the Palestinians in Gaza. Western aid will immediately flow to the West Bank and the new Abbas government but Gaza will see little if any of that. I cannot see Hamas, wholly surrounded by an unfriendly Egyptian government and a mortal enemy in Israel, being able to do much for the residents of Gaza - beyond imposing security and Sharia law.

2. Hamas is in a position of extreme weakness. Gaza’s water and electricity is controlled by Israel. Even with all the economic support in the world from Iran, no water and no electricity in a small plot of land with over 1,500,000 people is a disaster but a flick of some switches away. The next rocket coming across the border could send Gaza’s living conditions into the tank. Israel need not invade Gaza to hold life and death control over the society and to make any offensives by Hamas untenable.

3. While a majority of people in Gaza voted for Hamas, does that mean that they look forward to the mini-caliphate that they now find themselves under? Hamas ran on two prongs – one, providing services to Palestinians compliments of foreign funding, and two, not being as corrupt as Fatah. They did not run a campaign about imposing Sharia law of which I am aware. And how will they treat the concept of democracy in Gaza now that they have power? Palestinians in Gaza subject to decades of secular rule have just had it come to an end. It will be interesting to see how the populace takes to this in the long term, particularly if the West Bank Palestinians begin to thrive in a freer secular environment.

On a related note, there are about a thousand alleged Fatah supporters camped at the border crossing with Israel who are seeking to go to the West Bank. "Israel’s deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, told Israel Radio that those whose lives were deemed in danger would be taken out through Israel. But he added, about the others, "No one knows for sure who these people are. We can assume they are people who don’t want to be in Gaza. Pretty soon there will be 1.5 million people who don’t want to be in Gaza."

4. Hamas by itself will not get the aid dollars they need to stay afloat. This will seriously strain the already troubled economy Hamas’s major patron, Iran. And how long will Iran support Hamas if Hamas does not take an active role in attacking Israel?

5. Abbas, though no friend of Israel, has, to his credit, long been a vocal opponent of the second intifada but lacked the strength necessary to challenge Hamas and the more radical elements. Now, with control over Palestinians in the West Bank and a much stronger security posture compliments of the IDF, Abbas may actually have a chance to develop a true Palestinian alternative with a viable economy. The flip side is that Iran, Hamas, Syria and possibly others will be intent on doing all they can to prevent this from happening. Expect the next round of suicide bombings in Ramallah.

6. If there is a real and lasting split between the Hamas contingent and Palestinians interested in developing an economy and a life, this would be a great disaster for many of the surrounding countries who have long used their influence and money to grossly manipulate the Palestinians for half a century. Indeed, "Abbas is already under pressure from some Arab governments, in particular the Saudis, who mediated the national-unity government at Mecca, to take Hamas at its word and try to recreate a shared government. In a speech on Friday to an emergency meeting of the Arab League, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia said, "The Palestinians have come close to putting by themselves the last nail in the coffin of the Palestinian cause." To the extent that the "Palestinian cause" is the one defined by the Muslim Brotherhood and the salafists of Saudi Arabia – to support suicide bombers, to keep the Palestinians in poverty, to claim Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as the cause of all misery in the Middle East, etc., then one can only hope that Faisal is accurate.

Feel free to chip in with your thoughts. All in all, in the world of unintended consequences, the Hamas coup has the potential of being a very positive event for Israel and West Bank Palestinians and a real problem for Hamas and Iran.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tawfiq Hamid In Depth

Tawfik Hamid, former member of al-Zawari's terrorist organization, authored an article recently in the Wall St. Journal discussing the nature and source of radical Islam. Now he appears in an interview on Point of Inquiry where he discusses the same topics in much greater depth. Among the points he makes:

Radical Islam derives from the literalist interpretation of the Koran expoused by the Salafi / Wahhabi sect of Islam exported throughtout the world by Saudi Arabia.

Wahhabi / Salafi Islam has spread so quickly not only because of Saudi petrodollars, but also because it offers the most textually based interpretation of Islam.

Wahhabi / Salafi Islam is the cause of terrorism, and not Western policy towards the Middle East nor the Israeli Palestinian conflict, both of which are just red herrings.

Islamic violence will not end until there is a widely accepted reinterpretation of the Koran.

And much, much more. Download and listen to the interview here. The interview was posted on March 16, so it may be old news for some - but I just stumbled upon it and found it fascinating and informative.

Read More...

Summary only...

Egypt Taking Action Against the Muslim Brotherhood

Even as the Democrat's in Congress are, in an act of extreme madness, giving the Muslim Brotherhood an opportunity to address Congress, Egypt is doing all it can to fight this scourge in its own country as part of its process of democratic reforms:

In recent months, as the Egyptian regime has been taking action against the Muslim Brotherhood, various spokesmen for Egypt's religious establishment - the sheikh of Al-Azhar, the Mufti of Egypt, Egypt's minister of religious endowments, and the vice-president of Al-Azhar University - have unanimously rejected the concept of a religious state headed by clerics, saying that this concept is incompatible with the principles of Islam. They have argued that Islam has from its outset decreed that there should be a civil democratic state with man-made laws, and that these laws may be based on Muslim religious law.

Columnists in the Egyptian government press also expressed objections to a state headed by clerics. Gaber 'Asfour, lecturer at Al-Azhar University's faculty of literature and head of Egypt's Supreme Cultural Council, even depicted a cleric-led state as the tyrannical state longed for by Islamists, which would abolish civil liberties and endanger all humanity with jihad and a new form of Nazism.

This firm public statement by the Egyptian establishment against the idea of a state headed by clerics is apparently driven by several developments in Egypt and in the region. The first of these is the Egyptian regime's fear of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt gaining strength. For several months now, the regime has been engaged in a campaign against the movement, including extensive arrests and interrogations, shutting down the places of business, publishing houses, newspapers, and websites of those close to the movement, and engaging in an anti-Muslim Brotherhood media campaign.

Further, due to the Egyptian regime's wish to show the West, and particularly the U.S., that it is in the midst of processes of reform and democratization, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak declared constitutional reform, which was brought to a referendum on March 26, 2007 and passed by a large majority. One of the amendments that was approved was a ban on religion-based political activity, along with declarations that religion and politics must be separated. With this, Egypt is looking to dispel any image it may have as a regime opposed to authentic movements, and to show that its fight against the Muslim Brotherhood is a fight for liberal civic values.

The Egyptian regime is likewise seeking to end the debate that has been going on in Egyptian society in recent weeks, over Article 2 of the Egyptian constitution, which defines Islam as the state religion and shari'a as the main source of legislation, and was not included in the referendum. The country's Coptic Christian community and also parts of the intellectual community are in favor of amending Article 2, but the regime has clarified that Article 2 will remain as is. The regime also stressed that this does not mean that Egypt is either a religious state or a secular state, but a democratic civil state that respects all its citizens and their religion, as Islam commands.

Continue reading here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Taheri on Egyptian Constitutional Reforms

Egypt is an ally of the United States, the first Arab country to make peace with Israel, and a dictitorial regime run under martial law for over 25 years since the murder of Anwar Sadat by a group of islamists that included amongst its number the current al Qaeda number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Egypt's president since Sadat's death, Hosni Mubarak, has resisted democratic reforms, largely arguing that a democratic election would see Egypt come under the control of Islamists. Egypt's government today is authoritarian and nominally secular, and it is a government that significantly curtails freedom of speech. (See here)

Now, the 80 year old Mubarak is in an end game, trying to force through constitutional reforms that will end martial law, that may set the stage for a pluarlistic democracy, and that will outlaw political participation by any religious party. The largest such party in Egypt today is the century old Muslim Brotherhood. (For background information on the Muslim Brotherhood and MAS in the US, see here)

As Taheri explains:

The proposed reforms are certainly significant, partly rewriting or totally replacing 34 articles of the Constitution.

On the positive side, they would end the state of emergency under which Egypt has lived since President Anwar Sadat's assassination a quarter-century ago. On the negative side, the changes could pave the way for draconian laws to limit political freedom in the name of counterterrorism.

While secularist and liberal opposition groups have criticized the proposed reforms as a step away from democratization, the most determined opposition has come from the Muslim Brotherhood, a semiclandestine fraternity that won 88 seats in the 454-seat National Assembly in 2005.

The proposed reforms target the Muslim Brotherhood in two ways:

* They would make it illegal for any political party or group to be based on religion, forcing the Brotherhood to drop the word "Muslim" from its name and its old slogan, "Islam is the Solution."

* They would enable the government to stop the Brotherhood and similar Islamist organizations raising funds and establishing welfare networks as a means of recruiting members. The authorities may use the new constitutional provisions as an excuse to seize the Brotherhood's considerable assets, accumulated over some 80 years of business activities.

Hoping to avoid a ban, the Brotherhood has taken several steps to placate Mubarak. Notably, it has eschewed armed struggle by announcing that the security forces have the right to capture or kill anyone bearing unauthorized arms.

Last week, the Brotherhood swallowed another bitter pill when the government announced that 34 women had been appointed as judges, in direct contravention of Islam's rules. The historic step helps Egypt join the half-dozen Muslim-majority nations where women are admitted into all branches of the judiciary. Despite years of campaigning to drive women out of the judiciary, the Brotherhood has been forced to tone down its criticism of the government's latest move.

Despite the Brotherhood's objections, the idea of banning political parties based on religion appears to have substantial support across Egypt. Mubarak's liberal and leftist critics support the measure because it forces the Brotherhood and other Islamist outfits to fight for votes by offering political programs rather than fomenting religious passions.

The idea that political parties should not be based on religion is gaining ground in much of the Muslim world.

Both Algeria and Tunisia have amended their constitutions to prevent the formation of faith-based parties. Iraq's new democratic constitution also imposes restrictions on the use of religion for party political purposes.

. . . The issue is of greater importance in Egypt, where the Coptic Christian community (some 15 percent of the population) feels specially targeted by the Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.

. . . What is certain, however, is that Mubarak is trying to do all he can to prevent a power grab by the Islamists.

Over the last quarter-century, he has defeated a dozen armed jihadi groups in one of the longest anti-terrorist wars in modern history. He has also all but dismantled the Soviet-style economic system created by Gamal Abdul Nasser, who ruled between 1952 and 1969.

The proposed reforms could include a step backward, if future parliaments allocate unsupervised power to the army and the security services in the name of the War on Terror. Nevertheless, that need not happen - especially if the democratic opposition captures a greater share of the popular vote in future elections.

On balance, the end of the emergency is a positive development, as is the clarification of the relationship between the executive and the legislature. More important, the separation of religion from partisan politics is a step in the right direction. Egypt cannot build a democracy by setting the stage for religious wars.

Those who support democratization in Egypt should give these reforms qualified support - but remain vigilant to ensure free and fair elections in the months and years ahead.

Read the whole article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Female Circumcision Debated on Egyptian Television

MEMRI has translated a debate between Islamic scholars on Egyptian television regarding the secular and religious nature of female circumcision -- i.e., a removal of the clitoris -- and the continued desirability of the practice. The debate was between M. Ashur, who argued that the practice was secular and should be outlawed, and M. Al-Mussayar, who argued that it is a part of religious practice acceptable under Sharia law and that it should be allowed.

Mahmoud Ashur: "Female circumcision is a traditional custom, and not a religious act. All the hadiths dealing with female circumcision are unreliable. . . . "Female circumcision is not part of Islam. Rather, it is a traditional custom. Under no circumstances should we follow this custom, because it leaves a deep wound in the souls of these girls,
. . . .
"This is a despicable, ugly, and evil custom. It is performed by a woman who uses inappropriate and non-sterile instruments. She may be passing on to the girl a terrible disease, or causing her a wound that never heals, because the person who performs this custom lacks expertise and experience, and does not know how to sterilize the instruments, and therefore she inflicts terrible diseases upon the girls."
. . . .
Muhammad Al-Mussayar: "All the jurisprudents, since the advent of Islam and for 14 centuries or more, are in consensus that female circumcision is permitted by Islam. But they were divided with regard to its status in shari'a. Some said that female circumcision is required by shari'a, just like male circumcision. Some said this is the mainstream practice, while others said it is a noble act. But throughout the history of Islam, nobody has ever said that performing female circumcision is a crime. There has been a religious ruling on this for 14 centuries."
. . . .
"First of all, there are reliable hadiths in Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim which support female circumcision. . . .

Interviewer: "Nevertheless, hypothetically speaking, what is the main reason for [female circumcision]?"

Muhammad Al-Mussayar: "Some sources said: 'Reduce, but do not remove.' In other words, it is neither about removing the organ, nor about leaving it. It is a trustworthy Muslim doctor who makes the decision. She decides whether the girl needs it or not. We do not obligate every girl to undergo circumcision. We say it should be left up to the doctor, and she can evaluate the case and determine whether the girl needs circumcision or not."

Read the whole story here. One of the internal wars in Islam, hinted at in the above exchange, is whether to and how to modernize Islamic practices. Unfortunately, the Wahabbi form of Islam holds sway in many areas thanks to its propagation through Saudi oil wealth, and Wahabbi Islam is a true throwback to a world now more then a millenium gone. Further the means by which Mohamed left for his followers to modify their religion, ijtihad, has as a general rule, been deemed frozen for over one thousand years. It is more complex then that, but as generalities go, it is true.

Read More...

Summary only...

EGYPTIAN BLOGGER JAILED FOR FOUR YEARS

As Instapundit has summed it up with his usual brevity, "this sucks." It is a true crushing of free speech sorely needed in Egypt. If the Bush doctrine of promoting democracy and freedom in the Middle East has any meaning, this act should drastically effect the amount of foreign aid we are giving Egypt for at least as long as Abdel Karim Suleiman sits in an Egyptian prison. If you feel the same way I do, please express your opinions to the White House, to yours Senators, and to your Representative.

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Sen: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Update: For a good background to this story, see Michelle Malkin's post here.

Read More...

Summary only...

SOMALIA AND OUR 'MODERATE' ARAB FRIENDS. Until December, 2006, the fundamentalist Islamic Courts Union (ICU) seemed poised to take over all of Somalia and impose a Taliban-like regime upon the country. It was widely reported at the time that al Qaeda was operatng in Somalia, assisting the ICU and with the expectation of establishing a safe haven. Al Zawahiri, the no. 2 man in al Qaeda, made numerous calls for all Muslims to join in a jihad in support of the ICU. A recently released report by the United Nations establishes that the training, arming and funding of the ICU was coming out of such 'moderate' Arab countries as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Other entities deeply involved in support of the ICU were Hezbollah, Syria, Lybia and Iran. As to the Iranians, they were reported to be attempting to barter with the ICU in return for plutonium.



Technorati Favorites" src="http://static.technorati.com/pix/fave/tech-fav-1.png">

Read More...

Summary only...