Terrorism Returns to Egypt, Will Sanity about Islamism Arrive in the West?

By Barry Rubin

As I’ve predicted since February, a major consequence of the Egyptian revolution and the rise of radical Islamism there will be a return to the terrorism of the 1990s which destroyed the tourism industry; targeted Christians; murdered moderates and secularists; and killed government officials and bystanders.

Now a group has attacked two police stations in el-Arish. And of course CNN misses the point. Those responsible, it reports, are, “Takfir-wal Higra, a group sympathetic to al Qaeda’s goal of establishing an Islamic Caliphate.” Actually, the group originated in Egypt long before Usama bin-Ladin began his political activity. And in Egypt, terrorist Islamists come out of the Muslim Brotherhood, demanding faster and more extreme tactics. We will be seeing a lot of such people in the coming months and years.

Once again, this recalls to me the 1981 book of Muhammad Abd al-Salaam Faraj, The Forgotten Commandment. I read it soon after it appeared. At the time, the book seemed like the ravings of a marginal figure, one for whom even the Takfir-wal Higra group of the time was too moderate. Faraj posited that jihad had been brushed aside for centuries by those who wrongly interpreted Islam and must be restored, immediately, to be top priority.

In retrospect, Faraj did ideologically for Sunni Muslims what Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did for Shias: the creation of a new and powerful revolutionary Islamist movement. In the 30 years since this book was written, the once-obscure ideas of Faraj have swept the minds of millions of people and caused many thousands of deaths. They are now in sight of hegemony in the Sunni Muslim world.

Here’s another interesting point. Faraj proves wrong both of the two major sides of the Western debate on Islam. If Islam is so innately a religion of peace then why did Faraj’s argument–based on the holiest texts–become so successful? Obviously, one is not dealing with a few extremists but with radicals who can mobilize mass support and persuade people to accept their view of Islam as the correct one. And they are winning.

But if Islam is so innately warlike and extreme, why did Faraj have to write the book and there mustbe a battle to make Muslims behave as the radical Islamists want? Why are so many of those killed or intimidated by the Islamists those who also consider themselves pious Muslims, whether reformist or, as is far more common, conservative-traditionlist?

The policy lesson, then, is neither to demonize nor apologize for Islam but to ally with the Islamists’ enemies among Muslims and to lose all naivete about the Islamists’ strength, intentions, and ability to draw on deeply held Islamic texts and beliefs.

So Islam can and is interpreted in different ways. Those who show that Muslims don’t always adhere to the texts and still consider themselves to be good Muslims are right. Yet those that show the revolutionary Islamists have strong arguments based on the holy texts and–most important of all–are winning over many others–are also correct.

Up until now the mainstream Western position has been that the Muslim Brotherhood will protect people from the “radicals,” now called Salafists. Yet even if the Brotherhood isn’t advocating violence now it is only because they are making such good progress toward seizing power and transforming Egypt in other ways. Like Hamas and Hizballah, they have no problem in running election campaigns and murdering opponents simultaneously.

The first attacks have been against the gas pipeline to Israel, which the government has been “helpless” to stop and against Christians, where the government has often acted vigoriously…by arresting the Christian victims.

So far, though, most of the violence has been in the form of criminal anarchy. (I’m tempted to write that Cairo is becoming as bad as Paris and London.)

Now even CNN figures out that terrorist groups are forming. Soon they will swing into action.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com   

Last Night's New Hampshire GOP Debate CNN and John King Were The Big Losers

There was something terribly bothersome about about last night's debate between Republican candidates for President, and I couldn't figure it out until I watched it a second time this morning.

First of all there were either too many candidates or not enough time.  It seemed as if the candidates did not have enough time to answer particular questions, and because all the candidates did not answer each question its is hard in some ways to compare.

Secondly moderator  John King was a disaster.  With almost every answer one could hear King in the background, it was hard to tell if the guy was lifting something or trying to answer questions of his own, because the sound of grunts or "ums" coming from King were annoying as hell.

The three most important topics to voters are how to create jobs, how to fix the economy and energy, yet there were few questions on those topics,but there were questions about the tea party which are important only to King and the rest of the liberal media.  The United States is facing economic disaster....why would John King trivialize the debate with those inane "this or that" questions? Is it really important to know whether Herman Cain prefers deep dish or flat pizza?

Despite the problems with the format some of the candidates did find a way to stand out yesterday.

Winners:

• Romney's job in last night's debate was "not to lose it." In other words not to make any gaffes.  He seemed knowledgeable about each of the topics and he even seemed to believe his answer about Romneycare.  Romney was a winner by not losing. I wish he didn't seem like such a dammed politician all the time.

•  Michele Bachamann was a big winner last night.  Her job was to prove that she wasn't the nut job she is portrayed as by the liberal media. Bachmann more than succeeded.  She seemed knowledgeable and enthusiastic, perhaps a bit too enthusiastic the times she tried to get the crowd to cheer along with her. Her answers were knowledgeable, not only her answers to the economic questions which one would expect, but on foreign policy also.  I wouldn't surprise to see her jump up in the polls after her performance.

Losers:

• The biggest loser last night was Tim Pawlenty.  Already with a reputation of being a "98 pound weakling" as a candidate, perhaps the debate's most uncomfortable moment was the "Obamnycare" question.  John King served Mitt Romney's head to Pawlenty on  a silver platter, but the former Minnesota Gov. chickened out. I believe that last night will mark the end of Tim Pawlenty as a serious candidate.

• Most of Newt Gingrich's answers were very good (although his continuing claim that his comments on the Ryan plan were taken out of context doesn't do him any favors). The Gingrich campaign is falling apart. All of his senior people have quit.  Gingrich had to win the debate and win big in order for his campaign to remain viable...he didn't.  Goodbye Newt.

Disappointing:

• I went into last night wanting to really like Rick Santourm. He did an adequate job but for a guy participating in his first candidates debate he needed to do much better.  He looked very uncomfortable when he was asked for economic plan specifics and offered a handful of nothing. Many of his answers seemed like political hooey.

• Anybody that ran a pizza company has a leg up in my book but Herman Cain did nothing to break away from the pack last night. Too many of his answers revolved around "hiring the best people" and/or asking the Generals.  Sorry Herman but you have been running long enough, you should have surrounded yourself with some of the right people and asked a general or two by now...we need to know some specifics. Cain was wonderful when he stopped King and showed how he misquoted the"hiring Muslims" line, but then he took three paragraphs to get to what he really meant Shariah Law. 

 Also there:

•  Racist/Anti-Semite Ron Paul was also there. I am sure he appealed to the Ronulins. 

Overall the big winner was Michele Bachmann and the biggest loser was John King and CNN

 

Stupid CNN Tricks: Randy Kaye On Ed Schultz 'There Are Mixed Interpretations' of the Term 'Slut'

 (Please Note: If you cannot see two videos in this post, Please click here)

Last night Ed Schultz was suspended for one week for calling Laura Ingraham a slut.

 

Instead of condemning their colleague for his inappropriate misogynistic remarks, the liberal media is closing ranks around the MSNBC host.

CNN reporter Randi Kaye was interviewing media reporter Howard Kurtz today and defended Schultz by saying, "

"Yeah, but you know when you hear the word 'slut' – I mean I hate to even say it on our air, to be honest with you – but there are mixed interpretations about the word."

She is correct, first I went to dictionary.com to find out what the word means.

slut /slʌt/ Show Spelled[sluht] 

–noun

1. a dirty, slovenly woman.

2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.

That's the common definition, but after further research I learned that the following are also called slut

• Slut (band), a German indie rock band
• Slut (EP), a J. G. Thirlwell album
• South Lake Union Trolley, a streetcar line in Seattle

For Kaye to be correct Shultz was calling Ingraham a rock band, an album or a street car, well either that or she was simply being a typical liberal reporter defending her liberal colleague. Watch the video below and you decide.

Kurtz didn't buy it either. Without saying it, he was very clear that Kaye was simply performing another stupid CNN trick:

RANDI KAYE: Howard, Schultz has come out, he's apologized to Ingraham, calling what he said, quote "vile and inappropriate language." And to be fair, he offered to take himself off MSNBC for an indefinite period of time without any pay. What's your take on this?

HOWARD KURTZ: Well I think he was lucky to get away with just being off the air for one week. A lot of broadcasters might have lost their jobs by saying something so stupid, offensive, and misogynistic. And I agree with Ed Schultz, it was vile and offensive. I give him credit for apologizing, and I give MSNBC credit for moving quickly and not letting this thing fester.

KAYE: Yeah, I mean he says he's embarrassed himself, he's embarrassed his family. Meanwhile, Ingraham has some biting words of her own. Her relationship with Schultz – I mean, how would you describe it?

KURTZ: Probably non-existent after this point. But look, I mean, she's a conservative who works for Fox and has her own radio show. Ed Schultz is a passionate liberal who works for MSNBC. I don't expect them to like each other, and he's entitled to beat her up over her views every day of the week. But to go where he went, into the gutter with that kind of language, it's really hard to understand.

But I have to tell you, Randi, this is not the first time that Ed Schultz has talked his way into trouble. In fact, MSNBC management has talked to him before about toning things down, because he's been very personal in calling, for example, New Jersey governor Chris Christie a "fat slob," refers to Rush Limbaugh as "the Drugster." He used to have a segment on his show called "Psycho Talk." MSNBC got rid of that. So he knows the power of words to wound. He has gone over the line in the past, never like this. This is the worst thing he's ever said, by his own admission.

KAYE: Yeah, but you know when you hear the word "slut" – I mean I hate to even say it on our air, to be honest with you – but there are mixed interpretations about the word.

KURTZ: Well, I think that it is a word that stings, in a – it's a word certainly you would never apply to a man. Sometimes we kid around and say "Oh, you're a media-whore, you'll go on anything." But when you just say "she's a slut, she's a right-wing slut," I mean you know, it's a clearly a sexually-derogatory term. And you know, Ed Schultz is smart not to try to defend it by saying "Well, what I really meant to say, and this is the meaning," he realizes what he did. That was a very emotional and full-throated apology that he delivered, that indeed he had to deliver on the air. So I give him credit for that, but this is a guy who makes his living broadcasting every day on the radio, on television. He should know better. And as I say, other people – Don Imus comes to mind, making fun of the Rutgers women's basketball team – have lost their jobs over slurs like this.

Source MRC