Sharia is Morsi’s Totalitarian Mandate.

Sharia is Morsi’s Totalitarian Mandate.By Andrew Bostom.Theodore Roosevelt penned these remarkably prescient words in a 1911 letter to his longtime correspondent and friend, Sir George Otto Trevelyan, reflecting upon Roosevelt’s post-presidency visit to Cairo, Egypt, the previous year.

The real strength of the Nationalist movement in Egypt…lay not with these Levantines of the café but with the mass of practically unchanged bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian, and a return to all the violence and corruption which festered under the old-style Moslem rule, whether Asiatic or African.

Roosevelt’s concerns about the recrudescence of “old-style Moslem rule,” that is, a totalitarian Sharia (Islamic law) not reshaped or constrained by Western law, may now be fully realized a century later.
Less than two years after the forced abdication of Egyptian President Mubarak, we appear to be witnessing the ultimate triumph of the electoral ascendancy of vox populi, mainstream Egyptian Islamic parties, most prominently, the Muslim Brotherhood. Muhammad Morsi, the Brotherhood’s freely-elected Presidential candidate, has successfully outmaneuvered a minority coalition of secular-leaning Muslims, and Christians, to orchestrate the passage of a more robustly Sharia-complaint Egyptian constitution.
Given President Obama’s repeated admonitions (as reported here, and here) that Mubarak relinquish power, immediately, during early, February, 2011, this prior, Tuesday, May 19, 2009, confidential assessment of Mubarak by then US Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey, raises profound questions about US actions which facilitated his removal, and the subsequent triumph of Egypt’s Sharia supremacists.
Hmmm.........Obama: "The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam".Read the full story here.


Salafi-jihadi sheikh Abu Mundhir Al-Shinqiti said: "Sheikh Hazem [Abu Isma'il] will never be able to implement Allah's shari'a by means of these elections that perpetuate democracy, and I believe that many of the sheikhs who ruled [that people must] vote for him would agree with us that democracy and Islam are incompatible."

Several days after the publication of Al-Shinqiti's response,Salafi-Jihadi Cleric Abu Basir Al-Tartusi posted on his website his "Islamic-political article," in which he outlined his position on elections, this time supporting his arguments with abundant proofs from the Islamic sources. The following are the main points of the article:

The Constitution Must Include an Ironclad Stipulation that the Islamic Shari'a is the Sole Source for Legislation.

Al-Tartusi explained that it was this reasoning that led him to call upon the Egyptians to support Hazem Abu Isma'il for president, "especially since the other candidates have many bad qualities that [could] lead Egypt and its people to disaster and destruction." It would not be wise of the mujahideen, who carried out the revolution and made so many sacrifices, to abandon the scene to "men of evil" and let them reap the fruits of the revolution and lead the country as they please, Al-Tartusi adds. However, he stresses that monotheism is inviolable and that realizing it is the supreme goal, and that all available and legitimate means must be used to in order to fully implement the laws of the shari'a in the Muslim lands. To this end, he says, these laws must be anchored in an ironclad constitutional clause stipulating that "the Islamic shari'a is the sole source for legislation." Such a clause guarantees that "everyone will act under the umbrella of the shari'a, and that shameful and forbidden phenomena that [currently taint] the parliament's actions will be eliminated. Once this happens, all the people will be able to take part in the elections."

Addressing the accusation that he had changed his mind about democracy, Al-Tartusi states: "I have not changed my mind one whit. I continue to pursue my truth, the same truth I have known since I reached the age of reason... In my previous essays and studies, I repeatedly addressed [the issue of] democracy, its meanings and the dangers it poses...This essay briefly revisits this question and presents my position [on it]."

Democracy Stipulates that Man Is Above Allah – Which Is Blatant Heresy; However, Adopting Some of the Mechanisms that Democracy Uses Is Not Heresy "Democracy has two [main] components.
[The component] that defines it as an ideology, religion and philosophy stipulates that man is above Allah and that his will and power supersede the will and power of Allah... This is the main and most important component [of democracy], and it is blatant heresy. Whoever accepts it is outside the fold of Islam... The U.S. and the [other] Western countries want to export this aspect of democracy to the Muslim states, because if it takes root in the hearts of the Muslims, it will distance them from their faith and religion... and also because... it will weaken them, increase their humiliation, and increase their dependence on the U.S. and the West.

"The second component of democracy is its tools and administrative mechanisms, such as elections, voting, government turnover, freedom of speech and criticism, public oversight of the leadership, etc... Whoever adopts this aspect of democracy alone is not a heretic... [However], it is inappropriate to call him a democrat... Such a person may be right in some ways and wrong in others, depending on how he uses these tools...

"[Procedures such as] elections, voting, public oversight of the leadership, and the demand that the leadership be accountable for negligence are not the [essence] of democracy, as some claim, but are mere tools on which that democracy relies... Democracy and the democratic regimes have no monopoly over these tools, because dictatorial regimes use them too. Each regime employs these tools and adapts them to its [particular] character, goals, policies and ambitions – and that is why, in many cases, these tools do not accurately reflect the will of the people or meet the people's needs... "The U.S. and the Western countries are very careful not to export this aspect of democracy [i.e. the tools] to the Muslim lands... out of fear that [the people] will elect a government or a regime that is not to their liking, or leaders who will not serve their interests in the region... Therefore, in order to prevent this, they frequently interfere [in the affairs of Muslim countries], and use the numerous effective tools at their disposal to improve the chances of some group or party they like, at the expense of some group or party they do not like... That is why they often support dictatorial regimes, [even] while calling for democracy..."

Source: Memri.