Game Over

Tomorrow is the Referendum on the MB’s constitutional draft, which the great President Morsy wishes to pass on two phases with a week in between the results of the first phase and the second, which makes no sense in terms of security and Voter manipulation. But for him, and his people and allies, this is it. This is the end Game. In their silly little mind if they pass this referendum by hook or crook they have won everything.

I am of the argument that they have already lost. Here are my reasons:

  • They don’t have the votes: Given that the secular side in Egypt has finally unified itself, and are all against the referendum, there is no way the Islamists can win this vote fair and square. Their numbers are 7.5 million votes, the combined votes of the secular voters is beyond that of 14 million (sabahy, moussa, shafiq and abulfotouh votes, all saying NO). Which is why they will attempt voters fraud..and about that..
  • They don’t have the legitimacy: The constitution is approved by an illegal Constiotuint assembly, created by an illegal parliament elected in an illegal election, and 1/3 of its members are opposed to it. There are no international Observers, the Majority of the Judges are not joining, with reportedly only 20% of Egypt’s judges will supervise, which is why they need to conduct it on two phases, which is not only logistically disastrous, but also technically illegal: The referendum is supposed to be held for one day only. Everyone expects fraud, especially with the absence of the minimum voting requirement to pass this. No one sees this as a legitimate referendum.
  • They don’t have the bases: The MB has divided the referendum states on the two phases, with all the solidly and leaning NO governorates in the first phase, and the Islamist strongholds on the second phase. This way if the results are overwhelmingly NO in the First phase, they can fraud the vote as they wish in the second phase. They are delusional. First of all, everyone is wise to their trick, so people will be keeping a closer eye on the second phase anyway. Secondly, the second phase governorates are also now against them, and they will find out the hard way.
  • Their tools no longer work: The Islamists have long depended on Mosque mobilization and Guidance of religious leaders, both of which are being challenged by the people. Mosque sermons by Imams trying to push for a YES vote are being interrupted by the mosque goers, with clashes ensuing. Today it happened in Tanta, Mahalla, and Alexandria, where the Salafi symbol AlMahallawy is still hiding in the mosque from the clashes that took place after his YES vote sermon. Imagine this happening in Egypt? Islamists no longer scare Egyptians, which is why the Islamists are so terrified.
  • Their propaganda sucks: Where to start? From the MB claiming that all the protesters and rejecters of the constitutions are Christians? Or from their twitter accounts showing a photo shopped pictures of Pornstar Gianna Miachaels as an Egyptian expat yes voter? Or that Gehad Hadad, their face in western media, was quoting Nazi propagandist Carl Schmitt today on his twitter account?
  • There will be no stability with this constitution: Already people are fighting on the streets over it, do you think those people will magically disappear if the constitution passes? Even the Stability voters are getting that message.
  • They have bet all against the House: You want to rule Egypt? You can’t fight with all of its institutions at once. You can not alienate the people, the opposition parties, the Media, the workers, the army, your own advisors and ministers and try to incite sectarianism and expect that everything will work out your way. You never take the House. The House always wins..

It’s Game Over, Islamists. If this referendum fails and it will fail, prepare for the wrath of the people and the in-fighting amongst your very loose alliance. You have shown your hand, and the people don’t want what you are selling. Best of Luck. You will need it.

 

Comments

  1. Michele Dickinson says:

    God, I hope you’re right! Unfortunately, it seems much more blood is going to be spilled to get rid of them.

    • Michele-What business is it of yours anyway? You aren’t Egyptian.

      • To EG: Who are you EG to tell foreigners to shut up? She came up with a name, while you neither-nor hide behind a country code.

        And then this: WE KNOW you have been getting foreign funding for your political activities for more than half a decade. This can be documented. So?

        BTW: Egypt is depending on foreign funds for decades and will continue – or YOU jump in and put some pounds on the table instead of having the Gulf countries and the West paying while you are playing thought and speech-control of Egypt.

        • Who is the “you” that you are addressing? If you don’t know who I am, why are you assuming I am getting paid by Gulf and Western countries to engage in thought and speech control? Since when has a simple nobody citizen expressing their opinion as I am doing been elevated to someone engaging in thought and speech control? I don’t even have a Twitter account to influence anyone and Sandmonkey has 100k followers. Who is the one doing the manipulating?

          As for non-Egyptians, they are free to think what they want, but their opinions in the end should have zero influence on the future of this country. It is an Egyptian matter for Egyptians to decide, for better or worse. In any case, Michele Dickinson could be anyone. Her real name could be Ziyad Zain and she could really be a Saudi for all we know. Or it could be Moshe and she be israeli. So what does the name prove?

          • Oh Eg, something here truly smells weird…oh I think its you. Its the strong stench of big MB supporter or apologist or the like :)
            Its interesting that you make such a statement that Sandmonkey is foreign funded and its ‘well documented’. I along with everyone here would love to see this well documented proof you have highlighted but , no no, please carry on with your shameless accusations as you please, but I just think that when accusations of this nature are made, it seems adequate to at the very least point out where this documentation can be found. So I believe its safe to assume that you don’t have any…right?
            Besides, what foreign funding are you talking about? The communists? I don’t think they can afford sandmonkey. Because from what I see and by the way, is very well documented (in a wonderful intricate pattern that is undeniable), the MB for decades and continuing, is getting financial funding and political support from basically all the countries that have the power to influence :)
            Lets see… Saudia Arabia, Qatar, US, Europe, hell I would even throw China in the deal. Of course, most of the above are very recently backing the MB and the silence of the news on what is happening in Egypt now and their obvious bias only proves it more.
            And its quite well documented, just search on any news organization from the arab ones to the international. Or are they all lying? Cause even just yesterday, Qatar threatened to cancel the 20 Billion Dollar investment if the “constitution” is a NO. I would understand their resistance to Morsi being kicked out of office. These countries are all for democracy after all :) But to actually threaten cancelling an investment purely based on a referendum that has no direct impact on the legitimacy of the president, is staggering and mind boggling, wouldn’t you agree? I would even understand postponing the investment until a new constitution is written, but no, it wasn’t that either.
            Now, for you to try to play the card of its my opinion, you are truly right, but more importantly harassing others with childish comments does make you seem like the word ‘opinion’ has only recently become a trend in your vocabulary, because your words don’t say much on substance. If your opinion is to be respected, please understand that you actually need to say something depth and substance, rather than words to provoke :)
            I can only hope you learn something about that in order for you to be able to incorporate more objectivity to your already obvious bias :)
            Hope you have a good day :)

          • Ohhooo, somebody is really getting nervous. Well, you should be, as Sandmonkey said, it’s “Game over” :)

  2. I wish you are correct about the amount of the NO vote. My concern is there is no limit to the ability of the MB’s to forge this referendum. I do agree with Michele that there will be a lot of innocent people who will die and get hurt because of all this.

  3. Amina Niazi says:

    lool wishing them luck? Yes, I think they have finally been found out but they do have some surprising fans….at anyrate, anyway they want to count it, Mehallah, Zagasig, Tanta, Sharkeya on their own who have totally refused their referendum to the point of ceding from the MB government and forming their own until the MB are gone, cannot by any means be less that 2-3 million; add the farmers & workers who’s rights have been diminished who number at around 6-7 million(Labour Unions number around4 million) the students over 18 & eligible for voting at 50% come to approx 2.2 million, add Sohag which is now 90% anti MB, Assuit (70% anti MB)Minya…who’s Chief judge was killed in a very weird accident & Beni Suef who also lost their Chief judge in the same way at the same time on another road….now add the women who have discovered what total AH these MB are….hey Mahmoud, you counting??

  4. As much as I want to hope you are correct, the secularists/leftists/moderates whatever you want to call them always over-estimate their backing in the general population.

    Remember, most Egyptians don’t care about high principles, they just want Egypt back to a stable situation. The constitution is pretty bad, but it’s not so horrible that it wouldn’t work as a functioning governing document. Anyway, if the referendum passes, the fight will be to amend it through the legislature. Sure, the MB and salafists have a majority in parliament now, but the liberals/secularists/whatevers need to make sure that’s a one-time victory, and that it will be coalition rule here on out.

  5. Just because you want things to work out your way, doesn’t mean it will. I find you liberals to be incredibly shortsighted. Let’s say the no vote wins, then what? Morsi has absolute powers to make laws by himself for at least the next 9 months. Do you want that? And then do you really think the 100 member committee that will be elected nationwide to write a new draft constitution will include more than a number of liberals that can be counted on a single hand? I’m not a liberal nor am I an Islamist but I see the best hope for all sides in a yes vote, because no one will get what they want with a no. But perhaps that is what you want Sandmonkey. We know you have been getting foreign funding for your political activities for more than half a decade. This can be documented. So you don’t speak for yourself, or even your “fellow” liberals but rather your foreign backers. You have no conscience nor principles nor even true friends. You are a loner in it for beer money.

    • Ibrahim Mansour says:

      You forgot to say “and by the way, I am not ikhwan”.. Ikhwanis think that everybody shares their low IQ!

  6. Thank you for this analysis. Hope and pray that vote is overwhelming No, as many of us do not want a Sharia state, which among other things would lead to women being treated as second class citizens.

  7. Surely the MB will try to rigg this vote on their illegal constitution using various tricks. I just hope they get caught in every case and are exposed to Egypt and the international community.
    Egyptians want to return to stability, and this can only be accomplished by getting the MB completely out of politics. In just a few months they have driven Egypt in a downward spiral and will only get worse until they are finally kicked out and the real and final revolution is accomplished. Never again will the MB succeed in politics, for they have betrayed all.

  8. Listening BBC yesterday interviewing Egyptians outside Cairo, one could argue this is not the case.

    Yes voters: Gives power to the poor. It stabilizes Egypt…

    No voters: Freedom, Freedom…

    Judging from those they interviewed it was clear that Yes voters had wide range of reasons to vote yes. No voters was more stuck with abstract “Freedom”. Is freedom going to get people to vote?

    • Ibrahim Mansour says:

      You should be aware that the BBC Arabic is entirely run by Islamists, so don`t count on them to give you an honest picture.

  9. anthony mc laughlin says:

    a yes or no would not really matter.the problem will be the acceptance of the result.neither party will accept it.fights will continue to erupt.the uniforms better start now greasing their equipment ,to put an end,monentarily, to this nation wide tossers.

  10. Although I am a ‘Western atheist infidel pig’ I really wish you all the best, whatever the outcome of the referendum may be.

  11. CAROL SOUTHEREN USA says:

    Glad to hear sand monkey is not in jail or in a grave! Keep fighting for your freedom. We got Obama, you got MB! Not much difference. But we’ve got a beautiful constitution and bill of rights. Keep fighting, Egypt will have them someday. Don’t keep us in the dark for so long Sand Monkey.

    Can anyone tell me, what is the status of the Cairo Museum ? And its president? Can tourist still go there?

    • Carol, I disagree. There is a big difference between the MB and Obama, mostly that there are checks and balances to keep Obama from taking total control. I have no respect for Obama’s ideas, and the world needs guidance and leadership which he has never shown more than make matters so much worse by supporting terrorism. I cannot believe that the people in the US elected this man, except that the Republican party has too many very, very conservative voices that are pushing people away from what was a respectable party, the Party of Lincoln. The sensible leaders and their messages were drowned out by those hardcore conservatives who are frankly just backwards and absurd. So, we are stuck with Obama, and God help us all.

      • carol in So USA says:

        Lynn, I agree with you. We do have checks and balances that attempt to keep Obama at bay. But still he undermines, and he grinds away these checks and balances by appointing Chicago thuggery. His reelection was a total disappointment, achieved only by corruption and deceit. His union buddies escorting the mentally challenged, the welfare housing units, nursing homes etc. etc. to the polling places with instructions on which button to press. Obama owns the mainstream media who adore him and give him free pass. Refusing to tell the real story about him. He is destroying the United States. But there will be an uprising, and there is talk of usurping.
        I still believe in the Republican Party, and in the and they win.
        Obama won reelection just like the Muslim Brotherhood won Morisy through corruption. What will happen next in Cairo? The Pyramids destroyed? The museum closed? Public beheadings? Female mutilations?
        You’re right Lynn, God help us all

  12. I hope you are right in your analysis. Good luck to you.

  13. Zoheir Abouguendia says:

    If we agree with your prediction, you think the now united opposition front will stay united? or back to square one?

  14. Eg.: I am a Jewsih-female-Israeli. I am very interested in Egypt becoming a democratic country, stable, and mantain peace with my country.
    Peace benefits everybody. The average person, (which I consider myself so) is interested in putting food at the family table, sending their kids to school and enjoying their grandchildren. This bus. of blaming the world for the ills of your country is taking away from you and your fellow citizens the power of change. Look at the Kurds. (Suleiman the Magnificent was a Jurd). They used the bad times, under Saddam Hussein to create the basis of a society that functions and they will have a country in the near future. I hope to see it! Sell gas to Israel, commerece will bring peace, let me go for vacations to Egypt that will work and create the basis of peace……………………PEACE.

    • Ibrahim Mansour says:

      Don`t waste your time with islamist MB followers, they are brain-washed and no matter what you say, they will hate you and try to kill you. They have no interest in peace, tourism, culture or investment. The only things they care about is money, power and sex (yes, they are all perverts and paedophiles, check the Egyptian media for that matter).

  15. God speed to you SM and the other hard working voices of freedom and liberty. You will win because when you work you do so with a good heart, good intentions and a clear conscience. You are setting a new bar in us in the U.S. We Americans should aspire to hold the same passion for defening our own rights. Thank your for your effort. ellie

  16. anthony mc laughlin says:

    Here is a resemblance i see in today ‘s Egypt.
    They are literal bodies of history, living texts that rewrite the present and returning the German homeland to its volkisch roots and heroic past. Barriers that separate past and present are torn down through the dressing – or undressing – of living bodies, while a whole new future based on myth becomes the new reality. the thoroughness with which the metamorphosis of reality was achieved. (18). Thousands of human beings are amassed into a collection of uniformed blocks on the Nuremberg courtyard; they are a concentric stream of densely conglomerated nobodies obediently trimming the pathway of the Fuhrer’s motorcade; they are an epic gathering of millions of extended arms; they are the legs of a schoolboy in his knee-high socks standing on tiptoe to get a better view through the crush of bodies; they are hands of the Jugund beating their drums in synch with one another like perfect marionettes; they become the empty face of Youth staring straight ahead, the only presence of life hinted at by beauty. Like a Dantean vortex, the process of deconstruction breaks the symbolic body down piece-by-piece, economizing, funneling it through a procedure that gets narrower and narrower. The Face becomes the most intimate and most frighteningly absent present representation of Nazi deconstruction, made more haunting because it returns the place of recreation to the Beginning as held by Youth. Beautifully blank, chosen, and immortal, the face of youth is fictionalized through its marbleized flesh, its enameled eyes, and its effervescent blond hair to be a poem of purity. Occasionally, a smile will form upon its smooth surface, but because it is shaped by the encouraging words of its sculptor, it is lifeless. They are meant to be monuments of hope, of a heroic future that justifies the blood spilled in the present to regain past glory, but behind the art is truth, for they are chilling reminders of the fragments of sculpted facial traits displayed as ‘typical Jewish features’ in anti-Jewish art exhibitions. Triumph of the Will transcends one kind of reality – the colonization of consciousness by Nazi vision – Olympiadtranscends another: the colonization of the unconscious. It asks for the complete surrender of bodily earthiness. It offers, like the beautiful Aryan body sculpture, “a body of language people could identify with and on which they could model themselves.” (16) It demands the individual to want to be sculpturized. Hitler’s superior race was Nazi Germany’s first greatest lies, an aestheticized vision of the Perfect State that was a mask for its theatre of death. Peter Adam writes, “One can only look at the art of the Third Reich through the lens of Auschwitz,” (12) as if to state that the horrors of the camps are in the end the most powerful aesthetic statement the Nazi-as-artist has contributed to history.it can create an ideal, shaped by the impossible mythology that is as frightening and fascinating as Nazi action, and through the sculpted form of a gigantic Superman and Flawless woman, reality is redefined, truth recreated and the Political Aesthetic officialized.

  17. anthony mc laughlin says:

    Do you recognize yourselves ? .

  18. anthony mc laughlin says:

    More on The Clown Punchers’ Constitution’s hijacking to their own monopolist interpretation Of The Sharia.
    There is no one sharia. Five major schools of sharia developed after the death of the Prophet Mohammed and during the Middle Ages–four in the Sunni tradition and one in the Shiite tradition. A school consists of a guild, or group of scholars, that developed specific interpretations of Islamic law; over the centuries, its precedents became legally binding. Muslims in different geographical regions favored different sharia schools, a practice that continues to this day. Do observant Muslims have to adhere to tenets of one of the five schools?
    Not necessarily. Modernist thinkers since the 19th century have argued for new interpretations of Islamic law, and actual practice varies for each individual. “The Islamic sharia is not an easily identifiable set of rules that can be mechanically applied, but a long and quite varied intellectual tradition,” says Nathan Brown, an expert on Arab constitutionalism at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Most Islamic movements aim to achieve this ideal Caliphate by forming political parties and working within the existing political systems in their countries. But this strategy requires acquiescing to the sovereignty of the existing State, which they regard as idolatry. They also presume that because prophet Muhammad and the Caliphs of the past occupied positions of leadership that they constituted an “Islamic State” . Bayah” is a forgotten concept in most muslim countries, just as “consent of the governed” is a forgotten concept among most Americans. Violent monopolies claim to enjoy “tacit consent” from their subjects, which means if you say nothing they assume you consent. And , even if you tell them you don’t consent they govern you anyway. So, for the muslim fundamentalist, the most important right to be demanded is the right to make your oath explicitly to the leader of your choice. This means you must afford the same right to others to make their oaths explicitly to the leader of their choice, and not claim to rule them against their will. No State, whether it’s “islamic” or not, can ever afford such a right on its subjects, because it defies its nature as a monopoly.With all of the above how can you chose? and why open the subject of sharia now? my answer is that it is a political move aimed at the deconstruction of the country ,and thus fullfiling this very same target,with the pretence that it is about time to recreate the “islamic state”. bloody tossers.

  19. Unfortunately, it looks like people in Egypt do want what Morsy is selling. 71% of voters voted yes. The Islamists far outnumber the secularists it seems. Sad for Egypt. Sigh, there goes the neighbourhood.

  20. - Egypt – referendum on the draft constitution – not too encouraging,
    but all the same noteworthy:

    Around 10.5 million Egyptians endorsed the bill,
    a number that is ironically lower than the 13.2 million
    that voted President Mohamed Morsi into office
    to serve for a four year term last summer.

    Upper Egypt governorates witnessed the highest approval rates, with ‘yes’ winning by comfortable margins across the board.

    Three out of twenty seven governorates resulted in a majority of ‘No’ vote:
    • The toughest challenge to the new constitution was in the capital city, the largest in Egypt, rejecting the constitution with 57 per cent.
    • The vote in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria came as a surprise to many with ‘yes’ winning by 55.6 per cent.
    • The Nile Delta Menoufiya Governorate,
    which gave former presidential candidate Ahmed Shafiq a large nod of approval during June elections,
    marginally opposed the constitution in the second phase of the referendum,
    joining Cairo and Gharbiya, who voted the document down in last week’s first phase.

    Referendum total:
    64% Yes votes (10.5 million)
    36% negative votes (5.9 million)
    Approximately 32% participation (voter turnout)
    (Total Votes: 16.4 million)

    First round:
    Yes 57% (4.6 million)
    No 43% (3.5 million)
    participation (voter turnout) 31.5%
    (Total Votes: 8.1 million)

    Second round:
    Yes 71% (5.8 million)
    No 29% (2.3 million)
    participation (voter turnout) 32.0%
    (Total Votes: 8.1 million)

    Ex-pats
    67.5% Yes (162 thousand)
    32.5% No (78 thousand)
    participation (voter turnout) 41%
    (Total Votes: 240 thousand)

    Compared to the presidential election (ballot, 2nd round):
    Mursi 52%
    Shafiq 48%
    participation (voter turnout) 49%

    source:
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/61119/Egypt/Politics-/The-full-unofficial-results-of-Egypts-Constitution.aspx

  21. I share your concern! And I think Egypt has taken a gigantic step – backwards!
    Human rights in Egypt will definitely suffer. And minorities will pay a high price.
    Sharia laws will be implemented and tourism will plummit to near zero!

    Next you’ll see a growing political isolation. I reserve my judgement for what will happen the day sombody get the idea that the Suez Canal may be used as a ‘weapon’. Then the real trouble will start.

    By the way, – on my blog you may see how things look in Norway. I invite you to take a peek.

  22. Egyptians lube up cause islam is going to give you a good hard assfucking. Probable a couple generations away from figuring the the ultimate souce of ALL your problems arise from the false religion your arab conquerors imposed upon you. Fucking sad.

  23. anthony mc laughlin says:

    Dear Cameron,
    ignorant people like you are ignorant about islam as i am ignorant about chinese.No harm done.if interested for some enlightment please see this info you berk :
    Read this and made up your own mind.
    The traditional processes of juristic understanding depend on a theological construct that is presented as history. It states that the words and actions of the prophet Muhammad (his sunnah), being an embodiment of the divine command and an expression of God ’s law (sharīʿah), were preserved by the companions of the Prophet and their followers in the form of discrete anecdotes (hadīth). These were transmitted from generation to generation, inspiring first discussion and then systematic juristic thinking (fiqh). Beginning in about the mid-eighth century, a number of masters made distinctive contributions to the discipline that stimulated the emergence of separate traditions or schools. The most important masters for the Sunnīs are Abū Hanīfah (d. about 767), Mālik ibn Anas (d. 795), Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī (d. 820), and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855), associated respectively with the Hanaf ī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, and Hanbalī schools. The four Sunnī schools acknowledged one another and gave more or less qualified recognition to a number of other short-lived schools that emerged within Sunnism; the most important was probably the Zāhirī (Literalist) school, whose major exponent was ʿAlī ibn Hazm (d. 1064).
    Development of the law within the schools can be seen to depend on two major hermeneutical principles. The first, the synchronic principle, required that any formulation of the law, at any time, must be justifiable by reference to revelation. The second, the diachronic principle, was equally important, although frequently overlooked by observers and possibly underestimated by some practitioners. It required that participants in a school tradition, whether Sunnī or Shīʿī, preserve loyalty to the tradition by taking into account the interpretative achievement of older masters; the law had to be justifiable by reference to the continuity and established identity of the school. Muslim jurists were not, as individuals, in solitary and direct confrontation with revelation: they found their way back to the meaning of revelation through tradition. This principle was a source of strength and flexibility, for the tradition held the accumulated experience of the community and gave it a sophisticated literary form. It was, nonetheless, sometimes attacked. Within Sunnism, the Zāhirīs objected to precisely this feature of juristic thought and advocated instead a return to a literal reading of the sources. The same mood, if not the same extreme, is expressed in the Salafī (Primitivist—the world salaf refers to the earliest generations of Islam) orientation associated with Ibn Taymīyah (d. 1328), and perhaps in the Akhbārī movement within Imāmī Shiism. All these movements evince distrust of the complexity and indeterminacy expressed in the ongoing dominant traditions.
    The vitality, complexity, and exuberance of fiqh literature—and many of the fundamental norms of the law—are unthinkable except in relation to the large body of revelation constituted by hadīth. The literature of fiqh is of two kinds, furūʿ al-fiqh (branches) and usūl al-fiqh (roots). It is sometimes said that works of the latter type explore the four sources (or roots) of the law, namely, Qurʿān, sunnah, consensus (ijmāʿ), and analogical reason (qiyās). This is an indigenous but inadequate description. Such works do contain a definition of revelation, which may be extended to include the words and actions of the companions, but their main purpose is to describe the intellectual structures that can be brought to bear on revelation for the purposes of interpretation. These begin with linguistic and rhetorical sciences, usually dealt with under simple antithetical headings: general and particular, command and prohibition, obscure and clear, truth and metaphor. With regard to hadīth alone, the epistemological categories of multiple and single transmission (tawātur and āhād, with only the former giving certain knowledge) are discussed. The workings of abrogation (naskh), the application, ramifications, and limitations of analogical argument, and the value and limits of consensus, are all discussed, along with a variable body of other materials. The whole set of interpretative structures is brought together in the idea of ijtihād. As a juristic term, this means the exertion of the utmost possible effort to discover, on the basis of revelation interpreted in the light of all the rules, the ruling on a particular juristic question. The theory of ijtihād in its several forms concedes that there will be variant views on all but the fundamental structures of the law. By acknowledging dispute, it preempts its capacity to divide. It justifies the authority of the fuqahāʿ, who alone have the right to give rulings, which must be obeyed by the masses. Finally, it controls and justifies intellectual play and so permits the remarkable florescence of juristic literature that characterizes all Islamic societies down to the nineteenth century (and in some areas beyond it). The greatest theoretician of the idea that the sharīʿah could be a source for practical and effective codification was probably the Egyptian jurist ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Sanhūrī, who played a part in drafting new civil codes for more than one Arab country. The magnitude of the achievement of modern Muslim states in creating and implementing their new legal structures is rarely appreciated outside legal circles, but it is an achievement of immense importance and complexity, and not one that is unduly at odds with the practical history of the sharīʿah. Sayyid Qutb, the ideologue of the Muslim Brothers executed in Egypt in 1966, was in this respect an intellectual descendant of ʿAbduh. For him, in the end, all of Islamic history after the early generations was only a continuation of the Jāhilīyah, the Age of Ignorance, and the works of the fuqahāʿ were something like a betrayal of the existential task they should have executed. In his work of Qurʿānic exegesis, Fī Zilāl al-Qurʿān, he frequently made the point: “The sharīʿah has been revealed in order to be implemented, not to be known, to be studied, and to be changed into culture in books and treatises” (Beirut, 1971, vol. 1, p. 746). This reverses the priorities and denies the achievement of an ancient juristic tradition of thought and literature; and it promotes the word sharīʿah as if it designated a blueprint for the Islamic state. In this form, sharīʿah could be part of a call to political action, and it was subject to the usual constraints of political expediency.Islamic law has been throughout the history of Islamic culture the prime focus of intellectual effort. It is a correspondingly complex affair, a structure in which several traditions of juristic thought and many types of social reality have had to be discovered to be in some kind of justificatory harmony with one another and with the texts of revelation. Its rewards as an object of study are evident. For the Muslim community, the assimilation of its messages to the needs of the current generation is, now as in the past, both an intellectual and an imaginative challenge, as well as a generally acknowledged religious duty.

    • carol in So USA says:

      Attention :Anthony McLaughlin,
      I love this sentence,…..” .Islamic law has been throughout the history of Islamic culture the prime focus of intellectual effort.”
      I don’t think Islamic culture is working, here are some facts for you to digest.

      Global Islamic population ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world’s population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
      literature…….. 1
      economics………. 0
      physics………………. 0
      Medicine: ………………………2

      Global Jewish population is 14 million or 0.02% of the world’s population. They have
      received the following Nobel Prize
      literature ……. 10
      economics……….. 13
      physics………………… 53
      medicine……………………….. 44

      islam = 6th century

    • First, you pompous cretin, to suppose you can ascertain my familiarity with the dynamics and evolution of islamic jurisprudence from a sort post expressing a vulgar contempt for all things islamic and things product of the islamic cultural strain is an act one might expect from the dullest of deluded self important types, usually lurking in some of the lower grade academic settings. The ones for whom the axiom “Those who cannot do, teach” was composed.

      Second, that the actual nature or even the feeblest understanding of the dynamic flow that is a cultural/ civilizational construct, or it’s effects on it constituent elements and assemblages escapes you is obvious, better you keep your mouth shut look less the idiot.

      Third, fuck you, bitch. You understand nothing, you contribute nothing, you are less than nothing.

  24. anthony mc laughlin says:

    exactly carol, islamic culture is not working.but this has nothing to do with islamic law.it is a long story,you have to google some info on islam.

  25. The fundamental problem with Islamic Law is that it is based on religion. This makes it rigid and unadaptable.

    Law should be based on what the citizens agree is the best set of laws for the time. It can then change to suit historical changes in society.

  26. anthony mc laughlin says:

    True.the problem now is how to overide those tossers ,who want to completely implement islamic law,that hermeneutical principles of islamic law,caters for the changes of place and time throughout history,and that islam provides for what is called the jurisprudence of priorities in implementation of islamic law,where the law has to address social and individual priorities as an impending necessity.it is a forgone conclusion,there is no place in egypt for the bearded fagats.period.

  27. - What went wrong with the Islamic cultural sphere in the last centuries and what has Islamic law, i.e. sharia got to to with it? –

    Contract law, rules of inheritance, the ban on usury, and the death penalty for apostasy are the key elements of sharia that thwarted economic development of the Islamic cultural sphere.

    1 – During the Middle Ages, business transactions were based on personal relationships. Islamic contract law, on the other hand, promoted cooperation outside family and kin. Complete strangers could come together to form a business partnership on the basis of mutual interest that was recognised in law and upheld in courts.
    The problem was that an Islamic partnership could be terminated at will by any partner. The death of a partner also dissolved the partnership, with subsequent profit and loss going solely to the survivor. The children and family of the deceased partner could neither inherit nor automatically take his place.
    This meant that durable business partnerships that could last generations did not emerge in the Middle East. The private enterprises in the region became atomistic. When businessmen came together to pool their resources in profit-making endeavours, their cooperation was only temporary and seldom lasted more than a few months.

    2 – The problem was compounded by the egalitarian nature of Islamic laws of inheritance. These were designed to dissipate wealth in society and prevent its accumulation in fewer and fewer hands.
    But it also meant that business empires of successful merchants never survived after them, as their estates were divided and dispersed into several small segments.
    Recombination and re-emergence of the empire was almost impossible. Everything had to begin again from ground zero with new partnerships.

    3 – The ban on usury made it difficult for merchants to obtain credit and suppliers to lend money. Often, it increased the cost as both suppliers and users of credit discovered innovative strategies to bypass the prohibition.
    The bar on interest also meant that banks could not emerge. There was no incentive to trade shares; or any need for standardised accounting.

    4 – The punishment for apostasy made it impossible for Muslims to do business with non-Muslims.
    They risked life and limb if they conducted business under a non-Muslim legal system, or took disputes to non-Muslim judges.

    5 – To make matters worse, social services in Middle Eastern societies were provided by pious foundations, or waqfs. These charitable trusts, set up under Islamic law and supervised by religious officials, provided the region with such essential services as water supplies and looked after orphanages, schools and colleges. They could outlive their founders and continue for perpetuity.
    But as they were not self-governing, their caretakers could not maximise profits. They thus became an impediment to the growth of corporations.

    On balance: All this meant that the Islamic cultural area was very late in adopting key institutions of modern economy. The laws, institutions and organisational forms, that could mobilise productive resources on large scales within enduring private enterprises, so essential for economic development, just did not emerge in the region.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-long-divergence-how-islamic-law-held-back-the-middle-east-by-timur-kuran-2196199.html