Thanks for posting
Went back to posting several times to see if there was some postings relavence to subject, and attempted to try the Forbes link which bounced all over the place.
The difference between an “islamist” and a socialist is that one believes there is some sort of a supreme being which orders everybody must conform to “what is written” and the other which does not profess in any such being but demands conformity to what the “collective” decides .My argument against islam on religious grounds is http://www.theusmat.com/islamandfreewill.htm
Outside of the theistic claim there is no difference between the two. Both demand authoritarian conformity, and the complete surrender of oneself to the state.. Hence a socialist would find themselves in agreement with some islamic “solutions” expressed in any state constitution such as been developed by the “brotherhood” and might support it as a stepping stone. Then work to kick out the deism portions and insert the “collectives” wishes in its place.
But this might explain why Forbes Bill Frenza feels Egypts new constitution appears to be socialist.
from what we have seen and heard this may well be the model government Obama wants to install in the US. I wonder if any of his cronies were involved in the writing of the Egyptian document??
I view Islamics as “poets of the socialists”. They have this Koran book which is about developing personal hate incantation for the implementation of a socialist plan. The socialist comes with that plan, that organization, which the Koran was incapable of formulating coherently. One is the answer to the other’s calling and hypocrisy. Islam is a pseudo religion, it is rooted in political loopholes and going for those political answers, even to discard the poetic book if need be altogether, as a loophole. Islam is filled with loophole, and its holy book is only temporary scheme.