The New York Times' view of the Egyptian elections v. reality

The New York Times presents a view of the Egyptian elections which makes them sound very western except for the assertion that the poll numbers are unreliable (which perhaps explains this Gallup poll). The reality, writes Raymond Ibrahim, is far different.

Despite the fact that some in the West portray Islam and democracy as being perfectly compatible, evidence continues to emerge that many countries in the Middle East, democracy and elections are various means to one end: the establishment of a decidedly undemocratic form of law—Islamic, or Sharia Law.

An Egyptian cleric, Dr. Talat Zahran, proclaimed that it is "obligatory to cheat at elections, a beautiful thing" -- meaning that voting is a tool, an instrument, the only value of which is to empower Sharia.

Another cleric, Hazim Shuman, who has his own TV program, issued a fatwa that likened voting for Islamist candidates to a "jihad," or a holy war, adding that paradise awaits whoever is "martyred" during the electoral campaign.

...

Sheikh Osama Qassim, however, a member of Egypt's notorious Islamic Jihad, which also seeks to install Sharia law, focused on the non-Islamist candidates—he specifically named Ahmed Shafiq and Amr Mussa—saying that if they win the presidential elections, it will only be "by cheating," at which point "the Islamist organizations" will resort to "armed action" [code for Jihad], adding that such presidents will suffer the same fate of Anwar Sadat [assassination], but that this time, the struggle will see "the Islamists achieve complete domination" in Egypt.

What could go wrong?