It is true that the Islamist scholars have taken over the arena in Egypt; however this is a result of the governmental media, which sees in liberals a threat to its own authority.

Liberals in Egypt are in part, those who stood on Sadat's side when he started a number of reforms in the late 70s of the last century. They do have a practical view for Egypt. They are the grandsons of those who ruled Egypt in the first half of the 20th century.

In Egypt, as in many other countries of the third world, a President comes to ruin the picture of the President before him. Nasser did that with Naguib. Sadat did that with Nasser. Mubarak won't build a new tradition of course, since he is a clerk more than a politician!

Since the start of his rule, Mubarak brought back Nasser's second line of men in. Among them was Safwat ElSherif, (Information Minister for more than 22 years thereafter), Mufeed Shehab (High Education Minister for about 10 years and one of those who Sadat detained in the 15th of May reform revolution of 1971, as he called it) and Kamal El-Shazli (Minister of the affairs of the People's Assembly for many years and the most hated man in Egypt today).

These men didn't give a chance for liberals to speak out. They draw the government's picture, as if it was the only liberal force in the country. As if the government is the only one which wants relations with Israel. As if the government is the only one which can have relations with the USA and the West.

By silencing their voices, the government guarantees that it is the only one which can have relations with the outside, be it the USA, the rest of the West, or even Israel. The government doesn't want to have a competitor in its relations towards the outside. If outsiders see it that way, then it would be an ultimate success for her.

Sadat's legacy had to be buried down, and Mubarak was to be branded the man who did everything, even the Yom Kippur war!!!!

At the time, the USA maybe knew that, but its interest went on with Mubarak and his corrupt regime. However, now things have changed, and the USA knows where the liberals are, and she knows that they are buried by the government and are ignored from speaking out and saying what hey have to say.

Islamists are a Ghost used by the government, and were given a way by it. Many of the Islamist intellectuals mentioned in the book were given way to media by the government "controlled media". They would have never been the lions of the arena unless there was government support.

Therefore, today, "Kefaya" which is a civil society movement and made up mostly of the Islamists, Nasserites and Leftists, is not that dangerous for the government, but actually very helpful. Also, the latest clashes in Alexandria between Muslims and Christians, over a play said to be "against Islam", might be instigated by the government itself, so that it sends Washington a message indicating that it fights extremist Muslims while it is so moderate! Thanks God, since Washington is not that stupid as the Egyptian government thinks!
The Egyptian government is making everything possible to survive the un-survivable. It is in panic and is taking the wrong decisions in the wrong time.

Liberals are awaiting a chance to come out. They know that about 40 million "silent majority" are supporting Liberalism.

Many in the West have been deceived, like the author here, by just observing the cream of the Cake. Many have said that people in Egypt were happy that Sadat was killed, by just observing what they see, without any added effort to see what is hidden within society.

Islamists might take over for a while till people who vote (and this will not take long) will see what these people will do. Egypt is not ready to be another Taliban. Most people in Egypt are liberals, even the poor, like Peasants, who r not ready to give up their profit, to the backward brothers.

A strange book. As a project of relating the ideas of Egyptian "New Islamists" as they would like themselves presented, the book does a very good job. But on the other hand, it is completely uncritical, and provides very little of the context for the positions described. Baker's unrelenting praise of the New Islamists gets wearying after a while, especially as most often the "New Islamist" positions are little more than warmed-over Islamic modernism, internal tensions and superficialities included. Perhaps the New Islamists are a welcome contrast to the more mindless, violent variety of Egyptian Islamist more familiar from the media. It is, however, too much of a stretch to portray these garden variety of cultural conservatives part of an intellectually sophisticated movement with liberal attitudes.