Manal and Alaa's bit bucket free speech from the bletches

I agree mostly. Although there is better mathematics to describe what is going on.

I think that what is usually understood by (revolution) is similar to the concept of bifurcation in mechanics. When a bifurcation occurs the qualitative description of a system is completely different after bifurcation from before although all parameters influencing the system are continuously changing.

In this sense, I tend to believe that the main difference between "revolutionary" and "reformist" thought is in how they accept the current pattern of things. For a reformist, the pattern is acceptable but the exact details need to be fixed. For the "revolutionary", it is the pattern that must be changed, and of course, this entails changes in detail also. So, in my view at least, the difference between the revolutionary and the reformist is not a difference in method but a difference in ends.

A "revolutionary" can work very hard in making small "continuous" changes in the system without any explicit design on precipitating a crisis point. This is something that can be amazing in a lab. You keep slowly turning a knob, and the system evolves smoothly, and then all of a sudden it snaps into a completely different looking configuration. The magic is in altering the balance of forces, ever so subtly, until the current pattern looses stability, and then voila! "Revolution" is there.

This is why I agree with your statement about "gains" obtained through the Judiciary. These gains do not alter the basic balance of forces and as such cannot threaten the stability of the system. Only an upset balance of forces can bring any change of pattern in a society, and in a way, this is why the government is willing to tolerate some opposition. As long as nothing fundamental changes, they can't bother less. It doesn't make a difference whether the opposition is using "revolutionary" or "reformist" techniques.

When Luther posted his theses he was not doing anything expressly inflammatory. The gravity of what he did is that he fundamentally deprived the Church of the ability to extort people by controlling their period of stay in the Purgatory. Now, all of a sudden the balance of force was no longer in favour of the Church. The Church was never militarily powerful. The source of its power was its complete control of the spiritual sphere. Once that source was deprived, it all came crumpling down (up to a point, half Europe is still Catholic).

Now, where is the source of the Power and Legitimacy of the Egyptian state?

Those who direct their work towards that source (not that I know what it is), are the revolutionaries regardless of their methods. Those who direct their effort to change the manifestations of the governmental Power are reformists regardless of their methods.

Excellent post, thanks a heap!