The rippling effects of the revolution which led to the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood from the political spectrum cannot be ignored and it will be remembered as the time when the Islamists almost ruled the Middle East.

Islamists’ rapid rise to power in the Middle East following the Arab Spring revolutions came to a halt following a popular revolution that swept Egypt on June 30, 2013. Several days of protests across the country were met with violence by the Muslim Brotherhood and allied Islamists to protect the first Islamist president of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, at all costs. But the Egyptian army declared it would side with the will of the people on July 3, and ousted Morsi, signaling a new era in the region.

Prior to the June 30th revolution, Islamists across the region had reached the highest echelons of power, including the presidency in Egypt in 2012, and controlled the parliaments in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and Jordan.

They were moving steadily to dominate the entire region between the years of 2011-2013, but along came the June 30th revolution that obliterated the Islamists’ ambition to rule the region.

“The June 30, 2013 [revolution] underscored for the first time that the Arab Spring was not brought about by democratic forces as many Western scholars have claimed and many in the MENA region liked to believe at the time, but rather, was a result of a narrow, hierarchical structured manipulation by the Muslim Brotherhood and its state sponsors,” New York-based human rights lawyer and editor-in-chief of the Washington Outsider Irina Tsukerman told The Investigative Project on Terrorism. “The revolt that followed uprooted the mistaken perception of the MB as having widespread popular and institutional support in Egypt. This change was very important because it uncovered that the MB and its allies were actually subverting democratic processes, rather than implementing them.”

Back in February 2012, the Arab Spring revolutions had toppled the long-serving leaders such as Tunisian President Zine al-Abdine Ben Ali, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi, and Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who were ousted from office in quick succession under pressure from uprisings that were initiated by liberal powers. These rebellions were eventually hijacked by Islamists in all of these countries.

A few years after the June 30th upheaval, the Muslim Brotherhood group was banned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates. Last April, Tunisia banned the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Ennahda party.

“The revolution (June 30) itself did not stop the efforts by the MB but it sent a strong message across the various countries that MB was not in fact a popular movement in Egypt and did not have the power or the influence that it claimed to have,” said Tsukerman. “It had no popular or political legitimacy despite external efforts to prop it up, and that it could and should be stopped to avoid disastrous and unpopular results such as marginalization of minorities, the spread of extremist ideology.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s brief rule of Egypt under President Mohamed Morsi was characterized by authoritarianism that reached its climax when Morsi suspended the constitution, disbanded the High Constitutional Court and appointed Islamists in most key positions in the country.

One former convicted terrorist, Adel el-Khayat, member of the Islamic Group that committed the Luxor massacre in 1997 which left 58 tourists and four Egyptians dead, was appointed by Morsi as the governor of Luxor in 2013, resulting in a massive outcry and protests.

The growing anger against Morsi was parallel to massive waves of violence that reached Christian minorities and even the headquarters Coptic Cathedral in Cairo, and targeted Christian individuals and businesses. The American embassy in Cairo was attacked by Islamists and assailants replaced the US flag with the ISIS flag under the nose of Morsi who didn’t lift a finger. Three years later an Egyptian court sentenced 168 of the rioters to two years in prison.

The Wind of Change in the Middle East

Other Middle Eastern countries’ leaders who were facing the meteoric rise of Islamists in their countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and Tunisia felt relieved that the Muslim Brotherhood was beaten in its home country by the will of the people.

“The Revolution certainly sent a message of support and inspiration to the other Middle Eastern leaders who were facing the same concerns, precisely because Egypt is a huge country that has played a particularly important role in the region and because it is the place where the Muslim Brotherhood originated,” said Tsukerman.

The Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates began to adopt more liberal ways of living and governance. Both countries introduced secular-leaning reforms , and the UAE eventually adopted social and religious liberties in a region that is marred by ultra-conservatism and extremism.

Saudi Arabia adopted massive social and religious reforms, many of which focused on women and social freedoms and unlocking the potential of the Saudi society.

“KSA and UAE reforms have independent roots but benefit from the positive developments in Egypt, as major steps are easier to take in coordination; moreover, the countries had united at one point to bring an end to extremist ideology and to terrorism and other subversive activity emerging from the ashes of the Arab Spring. Saudi Arabia had been taking very slow steps in the direction of improving [the] situation for women under King Abdullah; however, due to the regional hold by the MB, any improvement in the situation was glacial,” said Tsukerman.

Changes included granting women permission to drive in 2019, and remove their Islamic headscarves -Hijab and Niqab – freely without getting arrested or punished. Cinemas, theaters and music carnivals are allowed now in the once ultra-conservative Kingdoms. Moreover, religious reforms have been adopted which enable the country to part from its Wahhabi adopted doctrine.

“The end of the MB reign in Egypt sent a signal that such reforms could be welcomed and would not have additional financial or ideological opposition coming from one of the most significant players in the region,” said Tsukerman. “When Mohammed bin Salman became the Crown Prince, he embraced the reforms far beyond the initial steps that were hoped for in terms of driving rights and embraced a much more active effort to integrate women into the work force and to create an opening for their much more visible public role in various institutions.”

Qatari state-sponsored terrorism failed to turn the tide of events

Following the January 2011 Arab Spring uprising in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood leaders received direct political and financial support from Qatar which endorsed the groups and hosted its leaders in Doha.

But the constant media support spearheaded by the Al Jazeera news network, along with the financial and political support, did not change the destiny of the Muslim Brotherhood, as reality and shoddy performance of the group in power became too visible to mask.

“Qatar’s power and money have limits; mismanagement of the economy by the local proxies, radical excesses, and local violence are just some of the factors they cannot control. Ultimately, [the] MB fell because it was weak and because it got too greedy too quickly without accounting for the overall situation inside the country,” said Tsukerman. “Qatar thus lost an important link for spreading its sentiments and disinformation; the crackdown on the revolutionary activity and the proliferation of the ideology in Egypt was not something they could buy off or change because their accounts were frozen and their media had been shut down.”

Qatar capitulated under a boycott from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and UAE, and was forced to alter its rhetoric and mitigate its support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Following visits from Qatari Prince Tamim Bin Hamad, the diplomatic relations between Egypt and Qatar were restored.

But Tsukerman warns that the Qatar threat and Muslim Brotherhood support is not over yet.

“I would question against early triumphalism, because Qatar always looks for back doors and the Al Ula agreement, along with the recent economic crisis, provided such an opening,” said Tsukerman.

“The normalization of financial relations led to an influx of Qatari money into energy and other investments in Egypt; the Biden administration’s support for [the] MB and poor relations with the Egyptian government has contributed to internal crises and concerns which made it easier for Islamists to reemerge and to attack the government on the basis of economic grievances as always,” warned Tsukerman. “With so much economic and political activity in Egypt in its favor, it’s hard to imagine the ideologues in Doha will not try to capitalize on that by gaining ground on the grassroots level in any way that they can, including by weaponizing or exploiting any domestic or foreign vulnerabilities.”

Sudan changes its path

Sudan was reeling under the weight of Islamist rule under President Omar el-Bashir since the 1989 coup d’ etat. The Sudanese dictator allied himself with the Muslim Brotherhood leader Hassan Al Turabi to rule with strict Islamic laws in the country. Following the ouster of El-Bashir in 2019, Sudan turned a new page and the once stronghold of Islamists and launchpad of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda in the region, adopted a secular constitution and recognized Israel. Sudan and Israel announced last February that they will normalize relations this year.

“Sudan is one of the countries that benefited the most and most directly from Egypt’s revolution. In fact, arguably, the June 30th event served as a model and a direct inspiration for the ousting of Bashir,” said Tsukerman. “Unfortunately, due to the complex dynamics inside the country and the initial lack of direct Western involvement and support, it cannot be said that Islamists have had their positions erased. Some are still active within the Sudan’s armed forces; with the failure of the civilian secularists, they have arguably gained some traction and ground especially now vis-à-vis the power struggle with the Rapid Support Forces.”

Rapid Support Forces evolved from and were comprised of Janjaweed militia elements involved in massacres in Darfur that left over 300,000 killed and over 2.5 million displaced.

The Tunisian revolt against the Muslim Brotherhood

Following the events in Egypt, Tunisia which was once regarded by the media as the epitome of Arab Spring success stories, has also revolted against the tight grip of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party Ennahda. The once ruling party, Ennahda, repeated its Egyptian counterpart’s mistakes and adopted violent methods and schemes including assassinations and hidden deals with foreign powers such as Erdogan’s Turkey.

Ennahada’s leader and former speaker of the house, Rachid Ghannouchi, was sentenced to one year in prison last May on charges related to terrorist activities.

“In Tunisia, elections eventually put a limit to the extent of Muslim Brotherhood influence and activity. Ennahada, the MB party, too came to be seen as corrupt and linked to foreign actors. Tunisia was ripe for internal strife; the situation there is not ideal now, but [the] MB is now only one of competing interests and concerns; it has lost a lot of political hold and power,” said Tsukerman.

However, Tunisia is facing economic blues following the Coronavirus crisis and the political instability that characterized the country in the past few years. Western political circles and analysts fear the worst for the country if the international community does not assist Tunisia financially.

The international community is at risk of “having the Muslim Brotherhood create instability” in Tunisia if the country is not swiftly granted “substantial financial help,” said Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said at a conference last March. “We can’t afford the radicalization of the Mediterranean,” he added.

That said, the Muslim Brotherhood’s attempts to return to the political scene in the Middle East cannot be discounted.

“The Muslim Brotherhood not only CAN but IS already returning to the Middle East – taking advantage of the economic crisis in Egypt, of the attacks on Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, and of UAE’s cold relations with the US. The US has welcomed and fully embraced [the] MB at top levels of their governance, which sends a bad signal along with US’ overall foreign policy not favoring more liberal Middle Eastern leaders,” said Tsukerman. “The current chaos and lack of visionary leadership in the West has put Middle Eastern leaders into extremely vulnerable and pressured situations; they may be forced to make political compromises for the sake of political survival and hope for a better future.”

The rippling effects of the revolution which led to the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood from the political spectrum cannot be ignored and it will be remembered as the time when the Islamists almost ruled the Middle East. It can be safely stated that the June 30th revolution in Egypt was the D-Day for ending the rule of Islamists which had been projected to last for decades, if not centuries.

Hany Ghoraba is an IPT Senior Fellow and an Egyptian writer, political and counter-terrorism analyst at Al Ahram Weekly, author of Egypt’s Arab Spring: The Long and Winding Road to Democracy and a regular contributor to the BBC.

Article first published on The Investigative Project on Terrorism, and re-published by The Milli Chronicle for non-Profitable, Educational and Research Purposes.

The emails provided new evidence on the huge conspiracy led by Qatar, in coordination with political Islam powers, against other countries in the region…

The emails of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are declassified about two months before the 10th anniversary of the so-called Arab Spring that started in Tunisia. This timing indicates that nothing is left to chance in our region and that the conspiracy theory is not always an illusion as conspirators want their victims to believe. Rather, it is mostly a correct theory stemming from the everlasting fight over power and influence.

Hillary’s emails revealed the central role of the US in the chaos that erupted in Tunisia before spreading to other countries; Washington’s goal to enable political Islam to rule the countries whose regimes were overthrown; the US control over the Muslim Brotherhood; and Qatar’s vicious role in supporting this project with funds, armed terrorist militias and groups, and media platforms that are still carrying out sabotage plans to this day.

Qatar took on the role of an executive producer for a show about creative chaos. It attracted hordes of extras to shoot the scenes of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Meanwhile, the US was playing the role of the screenwriter and director from across the ocean. Political Islam was given the lead role in spite of its limited capabilities. Finally, and despite all the losses, this project was crowned with failure.

The efforts of the Qatari and Brotherhood propaganda platforms to question the accuracy of the contents of Hillary’s emails are useless. Everyone already knew about what was happening.

The emails of the former US secretary of state indicated that Egypt’s sovereignty and national unity, as well as its institutions and society, were all targeted, and that huge sums of money were paid to political activists and actors who shared the same pursuit; that the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule was neither patriotic nor democratic, but rather under the control of one individual, its supreme guide; that there was an agreement with the Brotherhood-backed President, Mohamed Morsi, to dismantle the Ministry of Interior, which is the symbol of the centralization of the state and its security and administrative status; and that Qatar and its foreign minister at the time, Hamad bin Jassim, had a hand in inciting chaos in Egypt.

The exposed emails also touched on Washington’s role in supporting terrorist groups in Libya in 2011, accusing the head of the Transitional Council at the time, Qatar-backed Mustafa Abdul Jalil, of being involved in the assassination order of Major General Abdel Fattah Yunus, who was the leader of the opposition, based on his alleged connection with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. Hillary’s messages also confirmed the strong relationship between Washington and the terrorist Abdel Hakim Belhaj. The assassinated US ambassador in Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, used to call Belhaj “our son.” The declassified emails even exposed US-based Libyan businessman Omar al-Turabi, who appeared on Al Jazeera channel frequently, for providing NATO with coordinates to bomb sites in his country of origin, including the site where Saif al-Arab Gaddafi was killed on April 30, 2011.

The Clinton emails also revealed the US-Qatar-Brotherhood disruptive role in Yemen; the support provided to anarchists and people seeking to overthrow the state; the relationship of the US secretary, through her administration, with the Muslim Brotherhood; her team’s acclamation for Tawakkol Karman’s Nobel Prize; and her recommendation for Karman to become the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yemen.

The emails provided new evidence on the huge conspiracy led by Qatar, in coordination with political Islam powers, against other countries in the region; Qatar’s destructive role that led to killing tens of thousands of people, displacing millions of Arabs, and wasting about a trillion dollars in the name of Arab Spring revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria; and Washington’s endeavor during Obama’s term to target all Arab regimes and nations without exception, including Bahrain, one of the most prominent allies of the US, by supporting the Iran-backed sectarian chaos. On the other hand, however, Clinton’s exchanges showed Saudi Arabia in a good light, as the Kingdom’s leaders at the time refused to compromise their principles and national security.

According to one of the documents, following the decision to send the Peninsula Shield forces to Bahrain to face the riots that took place in the country in 2011, Clinton called the Kingdom’s ambassador to Washington at the time, Adel al-Jubeir, and asked him, “Why are you going to Bahrain?”, to which he replied, “to provide moral support.” When Clinton threatened that this would impact Washington-Riyadh relations, he said, “Our forces on the bridge will enter today.” When Clinton called the then Saudi foreign minister, late Prince Saud al-Faisal, to discuss the matter with him, he hung up the phone on her.

Saudis understood the plan targeting the region and the huge conspiracy being hatched and implemented with the participation of the American ally. In one of her emails, Clinton said, “Saudis no longer trust us to take their interests into account or to protect them from their enemies. In December 2002, (…) the U.S. prepared to invade Iraq against the forcefully expressed advice of then Crown Prince Abdullah.”

Qatar took on the role of an executive producer for a show about creative chaos. It attracted hordes of extras to shoot the scenes of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

Charles W. Freeman, who was the US ambassador to Riyadh during the Gulf War, was more insightful about Saudi Arabia. In a letter to Clinton about the Kingdom and its people, he said, “(…) Saudi Arabia (…) is the only society on the planet not to have been penetrated by Western colonialism. No European armies breached its borders (…). When Westerners finally came to Saudi Arabia, we came not as the vindicators of our presumed cultural superiority, but as hired help.”

“Unlike some other countries in the Arab Gulf, Saudi Arabia has invested its oil wealth at home, not abroad, though it has long been generous with foreign aid. (At one point it was donating six percent of GDP to other, mostly Muslim, nations.)”, he added.

The efforts of the Qatari and Brotherhood propaganda platforms to question the accuracy of the contents of Hillary’s emails are useless. Everyone already knew about what was happening, with the exception of a few minor details. Besides, the relationship between Clinton’s administration, the Doha regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, and terrorism is already publicly known with ample evidence, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The deep state in the US cannot, of course, disclose all documents and reveal all its practices, despite domestic conflicts between its two prominent parties fighting over power. Otherwise, the US would expose its disregard for ethics in its relations with others, especially its allies, as clearly happened in the so-called Arab Spring revolutions.

This article was first published on Al-Arab, and translated by Al Arabiya.

King denied him again by: “We are all Muslim brothers” hinting to Al-Banna that he understood his motives…

The activity of the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia began clearly during the reign of King Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, King of Saudi Arabia in the period between (1964 – 1975). At the time, the relations between Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which was then chaired by the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser, were at their utmost tension, to Abdel Nasser’s Nationalist Socialist Pan Arabism agendas aiming to abolish monarchies.

Later, after the death of President Abdel Nasser, and a rapprochement occurred between his successor, President Anwar Sadat and King Faisal bin Abdulaziz. Faisal sought to create a rapprochement between the Brotherhood and Sadat.

The Muslim Brotherhood members dominated educational aspects in universities (Standard MB Practice), particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as on media platforms, charity organizations and aid agencies. The beginning of the real story is due to the desire of the founding King Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud to fight illiteracy and spread education.

Among those invited by the King’s advisor Hafez Wahbah and interviewed by the King was, Hassan Al-Banna, Al-Banna was denied , then on 1936, when Hassan al-Banna visited the kingdom to perform Hajj, he met King Abdulaziz and presented him with a request to establish a branch to organize the Brotherhood, but the King denied him again by: “We are all Muslim brothers” hinting to AlBanna that he understood his motives and firmly denying his wish while remaining courteous.

All attempts by the Muslim Brotherhood to venture into Saudi Arabia during the reign of King Abdulaziz were rejected, which led the group to other endeavors, which is spreading their literature through missionary missions to the Kingdom during the Hajj seasons, in an attempt to spread the ideology among Islamic delegations to Hajj through the speeches that Al-Banna delivered.

To present the principles of his call, and since then Saudi Arabia was covertly classified within the organizational structure of the international organization.

Upon the 1948 revolution in Yemen (the revolution of the constitution) took place, the Muslim Brotherhood relations with Saudi Arabia became stressed due to the support of MB members to the revolution that plunged Yemen into chaos and bloodshed.

These events completely foiled all the Brotherhood’s attempts to penetrate Saudi Arabia with their revolutionary ideas and their extremist whispers to call to Arms in Saudi Arabia during the reign of the founding King.

In 1953, the spiritual father of the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia arrived as a teacher to teach in the College of Sharia in Riyadh, then the College of Arabic Language, then director of postgraduate studies at Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University. In addition to his membership in the university council, and chaired the scientific committee of the Girls’ college as well as the educational policy committee in the Kingdom, and participated in the opening of the religious institute in Al-Ahsa and then moved to Al-Qassim.

The arrival of the Salafist Jihadists movement preacher Mohamed Sorour Zain El Abidine Sorouri Salafism, or Sorourism , also known as the Sahwi movement. It is a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot in Saudi Arabia.

Sorourism is considered the broadest intellectual, political and social Islamist branch of the Muslim Brotherhood . This Group was founded by the theorization of Muhammad Surur Zain Al-Abidin a Syrian from Horan a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

He was among the youth belonging to the so-called military vanguard movement or Marwan Hadid group by Sheikh Hamwi, a Qutobist extremist who founded the Muslim Brotherhood’s military organization in Syria and is the leader of armed action against the Baath regime in Syria.

He was later driven out from Saudi Arabia to Kuwait by Manna Khalil Al Qattan the MB top figure in Saudi Arabia, for disputes between the two personalities began, among which are the reasons for apprehension about the growing Sorori base among the youth of the MB and Sorouri’s endeavor to establish an independent movement organization “The Secret Organization”.

In Kuwait, Mohamed Sorour continued to work to strengthen his movement and organization, and he worked as editor-in-chief of the Kuwaiti Brotherhood “Society Magazine”.

Sorour’s ambitions got the best of him yet again as he was involved political clash with the Kuwaiti government, he later on moved to live in Britain and remained in it for 30 years. And he issued the revolutionary “Yearly Magazine”.

Again his ambitious and extremist ways got the best of him yet again and his yearly Magazine was banned, he moved to Jordan in fear of being a subject of investigation and then fled to Qatar where he lived until he died in 2014, where Emir of Qatar and Father attend his funeral.

Muhammad Zain al-Abidin left behind many who embrace his extremist Islamist views, including symbols and celebrities carrying that mixture of Syed Qutob extremist dynamics and scientific Salafism, his students, symbols of the group’s teachings.

Among his students Salman al-Awda and others who carry with them his extremist ideology that they passed to their students since the late 90s.

In 1993 al-Ouda was one of the leaders and instigators of the dissident group Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR) that aimed to incite riots and chaos against the Saudi government.

Gilles Kepel has described CDLR and Al-Masari as “failing to raise any groundswell of support” within Saudi Arabia and “sadly lacking” in Islamic “doctrinal … ballast”, as became evident after he was confronted and debunked by fatwas issued by the Saudi scholars.

Al-Masari is also criticized for being two-faced, presenting himself as a fighter of human rights abuses and corruption to the western audiences, while regaining Arabic speakers with attacks on Saudi for its lack of shari’a law enforcement and even pronouncing “takfir against all Muslims who
obeyed the laws of Riyadh”.

In particular, it’s a standard practice these MB scholars adapt to gain western support while showing their true colors when addressing their followers.

Al-Ouda is known to the western audiences as a moderate for criticizing the September 11 attacks, and criticizing Osama bin Laden. Ironically that never happened until 2007, around the sixth anniversary of September 11.

And I quote al-Ouda: “My brother Osama, how much blood has been spilled? How many innocent people, children, elderly, and women have been killed … in the name of Al Qaeda? Will you be happy to meet God Almighty carrying the burden of these hundreds of thousands or millions of victims on your back?”

Side note: I am not buying it, what about you?

The 1990–1991 Gulf Crisis and War, in which an American-led coalition of forces aligned against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, al-Ouda voiced his objections against the coalition.

Al-Ouda pushed the leadership of what was known as the “Awakening” movement in the 1980s, accompanied by a group of his friends, and signed a letter calling for legal, administrative, social and media reforms in Saudi Arabia in May 1991.

If we read in the biography of Youssef El-Eiry, and his letters, we will understand what motivated him to become the first leader of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, he was later killed in a confrontation with the Saudi Security forces.

El-Eiry praised by Osama bin Laden and one of his books we would have found this mentioned, quite frankly, impeccable, Al-Eiry was admitting that he was a member of the Saudi Islamic Awakening Movement which is linked to Salman al-Ouda.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He often writes about Islamism, Islamist factions and modern Terrorism. He tweets under @0khalodi0.

The Muslim Brotherhood maybe a very capable secret society of deceptive and shady characters but they lack the ability to govern…

Mohammed Morsi former Egyptian president, died unexpectedly during a trial in June 2019. He was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an early 20th century cult of Islamist fanatics that rose to power in 2011.

The Egyptian MB—the main leadership of the MB failure started as soon as they assumed power, the ideological hollowness and opportunism destroyed the MB claims to a legitimate, democratic and functional government the MB structural deficits led it to be widely distrusted.

The MB failure to transform electoral victories into sustainable political control effectively stemmed from the exclusivity of its governing methodology that lacked competence and experience eventually leading to the ending the possibility of MB domination of the political scene.

Under the rule of the MB, the arrest of journalists increased and journalists and television broadcasters were put on mock trials in the early months of Muhammad Morsi’s rule, on charges of insulting and slandering Morsi and the MB in what seemed a return to the statuesque.

The MB were eager to clearout the political scene moved toward political scene of any competition seeking a utilitarian domination of the country , that resulted in the MB making a series of tactical mistakes in the process, while rushing to make personal gains.

The MB failed to either appease or successfully confront institutional power bases, and, believing its electoral victory to be an irreversible popular mandate, it was not welling to make the concessions necessary to build bridges with the crucial non Islamist power players.

The Brotherhood waged an unwinnable battle, driven more by ideological zealousy and delusions of grandeur than by a realistic assessment of the political environment.

From early 2011 to the middle of 2013, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood failed to run a proper government, debt imploded, inflation reached critical levels, basic services were failing rapidly and the economy was on the verge of collapse, the MB failed the people who took to the streets.

The Brotherhood in Egypt were so consumed in personal and political gain that they failed to see the tables turning on them and the Egyptian people were not welling to make past mistakes and the MB were swiftly ousted after gravelly damaging the country on multiple levels.

The Muslim Brotherhood maybe a very capable secret society of deceptive and shady characters but they lack the ability to govern and they lack the ability to work with others.

A dark chapter was closed and Egypt was given another chance to rise from the MBs blunder ridden rule.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He regularly tweets under @0khalodi0.

Deputy Education Minister Mohammed Omer told in a press conference that the ministry has clear mechanisms to identify the teachers who joined the terrorist organization, Ashaq al-Awsat newspaper reported.

Omer said that, the teachers are not allowed to teach at any school or educational institution.

However, the teachers with such affiliations are only a small fraction, he added.

The terror organization is banned in Saudi Arabia and UAE.

UAE and Saudi Arabia banned the terror organization Muslim Brotherhood in March 2014, in order to curb the spread of terror-ideology across the Middle-east.

Former Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdulazeez denounced Muslim Brotherhood in 2002, calling it as “betrayal of pledges and ingratitude”, and “the source of all problems in the Islamic world.”

In 2002, the then Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef denounced the Brotherhood, saying it was guilty of “betrayal of pledges and ingratitude” and was “the source of all problems in the Islamic world”.

Trying to run a country based on a single Utopian vision of what an ideal Islamic society looks like is risky business.

Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s first-ever democratically elected president, died unexpectedly during a trial in June 2019. He was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an almost century-old Islamist group that rose to power after the Egyptian Revolution of 2011.

Its political tenure was short. Morsi was deposed by a coup in 2013, on the one-year anniversary of his election. Egypt’s new military regime declared the Muslim Brotherhood, whose political coalition received 38% of the votes in the 2011 parliamentary elections, a terrorist organization. Its members have been arrested, jailed and tortured. Morsi was sentenced to death, though the sentence was overturned on appeal.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s fall recalls the sudden decline of another once-powerful Islamic group: Turkey’s Gulen movement.

In July, Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan marked the third anniversary of a failed coup accusing Fethullah Gulen – a former ally and leader of an influential Islamic movement – of masterminding the attempted overthrow of his government.

Gulen, a Turkish scholar and cleric who has lived in the United States for 20 years, has consistently denied involvement in the coup. He founded an Islamic community in the 1970s. By 2013, his movement had millions of supporters worldwide, as well as media institutions and schools in over 100 countries, including some 150 charter schools in the United States.

The New York Times once presented the movement as promoting “a gentler vision of Islam.” In 2014, the BBC called Gulen “Turkey’s second most powerful man,” after then Prime Minister Erdogan.

Now, Erdogan has declared the Gulenists to be terrorists. Those who are affiliated with the movement have been systematically purged and jailed.

How did the Muslim Brothers and the Gulenists fall so far, so fast?

The authoritarian state

My research on Islam and authoritarianism indicates that both groups were victims of the same dangerous combination: an authoritarian state, Utopian ideas about Islam and unreliable friends.

Both in Egypt and Turkey, Islamic movements have struggled to survive in authoritarian regimes that exert strong control over religious practice.

Egypt’s autocratic presidents keep mosques and Al-Azhar, a leading educational institute of Sunni Islam, under their thumb.

In Turkey, a government agency called the Diyanet oversees religious affairs and defines for the Turkish people what “correct Islam” is. Under the strongman regime Erdogan has built since 2013, which combines religious conservatism, nationalism and authoritarianism, the Dinayet has been a crucial instrument of social control.

Given these political conditions, both the Muslim Brothers and the Gulenists have since their founding had a well-founded fear of persecution. Their leaders, several of whom I interviewed in 2013 during my book research, assumed that these groups could not survive unless they became powerful enough to control state institutions entirely.

That fear has proven to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Their efforts to capture the state institutions were initially so successful that they created a backlash. Political elites in Turkey and Egypt turned against these powerful groups, designating them enemies of the state.

Utopian Islam

The comparison I’m developing here will be unacceptable for most Gulenists.

Gulen’s followers see themselves as nonpolitical, a civil society organization – sharply different from the Muslim Brothers, an Islamist political organization with an explicitly political agenda.

And it is true that the Gulenists never established a political party. But their initial alliance with Erdogan – and, later, their conflict with him – demonstrates that Gulenists are a deeply political force in Turkey.

Like the Muslim Brothers, the Gulenists have a certain Utopian vision of their religion. Both groups see Islam – albeit different versions of it – as the solution to all society’s ills.

Religion is, for these organizations, a blueprint that should guide Muslims in every detail of their life, from restroom manners to governance. The judiciary, military and police, too, should be “Islamic.”

In their quest to control everyday life in Turkey and Egypt, the Gulenists and the Muslim Brothers made enemies. They alienated secular citizens, who rejected the “Islamization” of their country. They also angered other Islamic groups, who felt themselves being edged out of power.

Wrong partners

Even one-time allies have turned against these groups.

This is a sign of the third feature that, I found, contributed to the downfall of the Gulenists and the Muslim Brotherhood: Neither is very good at choosing their friends.

Within a month of winning the Egyptian presidency, Morsi promoted to defense minister and head of the armed forces General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a young general. Morsi thought al-Sisi had strong enough Islamist leanings that he would be friendlier to the Muslim Brotherhood than other high-ranking officials in the Egyptian military.

A year later, al-Sisi staged the coup that overthrew Morsi. Once in power, he designated the Muslim Brothers a terrorist organization.

The Muslim Brothers have made this mistake before. In the 1950s, they believed Gamal Abdel Nasser – the military mastermind of Egypt’s 1952 revolution – was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. But after using the group to seize power, President Nasser persecuted his former partners.

The Gulenists have made similarly disastrous partnerships.

Between 2006 and 2011, they allied with Erdogan, helping him eliminate Turkey’s secular political establishment. But once Erdogan consolidated his personal power, he turned against all his former allies – the Gulenists included.

Concerned about Erdogan’s persecution of their movement, some Gulenists came to see General Hulusi Akar, then the head of Turkey’s armed forces, as the man to check the Turkish president’s dictatorial tendencies. Arguably, they expected some sort of military intervention against Erdogan.

Whether Akar actually played a role in the 2016 coup attempt is still a mystery in Turkey. He insists he had nothing to do with the effort to overthrow Erdogan.

In 2018, Erdogan promoted Akar to defense minister. With Akar’s support, more than 16,000 military officers have been fired for allegedly being Gulenists.

Lessons to be learned

Just a few years ago, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Gulenists were powerful enough to imagine that their Utopian goal of remaking society in their image was within reach.

Today their leaders are exiled, dead and jailed. Their properties have been seized, their reputations tarnished.

The downfall of these two Islamic organizations is a cautionary tale for other religious groups with political ambitions in the Muslim world.

Trying to run a country based on a single Utopian vision of what an ideal Islamic society looks like is risky business. Add authoritarianism to the mix, and the chances of failure grow. Choose the wrong allies, and the result can be deadly.

Article first published on Juancole.

Mohamed Morsi, the leader of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwanul-Muslimeen party died on Monday in court. After that there have been a lot of images being shared on the Social Media that Morsi was denied Quran when he had asked it to the officials.

The Social Media is viral with the message that late Morsi said, “They refused me to have a copy of the Quran in my cell, but what they don’t know is that I have memorized it for over 30 years. I just wanted to touch the Quran, nothing more.”

Interestingly, we then find the exact same wording was also used for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he was imprisoned, and the banned hate-preacher Salman al-Oudah.

Sources tell us that this has been the practice of Ikhwanul-Muslimeen or the Muslim Brotherhood that they have been known for spreading lies and creating mischiefs in the land, and this is also one of the lies they have used.

Muslims should be cautious not to spread such lies and they should return back to the scholars and consult them with regards to such issues.

Egypt’s FM Sameh Hassan Shoukry refuted Erdogan’s accusations in a statement with a strong condemnation of the “repeated and irresponsible accusations” by the Turkish president about Morsi’s death who died on Monday during a court hearing following a heart-attack.

On Wednesday, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ahmed Hafez referred Ergodan’s comments as “politicized and immature”.

Turkish President Erdogan who has had close ties with Mohamed Morsi and his outlawed terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood, tried exploiting Morsi’s death by politicizing the situation, he called Morsi’s death to be “not because of natural causes”.

The 67-year-old Mohamed Morsi – who was under-trial for various criminal cases – passed away in the court. He complained of dizziness and fainted, following which he died a natural death.

The Brotherhood used Morsi as a facade and received foreign support, which deeply angered the Egyptians, until they grew frustrated with his rule and rose up against him and his party.

Mohammed Morsi, who ruled Egypt for a year before being ousted on June 30, 2013, following mass protests, has died. He died while being tried for several crimes, some of which were shameful, such as sharing intelligence with Hamas and organizing a mass prison break. Other cases against him included insulting the judiciary and inciting violence and terrorism.

Morsi died during a court session in the case regarding sharing intelligence with Hamas. He arrived on foot, conscious, and asked to address the court. The judge gave him permission. When he was done speaking, he felt tired and collapsed inside the dock. An ambulance was called and he was rushed to the nearest hospital, but he died shortly after arriving.

Morsi’s death has spared the Egyptian state the trouble of having to apply the former president’s sentences, which could have reached execution. He was being tried in six cases and had been convicted of four crimes. He was expecting to be convicted in two more cases, the first of which related to the mass prison break, for which he was being tried by the Court of Cassation after a death sentence was pronounced by the criminal court. The events of this case date back to the January 2011 revolution, which overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak. The second case was to do with sharing intelligence with Hamas. A preliminary sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment was pronounced in this case, but it also awaited the final conviction. The total sentences imposed on him would have imprisoned him for 48 years, while the fourth placed him on the terrorist list.

His death in court is a coincidence that was in favor of the state because, had he died in his cell, Egypt would have come under greater pressure. Despite that, international organizations, bodies and personalities have demanded an impartial investigation into the circumstances of his death.

Morsi’s death in this situation saw controversy raised by some parties associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters. The group blamed the Egyptian authorities for what it described as the “assassination” of the former president. Others to speak out included Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who described Morsi as a “martyr,” and Human Rights Watch. The UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) also called for an independent investigation into the circumstances of Morsi’s death, particularly on the issue of providing him with adequate medical care and access to his lawyers and family during his six years in custody.

Egypt, however, has responded to this demand through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which used the strongest terms possible to denounce the statements made by the UNCHR. A spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry said the comments made by the UNCHR’s Rupert Colville “involve an attempt to deliberately politicize a case of natural death.”

Morsi became president of Egypt in June 2012 after the first elections were held following the overthrow of Mubarak’s regime. He was the first president since the revolution of Jan. 25, 2011, and the fifth to rule Egypt.

He earned his title as president by chance, as he only came to the Federal Palace after the election commission barred Khairat El-Shater, the Muslim Brotherhood’s first-choice candidate and leading strategist, from running. El-Shater is now in prison facing multiple sentences, possibly including execution.

Morsi came on to the scene after El-Shater was excluded. He managed to obtain the largest number of votes in the first round of the election. He thus made it to the run-off against Ahmed Shafiq, who was counted as a Mubarak man. Morsi beat Shafiq by a very narrow margin. After much controversy among the Egyptian people, which reached the point of accusations of falsifying the results in favor of the Brotherhood candidate, fierce battles in the streets were avoided.

Morsi was not a high-ranking member of the Brotherhood or its guidance bureau. Mohammed Badie was the top-ranking member, followed by a number of the Brotherhood’s strategists, including El-Shater, Hassan Malek and others. Morsi was merely a facade for the Muslim Brotherhood while it ruled the country.

It was quite obvious that the Brotherhood, which was founded in the 1920s, was trying to rule the country through Morsi. Indeed, there have been desperate attempts to apply the Brotherhood’s ideologies to state institutions through its members and supporters who occupied senior and vital positions in the country. These attempts reached several ministerial portfolios, as well as municipalities.

In this case, Morsi could be considered a helpless president. Despite that, a few Muslim Brotherhood members considered him to be the reason for the party’s great failure during its rule of Egypt. Some believed he was not qualified, but he was and the tension rose every time he was in the picture.

The Brotherhood used Morsi as a facade and received foreign support, which deeply angered the Egyptians, until they grew frustrated with his rule and rose up against him and his party. The result was that the Brotherhood wreaked havoc in the streets. They shed the Egyptians’ blood, attacked churches and the Copts, and used armed groups inside and outside the country to get back at the army and the people.

Morsi is gone, but the battles between the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorism and the Egyptian state — its leaders and people — continue. Morsi, who was the smallest and weakest man to rule a country the size of Egypt, is gone after having disgraced himself, the country and everyone in it.

Article first published on Arab News.

Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy is a critically acclaimed multimedia journalist, writer and columnist who has covered war zones and conflicts worldwide. Twitter: @ALMenawy

Morsi was a leading figure of banned terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwanul-Muslimeen.

He was elected after ousting the long-serving president Hosni Mubarak. However, Morsi couldn’t sustain his Government due to unfulfilled promises, hence Egyptians protested against his regime.

He was arrested after a military coup by Abdulfattah al-Sisi who ably took control of the deteriorating Egyptian economy, and sent Morsi for a seven-year sentence for falsifying his candidacy application for the 2012 presidential race.