The Muslim Brotherhood Listed By The Egyptian Government As a Terrorist Organization

As Christmas Day was ringing to the world the famous traditional song "Peace on Earth," the Egyptian Government was declaring "The Muslim Brotherhood" a terrorist organization.  Never before has the Brotherhood been so categorized.  During most of its 85 years of existence, it was banned.  That was an elastic ban which was tightened or loosened depending on the Government's degree of anxiety as regards the Brotherhood's impact on politics and society.  So what has so radically changed precipitating such drastic listing?

The tragedy of the Brotherhood in post-Mubarak Egypt began on April 1, 2012.  On that date, that organization nominated its longtime strategist, Khairat El-Shater, to run for the post of President.  It was a break by the Brotherhood of its pledge not to have nominations  for the highest post in Egypt.


Top US State Department officials had praised El-Shater's "moderation, business savvy and effectiveness."  Yet in fact he was a protagonist for an explicitly Islamic government.  Divisive by nature, he stood in opposition of "the liberal wing" of the Brotherhood.  Abdel-Moneim Aboul Fotouh, Kamal El-Helbawy and Abdel-Rahman Ayyash were prominent liberal who became casualties of bulldozer El-Shater.

Elevating El-Shater to a demi-god, Badie, the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide, who is now with El-Shater in jail since July 2013, said darkly at that time: "To all those who will slander engineer Khairat El-Shater, his prayers against those who slander him are answered."  Within a few days, demi-god El-Shater was, under Egyptian citizenship laws regarding presidential candidates, disqualified.  Morsi was El-Shater replacement on the ballot for president in the summer of 2012.  Morsi won the post over his military opponent, General Shafik, and thus began a year of Islamist rule in Egypt.

From the pinnacle of power in the most populous Arab country of nearly 90 millions, to the abyss of populist impeachment on June 30, 2013, the Brotherhood's journey was a series of self inflicted wounds.  That self immolation, though expressed in a series of putchist moves against secularist Egypt, stemmed primarily from the Brotherhood's abuse of Islamic tenets for sordid ends of power.

In a seminal article by Imad Al-Ghazali in the Cairo daily Al-Shorook, published on December 19, 2013, this analyst lamented the continued Brotherhood attacks by word and terrorist actions against Egypt's armed forces.  Quoting partially from that article which was published 6 days before the Mansoura massacre of police and civilians by Islamist Brotherhood affiliates, Al-Ghazali said: "This is the army that sided with the Egyptian revolution of January 25.  It is the army which supported the millions who rose up on June 30 refusing the rule by Morsi and the Brotherhood.  It is the army which loses in Sinai every day its personnel gunned down by the bullets of treachery and terror."

In a legal assessment of the listing by the Egyptian Government on December 25, 2013, of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, I posit the following in a nutshell fashion:

The declaration of "The Muslim Brotherhood" as a terrorist organization is legally sound.  It is anchored in the presidential decrees of 1996, as well as in the conventions on terrorism adopted by the League of Arab States (1998) and the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation {successor of "Conference"} (1999).  The perpetration of the massacre of the police personnel and civilians at Mansoura two days ago, and its adoption by Islamist units federated with the Brotherhood, fall within the parameters adopted by the UN General Assembly in the early 2000s on terrorism.  The Brotherhood, having, since July 3, 2013, embarked upon a campaign of non-recognition of all actions by the transitional Government, of fomenting challenges to the law on public demonstrations, of open support of the Sinai rebellion, of generating campaigns domestically and internationally against sectarian amity, and of open collaboration with Hamas, are actions justifying defining that organization internally and externally as a terrorist organization.

Note should be taken of Article 237 of the draft of the Egyptian Constitution which shall be the subject of plebiscite on January 14, and 15, 2014.  In part, the article provides that: "The State is committed to fight terrorism in all its forms --as a threat to the homeland and its citizens." (my translation from the Arabic)

In addition, Article 74, among other things, denies the establishment of any political parties on religious basis.  This accords with the document issued by Al-Azhar, and co-signed by the Coptic Church on August 11, 2011 stating that: "Islam does not create a State based solely on religion."

It was on December 19, 2013 that the so-called "National Coalition For the Support of Democracy and the Opposition of the Coup" (in reference to the present transitional government), called for public demonstrations to abort the constitutional plebiscite.  That declaration called on "The revolutionary citizens to rise up in defense of their revolution, to ignite an  uprising in all public squares, and to mobilize by the millions on this Friday (Dec. 20).  This shall usher a new revolutionary week under the banner proclaiming "The 2012 Constitution is Ours."

Well, these millions did not respond to the Brotherhood's call.  While in Cairo in early December, I heard nothing but support for the 2014 Constitution.  And the dreams of the Brotherhood of establishing "The Islamic Emirate of Egypt" proved to be an unreachable goal.  The characterization on December 2013 by religious frauds like Sheikh Al-Qaradawi of the constitutional plebiscite as "a worthless undertaking," caused millions to laugh at his lunacy.

The Muslim Brotherhood's advocacy of a religious uprising against a deeply-rooted secular Egypt has proven the barrenness of, and in fact, the stupidity of its manifesto.  Treating stupidity charitably is to quote from a saying by Pope John Paul II who proclaimed: "Even stupidity is a gift from God."

Charitable interpretation of "stupidity" aside, Egypt is already moving in a post-Muslim Brotherhood mode.  This is in spite of the Brotherhood's resort to attacking soft civilian targets.  The Egyptian grade school texts have been revised to emphasize love of the homeland; the private sector, especially with regard to tourism and trade, is being energized; and the preservation of ancient Egyptian, Christian, Jewish and Islamic antiquities and edifices is once more becoming a national passion.

With a wary eye on the abuse in mosques of the Friday sermons by unqualified Muslim preachers, the Ministry of Waqfs (Entails and Trusts) has as of early December 2013, reasserted control over the pulpits.  The campaign of restoration of Islam to its traditional advocacy of tolerance and moderation, is in vogue.  Waqf Minister Muhammad Mokhtar Gomaa ascended the pulpit at Al-Azhar mosque on December 6, 2013.  His message was an official declaration of the start of purification of the pulpits in Egyptian mosques of the venom of fanaticism.

No less than 527 non-qualified and non -Azharite religious pulpit-mongers were forbidden from delivering Friday sermons.  The Minister of Waqfs also called for the dissolution of the Egyptian branch of the Union of Islamic Scholars.  This prompted Sheikh Al-Qaradawi to resign from the union's membership.  His pet sermons called on the Egyptian army to mutiny against its commanders.  That call for insurrection went nowhere eve prior to declaring the Brotherhood, whose spiritual leader is Al-Qaradawi himself, a terrorist cabal.

Oh, and one more thing Sheikh Qaradawi: Your accumulated wealth as a Qatari citizen is no passport to your ill-conceived fatwas, especially regarding the Shiis being non-Muslims.  Your dialogue with the Iranian reformist, former President Hashem Rafsanjani, was nothing but a dark episode in the recent history of Sunni-Shii dialogues.

Here is an adage for you, Sheikh Qaradawi.  It applies to your urging mutiny upon Egyptian armed forces recruits.  The source of this adage is the late great novelist, Tom Clancy who said: "If you want to kick the tiger in his a.., you'd better have a plan for dealing with his teeth."

Locked With the Land of the Nile in an Embrace of Reciprocal Learning

In Egypt for 2 weeks this December, I learnt and shared my knowledge.  I learnt why every Egyptian I met, in various walks of life, hated the Muslim Brotherhood. "Liars," they described them; "army-haters," they characterized them; "Islam abusers," they lamented; "foreign agents," they ridiculed them.

From the taxi driver to the university professor; from my niece, the economist, to the goat herder in our village in Sharkia; from the diplomat, to the seller of roasted corn on the cob on Kasr El-Nil bridge.  Without any prompting, they see in the bearded person a menace; in the students demonstrations, the effects of brain-washing; in the killing of Egyptian soldiers and police personnel, a terrorist attack on the authentic Egyptian revolutions of January 25, 2011 and June 30, 2013.

There is the graffiti by the Muslim Brotherhood describing "C.C." (for the pronunciation of the name of General El-Sisi) as a "murderer" (Qatel).  But the young and the old secularists add one letter to become (Moqatel) "a fighter."  The general public, which was my collective professor from the Delta to El-Minya, in southern Egypt, wants the General who delivered them from the Islamic grip on July 3, to run for President or to accept the premiership under an elected President.  That potential president might be the same person who is now an interim President, Counsellor Adly Mansour.  Those who can read English laugh at the reporting in the New York Times by its current correspondent, David Kirkpatrick as "biased," and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. 

Everyone I met, and I had no pre-arranged selected audiences, kept on asking me: "Why does the USA support the Brotherhood?"  When I try a professorial response regarding the lop-sided interpretation in the U.S. of "democracy in Egypt," my audience, while respectful, look baffled.  Hearing of U.S. Congressional hearings held recently on "human rights in Egypt," the average Egyptian sneers, saying:

"The U.S. has Guantanamo; a President who is daily hounded for being black; a public lurching to the right and equating between Islam and terror; and a Congressional gridlock which shut down the federal government for 16 days."

They do not hate Americans; they hate what they perceive as anti-Muslim bias and abuse of the Rule of Law in the pursuit of torture.  This outlook causes them to be uncomprehending of the U.S. elevation of the Brotherhood to the level of a legitimate opposition.

The general scene in the Egyptian street which I carefully studied is one of support for the newly-amended constitution which shall be voted upon this January.  The expected boycott by the Brotherhood of that plebiscite is a cause for public scorn.  To the ouster of Morsi, their response is "Maal Salamah," said by a hand wave of "good riddance."  In spite of the Brotherhood's threats of disruptive violence, that constitution is expected to pass.  On lamp-posts all over Egypt, the signs are hung declaring, "Participate in constitutional-making by voting Yes," and "A Yes for the constitution is a vote for the Revolutions of January 25 and June 30."  (There was a grammatical error.  But so what?  I was born to an Azhari father, thus a stickler for classic Arabic.)

Though trains are not running except for a few lines (the Central Station Square has the Statue of Ramses II gazing down on an empty square), all means of transport are in full swing.

Vegetables from lettuce to tomatoes, from onions to carrots, from squash to cabbage and a variety of fresh fruits, are on sale everywhere.  A pound of deliciously-ripe tomatoes sell for the equivalent of ten U.S. cents.  In New York City, it cost me $1.25 (125 cents). 

In December 2012, my hotel in Cairo had only 20% occupancy; now it has 60% occupancy.  U.S. tourists flew to Egypt by Egypt Air which I took in a direct flight from JFK to Cairo International Airport.  At the Cairo International Airport, I experienced upon arrival and departure the swiftest clearance at both passport control and Customs.  The country is hungry for tourism, and the Egyptian authorities are responding with alacrity.

Though university students, especially in Cairo, are still demonstrating for what they call "The Return to legitimacy," I saw on two occasions near Cairo University that the numbers were few, and the spirit was less than enthusiastic.  I was able to deliver my lecture on "Egypt in Search of Allies," on December 9 at the University on time.  Students of both genders, deans and other faculty participated enthusiastically and gave me the Faculty's shield, as a gift.

In total, I made four presentations.  On December 4, at the Diplomatic Institute of the Foreign Ministry on the subject of "politicization of the UN Security Council." A day later, on December 5, I lectured at the magnificent British University in Egypt (BUE) on "Behind Saudi Arabia's Refusal of UN Security Council Seat."  On December 9, my lecture on "Egypt in Search of Allies" was held on time and to a proactive audience at Cairo University's Faculty of Economics and Political Sciences.  The students, both male and female, raised provocative questions about the need for Egypt to nation-build in Egypt as a priority.  Finally, at the beautiful Province of El-Minya, which is nearly 250 miles south of Cairo, the focus was on "The Rights of the Child."  Several senior Coptic priests were in attendance.  The roads from Cairo to Aswan, both east and west of the Nile were built by the Egyptian army.  The eastern branch resembles the autobahn in Germany.  A clear demonstration of Cairo's attention to the development of southern Egypt. 

Throughout these encounters, I witnessed the dedication of the young diplomatic attaches at the Diplomatic Institute; the spirit of public giving by Mohamed Farid Khamis, a philanthropist, in the mold of Warren Buffet and Bill and Melinda Gates.  Mr. Khamis funded the establishment of the British University in Egypt (BUE) in the eastern desert as a not-for-profit institution of quality higher education.  Later at Cairo University, where I continue to be adjunct professor of law, I witnessed the collaboration of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs (ECFA -an NGO) with the Faculty of Economics and Political Sciences in the co-sponsorship of my lecture on Egypt in Search of Allies.  The lady dean, Dr. Hala El-Said was the moderator, and the best questions came from a student who was focused on the use by Egypt of "soft power," and from Ambassadors Mohamed Shaker, and El-Said Shalaby, respectively ECFA's Chairman and Executive Director.

The finale of my stay in the land of the Nile was at the Province of El-Minya where several factors came together to make my visit memorable.  These were: Alaa Makady, the dean of the Makady Clan; the well-established National Association for Human Rights (NAHR) of El-Minya; the pro-active provincial Governor General Salah Ziadeh, who regaled me with details of his visit to a girls high school in the town of Abu-Qirqass; Coptic priests who were eager to know more about the status of children under international law; and the faculty of El-Minya University.

As I was leaving the land of the Nile, I was introduced to the new operetta entitled: "Blessed Be the Hands of the Army of Egypt" (in Arabic: "Teslam El-Ayadi")  It is a salute to the armed forces for their support of the 35 million Egyptians who on June 30 rebelled against the Morsi Islamist one-year coup.  When I asked for the words of "Teslam El-Ayadi"  a 15 year old boy poured over my request and handed me his 9-page transcript.  It was Faisal Makady, Alaa Makady's oldest of 3 boys.  He gave enthusiastic priority to my request.  It was his contribution to the rise of his secularist country.  The Islamists have offensively countered by "Cursed Be the Hands of the Army of Egypt."  Hating the armed forces is a cause of deep alienation of the Brotherhood from the majority of the populace.

How can the Brotherhood aspire to a return to power in Egypt given all the enmities they have engendered?  Now I know from the Egyptian street that the Brotherhood has no future.  The veneration of country, the army, Egypt and the Islam of diversity (the Islam of Al-Azhar) are deep seated.  Just ask young kids like Faisal Makady, and you will get their non-varnished response of total distancing from the bearded hoards.

In this broad field investigation of the status of the Egyptian Sector of the Arab Spring, there is a lesson which I would like to share with my readers.  The Muslim Brotherhood, having burned its bridges with the new Egypt, has the chance of a snow ball in hell to come back to power.  Nor can they go forward politically as a partner in Egypt's transition to democracy.  The American romantic idea of the Brotherhood's suffering a coup at the hands of Egypt's military is seen by the Egyptian street as both myopic and anti-Egyptian.

It is quite possible that secular Egypt might one day resort to the anti-terrorism convention of the League of Arab States (1998) to declare the banned Brotherhood as "a terrorist organization."  In this, Cairo has the blood of its army and security personnel to prove it.  The blood shed by the Brotherhood in mid-August, though very regrettable, was for all intents and purposes, a self-inflicted wound.  For 6 weeks, the destructive sit-ins defied the pleas by the government to end peacefully that illegal occupation of public squares, weapons hoarding, and abuse of the freedom of expression.

Today at several Egyptian universities we witness the ineffectual noisy student demonstrations, in abject deviance of the newly - promulgated Egyptian law on public demonstrations.  These exercises in futility shall not bring the Islamists back to power.  The Brotherhood's game of victimization at the hands of both the State and the public at large, has been exposed as a ploy intended to draw in outside intervention.   

That intervention shall not happen.  This game is now over.  The new Egypt has declared its independence from outside powers whether Arab or non-Arab.  It has also cured Egypt from the myth of the Brotherhood as a democratizing vehicle.  At this pivotal moment in the history and destiny of the Egyptian revolution, America should cease what is perceived as intervention in Egyptian internal affairs. Taunting Cairo by characterizing the June 30 Revolution as a coup shall only add to Cairo drifting further away from Washington.  Russia is extending welcoming hands to Egypt, which is the engine that pulls behind it the entire Arab train.  I visited Rebaa Square, which was the scene of the Brotherhood's armed uprising against secular Egypt.  There I found it beautifully restored to its beauty through government rehabilitation.

For the new Egypt, through gradual reform policies, is rising again.  The telling proof: Both the eastern and western deserts (nearly a million square kilometers) are being reclaimed for the young and restless.  This is a massive renaissance which the U.S. and the rest of the world should welcome and support.

Once again, and in spite of the Islamists' disdain, the Crescent is embracing the Cross in the new Egypt.  The national anthem ("Biladi, Biladi": My Country, My Country) was played when the Constituent Committee of Fifty completed drafting the 247 Articles of the newly modified Constitution of 2013-2014.

Led by its chairman, the veteran diplomat turned politician, Amr Musa, they stood at attention, including a physically-handicapped member, repeating in unison "Long Live Egypt" (Tahya Misr). 

By the way, that national anthem is disdained by the Muslim Brotherhood.  When it is played, they remain seated gazing in the distance at a non-nationalist horizon of Pan-Islamism which is nothing more than a mirage.

When I was searching for the words of that anthem, another 15-year old Egyptian lad came to my rescue.  Aly the son of one of my two nieces, quickly wrote the words down.  As he gave me the text smilingly, he said derisively of the Brotherhood: "They do not even salute our national anthem." 

No wonder that the new Egypt looks upon the Muslim Brotherhood as an alien group which, behind the cloak of Islam, is holding a dagger.

The Most Important Priority for the New Egypt Is: "Building Egypt"

A great Egyptian educator, Lotfi El-Sayed Pasha, gave Egypt in the early 20th century a historic advice.  He said: "Raise Fences Around Egypt!!"  Because he was ahead of his time, that advice was discarded, especially by the military dictatorships from 1952 to 2011.

As if sleep-walking, Egypt plunged, at King Farouk's insistence in 1948, in a war for Palestine; lost the Sudan because of marginalization of the plebiscite of 1955 which united both countries; walked into the trap of union with chaotic Syria in 1958; and when the Baathists in Syria (the party of the Asad dynasty) destroyed that union, Nasser turned Egypt into a military ally of the Yemen republican revolution of 1962, thus alienating Saudi Arabia, and draining Egyptian resources.  This charade, no parade, of events was capped by Nasser's support of Qaddafi of Libya in 1969.

From one interventionary debacle, to another interventionary debacle without heeding the great advice of "Raise Fences Around Egypt!!"  That wisdom became concretized when smart Sadat sued for peace with Israel, signed a peace treaty with it in 1979 with US help.  Of equal importance, Sadat began to dismantle the grandiose ideological and vain edifice of "Egypt is the great sister of all Arab States."  Sadat was martyred basically for the principle of "Egypt First."  His assassination at the hands of the so-called Islamists was due to the collision between the reality of Egypt's need for internal nation-building, and the fanciful need of the Islamists (the Muslim Brotherhood) for pan-Islamism.

Relegating the development needs of Egypt to a secondary place in terms of food production, industrialization, infra-structure advancement especially in regard to transportation and communication, descent reclamation, nuclear and solar energy, retraining of the huge workforce, reinventing the excellence of the educational system, advertising Egyptian tourism, luring back Egyptian and foreign experts to plan for Egypt of 2050, and women training -not doing much of that and more has put Egypt into a deep hole.

Egypt of today has lagged even behind the advances in Africa south of the Sahara.  This most populous Arab country is today consumed by two retardant factors: (a) preoccupation with past glories; and (b) trying to solve today's problems with yesterday tools, especially in the challenging enterprise of reclamation of the Sahara, both the eastern and the western.

Decentralization has been a failure, because it does not effect devolution of decision-making from Cairo to the 27 provinces.  There is a commitment to teach through lectures at the university level, instead of turning the colleges into training grounds in how to think.  There is a predilection for pursuing Master's and doctoral degrees programs instead of deferring such lofty pursuits after investing into drafting graduates into public service at the village level.

Egypt's over preoccupation with the myriad of Arab problems is a poor investment into the future of Egypt.  There is "no place like home" to begin the rejuvenation of Egypt.  "Charity starts at home," and planning for Egypt of 2050 is basically planning for Egypt to be the South Korea of 2013.

Today's Egypt is incapable of running safe railways; today's South Korea is ready for outer space technology.  The train-buses collision in Dahshour, south of Cairo on November 18, killing 27, and injuring 34, is the latest tragic chapter in the history of a railroad system of 5000 kilometers and 150 years of age.  No upgrading, no proper maintenance.  Only the cosmetics of firing transportation ministers and other personnel.  But after the firings, the trains keep on running and colliding.

Here is but one example of the western culture of futuristic planning.  In a mass circulation advertisement, Bloomberg Businesss placed a placard in all trains of the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) whose record of being on time in eleven branches is 99.2%.  The ad correctly predicts the end in a few years of the US dependency on foreign oil.  It reads as follows:

"Oil fields of the future may be anchored directly to the sea floor, rather than drilling and exploring from venture floating platforms.  Are you exploring new frontiers for your next future venture?"

There is also another facet of primordial importance for what I may call "the reinvention of Egypt."  That is civic-mindedness.  In essence, love of country should be manifested not merely in songs of "I love Egypt," but also in serving the public beyond the call of duty.

In 1938, I sat to a written exam in Arabic composition at the end of my second year of primary education at a private school in Zagazig, Sharkia, Egypt.  The question read as follows: "What would you do for your country if you become a successful merchant?"  I wrote lots of stuff which I have learnt from highly-educated teachers at the tender age of being 10 years old.

Now in America as a teacher who keeps on learning, I learnt last week that 27 super-rich Americans, including Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet are donating half a trillion US dollars for investing in education, health and innovation.  That is 500 Billion U.S. dollars including 99% of the total worth of Buffet, and 95% of the total worth of Gates.  What an example in serving the public at large through private individuals!!

In the New York Times of November 14, 2013, Kareem Fahim and Mayy El-Sheikh, reported from Cairo that "the public which harbors deep antipathy toward the Brotherhood...seems desperate to move on from the era of protest."  Without moving on beyond the achievement of Egypt's Second Revolution of June 30, Egypt shall be doomed to be frozen in the present victory of the secularists over the Islamists.  By itself, that is not enough!!

The Brotherhood lost because of many factors, the most important of which is espousal of pan-Islamism and little or no commitment to Egyptian nationalism.  They even burnt the Egyptian flag.  Next in importance in the list of factors is the Brotherhood's lack of realization that Islam is not only a faith.  It is also a civilization.  Thirdly: the gossipy Egyptian media which live on entertaining anecdotes, non-substantiated assumptions, unrealistic conjectures, and name-calling.  Journalism, which is popularly called everywhere "the Fourth Authority" (after the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary authorities), today wields neither authority nor credibility.  It hardly plays any role in public education and civic awareness.

In fairness to the slow march of history in revolutionary Egypt, there are glimmers of hope enticing foreign investment to return to Egypt.  The Ministry of Electricity and Energy has recently announced that the Russian energy company, Russatom, has offered Egypt the construction of the first nuclear energy station for the production of electricity.  The Russian contractor would pay 85% of the cost, production would begin in 2020, Egypt would repay its debt 5 years beginning in 2025, and Russatom would involve other non-Russian companies in the project.

And from the west, General Electric of the US signed on November 18 a contract with Carbon, an Egyptian holding company in the amount of $500 million.  The contract calls for the construction in Ain Al-Sukhnah (Red Sea area) of a petro-chemical consortium.  Signed in Cairo, in the presence of Mounir Fakhry Abdel-Noor, Egypt's Minister for Trade and Industry, the petro-chemical complex, once in production, is expected to provide 3000 jobs and an annual return of $6 Billion.  Funding will come from the Korean Import-Export Bank.

In addition, the tax system is being reformed in various ways including the imposition of a Value Added Tax (VAT).  This is the difference between production cost and the sale price, and it replaces the sales tax which is difficult to account and collect.

Above all, a new Constitution is being readied for a plebiscite later this year, with parliamentary elections followed by presidential elections slated for 2014.  And from various indicators, the Egyptian military does not evince an appetite for returning Egypt to military rule.  Sixty years of that rule which occasioned the rise of the masses in Tahrir were enough.

What about the Nile water?  It never ceases to surprise me that we seem to forget that there are two niles feeding the main Nile: The Blue Nile from Ethiopia, with which Egypt and the Sudan are trying to negotiate an amicable division of water intake, and the White Nile from the Great Lakes in Uganda which feeds the main Nile from August to March, but at a lower quantity and slower water flow.

Prior to the Sudan civil war between North and South, the Sudan (my first appointment in 1948 as a teacher was in Jabal Awliya, south of Khartoum), Egypt and France were actively removing the obstructions (the Sudd) from the White Nile in what is now South Sudan.  The goal was to dramatically increase the water flow for the riparian States and even feed Saudi Arabia with fresh water pumped through a pipeline under the Red Sea.  That great project called "the Jonglei Canal" has been halted by that tragic Sudanese civil war.

The three countries, South Sudan, Sudan and Egypt should go back to it.  Like the ad in the LIRR says: "Are you exploring new frontiers for your next future venture?"  If so, just look at your feet.  Water wealth lies under them.  Its longevity is greater and more durable and more environmental friendly than fossil wealth.  The great deserts are cultivable, the human resources are plentiful, and Nile irrigation has been perfected for thousands of years.

So, Egypt, look to the future.  The fences advocated by Lolfi El-Sayed Pasha did not mean isolation.  He, in his wisdom as an educator, meant prioritization and well-targeted interaction with Egypt's neighbors.  Mere ideology and sloganeering have never built bridges, schools, bakeries or hospitals.  They built fantasies and acrimony.  Egypt's next venture should have a workable motto: "Building Egypt!!"  It is the most important priority for the New Egypt.  It is the authentic jihad!!

Have I just mentioned Jihad?  Yes!!  Having done that, let me in conclusion turn to the question of Islamic jurisprudence in the context of "Building Egypt."  Dealing with those two intertwined matters, Islamic Law and rebuilding the new Egypt, we need to revise certain terms in our dictionary.  Using the question and answer method, I put the following terms under the microscope of realities.

• Is it an act of jihad to assassinate 12 Egyptian soldiers in Sinai on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 by suicidal attackers as the victims were on their way to rest and recreation?  No!! Jihad is self-internalization for the purpose of purification.  Only in cases of external aggression against national territory does jihad turn to self-defense.
• Can the perpetrators and their co-conspirators be called Muslims?  No!!  Islam is a faith which recognizes every kind of belief, especially Judaism and Christianity.  The term means the submission by the individual to the will of the Creator.
• If that is the case, then why, with the Muslim Brotherhood being implicated in acts of terror, is it entitled to be called "Muslim"?  The Brotherhood has used the term "Muslim" as a "burka" (a veil) to legitimate its anti-Islamic acts.  A real term for them is "The Anti-Muslim Brotherhood."
• Isn't depicting them as Anti-Muslim an extreme measure?  No.  Their actions leave us no option but to call a spade a spade.  They have made of Islam a State.  Islam is a community, not a State.  They have resorted to TAKFIRISM whereby they deny the faith and the existence of their opponents of all stripes whether, Muslims, Copts, Shiis, Hindus, Jews and many others.  They don't believe in the nation-State.  They believe in pan-Islamism, which limits its protective shield to Sunnis who espouse the crazy notion of paradise as the reward for killing the innocent as happened in 9/11.
• Is Hamas in Gaza implicated in TAKFIRISM as an ideology which justifies terrorism?  Absolutely.  The Anti-Muslim Brotherhood is the womb from which Hamas was born.  The proof of Hamas' idiocy is their denial that the Jews have any right over even one inch of Palestinian territory.
• In view of these perceptions, ideologies and actions is Egypt's engagement in the destruction of the tunnels linking Gaza to Sinai justifiable?  Of course.  The Hamas Gaza tunnels represent an underground invasion of Egypt which grossly infringe upon Egyptian sovereignty in Sinai through smuggling terrorists, goods including fuel, drugs, and even items of luxury.
• But what can the Gazans do when they are at present besieged by Israel from all sides?  This is not Egypt's problem.  It is a Palestinian problem which can be mitigated, if not resolved, by the following measures:

• Hamas renunciation of terror; acceptance of the Palestinian National Authority in Ramallah as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; recognition of Israel's right to peaceful existence with a future sovereign State of Palestine; and ceasing to interfere in Egyptian internal affairs.  Hamas has the key to liberate Gaza from its present misery.  But Hamas does not believe in reason.  As an organization, it believes in the non-Islamic concept of endless conflict.

Due to my travels in Egypt, please expect the next blog at the 2nd half of December.

The Idea of an US-Muslim Brotherhood Connection Has Multiple Roots -Some True, Some False

"The Americans have sold out on the Brotherhood," proclaims an Egyptian pundit, Osama Al-Ghozali Harb in the daily Al-Ahram, Egypt's official newspaper.  On a different page of the same newspaper, another opinion-maker, Farouk Goweda states: "Washington has no right to weep in distress for the return of Russia to Egypt."  As to the head of the Cairo Center for Human Rights, Bahi Eldin Hassan, he, in the Egyptian daily Al-Shorook, posits a final conclusion: "The U.S. will ally itself with whoever is the ruler in Egypt."

What is this all about?  It is about the controversy raging in Egypt for sometime between two ideological factions.  On the one hand, there are the secularists whose thesis is that that U.S. favors the Muslim Brotherhood.  On the other hand, there are the Islamists whose political doctrine is that the US favors whoever rules in Egypt.  Both theses have multiple roots, some of which are true, and some are false.

The basic fact is that neither the secularists nor the Islamists fully understand the making of US foreign policy.  The U.S. has been overwhelmed by the sudden arrival of the Arab Spring in late 2010 and early 2011.  Its anchors in Tunisia and in Egypt, President Ben Aly and Mubarak were ousted by the Arab square, and not by army coups.  The sudden change of fortunes in both Tunis and Cairo, and later in Sana (Yemen), and in Tripoli (Libya) stunned the hierarchy of US decision-making.  What made those changes more problematic for Washington, D.C. is that they are largely leaderless and fluid.

Those troubling characteristics were well expressed by one of the moguls of U.S. foreign policy.  Richard Haass, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations stated in his recently published book, Foreign Policy Begins At Home, the following: "Ousting authoritarian regimes was one thing; replacing them with something demonstratebly and enduringly better, quite another.  Talk of an Arab Spring came to be replaced with the more neutral phrase 'Arab upheavals." (p.13) Haass, who, among other important US policy posts, was Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. Department of State, knows his stuff.

The fog surrounding the present direction of U.S. foreign policy, including hugging in Egypt either the Brotherhood or the Secularists is expected to last until 2016.  By that time, the Obama tenure at the White House shall be over.  His presidency in general, has "pivoted" the U.S. foreign policy focus away from the Middle East in favor of East Asia.  American democracy has been hobbled by the gridlock between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.  The Republicans were able to shut down the federal government in Washington, D.C. for 16 days earlier this Fall.  The civil war in Syria is expected to morph into a Sunni-Shii war over whose future America will have no role; and Afghanistan is expected to slip back into Taliban's chaos.

In the midst of all these expectations, the U.S. national interest dictates a largely hands-off policy towards the secularist-Islamist split in Egypt.  America is largely becoming guarded by a U.S.-centric foreign policy.  Obama has repeatedly declared, with the present sluggish economic recovery in mind, that nation-building should be nation-building in the U.S.  Richard Haass sums up Obama's case on the cover of his book above-cited.  His words resonate with the majority of the U.S. public: "The Case for Putting America's House in Order."

Noting the shallow analysis in the Egyptian press, especially with regard to an US-Muslim Brotherhood connection, one finds the two Egyptian adversarial camps resorting either to imagery or imagination.  Al-Ahram cites what Mr. Harb calls "the perfect US synchronization of its policies with the Brotherhood's Islamist rule under Morsi."  Here he cites Secretary Kerry's visit to Cairo on February 28 of this year during which he asserts that Kerry tried to convince the secularists not to boycott the elections.  From that alleged episode, the writer claims that ousting Morsi has angered the U.S.

It is true that Washington, D.C. bared its teeth at the ouster of Morsi.  And it is true that Ambassador Patterson, formerly based in Cairo, had contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood both before and during the Morsi regime.  And it is well-known that the US, in response to the Morsi ouster, imposed limited and largely symbolic sanctions against Egypt's military.  A quarter of a billion dollars of military aid were withheld; advanced military equipment was denied; joint military exercises were suspended.

But to read in the these measures grimaces of affection from the U.S. to the Brotherhood is to misread the U.S. political mind.  It also obscures the changing nature of US foreign policy toward Egypt which had been given by Obama a vague category.  He called Egypt a "non-ally," whatever this means.

There are essential facts which frame U.S. foreign policy-making.  Primary among these is that Congress is a co-maker of that foreign policy.  The senate votes on funding and treaty-making.  Its "advice and consent" is required with regard to Presidential recommendations of U.S. officials appointments described by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution as "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls."  The Senate, when opposed to any Presidential nomination by the Executive branch, has put "consent" above "advice."  Right now, Lindsey Graham, a southern senator, is blocking two important Obama nominees.  There is also the power of impeachment of the President which is shared by both houses of Congress.  

At present, the Democrats are ascendant in the Senate; the Republicans in the House -a perfect recipe for frequent gridlocks.  It has never been a secret that most Republicans in Congress still regard Obama an anomaly.  As a black man, Obama has become a target for frequent challenges including "was he born in the US?"; "Is he a closet Muslim?" -a reflection of islamaphobia.

We have also seen how brutalizing Congressional hearings of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was.  The Benghazi attack on the U.S. Consulate in 2012, which resulted in the death of the American Ambassador together with other American personnel, was used by Obama haters as an occasion for humiliating the woman who might run for President in 2016.

From the above, which is a cursory presentation of the complexity of U.S. foreign policy-making, one can discern the superficiality of defining the U.S. outlook on the Muslim Brotherhood as either amorous or hostile.  National U.S. interest is the ultimate defining factor, if at times confused, in the relationship between Washington, D.C. and Cairo.

Of course there is in the U.S., in regard to any national issue including international relations, a cacophony of voices.  This feature alone can account for at least some measure of confusion in Cairo as regards where the U.S. stands from various Egyptian actors including the Brotherhood.

After everything is said and done, Washington did not characterize the ouster of Morsi as "a coup."  That would have been a true indication of "America loves the Brotherhood."  And Secretary Kerry's brief visit to Cairo earlier this month, including calling on Field Marshal El-Sisi on the very day of opening the Morsi trial on November 4, generated a remark by Kerry that Egypt was marching toward democracy.  An indicator which caused the shrill voices of the Brotherhood to be raised invoking God's wrath on America.

This was a strategic remark by the Secretary of State whose country is still grappling with a clearer differentiation between "a revolution," and "a coup."  That is not surprising.  Each term has lots of consequences, but vague definitions.  A Professor at New York University Law School, Burt Neuborne, who specializes in civil liberties, called democracy in the U.S. "so dysfunctional that no rational person would choose it." (The New York Times, Sunday Review, November 10, 2013, page 2).

Hopefully the remarks by Professor Neuborne in The New York Times may slow down the barrage of attacks on the status of the post-Morsi transitional government by Mr. David Kirkpatrick, correspondent of the same newspaper in Cairo.  Kirkpatrick invariably puts his opinions ahead of his reports.

Egypt's opinion-makers are also divided on the interpretation of the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood connection.  Those who see that connection as a permanent tilt in favor of the Brotherhood have also their detractors.  In Al-Ahram, Farouk Gowedah claims that the U.S. has manifested animus toward Egypt as a result of the June 30 Revolution which ousted Morsi.  Another opinion-maker cited-above, Osama Ghazali Harb, rebuts, also in Al-Ahram, the theory of enmity, though he describes the Muslim Brotherhood as "America's historical friends."  This is while Fahmi Howedi of Al-Shorooq, rejects such claims by saying: "U.S. support of the Brotherhood is a lie propagated by the enemies (secularists) of the Brotherhood."

The cacophony of voices emanating from Washington has at least a degree of objective analysis of U.S. national interest.  Unfortunately the Cairo cacophony of voices, with claims of U.S. love or U.S. hate for the Brotherhood, does not take objectivity into account.  In international relations, there is neither love nor hate.  There is only national interest.  It is the heart of the spirit of all times, known by the Germans in one word: "ZEITGEIST."

One of my specialties is interpretation.  It is my primary tool whereby intangible concepts are given tangible expression.  Thus it is incumbent upon me to add another complicating factor in the controversy surrounding the U.S.-Brotherhood connection.  There exists a gulf of a conceptual nature between the U.S. outlook on democracy and what that outlook signals to both the Brotherhood and its opponents.

The term "democracy" has never received a consensual definition across the globe.  America looks upon the ballot box as a legitimator.  But all Arab Spring uprisings regard the same box as a possible manipulator.  To Arab Spring countries, balloting is the beginning of the process; to the U.S. political mind, it is the definitive end of the process of democratization.  America looks upon opposition in a given country as a pre-ordained feature of free expression; the Arab uprisings look upon opposition largely as counter-revolutionary.

America has not broadly experienced internal opposition with a gun, except in limited cases like that of the Black Panthers; anarchists such as Timothy McVey of Colorado; and the Neo-Nazi gun-toting desperadoes.  But the bulk of Egyptians see in the Brotherhood, a propagator of pan-Islamism, not and advocate of Egyptian nationalism. 

The gulf between America and Egypt in regard to dealing with the Brotherhood is made more enduring because of the dearth of effective interpretation of Arabic into comprehensible American/English terms.

Under no circumstances should ideology be permitted to pose for analysis.  There has never been, nor shall ever be, love between America and the Muslim Brotherhood.  America is constitutionally wedded to separation between church and State.  The Brotherhood sees the mosque and the Presidential Palace as interchangeable.  Their motto includes the phrase: "The Quran is our Constitution" -a permanent denial of man-made legislation, which is counter to the essence of islamic jurisprudence.  For one long dreary year, the Brotherhood, through Morsi, tried to put that deadender ideology into effect.  But by July 3, the public in Egypt put an end to that strange Brotherhood venture.

The Muslim Brotherhood Shifts the Blame for Their Predicament of Exclusion to Higher Authority

In psychology there is a principle called "sublimation."  It is the human capacity, positively oriented, to turn a negative into a positive.  An example of sublimation is to draw a lesson for the future from a bad occurrence.

However this simple attitude of going forward after a bad fall seems to be beyond the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  The Second Egyptian Revolution of June 30, 2013 which put an end to their Islamist regime of Morsi as of July 3, should have been an objective lesson to the Brotherhood in how to behave in the future.  This would have been both sublime and sublimation.  But the Brotherhood has, since those historic reversals which chased them out of both governing and of the affection of the majority of public opinion in Egypt, shifted the blame to a higher authority.

They, through their writings, though remorseful, are not blaming themselves for those happenings.  They are saying that it was "God's will," meaning that their crisis has been pre-destined, that it was not their doing, but God's inflicted wounds.  Why?  The spokesman of the Brotherhood argue in their mouth piece, their daily newspaper "Al-Hurriah Wa Al-Adalah" (Freedom  and Justice) that God Almighty is testing them for purposes of purification.

If this is the essential lesson which they learnt from a populist revolution staged by secular Egypt against turning the country into an Islamic Emirates, then their ability to reform themselves is severely limited.  Their journey in the wilderness of being banned promises to be prolonged.

In the view of their publicists, the tragedy of the Brotherhood in Egypt resulted from "the force of destiny."  Their educational oracle, Dr. Muhammad Wahdan, suggests that "There is no need for either worry or anxiety.  For everything is in God's hands."  This blatant shift of responsibility of the Brotherhood's downfall to the heavens above is bolstered by several of their vocal leaders and supporters.

Among those is Ahmed Al-Muhammady.  He forcefully places certain verses from the Quran in the present mold of distancing the Brotherhood from the factors for their downfall.  Truly amazing!! So from the Quran Chapter XI, he quotes verses 9 and 10 as follows: (Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

"If we give man a taste of mercy from ourselves, and then withdraw it from him, behold!  He is in despair and (falls into) blasphemy.  But if we give him a taste of (Our) favours after adversity has touched him, he is sure to say: 'All evil has departed from me.  Behold! He falls into exultation and pride.'"

In a vain attempt to shore up the sagging morale of the Brotherhood the trial of several of its leadership including Morsi began on November 4, Mr. Muhammady urges patience.  He looks at his fragged-up crystal ball, then sees hope of a quick Brotherhood's return to power.  His words are: "Over centuries of human history, the period of crisis was always much shorter than the period of return to empowerment."

This mindset of defeat as a harbinger of ultimate victory is reflected in what a female supporter of the Brotherhood urges in the Brotherhood's daily.  Fatima Abdulla, assuming a role of a cheerleader, says: "Each Brotherhood member should implant in himself a feeling of dignity.  He should wage jihad for the victory of what is right and for the glory of God's word.  This is for God, not for the Egyptian public, the majority of whom evokes in us rage whenever we see them or hear them opposing us... The Brotherhood have opted for the path of jihad... The merciful God has chosen them to worship him and has empowered them to govern."

Well, Ms. Fatima Abdullah:  Your Islamist regime came to power through the ballot not through an act of God, and was forced out of power through streetocracy which the Morsi regime has alienated by its imposition of Islamization.

And by the way, it is one thing not to learn from one's mistakes, destructive as this could be.  It is another to say that "I do not have to learn anything because whatever mistakes were presumed to have been committed were not my doing but were ordained by God."  Unfortunately your resort to the Quran to justify your neutrality is not justifiable.

On this point, here, for the benefit of the Brotherhood, are two quotations from a total of eight verses which admonish owning up to one's mistakes:

"To them came their apostles with clear signs.  It is not God who wrongs them, but they wrong their own souls." (Chapter IX, Verse 70).  And we have provided for you. (But they rebelled).  To us they did no harm, but they harmed their own souls." (Chapter X, Verse 57).

From these verses (ayas), selected from eight verses located in several chapters (suras), emerges a sacred rebuttal to the Brotherhood's artful blame-shifting away from themselves.  The Quran assigns the blame for self-inflicted wounds to those who caused themselves that harm.

There is also Omar, the second Caliph after Muhammad who, in his appointment of a judge, issued in the appointment commission the following words which adorn most of the courtrooms in the Arab World:

"The return to the path of truth is better than going down the path of falsehood."

Teaching Islamic jurisprudence at Fordham University School of Law in New York City, I have found myself impressed by Islam's emphasis on the roles of intent and of free will in either damage avoidance or damage causation.  It was not Heaven, but a deliberate Islamist coup against the January 25 Revolution, which ignited the secularists to strike back on June 30, 2013.

How can the Egyptian public regain confidence in the Muslim Brotherhood as a trusted partner in the reconstruction of the new Egypt, if, after the Brotherhood's tragic failure in governance, the Brotherhood is also manifesting its failure in understanding what inclusive Islam stands for?

The Brotherhood's epic failure resulted from misinterpreting the role of the ballot box in the democratic process.  The ballot box is only a point of entry.  That electoral victory does not provide the victor with a license to subvert the national Egyptian program into an "Islamic program" whose contents, objectives, and ideology are all alien to secular Egypt.

By excluding others in the name of Heaven, the Brotherhood is offending both Heaven and Earth.

The So-Called "Friends of Jerusalem" Are Friends of Neither Egypt, Nor of Islam, Nor of International Law, Nor of Peace

Like the global outlaws, called Al-Qaeda, and their franchises using Islam as a cover for their crimes against humanity, the "Friends of Jerusalem" have unfurled in Egypt a black flag.  They call it the flag of "jihad" -a term in Islam which is globally misunderstood.  The "FOJ," to use initials in reference to that cabal, openly brag about committing numerous heinous crimes committed recently all over Egypt.  They are gleeful about the mayhem they are perpetrating in the name of God.

FOJ now admits to attempting to assassinate Egypt's Minister of Interior; killing army and police personnel in Sinai; burning down Coptic (Christian) churches and private businesses; paralyzing mass transit whether by rail to upper Egypt or by cars and buses in urban areas.  Further they promise more of the same, because they believe that this is their express way to paradise.  Only an Islamic regime, in their image, can be legitimate.  Thus, to them and to their allies in the Muslim Brotherhood, a country which is not ruled by their own fossilized interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence, is a country to be conquered, a body politic to be subdued, a rulership to be delegitimized.

Judging by an analysis of the connotations of that term, their ideological resort to jihad is totally idiotic.  The Friends of Jerusalem, acting out of total ignorance of what jihad means, do not comprehend that, legally, jihad is reserved for the defense of the homeland against foreign occupation and external aggression.

In that jurisprudential context, it is a duty.  But, guided by Al-Qaeda's principles, the FOJ extends the notion of jihad to activities categorically prohibited under Sharia.  Islamic Law prohibits the coerced propagation of any faith, including Islam; it disavows Al-Qaeda's presumptions about rescuing the West from its "ignorance" (jahiliah); it totally negates the terroristic attempts to call non-Muslims "infidels."

Islamic Law does not permit any human being to evaluate the faith of another human being.  Why? Because Islam insists on the privacy and directness of relationships between man/woman and their Creator.  In effect, Sharia tells any intermediary between the human being and the Creator "Butt Out!!"

We have seen the catastrophic consequences of 9/11.  How can the wilful and criminal attacks on 3000 civilians in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania be considered justifiable?  Those martyred victims did nothing offensive to merit that horrible fate.  They, including hundreds of Muslims, did nothing except go on that fateful morning to earn their livelihood.

The jihad of the Friends of Jerusalem and like criminally-minded organizations had the disastrous effect of instilling hostility between the States so affected and mainstream Islam.  The primary issue here is confusing the concept of jihad and the concept of combat (Qital).  Jihad is a non-changing legal concept of self-defense, guaranteed by natural law, customary law and conventional law.  By contrast, combat (Qital) is a transitory event which arises at times out of the exigencies of the necessities an organized State.  Only the State, not non-state actors such as FOJ, has the monopoly of resorting to arms.

Even the Prophet Muhammad, while in Mecca at the beginning of his mission, together with his companions, waged for 13 years "peaceful jihad" against his tormentors.  Their jihad consisted of patience, endurance, advice, and ultimately immigration (Hijrah) to Medina.  Even in Medina, which marked the beginning of the formation of the Islamic community (in Islam "community" and "State" are two different things),  Muhammad resorted to combat (Qital) but only in self-defense.

In Islam, there is no aggressive war, and war is both defensive and proportional.  Alas, these are values lost on the criminal gangs of Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghrab), the Nusra and the Friends of Jerusalem.  The long-term danger of such criminal gangs, which prey on the ignorance of the illiterate masses of what Islam stands for, is this: the adverse effects on the freedom of belief held by non-Muslims, and the propelling of Muslims into fanaticism, including suicide (the destruction of self -totally prohibited under Sharia).

The great Egyptian poet, Ahmed Shawki, nicknamed "The Prince of Poets" summed up the difference between jihad and Qital in one famous verse:

"War is not everday's vehicle,

and blood is not to be sanctified at every episode" (my translation from the classical Arabic).

That exquisite verse justifies in full measure the anti-colonial struggle in Libya under the Sanusis against Italian occupation; in Algeria under Abdel-Qader against French colonialism; in Morocco under Abdel-Kareem Al-Khattabi also against French occupation; in the Sudan under the Mahdi against Anglo-Egyptian suppression of national and tribal aspirations; and in Egypt under the leadership of the Scholars of Al-Azhar against Napoleon.  This is a partial list of instances of where jihad is justifiable under Islamic Law which clearly militates against unjust authority whether external or internal.

The advocacy of the Friends of Jerusalem is fueled not only by common mass ignorance.  It is backed up by books like that by an Egyptian by the name of Magdy Ahmed Hassanain.  In historically cosmopolitan Egypt (nicknamed "The World's Mother"), religious fanaticism is heading toward one final destination called "Station Failure."

In his book, published in Arabic in Cairo in 2003, under the provocative title of "Jihad: The Nation's Vocation," Magdy Ahmed Hassanain, in 383 pages, totally upends the legal interpretation of jihad.  In its egregious assumptions and fanciful conclusions, Hassanain's writing evokes the spirit of "Mein Kampf" (in German: My Struggle), authored by Hitler in the 1930's, and read by me in Arabic in the 1940s.  I have little doubt that Hassanain's advocacy shall lead to the same cataclysmic failures produced by Naziism on the world stage.

As head of the "New Labor Party," Magdy Ahmed Hassanain advocates in his newspaper "Al-Shaab Al-Jadeed" (The New People), a unique compromise with the present secular transitional government of Egypt.  That is total surrender to the Islamists!!  Thus he calls for the immediate arrest and execution of Field Marshall El-Sisi, the Defense Minister and Deputy Prime Minister (who, at the urging of 35 million Egyptians led the unseating of the Islamist regime of Morsi.)

Calling El-Sisi "a pimp," he forthes at the mouth when he yells across the pages of his rag that "without El-Sisi's immediate arrest, summary trial and execution, Egyptian society shall see no peace."  Now Hassanain, this champion of false jihad and permanent war against all non-Muslims, is the subject of a subpoena issued against him by the General Prosecutor investigating Hassanain's out of sight accusations against Egypt's Military Intelligence.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel which secular Egypt is successfully traversing at present in spite of "The Friends of Jerusalem," Hassanain, and other advocates of endless conflict for no rational end.

A Novel Right To Myth-Information Carved Out By Many Egyptian Press "Opinion-Makers"

In Post-Mubarak Egypt, press freedom is translated by many Egyptian press "opinion-makers" as the right to propagate myth-information.  Not only is most of the material very thin on facts and devoid of analysis and logic.  It is a hodgepodge of fantasy, non-supported conclusions, name calling, and anecdotes of suspect origin.  One may call it press chaos instead of press freedom.

It is a tragic phenomenon exhibited by so-called "opinion-makers" within a broad spectrum of political and ideological affiliations.  It is a form of de-education through the Egyptian press.  Examples abound, and events vary, but "the bla bla bla bla" is its main feature.  Here follows are telling examples:

• On the issue of whether El-Sisi intends to become a presidential candidate

Al-Ahram, the government official newspaper, supports that possibility.  No problem.  But one of its editorialists, Hamdy Hassan Abul-Ainain addresses an open letter which warns one of El-Sisi's possible competitors, Field Marshal Ahmed Shafik, not to throw his hat in the ring.  Why?  Here is Abul-Ainain's non-content advice to Shafik, who had received 49.50% of the popular vote for president in 2012 against 50.50% for Morsi:

"You have known Field Marshal El-Sisi for a long time... have determined that he was the most capable to lead this nation... Everyone knows that your decision to compete in the last presidential elections led to Morsi becoming Egypt's President.  We need new faces and a new climate for a free and an enlightened choice."

Here the writer contradicts himself.  He calls for a free and an enlightened choice, yet discourages competition which the essence of free choice.  He reaches several faulty conclusions and makes unsupported assumptions.  How could Shafik's running for the presidential office in June 2012 have aided Morsi's ascendancy to the highest office in Egypt?

• On the issue of shutting down the Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of the Mubarak regime:

Muhammad Shuman, another in Al-Ahram calls for the inclusion in the now Egyptian constitution of a strange provision.  Here is his de-educational advocacy:

"That constitutional provision should ban those two groups (named above) from political work for 10 years.  The law should also correct the meaning of leadership in all these groups... It is my conviction that the leadership of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of the Mubarak regime are appendages of the Mubarak regime.  They both have contributed to the corruption of political action whereby elections became a trade in which votes are bought and sold... The main object is to attain social justice and to guarantee the process of transiting to democracy."

It is apparent that the writer ignores the historic fact that the Muslim Brotherhood was banned under the Mubarak regime.  It is startling that this "opinion-maker" confused between the role of a constitution and the role of a subservient law.  The present ban of the Brotherhood under the presidency of Justice Adly Mansour is by a mere law underpinned by political and security considerations.  It does not extend to other groups or parties, especially "the remnants of the Mubarak regime," which, under the lofty principle of transitional justice, are being integrated within the broad spectrum of political inclusiveness.

• On the issue of Saudi Arabia's position on the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda:

In the daily liberal Al-Massri Al-Yom, an editorialist by the name of Abr Nadeen Al-Budair, in her attacks against the Muslim Brotherhood, invents the following imaginary conclusions: (a) In search for a rebirth, the Brotherhood, once more, finds it in Saudi Arabia; (b) The Saudi regime is responsible for the creation of the military wing of the Brotherhood -Al Qaeda; and (c) the Brotherhood has sabotaged Saudi education and public information through making these institutions outlets for the Brotherhood.

The writer's ignorance is patently manifest.  In her hallucinatory efforts to get the Saudi government to combat the Brotherhood, she is ignorant of, or chooses to ignore, the following facts: (i) It was the Founder of Saudi Arabia, the late King Abdel-Aziz Al-Saud, who denied the Brotherhood an institutional base in his country; (ii) Saudi Arabia, during the reign of King Fahd, forced Bin Laden to flee the Kingdom; and (iii) Saudi Arabia is leading the Gulf's financial surge to help the post-Morsi government overcome Egypt's present economic distress.

• On the issue of the split in Egypt between the Islamists and the Secularists

Imad Gad asserts in the newspaper Al-Tahrir that the removal of Morsi from the Egyptian presidency has "contributed to the increased hate" between the two camps.  Fair enough.  But then he lurches away from that fact to the inventing of statistics, as he says: "Those who belong to the camp of political Islam do not exceed 15% to 20% of the total demographics of Egypt."  The editorialist prepares us for that discovery by saying: "The split within Egyptian society has reached a degree indicative of the existence of two peoples in Egypt whereby it is ascertainable that the split is sharp and divisive.  It has reached the point where it could be said that today there are two Egypts in one country."

The sad fact about Egypt and nearly all other Arab countries is that qualified social science research does not exist.  The great source on Arab statistics on Arab development, published by the UN Family of Organizations was based on representative samples.  I know of no census in Egypt which includes questions of party or religious affiliations.  In fact there is no official census regarding the percentage of the Coptic community as regards the total population of Egypt.  Mr. Imad Gad has clearly used his fertile imagination in two ways:

(i) the percentage of the membership of the Brotherhood within the total population of Egypt.  The Brotherhood does not provide figures on anything, especially on membership and budget; and (ii) the conflict within Egypt is one of identity (secular v. Islamic), not of two Egypts, inhabiting the same territory.  That opinion-maker should know that even in the case of a civil war, which is not the case of present-day Egypt, the warring factions cling tenaciously to the fact that they all belong to the same country.

• On the issue of calling Dr. El-Baradei, a traitor

Several commentators have been waging a savage campaign of name-calling against that Nobel Prize Laureate, who was Director-General of the UN-related International Atomic Energy Agency.  His attackers have called for his dismissal from the Egyptian Bar; one of those anti-El-Baradei campaigners, a law professor, even went to the ridiculous length of suing him.  For what?  For "injuring the national trust!!"

After the removal of Morsi from the presidency on July 3, 2013, Dr. El-Baradei assumed the post of Vice-President in charge of International Relations.  He was one of the pillars in Morsi's removal from power.  But he watched in horror, together with 35 million other Egyptians, the systemic brotherhoodization of Egypt.  Yet he felt compelled to resign his high office as he believed that the forceful removal of the Brotherhood's six-week sit-ins on August 14, resulting in a thousand or more fatalities, was a mistake.

But calling him a traitor by the present secularists commentators is just as bad as the name-calling by the Islamists of their secularist adversaries as "apostates," and "enemies of God."  Criminalizing "the other opinion" is a slippery slope toward fascism.

• On the issue of Nasser and starving scientists and maintaining illiteracy

Dr. Thabet Eid, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood affirms in one full page of the Brotherhood's daily "Freedom and Justice" that Nasser (Egypt's President from 1954 to 1970) committed the above-mentioned public sins.  That voice of the Muslim Brotherhood condemns the Nasser program of "free education for all" as a plot causing the decline of public education.  He accuses all those military presidents who ruled the most populous country in the Arab world of deliberately giving more importance to the number of students so educated than to the quality of their education.

That commentator ignores the historic fact that access to the freedom of education at no cost and at all levels was inaugurated by the great iconic philosopher and educator, Dr. Taha Hussein.  Though blind, that philosopher and reformer was invited by the popular Wafd government of Nahas Pasha in 1951 to be the Minister of Education.  His seminal book in Arabic, entitled "The Future of Education in Egypt" published in the late 1930s, which I have read twice, remains relevant to today's Egypt.

The military governments of Egypt, from 1953 (President Naguib) to 2011 (President Mubarak) maintained that system.  The system was not a casualty of its openness, but of inadequate resources, both financial and teachers training.  The Brotherhood editorialist directs his flashlight on the historic enmity between the Brotherhood and secular governments.  As he does that, he unwittingly also shines a light on how biased commentators deceive their public through the propagation of falsehoods.

Conclusion: The Egyptian press freedom of today is practised mostly as press chaos:

Myth-information by many Egyptian press commentators has become a daily fare in the new Egypt.  There exists a code of press ethics in Egypt, but it sadly lacks enforcement.  Invented statistics, false accusations, and mean name-calling, non-substantiated assumptions are real hurdles in the path of Egypt towards its present goal of democratization.

The Right to Information Day was celebrated last month (September 23-28) by no less than 40 countries.  That right is predicated upon several criteria.  These include the right to whistle-blowing, but not the assumed right of leaking of State secrets.  Nowhere in these criteria do I find the right to propagate invented facts.  This is a black art.  It belongs to the world of Halloween (to pretend to be what you really are not).  Its only casualty is truth in reporting.  Honesty in public information is the basis of an enlightened public opinion -one of the main pillars of democracy.

All freedoms are regulated in order to avoid abuse. It is a rare coin on one side of which is written "Freedom"; on the other "Responsibilities."

Raining on Egypt's Parade

It poured on Egypt's parade of October 6 from two cloud outbursts: One internal, that of the Muslim Brotherhood; the other external, the U.S. withholding "some" military aid to Egypt.  In the deepest psyche of Egypt, October 6, since 1973, is celebrated as "The Crossing Over Day."  Under President Sadat, the armed forces crossed the Suez Canal to liberate Sinai from Israeli occupation.  It was a 17-day war intended to undo the humiliation of the massive defeat of the 6-day war of June 1967.

A careful study of the October war (called also the Yom Kippur War by the Israelis, and the Ramadan War by most of the Arabs) reveals interesting insights into Egypt's mind.  These trends are non-changeable: the sanctity, to the average Egyptian, of Egyptian soil; the centrality of respect of the Egyptian armed forces; the ability of Egypt to disengage from regional attachment to the concept of "One Arab Nation" if the land of the Nile becomes its victim; and the role of transformative leadership in marshalling those trends.

The backdrop of October 6 is the failure of Arab Baathist ideology, espoused by the Nasser regime from 1952 to 1967.  That is the corrupt ideology of Egyptian intervention in the affairs of other Arab States.  Its primary purpose was elevating Nasserism to the level of Egyptian hegemony.  Cairo's interventionism proved too costly, caused Egyptian economic and social decline, and contributed to the suffocation of an earlier Egyptian democracy at the altar of what?  The altar of nothing.

The Sadat leadership, without disavowing Nasserism, undid that losing streak.  It used the limited war of October 6 to liberate Sinai; it reminded Egypt of its solid roots in cosmopolitan Egyptianism; it freed the economy from the shackles of the negativism of the Khartoum Summit of 1967 towards peace in the Middle East; it normalized relations with the great Arab East based on the Gulf States; and it signaled to the west that friendship with the US does not mean acceptance of a Washington dictat.

For all of these historic achievements, representing a historic bivoting from ideology to practicality, Sadat was assassinated on October 6, 1981 by the Islamists.  As he stood at the review stand on that fateful day to concretize the meaning of "The Crossing Over Day," he was gunned down as his terrorist assassins yelled at him "You are a dog."

There is an Arab proverb that says "Tonight Reminds of Last Night."  Its western equivalent is: "The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same."  

The similarity between October 6, 1981 and October 6, 2013, is unmistakable.  The Islamists of 2013, following the ouster of Morsi of the Brotherhood are on a rampage.  Their target is Egyptian secularism and inclusiveness.

On Egypt's parade, the Muslim Brotherhood rained RPGs, and other instruments of stealth killing.  From Sinai to Suez; from Cairo to Alexandria; from southern Egypt to the Delta.  They also exposed their adherents to assured destruction, called by them "martyrdom."  They used October 6 as a day of saluting, not Egypt's armed forces, but their incarcerated ousted President.  To them, Egypt's armed forces, under the flag of Egypt, have become a hated militia.

To where will that rebellion lead?  Not to the reinstatement of Morsi who shall be tried before the Egyptian judiciary next month.  Not to the harassment of all those who do not adhere to their pan-Islamist ideology.  Not to the maniacal restrictions imposed on foreign tourists, whether in dress or in food and drink.  Not to the concept of a society which looks upon non-Muslims as infidels.

On Egypt's parade, also rained the withholding by the US of certain sectors of the US aid to Egypt.  A puzzling interruption of observing the customary practices between allies.  That suspension does not constitute "a recalibration of Egyptian-US relationship."  Let us call acts such as these by their proper names.  This is a most unfortunate reversal.  This action promises to be neither "modest nor temporary."

It shall not lead to an enhancement of the democratization of the Egyptian system.  Democracy is not exportable, and sovereignty is not for sale.  I reckon that at no time would that act of intervention in Egypt's internal affairs will bear but a poisonous fruit for the Cairo-Washington amity.  Its thrust might be weakening of the structure of peace in the new Middle East.

Yet, after all it might accelerate the pace of Egyptian self-reliance.  In the early 1980's, I interviewed Frank Wisner, the then US Ambassador to Egypt.  I asked him "What does he think of the American aid to Egypt?"  His response was, "Egypt does not need aid.  It needs trade."  Well said, Mr. Ambassador.  The Egyptian masses are with you.  They are wary of a relationship which fluctuates between hot and cold.  Hot for Mubarak's dictatorship; cold for Egypt's parade moving, in spite of the Muslim Brotherhood toward a democracy born from its authentic streetocracy.

For the Muslim Brothers, No Profit From Equating Between Themselves and the Prophets

The Quran in Chapter 21, verses 68, 69 and 70 relates the suffering of Abraham until saved, by the grace of God, from burning by fire.  These verses depict the power of the Almighty over those of his creatures who have flung Abraham into a raging fire.  Their purpose was to get rid of his persistent calls for the worship of God as one, to replace idolatry.  The text reads as follows: "They said, 'Burn him and protect your gods, if ye do anything at all.  We said, "O Fire! Be thou cool and a means of safety for Abraham.  Then they sought a stratagem against him: but We made them the ones that lost the most."

How does this fit in with the campaign being waged today by Egypt's transitional government against the leadership of the now banned Muslim Brotherhood?  Plenty.  From behind its prison bars, the Brotherhood's leadership is still allowed to publish and vent its grievances against the Second Egyptian Revolution of July 3.  Calling that massive popular uprising against the Morsi Islamist regime "a coup," that leadership finds in the Quran what it fancies as parallels between the Prophets of old and themselves.

The lives of the Prophets are related throughout the Quran to prove God's power over those who wished in vain to defeat monotheism, for which Islam strongly stands.  In their collectivity, these verses provide a message of eternal hope to all those who suffer injustice.  It is the pre-destined victory of good over evil.

Now here is an irony: The Muslim Brotherhood, through its extensive reliance in its public campaign against the removal of Morsi as President, and the measures that followed in its wake against its leadership, is evoking the story of David and Goliath.  Its extensive use of the Quran does not stop there.  Through one of its imprisoned leaders, Dr. Silah El-Din Sultan, a professor of Sharia, the Muslim Brotherhood fancies its imprisoned leaders as the new Prophets.  That professor expounds on this theme in the Brotherhood's newspaper: "Freedom and Justice."

Ibrahim (or Abraham) in the Quran is one such Prophet.  Joseph (in the Quran: "Yusuf") is another, with the twist that Joseph, from a prisoner of Pharaoh, to Joseph becoming a Prime Minister of Egypt, ushering into it his entire family.  In this connection, the Brotherhood quotes heavily from Chapter 12 entitled "Yusuf" with emphasis on the verse describing the historic triumph of Joseph, especially as that Prophet welcomes his whole family into Egypt by the Quranic phrase: "Enter ye Egypt, all in safety, if it pleases God." (verse 99).

What follows that verse is on point as regards the Brotherhood's expectation of their release from prison and resumption of power once more.  Using Joseph as a parallel for their return to the governance of Egypt, their articles in "Freedom and Justice" quote the Quranic verse no. 100, as Joseph says: "God hath made it come true!  He was indeed good to me when he took me out of prison."

The sad part of that scenario is that the Brotherhood manifests a desperate attempt to use the Quran as an instrument of their aspirations for a political come back.  Ignoring the repeated injunctions in the Quran regarding the necessity, under Islamic jurisprudence, of the removal of injustice by all available means, as the Egyptian masses did to the Morsi's exclusivistic Islamist rule, the Brotherhood now appeals to the Quran as a predictor of their return to the halls of power.

Judging these utterances on their merit, how can an analyst escape the following conclusions: (a) the Brotherhood's conviction that they have a divine mission, not at all different from "the divine right of kings;" (b) their record of one year of Islamization under Morsi has nothing in it to justify their impossible quest; (c) they see their road to power, tortuous as it might be, can only be paved by Islamic holy texts; (d) their appeal to their supporters is so narrowly tailored to the ethos of an Islamic State, indeed a Caliphate, with Egypt as a mere launching pad; and (e) the severe lessons of their populist ouster from power, in spite of their limited self-blame, have not yet sunk in.

This is a hopeless quest, a quest which is solely focused on regaining power through the Brotherhood's own interpretation of Islam.  From their prison cells, the Brotherhood is, in effect, telling secular Egypt: "We shall be back to pursue our manifest destiny: An Islamic Emirate in Egypt."  

It is not going to happen.  Reasons: The Brotherhood is frozen in time.  To them, nothing has changed for the past 1434 years when Islam became a community, not a State, through the Hijrah (flight) of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca, to evade persecution, to Medina. 

So, Brothers, dream on!!  Islam has declared that Muhammad is the last Prophet.  Your mission is foreclosed.  No profit for you from equating between yourselves and the Prophets.  Sorry!  You are late by nearly 15 centuries.  GET REAL!!

By an Egyptian Court Order, the Muslim Brotherhood "BUND" is Disbanded: WHY?

In German, the Bund is a collective, a cabal that is secretive, exclusive and/or ideological.  Within the meaning of that term, the Muslim Brotherhood has been, since its creation in 1928, a veritable Bund.  After huffing and puffing, the Brotherhood has, for the third time blown its house down..  The Brotherhood's house, though based geographically in Egypt, has never been an Egyptian house.  It has been a seat for a complex mix of pan-islamism cum force.

Now disbanded by an Egyptian court order, issued on September 23, the Muslim Brotherhood had reached the summit of ensconcing its agent, now deposed President Morsi, at the Presidential palace for one very long and painful year.  Then came its downfall through a judicial ban, thus epitomizing the saying: "from riches to rags."  The reasons for that ban lie within their ideology, within their actions, and within their insistence on "my way or the highway."

The Brotherhood ideology can be seen in their symbol: Two raised swords held aloft criss-crossed, with the holy Quran on top, and the ominous belligerent and provocative term "Be Ready" (Aaeddou) between the handles of the two swords.  So what is wrong with that Brotherhood symbol?  Many things: (1) The Quran, the primary source of Islamic law and practice, advocates peace and tolerance, not combat, except to counter aggression; (2) The term "Muslim" means the submission by the individual to the will of God, not to the pronouncements of the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide; and (3) "Be Ready,"  in Islamic Law, and in the general context of the 6400 verses of the Quran, connotes readiness for coexistence, interaction, and acceptance of the other through Islam's universalistic concept of DIVERSITY.  In the Quran, diversity is asserted in many verses including: "If God has so willed, He would have made you a single people, but HIS plan is to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues."  (Chapter 5, verse 48).

The counter-thesis of diversity is exclusiveness.  The Brotherhood's exclusivity is a doomed ideology, especially in the 21st Century.  It collides head on with faith, logic and changing circumstances.

As to Brotherhood's actions which prove their rejection of diversity, the expose must perforce consist of a factual review of why those repetitive bans were imposed by the State over a period of 66 years within an 85 year period of Brotherhood existence.  That expose, based on facts, demonstrates the constant tension between pan-Islamism and Egyptian nationalism with the latter coming invariably and instinctively on top.

The Muslim Brotherhood had shown itself very capable of mass organization at the village level.  Their relentless process of Islamization is a cottage industry which took advantage of the natural tendency of the Egyptian people, regardless of faith, to be religious.  As a kingdom until 1953 and as an authoritarian dictatorship until the fall of Mubarak in 2011, the Egyptian masses have endured repression of their freedom of speech.  Politics which were expressed in opposition to the Ruler were to be avoided.  But religious freedom was largely immune from such restrictions.  Thus religious freedom became the only safe vehicle for freedom of speech.

The Brotherhood found in that open door its access to the organization of its adherents.  And because Islam is both a faith and a way of life, the Brotherhood's bus could accommodate a broad spectrum of Islamic religious views.  With demographic expansion came also a division of interpreting the Brotherhood mission: Is it Islamic advocacy combined with charity alone, or is it also advocacy combined with political action?  Their mission definition was never decided upon, giving rise to "the secret wing," and the diversion to the back alleys of enforcement.  The two swords became a symbol in action.  Advocacy combined with charity acted largely as a smoke screen for the objective of exclusive political power, with Egypt acting as a launching pad.

The ban of September 23, 2013 of the Brotherhood and all its formations and the seizure of all their assets was the direct result of a series of actions directed against a historically secular Egypt.  It was the third of a series of such bans.

The first ban came about in 1947.  It resulted form a confrontation between the monarchical system in Egypt and the Brotherhood under the leadership of its founder, Hassan Al-Banna.  At that time, the Brotherhood, insulted by a case against one of its members, was caught red-handed in the assassination of Judge Ahmed Pasha Al-Khazendar who was assigned that case.  This act of violence, especially against the judiciary, prompted Prime Minister Al-Naqrashi to declare the Brotherhood an illegal organization.

In a tit-for-tat reaction by the Brotherhood, which fancied itself as ruling the Egyptian street, the "Secret Wing" of the Brotherhood assassinated that Prime Minister in 1947.  Not since 1910 has Egypt lost a prime minister to political assassination.  That was when Prime Minister Boutros Ghali, a Copt, was fatally ambushed.

Reacting to Al-Naqrashi's assassination, and with the feud between the Brotherhood and the Royal Palace reaching its fiery zenith, government agents killed Al-Banna in 1949.  That took place even after Al-Banna had distanced himself from the murder of Al-Naqrashi by saying: "Those who killed the Prime Minister were neither Brothers nor Muslims."  By now, the battle for the soul of Egypt between the Islamists and the secularists was in full swing.

Yet secular Egypt was more forgiving than the Brotherhood.  That latter saw its face on the two sides of the Egyptian coin: on one side was Islam, and on the other was Islam as the ladder to power.  In the same year of 1949, the Brotherhood, under a new Guide, Mamoun Al-Hodheiby, using the Egyptian Constitution of 1923, applied to the Supreme Administration Court for lifting of the ban.  The Egyptian judiciary, being one of the main pillars of modern Egypt, decreed the lifting of that ban in accordance with the constitutional right to peaceful assembly.

Again the Brotherhood, eager to interject itself in to Egyptian politics, caused some of its members to penetrate the proud Officers Corp of the cohesive national army.  Its opening to that critical penetration was the abhorrence by the clandestinely-formed "Free Officers" of corruption in the Royal Palace.  The "Free Officers" attributed the military defeat in Palestine in 1948-1949 to that corruption.  Nasser, being the prime mover of that group, looked benignly upon the brotherhoodization of segments of the Free Officers ranks.  He needed their fervor and their popular base.  Here was a short-lived honeymoon between secularism and Islamism.

That honeymoon was doomed to ultimate failure. While Nasser recruited clandestinely officers on the basis of loyalty to Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood officers, believing on exclusivity, had a different criterion for that strategic recruitment.  Their standard was the degree of fidelity only to Islam -an early microcosm of the battle for Egypt's identity from 2011 to 2013, with the year 2012-2013 being the Morsi year.

Following the dethroning by the Naguib/Nasser coup of both King Farouk in 1952, and of his son, King Ahmed Fouad II in 1953, Egypt was declared a republic.  Its Revolutionary Command Council, desiring to get rid of a parliamentary democracy based on a multi-party system, dissolved all political parties, including the popular and secular mass party of the Wafd which was led by both Muslim and Christian stalwarts.  But the Muslim Brotherhood, describing itself as a society (Jamaa), not a political party, was spared dissolution.

That historic exception of the Brotherhood from dissolution did not fully accord with the Brotherhood agenda.  For there was "the national project" of Nasser standing in the way of the "Islamic project" of the Brotherhood.  Between the two projects, there could be no compromise.  The stalemate forced the Revolutionary Command Council to issue on January 1, 1954, a ban on the Brotherhood.  That second ban amounted to a new year gift from the armed forces to historically secular Egypt.

Ten months later, namely in October 1954, the Brotherhood again sought its weapon of choice - political assassination.  In that month, members of that BUND attempted to assassinate Nasser as he stood in a public square in Alexandria to address the nation.  The plot failed and massive arrests and prosecution of the Brothers followed.

It took the Brotherhood 20 years from 1954 to 1974 to recover, especially under the Sadat regime which in September 1970 followed that of Nasser.  Under its third Guide, Omar Al-Telemsany, the Brotherhood, again in 1974 tried to have the Egyptian judiciary lift that second ban.  But the case collapsed due to a provision in the Nasserite Constitution of 1964 which immunized decisions of the Revolutionary Command Council from the Courts jurisdiction.  Due to that legal defect in the Brotherhood's case which had languished before the Supreme Administrative Court from 1974 till 1991, the case for lifting the ban was thrown out.

Then came the Arab Spring, resulting in the form of the Egyptian Revolution of January 25, 2011 which resulted in the fall of the Mubarak regime on February 11, 2011.  That revolution was purely secular.  It raised in Tahrir Square both the crescent and the cross reminding the world of Egypt's secularism, inclusiveness, and openness to the 21st century.  The Brotherhood came late to that uprising.  But because of its history of mass appeal to Muslims, its grass-roots organization, and its promises to be a part of the Egyptian whole, its candidate for President Morsi won.

That victory proved to be Pyrrhic -a victory gained at a great cost.  It caused the Brotherhood to fall in the trap of "Egypt was subsidiary to Islamization."  It revealed the bond between the Brotherhood and the terror elements of Hamas; it aggressed against both Al-Azhar and the Coptic church; it called the disruption of both urban and rural Egypt, through sit-ins, a "a peaceful exercise of the right to assembly; it declared the areas of those sit-ins "Islamic emirates;" it attacked the army and the police by various types of weapons from rocks to RPGs; it caused havoc in the two provinces of Sinai which became, since 1906, an integral part of Egypt; it described the Second Egyptian Revolution of June 30, 2013 and its resultant dismissal of the Islamist regime of Morsi as a coup; and it rebuffed all invitations to becoming a part of the transitional government of Hazem Al-Beblawi which it regards as devoid of legitimacy.

The Brotherhood's third ban, declared by the Court of Urgent Matters on September 23, is all inclusive of its organizations and assets.  The ruling by that fast track Court amounts to a preliminary injunction which shall undoubtedly be confirmed by a higher court, the Supreme Administrative Court -the very court which had repeatedly resurrected the Brotherhood from its two previous bans.

The Egyptian proverb says: "The third hit is the most enduring."  So it shall be with the BUND whose returned to an underground existence shall be of no avail to its attempt to subvert secular Egypt.

The reign of the Brotherhood collapsed primarily because that Bund has proved that it does not comprehend diversity within the context of Egyptian nationalism.  And when the European Union asks Cairo to explain why the Brotherhood was banned, it is incumbent upon Egypt, in defense of its sovereignty, not to respond.

It seems futile to guide the Muslim Brotherhood to two pages of history for educational purposes.  One page provides a contemporary lesson in diversity even in the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Though Iran has only 9000 citizens of the Jewish faith, its present Parliament includes an Iranian adherent of that faith.

The other page is from the history of modern Egypt under one of my heroes, namely Muhammad Ali, its viceroy under the Ottoman Empire.  The Empire collapsed for many reasons including the ignorant advice by Muslim scholars to the Sultan not to introduce European expertise for training including that of the armed forces.  Muhammad Ali, a true practitioner of diversity, launched modern Egypt in 1805 supported by French technology.  Within a mere 30 years, the Egyptian armies under the great General Ibrahim Pasha, his son, were at the gates of Istanbul, ready to bring the entire Empire under the poised rulership of Muhamad Ali.  Europe saved the Sultan, and the family of Muhammed Ali got under its hereditary crown until the Nasser coup in 1952.