Regarding the New Egypt, The New York Times, Like Other US Media, Gets It Wrong Most of the Time!!

Happy 2014 to our Readers.  Apologize for starting the New Year negatively about US media reporting on Egypt's transition to democracy.


The respectable CBS program "60 Minutes" of Sunday evenings led off last week with Reporter Leslie Stahl's interview with Obama's National Security Adviser.  Stahl described events in Egypt after June 30 as "a fiasco."  Fiasco, or-ignominious results, for whom?  Certainly not for the 35 million Egyptians who rose up that day and brought the brutalizing Islamist regime of Morsi down.
The New York Public Radio (NYPR), which draws its credibility largely from it being funded by its public, features its Cairo correspondent on December 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM.  The correspondent decries what she perceives to be the collapse of the Revolution of January 25, 2011.  Why?  She sees in the Egyptian public urging of General El-Sisi to run for President a hypothetical link to declaring the Muslim Brotherhood "a terrorist organization."

But the Cairo correspondents of the New York Times take the cake in their spinning off the impact of events in transitional Egypt into systematic negativity.  They are David Kirkpatrick, Kareem Fahim and Mayy El-Sheikh. Content analysis over only a 4-day period from December 26 to December 30, 2013 vouches for the accuracy of my criticism.

• All references to the present transitional presidency of Counsellor Adly Mansour are prefaced by the term "military-backed." 

• Objection: The army did not force 35 million Egyptians to go out screaming at Morsi on June 30 to leave the Presidential Palace.  It stood guard on the multitude, as they stood guard on the Islamic march of the Brotherhood through Morsi's move to that palace in June 2012.

• Since July 3, which signaled the end of Islamic colonialism of secular Egypt, the pet terms of these correspondents, one at a time, have been "a society already riven by violence and suspicion in the months since the military."

• Objection: You must be kidding me!!  You mean to characterize the reign of Morsi and the Brotherhood as one which was free of violence and suspicion?  Have you heard of the so-called "peaceful sit-ins" at Rabaa, Nahdha and Orman which were battle zones and trench warfare?  You must have heard of the Sinai war against the Egyptian army and police, fueled by out-of-control Hamas and their jihadist cohorts!!

Did you consider Morsi's incessant verbal attacks on the judiciary, Al-Azhar, the Coptic Church and Shiism?  Surely you must have known of the appointment by Morsi of 13 Provincial Governors (Egypt has 27 provinces) who were Ikhwanis (adherents of the Brotherhood)!!  How about the avalanche of amnesties granted by Morsi to persons already adjudged as terrorists?

• Your unfounded claims that the Brotherhood is "deeply rooted in Egyptian social and civic life."

• Objection: Prove it!!  Is the mere existence of the Brotherhood for nearly 8 decades a qualification of "deep rootedness?"  The Brotherhood itself has no statistics on its numerical strength.  There is hardly any social science surveys in Egypt.  That is not to mention the Brotherhood's commitment to secrecy in all matters, including its sources of funding.  And is it permissible for a group like the Brotherhood to be given a green light to use Islam as a cover for a power grab as a reward for its assistance to the poor?  The Egyptian Ministry of Waqfs (Charitable Trusts) has been, for the entire history of modern Egypt, the purveyor of goods and services for the needy in Egypt and beyond.

• Your attack on the Egyptian Government, following its listing of the Brotherhood as a "terrorist organization," for "seeking to deny the group foreign help or shelter," and for "urging other Arab governments to honor an anti terrorism agreement and shun the organization."

• Objection: How imbecile can you get?  The international conventions against terrorism adopted by the League of Arab States and the organization of Islamic Cooperation call for such collective action.  Actions in that regard by the Egyptian Government fall within the international law doctrine called "Acts of State."  The doctrine confines itself to acting internally within its sovereign domain, while advising other governments of such actions for their own consideration.  Unlike the Bush administration, Cairo has never tried to impose on the outside world the imperial doctrine of "You are either with us or with the terrorists."

• Your assertion that "State forces have killed hundreds of the group supporters during protests against Mr. Morsi's removal."

• Objection: How one-sided can you get?  This is a typical half-truth!!  All human casualties, be they pro-Morsi or anti-Morsi supporters, are to be regretted.  But you, through your biased reporting, deal with the consequences and ignore the root causes.  For six very long weeks (from July 3 to August 14, 2013), the Government appealed to the marauding hordes at Rabaa and elsewhere to disband peacefully.  But their commitment to victimhood as a means of internationalizing a purely internal Egyptian matter prevailed.

Those encampments had quickly turned into armed garrisons, with pre-arranged armament storage.  Declaring them peaceful sit-ins defies imagination.  They besieged the HQ of the Presidential Guards (a military outpost) and conducted massive security and civil disruptions in their bivouacs.  It finally came down to this: either the integrity of the State or the chaos perpetrated by the Brotherhood.  Many army and police officers, not to mention peaceful civilians, were gunned down.  In your casualties count, have you included those also?   Or is your definition of casualties confined only to the Muslim Brotherhood whose affiliate Hamas has been listed by the US as a terrorist organization?

• By December 25, Mr. Kareem Fahim, one of the three New York Times musketeers based in Cairo, has made yet another false discovery within the ranks of the Egyptian administration.  His report was headlined "Crackdown on Islamists stirs unrest across Egypt."  Then came his statistical attempt to explain "unrest across Egypt." These are his words "At least three people were killed in Cairo, Damietta and Minya on Friday as officers fired tear gas and birdshot at protesters who threw rocks, burned tires and set fire to police vehicles."

• Objection: Need I say more, except that violating the newly-promulgated law regulating demonstrations needs to be upheld by the Government.  That is a government which is faced with threats by the Brotherhood in its futile attempt to disrupt the mid-January plebiscite on the new Constitution.

• Spinmeisters, Fahim and El-Sheikh were at it again.  For their slanted report dated December 30, The New York Times, headlined: "Egypt Detains Journalists It Says Aired False News." That is in spite of the fact that those two New York Times reporters engaged in the same unethical support.  The peg on which Fahim and El-Sheikh hung their poisonous New Year gift was the announcement by interim President Adly Mansour that Egypt could hold a presidential election before electing a new Parliament.

Now comes the reporters' main spin: They raised "the possibility that the military-backed government was preparing to deviate from the transition plan it unveiled after the ouster of the former president -Mohamed Morsi, a Brotherhood leader -in early July.  The government has said it would follow that plan, citing it as evidence of its commitment to democracy."

Then more spin: "Analysts have said that switching the order of the elections could allow Egypt's leaders to maintain tighter control over their outcome, by allowing the newly elected president to influence the makeup of Parliament." 

• Objection: (1) Who are your "analysts," and what kind of strong weed are they smoking? (2) You cite Michael Wahid Hanna "a fellow at the Century Foundation in New York.  Having followed his "analyses" over a long time, your conclusions, Mr. Hanna have proved to be "fiction confirmers."  You, supporters, have gone to him repeatedly to vouch for the authenticity of your fictions; (3) The announcement by Counsellor Mansour has no conspiracy behind it.  It has behind it the provisions of the newly-drafted Constitution which left the sequencing of the elections to the President; (4) That Constitution shall replace the Islamic Constitution of 2012 which was heavily manipulated by your darlings -the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egypt keeps its nose largely in its own business.  I don't see its officials offering unwanted advice to American policy-makers regarding America's pitfalls in the practice of democracy.  No Egyptian attacks on State measures to make it harder for Blacks and Latinos to vote.  No Egyptian formal declarations addressed to America about Republican defiance of science or the stigmatization of aliens.  No Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs has ever issued condemnations of the rise of racism or of State legislation against the use of Islamic law in the courts of 18 States.  No Egyptian human rights group has ever attacked the Republicans in Pennsylvania, thanks to gerrymandering, winning only 47 percent of the votes but walking away with 72 percent of the seats.

Nor have the Egyptian sneered at the Republican Party shutting down the federal government for 16 days last year.  So why doesn't America mind its own business and stay away from being the Big Brother who is voluble with uninvited course corrections?

Yet America, as policy-makers, media outlets, or even civic groups based in Egypt and allied with either the democrats or the republicans find it fair game to attack the course of Egyptian transitioning to democracy.  Describing the situation in Egypt as "a mess" has become daily media-speak.  

I found not one official world coming out of Cairo in condemnation of the US policy of detention, fully expounded in 2013 in the 560 page report issued by the Constitution Project's Task Force covering Guantanamo, rendition, black sites and the efficacy of torture and brutal interrogations.  No Egyptian official voice was raised calling on Washington, D.C. to go easy on its citizens and allies by reigning in its National Security Agency's global infringement of privacy through mass surveillance.

As a lawyer and academic belonging, through nationality, to both the U.S. and Egypt, and loyal to whatever is good in either culture, I find in the negative characterization of the teething pains of the present Egyptian transition to democracy, the fowl air of cultural and political arrogance.  And by the way, I get no financial benefit from any government.  I am self-employed and not a mouth-piece for any government.

Your biased reporting does not help the US maintain workable relationships with the new Egypt.  More importantly, your drum beat of misstatements shall not stop the new Egypt from seeking broader alliances away from the U.S.  As of January 25, the period of Egypt being a client State has ended.

The rational of the basic doctrine of freedom of expression embodied in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect a person in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic.  Its object is a citizenry of intelligent decision-makers seeking and empowered to govern a free society. (see Barron and Dienes, Constitutional Law in a Nutshell).

If you were capable of putting matters in Egypt in their global perspective, how would you rate the security in Egypt in comparison with the internal security in Putin's Russia (the Volgograd explosions) or the rebellions in China?

In order to be a credible spokesman or a reliable reporter, you must stick to professional ethics, and take to heart this advice from Sherlock Homes.  Nearly 130 years ago, he said: "Do not theorize before you have the facts!!"  He truly was the purveyor of deductive reasoning which is based upon using the evidence to reach reasonable conclusions.  

The New York Times reporters based in Cairo, David Kirkpatrick, Kareem Fahim and Mayy El-Sheikh keep on crowing doom and gloom.  Just try for even once to describe the Egyptian Government as "people-backed."  In this connection, an Arab proverb is on point: "The caravan moves forward, as the dogs keep on barking."

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.