most of the religious parties and the muslim brotherhood in particular, believe that the liberals are weak in faith, and this diminishes their moral power and drives them to lie. i will not try here to change this view, but i will assume that those who echoed such a claim believe that their moral reason is better, and lie less, but the reality is not. in a testimony by sheikh saud alnasser al-sabah, kuwait’s ambassador to w a s h i n g t o n during the iraqi occupation, he said that some of the muslim brotherhood representatives in kuwait, whose names are wellknown and on the internet, met in washington and asked him for $50 million to establish the islamic world commission for advocacy editorial issue. he said he believed that the money needed for the body to propagate the cause of liberation in various forums, but it turned out that they wanted the money to prepare for the formation of an islamic army for the liberation of kuwait, rather than western forces, and therefore he rejected their request. on the other hand, a member of the popular group that visited washington afterwards to win us support in the liberation, and how the delegation met with assistant secretary of state kelly, who was surprised by the position of ‘the individual’ member of the brotherhood in order to support the right of kuwait, and therefore the novel of sheikh saud included a serious accusation against the member of the brotherhood, who subsequently defended his position was not named, neither he nor anyone else named in the serious ‘charges’ by the sheikh, the lifting of cases of rehabilitation, but only denied the validity of what was stated by sheikh saud, without suing! then came the claims that it was proved ‘in the courts’ to invalidate the story of sheikh saud. this is not true, no lawsuits have been filed or a verdict has been issued against saud al-nasser, but what motivates them is the desire to eat him alive because he disobeyed them and this is a trait characterized by many who belong to the brotherhood movement from other currents. as for the article itself, that icm no longer belongs to the ‘brotherhood’ organization and an evidence of that is that its relationship with the international organization remains frozen. we have the reason to ask why the relationship of the islamic constitutional movement (icm) with the parent body is so if the situation of the latter was honorable during the invasion, as they claim. “is the reward of charity anything but charity? or did they realize how angry the kuwaitis were at the shameful position taken by this international organization during the invasion? as usual, the writer claimed the kuwait brotherhood group had separated from the parent body. and if they had separated from the international organization of muslim brotherhood why they defended its shameful position adopted during the invasion? let’s assume that we will lie to ourselves about the invasion and follow the situations of each small and large group, and suppose that we falsely accuse the international organization of the muslim brotherhood, what is your business in the issue if you are not part of it, as you claim? let them defend themselves and not behave as lawyers of the muslim brotherhood and their outrageous attitude. then, let us leave saud al-nasser and his testimony aside, and forget about the issue of your separation from the organization as you claim. did ismail al-shatti, a member of the muslim brotherhood, and those you cited in your article write a series of articles after liberation and criticize the muslim brotherhood’s pro-invasion stance, injustice and aggression, under the pretext of fighting the christians and americans? it is strange to note your rejection of the name of sheikh saud al-nasser, in your article, one of the most famous ambassadors of that time and later was entrusted with the portfolio of minister of information and oil, and then you forgot his name, or did your hatred prevent you from doing it?

e-mail: