‘Not qualified to rule any nation’
professor muhammad al-rumaihi believes the muslim brotherhood movement emerged after the fall of the caliphate in line with what was advocated by some that egypt should play the role of the islamic caliphate because of its location and its relative position and heritage.
in an article published in al-sharq al-awsat newspaper under the title ‘a tragedy of man or a crisis of a political movement?’ al-rumaihi commented on the tragic fall of muhammad morsi and said his death showed the shallowness of the mechanism of the organization and how unjust it was to rule egypt because of his political incapability.
it was not possible to choose any other than him, because the mechanisms of the organization did not allow it at all. morsi was not in a pole position but he was pushed along and as a result, he became prone to commit political mistakes which became well known on the back of the confusion that prevailed over the dual rule: was it the rule of the muslim brotherhood guide (supreme leader) or the rule of the president? it appears he was caught in between.
indeed, the brotherhood is not qualified to rule any country because the group’s thinking and plans are inherently linked to heritage. they are governed by the past not the present; the organization’s past structure is either irreversible or does not believe in flexibility and therefore difficult to associate with the future and accept modern political instruments such as change of hands in terms of power, civil liberties and human rights, all of which are not accepted by any religious approach.
the top hierarchy of the muslim brotherhood does not allow for criticism from anyone, but the obedience of everyone to the supreme leader, which led to the freezing or expulsion of those from within the group who were critical. so it was difficult for someone to be aboard with opponents, who were already anti-democracy in every sense of the word.
how can an organization that believes that a part of a nation is enemy and infidel and therefore not entitled to hold any position in the state, even if one is highly qualified? to this day, no single egyptian brotherhood member has dared to ask the vital question: why did the situation in egypt on june 30 (2013) reach that level, when tens of millions of egyptians came out, condemning the rule of the guide?
no one from the muslim brotherhood accepted or dared to ask this question because even after 91 years of founding their organization, they are not qualified for the idea of self-criticism. the brotherhood’s leadership, both domestically and globally, is ferociously close to the mafi in defending its spheres of influence, fearing the loss of what they have achieved for themselves and for the organization – wealth and penetration into the joints of the state.
no one knows these secrets about the muslim brotherhood, such as those who were once part of them, and were separated from them, after they found their deviation and manipulation of their leaders, their refusal to criticize or express an opinion or oppose the supreme leader, or to question the fate of the organization’s accounts.
among them was the former muslim brotherhood leader tharwat alkharbawi, who believes that the results of egypt’s presidential election, which sisi won by an overwhelming majority, has destroyed the brotherhood’s future in egypt because it gave him legitimacy to rule the country.
