The Different Types of Salafi's

A new article recently published on WarOnTheRocks raised some interesting points regarding the two types of Salafi's the West need to deal with.

I've collated some of the main points here:

If we want to stop the self-proclaimed Islamic State’s recruitment to violence, a better question is how does the group transform centuries-old theological concepts into real and present threats?

Answering that question requires that we begin by stipulating that the Islamic State is a Salafi organization. Salafism is based on an exclusive adherence to this early Islamic Sunni theology. Next, we must recognize the historical division of Salafism between violent and non-violent strains in the 20th century under specific political conditions. Finally, and perhaps most urgently, we might consider the lessons of this history for our own strategic planning today.

Because of its emphasis on redefining Islamic faith and practice, Salafis — both violent and non-violent ones — prioritize their attention on fellow Muslims (Sufis, Shi‘is, even non-Salafi Sunnis) for promoting what they regard as “deviant” interpretations of the faith.

So why do some use this to attack others violently, while others only do so rhetorically? There is only one conceptual factor that drives this decision: the reason why others, in the eyes of different Salafis, fail to adopt their worldview. To non-violent Salafis, the reason they give is misinformation and misunderstanding — not having been exposed to their theological views. Innocence by omission. For violent ones, the reason is because of a deliberate resistance to it — an expression of the internal “unbelief” in God’s monotheism (kufr). Guilt by commission, and commission of the religion’s gravest sin, violating God’s “oneness.”

This divide is nearly as old as the religion itself, and was a core question underlying the evolution of early Islamic theology. On the one hand there stood Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 855CE) and his circle (the so-called People of Hadith), who held that one’s faith is expressed in one’s “heart, tongue and limbs.” On the other, the more rationalist schools argued that this faith is only in the heart and tongue and need not be confirmed by actions of the limbs.

This debate surfaced in the 20th century as a fault line between violent and non-violent Salafis, who — unlike other Sunnis — ostensibly all identified with the People of Hadith in their theology, but who, in practice, came to different conclusions about the practical implications of this theology. The watershed moment came in 1986, when one Safar al-Hawali (b. 1950) put the finishing touches on his dissertation for the Saudi Umm al-Qura University. In it, Hawali — who, although not a jihadist, would be later regarded as something of their intellectual ally — attacked one Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (d. 1999) for the latter’s view that one’s failure to pray was not a sign of “unbelief,” but rather could have been caused by laziness, oversleeping, or some other non-doctrinal factor. For Hawali, a Muslim’s neglect of proper Islamic conduct was evidence of ceasing to be Muslim. For Albani, who would later become the doyen of the so-called “quietist” strain of Salafism, a Muslim’s neglect of prayer was a sin but did not change one’s Muslim status.

In the 1990s, these positions became the core kernel of a new and broader debate on the issue of takfir (excommunication of other Muslims). Specifically, under what circumstances may Muslims excommunicate other Muslims, and thereby justify engaging in violence against them? On the one hand there were those who believed, as Hawali did, that failure to act in an Islamic way nullified one’s Islamic identity — these formed the intellectual nucleus of jihadism. On the other stood the quietists, Albani’s progeny, who resisted drawing the link between the need to behave in an Islamic way and the reasons for not doing so.

This became the debate between violent Salafis (or jihadists) and the non-violent ones (quietists), and the labels they used to attack one another are revealing of the sensitivities of each. Quietist Salafis almost universally refrain from referring to jihadists by their proper ideological designation as “Salafi-jihadists,” but rather use the term “takfiri” or “extremist,” referring to their singular focus on using takfir as a justification for wanton bloodletting. Quietist Salafis further argue that they too have principles of takfir and jihad, but that these are enshrined in a “methodology” — i.e. there is a time and a place for them. The names of early Islamic sects are also commonly invoked as labels for each group, but these are used strategically in a derogatory way and do not, as we saw earlier, reflect the actual theological positions on which each relies (examples include “Kharijites” for jihadists, and “Murji’ites” for quietists). In other words, their use is akin to how Westerners would freely use the “Fascist” label to describe any form of bigotry, despite its frequently ahistorical use.

It goes on to interestingly state that the Salafi's are not different to those who compromise their deen and enter into the political framework. The author recognises himself that this is in itself unislamic yet the Salafi's do not?

In Egypt, perhaps noting Sisi’s wide-ranging crackdown on journalists, Salafis continue to lament the “media campaigns” against them as their primary concern. Salafis have even competed in elections — a violation of one of their cardinal principles of rejecting modern institutions — since that, for them, was a mechanism of survival within the specific context of Egyptian politics under Sisi. Indeed, over the last year, Egypt’s Salafi Nour Party was able to navigate the country’s political turbulence by branding itself an ally of the state in combatting terrorism, rather than siding with their pro-Morsi Salafi counterparts in demanding Sisi’s ouster. In short, these examples demonstrate that the survival of Salafi groups within local political circumstances are just as much expressions of their pragmatic skills as they are of their ideological commitments. However, since their ideology is often used as justification for the decisions they make, one might also conclude that, just as with the divide between non-violent and violent Salafism at the end of the last century, the practical implications of Salafi ideology in the present century is equally conditioned by local contexts as it is by long-established theological concepts.

Hossam Bahgat - The US-funded journalist to push for Human Rights and Democracy in Egypt

Hossam Bahgat, a name that has been mentioned quite a few times over the past month or so. The Egyptian journalist who has been detained by Egyptian authorities and claimed to have suffered detention and torture. Although it is horrendous for anyone to have suffered such, we need to look deeper into why the media is focusing on a single journalist in Egypt that has suffered when hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members have not only been tortured but murdered.

It doesn't take long to find that Hossam Bahgat is funded by the terrorist sponsor George Soros Foundation, Open Society. He sits neatly on the advisory board under the Open Society Justice Initiative. Soros has built a global empire of networked nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allegedly promoting "human rights," "freedom," "democracy," and "transparency." His Open Society Institute funds amongst many others, Amnesty International (page 10), Global Voices, and Human Rights Watch. In reality these NGOs constitute a modern day network of imperial administrators, undermining national governments around the world and replacing them with a homogeneous "civil society" that interlocks with "international institutions" run from and on behalf of Wall Street and London. And contrary to popular belief, Soros has built this empire, not against "conservative" ambitions, but with their full cooperation.

It is difficult to find a cause Soros' Open Society Institute supports that is not also funded, directed, and backed by the US State Department-funded, Neo-Conservative lined National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

It would be almost four months after the beginning of the so-called "Arab Spring" before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but "spontaneous," or "indigenous." In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated:

"A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington."

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "

George Soros and his Open Society Institute also played a leading role in the unfolding unrest. Soros, in addition to fully supporting many of the NGOs in tandem with NED and the US State Department, also funded opposition groups working well in advance to produce new "constitutions" for collapsed nations.

In "George Soros & Egypt's New Constitution," it was reported:


"It turns out that the new Egyptian Constitution has already been drafted, not by the Egyptian people, but by the very US-backed protesters who brought about regime change in the first place. A Reuters report quoted an opposition judge, who had been hiding-out in Kuwait until Mubarak's ousting, as having said civil society groups had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month.

These "civil society" groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED fundedEgyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group may be turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of NGOs their membership, including Soros, fund that are working out and implementing the details on the ground."

So why all this commotion regarding Hossam Bahgat's detention? It would seem as though the Americans are trying to gain Hossam some credibility amongst the public. Preparing him for a key role in further democratising Egypt in the future? He's certainly gaining credibility amongst the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'll let you join the dots... 

Sources:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/22217-what-happened-during-my-detention
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/surpise-soros-is-convicted-criminal.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/09/egyptian-journalist-hossam-bahgat-charged-military-prosecutor
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/people/hossam-bahgat

Suruc Suicide Attack - Another example of ISIS's lack of political awareness?

Is this another example of ISIS's lack of political awareness or is it the same tactic used by the West to drag in other nations into the coalition?

This is similar to the situation with the Jordanian pilot whereby ISIS carried out a horrific public stunt with high level video editing for full effect of Moaz al-Kasesbeh burnt inside a metal cage and then crushed under a vehicle.

The UAE were pulling out of the joint coalition to fight ISIS and with Jordan's public opinion being more inclined to non-involvement with ISIS, a convenient public stunt changed UAE's stance as well as aiding in tipping the public opinion to the other side in Jordan - not to mention it just so happened to be the son of a very influential tribal figure in Jordan.

Why is it that ISIS carry out actions that are only detrimental to themselves. Is it not better to establish themselves and secure their own people before calling on the air strikes from yet another bordering nation? Rather it is an agenda to aid the West in its plans to further separate the Muslims, not only on nationalism but by physical borders.

Turkey has not until now carried out any air-strikes against ISIS under the banner of the coalition formed by the Americans. The Suruc massacre has conveniently given an excuse for more destruction in Syria and Iraq. It is important to note that these strikes will be launched from Incirlik Air Base which was constructed by the Americans during the Cold War after Turkey had joined the Allies. Although it is called the Incirlik Air Base it would be more relevant to be called the 'Adana Air Base' which was the original name given by the Americans who still have more personnel (Approx 5000) present at the airbase as well as the UK's Royal Air Force.

This is just one of many examples of how ISIS are playing into the hands of the West, arguably on purpose. We have not even mentioned the Saudi border attacks the pulled the Saudi's into action, the Egyptian massacre on the border of Libya that conveniently gave Sisi financial support in fighting ISIS and the recent Tunisian resort attack that has given the government in Tunis the permission to build a physical wall separating themselves from Libya.

It is important also to note that the border under construction between Tunisia and Libya has a completion date of December 2015 (6 months) which spans approximately 300 miles, only 200 miles shorter than the Turkish Syrian border, setting the precedence for Turkey to also create a physical border to separate the Muslims further. It is argued over 80% of those fighting in Syria have crossed from the Turkish border due to its lack of security and ease of access. The Turkish politicians vehemently deny this saying it is too hard to control such a long border, although this excuse no longer works due to the short time in which Tunisia will create a divide.

Is this a re-marking of the faded lines drawn by Sykes and Picot?

  

Sheikh of Al-Azhar meets far right-wing French National Front leader in Cairo

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/politics/18968-meeting-between-sheikh-al-azhar-and-marine-le-pen-fulfilled-different-objectives

Marine Le Pen and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib have both defended their recent meeting in the Egyptian capital. The leader of the extreme right-wing French National Front met the Sheikh of Al-Azhar on Thursday in his Cairo establishment. Their defence came in the face of a storm of criticism due to Le Pen's well-known hostility towards Muslims. Al-Azhar has come under pressure from coup leader Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, who met with Al-Tayyib last Wednesday. The meeting was followed by a statement issued by the Egyptian presidency alluding to an agreement to make changes in the curricula of Al-Azhar University.

Observers claim that the French extremist intends to use the visit to rid her party of the stigma of extremism, not least because she will be standing in the French presidential election in 2017. Local sources in Cairo said that Al-Tayyib tried through this meeting to divert the anger of Al-Sisi, who is displeased with him for not responding sufficiently to his demand to "renew" religious discourse, which to the coup leader means manipulating what is taught at the historic university.

In an exclusive interview with Sky Arabic TV on Saturday, Marine Le Pen said, without a touch of irony, that it was important for her to visit Egypt for the first time because of its vital role in the context of the influence of "extremists and terrorists" who now constitute a real global problem.

"President Sisi's speeches, which I consider to be very brave, have motivated me [to visit Egypt]," said Le Pen. "I wanted through this visit to clarify the misunderstanding we have about our vision of the Arab world and the events there and to discuss the efforts to combat extremism."

The right-winger stuck to her position of objecting to Muslim women wearing the headscarf and what she described as "the Muslims praying in the roads". She stressed that France is a secular country and that Muslims in France should respect the law of the land.

The Deputy Dean of Al-Azhar, Dr Abbas Shuman, said that receiving the National Front leader, who is known for her extremist and anti-Islam opinions, does not mean she was welcomed by Sheikh Al-Azhar. It simply means, he insisted, that Al-Azhar is opening up to the Other and that it is implementing the true Islamic teachings, proving that Sunni Islam is well advanced compared to political trends across the entire world, especially in the West.

In a statement made on Saturday, Shuman denied that the Azharis were furious because Sheikh Al-Azhar received Le Pen. "Whoever spoke about the anger of the Azharites because the Grand Imam received the leader of the French party only exposed their identity after they claimed that Al-Tayyib remains indifferent while seeing blood being spilled." He pointed out that the stances of Sheikh Al-Azhar towards bloodshed is known to all. However, he did not explain what he meant by that.

Within the same context, a source at the French embassy in Cairo disclosed that Le Pen's visit was unofficial, with no coordination by the embassy to organise it; the meetings took place away from any official protocol and the embassy had no idea why she was visiting Egypt.

In the meantime, the Washington Post published a detailed report about the visit and said that some observers abroad criticised Le Pen, stating that the timing was inappropriate. The deputy director of Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa department, Nadim Houri, said: "Perhaps Le Pen's visit will be interpreted as a means of support for President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi."

This would be embarrassing for the Egyptian regime, given that Le Pen's party wants to stop issuing licences to build mosques in France and she has likened Muslim prayers in the street to the Nazis. This is problematical because the head of the French Council for the Islamic Religion, Dalil Abu Bakr, has called for doubling the number of mosques in France in order to solve the issue of the lack of places for millions of French Muslims to hold their acts of worship. There are only 2,200 mosques in France; this number needs to be doubled, he said, in order to fulfil the needs of the increasing number of Muslims.

In a long statement issued after her visit to Cairo, Le Pen expressed her extreme views openly as she mentioned what she believed are issues of mutual agreement between her and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib: "The vital importance of ten million Coptic Christians, the descendants of Ancient Egyptians, who pay a heavy price for Islamic intolerance and the balancing role that France and Egypt should play in the conflicts raging across the Arab world; the stabilising role that Egypt should play in Libya; and the importance of convincing the citizens of North Africa and the Middle East not to relinquish the lands of their ancestors in pursuit of an unknown future in Europe."

Observers have concluded from this that the meeting between Sheikh Al-Azhar and Marine Le Pen had a political agenda for each of them. While the latter sought to make political gains within the French political arena as a result of the meeting, the former sought to appease Al-Sisi. That he needed to do this is evident from the repeated calls within the pro-Sisi media outlets for Al-Tayyib to be sacked from his prestigious position.

Tension between #Cairo and #Riyadh escalates over #Brotherhood in #Syria and #Yemen - MidEastMonitor

Sources: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/18963-tension-between-cairo-and-riyadh-escalates-over-brotherhood-in-syria-and-yemen

Official sources in Egypt have said that Cairo has conveyed to Riyadh its concern over what it describes as "an exaggeration" in opening up to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world and "attempts to rely on the group in resolving the crisis" in Yemen and containing the situation in Syria. This, claims the Egyptian regime, will definitely lead to adverse consequences for regional stability; once the Brotherhood seizes the reins of government in certain Arab countries with the help of Saudi Arabia it will not stop there but will seek to seize control over all Arab capitals.

"Saudi Arabia itself," said one source, "despite its tight internal security policy, may find itself facing a new predicament associated with the Brotherhood, just like the other Gulf States. In this regard we have been talking to our brothers in the United Arab Emirates in an attempt to raise the issue quietly within the framework of the Gulf Cooperation Council."

There is widespread dismay within the folds of the Syrian opposition, he added, because of the enhanced communication between Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood there in parallel with Turkish military support for Syrian factions affiliated with the movement in one way or another. European diplomatic sources have told Al-Shorouk that the countries they represent have informed Cairo, directly or indirectly, that any vision of the political future of Syria after Assad cannot exclude the Brotherhood in the way that Egypt wants.

According to the same Europeans, it is not possible to expect Saudi Arabia to counter the increasing involvement of Lebanon's Hezbollah in support of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria without Riyadh taking action in order to mobilise what it considers to be the "likely Sunni" alternative. This is a reference to the Sunni forces that are not part of the ISIS umbrella; the Saudis consider the moves by Hezbollah to be a Shia dynamic supported by Iran, Riyadh's arch enemy.

In the meantime, officials in Cairo say that the Egyptian regime has received an unequivocal message about the rise in the level of discomfort among Yemeni factions opposed to the Houthi expansion as a result of the rise in Saudi support for the Brotherhood in the country. He added that leaders of the Yemeni factions have told Cairo of their displeasure with the political prescription that may come out of the ongoing communication between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic movement. "I think that they do not object to allocating a share for the Brotherhood but they can see that Saudi Arabia is heading towards offering the movement a majority and not just a share."

As for the Saudis themselves, according to Arab and Western diplomatic sources they do not intend to change their strategy or ideas regarding Yemen. "With regards to Yemen," said one European ambassador in the Egyptian capital, "we know very clearly that Riyadh is angry because of what it considers to be balking on the part of Cairo and a failure to provide support. The House of Saud does not intend to listen to what the Egyptians have to say. With Syria, the matter may be slightly different, whereby Riyadh will seek to ensure Egyptian support of some kind. It will proceed with formulating something and then will ask Cairo to support it, but it will not move in conjunction with Cairo."

The Egyptian government has told the Saudis that it understands their concern regarding the Iranian expansion "We share some of that concern," said a diplomatic source. "However, at the same time we do not want to confront religious forces with other religious forces."

He acknowledges that Riyadh is accusing Cairo of hindering its moves that are aimed at grouping together political formulations with a Brotherhood base in both Yemen and Syria. "We cannot support the ascension of the Brotherhood to power in any Arab state, however; for us this is a closed case."

Egyptian officials across various sectors keep reiterating the same phrases about the Turkey-Qatar concord intended to boost the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in as many Arab capitals as possible in what they insist is a move prompted from within some political circles in Washington which want to put Islamists in power. The talk in this regard is focused on the White House and not the State Department.

Sisi shoots his foot again, but don't worry it's still metal plated and 'Made in America'

It was not long ago when Sisi carried out a coup d'état in Egypt and took to the throne. He carried out certain actions that didn't help his image, such as the closure of tunnels that served as a lifeline for the Palestinians in Gaza with recently around 521 tunnels having been discovered and closed. He ordered the demolishment of all facilities and housing within the buffer zone (500m or 0.3 miles, west of the Gaza Strip) and vowed that he would compensate those who have lost their homes and businesses - yet he has not delivered his promise and left thousands homeless not unlike 'Israel' (Occupied Palestine) who extend their settlement boundaries and do the same.

The recent death sentence to many handed down en-masse as well as to ousted Muslim Brotherhood leader, Morsi, means that not only does it make it difficult to engage with Sisi locally but also internationally he is having issues with making friends. President of Germany, Norbert Lammert,  has expressed no interest in meeting the Egyptian leader stating that his human rights record nor the democratic evolution of Egypt shows any progress.

It begs the question to why Sisi was put in there in the first place. US's hollow rhetoric regarding his coup expressed implicit blessings and why not? He has managed to achieve those things that other Presidents failed to deliver for the U.S. in such a short space of time. It seems as if he is the man of action for the West and not to mention the cooperation in the war on Muslims in Libya, his public abhorrence of the Islamic texts (Including the Quran) which he thinks have been wrongly sacralized by the masses etc.






Sources:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/18792-president-of-german-parliament-explains-refusal-to-meet-al-sisi

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/egypt-sinai-gaza-tunnels-sanctions-sisi-terrorist.html

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/egypt-says-it-has-discovered-521-tunnels-gaza-strip-1874990106

Al-Sisi distances himself from Al-Badawi leaks

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/18627-al-sisi-distances-himself-from-al-sayyid-al-badawi-leaks

Jamal Sultan

The audio recordings attributed to Wafd Party leader Al-Sayyid Al-Badawi and leaked by journalist Abd Al-Rahim Ali yesterday came as a big surprise.

The leaked audio recordings follow other political leaks released and publicised this week to the effect that Al-Badawi is "no more" – he is literally "finished", or, as Egyptians would say, he needs to "make him a prayer". All these are expressions for one thing, namely that certain circle within Egypt have decided to get rid of Al-Badawi.

Speculations are now confined to the manner in which he will be finished off. Will some of the charges be brought against him (leading to a lawsuit)? There are many well-known avenues for this, including repeated complaints made to the public prosecution, such as one made by the United Arab Emirates. These, incidentally, pave the way for action. Or could this be just an internal coup within the Wafd Party to bring him down? Or could it be a "freezing" process in the manner of the infamous Safwat Al-Sharif; orchestrating a division within the party that consequently leads it to being suspended until the matter of the division is sorted out, either by mutual consent or in a court of law (though one should be reminded of the famous grandeur of the language used by Safwat Al-Sharif stating that neither a court decision nor an out of court settlement will resolve the problem).

Clearly, these leaks are offered by official security circles that have the capabilities and the authority to eavesdrop on politicians, journalists and activists. Yet, pinpointing who specifically stands behind the leaks remains the problem as there are many circles that possess such resources and powers.

However, what is truly surprising in this regard is not the vilification of Al-Badawi. Only once or twice in the audio leak is he vilified in terms of showing him to be biased in favour of the Muslim Brotherhood and flattering them because he was hoping they would support his candidacy in the presidential elections, though it was rather strange that Al-Badawi should have had such an ambition at the time.

What is truly dangerous about these leaks, if proven to be authentic, is that they undermine Al-Sisi himself and deal a fatal blow to his own project. They may even result in refuting much of the official narrative regarding the events of 30 June 2013.

The leaks show that preparations for crushing the Muslim Brotherhood and "slaughtering them" were planned in 2012 long before the presidential elections. The leaks also charge the security apparatus and accuse it of orchestrating terrorist attacks in order to seize control and create a climate of fear.

This is very puzzling indeed. What interest is served by the security circles that leaked these recordings as a result of propagating such a horrific image; an image that will harm President Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi himself more than anyone else? That is, assuming that the leaks were deliberate and premeditated. One just cannot imagine that whoever made the leaks did not see the seriousness of what they were doing. It is in fact more important and more dangerous than the story about the relationship between Sayyid Al-Badawi himself and the Muslim Brotherhood. It is no secret that all political powers at the time had some sort of a relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, and some even went as far as entering into political and electoral alliances with the group, including Hamdin Sabbahi and his party.

Just one day after the leaks were broadcast, Al-Sisi took everyone by surprise when he called for a meeting with the leader of the Wafd Party and a number of party leaders. This was an absolutely unexpected and unusual political conduct; it is a blatant intervention in the affairs of an independent party – or at least this how it is supposed to seem. It would appear that the President of the Republic is playing the role of a reference point for the party or acting as if he were acting on behalf of the Council of Trustees or as if he were its leader, intervening to settle a dispute, coordinating action and keeping things under control.

Yet, what is more important is that Al-Sisi's invitation to Al-Badawi on the morning of the cannot be dissociated from the issue of the leaks themselves and the row they stirred up. More clearly, Al-Sisi's invitation to Al-Badawi, which may politically translate as a courteous act showing respect for him and also providing him with protection on behalf of the institution of the presidency, means that Al-Sisi wished to convey a message to Al-Badawi, to his party and beyond that to the entire public opinion that he had nothing to do with the leaks, that he is not happy about them, that he never consented to them and even that he is dismayed and angry about the way in which they were propagated.

What the President did for Al-Sayyid Al-Badawi created an impression, which no political observer could miss, that there are certain circles seeking to undermine him, whether knowingly or otherwise, and that he is outraged as a result. It may even give the impression that there is a power struggle among different wings that do not care about the public interest.

The coming weeks will reveal more about this power struggle. It will either be resolved and settled, or it will lead to more chaos.

Translated from Al Mesryoon newspaper, 14 May 2015

Leaked recordings reveal Al-Badawi's prior knowledge of 2013 massacres and MB oust

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/18625-leaked-recordings-reveal-al-badawis-prior-knowledge-of-2012-massacres

An interesting leak in Egypt clearly shows that it was not 'democracy' that brought Muslim Brotherhood to power but rather it was external influences. Purposefully aimed at destroying the group as well as its loyalties by its many supporters.

Key Points:
"The recordings reveal that everything that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has been subjected to in the wake of the revolution, including the killings, had been planned for many years by the Egyptian security agencies with the full knowledge and participation of Al-Badawi"

The other person who responds seems to be a senior security figure in the establishment, as he was addressing Al-Wafd's leader by his first name: "Oh Sayyid. The upcoming period will be a dark one for the Brotherhood. Armed militias will slaughter them in their own houses. Egypt will be full of orchestrated terrorism to retaliate against the Brotherhood and seek revenge from the revolution that brought down the security apparatus."

‪#‎Egypt‬ ‪#‎Badawi‬ ‪#‎MuslimBrotherhood‬ ‪#‎Ikhwaan‬ ‪#‎Sisi‬ ‪#‎AlWafd‬

Sisi and Israel in partnership on War on Islam

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/17074-netanyahu-we-will-stand-beside-egypt-in-the-war-on-terrorism

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday that Israel would continue to "stand by Egypt in the war against terrorism, which poses a threat to the entire Middle East".

Speaking to reporters ahead of his meeting with US Senator David Perdue in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said: "Today, the forces of militant Islam are on the march throughout the Middle East. Islamic State just barbarically massacred 21 Egyptian civilians in Libya."

"Our hearts go out to the families and to the people of Egypt facing this horrible savagery. And Israel will continue to stand side-by-side with Egypt in the battle against terrorism, which threatens us all," he added.

Sisi securing funding on the wishes of the West

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/16851-the-many-faces-of-abdel-fatah-al-sisi

Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi is an actor of some talent. To the revolutionary leaders in Tahrir Square, and to the youth leaders he met, he was the general who told them the army was on their side. To Egypt's first democratically elected president, he was the religiously observant officer, whose hands shook when told he would replace Mohammed Tantawi as commander-in-chief. To liberals like Mohammed elBaradei, Sisi was the man who would get rid of Morsi and hand over power to a civilian government. To America, Europe and Israel, he was a westerner. To Nasserites, an Arab nationalist.

But sometime, somewhere, Sisi would be caught without a script, off-mic, revealing his real thoughts and personality. This has now happened in a series of leaks of recorded conversations of his senior officials. In earlier leaks, they were allegedly recorded giving instructions on what Egyptian TV anchors should say about Sisi's candidacy for the presidency. They appeared to be tampering with a high profile court case of four police officers involved in the killing of 37 detainees en route to prison.

On Saturday night the most significant of the leaks was broadcast, as they concerned conversations about Egypt's Gulf donors. When the Turkey-based Egyptian satellite TV channel Mekameleen broadcast the audio recordings, the satellite link was jammed. The contents came out on YouTube.

In one excerpt allegedly recorded about a year ago, Sisi, Mahmoud Higazi, who was then head of military intelligence and now head of the army, and Brigadier General Abbas Kamil, the manager of Sisi's office, were talking about asking Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait for $10 billion each. They discussed how the money was to be transferred -- not into the coffers of the state, or the central bank, but surreptitiously in small amounts to bank accounts used by the Egyptian Army.

The translated excerpt reads:

Sisi: Look, you tell him that we need 10 to be deposited in the army's account. 10 what?

Kamil: Into the army's account.

Sisi: These 10, when we succeed will be worked for what? For the state. We want another ten like them from the UAE and we want from Kuwait another ten like them. That is in addition to the two pennies [Egyptian expression for small amounts of money] to be deposited in the Central Bank and to complement the account of 2014.

Kamil: (Laughter)

Sisi: What are you laughing at?

Kamil: (Still laughing) He'll pass out.

Sisi: What?

Kamil: He'll pass out. (laughs)

Sisi: They have money like rice [meaning too much].

Kamil: I know, Sir.

Sisi: The Americans [tell them] this figure is this ... like this.

These recordings have not yet been independently verified and they were leaked to a satellite station in Turkey that is pro-Morsi. The satellite channel is so confident that these voices are genuine that they having them tested by international voice recognition experts. Coming on top of what has already been published from Saudi sources about the links between Sisi's office and Tuwaijri, the weight of evidence leads one to conclude they are genuine.

Coming just weeks before an international donors conference in which the same Gulf States are expected to cough up billions of dollars more, the leaks are timely. They allegedly show Sisi diverting money meant for the reconstruction of the state into the Egyptian Army's coffers. And they beg the question: Where has all this money gone?

Egypt preparing to deliver basic needs ahead of a unity government including the Islamists?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/16729-egypt-to-import-natural-gas-directly-from-noble-energy


Ahead of recent reports that the current regime in Egypt (headed by al-Sisi and controlled by the US) are trying to incorporate the Muslim Brotherhood into the political framework, there are now trade and infrastructure deals going through that will lift the burden off the Egyptians. It is interesting to note the timing of such deals that bring normality back to the lives of many, giving  them a sense of relief and acceptance that any new change in government is a good change - even if it is a drastic compromise from an already compromised political party (Muslim Brotherhood).


From source:

A senior official from Egypt's natural gas holding company, EGAS, said on Sunday that Egypt plans to import Israeli natural gas directly from American oil firm, Noble Energy without the mediation of companies in Egypt or abroad, Anadolu news agency reported.

The Egyptian judiciary accused Salem, who is currently in Spain, of taking advantage of his partnership with the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Company, which exported Egyptian gas to Israel in 2008. He was acquitted of the charges last month.

A collective including British energy company B.G. Group, Spanish gas and electricity giant Unión Fenosa, and Egyptian investors led by businessman Alaa Arafa, signed a memorandum of understanding with Noble Energy to supply natural gas for the domestic market. The agreements are currently awaiting the formal approval of the Egyptian government.

Egypt suffers from frequent power cuts around the year due to shortages in natural gas.

Al Qassam Brigade blacklisted as a terrorist organisation

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/16722-palestinian-factions-denounce-egyptian-blacklisting-of-al-qassam-brigades

Major Palestinian factions denounced on Sunday a decision by an Egyptian court to classify Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Hamas movement in Gaza, as a terrorist organisation.

In a statement co-signed by Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front, the People's Party, Al-Ahrar Movement and the Popular Resistance Committee, all factions condemned the decision to blacklist Al-Qassam.

"Al-Qassam is body that has been involved in a battle of liberation with the Israeli occupation on Palestine," the statement read. The factions said they hope that Egypt and Egyptians will "take part in the liberation of Palestine based on their strong relations with the Palestinians."

The statement stressed that the Al-Qassam Brigades only targets the Israeli occupation, and does not engage in indiscriminate military action.

Responding to the court decision, the factions pledged that they would intensify communication with Egypt in order to mitigate the repercussions of such a decision. They also appealed to Egyptian mass media to stop its campaigns that "seek to damage Palestinian-Egyptian relations."

On Sunday, the Egyptian Court for Urgent Matters in Cairo ruled that the Al-Qassam Brigades should be classified as a terrorist organisation. The ruling was based on accusations that Al-Qassam was involved in several terrorist attacks in Egypt.

Egyptian officials and the Egyptian media have a history of using Hamas as a scapegoat for instability and terrorism in Egypt, often without any proof.

Offering Muslim Brotherhood's moderate leaders political positions

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/politics/16493-egypts-coup-regime-tries-to-reconcile-with-the-muslim-brotherhood

Key points:

Informed sources within the Muslim Brotherhood claim that the Egyptian regime has sought ways and means to reconcile with the movement ever since the coup in July 2013. The Brotherhood, it is said, has rejected all such overtures.

Speaking to Arabi21, the sources explained that the discussions that took place between regime officials and some Brotherhood leaders, at times directly and on other occasions via mediators, focused on the acquiescence of the movement and its acceptance of the coup as a fact. In exchange, prisoners would be released and Brotherhood officials could play a political role in Egypt.

The regime has, since the coup, been keen to keep a number of Brotherhood leaders known to be moderate and inclined towards negotiating out of prison in the hope of reaching a political solution to the crisis. These leaders included Doctors Muhammad Ali Bishr, Amr Darraj and Yassir Ali.

With the Brotherhood refusing to move, the regime started to harass these three senior members of the movement to put pressure on it to make concessions. Consequently, Yassir Ali was detained and Darraj was threatened with detention, prompting him to leave Egypt and live in exile; he continues to play a more open and liberated political role. When the movement insisted on taking part in the 28 November rallies, which were called for by the Salafi Front, the regime detained Bishr.

The regime has released a number of Brotherhood leaders who are known for their moderation. The first to be released was former MP Ali Fatehilbab, the head of the parliamentary bloc of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) within the Shura Council. Upon his release in April last year, he announced an initiative for reconciliation between the Brotherhood and the government. However, this was rejected widely within the movement to such an extent that Fatehilbab was attacked and accused of letting it down.

This was followed in August 2014 by the release of Dr Hilmi Al-Jazzar, the Secretary General of the FJP in Giza, on medical grounds. This was a surprising move by a regime which quite deliberately allows scores of very sick prisoners to die in detention due to the lack of adequate medical care.

The release of Al-Jazzar provoked speculation that he might play a role in reconciling the Brotherhood with the government. Yet, this too was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the movement's members, especially the youth. Once again, the potential go-between was attacked and warned against compromising the rights of the martyrs. Al-Jazzar made a public statement in which he affirmed clearly, according to Brotherhood sources, that he refused to play any political role at this stage. He insisted that he was not authorised to speak in the name of the movement and has since disappeared from the political scene.

An important role for Yassir Ali

The third Brotherhood leader to be released was the aforementioned Dr Yassir Ali, the former spokesman for President Mohamed Morsi. Ali was released suddenly in November last year after spending 11 months in prison. Speculation was rife about a possible reconciliation role for him.

The Brotherhood sources have explained that Ali was detained in early 2014 after a meeting with the Saudi ambassador in Cairo during which he was handed a proposal for reconciliation between the Egyptian government and the Muslim Brotherhood. According to the Saudi proposal the regime would release the detainees and allow the movement back into political life in exchange for giving up the demand for Morsi to return. Apparently, Ali was detained only hours after the meeting because it took place without the prior knowledge of the regime.

With the removal of both Darraj and Bishr from the scene, the regime focused on Ali as a contact within the Brotherhood. It is alleged that there have been several meetings between him and security officials and political mediators.

The first was several weeks ago when Ali was invited to attend the wedding of a relative of an army general. He was told that a number of Military Council members would be there and that they would like to speak to him about the current situation. However, following consultation with the Brotherhood leadership, he turned the invitation down.

Afterwards, Ali received an explicit invitation to meet the Director of National Security, Brigadier General Khalid Tharwat, to discuss the possibility of a period of calm in exchange for releasing the detainees. When Ali reiterated the refusal of the movement to make any concessions, he was taken aback by the Minister of Interior, who stormed into the meeting. It was clear that the minister had been eavesdropping. He told Ali that the regime wanted to resolve the crisis and reach a solution that would be acceptable to both sides. However, Ali stressed that he was unable to persuade the Brotherhood, whether members or leaders, of giving up on the demands for which thousands had paid with their lives. The minister's face changed colour and he threatened Ali with further detention. "Don't leave Cairo or else you will be detained and thrown in jail," he is alleged to have warned.

The last attempt to reach an agreement over a period of calm was made three weeks ago when Muhammad Hasanayn Haykal contacted Yassir Ali for a meeting. The veteran journalist and writer asked Ali to convince the Brotherhood to end the demonstrations and join the political process; he pledged that the regime would, in exchange, open a new chapter with the movement.

Once again, Ali stressed that continuing the revolution and keeping the rallies going was no longer the decision of the Brotherhood alone. He added that it was not even the decision of the Alliance for Supporting Legitimacy, but had become something that the people of Egypt must decide.

Calm prior to the economic conference

The sources have said that one of the reasons for the intransigence of the Brotherhood is the objection by the group to the manner in which the regime decides who it wants to deal with. It selects certain individuals who it feels should represent the movement and imposes this choice on the group instead of dealing with whoever the Brotherhood itself has decided is fit for that purpose.

They also noted that Al-Sisi is trying by all means to bring about a measure of calm across the country prior to the economic conference that is to be held in Sharm Al-Sheikh in March. This is a last resort to try to rescue the failing Egyptian economy, especially now that aid from the Gulf has become "extremely meagre".

Last week a court cleared Dr Yassir Ali of the charge of hiding information about former Prime Minister Dr Hisham Qandil and annulled a previous six-month jail sentence.

However, although the sources confirmed the release of President Morsi's advisor, Khalid Al-Qazzaz, last week, they stress that this has nothing to do with the reconciliation issue. They explained that Al-Qazzaz, who had been in detention since July 2013, was released as a result of diplomatic pressure from the Canadian embassy. Al-Qazzaz is expected to leave for Canada soon to join his family there.