The Hard Path

I still remember how happy I was at the time of President Sadat assassination.  I was one of millions of Egyptians who felt the need to end the existing regime at that time.
I recall the great satisfaction felt by people to see the newly appointed president who seemed more pure, honest and closer to the feelings of the masses from his predecessor.
A picture that is far from the imagination of anyone who would predict what will happen next.

Obviously, the last thirty years were enough to raise this hidden desire to reverse the wheel of history, and wished the demise of Sadat assassination.
 It is astounding that the criminals convicted in the assassination themselves acknowledged regret for this act, which led to Hosni Mubarak to come to power. Meanwhile, others began to stir in the rumors about Mubarak's involvement in the assassination himself.
Hearsay I can assure you from now it is not true and lacked from any possibility of authenticity. Not due to a lack of reality in it, or the impossibility of assuming it occur. But I believe it is due to the personality of Hosni Mubarak himself.
This man who spent thirty years on the seat of President of Egypt without taking even a single decision that may suggesting any suspicion of taking adventure, cannot participate in such plot.
This man, who has never caught thinking in a creativity or imagination way, cannot be involved in such action, which if true would have been one of the verses of the imagination and creativity.
This man, who preferred to hoard money and superior interests of his small family above everything else, would never take part in an assassination, where the target was sitting on the seat adjacent to him.

Mr. Jihad Al Khazen wrote in “Hayyat” Newspaper during the Egyptian revolution, fearing what will happen next, and his argument is that over the past fifty or sixty years, when he seemed to be optimistic of any change in the Arab world, things have always ended up worse than how it was!

But was the situation during the reign of Sadat's better in fact than how it was during the rule of Mubarak?
In my opinion, that this is not true. Mubarak is the natural and logical extension of the ruling way of Anwar Sadat.
What should we all agreed upon, is the need to change the whole system and replace it with an integrated one based on the institutional foundations of a modern civil state, and the devolution of power in accordance with the peaceful struggle of ideas across partisan and social institutions to ensure full representation of all the visions and ideas in society.
This is what we should seek to achieve without putting great importance to the persons or their names, but to the tendencies and interests they represent.
Everyone should understand that we are not nor should we be about to change the faces and names.
People wanted to overthrow the regime, and this is the real test to prove the success of their revolution. This success requires building the foundations of new systems and methods that are totally different from the Egyptian Republic of 1954.

It was clear recently the desire of the leaders of “Muslim Brotherhood” in kidnapping the Egyptian revolution. As usual, these leaders stood against all forces and groups that actually organized and inspired it.
Moreover, news leaking from the group itself talking about confidentiality agreements held with Omar Suleiman, ex vice President and Hosni Mubarak loyal man to maneuver around the demands of the revolution against the gains of self-utilitarian.
Not to mention the bickering and counterfeiting and falsification of facts, during the recently held referendum, in the framework of an unholy alliance between them and the Salafi groups, waves coming to us through the deserts of Arabian Peninsula.
Practices expected to be replicated strongly in any coming elections.

And in the name of freedom, here they are enemies of freedom and those who shed bloods of the members of “gihad” and the “Islamic Group” talking about new parties and candidates for coming Parliament.

It is naive to believe that revolution means you cannot attack any groups that were persecuted by the former regime. This logic is not realistic, but given moral cover to the West claims that the intimidation and persecution of Jews by the Nazis, means the Zionists are exempt from any criticism for their criminal behavior.

It is true that justice and the rule of legal rules, is the basis of any civilization, but suffering from the persecution does not confer - in itself - the legality of any ideas or political theories.

So to believe that we should not attack the "Muslim Brotherhood" group, or those who call themselves Salafists or the terrorist groups and murders of "Gihad" or "Islamic Group", is a belief that goes against logic, plausibility and truth together.
Those who are deceiving people deluding they represent the will of God and religion on earth, are trying to falsify the will of those people.
And those who have committed criminal acts and terrorized innocent people for decades, cannot claim being part of the political process and its partisans activity.

Anybody study modern Egyptian history in the twentieth century and until now, easily discover that there are two groups that have been persecuted in a systematic and organized way by all the regimes during this period: The Communists groups and the “Muslim Brotherhood” and radical Islamic groups in general.
It is ironic that the regimes of governance which was based on the ideas and philosophies of these two groups in all parts of the world, is the most repressive, closed, and corrupted ones. 

The Egyptian revolution is not facing the remnants of the former regime and fighting a fierce battle against the counter-revolution only, but is also fighting another battle in the face of the dark forces that want to falsify the will of millions of people in the name of religion.

I have been disturbed by Mr. Jihad Khazen saying, that I wished it will be reversed this time. I wish Egyptian revolution would change the face of the country and the entire region to the prospects for freedom, dignity and pride.
Until then everyone should have a clear insight how to lead this revolution through a risky path that is full of difficulties, obstacles and enemies who are shrouding it from each side.

Before it is too late!

In the midst of the events and battles of the Great Sedition, “Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib" was asked: Could Talha, Zubair and  Aisha bint Abu Bakr meet on a falsehood? 
His response was succinct summary that "you cannot judge the correctness by men acts, but men can be judged by their correct acts" 
Golden rule laid down by the man who talked about the conflict between him and some of  Prophet Muhammad  companions, which ultimately led to the death of Talha and Zubair. 


It is sad that we see now those who are lending an artificial sanctity toward some people who do not have any real religious values ​​of any kind. 
During last 30 years some pretending figures assumed it is time to claim false positions, during which they performed the roles of legislators and religious thinkers. Ignorant and even educated people, who are without real cultural background flashed funny titles on some of them. We turned into hear about Sheikh Hassan "may God bless him" and Salafist Yacob Hussein "may God protect him"!! The media and the press went along with this entire wave, and instead of playing its enlightenment role, they decided to keep pace with the whims of these groups, letting them occupy the top headlines. 

Obviously, Islamic civilization has contributed decisively in the march of human progress, and we can say with satisfaction that the dominant Western civilization is, in fact the rightful heir to the Islamic philosophies and science. But sadly, some of these plaintiffs’ acts actually abused Islam.

Recently, there has been much talk about the second article of the  inactivated Egyptian Constitution, which states: "Islam is the state religion and Arabic the official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia is the main source of legislation" 
Indeed, the major drawback of this article and the disadvantages is not specifically with regard to “Sharia”. The major disadvantage is to say that Islam is a religion of the state, the state is significant figurative object has no religion. To say that the state religion is Islam is like saying that this building is a Muslim, and that one is a Christian. It is true that it can be said that most of the residents or all of the residents of this building of the Muslim population and that most or all of the residents of that building are Christians. And if it was necessary to have the text, it should read: "Egypt is a nation owes most of its inhabitants to Islam," a characterization is essential to the reality, which no one would deny. The section on Islamic law should be "Islamic Sharia is a major source of legislation". By removing the definition tool “the” that implies the existence of other sources of legislation, which does not contradict but rather join with the realities of Islamic thought.

“Sharia” in accordance with the religious concept of Islam is a beacon for the way of life and the principles that God want people to commit themselves to them while they are in the process of reconstruction of the Earth according to the God’s will. Since God has put general rules, thinkers and Islamic philosophers plied the development of various Laws governing the application of this Sharia law. All of that started since the early times of Islam. With the expansion of the Islamic state and their interface with new countries and cultures, the adoption of new laws was necessary to keep pace with the needs and dilemmas that are not dealt with by Islam in its infancy. 

Thus arose the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence ( Fiqh ) in Islamic history. Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails. Differed between the visions of several doctrines, some put intellect ('aql) as access to the Sharia like “Muʿtazilah and Shi’a. Other used the Quran and Sunnah, and a third above qiyas — various forms of reasoning, including analogy, to derive law from the essence of divine principles and preceding rulings. Various Sunni schools of thought have emerged which, amounting to hundreds, and ended up into the major schools of Sunni Fiqh, which include the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali. Shi’a schools of Islamic jurisprudence appeared different and varied in its vision of the laws and characterized by its continuity. Meanwhile, the Sunni Muslims closed paths to any new interpretation, thinking or creating new schools in (Fiqh) hundreds of years ago, satisfied with what have already reached, by the four main imams!

Perhaps the famous saying of the Sunni Imam Shafi’i  "my doctrine correctness could be wrong, and the view of other's is wrong could be right," clearly illustrates the lack of any sanctity of these attempts to the interpretation of Sharia.

What met by the vast majority of scholars and clerics from different backgrounds is the so-called Objectives of “Sharia”, a five: 
Preserve of religion. (Some scholars define it as civilization)
Preserve of the human life.
Preserve of human intellect mind. 
Preserve of Mankind.
Preserve of properties.

This is simply the purposes of Islamic law, according to which the protection of the beliefs of all human beings and their inherent right to believe what they want. Must also preserve and protect the human beings from any abuse or intimidation. It is regrettable that we can see now groups call for burning the Baha'is, in the name of Islam or the name of any religion. 

Preserving the mind is of the top priorities of the Islamic law, and signs of incitement to the use of mind and thinking in the Quran, are too numerous to list. Indeed, some schools of Islamic jurisprudence have put the mind in the first rank of access to the fact that the man can reach law of God and nature, just by thinking and instinct.  
Serving Mankind and ensure the continuality of human kind is the basic task for the continuation of Earth reconstruction. 

Related to this reverence for the human right to preserve the wealth of any abuse, theft or threat, regardless of religion, race or color. 

This is what agreed upon as principles of Shari'a, although there are different methods, laws and doctrines of jurisprudence. 

Those who exploit Islam as a way to gain access to personal or political purposes are actually abusing this great religion and its principles. 
The spread of intolerance, ignorance and narrow-mindedness in Egypt, widely prevalent in the recent period, and the response should not be half-solutions, or overlooked. The solution is statement the reality of this religion.

Islam invites us to meditate day and night, thinking, and using our mind to judge everything in the Universe. 
It is a full of principles on justice, consultation and equality. 

This revolution is the modern Egyptian revolution against the corruption, fraud, and falsehood...
we have to be completely aware and extremely careful
otherwise, those groups may steal it 
in the name of religion!! 
  

Cracks in the wall of silence

When some workers in Ismaillia (90 km eastern Cairo) decided to volunteer to provide all what they can to a primary school teacher and abandon their political will to him that started one of the most dangerous principles of any religious extremist in the twentieth century. These men and this man have laid down an Islamic principle that is not permissible except by some Shia sects confined in the concept of Imamat legacy. This man did not only accept to receive the wills of individuals and control it in the name of religion, but proceeded in the search for new wills to be driven and controlled, convinced that this is an implementation of the will of God on earth!
Worse still, they also believed in it where doctrine of obedience is not to be questioned, and the oath to the group cannot be escaped.  
Even until now, the man is surrounded by a kind of holiness among his followers that justify any evil act under the slogan of bringing the word of God on earth. They started the establishment of an armed underground organization to assassinate opponents of the group and dissidents, claiming they are permitted by religious imperatives. Bullets became the divine answer to a judge who dared to rule against them or a Prime Minister who tempted to take any action against the group.
The group started to see itself as all Muslims and not just some Muslims, and in their leader what has not been seen in the early Muslims companions themselves.
When this leader was killed late forties of the last century, he received the title of “Al Imam Al Shahid” a title that has not advocated by any Sunni Muslims except “Ali ibn Abi Talib”.

Of course, this man was “Hassan al-Banna” (1909-1949) and group, which is established by him is “The Muslim Brotherhood”.

Hassan al-Banna

Even at the highest power of this group during the life of its charismatic founder and leader, its popularity has still been limited.
It is true that the arbitrator and the organization of paramilitary militias and its famous secret terrorist organization gave the group a clear attendance in the political stage. But these folk have been limited, a fact that still bother the members of this group until now. That probably explains some of the positions of the group, which may seem vague at the moment. In the very early times Hassan al-Banna found that, despite his efforts and his followers’ efforts, the massive popularity remained concentrated in the Egyptian Wafd Party and its leader, Mustafa el-Nahhas Pasha.
It seems since that time, that relationship between the average Egyptian and the Muslim Brotherhood is not love or hate but rather aversion. Aversion penetrated even among the lower poor classes. The tremendous popularity among the people of Egypt remained in Wafd Party until the July 1952 Revolution.

At that time there were no cruel procedures against political dissidents as what happened later. Therefore, members of  Wafd of regular employees didn’t mind being functionally persecuted and delaying their promotions a few years as they were sure their rights is secured as soon as the Wafd return to power. The traditional Egyptian citizen who usually considers his own safety didn’t find it dangerous to be politically active.

After 1952 Army coup (Developed latter by the support of people to be the July Egyptian revolution) Muslim Brotherhood Group believed they had seized power and in the best manner they prefer. To achieve their political goals, without having to show the real political face.  Gamal Abel Nasser (1918-1970) is believed to be their man, who is member of the group. Meanwhile, he is the leader of the revolution who dissolved all political parties with the exception of their group.

Nasser

However, the fact that things were quite different, Abdel-Nasser in addition to his membership in the group, was an active member of the Assemblies of communism parties, member of the extreme nationalism party “Misr al Fatah” and a close friend of some Wafd party leaders. Above all of that, he was the founder and leader of the “Free Officers” movement in the Egyptian Army that led the coup.  In brief, was an ambitious man who has totally different vision far beyond the horizon of the group.

When all of that revealed, it was a real shock. The ripe fruit, seemed closer to reach more than ever, faded into a deplorable mirage.

The famous clash between the group and Egypt's Revolution, which lasted for decades, started from the attempted assassination of Nasser in Mansheya (Alexandria-1954).
It was strongly affected by the increasing popularity of Nasser, who was mainly surrounded by poor and middle class citizens specially after the Suez war 1956.  The group role and their attendance gradually diminished, especially with the development of a totalitarian regime in Egypt that severed more clashes with the members of the group who dispersed between prisons and exiles.
Muslim Brotherhood was not the only group subjected to this, but perhaps all political waves suffered to one degree or another.
However, what concern us here is that the overwhelming weight of the political support moved gradually from Wafd Party and concentrated in the figure of Gamal Abdel Nasser himself.
Political activities outside the regime supervision turned to be just a dream …
The practice of politics outside the newly created governmental frameworks became an extremely dangerous.
Meanwhile, the silent majority trusted and supported Nasser who satisfied their revolutionary dreams , even though he blocked (whether intentionally or not) most means to actual political participation. Acts like nationalization of Suez channel and construction of Aswan dam and the dream of building a modern state appeared like miracle for them. And, when other aspects of things manifested themselves, the fear was already the common law.

Mahfouz

I should borrow here an example that may explain what happened, example of Mr.Naguib Mahfouz (Literature Nobel Prize Winner). Mr. Mahfouz ended writing his huge famous novel known as “trilogy” about the year 1951, months before the July Revolution,(although it was published later on 1956). Since the revolution, and for about eight years, the man lost the ability to start any new literary work, as he felt that the revolution had begun to achieve all that he sought in his writings, social justice, freedom and the fight against the colonization.
With time, negatives began to emerge and the man returned to writing novels criticizing the situation, even if  by hidden means starting from his novel “The Thief and the Dogs”. But the Egyptian people did not return with him to the practice of politics. The majority remained silent even though they may still massive supportive to the regime, political work remained in the hands of the elite.
The Muslim Brotherhood, even with their popularity that is already low, faced a real dilemma.
Abdel Nasser passed away in September 1970. His funeral was a popular referendum reflecting what would have happened if he could activate these millions in a real political action.
Anwar Sadat, who had personal connections with Hassan el-Banna and some leaders of the group, came to power. He was more like professional politician than being charismatic leader as his predecessor. As an absolute hatred of socialism and the Soviet Union, he started his terms slowly and with great patience.
He knows that the majority of the regime members are allegiance to socialism. The street and especially the students and workers dislike all pillars of the government and also the Soviet Union affiliation, mostly ranging between Nasserlist and socialist (including few communist). For Sadat, the Soviet Union remained the only possible ally in the current circumstances. Very dramatic position!

Sadat

Watching some old documentaries of Anwar Sadat visiting Moscow in early seventies, and meet leaders of the Kremlin is very funny. The man was a great actor, who was looking extremely happy while hugging them very intimately, but we are 
certain now that the real feelings he had was totally different.
In May 1971 Sadat led a palace coup and hit two birds with one stone. He get rid 
of the pillars of Nasser's regime and gained his own popularity at the same time. He promised the start of a modern free country and end an era controlled by intelligence means, starting the rule of law. (Things that never really happened).  
Then, the war on October 73 gave the man unquestioned credibility and legitimacy 
and seemed a favourable opportunity for the man to stabilize the basis of his regime once and forever. But there was another obstacle, Students and workers in most of them were still Nasserites or pro left-wing. Sadat decided to be creative, and the solution crossed his mind led in fact to disastrous results that will affect the whole world for decades, especially when the West adopted this solution later. It is simply the launch of the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups to face his opponents. Solution that seems smart, both parties will finish off the other and he stays at the end of the game possesses all the Parties. He faced one simple problem at that time, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups in general were weaker than necessary. Well.. that is simple, we will support the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups behind the scenes, but we will remain always in control of things. Cunning and dangerous game at the same time. The honeymoon between the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood and the other  groups started. Now when monitoring events after tens of years we can easily see where the fatal mistakes in it, but it is unfair to think that it crossed the mind of the maker of this policy in that time what will accrue to him. Anyway we are not going to analyze this policy or its consequences here as we are concerned to show that throughout the reign of Sadat, and until his assassination in the hands of the tributaries of such groups, the majority remained silent and its feelings toward  this group continued to be  aversion. 
These groups’ gain in ground, which was basically among the youth, was shared mostly
by groups like “jihad” and the “Islamic Group” (both are the real roots of Qaeda) more than the Brotherhood.
I can still remember exactly how Egyptians who have become careless about politics in general, lined up in larger rows than any other similar referendum to elect Sadat successor Hosni mubarak in October 1981.

They did not know Mubarak, but moved by a great fear of such movements and terrorist groups that is using Islam as a cover.  

Mubarak came
and that is another chapter....  

NO!

This group (Muslim Brotherhood) is the worst thing that happened to Egypt during the last hundred years.
This is not an exaggeration, or emotional judgment.
It is the clear unvarnished truth.
The problem of this group is that they do not include in its ranks one uniform team, but you can find some of the best people, together with some of the most sly and subtle ones.
Attractive invitation to some of a real pure conscience people, and attractive breeding grounds for jumbled twisted ideas....
Includes some of the purity sincerely believers, with those who are using it for dark thoughts and as benefits for their selfish cynical.
They admire Hassan Al-Banna (Group Founder 1906-1949) as prophet or at the very least untouchable, where he is in fact an embodiment of the jumbled spirit of the group, mixing good works with some of the most evil acts that affected the country and its people.
Flattering all rulers and governments, and foreign powers as they could, and used the lowest means and tricks when they can not ...
Stood in front of national interests if regimes are not cooperative , and supported corrupt authoritarian regimes that match their interests ..
They used ordinary people trying to deceive them by false slogans, and competed the most notorious authoritarian regimes in their methods and ways..
Dissidents fought by the most cruel means, where the hearing and the duty of obedience is holy rule for all followers.
Forming part out of the thousands of who made the beacon of terrorism....
And split from them thousands who clearly figured what is actually promoted by the ruling elite within the group.
Despite the firm belief in the spirit of the Egyptian revolution.
In spite of my faith that approval of constitutional amendments, or not to approve is not the crux of the matter, but it is the transition to modern civil state and a modern constitution.
In spite of my faith that a bet of this group to kidnap the revolution by virtue of being the only organized force now is a bad bet.
However, I invite everyone to vote "NO" on amendments
Brotherhood has put themselves in the usual position in front of the popular and national forces
Those good people within the group who did not discover the truth yet, I only hope they do not participate in the massive rigging intended by intensively voting many times by the same people.
Some methods and ways in which they moved from the National Party and managed to be more creative sometimes, like claiming that the approval of the amendments is the duty of legitimate!!...

About the Amendments, the Revolution and the Unspoken

Do we have to hold referendum on constitutional amendments?

If a referendum is held, should we share?

If  participated in the referendum, should we support the amendments or reject them?

If we reject the amendments, does this mean to start work in the new constitution? Or modify the amendments?

In both cases, who will do it?

Founding committee? Or a judicial committee?

If a national team, what is the mechanism and rules of the election?

During all this, is it to be held both legislative and presidential elections?

And which must precede the other?

If the legislative elections were held, who can guarantee it will be a true reflection of the pulse of the street?

Maybe brings Muslim Brotherhoods into power ....

If presidential elections were held under the current constitution with amendments, can anybody be sure, the new President does not exploit the broad powers in the Constitution and become a new dictator?

If we want to answer all the previous questions, a definitive and suffice answers that are to be agreed upon by everyone ... We must have to be either, absolute wise or having comprehensive high capacity to know what will happen in the future.

Since it is impossible to imagine whichever occurs, so that, let us deal with reality as it is and what we can do in order to move from the Revolution 
into achieving the three main goals of the Revolution:

Bread        freedom   social justice

There were two important principles emphasized by the Revolution to achieve its objectives:  peaceful and Civilian

Simply, that could be the reference in answering the previous questions ....

Constitutional amendments, whether or not the referendum occurs, whether approved or not, should lead to the election of the Constituent Assembly drafting a new constitution agreed upon by the Egyptian nation.

This Constitution must reflect the principles of the Revolution:

Freedom, dignity and justice through civilian state, where the transition of power is processed by peaceful manners.

This is what was martyred for Sally Zahran and Ziad Bakri and hundreds of martyrs

This is something non-debatable ..

In my opinion to say that the president-elect would not advocate the establishment of a new constitution, is just a waste of time ...

The new Constitution is imperative and expressly provided for in the proposed amendments.

Though the blood of the holy martyrs of the revolution, they are the strongest and most important guarantee of any text ...

One of the most democratic constitutions in the world, which inherited by the largest democracies across the West for hundreds of years, the British constitution is unwritten.

The blood of the martyrs had already written a constitution, and we must all bear the brunt of not betraying them for any reason.

We come now to a key point and an important one.

Why should we accelerate the transition to civilian rule? And what if the Muslim Brotherhood took advantage of this speed to jump into power?

The answer to the question may call us to discuss the "unspoken"

Role of the army

The role of the army was decisive in helping to ensure the success of the revolution.

It was clear from the outset that the army approves the legitimate demands of the people. But I can exaggerate and say that the military statement on the understanding of these demands was a sign to the rebels tend to the presidential palace and overthrow the regime.

There is no doubt that there are many historical and psychological reasons, which prompted the army to declare its willingness to hand over power to a civilian administration as soon as possible. These historical and psychological reasons are the same as to call me Flabbergasting the desire of some of the civil power in the continuation of the military council, both as it now stands, or through a presidential council. 
It does not take a deep thinking so we can deduce that the representative of the military wing of the presidential council (and regardless of the number and value of the civilians in it) would be the strongest influence. Also extend the period of junta rule contains a risk to be reckoned with, even by some believers of theory of “fairness Dictator”!!.

At the same time, we cannot imagine that the rule and shape of the Egyptian army in the new regime in Egypt, which can safely be called the "Second Republic", will remain as is.

This is an oversimplification of things.

There is no doubt of the military judge of loyalty to the new President and the elected government by the people. However, recent events make it difficult to imagine Mr. Commander in Chief and Chairman of the ruling military council in the role of minister or deputy prime ministers in the Egyptian government to come. The same applies to Mr. Chief of Staff Vice Chairman of the Military Council and whatever the names of the occupants of these sites.

The new composition of the Egyptian Republic II should put strongly and effectively the role of the Egyptian armed forces. Great deal of this will be maintaining the principles and spirit of the Republic, which must reflect the spirit and objectives of the revolution of January 25.

Egyptian army has now an additional role to protect the Constitution and the  preservation of the civil state (including freedom of belief, expression and information) and to ensure a peaceful democratic transition of power through free elections take place regularly in the country.

Which brings us to the second question: What if the Muslim Brotherhood took advantage of this speed to jump into power?

Indeed, I personally do not tend to this hypothesis. My only Guide in that is history!

It has never happened for this group since its inception 1928 and until now that they won a popular consensus in real.

Even under the disastrous rule of Mubarak's run, we cannot say they were able to represent the majority of the people of Egypt. 

Yes, definitely benefited some popularity by loathing of ordinary Egyptians of the corrupted system. But the real revolution broke out only when millions of non-politically active Egyptians decided to regain their dignity and freedom of their hands.

Something definitely was inability by the Muslim Brotherhood movement and their sympathizers during last thirty years.

Indeed, the Egyptian press and the media both public and private acts as a strange and puzzling in this regard. They compete to invite the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists, and symbols of the exponents of the new poles and finally the Islamic group (Gama’a Islamyya)  in an exaggerated manner.

Not those figures of the revolution who really established its principles, but the symbols of these groups who lately joined up with Revolution. And the media here reminds me of Mr. Omar Suleiman, who dealt with all political forces, with the exception of the real rebels in the street.

But even if we assume the arrival of the Muslim Brotherhood to power through free elections, the experience of Hamas in Gaza cannot be duplicated in Egypt. 

Egyptian People have laid unwritten constitution, which will be a source of inspiration for the peoples of the region as a whole.

Freedom, dignity and social justice. Throughout a civilian state where transition of power is in peaceful manner.

Principles will continue to be monitored and protected by the Egyptian army ... And the Egyptian people ..

I am sure that these millions who rushed to regain their dignity and their country’s dignity, and who Surprised the whole world and themselves. Those, who have a deep vision companied with their insistence on achieving the goals seemed to many impossible. 

They will surprise us again by new young political formations and shapes.  Removing memories of any cartoon groups of parties or past dream never materialized, except in the heads of their respective owners.