What does the Muslim Brotherhood want from the journalistic community?!

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

When do we believe it and when do we not believe it? There are moments when the question itself becomes more important than the answer: When do we believe it? When will we not believe it? Especially when three highly sensitive files intersect in one issue: national security, freedom of the press, and citizen confidence in state institutions. In such issues, we should not start from a political position and then search for evidence that supports it. The correct rule is the opposite: we start from the facts, procedures and evidence, then build our position.

The “Don’t Believe Me” case clearly puts us before this test, and here we must list facts and analyzes and not interpretations, and let’s start with the first fact: On October 7, the Public Prosecution announced the provisional detention of six defendants in Case No. 8083 of 2026, Supreme State Security, and said: National Security investigations concluded that the page was a media platform for the terrorist Brotherhood group managed from abroad, and that the investigations included accusations of publishing false news and statements and questioning state institutions, as it announced. The defendants admitted to working on the page and receiving sums of money in dollars, while denying the issue of joining the group, and that only one of them admitted to belonging to it, according to what was stated in the statement.

However, from the first moment of announcing the arrest of the six journalists, there was “anticipation of events” on the part of the Journalists Syndicate. It began to doubt and direct the press group towards one direction, which is that what is happening is an attack on freedom of opinion and expression and the message of the press, and the matter turned, in one direction, into a violent attack on the state’s security and judicial institutions. The Syndicate was not satisfied with the National Security investigations, nor even with the investigations of the Public Prosecution, and what its statement declared proving that the defendants had committed the crimes mentioned above, despite it being the party. Impartiality and the greatest guarantee of justice and law enforcement.

On the other hand, the union, the defense team, and human rights organizations presented a different narrative regarding detention conditions and the integrity of the procedures, which biases us toward asking why the union turned its accusations or defenses into final rulings before completing the investigations? But there is a larger political truth that should not be ignored: the state that is subjected to systematic targeting does not begin its battle at the moment of overthrowing power, but rather before that, when confidence in its institutions is undermined, its ability to protect society is distorted, and the security apparatus is transformed from a public institution into a conscious “adversary.” People.

Egypt knew on January 28, 2011 what the collapse of police presence on the street meant; Attacks on departments and storming prisons created a wide security vacuum that the armed forces were forced to deal with. We lived through difficult days that none of us wish would appear again.

Yes, the security apparatus has hit a target in strategies to weaken states, because security is not just a ministry; It is the state's daily ability to prevent crime, protect facilities, control borders, and enforce the law. Here I believe it is necessary and fair to emphasize the areas of trust that the Interior Ministry has built between itself and the street over the past years. This is linked to a logical question: Are there constant attempts to undermine this trust in every event that turns into a controversial situation due to platforms and pages funded from abroad (even after all the editors of this page were arrested, it is still working efficiently from abroad) according to predetermined timings?

No one denies the press its role, as it is the monitoring eye of the state and the voice of the citizen who has the right to know, and this role is protected by the constitution and the law. On the other hand, the press cannot demand that the state respect the law and then deal with the law itself as a “detail.” The Journalists Syndicate law gives the union clear guarantees, including: the right of the president or his representative to attend the investigation if the journalist is accused of a felony or misdemeanor related to his journalistic work. In this case, the prosecution announced that the investigations had been conducted. In the presence of lawyers and a member of the union, along with a journalist who is a member of the union, this is an important guarantee that should not be overlooked.

Here is a professional, not political, question: If there are accusations of torture or coercion to provide any information, and these allegations are proven to be untrue, does the person who made these accusations in advance have the courage to admit that he made a mistake? The prosecution said that three of those who alleged that cruelty was used against them were referred to forensic medicine, and that reports showed that they were free of injuries and that there were no signs indicating the use of any violence.

The problem is that part of the public discourse of a particular movement wants a comfortable answer: that state institutions are lying and the truth is more complex, while the existence of a real security issue is ignored, with evidence and documents confirming dollar transfers amounting to three and a half million dollars in six years. The question here is: Is there no possibility that some of the accused are involved in a crime? Let us be surprised by a statement that anticipates the investigations, putting the Syndicate Council in one trench, as if defending those who spread rumors and fight for a terrorist group, without this meaning that every journalist Criticizing the state is part of the conspiracy or committing a crime. Every journalist has the right to criticize, without this granting him immunity if it is proven that he has gone beyond journalistic work into criminal activity. These are indisputable facts that have no appeal.

If I am a stakeholder, such as a member of a general assembly who is jealous of his profession, and before that an Egyptian citizen who is keen on the stability and security of his country, I refuse to turn the Journalists Syndicate into a political party confronting the Ministry of the Interior and state institutions and to separate from reality for the purpose of some people, whether political passion or union failure. The union’s job is to protect its members by law, follow up on investigations, demand guarantees, and face any transgression if proven, but it does not have the authority to rule on the case, and state institutions have also enabled the union’s representatives to Attending and performing their role in follow-up, on the other hand, protecting the journalist should not turn into protecting an illegal organization or activity. The journalist has his rights, the accused has his guarantees, the state has its right to protect its security, and the judiciary alone has the right to decide on accusations.

The Egyptians decided their position on the Brotherhood and its political project on June 30, and journalists were at the forefront of the scene, defending the nation’s identity and seizing its capabilities and fate in the hands of the Office of International Guidance and Organization. Here we do not justify anything or arbitrary measures. Confronting the group does not mean suspending reason, and does not mean that every criticism of the state becomes treason. Likewise, defending freedoms does not mean acquitting those whose connection to a terrorist organization is proven, and I firmly believe that the state does not confuse between Opposition and crime. How many of those who adopt opposition positions and opinions come to the forefront in the media and various state events. They are part of the scene. Therefore, the most dangerous service that can be provided to the groups that target the state is to make all state agencies appear in the eyes of the citizen to be an enemy of the press and society, contrary to the truth and reality.

Therefore, the correct question is not: “With the Interior Ministry or with the journalists?” Rather: “For or against the law?” If there is evidence of a crime, let it be presented before the judiciary. If there is a violation by a security apparatus, let it be investigated and the perpetrator held accountable. If there is a journalist practicing his professional work, let him obtain the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. If it is proven that a media platform has turned into an arm of a terrorist organization, let it be judged by evidence, not by slogans.

When do we believe? When we find evidence that can be tested, when do we not believe it? When we are asked to believe just because the story agrees with our anger, fear, or bias, and I am speaking to the wise and senior people of this profession, this is the real battle: Doesn’t the confrontation between us as a journalistic group turn into divisions and accusations from which only our opponent will benefit, an opponent whom we fought and removed with precious blood, and who is now watching, lurking, and pouring gasoline on the fire to make the situation more combustible? Shall we give him the “pleasure of watching”?! It is unacceptable to put the profession down. And the state institutions are in a confrontation as if they were rivals in a way that contradicts reality. The loser here is the nation, the citizen, and the profession of searching for truth. Stubbornness will not do justice to the profession, nor will it bring to its owners what some believe are rights, and it will only lead to a clash. No one is above accountability, and it is not permissible, nor should we, to exclude anyone from accountability.

Quoted from "Akhbar Al-Youm"