The recent controversial statements by Mahdi Akef, the General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, during a conference convened by the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc entitled “Conference on Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the dangers of Judaization” are completely untrue. Akef has gone beyond logic and reason, both at the national and political level; he has even gone beyond civility.

The “Guide” said that “it was Egypt’s duty to thank Hezbollah rather than investigate the [Hezbollah] cell” that was [recently] arrested in Egypt, and which Hassan Nasrallah admitted [had connections to his organization]. Akef added that Hassan Nasrallah did not mean to send this cell “to [commit acts of] destruction or attack, but [rather] to support the Palestinian resistance. What Hassan Nasrallah does for the resistance is something that Egypt cannot do, and something that we have failed to do.”

Is it reasonable for such talk to come from an Egyptian citizen, particularly the General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, especially after Khalid Mishal’s recent statements to the New York Times which showed the extent to which he discounted the loss of innocent lives in Gaza?

Is it reasonable for Akef to say what he said about his own country, especially since Egypt has fought wars for the sake of Palestine, in which Egyptian blood has been shed and the Egyptian economy affected?

Are these the words of a man who is even aware of what he is saying?

At this point we must point out how puzzling our stance as Arabs is when one is forced to remind a citizen of the value of his own country, and what it has done, and what it deserves, and what it does not deserve with regards to confronting misfortunes.

Akef did not stop at this political and intellectual departure [from reason], but also wrongfully attacked all Arab regimes described them as “more Zionist than Zionism.”

This attack was made against regimes that have protected Lebanon from being used by Nasrallah, and footed the bill for Lebanese reconstruction, as well as paying the bill for Gaza in power and the money of its own people; meanwhile Iran’s “pure” money only serves to provide destruction and ruin.

Will the Arab regimes that do not accept interference in their affairs, and reject Iran’s attempts at tampering in our security policies and ideology be considered traitors, meanwhile a man such as Akef believes that there is no harm in desecrating our countries, and making light of our local and national organizations?

This is something that is not right at all!

Is it reasonable for Akef to describe former [Egyptian] President Anwar Sadat as a traitor because he made war and then made peace and recovered his occupied territory [from Israel]?

Is one who recovers his land a traitor?

If the recovery of occupied territory is treason than what is heroism and what is honor?

Therefore it is clear that discussion with the General Guide has gone beyond all logic, and the issue is no longer one idea debating another; rather what [Egyptian poet] Ahmed Shawqi said can be applied to Akef:

If guidance comes from passion

And arrogance; then call it misguidance

What has been attributed to the General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood has become something that requires reconsideration, not with regards to the statements that he made, but rather to the degree of his awareness [that led him to make these statements in the first place]. Accordingly the time has come to examine Akef, in order to protect him and those around him, as well as to protect the generations that believe that he is an opinion-maker and a man of conviction.