After Hosni Mubarak it was for the very first time that Muhammad Morsi (Muslim Brother Hood) got a chance to rule over Egypt. But within a year scenario changed and his government was halted by military to work further for the country. When Morsi demanded financial aid from IMF, it refused by and showed back to him. Keeping it's concerns regarding terms and conditions IMF totally rejected Morsi's demand. The country was in turmoil and there was a severe need of money to get it restore to it's original position. . The question arise why IMF neglected Morsi's call for help and why military intervened ??? People who staged protest during Morsi's government were liberal and we didn't sighted any inhuman activities at that time. . .but the people who are protesting now are Morsi's supporter and just in weeks thousands have been killed. Besides that why saudi isn't supporting Morsi?? Whereas Muslim Brother hood is having total allegiance with religion. . .Kindly focus on topic instead of leading it other side . . !! Over to you

This is a fight between Liberals and Islamists. Muslim Brotherhood led government was the first democratically elected government and don't forget Morsi got 56% votes while Obama barely got 52% support in his re-election.

There is a hell of contradiction, Morsi's govt was ousted by El Sisi at the instance of few thousand Liberals, why not reinstate him at the instance of Millions? We saw the sit in at Tehrir Square by the Liberals as well as by Pro Morsi people but the havoc was wreaked on Morsi's supporters.

when Morsi asked for help from the IMF to set in order the moribund economy, he was straightaway refused while we know that Spain and Greece were given loans by the IMF despite having lower ratings by Standard and Poors than Egypt.

The coup d'etat, the victim of which Morsi has fallen is because of nothing but Islamic reforms that Morsi was trying to introduce. His audacious stand against the Israel is another reason, he became the eye sour of the West.

Morsi was democratically elected by the majority of the people of Egypt, now when the mandate given by the people has not been respected, the army is curbing their right of protest as well, which is certainly against the spirit of Democracy.

So The conclusion is that this is old fight between Liberals and Islamists, the liberals are always supported by West and the US, the Egypt will see further apocalyptic scenes and brutalities, innocent people will be slain and no one will ask for why they are being killed!

__________________
Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.
But when love is one sided, holding off is no more an option.

Well good questions but firstly we need to discard the assumption that Saudi Arabia would provide unconditional support to any faction purely on the basis of allegiance to religion.

I will share with you what my Egyptian friend has told me thus far regarding this issue. During the 50s or something, the Muslim brotherhood tried to launch a coup in Egypt and an assassination attempt on the then president Gamal Nasser. However, they failed and Nasser launched a very serious crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood. In the times of this disparity, saudi arabia agreed to provide asylum to the Muslim Brotherhood. And Yes for that time period your argument is valid. Saudi Arabia at that time provided asylum to Muslim Brotherhood purely on the basis of religious allegiance.

The relationship between Muslim brotherhood and SA started to deteriorate when MB became too comfortable within the region and SA and started adopting and propagating democratic ideologies. This was a direct political threat to the ruling monarchy of SA.

Long story short, due to the arab uprising, ousting of many dictators/monarchs and the popularity of MB in tunisia and egypt, SA decision to back egypt military is only political, it has nothing to do with the religion.

As for the question of IMF. I believe Morsi's administration was just not qualified to receive the aid. Or perhaps it just did not fit the criteria of giving something in return to the west. Since IMF, UN and West can always be used interchangeably, Morsi's administration was always a threat to the west. Their ideologies and their political stance were mostly inclined with extreme right and thus a direct threat to the liberal wests. I could be wrong ofcourse in my assumption.

Why military intervened? well thats a long story. Suffice it to say that Morsi brought this upon himself. This coup was really inevitable. He tried to accumulate a lot of power in a very short span of time thus making a lot of enemies on the way.

__________________
"The unbelievers plotted and God planned, but God is a much better planner" [Surah Al-Imran 3:54]

Liberals vs Islamist ; one of the biggest fights within Muslim society , we can ever imagine .

__________________
''Sufficient for us is Allah , and He is the best Disposer of affairs" Al-Quran

Muslim Brotherhood tried to mix religion with politics.And the irony is that they relied on secular democratic process to further their extremist views.The coup could have been avoided if MB had tried to deliver good governance.But unfortunately,Morsi acted more like a typical extremist than a leader.

If they tried to mingle religion with politics, what's wrong with that? Islam is not a set of religious dogmas like other religions, it is a complete conduct of life that extends from personal life of Husband and wife to the Politics as well.....our Holy Prophet (PBUH) became the politician when he came to Madinah and Mithaq e madina is the First ever political document and constitution in the annals of the world history, He was clearly a politician who did the politics as a messenger of Allah clearly in the light of Islamic teachings. So my friend you are wrong in saying that Islam has no say in politics.

And what is extremism in what the did? Implementing Islamic reforms is no extremism. My friend for you Islamic reforms would be extremism, because A liberal dictionary describes the word Extremism in precisely the same way you are suggesting, but allow me to contradict with you, it is not a correct description.

Good Governance in 8 Months! What a bluff.....My dear it takes years to set in order a moribund economy and cure the repercussions of a tyrannical rule, you want them to deliver in 8 months, that might be called prejudice not pragmatism.

my friend who are you to decide that he was not a leader? Those who had elected him as their leader giving him 56% votes consider him their leader.....If a person who secures majority support is not a leader then Obama is a leader who secured only 52%?

I think extremists are those Liberals who did not respect the mandate given to Muslim Brotherhood, but pity is that they wanted the Egypt to be a true Islamic state, that's the only crime.

__________________
Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.
But when love is one sided, holding off is no more an option.

@Bilal Hassan
First of all,I would advise you stay calm.It is just an intellectual debate which demands logical reasoning,not emotional outburst.

Yes,Islam provides a complete code of life but Islamic Political System requires immense knowledge of Shariah and Fiqh.And in the absence of such knowledge,every leader tries to implement Shariah laws according to his own interpretation.And whenever the state becomes sectarian,menace of extremism starts to take roots.And this process started in Pakistan when Zia government became sectarian.
It is correct that Morsi enjoyed majority,but he wasted his political capitals by using tyrannical methods to grasp power.And a leader is one who anticipates the crisis and successfully handles the crisis.However,Morsi lacked such leadership skills.

My friend I am staying calm and nonchalant, i think you have no valid argument to justify your stance so accusing me of being emotional is the last choice for you.... and I thing i have been very logical in my approach, proving my stance with examples and in a logical way...Do not poison the well, it is a logical fallacy being the part of Ad Hominem, that you are committing my friend..and you are also committing a logical fallacy called Red Herring, you are being irrelevant...I am not that innocent to be experienced with such sort of tactics my friend Don't do that...stay Logical and to the point...

And you think that he did not possess any knowledge of Shariah! Great.....Brotherhood has a long history of struggle, from Syed Quttab to date, may be he has no knowledge of Shariah but there is an institution called Shura, Brotherhood has Ulemas in their ranks to guide them brother.....Now you are backing away from your claims that you made against him in earlier post, i proved each one of them wrong citing examples.

However you have right to give your opinion. I disapprove of what you say, but i will defend your right to say it till my death.

You also be little prudent my friend, when you don't have an argument, accusing other person of being emotional is an old tactic of escape. Be wary about it next time. Sagacious people give arguments to support their stance, they don't get into bad tactics, and i know you are a good person my brother.

Stay Blessed.

__________________
Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.
But when love is one sided, holding off is no more an option.

I think we are again making the mistake of assuming that Islam or religion is the crux of this issue. Its all politics. Politics is a game of keeping everyone happy while enjoying power. Very few know how to handle and play this delicate game. Morsi most certainly did not. I mean, he sidelined even the Salafist parties who had originally supported Morsi's movement and who could have proven to be his greatest allies in these times. Thinking completely logically, if even the fringe right parties find themselves having issues with Morsi's islamist regime, then there is most certainly something wrong. If everyone says it, they can't be all wrong right!?

The issue is not mixing politics with religion, the real issue is Morsi's approach at implementing his vision of a Islamic State. He should've played some politics. His impatience led him to his doom. People are not so readily inclined to such drastic and sudden changes that he brought in the country. He should have steadily implemented laws so that people have room to absorb all that.

If we were to emulate the same circumstances on Pakistan in a hypothetical situation that brought mubarak down and Talibans were to suddenly take over, would we be so readily to give into the laws made by them? Ofcourse not. I think we need to empathize with the people of Egypt instead of forming our own shallow judgments.

__________________
"The unbelievers plotted and God planned, but God is a much better planner" [Surah Al-Imran 3:54]

No doubt Morsi and Morsi's policies were pro-islamic and he was going to led the foundation of an Islamic state. . but i don't think it was the need of time. . Things does not change that fast. . it was like Deen-e-illahi during Akbar reigns. . to many people it was some how unacceptable . . . keeping in view the global changes i think Morsi should have wait for the right time. . One shouldn't be biased in any aspect. . he didn't bothered to care what liberals were demanding. . And if he have had a sense of equality then he must have thought for both the sides. .and that might have been helpful for him and his government??

__________________
Dekha hai aino'n ko paseene se tarba tar. . .
Ya Rab! haqeeqato'n se koi aashna na ho. . .