At the outset of this article, I will address the most prominent and pressing question echoing today within the halls of Parliament and across public discourse: Is banning the Muslim Brotherhood enough? Or does the real solution lie in dissolving the Islamic Action Front (IAF)—the political arm of the Brotherhood, represented by 31 MPs under the dome?
اضافة اعلان
Like many who closely follow and analyze the scene, I observe the recent escalation and accusations directed at figures associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, alleged to be involved in terrorist activities that “threaten national security and citizen safety.” Since the group lost its legal legitimacy years ago, it has been considered outside the official framework of public engagement and under the scrutiny of security agencies. However, this step alone has proven insufficient in curbing its influence. The current political reality shows that the Islamic Action Front, the Brotherhood’s legal and licensed political wing, still plays a relatively active role and remains one of the most prominent opposition voices in Parliament today.
In light of recent developments and the increasingly confrontational rhetoric within Parliament, I believe the IAF’s presence is now under real threat. A growing number of voices are explicitly calling for the eradication of what remains of the Brotherhood—including its political instruments, namely the Islamic Action Front.
Just yesterday, parliamentary sessions witnessed remarkable interventions by several MPs urging the government to proceed with dissolving the IAF, considering it an ideological and organizational extension of the now-dissolved Brotherhood. Some of its members are being accused of involvement in terrorist cases that endanger the state.
Although this heightened political tone has yet to translate into an official decision, it reflects a broader sentiment among certain political circles pushing for a definitive confrontation with political Islam—one that goes beyond prior administrative measures, aiming instead for complete resolution.
Herein lies a complex equation: Is the legal ban on the parent group sufficient, without touching the political party? Or are we now heading toward a more radical option—the dissolution of the Islamic Action Front itself and a comprehensive ban on the Brotherhood?
Restricting the Brotherhood and prosecuting those involved in terrorism, while allowing its political wing to operate, may not satisfy the public. It could even open the door to extremist voices who perceive impunity for others as injustice. On the other hand, the option of a full dissolution, including the political arm, is gaining traction among some MPs. However, this remains entangled in legal and constitutional complexities for now.
To conclude, it seems that one of these two paths will be taken by early June, without a doubt. The “complete solution”—once deemed unlikely—is no longer a distant possibility, but one of the strongest scenarios currently on the table. Nevertheless, the final decision will likely be made at the last moment, free from parliamentary pressure or otherwise, taking into account all key factors—chief among them national stability and the higher interests of the state.
