At five in the afternoon, Cairo time (45) ..Dismantling the Muslim Brotherhood Organization… France’s Decision as the Beginning of a New European Phase (Final)

The French State Confronting Infiltration:

Between Late Awakening and the Constraints of the “Open Republic”

After many long years of hesitation, occasional denial, and frequent underestimation, the French state has begun to realize that the issue is no longer merely one of “conservative religiosity,” nor simply a matter of “isolated cases of extremism,” but rather an organized project operating over the long term, exploiting legal loopholes and benefiting from the state’s sensitivity to accusations of “racism” and “Islamophobia.”

The report places before us a simple yet harsh truth:

France confronted terrorism on the security level… but it was very late in confronting the “structure” that produces social separation.

Incidentally, this is precisely what we need in Egypt and the Arab countries. We confronted the organization through security measures and succeeded, but we never truly confronted the intellectual and organizational infrastructure of its ideas—an infrastructure that produced a distortion in citizens’ sense of belonging to their country, their belief in national values, and their prioritization of those values above any others.

 

1) From “Combating Terrorism” to “Combating Separatism”

The greatest shift in French state thinking, as the report suggests, is the move from the logic of:

 

 

pursuing the extremist individual to the logic of:

 

 

dismantling the networks that create the enabling environment.

 

 

Brotherhood fundamentalism does not prevail through bombs alone; it prevails when a suburb or neighborhood is transformed into a space governed by different rules, including:

a different language, different reference points, different loyalties, and a different definition of citizenship.

From here emerged the concept of “separatism” as a political and security heading, replacing reliance solely on the term “extremism,” which later evolved into a law known as the “Respect for the Values of the Republic” law.

 

2) Where Was the Failure? And Why Was Awareness Delayed?

The report identifies several reasons that helped Islamist Brotherhood networks expand without decisive confrontation:

a) Deficiency in understanding the strategy:

Authorities often dealt with the phenomenon as isolated incidents, while the project operates as a network:

education + associations + discourse + funding + local influence + international spread.

b) The state’s sensitivity to accusations of racism:

Because of the war of terminology, any move against Brotherhood fundamentalism was immediately interpreted as “targeting Muslims.”

c) The state’s reliance on non-neutral intermediaries:

When the state searches for “representatives of Muslims,” it falls into the trap of empowering the most organized actors—who are often the Brotherhood and those closest to them.

d) Legal shortcomings:

Association law, freedom of organization, and freedom of expression are all keys that these networks have exploited intelligently within a democratic state.

 

3) Tools of Confrontation: What Does the State Do When It Awakens?

The report explains that the French state has begun to adopt a multi-tool approach that does not rely solely on traditional security measures, but also on:

First: Administrative and legal oversight

The state has resorted to:

 

 

auditing the work of associations,

 

 

monitoring funding,

 

 

tracking undeclared activities,

 

 

assessing discourse within religious and educational structures.

 

 

The aim of all this is not to “close the space to Islamic activity,” but to prevent the use of the law against the values of the Republic.

Second: Closing structures when necessary

This occurs when there is evidence of:

 

 

incitement,

 

 

hate speech,

 

 

violations of secularism,

 

 

parallel activities that affect public order.

 

 

In such cases, the state tends toward closure or administrative dissolution.

However, the report suggests that the problem is not closure alone, because networks can re-emerge under new names if the “organizational logic” itself is not dismantled.

Third: Recalibrating the education sector

The report considers education the most dangerous point of vulnerability, and therefore the state has begun to:

 

 

tighten oversight of private schools not under contract with the state,

 

 

monitor curricula and textbooks,

 

 

curb “kuttabs” that transmit content contrary to republican values,

 

 

pay attention to distance education (via the internet) that is not subject to any regulated framework.

 

 

The battle here is not over “information,” but over identity and reference.

Fourth: Managing the file of imams

The report clarifies that the training of imams has remained a sensitive loophole due to:

 

 

reliance on imams coming from abroad,

 

 

network influence in training structures,

 

 

a contradiction between internal and external discourse.

 

 

The state has begun to think about a model of a “French imam” more connected to French culture and the rules of the state, but implementation has collided with complexities of funding and external influence.

 

4) The State Confronting “Judicial Jihad”

One of the most dangerous issues highlighted by the report is the use of the judiciary as a weapon to silence opponents.

The state finds itself facing a paradox:

 

 

the judiciary is a sacred republican institution,

 

 

but:

 

 

some networks exploit it to intimidate journalists, researchers, and politicians.

 

 

The objective here is not merely to win a case, but to:

 

 

exhaust the opponent financially,

 

 

drag them into continuous defense,

 

 

stigmatize them socially and in the media.

 

 

Hence, awareness has begun to emerge within the French state of the need to:

 

 

protect freedom of research and criticism,

 

 

prevent the judiciary from becoming a tool of “terminological warfare” against the Republic.

 

 

 

5) The Media… A Battlefield, Not a Platform for Debate

The report indicates that the French state was late in understanding the “media battle” waged by Islamist networks.

The Brotherhood and their allies do not rely solely on influence through mosques or associations, but also through:

 

 

organized campaigns on social media,

 

 

inflating a “case” to turn it into a national crisis,

 

 

dragging the media into a terrain of moral accusation,

 

 

creating constant pressure on politicians.

 

 

The danger here is that when the state responds directly, it sometimes loses, because its opponent plays the “victim” card, while the state is bound to a cold, institutional language.

 

6) The Limits of Confrontation: Why Was France Unable to Decide Easily?

The report reveals that the French state was constrained by factors that made confrontation complex:

a) Democratic constraints:

The law grants freedom of organization, civil activity, and expression—and these very freedoms are the doors through which infiltration occurs.

b) Fear of social explosion:

Any harsh confrontation could turn into unrest within sensitive neighborhoods.

c) Pressure from international discourse:

Terms such as “minority rights” and “pluralism” are sometimes used to portray the state as repressive.

d) Distinguishing between Islam as a religion and Islamism as a project:

This is the most difficult challenge: for the state to fight a political project carried out in the name of religion without falling into the suspicion of targeting the religion itself.

 

7) The Equation of “Precise Surgery”

The conclusion clearly proposed by the report is that France does not need a loud war, but rather surgical dismantling:

 

 

drying up suspicious sources of funding,

 

 

regulating private education and kuttabs,

 

 

protecting the public sphere from sectarian segregation,

 

 

striking networks, not individuals alone,

 

 

exposing dual discourse,

 

 

redefining religious representation away from the Brotherhood.

 

 

It is a battle over the “system,” not over “persons.”

The conclusion reached by the confidential report—which never saw the light of day but on which the May 2025 report was based—confirms that France has awakened… but too late, and this delay came at a cost:

the networks became entrenched, expanded, built an economy, and established local rules of influence.

Hence, a radical confrontation that does not hold the stick in the middle was inevitable, and placing the Brotherhood on the list of terrorist organizations became the solution.

Tomorrow, new installments under the title:

Arab National Security… Files Not Yet Closed

Paris: five o’clock in the evening, Cairo time.