
Sudanese political analysts and experts have stated that the Islamic Movement (Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood) in Sudan has shown strong support for General al-Burhan and his army (SAF) since the onset of the ongoing conflict, emphasizing that the group does not believe in a peaceful transition of power in the country.
Experts argue that the Muslim Brotherhood, operating covertly behind the SAF, has pushed the nation to the brink of division by continuing the war and spreading a discourse of hatred and incitement against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has aligned itself with the push for democratic reform.
The analysts highlighted that the RSF stands as a significant obstacle to the Muslim Brotherhood’s return to power. By backing democratic transition demands and advocating for peaceful power-sharing, the RSF’s stance has led the Muslim Brotherhood to adopt a military solution to eliminate the force, aiming to impose their rule by force.
Since the war erupted, the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly sided with the SAF after Geral Abdel Fattah al-Burhan embraced their political agenda. This stance marked a departure from a civilian agreement that was intended to restore civilian governance and dismantle the remnants of the Bashir regime.
Meanwhile, the RSF supported the “Framework Agreement” signed with civilian groups that helped overthrow the former government.
Political Analysis and Brotherhood’s Struggle for Power
Political analyst Dawood Khater stated that the Muslim Brotherhood cannot function outside of power and rejects the concept of power rotation, citing their time in governance under the ousted dictator Omar al-Bashir. He described how, in late 2018, when the Sudanese people began large-scale protests, the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to deceive the populace by presenting a façade of support for the protests. However, their attempt to cling to power ultimately failed as protestors continued to demand full civilian control.
Khater noted that the Muslim Brotherhood resorted to using force to end sit-ins that sought to establish civilian governance, later staging a coup against Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok.
He further criticized their manipulation of the ongoing conflict by misleading the public with false narratives and inciting violence against the RSF.
According to Khater, the Muslim Brotherhood used their security and military infrastructure to forcibly suppress the Sudanese people. This, he argues, would have continued after the ousting of Bashir had it not been for the defection of the RSF.
The presence of the RSF, aligned with the goals of democratic transition and peaceful power-sharing, has become a major barrier for the Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions. Khater warned that the Muslim Brotherhood would persist with the war to eliminate the RSF, using deceptive rhetoric such as framing the conflict as a “war for dignity” and labeling the RSF as “scattered Arabs.”
He accused the Muslim Brotherhood of manipulating ethnic tensions and fomenting conflict in Darfur and Kordofan to prevent unity among the local populations, ultimately stoking divisions for political advantage. He reiterated that the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing tactics are aimed at destabilizing the situation and maintaining their stranglehold on power.
The Path to Peace and Unity
Political analyst Salah Hassan Jumah echoed these concerns, warning that the Muslim Brotherhood’s reliance on hate speech and incitement could drive Sudan further toward fragmentation. Jumah also highlighted the Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts to distort facts about the recent death of an RSF commander, which they used to stoke divisions between local tribes.
Despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s military actions, Jumah believes the conflict cannot be resolved through military force alone. He emphasized that the war would end only through dialogue and a peace process that addresses the demands of the Sudanese people, as voiced during the protests against Bashir.