Lately, Saudi thinker Dr. Khaled Al-Dakheel wrote on Twitter: “In a same cultural and political setting, you will discover that practically all adversaries of political Islam follow the concept of excluding the violation exclusively, and not believe in the right to freedom, which indicates that the mindset that drives the views of two groups is very much the same.”

Some individuals criticized Al-Dakheel’s words while others praised them. And it was an old dispute stretching back to the Arab Spring, which lasted from December 2010 until about 2013, when such tides of the Arab Spring began to fade, and those tides were ridden by Islamists led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

At the moment, the outcome of the argument from followers of the Arab Spring revolutions and also some liberals was that notion of freedom for everyone is a consistent principle that includes the right of the Brotherhood and for those who sprung from this to govern states, manage people's affairs, and implement their political, intellectual, and social policies.

That's the moral-political argument, far from the actual goals and coordination between those who sought power at the time or those who participated in the Brotherhood's influence.

Returning to some of the Saudi intellectuals' reactions to the statements of Dr. Khaled Al-Dakheel's we might look at Dr. Turki Al-reaction: Hamad's "Your remark is not right at all." The aim is to preserve freedom from its opponents, never to remove the violation. The objective in interacting with the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk is not to allow the adversaries of pluralism the chance to manage society by excluding others, as their texts indicate. What you regard to as exclusion is a defence of plurality, but never the other way around.”

In her response, Saudi critic Dr. Fatima Al-Otaibi stated, "The rejection of political Islam is founded on ideas of labeling as unbelievers (takfeer) and the acceptability of blood-shedding, and proclaiming the authority to judge individuals in this realm and the Hereafter." Why do we oppose racism and the exclusion it causes based on color, gender, and ethnicity, but accepting political Islam and its murderous consequences?”

The point is that this argument spans Arabs and Muslims, but also their disagreements over the right of fanatics and those using religious weapons to punish offenders. This is a truly worldwide discussion since we have witnessed how fanatical Western liberals, politicians, and activists fought for the Brotherhood's right to govern Egypt, with former US President Barack Obama at the front of such adversaries. However, the Brotherhood's dark days in Egypt demonstrated the character of the state that they wished to spread to the rest of the world.

The crucial question is, "What do all the people of those countries truly desire?" Would that be a ballot box and Sufi faith in it, or do they want safety, progress and the forward march towards the future?

Even so, we're seeing initiatives by the architects of the Arab Spring, the Spring of Desolation, to resurrect it, even just a retired Arab official, one of Col. Gaddafi's friends, is advocating this in the latest television interview.