clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

British inquiry clears Muslim Brotherhood of involvement in historical Cairo fire, documents reveal

January 26, 2025 at 9:58 am

Cairo fire on January 1952 [Wikipedia]

A UK inquiry exonerated the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) from involvement in the historic Cairo fire and riots of 1952, according to British files.

The files, unearthed by MEMO at the National Archives, showed that the inquiry instead held the Socialist Egypt Party and Egyptian authorities responsible for the events.

On January 26, 1952, Cairo was engulfed in fires and riots, an incident historically referred to as The Cairo fire. Reports indicate that over 700 buildings were burnt and looted, including the iconic Cairo Opera House, which was completely destroyed during the day also known as Black Saturday.

The riots followed a deadly clash on January 25, when British occupation forces attacked an Egyptian police station in Ismailia, North Eastern Egypt, killing 47 auxiliary policemen, wounding 72 others, and detaining several hundreds. The events ignited spontaneous anti-British demonstrations in Cairo that were exploited by organised elements in the crowd, leading to large-scale destruction amidst an unexplained absence of the police and the army.

Read: When will Egyptians reclaim the January Revolution?

The Cairo fire discredited King Farouk’s royal regime, prompting a series of short-lived governments that failed to regain public confidence. Historians view the riots as a critical turning point that paved the way for the Free Officers’ Movement to oust King Farouk on July 23, 1952.

For decades, Egyptian media, historians, and anti-Muslim Brotherhood figures have accused the MB of orchestrating the fires and riots to support British forces facing resistance in the Suez Canal region. However, British documents reveal that an official inquiry found no evidence implicating the organisation in the planning or execution of the events.

The inquiry was conducted by an official seven-member committee chaired by M.T. Audsley, Labour Attaché, and included the British Consul-General, representatives from the British Chamber of Commerce, and officials from the British Embassy in Cairo. In its final report, the committee explained that it relied on “accounts they have received from eye-witnesses of actual incidents and by the information supplied through reliable sources”.

A few days after the riots, the Muslim Brotherhood was widely rumored to have played an active role in the events. However, the inquiry found no evidence to prove such a claim. Its report   stated that the Egyptian authorities themselves “found no proof of the organisation’s involvement as a group”. But it added the authorities “concede that as individuals, many of its members may have exploited the situation as it developed”.

The report noted that the outrages committed during the riots were consistent with the “fanatical ideals of the rank-and-file members of the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen,” a group the British associated with terrorism due to its resistance activities against British occupation forces in the Suez Canal region.

The inquiry examined allegations that MB members targeted bars and restaurants due to their puritanical beliefs, possibly with the assistance of Communist elements aiming to destroy establishments used by the rich Egyptians and non-Egyptians. However, the inquiry found no evidence to substantiate these claims.

Instead, the inquiry concluded that Ahmed Hussain, leader of the Socialist Egypt Party, and his followers were primarily responsible for planning and executing the destruction.

The inquiry was told by “experienced observers” that they considered that “only Ahmed Hussein and his party had the means readily at their disposal to plan and carry out most of the fire-raising attacks”.

The investigators “took into account the confessions of  (Abdel) Fatah Hassan Pasha, the then- Minister of Social Affairs made in the court”, where he admitted that he “handed from secret funds a substantial sum of money to Ahmed Hussain, the leader of the Socialist Egypt Party in October 1951”. But the minister “refused to say the purpose for which the money was given”.

Witnesses also testified that occupants of several cars and Jeebs seen frequently at many of the fire-raising incidents “were Ahmed Hussain’s followers some of whom were seen to take part in the attacks”.

“There is a little doubt in the minds of the committee that Ahmed Hussain and his Socialist Egypt Party were the principal designers and executors of the main destruction”, the final report said.

Therefore the Inquiry concluded that “it is not unreasonable to hold them responsible for these attacks”.

The inquiry found that the Egyptian government, particularly the Ministry of Interior, headed by Minister Fouad Serag El Din “must be held entirely responsible for creating the conditions which made it possible for the fire-raising plan to be put into effect”.

“Reliable informant has said that he overheard a telephone conversation between the Acting governor of Cairo and Fouad Serag El Eldin when the latter said the police were not to interfere”, the final report stated.

A Few days after the tragic events, it was reported that some five hundred determined rioters held the Egyptian capital at their mercy for several hours. The inquiry also highlighted the arrests of Communists and members of the Peace Movement in connection with the riots. However, the inquiry found that their involvement was opportunistic rather than coordinated.

It stated that while the evidence available to the Egyptian Security authorities “doesn’t indicate that they were collectively responsible for the attack”, it was believed that as individuals “they seized the opportunity to put their declared subversive aims into effect”.

Read: Does Egypt have its own Sednaya Prison?

 The final report suggested the plan of those rioters could have failed “if they had been challenged at the beginning by an armed and equally determined police forces”.

Questions were also raised about the delay of calling the Army in to control the situation. The final report stated that had the Army been brought in as soon as the police were known to be unreliable, it is contended that the whole plan would have collapsed almost immediately”.

The inquiry considered the government’s failure to ensure that the Army was available and was brought in to restore that order when it was apparent that the situation was out of hand “the major crime” contributing to the chaos.

The inquiry committee admitted that while not all facts were known, their conclusions were “factually correct and justified.”

Other Key Findings:

  • In some areas, the attackers mostly wore European clothes. There were a number of reports of these men being able to speak good English.
  • The British Council offices were attacked and the attackers called the building “Imperial House”.
  • The available police were used only on (Mustafa) Nahas (the Prime Minister) and Sarag el Din Pasha’s houses.

The report listed 142 Egyptian and non-Egyptian big targets burnt or looted of which 34 establishments were British or establishments with important British interests. It highlighted “five major attacks” on the British properties which resulted in 10 deaths and 2 serious injuries during the events with axes, iron bars, and wooden levers used in the assaults.

The British government considered the inquiry’s findings important. The Ministry of Employment praised Audsley’s work, noting its contribution to understanding the Middle East.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.