This paper will examine the current discourse of the Muslim Brotherhood on the role of God (or perhaps, more correctly, the role of religion) in the Arab spring. It argues that the way the role of God was conceived of in relation to the momentous changes that occurred is complex and, as within Islamic jurisprudence, cannot be reduced to a binary between a secular approach that emphasizes the role of the autonomous individual in shaping history and a religious one that emphasizes God’s complete role at the expense of free will. In 1967, after the defeat by Israel, Muhammad al-Sha’rawi stated “God’s program has been victorious.” Similarly, after the revolution of 2011, the preacher Safwat Hegazy stated that “God brought about the revolution (sana'aha)” a phrase that appeared to be accepted by Islamist and secular groups alike. Popularly, the revolution, whereby Mubarak after 30 years in office was toppled in 18 days, was portrayed as a type of miracle for which God should be thanked. This paper analyzes the full implications of these responses, with a particular focus on how Muslim Brotherhood members, thinkers, and religious leaders, conceive of the role God had—and continues to have—in shaping Egyptian history. Initial research indicates that to acknowledge that God made the revolution is seen as a way of being thankful to God but does not detract from the belief that human beings are endowed with free will. At the same time, such individuals would not claim that the revolution happened because of their power. More recently, the Muslim Brotherhood claims that while God is helping president Mursi, the trials and tribulations that Egypt is currently going through are seen as a test from God and as something that could, in the end, be beneficial. The Qur’anic verses 2:216 (But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you) and 94:5-6 (So, verily, with every difficulty, there is relief) forms a key part of their thinking. The paper will relate this thought to broader debates about the secular, in particular to the secularization of time (Taylor) and to the secular concept of the role of the autonomous individual in shaping history (Asad).