Recent popular protests in Egypt were met with diverse responses from official and independent ulema, offering support or condemnation. Al-Azhar issued statements supporting the government, but internal divisions resulted in a number of scholars, including official spokesman Mohamed Rifa' al Tahtawy, resigning and participating in the protests. In contrast, Salafi preachers such as Mohammed Hassan initially pleaded with demonstrators to return home, but later praised them for fighting injustice. This paper argues that conflicting statements from Muslim leaders regarding protests reduced their overall credibility, resulting in failure to drive the movement. Main issues discussed are: What effect did official responses from state-sponsored institutions, including al-Azhar and the Grand Mufti, have on the protests, if any? What comments came from independent scholars such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi who have long-standing disagreements with the former government? How did “evangelical” preachers such as Amr Khaled interact with protestors, given that they have been regarded as symbols of a new, youthful Islam? What was the position of conservative groups such as the Salafis, who usually take a firm stance against protests based on classical rulings? Finally, after the President’s removal, what role have these institutions and scholars played? The sources for this study are statements from Islamic authorities as published in government newspapers including Al-Ahram and Al-Akhbar, as well as opposition newspapers Al Dustur, al-Masri al-Yawm, and al-Shuruq. Additional data is gathered from interviews and sermons by religious officials on state television, Nile TV and other Arab news outlets such as Al Jazeera. From the data gathered, it appears that traditional institutions such as Al Azhar were split between official support of the regime and increasing internal demands for change. Independents like Yusuf al-Qaradawi attacked the government and have made moves to play a role in the post-Mubarak Egypt. Newer Islamic preachers such as Amr Khaled supported youth power, organizing volunteers to rebuild the country. Ultimately, this paper argues that the contradictory statements issued by Muslim authorities resulted in their failure, as a body, to have a significant impact on the protests. Demonstrators acted without direction from the ulema, leaving state-sponsored and independent religious institutions in a weakened position to guide political change. This may also contribute to changes in the relationship between ulema and laity, reinforcing an already pronounced populist influence on discourses and decisions of Muslim authorities.