On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
I've brought up the Muslim Brotherhood quite a few times on Ricochet. As I've written before, I find it unfathomable, a true national security emergency, that the words "Muslim Brotherhood" mean so little to most Americans. I've been blaming the media, but I am the media, so perhaps it would behoove me just to do something about it.
This week I'll write a multi-part series about the Brotherhood, after which I expect all of America to understand the history and evolution of the Muslim Brotherhood, to be able to write a short essay about the key aspects of its ideology, to recognize the names of prominent figures in the Brotherhood and the names of Brotherhood-linked or inspired movements and groups (particularly those in America, and particularly those whose spokesmen keep showing up on the nightly news), to appreciate the reach of the Brotherhood today, to understand contemporary policy debates about the Brotherhood, and to be able to state succinctly why all of this matters to you. There will be a test at the end. All of America is expected to take it.
The Society of the Muslim Brotherhood--the Jamaat al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or the Ikhwan, for short--was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al Banna. A decade later, it had a million active followers and sympathizers in Egypt alone.
The first thing you must grasp about Brotherhood is its ideology: Its goal is the establishment everywhere of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law. In al Banna's own words, it seeks "to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." Its motto: "God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Qur'an our constitution, Jihad our way and dying for God's cause our supreme objective." Clear enough?
The Brotherhood's essence is immoderate: It is at its core unremittingly anti-secular, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic and anti-Western. It has fractured; there are divisions within it; like all movements it is comprised of individuals, some of whom are pleasant--but basically it has not changed. It was not moderate then and it is not moderate now. To the extent that al Banna rejected violence as a strategy, he did so only because he viewed it as an ineffective strategy so long as the movement was outranked by superior force--a strategy apt to result in the movement being crushed, which would be counter-productive.
Here is al-Banna in his own words on the concept of jihad. He rejects every verse or interpretation of the Koran that could be interpreted as "moderate" in favor of the most extreme verses and interpretations:
Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one's ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is quoted as proof: "We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on the greater jihad." They said: "What is the greater jihad?" He said: "The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one's ego."
This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah's way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition: The prominent muhaddith Al Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in the Tasdid al-Qaws:
‘It is well known and often repeated, and was a saying of Ibrahim ibn 'Abla.’
Al Hafiz Al Iraqi said in the Takhrij Ahadith al-Ahya’:
‘Al Bayhaqi transmitted it with a weak chain of narrators on the authority of Jabir, and Al Khatib transmitted it in his history on the authority of Jabir.’
Nevertheless, even if it were a sound tradition, it would never warrant abandoning jihad or preparing for it in order to rescue the territories of the Muslims and repel the attacks of the disbelievers. Let it be known that this narration simply emphasises the importance of struggling against one's ego so that Allah will be the sole purpose of everyone of our actions.
Other associated matters concerning jihad include commanding the good and forbidding the evil. It is said in the Hadeeth: "One of the greatest forms of jihad is to utter a word of truth in the presence of a tyrannical ruler." But nothing compares to the honour of shahadah kubra (the supreme martyrdom) or the reward that is waiting for the Mujahideen.
It's all like this, with al Banna. (No, it is not like this with all Muslims, unless you agree with him that those Muslims who believe fighting one's ego to be the greater jihad are "mistaken." Note that he himself believes that "many Muslims today" believe this.) But al Banna is the echt item--a radical who seeks to impose upon the world a religious tyranny by any means necessary:
we will not stop at this point [i.e., freeing Egypt from secularism and modernity], but will pursue this evil force to its own lands, invade its Western heartland, and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts by the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world. Only then will Muslims achieve their fundamental goal and all religion will be exclusively for Allah.
The second thing you must grasp is the approach al Banna advocated: to work slowly and patiently to politicize religion from the bottom up. The Brotherhood is sometimes described as “non-violent,” which is nonsense, it’s plenty violent, but this idea comes from al Banna’s observation that violence was only one tool in the toolkit, and shouldn’t be used when other tools would work more effectively.
The Brotherhood is vastly more sophisticated, in this sense, than al Qaeda. In Egypt, the Brotherhood created what has effectively been a shadow government, a state within a state, to redress local social grievances and channel economic and political discontent into Islamism. The Brotherhood built (and builds) schools, sports clubs, factories, medical clinics, an entire welfare service network. It had (and still has) specific branches charged with targeting specific segments of society--a bureau for peasants, a bureau for workers. It had (and has) dedicated units for domestic propaganda, for liaison with the wider Islamic world, for press relations. Al Banna created what was and remains an extremely sophisticated political organization, analogous in many ways to the Comintern.
He also created a paramilitary organization--one that stole weapons, trained fighters, formed assassination squads, created sleeper cells in the army and police, and waited for the order to begin an outright campaign of terror, assassination, and suicide missions. Then, as now, idiot Westerners looked at the Brotherhood, nodded sagely, and said, "Well, the people love them because they build soup kitchens. Surely that's very admirable."
The third essential thing you must grasp is that the Brotherhood formed an active alliance with the Nazis. There was a natural ideological affinity, obviously--Jew hatred, authoritarianism, an enthrallment with violence and a common hatred of the British. But the transformation of affinity to alliance had very distinct historic consequences; it is precisely why we keep seeing a form of anti-Semitism that reminds us of the Third Reich in the Islamic world today: It comes directly from the Third Reich. The Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood worked together to create Arab translations of Mein Kampf (translated as My Jihad), to translate anti-Semitic cartoons from Der Sturmer, and to adapt images of the Jew from "Enemy of the Volk" to "Enemy of Allah."
No, this kind of anti-Semitism is not simply the ancient nature of Islam, no more than it it is the ancient nature of Christian Europe--Nazism is a historically unique ideology and unique evil. This stuff we now see in the Islamic world looks like Nazism because it comes from the Nazis.
Let's begin with that. Tomorrow we'll explore the development of the Brotherhood in the postwar era. As a homework exercise, I leave it to America to identify lobby groups and think tanks in the United States that are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and to note ways that these groups have recently shaped public discourse on matters of national security.
If you fail the test, don't blame the media--I'm doing my best, here.
- Comment (58)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Geez. Only 200 words? Well, the link to my full response is this: http://gazistan.blogspot.com/2011/01/muslim-brotherhood-history-counterpoint.html
Thank you for inviting me into a debate, and I'm sorry that it took so long. I think it's a debate worth having, and I'm glad you do too.
To understand MB, one has to look at the context in which they began. We will move on to the post-war Brotherhood tomorrow, as you say.
Islam is an evangelical religion. Some branches more than others. It seeks to convert non-believers and asks its adherents to act as ambassadors for the religion and to live their lives religiously. It is no different from Evangelical Christianity in this regard.
Note that al-Banna goes out of his way to not use the term "Jihad bil Sayf". He rejected violence. MB has rejected violent means from its inception in 1928 (here) until current day (here).
If we're talking about them as a group, we're discussing an explicitly anti-violence organization that fell along the vaqf tradition of Egypt, but trying to bring it in line with 20th century determinationist and nationalist movements.
Jan '11
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
AJK: Geez. Only 200 words? Well, the link to my full response is this: http://gazistan.blogspot.com/2011/01/muslim-brotherhood-history-counterpoint.html
Thank you for inviting me into a debate, and I'm sorry that it took so long. I think it's a debate worth having, and I'm glad you do too.
Well, that didn't go nearly as far as I'd hope, but yeah, check the link, that's what I was trying to say. Hope that we can take the discussion from there. And thanks again. It's always tough to convey civility on twitter.
May '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Claire, you are awesome. I was just feeling so discouraged (as I do nearly every day) that the people around me don't have the first clue about Islam, the Brotherhood and sharia law. Not my friends, not my family, not my coworkers. I was trying to figure out how to tell people; but my brother thinks I am a reactionary now because I watch Fox News and occasionally Glenn Beck. The people around me cannot/will not HEAR this if the messenger sounds like a "conservative." Maybe I can try to pretend I'm still a leftist Democrat and use their language to get the information through.
Jul '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
AJK:
Islam is an evangelical religion. Some branches more than others. It seeks to convert non-believers and asks its adherents to act as ambassadors for the religion and to live their lives religiously. It is no different from Evangelical Christianity in this regard.
What a ridiculous comparison.
Gee, I haven't noticed any Evangelical Christians bombing mosques or beheading their Muslim neighbors.
Nov '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Katherine,
I hope that you are acquainted with the posts of "Robin of Berkeley" on the American Thinker site. She describes herself as a "recovering liberal and a licensed psychotherapist in Berkeley". You can find it here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/psychology_and_the_shrinking_o_1.html
You might also profit from surveying her own site: www.robinofberkeley.com
Frequently, she writes about the difficulties that she experiences in dealing with friends who are like those you describe. I think that you might find her writings worth reading.
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Thank you for joining us, AJK, and don't mind Kenneth--he's sort of a Ricochet institution. I appreciate your taking so much time to formulate your response. To highlight it, may I link to it in a separate post tomorrow with my comments?
Jul '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
So you don't think equating Evangelical Christians with Islamic radicals is ridiculous?
May '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Kenneth
So you don't think equating Evangelical Christians with Islamic radicals is ridiculous?
The comparison was between "Evangelical Christianity" and "Islam," not radical Islam. And yes, both worldviews require their adherents to proselytize and to, as AJK writes, "act as ambassadors."
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
What Michael said. And remember, Kenneth, Ricochet is a civil place--AJK has joined us to participate in a civil discussion of an important and complex question, so it would be nice if we welcomed him warmly and gave his ideas an open-minded hearing, don't you think?
Jul '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Michael Labeit
Kenneth
So you don't think equating Evangelical Christians with Islamic radicals is ridiculous?
The comparison was between "Evangelical Christianity" and "Islam," not radical Islam. And yes, both worldviews require their adherents to proselytize and to, as AJK writes, "act as ambassadors." · Jan 5 at 3:28p
The thread is about the Muslim Brotherhood. Contextually, the comparison is grotesque.
Dec '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
AJK:
Islam is an evangelical religion. Some branches more than others. It seeks to convert non-believers and asks its adherents to act as ambassadors for the religion and to live their lives religiously. It is no different from Evangelical Christianity in this regard.
Note that al-Banna goes out of his way to not use the term "Jihad bil Sayf". He rejected violence. MB has rejected violent means from its inception in 1928 (here) until current day (here).
Jan 5 at 1:25pm
1) Yes, "in this regard". That is true.
2) Yes, "until the current day". As was explained in the article, that is a temporary strategy. At least in the U.S., so far as I'm aware. In Egypt and Gaza? I'm not a historian, but I seem to remember a number of major attacks that were blamed on the MB. In Gaza, isn't Hamas considered to be an offshoot of the MB?
Jul '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
I'm sorry, but I'm not "open-minded" enough to accept an equation between a religion with 14 centuries of violent triumphalism and evangelical Christians, many of whom devote their lives to providing humanitarian care in the most benighted corners of the globe.
May '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
AJK,
Your link doesn't work but this one does.
Kenneth,
The suppositio of the thread may concern radical Islam, but AJK makes the distinction in his link. He/she doesn't strike as a conflator of radical Islam and Christianity.
Jul '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Douglas Pologe
AJK:
Islam is an evangelical religion. Some branches more than others. It seeks to convert non-believers and asks its adherents to act as ambassadors for the religion and to live their lives religiously. It is no different from Evangelical Christianity in this regard.
Note that al-Banna goes out of his way to not use the term "Jihad bil Sayf". He rejected violence. MB has rejected violent means from its inception in 1928 (here) until current day (here).
Jan 5 at 1:25pm
2) Yes, "until the current day".
Anwar el Sadat might disagree with the "...until the current day..." part, since he was assassinated by the MB.
Jul '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Michael Labeit: AJK,
Your link doesn't work but this one does.
Kenneth,
The suppositio of the thread may concern radical Islam, but AJK makes the distinction in his link. He/she doesn't strike as a conflator of radical Islam and Christianity. · Jan 5 at 3:49pm
It's easy to make insidious distinctions.
May '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Kenneth
I'm sorry, but I'm not "open-minded" enough to accept an equation between a religion with 14 centuries of violent triumphalism and evangelical Christians, many of whom devote their lives to providing humanitarian care in the most benighted corners of the globe.
Religions take their turn at bat. Christianity has merely been benched when it comes to violence.
Jul '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
May I respectfully suggest that you let AJK and I work this out among ourselves?
He or she doesn't need your intervention. And I certainly don't.
Nov '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Claire & AJK - thank you both for putting up this discussion.
Kenneth - the two most murerous philosophies in modern history are offshoots of Judeo-Christianity (Nazism and Communism); perhaps the most devastating conflict since the rise of the West was the internecine Christian feud of the 30 Years War, which resulted in the death of at least a third of the German population. My own cultural baggage include countries like England that expelled Jewry in 1290, allowed a few back in in the 1650's, but didn't allow them full rights until the 1820's. Even quiet little Christian Canada is known for its reaction in the late 30's to Jewish immigration ("One is too many"). We live in a very glass house when it comes to throwing stones at other religions.
Jul '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
HalifaxCB:
Kenneth - the two most murerous philosophies in modern history are offshoots of Judeo-Christianity (Nazism and Communism); perhaps the most devastating conflict since the rise of the West was the internecine Christian feud of the 30 Years War, which resulted in the death of at least a third of the German population. My own cultural baggage include countries like England that expelled Jewry in 1290, allowed a few back in in the 1650's, but didn't allow them full rights until the 1820's. Even quiet little Christian Canada is known for its reaction in the late 30's to Jewish immigration ("One is too many"). We live in a very glass house when it comes to throwing stones at other religions. · Jan 5 at 6:41pm
Your grasp on history is tenuous, friend. Both Nazism and Communism sought to supplant Christianity.
And the 30 Years War, an internecine conflict, is irrelevant to the current controversy over whether Islam can rightly be compared to evangelical Christianity.
Perhaps the only point on which I can agree is Christian persecution of Jews,but in today's world, that is the the province of Islamists and Leftitsts, not Evangelical Christians.
Edited on January 6, 2011 at 4:17amOct '10
Re: On the Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
Michael Labeit
Kenneth
I'm sorry, but I'm not "open-minded" enough to accept an equation between a religion with 14 centuries of violent triumphalism and evangelical Christians, many of whom devote their lives to providing humanitarian care in the most benighted corners of the globe.
Religions take their turn at bat. Christianity has merely been benched when it comes to violence. · Jan 5 at 3:53pm
Statist Christianity is as dangerous as statist Islam or statist Humanism. As an Evangelical Christian, I am not only unoffended by the comparison between the evangelicalism of Christianity and Islam, I am in agreement that there are similarities, as I have previously noted here on Ricochet. For an eschatological explanation I refer you to this Wikipedia entry on "The Parable of the Tares" (Mt 13:24-30)