Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.
Published in General
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 Christianityin 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).
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?
Good Berean
Michael Labeit
Kenneth
I don’t think altruism in the form of charity is a proper measure of goodness. Atheists and theists often compete with each other to determine who can be more self-sacrificial. This assumes however the validity of the self-sacrifice.
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.
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.
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 Christianityin 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).
Anwar el Sadat might disagree with the “…until the current day…” part, since he was assassinated by the MB.
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.
I learned it in a book by Carveth Read called Logic: Deductive and Inductive:
“The context of any proposition always proceeds upon some assumption or understanding as to the scope of the discussion, which controls the interpretation of every statement and of every word. This was called by De Morgan the “universe of discourse”: an older name for it, revived by Dr. Venn, and surely a better one, is suppositio.”
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.
Religions take their turn at bat. Christianity has merely been benched when it comes to violence.
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.
Pseudodionysius
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.
“The context of any proposition always proceeds upon some assumption or understanding as to the scope of the discussion, which controls the interpretation of every statement and of every word. This was called by De Morgan the “universe of discourse”: an older name for it, revived by Dr. Venn, and surely a better one, is suppositio.” ·Jan 6 at 3:50am
Well, its medieval scholasticism and you may want to look at the Stanford Encyclopedia as well as google Peter Geach.
As for Hitler, his own personal beliefs were heavily shaped by Alfred Rosenberg and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who argued for Positives Christentum (positive Christianity) as versus Jewish Materialism. His speeches often referred to Christian beliefs, and he borrowed quite often for form and phraseology from Catholic ritual. How much of this he actually believed is open to question, but that they were effective in drawing adherents from Catholic Germany (and Austria) is pretty clear.
And needless to say, the reliance on Judenhass – based on supposed Jewish Deicide – a very common belief, particularly in Catholic and Orthodox regions – played a major role.
Neither Marx nor Hitler were planting seeds on stony ground.
·Jan 5 at 9:21pm
Hitler knew many Germans were religious, so he used Christian symbols and phrases as part of his persuasion to lure people to his side. His beliefs are well known, and they are not based in Christian theology. He hated the Jews so much he could not tolerate Christianity, which came from the Jews. He wanted to return to European pagan vigor.
Michael Labeit
Pseudodionysius
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.
“The context of any proposition always proceeds upon some assumption or understanding as to the scope of the discussion, which controls the interpretation of every statement and of every word. This was called by De Morgan the “universe of discourse”: an older name for it, revived by Dr. Venn, and surely a better one, is suppositio.”
Is medieval scholasticism no good, or this is an extension of the Christianity/logic debate? Sure its a medieval term and I think it fits nicely into my comment. Plus it sounds scholarly.
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.
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.
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)
I’m wary of statism of any stripe. But Christians weren’t responsible for the genocide in Armenia, the Jewish holocaust, the famine in the Ukraine or the killing fields of Cambodia. They have been, however, responsible for innumerable humanitarian missions throughout the world.
Kenneth – the two most murerous philosophies in modern history are offshoots of Judeo-Christianity (Nazism and Communism); We live in a very glass house when it comes to throwing stones at other religions. ·Jan 5 at 6:41pm
Halifax, you’re not serious, right? Nazism and Communism hated both Christianity and Judaism; part of their agenda was to discredit religion in society. This is what is so scary to me – the belief in an equivalency between religions. As individual human beings, we are all equal and we shouldn’t throw stones because we all live in glass houses.
A religion (a set of beliefs) is not a human being. We can evaluate various ideologies and abide by the good ones and defeat the bad ones – they are not human beings to be treated with equal respect. Equivocating two different ideologies is moral idiocy. When a person says Judaism or Christianity is equivalent to Islam, I know that that person simply has not read the texts.
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
I’ve got to hit the hay, but why is it you use a medieval latin scholastic logic term “suppositio” when discussing this topic?
Is medieval scholasticism no good, or this is an extension of the Christianity/logic debate? Sure its a medieval term and I think it fits nicely into my comment. Plus it sounds scholarly.
Its much more than that. If you’re interested in where logic really comes from, I suggest having a look through Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics — by Dumb Ox Books (Richard Berquist). The nice thing about the English translation is you can go online and take a gander at the Latin as well. In particular, you’ll want to read the section Impossibility of Proving What a Thing is By Supposition.
he two most murerous philosophies in modern history are offshoots of Judeo-Christianity (Nazism and Communism)
Do you actually understand the philosophical and ideological underpinnings of Nazism and Communism? Its extremely easy to go to Google books, do a quick search on Henri de Lubac’s The Drama of Atheist Humanism and read it for free. I don’t mind someone floating a premise, but if you can’t find any other support for your opinion than your own opinion, I think you’re going to pound yourself into argumentative oblivion all by yourself.
When informed of this, on December 2, 2007, Gilbert wrote the following disclaimer:
“To whom it may concern: I have neither written the Yad Vashem exhibition statement about Pope Pius XII, nor was I consulted about it. My views on the role of Pope Pius XII, the Vatican, and the Catholic Church’s rescue efforts — and those of many thousands of individual Catholics — during the Second World War are set out in my book The Righteous: The Unknown Heroes of the Holocaust, which has been published in English, French and Italian.” In this direct, non-confrontational way, Gilbert has weighed in on the painful dispute between Yad Vashem authorities and the Holy See for the sake of “true history.”
In the 1500’s, a total of 105 Catholic martyrs were hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn in London for what amounted to “spiritual treason” – failing to recognise the official religion of the day:
“That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being (still) alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.”
I quote from memory.
And bonus points for the correct use of the word Erastianism and distinguishing it from Evangelical.
“That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being (still) alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.”
I quote from memory. ·Jan 5 at 8:59pm
What possible connection is there between the world of the 1500’s and evangelical Christians today?
Pseudodionysius: In the 1500’s, a total of 105 Catholic martyrs were hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn in London for what amounted to “spiritual treason” – failing to recognise the official religion of the day:
“That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being (still) alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.”
I quote from memory. ·Jan 5 at 8:59pm
Kenneth, that’s exactly my point. In England, the Anglican Church was a department of the state. Not only was the United States founded explicitly to avoid this scenario but there are now over 28,000 protestant denominations and I don’t think anyone can argue, with a straight face, that we’re on the verge of a Christian Theocracy.
Kenneth & Katherine; with reference to Communism, I would suggest you both go back and look at the origins of the socialist movements in the early 1800’s that prepared the ground for Marx (like Weitling and Lammennais). Engels himself talks about the relationship between Christianity and Communism, for example how the seed was planted via the Bible (and Luther) that, while resulting in the disasterous Peasant Rebellion, gave the first modern voice to egalitarianism.
As for Hitler, his own personal beliefs were heavily shaped by Alfred Rosenberg and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who argued for Positives Christentum (positive Christianity) as versus Jewish Materialism. His speeches often referred to Christian beliefs, and he borrowed quite often for form and phraseology from Catholic ritual. How much of this he actually believed is open to question, but that they were effective in drawing adherents from Catholic Germany (and Austria) is pretty clear.
And needless to say, the reliance on Judenhass – based on supposed Jewish Deicide – a very common belief, particularly in Catholic and Orthodox regions – played a major role.
Neither Marx nor Hitler were planting seeds on stony ground.
Peripherally related: we see what Pakistanis do with leaders that speak up for greater tolerance and secularism — they assassinate them.
Clerics salute ‘brave’ Pakistan killer
Hundreds of Pakistan’s religious leaders have publically applauded the murder of a prominent politician gunned down because of his campaign to reform the country’s blasphemy laws.
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
Christianity hasn’t been benched. It voluntarily retired from the game. And I don’t mean a Favre-type retirement.