Archive for the ‘Analysis of Position on Terror’ Category

ANALYSIS: Muslim Brotherhood Positions On Terrorism- Denial, Deception, Defense, And Obstruction

Posted By GlobalMB On January 20, 2008 @ 1:23 pm In Analysis | No Comments

A review of almost twenty years of statements and documents produced by a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organization makes it possible to understand the public approach of the Brotherhood toward terrorism. The analysis reveals that it is almost always possible to parse Brotherhood positions on terrorism into one of four conceptual categories, each of which follows in a logical progression:

1. DENIAL- Since the Brotherhood is pursuing Islamization and eventually Shariah (Islamic Law), it is necessary at all costs to deny that Islam as a religion has any connection to violence or terrorism. Of course, the Brotherhood represents Islamism as opposed to Islam in this regard but since the general audience does not understand that distinction, it is Islam which is the Brotherhood reference. They cannot afford to fail in this denial and the denial strategy is usually pursued through sophistry. That is, the Brotherhood claims that Islam is unfairly associated [1] with terrorism while Christianity, Judaism, and other religions are not (e.g. Abortion bombers are not called Christian Terrorists) and/or that other religious terrorism is just as dangerous as Islamic terrorism. The Brotherhood may be winning this battle (see here [2].)

2. DECEPTION- In order to defend Islam (Islamism) from charges that it is inherently violent/terroristic, the Brotherhood deceives the public about the nature of Jihad. This is necessary because Jihad plays an important role for Islamism and the Brotherhood and if the connection between Islam and violence is to be denied, Jihad must be explained away. Again, the Brotherhood represents the “Jihadism” of the Islamists as opposed to the “classical Jihad” of Islam but since that distinction is also lost on the public, the Brotherhood defends Jihad. It does so usually in one of two ways, sometimes employing both deceptions. First, the Brotherhood claims that Jihad has little or no connection to violence and warfare (i.e. there is no “Holy War”), and is instead akin to various forms of inner struggle or self-improvement. Second, the Brotherhood suggests [3] that Jihad is a form of “freedom fighting”, even comparing Jihad to the American Revolution. Lately, there has been a suggestion [4] that Jihad should be replaced with the term “Hirabah” which, if successful, would represent a victory for the Brotherhood deception strategy

3. DEFENSE- Having staked out the positions that Islam is not violent and that Jihad is not connected with violence, the Brotherhood is left with the task of defending the violence carried out by Islamist groups. Since according to the Brotherhood these groups cannot, by definition, be motivated by Islamic ideology, there can be only one answer- they are fighting because of “legitimate grievances” and hence are “freedom fighters [5].” This defense [6] of Islamist violence is mounted differently for Brotherhood-related groups such as Hamas as opposed to Al Qaeda. Because of the visible dispute over land, it is easy for the Brotherhood to suggest that the actions of Palestinian terror groups such as Hamas are based on such grievances whereas, in reality, the Brotherhood has managed to turn the conflict into a religious war. The most viable strategy for the Brotherhood in the West is to posit that the problem is “Occupation [7]“, leaving it to the audience to figure out whether the reference is to 1967 or 1947. Given the sensitivity in the West towards terrorism at home, the Brotherhood has a far more difficult job explaining Al Qaeda terrorism which is does by suggesting that while nothing “justifies” such terrorism, Al Qaeda actions spring from justified anger at U.S. foreign policy. This strategy provides a natural interface” for the Brotherhood with the political far-left and, in Europe, the Brotherhood has been successful in forging such alliances [8].

4. OBSTRUCTION- Having explained the violence of Islamist groups as a response to legitimate grievances, the Brotherhood is free to obstruct counter-terror efforts. One portion of its efforts is devoted to protecting [9] its charities (e.g. Holy Land [10]) and associated infrastructure which help to support [11] Hamas and other Palestinian terrorism. The second part of the effort lies in hindering wider U.S counter-terror policies which it does by providing inaccurate analysis, positing plots and conspiracies [12] about a “war on Islam [13]” and opposing [14] almost every counter-terror initiative undertaken by the government, suggesting instead that the correct response to terrorism is to change U.S. foreign policy, the ultimate goal of the obstruction. Again, the natural ally is the far-left and the Brotherhood has been successful in the U.S and forming such alliances [15] with respect to counterterrorism policy.

Taken as a whole, the Muslim Brotherhood public relations strategy regarding terrorism should be seen for what it is, a remarkably consistent and internally coherent means of obscuring the true aims and goals of the group. That the Brotherhood is inherently deceptive should be clear since almost without exception, no Brotherhood organization has admitted [16] to being as such.