« Book Review - "Future Jihad" - Part 4: How the Wahabists Undermine the West | Main | Mark Your Calendar for March 17 »
March 14, 2007
Book Review - "Future Jihad" - Part 5: Brotherhood Success Stories
In Part 1 I introduced Walid Phares' book Future Jihad and explained the logic of jihad.
In Part 2 I mapped out the three branches of the jihad as identified by Phares.
In Part 3 we discussed methods of the jihad as told by Phares.
In Part 4 we covered how the Saudi Wahabists Undermine the West
The Muslim Brotherhood: Success Stories
As explained earlier, the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the three branches of the jihad. The first two are Sunni Salafist; the Wahabists and Muslim Brotherhood. The third is Shiite; the Khumeinists. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in the 1920s by Hassan al Banna. Not directly affiliated with any government, it "uses the power of Muslims" at the grassroots level throughout the Middle East to infiltrate socities from the bottom up.
In Part 3 I laid out the Brotherhood strategy as explained by Phares; they infiltrate a target government from the bottom up and then back down again, carerful not to confront the regime until they have appropriate strength. Ideally they'll gain enough power to stage a coup, if not, influencing the rulers will do.
Their ultimate goal is the same as the Wahabi Salafists; a worldwide caliphate.
Today we'll examine some some Brotherhood success stories.
The Sudan
The biggest success of the Muslim Brotherhood has come in Sudan. In 1989 a coup brought to power the National Islamic Front(NIF). The military officers who seized power were led by General Umar al Bashir, and the NIF was led by Dr Hassan Turabi, described by Phares as a "shrewd intellectual."
As everyone knows, the government of the Sudan decided to wage a series of jihads against their own citizens. The first was against Christian and animist Africans in the south of the country, and the second, which continues today, is against African Muslims in Darfur. In addition to waging genocidal jihad, they used another weapon; slavery. Tens of thousands of Africans were sold into slavery around the Arab world in an attempt to subdue the target populations.
Turabi also invited the world's most infamous terrorist into Sudan; Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden stayed there as a guest of the NIF approximately from 1991 to 1996. From Sudan al Qaeda planned and executed a series of terrorist attacks, which we will cover in future installments.
The Palestinian Authority
In order to achieve it's goals against Israel, the Brotherhood created Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Of the two the former has been by far the most successful, gaining power in the Palestinian Authority after winning the January 2006 elections.
Hamas, of course, is part of the "rejectionists"; no negotiations and no recognition of Israel's right to exist. Their reason is not geopolitical or some Western concept of revenge for alleged wrongs, but rather purely Islamist; any land once ruled by Muslims must never revert to rule by the infidels. Brotherhood writings make clear that this holds true not only for "Palestine", but Chechnya, Kashmir, and even Spain.
Egypt
The base of the Muslim Brotherhood is still in Egypt, where it remains popular, despite being officially outlawed. President Hosni Mubarak (b 1928) is growing old, and the Brotherhood sees a chance to seize power when he dies.
In order to prepare for the day when Islamists can seize power, they have been infiltrating Egyptian institutions. Over the decades the government has attempted to destroy the Brotherhood by mass arrests and persecution, but has never been completely successful, as the Brotherhood always comes back.
The Brotherhood advocates democracy, and uses elections to place its own people in power. In fact they have made strong showings in recent elections, sometimes teaming with other parties in alliances of convenience.
Other Countries
The Muslim Brotherhood has chapters in almost all Arab Middle Eastern countries. As many of these countries have a parliament, they always try to get their members elected.
The Brotherhood is also active in the United States. According to Wikipedia, Muslim activists involved with the Muslim Brotherhood have started organizations in the US including the Muslim Students Association in 1963, North American Islamic Trust in 1971, the Islamic Society of North America in 1981, the American Muslim Council in 1990, and the Muslim American Society in 1992, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought in the 1980s.
Next Up: Al Qaeda
In the next installament we'll examine the origins of al Qaeda, it's goals, and what Osama bin Laden thought would happen after the attacks of Sept 11 2001.
Update
Two articles of interest on the Muslim Brotherhood today.
In the first one, Candace de Russy writes on NRO about that "darling of the left", Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood:
Joseph Crowley reports that this past weekend Ramadan tangled with a young policewoman who stopped him from entering a prohibited area of Charles de Gaulle Airport. Crowley writesan indignant Ramadan pitched such a macho hissy fit that airport police felt compelled to detained and officially charged him with “insulting a public agent” - punishable by up to 6 months of relatively torture free imprisonment and a € 7,500 fine.
Crowley wonders if “you can take the chauvinist out of Sharia” and “if the SOS-Racisme…, the French equivalent of our ACLU, will pick up the Islamophobic gauntlet thrown down by the French police in this case.”
In the second, M. Zuhdi Jasser writes about "The Not-So-Moderate Muslim Brotherhood", after Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke tell us in an article in Foreign Affairs that the Brotherhood's “relative moderation offers Washington a notable opportunity for engagement.”
After reviewing their argument, Jasser comments that
As a devout anti-Islamist American Muslim I have been struggling to explain to all those who will listen the central incompatibility of the Islamist doctrine with America’s pluralistic ideology. The literal Islamization of society, consciousness, and government as advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood is an anathema to America as it is to a pluralistic and liberated Islam. Leiken and Brooke, in effect, whitewash an international organization whose mission is at odds with our own Constitutional system of governance.
Read the whole thing.
March 30 Update
Egypt is trying to stamp out the Brotherhood, and the latest tactic is constitutional reform. In an article published Monday the 26th by Amir Taheri tells how President Mubarak's proposals would rewrite 34 articles of the constitution. He says it will move the country towards democratic pluralism. Critics say that the objective is really to consolidate the grip on power held by existing elites and the armed forces. Among the critics is the Muslim Brotherhood.
Taheri relates how the proposals target the Muslim Brotherhood in two ways
* They would make it illegal for any political party or group to be based on religion, forcing the Brotherhood to drop the word "Muslim" from its name and its old slogan, "Islam is the Solution."* They would enable the government to stop the Brotherhood and similar Islamist organizations raising funds and establishing welfare networks as a means of recruiting members. The authorities may use the new constitutional provisions as an excuse to seize the Brotherhood's considerable assets, accumulated over some 80 years of business activities.
Analyzing all this, Taheri says that
Despite the Brotherhood's objections, the idea of banning political parties based on religion appears to have substantial support across Egypt. Mubarak's liberal and leftist critics support the measure because it forces the Brotherhood and other Islamist outfits to fight for votes by offering political programs rather than fomenting religious passions.The idea that political parties should not be based on religion is gaining ground in much of the Muslim world.
I certainly hope so.
A quick news search shows some predictable headlines: "Voters Scarce as Egypt Holds Constitutional Referendum", "Blogs show footage alleging vote rigging in Egypt’s referendum", and "Egypt introduces changes, but much remains the same"
Sigh.
Posted by Tom at March 14, 2007 8:24 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/859
Comments
The Brotherhood advocates democracy, and uses elections to place its own people in power. In fact they have made strong showings in recent elections, sometimes teaming with other parties in alliances of convenience.
Wow, and I thought you were a neocon. Yes, Egypt is fertile ground for jihaddis. It is another country that contradicts the false premise that Democracy="stepping stone to a secure Middle East." Democracy (that truly empowers the mass of the public) in Pakistan or Egypt could have troubling ramifications. Hello kooky islamic radicals, goodbye friendly pro-western dictators. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The Saudi Wahhabis educated the most of the Pakistani youth. They all know how to chant the Koran and I'm sure they're well trained in Saudi jihad thought; but math, science, and civics don't figure prominently in Wahhabi curriculum. It shows: people know all about jihad, ancient grievances, and the myth of the martyr. Not exactly the populace you would expect great things from, but it makes sense that they're better known for their nasty car bombs.
In fact, Pakistan has a long history of involvement in "jihad." I see you had to throw in a little left baiting, calling a professor at Notre Dame a "darling of the left." I've never heard of him, and yet Reagan (a bona fide darling of the right) declared March 21, 1983 Afghan "freedom fighter day." He should have called it "bearded-fanatic jihad day," it would have been closer to the truth.
I can't help but notice your sources are very quick to blame the usual favorite punching bags of the far right: academia, the media, the State Department, "arabists", and recently the CIA. Maybe it's because these people often point out the insanely close relationship between the Bush clan and the al-Saud royal family (proud supporters of the Wahabbi faith). Bush holds hands with the fricking Saudi prince for heavens sake. Talk about appeasement. Did you ever see Churchill and Hitler holding hands and whispering sweet nothings to each other? No, no appeasement there.
No, I get my information on Islam from a Jewish historian, Bernard Lewis (whom I seen referred to as an "arabist", because he studies their history, culture and religion and he knows how to speak arabic, and he doesn't have an agenda in his work. I feel he is able to do it more objectively and thoroughly than either Robert Spencer or David Horowitz.
I would also highly recommend any book on the Middle East by former spook Robert Baer. It is some of the most eye opening material on the utter failure of our government (left, right, everyone) and our complete reliance on oil which makes our "conservative" president hold hands with another man in the ultimate appeasement of the Saudi Wahhabis. Clinton, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.; they all looked the other way when the Saudi's and their oppressive, closed society continued to support the Sunni jihadis around the region, from Afghanistan to Kosovo. Cheney and Baker have long, long history's of making money of their close, stable and enduring relationship with the Saudi royal family.
That is why I consider myself more of a realistic progressive, not a interventionist who thinks we should charge around the world to supporting armed factions as we seek short term solutions to long term problems (supporting Afghan jihad in the 1980s, turning a blind eye to Saudi's exporting Salafist extremism in order to secure oil contracts, etc.) Although I think "Scoop" Jackson's work with NEPA has done great things for our quality of life, I'm not exactly in the same school as he is with regards to foreign policy.
As a country, we have a long way to go, both on the left and the right.
Posted by: jason at March 16, 2007 12:33 AM
Hi jason
A few quick points before I run off. I have come to believe that reforming the Middle East is going to be a lot harder than we had originally thought. You are right that it has become clear that democracy, or at least the vote, is hardly the answer by itself. We've seen that the radicals have learned to play the game to put themselves in power.
Don't think that I'm a fan of the relationship between the Bush family and the Saudis. If you want to classify me call me a "National Review conservative". NR, as you know, has been very critical too of our relationship with the Wahabists. I was as disgusted by the hand-holding incident as you were, so please don't be so quick to judge me on that stuff. Surely you've learned by now that I do have serious criticisms of the Bush Administration.
As far as "having an agenda" goes, what are you saying? That anyone who criticizes the State Dept etc can't be doing so because that's where their research led them? When I (and others) use the term "Arabist" we are not referring to someone who simply studies the Arabs, but someone who consistenly takes their side and excuses radical Islam and all that. Say what you want about Walid Phares, he grew up in Lebanon and speaks Arabic just like Bernard Lewis.
bty, it was de Russy who called Tariq Ramadan a "darling of the left", which is why I put it in quotation marks. My apologies that I was not clear.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at March 16, 2007 9:07 AM
Hi Tom,
Also note that I didn't say any thing bad about Phares, only Spencer and his companion Horowitz (whose work I think has a pervasive anti-islamic bias.) But we can get into the details on the study of Islami at a later date I'm sure.
Posted by: jason at March 16, 2007 7:47 PM
Don't sweat it jason, you're fine. Agree or not, I find your comments informative and challenging.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at March 17, 2007 6:44 PM
It is important to remember these groups are not a united, monolithic allied jihad movement. Like terrorism, jihad is a term applied to a type of violence. It does not really mean these groups are allied in one sinister global network. Sure, there are case when they work together, but there are many cases when they fight each other (Shiite/Sunni violence is a prime example). In fact, we have two reent cases of local "jihadi" groups fighting against Al Queda in Iraq and Pakistan:
http://www.aina.org/news/2007032293837.htm
"For the past five months or so, fierce battles have been raging in the cities of Al-Anbar province between tribal [forces] and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, with dozens of fatalities on both sides...
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2957
Fierce fighting has raged between tribal and foreign militants in South Waziristan in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas since Monday, killing more than 100 persons, according to reports reaching here.
AFP said 106 persons were killed in three days of intense fighting. Among the dead were more than 70 Uzbek and 28 tribal militants."
Al Queda in Pakistan is made up of Uzbeks? I assumed arabs (saudis, egyptians, etc) but this report from the Indian defense ministry (who fight jihadis in Kasmire) says most of the rank and file fighters left are Uzbeck.
Hopefully the tribes who used to shelter these goons will turn against them, as the Sunni tribes in Ramadi have done, as well as some Waziri tribes in Pakistan. It is a huge mistake and oversimplification to assume there is one united jihadi movement, when in reality it is a concept that many islamic people use to label themselves as 'righteous', even when they are busy killing each other. Most armed groups claim God is one their side when killing other people, i.e. the Inquisition, Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Crusades, Palestinian/Israeli conflict, etc.
Posted by: jason at March 22, 2007 3:19 PM
jason
I agree with everything you say. If I implied that these groups were all harmonously working together than that was bad writing on my part.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at March 22, 2007 8:34 PM
