“The Muslim Brotherhood organised itself into a secretive ‘cell’ structure”
Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec. 25, 2015:
The Muslim Brotherhood has been running much of its operations out of the UK and pressure mounted on the British government to investigate. While Obama’s official line is that the Salafist organization is a “moderate” group, the British government report that has been issued gives a much more accurate picture.
The British government report notes the similarity between the Muslim Brotherhood and its ISIS and Al Qaeda offspring and how one influenced the other.
The Muslim Brotherhood was established in Egypt in 1928. The founder and first Supreme Guide (spiritual leader), Hassan al Banna, called for the religious reformation of individual Muslims, the progressive moral purification of Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under sharia law. ..
We’re not talking about a political democratic system here, but a Caliphate. Just like ISIS. Brotherhood activists have tried to sell the notion of a kinder, gentler Caliphate in the West. But that’s like a kinder, gentler Thousand Year Reich.
The report also addresses the similarity between the Muslim Brotherhood and classical terror and totalitarian organizations which used cells and covert setups.
From its foundation the Muslim Brotherhood organised itself into a secretive ‘cell’ structure, with an elaborate induction and education programme for new members. It relied heavily on group solidarity and peer pressure to maintain discipline. This clandestine, centralised and hierarchical structure persists to this day.
From at least the 1950s the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood also developed an international network, within and beyond the Islamic world. Europe became an important base for the
growing Muslim Brotherhood global network. International Muslim Brotherhood organisations received financial and other support from the Gulf. National chapters developed individual concerns and tactical approaches, but shared a common ideology
The key phrasing is that while the MB may run for office, its endgame is totalitarian.
Sir John concluded on this complex subject that, for the most part, the Muslim Brotherhood have preferred non violent incremental change on the grounds of expediency, often on the basis that political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamisation is complete. But they are prepared to countenance violence
So there’s no moderation to see here, just incrementalism.
Influenced by his personal experiences in 1940s Egypt, in the US and in prison under Nasser, the key Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, Sayyid Qutb, drew on the thought of the Indo-Pakistani theorist, Abul Ala’a Mawdudi, the founder of the Islamist party Jamaat-eIslami, to promote the doctrine of takfirism. This has consistently been understood as a doctrine permitting the stigmatisation of other Muslims as infidel or apostate, and of existing states as unIslamic, and the use of extreme violence in the pursuit of the perfect Islamic society…
Qutb’s views have at times been reinterpreted by some in the Muslim Brotherhood. But they have never been institutionally disowned. They continue to be explicitly endorsed by many senior Muslim Brotherhood figures, including leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. They remain central to the Muslim Brotherhood’s formational curriculum. Qutb’s thinking led to a resurgence of takfiri ideology, and has inspired many terrorist organisations, including the assassins of Sadat, Al Qaida and its offshoots
The Takfiri accusation is significant for Muslims. Terrorism doesn’t matter. But killing other Muslims does. It’s telling that a British government report emphasizes the “Fitna” aspect of the Brotherhood, but then so many Western countries these days also pray toward Mecca. And there’s no doubt that Gulf Arab states who broke with the Brotherhood were a key force in making this report happen.
But the linkage between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda is important because it’s straightforward and yet hardly mentioned. Unfortunately the report implies that the Muslim Brotherhood is not Salafist. It does however link it to terror and support for terror.
senior Muslim Brotherhood figures and associates have justified attacks against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan;
some members of the Muslim Brotherhood (mainly in non Muslim countries) have strongly criticised Al Qaida. But leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood have claimed that the attacks on 09/11 were fabricated by the US, and that the so called ‘war on terrorism’ is a pretext to attack Muslims.
.The Hamas founding charter claims they are the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood treat them as such. In the past ten years support for Hamas (including in particular funding) has been an important priority for the MB in Egypt and the MB international network.
The report largely focuses on the UK, but finds that the MB operates in the UK under covert organizations and has the same Islamizational goals.
In the 1990s the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates established public facing and apparently national organisations in the UK to promote their views. None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret. But for some years the Muslim Brotherhood shaped the new Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), dominated the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and played an important role in establishing and then running the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).
Material still being promoted by UKIM as of July 2014 continued to explicitly claim that it is not possible for an observant Muslim to live under a non-Islamic system of government (and anticipated the forthcoming ‘victory’ of Islam over communism, capitalist democracy and secular materialism).
– the Muslim Brotherhood historically focused on remodelling individuals and communities through grassroots activism. They have engaged politically where possible. But they have also selectively used violence and sometimes terror in pursuit of their institutional goals. Their public narrative – notably in the West – emphasised engagement not violence. But there have been significant differences between Muslim Brotherhood communications in English and Arabic;
– much about the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK remains secretive, including membership, fund raising and educational programmes. But Muslim Brotherhood associates and affiliates here have at times had significant influence on the largest UK Muslim student organisation, national organisations which have claimed to represent Muslim communities (and on that basis have sought and had a dialogue with Government), charities and some mosques. Though their domestic influence has declined organisations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood continue to have an influence here which is disproportionate to their size;
Its final conclusion is that, “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national
Plenty of counterjihadists will find this report too weak for their taste, but it labels the Brotherhood as a hostile, foreign, covert and dangerous organization. It contains the kind of language that existed only in law enforcement circles of the government here, and which was thoroughly purged from them under Obama and his CVE programs. Its conclusions, even disguised in mild language, are fairly similar to what you would find at IPT.
It will prove vital to the work of combating Islamic terrorism and will likely be cited by Counterjihadists for some time to come, not because it’s perfect, but because a major Western government has restated the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate, that it maintains front groups, that it seeks to take over and that it backs terrorism. All of these are denied or ignored here not only by Obama, but much of the Republican establishment.