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 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.
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
that Jihad is a form of “freedom fighting”, even comparing
Jihad to the American Revolution. Lately, there has been a
suggestion
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.” This defense
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“,
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.
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
its charities (e.g. Holy
Land) and associated infrastructure which help to support
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
about a “war on Islam”
and opposing 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
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
to being as such.
No comments:
Post a Comment