The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is reporting on its own reaction to the US killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, labeling the action an “assassination” , calling on the West not to link Islam and terrorism, and stressing support for “Resistance.” According to a report on the Egyptian Brotherhood website:
Monday, May 2,2011 18:40 IkhwanWeb Following the US president ‘s announcement that a special US marines task force killed Al-Qaeda leader Ossama Bin Laden we find that we are facing a new situation. According to a statement issued by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood while Islam denounces violence and terrorism it believes it was not necessary to resort to assassination stressing a fair trial of any criminal whatever the crime would have sufficed. It is on this note that the MB calls on the Western world, its people and governments to not link Islam with terrorism, and to correct the erroneous image which has been created in this regard. The MB however confirms its belief that there is a difference between combat and resistance stressing that combating violence is necessary however each country has its right as stipulated in international conventions guaranteed by divine laws to defend itself against oppression against innocent people as is the case of the Palestinian people and Israel’s Zionists. Ending its statement the group cites that so long as occupation remains resistance is legitimate and it calls on the United States, NATO and the EU to end the occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Furthermore the MB calls on the US to end its intelligence operations and to cease from interfering in the internal affairs of any Arab or Muslim country.”
The Egyptian Brotherhood statement almost perfectLY matches a GMBDW analysis outlined in an earlier post titled “Muslim Brotherhood Positions On Terrorism- Denial, Deception, Defense, And Obstruction.” Due to the importance of today’s events and the Brotherhood reaction, we will reprint that analysis here.
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.