There are four areas I address in this segment of my rejoinder:
1) The distinction they attempt to draw between terrorism committed for the sake of "defensive jihad" and "global jihad". According to Leiken and Brooke, the former justifies terrorism against Israel and the US in Iraq by groups like HAMAS and Iraqi insurgents, while the "war against Zionists and Crusaders" is being waged by al-Qaeda, etc. They are forced to make this meaningless distinction because the Muslim Brotherhood enthusiastically endorses and supports HAMAS, and Brotherhood clerics have issued fatwas permitting attacks against US soldiers. I argue this is a distinction without a difference, as the Brotherhood has not abandoned violence, which directly contradicts their claim of a "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood.
2) They claim that in the late 1960s, the Muslim Brotherhood rejected the jihadist doctrine of Sayyid Qutb, and adopted more peaceful, non-violent ideology. They point to Hasan al-Hudaybi's book, Preachers, Not Judges, as proof of this shift. But as I document, not only did Hudaybi pen that volume while he was in prison, when he first heard of Qutb's book, Signposts, he believed that it represented the "future of our organization". I also note that Hudaybi's book, which Leiken and Brooke claim is the key piece of evidence in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideological shift and critical for understanding the organization's strategy today, has not been reprinted in Egypt for almost 30 years, and has not been reprinted anywhere since 1985, while Qutb's Signposts is perhaps the best-selling Arabic-language book of the past half-century.
3) The pair equate their interpretation of "defensive jihad" with the Christian doctrine of "just war", though the latter has never permitted terrorism against innocents. In the end, whether it is "defensive jihad" or "global jihad", it is all terrorism and violence; and since the Brotherhood preaches both, there is little room to pronounce them "moderate".
4) In their original Foreign Affairs article, and in their response last week, Leiken and Brooke make much ado about alleged differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda. They point to a statement last year where Ayman al-Zawahiri denounced the Muslim Brotherhood for participating in Egypt's parliamentary elections, where they won 20 percent of the seats. But we find that Zawahiri's position is unique amongst al-Qaeda, and the two organizations actually drew closer last summer during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. And al-Qaeda actively operates in the Palestinian Authority with the full knowledge and support of HAMAS, the Brotherhood's Palestinian affiliate and terrorist organization. Thus, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are much closer than they would like us to believe.
Thanks to Doug Farah and Alyssa Lappen for their respective posts at Counterterrorism Blog ("The Islamist Charm Offensive") and The American Thinker ("The Fount of Modern Terror").
UPDATE: "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 2" is now online. Here's my summary statement:
"Today I turn my attention to several national affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East – the Palestinian terrorist organization HAMAS, the pro-HAMAS Islamic Action Front (IAF) in Jordan, the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Constitution Movement (ICM) in Kuwait, and the genocidal National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Sudan. The activity of these respective Brotherhood affiliates, and their ties to the main Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt, severely undercuts Leiken and Brooke’s assertion of a “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood."
UPDATE #2: "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 3 (Conclusion)" is now up. Here's a summary:
1) The very un-moderate statements of the so-called “moderates” they identify within the Muslim Brotherhood;
2) I take note that many of the reformists within the Brotherhood, many of whom served in the organization’s leadership, left a long time ago (1996) to form the Al-Wasat (“Center”) Party, frustrated by the radicalization and ideological lockdown within the Brotherhood;
3) I respond to their accusation that US foreign policy is responsible for Islamic radicalization in the Middle East;
4) I document my previous claim that the Brotherhood has engaged in vote rigging and rampant financial fraud in their administration of the professional syndicates in Egypt, as well as observing that the sole piece of evidence they cited in their response on this point was subject to some suspicious editing on their part;
5) I directly challenge their claims that the Muslim Brotherhood has not been implicated in the violent and fatal attacks against the Coptic community in Egypt by citing a report published by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, in addition to reports issued by the Coptic community and articles in the Egyptian press;
6) I revisit the events surrounding the military demonstration by Muslim Brotherhood youth cadres at Al-Azhar University this past December, which prompted the current government crackdown on the organization, as evidence that
the intentions of the Brotherhood are not entirely peaceful;
7) I observe that their characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate in France, the UOIF, as a “moderate” organization is directly contradicted by recent studies published by their own organization, the Nixon Center, and that most careful researchers have concluded that France’s policy of embracing the Muslim Brotherhood has been a catastrophic failure and fueled Islamic radicalization – the same policy Leiken and Brooke demand the U.S. implement.
On the basis on the extensive evidence I have provided throughout this report, I conclude that when it comes to anything challenging the carefully manicured image of the Muslim Brotherhood crafted by Leiken and Brooke, they resort to the old maxim: see no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil. Other contradicting evidence is steadfastly ignored. In the event that fails, their policy has been: attack the critic. This is hardly the way to determine US foreign policy, but admittedly this is how business is conducted in the think tanks and policy shops of the Beltway intelligentsia.
No comments:
Post a Comment