Brotherhood in the Shadows of al-Qaeda
By Adel Guindy
Many had
wondered about Ben-Laden’s adamant denial of any responsibility regarding
the 9/11 events, before he finally reversed himself in the tape broadcast
in December 13, 2001.
It is not
beyond his character to have lied then, but some Western Intelligence
Services are reported to believe that rather than Ben Laden, who would
have been hard pressed to organize and lead such an operation from his
hideout in Qanadahar, it is more plausible that Ayman Zawahiri was the
real mastermind. Zawahiri, a medical doctor who grew in Egypt through the
ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood, would have used the Brotherhood’s
nebulous international network as a facilitator for contacts and
logistics. Having done the job behind the back of Ben-Laden, he would not
have had a problem to manipulate and, a posteriori, explain to him the
‘success.’
Indeed,
while Ben-Laden enjoys some charisma that helped his media success, he is
a person with rather limited intellect and abilities. Someone else
understood that and exploited it: Abdullah Azzam, a Jordanian ‘Brother,’
who had met him when he was still a student the King Abdel Aziz University
in Saudi Arabia. As ‘Osama’ indicated his admiration of the Brotherhood
and their challenge to Hafez el-Assad (in the Hama events of 1981 in
Syria), Azzam saw in him a (rich) person who likes absolute idealisms, and
invited him to join jihad in Afghanistan. He managed to convince
Ben Laden of creating a ‘services bureau’ (maktab al-khadamat) whose task
was to search for, and attract, volunteers from Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan
etc; and to establish training camps for mujahideen in Afghanistan.
Azzam settled in Pishawar in 1984 to personally oversee the activities of
the mujahideen; thus becoming the real founder of the first
‘international of jihad,’ with the support of the Brotherhood and
the League of Islamic World.
The
experience left its deep marks on Ben Laden, who considered Azzam his
guide and teacher. He became so convinced of the importance of jihad
that he established in 1988 al-Qaeda (the ‘Base’) to further the
implementation of the guide’s ideas. Azzam was assassinated the following
year (not clear how, even though some suspect Zawahiri of plotting it).
Ben Laden lost the Brother ‘guide’, but fell under the influence of the
Brother ‘doctor,’ who, over the time, became the actual executive (or CEO)
of al-Qaeda, while keeping for Ben-Laden the role of a chairman (and
CFO!).
Abu
Musaab al-Zarqawi is another Brother from Jordan. His notoriety as he
leads the main ‘insurgency’ in Iraq, and his ferocious and bestial
bloodthirsty need no further elaboration. His origins, and links, with the
Brotherhood were only emphasized when some of those related to Islamic
groups were surprised that the French authorities failed, during the
crisis of the two journalists who were kidnapped in Iraq in 2004, to
approach the Jordanian Brotherhood for help, as they are judged to be ‘the
only ones who could influence Zarqawi.’
Another
famous Brother is Khaled Sheikh Mohamed, considered as one of the
masterminds behind 9/11 and personally responsible of kidnapping and
slaughtering Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, in Pakistan in March
2002. He was born in Kuwait in 1965 in a pious family that became
acquainted with, and strongly influenced by the thoughts of, some Brothers
who had escaped Egypt in the early fifties to Kuwait. He later moved with
the family to Pakistan, where the father worked, and then went to the US
in the eighties to study engineering. On his way back he stopped by the
Philippines and helped organize some terrorist and separatist groups. He
then proceeded to Pishawar, where Ben Laden met him and admired his
organizing abilities and jihadi thoughts, typical of the
Brotherhood; and quickly occupied a leading post within al-Qaeda. He was
arrested in Islamabad, Pakistan, in 2003 with several documents in his
possession. (Notice that his nephew is none other then Ramzi Youssef, who
is currently jailed in the US as a result of his role in the 1993 attack
on the World Trade Center).
Omar
Bakry, the Brother from Syria and the founder of the Muhajireen
group, works out of Finsburry suburb to recruit Muslim British youth to
join jihadi training camps. Like the other Brothers, he is a master
of double speak.
Fadi
Itani, who runs the Islamic Welfare (one of 400 associations grouped under
the ‘Islamic British Council’) would not confirm whether he was a ‘member’
of the Brotherhood. He considers that al-Azhar and the Brotherhood in
Egypt are ‘victims of the political situation in the country: They are
denied the right of action, whereas democracy means allowing them to
establish the kind of ruling system we want.’
One
should not forget Tarek Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the
founder of the Brotherhood, and a shining star of propagating the
Brotherhood’s ideas, with a special talent for evasion and elusiveness.
There are
many others, including even some European converts who turned into
Islamists, such as Luke, an Irishman who converted in 2002, and who
usually strolls in the streets of Finsburry in his ‘Pakistani’ dress and
red beard. He dreams of immigrating to a Muslim land “..in order to deepen
(his) ability to become a ‘true Muslim’ and afterwards… may join the
jihad.”
Thus we
find in the European suburbs such Brotherhood discourse, which subjects
everything to polarization: the world, between the ‘Islamic’ and the
‘infidel (West)’; Muslims, between the ‘true’ and ‘false.’ Without any
exaggeration, they are the inventors of the idea of the civilizational
clash.
Whatever
the topic of discussion was with one Islamist group or another, and of
whatever inclination it may be; the reference is always the Brotherhood
and its ideology. This unanimity includes those who passed through the
organization’s branches in Syria, Jordan, Egypt etc.; or those who
‘graduated’ through the European suburbs.
Ben Laden
might have his own revengeful agenda against America, for dropping him
after the fall of the Soviet Union; or against the Saudi royal family for
allowing the American forces to tread the sacred land of Arabia. But
Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Qaradawi and other Brothers, hold a long-term agenda
aimed at imposing the Islamic rule, the world over. Their strategy
includes terrorism as well as political activism and propaganda, as means
to reach the ultimate goal. All this makes the Brotherhood more dangerous
to the West, indeed the world, than Ben Laden. They have turned into a
formidable international organization, with cadres who excel in
double-speak and who further understand the Occident and its weak points
way more than how the latter understands the ‘Orient’. Their strength is
political, religious and economic; and must be taken seriously.
The
danger of the ‘Islamist Fascism’ (to use the expression of Rachid Bougedra)
does not only threaten the Western democracies, but also the peoples of
the Islamic world; the first victims. One Egyptian journalist (who fears
disclosing her name) says that “unless the government moves to do so
something, Egypt will face within five to ten years [how optimistic!] a
Sunni version of the Iranian revolution.”
On the
other hand, one may find certain Brothers who occasionally object to al-Qaeda’s
acts. This would be nothing more than part of their usual duplicity, or
stemming from fear that certain (terrorist) acts would threaten to
undermine their achievements. One Brother says that “today, they are
capable of jumping to reach the rule in many (Islamic) countries; but out
of concern about their ultimate goal, they still seek some political
backing. They, hence, need to further develop their political speech in
the right ways…”
The book
titled ‘Muslim Brotherhood in the Shadow of al-Qaeda’(1)
includes a discussion with a senior personality with the French
Intelligence services (RG), who urges the specialists to write more about
the issue of the Brotherhood, as this could, hopefully, ‘awaken the
politicians.’ He goes on to wonder whether the Western societies need a
major catastrophe before they start to move. He ads “Let’s not deceive
ourselves, for we are already in a state of war; even if this were not
entirely clear to the eyes..” Isn’t that some kind of hyperbole? “Not at
all” he replies. “I am talking about the reality… The Third World War is
going on, without being ever declared. It concerns civilian populations,
in their morale, their certitudes and, occasionally, their bodies… We must
wonder whether our intelligence services are (fast enough) adapting to the
realities..”
He adds
something of extreme importance: “There is but one historical reference to
which over 80% of Islamists in the Sunni world accord: the Brotherhood.”
He further adds that “..even if most Islamists may not bother to be
members, they have been profoundly marked by the Brotherhood’s discourse
and ideas of Islam. This almost resembles the approach of the Soviet
Communist Party, which had a very limited membership, but was the one to
define the lines of action (for the parties) the world over. The influence
and philosophy it carried was far more important than the individuals. And
that is exactly what we find here..”
Al-Qaeda
is, hence nothing more than a ‘mark’ or ‘franchise’ for terrorism. But for
its ideology and the ‘distribution network’ it relies on the Brotherhood’s
organization. In order to attract volunteers, there is need for an
appealing message: jihad. The message is then spread through the
nebulous network of the Brotherhood. The penetration is also done in a
targeted manner; e.g. focused on some of the sub-cultural groups in the
societies, using a persuasive discourse. It then becomes only a matter of
time and money (provided by Saudi and Gulf sources), before convincing
those targeted. Abolishing the intra-European borders has vastly
facilitated the movement of people and money and the ability to penetrate
the European societies.
Islamist
totalitarianism spreads in similar ways as Nazism did: exploiting societal
problems and trying to tempt the less-favored segments of the society.
Discourse is made about social ‘reform’ which, obviously, goes through
religion. It is not about religious reform, but a salafi
(retrograde) movement to the origins of the religion; that is to a
religious dogma dating back to the seventh century and embracing a
corresponding view of the society. This is, then, presented as the Islam
of the ‘moderates’, and any criticisms thereafter are quickly dubbed
islamophobic. This was Hitler’s approach regarding the ‘good German’ as
the one who adheres to Nazi ideology. So too is the ‘good Muslim,’ in
their regard, as one who adheres to their teachings.
This
‘Green Totalitarianism’ is not a mere religious fanaticism; but rather an
ideology of global destruction; some kind of a racist and theocratic
totalitarianism which is especially more dangerous because of the
associated deep and pathological hatred of Jews and ‘Crusaders’. So
jihad has begun, and whoever wants to harm the infidels is guaranteed
the recognition and gratitude of the Brothers.
After the
end of the Cold War, a new ideological war rages on. It finds financial,
logistical and religious support out of Saudi, Pakistan, Jordan, etc. In
all cases, the common denominator is the Brotherhood and their network.
Yves
Bertrand, a previous director of the French Intelligence services says
that starting from 1985 one could observe a fast evolution whereby the
Algerian community at the Grand Mosque of Paris started to wane; to the
benefit of the associations related to the Brotherhood. These have created
in 1983 the ‘Union des Organisations Islamique en France’ (UOIF), which is
linked to an extensive European and international Brotherhood network
(including Egypt and Saudi Arabia), that links with the League of the
Islamic World.
They
exploit to the fullest, and in ways that out-do even Westerners, the
West’s laws that protect liberties and provide unlimited freedoms of
expression. They further attempt to penetrate vital institutions in a
country like France (e.g. persistently seeking employment in the police,
the administration and the army). They identify common causes with the
various rejectionist movements, such as the anti-globalization, with an
objective to be present and attract media coverage by any means. So the
lobbying goes on, as well as the party-like activities without being a
political party. In other words, they follow the tactics of the communist
cells of the sixties, with an aim to prepare the ground for the national
Islamic revolution.
They
claim that Islam is unchangeable and, hence, incompatible with the Western
societies which are, by definition, progressive and evolutional. The only
rules they respect are respecting no rules, except for jihad.
Whenever the action is for the sake of Islam, or in its name, a Brother
would feel free to lie about identity, ideology and intentions. The
Brotherhood has made of lying one of their most effective weapons; which
makes cornering them all the more difficult, especially in the absence of
any direct relations between a Brother and the organizational leadership.
The Issue
the hijab in France revolved around testing the institutions of the
state. Indeed, those who were most affected were probably the Jews, Sikhs
and Christians who had to drop their ‘religious’ markings even though
these never conveyed a particular (ostensible) ‘political message’ as much
as the hijab. For hijab is generally not a simple, or
neutral, dress but a ‘uniform’; a politico-religious attire.
One must remember that in all the
countries, from Iran to Egypt and Pakistan and even Turkey (which is being
re-Islamized, and its Kamalist secularism gradually abolished), the push
for Islamization invariably starts with the struggle to spread and impose
the hijab.
Most of
the Islamist activists in Europe belong to the second or even third
generations of immigrants; that is they are the product of the European
society. This is because of the persistent efforts that target the most
fragile individuals (for whatever socio-economical reasons) and cut them
off their environment through the teachings of the Brothers which insist
on the idea that belonging to Islam is not compatible with citizenship in
Europe.
This
happens at the time where the state, in a country like France, makes a lot
of effort to ensure the full ‘integration’ of Islam and has, accordingly,
helped establish in 2004 the ‘French Council of the Islamic Cult’, at the
same footing with the councils representing the followers of other
religions, and helped establish a special foundation to collect tax-abated
donations aimed at building and running mosques and religious schools.
However, the UOIF (linked to the Brotherhood) has managed to secure a
majority of the membership of the Council.
The UOIF
has created in 1990 the ‘European Institute for Human Sciences’ in the
Burgundy area, in France, where students and teachers live unnoticed in an
agrarian area, not too far from Switzerland and Germany. The board of the
Institute includes the likes of Yossef al-Qaradawi (a leading figure of
the Brotherhood who also heads the European Centre for Fatwa and Research,
in the UK; which has issued fatwas (religious edicts) on the
obligation of hijab, and in support of suicidal operations). The
declared official objective of the Institute is to ‘provide higher
religious studies to the specialists’, and it retains links with Islamic
universities in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and Pakistan. The French Intelligence
services, however, have some doubts about using it as a launch pad for the
theorizers of Islamic fundamentalism, according to the thoughts of the
Brotherhood…
One must
remark here that many of the Muslims in Europe are non-practicing, or
secularists. However, the Brotherhood and those associated to it, exploit,
in adroit Machiavellian ways whatever immigrant-related problems may be in
order to help further isolate Muslims and picture them as victims. It is a
patient implementation of al-Banna’s step-by-step approach, gaining a
point and a footstep everyday.
In
conclusion, there seems to be a growing realization that even if al-Qaeda
would claim the public honor of success in terrorist operations; it is the
Brotherhood (in ideology, approaches and activities) which lies at the
origin, even if it remained in the shadows. Claiming that it has no
relation with Islamist groups, or that these are ‘outside its cloak’, is,
at best, naïve. For the ‘cloak’ is one and the same. Even if it had
numerous arms and legs, in an octopus-like form that could confuse the
observer; the fact is that everybody does work together for the common
objective.
Finally
(leaving aside how would European societies face-up the challenges) one
could not help notice the recent arm flexing
of the Brotherhood in Egypt. They took to the streets with calls
for ‘reform’ and ‘democracy’ - which really mean no more than demands to
hand them the rule seat, gently and expeditiously. The reaction of the
government was to arrest a few scores. Whether or not it is the right
approach, this won’t make us forget that the Brothers and their cronies
have for decades been left by the government to dominate, unchallenged,
the media, education and the mosques. The result is an enviable success in
shaping (or rather destroying) the public’s mind, and in penetrating the
various branches of the administration.____________
Main
references:
1- ‘Frères
Musulmans, dans l’ombre d’Al-Qaeda’, Emmanuel Razavi, éd. J-C
Godefroy. (The author is a reporter who had spent ample time with the
Taliban, Hizbullah, Hamas and various Islamist groups hat mushroom in the
city suburbs all over Europe).
2- ‘Le
Sabre et le Coran’, Paul Landau, éd.
Rocher. |
