The global and regional alliance to fight the terrorists who control parts of Iraq and Syria is weak, with Turkey opting out while Egypt and Jordan are reluctant — even some Gulf countries might not be able to stop money and recruits sneaking in for the jihadists. The Americans and the French are competing for the leading role; they are mainly eyeing the money for the campaign. Yet, the most dangerous flaw is the argument that ‘We need to crush militant Islamists and reach out to moderate Islamists’. Though Turkey is the only beneficiary of this argument, it’s on the backfoot in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil). Ankara is waiting for an outcome such as that of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to present itself as the key regional player. Erdogan can say in a year or two: “We told you so.” The root of all these terrorist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, is also opposing the fight against Isil, in a hypocritical and opportunistic way. In politics, you sacrifice allies if your interests are at stake. For political Islamists, hypocrisy and opportunism is a way of life.
Isil is an offshoot of Al Qaida, which was a magnet for militants fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The main procurement pot for those jihadists was Islamist groups — mainly the Brotherhood — in Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries. Following the collapse of the Taliban’s Sharia-based Islamic state in Afghanistan after the Anglo-American invasion and occupation, Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues, the formerly CIA-sponsored and Arab-financed Mujahideen, turned their guns against their own countries — from Morocco and Algeria to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. And the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq helped split the Bin Laden group into smaller local entities with the same terrorist doctrine. Other groups in Somalia, Nigeria, Chechnya etc either identified with Bin Laden’s Al Qaida or adopted a similar path. There’s little doubt that all these terrorist groups, under the guise of following Islam, emerged from the same group: the Brotherhood and its Pakistani variant, the Jamaat-e-Islami. My first-hand experience is clear: Islamist group figures are now leading figures in the Brotherhood and jihadist leaders and other militant groups are relatives of leading Brotherhood figures.
So, if groups like Isil or Al Nusra Front are ultimately Brotherhood-based why do regional and international stances differ when it comes to their ‘base’? Why are the US, the UK, Qatar and Turkey keen on Brotherhood rule in the region, while trying to bring together a global force to combat Isil terror? Again, the conventional view in the West is that “moderate political Islam” can help eradicate militancy and spare the West the threat of terror. This analysis has been supported by much academic literature and research led by orientalists and “political Islam experts” like John Esposito, Graham Fuller, Francois Bourgat and others.
As the Americans are disengaging from the world, especially from the Middle East, they’re leaving it to local and regional parties to play a proxy role in protecting western interests. The Brotherhood and other political Islam groups are believed to be the best guarantors of western interests for many reasons: They’re well organised and better than regime-made political parties, they can make their people swallow anything as far as it’s packaged with a religious sweetener and, more importantly, they’re anxious to cooperate.
The ultimate winner
How come violent militant groups are not as useful as the Brotherhood, to the extent that they need to be fought and eradicated? Actually, they are. The threat of these groups is a pretext to support the Brotherhood and so-called moderate political Islamists. Looking at the whole region through a politico-religious prism leads us to no other conclusions. The fight against Isil and similar terrorist groups would benefit the goal of getting the Brotherhood back into the spotlight as the “true face of Islam” that the world can deal with. Even Israel is looking for Recep Tayyip Erdogan-style rulers around it to deal with. The prize will be in Syria, as whatever is the outcome of the destructive internal war there, the Brotherhood will be the ultimate winner. Unfortunately, those who financed Islamist fighters against the regime in Syria were actually helping the course of developments desired by the pro-Brotherhood axis. Also, by joining the chorus of those exaggerating the threat of Isil and similar groups, anti-Brotherhood countries are playing into the hands of “good, moderate political Islam”.
The bottom line for a stance on the Brotherhood or Isil should be your position on religion in politics. Either you condone religious politics, thus have different views on moderates and extremists, or you oppose the idea of mixing religion with politics. But in the latter case, you can’t stand silent on Israel, which declared itself a “Jewish State” — just like the Isil “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria. If Washington and London are careful not to intimidate the Israelis, the Saudis and their allies shouldn’t care about that.
Dr Ahmad Mustafa is an Abu Dhabi-based journalist.
