Discuss the rise of radical Islam and the flourishing of terror organizations such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. Additionally, you will also need to discuss the development of the Musli

WWhat is Civilization Jihad?

BACKGROUNDERCIVILIZATION JIHAD

We know all about violent jihad. But Civilization Jihad is, by its nature and design, a far more dangerous threat in the long run. It aims to transform a society from within so it can eventually be brought under Islamic law.

· MORE DANGEROUS THAN VIOLENT JIHAD?

· WHERE "CIVILIZATION JIHAD" COMES FROM

· IT'S NOT FREE EXPRESSION; IT'S SUBVERSION

· CIVILIZATION JIHAD IN PRACTICE

· WHY IT WORKS

· THE OBJECTIVE: SHARIAH OVER ALL OF US

More Dangerous Than Violent Jihad?

Violent jihad is easy to identify and obvious in the danger it presents.

Civilization Jihad is by its nature and design a more subtle, but truly more dangerous threat in the long run. It aims to transform a society from within so it can eventually be brought under Islamic law.

Since the goal is the overthrow of the society and its existing government and laws, Civilization Jihad can be a “pre-violent” preparation for violent jihad or if successful enough achieve the desired end on its own.

Where "Civilization Jihad" Comes From

In the 2008 terrorism trial  United States v. Holy Land Foundation a document written by senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Akram was entered into evidence.

The document was called  An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group  and it says that the purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is “a Civilization-Jihadist Process” and they are conducting a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”

The term “civilization jihad” is our enemy’s own name for efforts to subvert our society from within using the very freedoms they will then take away.

It's Not Free Expression; It's Subversion

Civilization Jihad must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice—no more than violent jihad against the United States government would be.

Though the actions undertaken are not violent, it is preparation for the success of a violent campaign or it may succeed on its own and remove the need for violent conquest. It consists of attempts to subvert government officials, to prevent people from speaking about the connection between Islam and violent jihad, and in spreading the ideals of Islamic law so that they become normalized and accepted.

It includes influence operations by Muslim leaders to transform how institutions such as the intelligence community, Defense Department, police, and schools and universities think and speak about the threats posed by the jihad to Western liberties, to the idea of democracy as a good, or to our basic notions of human equality.

It entails efforts to expand the Muslim population in the targeted countries, and to block assimilation within those communities. It also includes attempts to punish government officials who do pursue such threats via political correctness, lawsuits, or damage to their careers.

In this way it hopes to chill American efforts to address the threats posed by the violent jihad to our entire way of life.

Civilization Jihad In Practice

The Muslim Brotherhood is the umbrella organization for practitioners of civilization jihad in America.

They see themselves as acting within the shariah legal tradition by issuing a  dawa, or call to conversion. Shariah law jurists since the 8th century have held that the  dawa is mandatory before violent jihad can occur.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, told a Toledo, Ohio, Muslim Arab Youth Association convention in 1995, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through the sword, but through  dawa.”

Because they appeal to First Amendment protections, the Muslim Brotherhood has been able to spawn a host of organizations that are allowed to exist and operate freely. One of the most visible of these is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which describes its mission as one of ‘enhancing understanding of Islam and encouraging dialogue,’ but in fact acts chiefly to legally silence or publicly delegitimize critics.

They spend considerable effort attacking those who disagree with their mission both Muslim Americans and American citizens who raise concerns about the connection between Islam and jihad. They are especially visible in the wake of Islamic terror attacks on American soil, when they attempt to blur and hide any discussion of the role Islam played in the attacks.

Why It Works

Civilization Jihad operates in ways tailored to take advantage of today’s liberal, multicultural-minded non-Muslim populations. It does so in ways that are genuinely difficult to recognize, oppose or counter.

Today, Americans really do value tolerance and have learned from a difficult history to reflexively oppose prejudice against minorities. By describing as “prejudice” concerns about the connection between Islam and the violent jihadist acts of terror taking place all over the world, the civilization jihadist can often make people ashamed to express their concerns.

By attacking in public those who speak out anyway, the civilization jihadist can use this public sentiment against racism or xenophobia to discredit those raising legitimate questions about crime and jihadist violence. By leveraging legal protections put into place to protect minority groups in a diverse society, the civilization jihadist can use the law to punish those who continue to speak.

Civilization jihad works because it takes advantage of the West’s devotion to tolerance and openness to protect those who would destroy it.

The Objective: Shariah Over All Of Us

The final objective of civilization jihad is the same as that of violent jihad. The objective is to bring the non-Muslim world under the rule of Islam.

In Islam, this is described as the subjugation of the  Dar al-Harb, or ‘House of War,’ to shariah law. Once a part of the world submits to shariah, it is said to belong to the  Dar al-Islam, the ‘House of Islam.’

This would entail an end to democratic forms of government because of shariah law’s insistence that “man-made” law is forbidden. Only God may legislate, which means that democratic methods of addressing concerns are not legitimate. The law is permanent and unchangeable by human authority.

It would also mean the end of the United States Constitution, and especially its provisions for genuine religious tolerance and the equality of all before the law. Shariah law mandates several forms of legal inequalities, especially for non-Muslims and women. It also requires punishments considered cruel and unusual under the American Constitution, especially for sexual minorities.

The object of civilization jihad is to bring us all under this legal code, and to make shariah the permanent and unalterable rule over all our lives.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

,

The Muslim Brotherhood in America

To watch the course on YouTube,  CLICK HERE.

About the Course

Have you ever asked yourself why, despite more than ten years of efforts –involving, among other things, the loss of thousands of lives in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well-over a trillion dollars spent, countless man-years wasted waiting in airport security lines and endless efforts to ensure that no offense is given to seemingly permanently aggrieved Muslim activists – are we no closer to victory in the so-called “war on terror” than we were on 9/11?

Thankfully, we have been able to kill some dangerous bad guys. The sad truth of the matter is that, by almost any other measure, the prospect of victory is becoming more remote by the day. And no one seems able to explain the reason.

In an effort to provide the missing answer, on April 24, the Center for Security Policy is making available via the Internet a new, free ten-part video course called “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within.” This course connects the proverbial dots, drawing on a wealth of publicly available data and first-hand accounts to present a picture that has, for over a decade, been obscured, denied and suppressed:

America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, even more toxic danger – a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

,

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Backgrounder

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood, once Egypt’s largest opposition movement and a standard-bearer for Islamist groups around the world, has been once again driven underground as Abdel Fatah al-Sisi has consolidated power.

WRITTEN BY

Zachary Laub

UPDATED

Last updated August 15, 2019 8:00 am (EST)

    

Summary

· Founded in Egypt in the 1920s, the Brotherhood is one of the most influential Islamist organizations in the the world, mixing religious teaching with political activism and social welfare programs.

· The group came to national power—winning the presidency in Egypt—amid the Arab Spring in the early 2010s. But a military junta ended its rule in 2013 and has since imprisoned thousands of its members.

· The Brotherhood’s influence over its Islamist offshoots in the region has diminished, and its ability to participate civically and politically remains stifled.

Introduction

The Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt’s oldest and largest Islamist organization, with offshoots throughout the Arab world. The Brotherhood renounced violence in the 1970s and earned popular support by providing social services such as pharmacies, hospitals, and schools.

After the ouster of former president Hosni Mubarak in the Arab Spring protests of 2011, the group’s political arm won a plurality of seats in Egypt’s lower house of parliament and its candidate, Mohammed Morsi, was elected president. But Morsi was ousted by the military in July 2013, and the Brotherhood’s members were imprisoned, went into exile, or were forced underground. As part of a wide-ranging crackdown on political opposition, the Egyptian government has labeled the group a terrorist organization, as have Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). U.S. President Donald J. Trump has expressed interest in  following suit , but many experts say a designation—whether of the original Egyptian group or of kindred groups throughout the region—would  stretch the bounds of the law  and also  complicate U.S. diplomacy  across much of the Middle East and North Africa.

RELATED

Blacklisting the Muslim Brotherhood: What to Know

by  Zachary Laub

Egypt Doesn’t Matter Anymore

by  Steven A. Cook

A History of Violence

Founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood is the world’s most influential Islamist organization. The Brotherhood’s mission is to Islamize society through the promotion of  religious law , values, and morals. It has long combined preaching and political activism with social welfare to advance this objective.

The group earned legitimacy among its core constituency, the lower-middle class, as the most effective organized resistance against the British occupation of Egypt (1882–1952). The Muslim Brotherhood joined with the Free Officers, nationalist military leaders who sought to wrest Egypt from a British-backed monarchy. After a coup d’état that forced King Farouk out of power in July 1952, the military junta that took charge and the Brotherhood became rivals. This conflict was over power and ideology; the Brotherhood rejected the military’s vision of Egypt as the leader of a socialist, secular,  pan-Arab movement .

In 1954, a suspected member of the Brotherhood attempted to assassinate the leader of the Free Officers, Gamal Abdel Nasser. In response, thousands of suspected Brothers were imprisoned. Though Nasser barred the group from government, the Brotherhood nevertheless became ubiquitous in society, building allegiance as a populist alternative to the Egyptian state, which provided neither prosperity nor welfare and suffered repeated military defeats by Israel.

Among those arrested was a member of the Brotherhood named Sayyid Qutb, who developed a doctrine of armed struggle against the regime in Egypt and beyond while writing from prison. His work has provided the underpinnings for many militant Sunni Islamist groups, including  al-Qaeda  and  Hamas . Extremist leaders often cite Qutb, who was hanged in 1966, to argue that governments not based on sharia are apostate and therefore legitimate targets of jihad.

Toward Pragmatic Politics

Though establishing a state based on Islamic principles was at the core of the Brotherhood’s agenda, the group gained prominence by effectively providing social services where the state failed.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with CFR analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.  Most weekdays.

Top of Form

Email Address

Bottom of Form

View all newsletters >

The Brotherhood renounced violence at the insistence of Nasser’s successor, Anwar al-Sadat, who allowed the group to preach and advocate in exchange for its support against his political rivals, Nasser loyalists and leftists. Sadat paid lip service to sharia and freed imprisoned Islamists. He was assassinated in 1981 by members of al-Jihad, an extremist group whose leaders opposed Sadat’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel—though they were not the only ones—and sought the violent overthrow of the Egyptian political system because it was not based on religious law.

Although Egypt was not a democracy, it did hold parliamentary elections. Brotherhood-affiliated candidates first participated in  parliamentary elections  in 1984, even as the party officially remained banned. An alliance with the officially recognized Wafd Party, which stood for nationalism and economic liberalism, won 65 of the parliament’s 450 seats. Running as independents in the early 2000s, Brotherhood candidates won still more seats, forming the largest opposition bloc.

Grappling With Power

The Brotherhood emerged as a dominant political force in Egypt following Mubarak’s removal from office amid mass protests in February 2011. The Brotherhood’s organizational capacity was unmatched, but the group’s electoral victories were tarnished by power struggles with the judiciary and the military. Battles over the drafting of a new constitution were a particular flash point.

In the 2012 parliamentary elections, the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won nearly half the seats in the lower house (People’s Assembly) and Islamists took 84 percent of the seats in the  upper house  (Shura Council). Pushing back against the Brotherhood’s increasing power, the Mubarak-appointed Supreme Constitutional Court issued a decision in June 2012 that led to the  dissolution of the People’s Assembly . At the same time, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which had been in control of Egypt since Mubarak’s fall, gave the military exclusive control over defense and national security policy, diminishing the power of the president.

Just before Mubarak had stepped aside, the Brotherhood said that it would not seek the presidency, but it nevertheless put forward Khairat el-Shater, its deputy spiritual head, as a candidate. After Shater was disqualified, Morsi took his place. In a contest that posed a choice between Ahmad Shafiq—who had been a government minister during the Mubarak years and briefly prime minister after the January 2011 uprising—and the Brotherhood’s candidate, Morsi was announced the winner in June 2012.

With the lower house of parliament dissolved, Morsi had both executive and legislative control of the government. In late November 2012, Morsi declared himself, the Shura Council (previously a consultative body without legislative authority), and the constituent assembly (which was charged with writing a new constitution) immune from judicial review. Morsi had justified the move by arguing that the judiciary and much of the bureaucracy was dominated by remnants of the Mubarak regime intent on impeding the revolution’s goals. But after an immediate backlash, including public demonstrations, he annulled the decree.

The new constitution, which enshrined Islamic law as the basis for legislation, also stirred controversy. Though a similar principle existed in Egypt’s prior constitution, the new draft raised concern with Egyptian liberals suspicious that the Brotherhood would take it as license to codify its worldview in the law. Many Egyptians also feared insufficient protections for women’s rights and freedoms of speech and worship and distrusted the broad power accorded to the presidency. The constitution was approved with a 64 percent majority in a nationwide referendum, but only a third of the electorate voted.

The conflict between Morsi and the judiciary continued in March 2013, when the Supreme Administrative Court overturned a presidential decree calling for April parliamentary elections, questioning the constitutionality of election-law provisions. The secular opposition had previously called for a boycott of the vote.

Many analysts criticized Morsi’s tactics as majoritarian, and Egyptians critical of the Brotherhood  coalesced around the group Tamarrod (Rebellion) , which claimed to gather twenty-two million signatories to a petition calling for Morsi to step down. As the Tamarrod movement gained steam, Egyptians complained of a breakdown in security and about Brotherhood vigilantism. Bringing things to a head, Morsi appointed a member of the former militant group  Jamaat al-Islamiyya  as governor of Luxor, where the group had massacred dozens of tourists in 1997.

As millions of protesters massed in the streets, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces—the same body that had forced Mubarak aside—issued an ultimatum to Morsi, giving him forty-eight hours to meet their demands. On July 3, 2013, SCAF, led by Defense Minister Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, ousted Morsi and suspended the new constitution.

The following month, security forces responded harshly to sit-ins protesting the coup,  killing more than 1,150 demonstrators , Human Rights Watch found. The main encampment, Rabaa al-Adawiya Square, became a rallying cry for opposition to the new regime.

The Brotherhood After the Coup

The government outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, forcing it underground once again. Under Sisi, who became president in May 2014, the regime has taken strong steps to repress the opposition, using  accusations of membership  in the Brotherhood to repress dissent of all stripes.

Thousands of the group’s leaders and members have been imprisoned, and others went into exile. The group’s charities have been shuttered and their assets confiscated. Morsi, who had been on trial ever since his ouster, died in June 2019 after being  denied medical care  while held in solitary confinement, according to Human Rights Watch. It was the  seventh anniversary  of his election.

Unable to seek a voice through political or civic participation, some members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood could  split off into radical factions  and resort to violence, analysts say. In this way, the group could be forced in a direction far different than that of its offshoots, many of which have  taken part in parliamentary politics  as socially conservative parties.

Qatar and Turkey have cultivated ties with the Brotherhood and  its offshoots , and many exiled members of the Egyptian group have settled in those countries. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have worked to suppress Brotherhood-affiliated movements, seeing their populist appeal as an ideological rival to their absolute monarchies. They have advocated a broad-brush U.S. terrorist designation. That would treat disparate movements and parties around the region as if they were all part of a monolithic organization, when in reality the original Egyptian organization’s influence over the diffuse network has been diminished, officials and experts say.

After Sisi’s April 2019 visit, the White House directed national security officials to pursue a terrorist designation for the Muslim Brotherhood. Even the narrower approach of designating just the Egyptian branch could have far-reaching consequences and  invite legal challenge . The move,  former U.S. officials Daniel Benjamin and Jason Blazakis write , would expose hundreds of thousands of the movement’s followers to potential U.S. sanctions while alienating the United Nations and European Union—which have long followed U.S. designations—and “providing cover for Sisi’s government to expand an already brutal crackdown.”

,