Muslim Brotherhood: Friend or Foe?

In fighting the war on terror, the United States has pursued a diverse set of allies, but none of them Islamist.

The Society of the Muslim Brotherhood has undergone a transformation from a radical fundamentalist group to a moderate organization that embraces democracy. Given this transformation, the next president could choose to work with the Muslim Brotherhood in order to undermine radical jihadists in Egypt and worldwide.

The 2008 presidential candidates have presented a wide array of strategies to combat terrorism, but a decision to ally with the Muslim Brotherhood would be a controversial one.

Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.), a presidential hopeful gaining momentum in recent weeks, has discussed empowering moderates in the Middle East in order to de-legitimize fundamentalists. But Huckabee has not clearly stated whether or not he would view the Muslim Brotherhood as an acceptably moderate group.

He could, though, and that alone is surprising for a group that was one of the most radical Islamic factions in the Middle East when it was founded by Hasan Al-Banna in 1928. The organization promoted the notion of salafiyyah – the idea of Islamic self-sufficiency and independence from the Western powers – and called for Muslims to break from Westernization and create a society and state, governed by Islamic, or Shariah law and Qur’anic ritual.

However, shortly after the death of Al-Banna in 1949, Sayyid Qutb, one of the early leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, chose to break from the movement. Qutb went on to become more radical, arguing for a complete rejection of non-Islamic society, specifically the West.

Qutb ultimately became one of the early inspirers of the jihad movement, while the Brotherhood began to take a more moderate direction.

The Brotherhood has participated in elections throughout the Middle East since the mid-1970s, and, in 2005, Muslim Brotherhood legislative candidates running as independents won 20 percent of the vote in Egypt, despite a ban on the party since 1948. The organization as a whole has become active in other countries in the Middle East, including Syria and Jordan.

The group has also recently adopted a more liberal position on the issue of non-Muslims, specifically Christians, stating that they are equal to Muslims and deserve the same rights. Some members have argued for extending suffrage to women, and the organization also strongly supports one of the most basic democratic concepts - the notion of popular sovereignty.

Given this transformation, some policymakers have considered the Muslim Brotherhood a possible ally in fighting against radical Islamists.

The Brotherhood can be seen as a direct affront to the jihad agenda. It has become non-violent in recent years, infuriating jihadists and prompting Al-Qaeda leaders to openly criticize the Brotherhood for embracing democracy.

Though rejected and made illegal by the Egyptian government in 1948, in 1970 President Anwar Sadat allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to function legally as a charitable organization. Since then, they have taken up causes including proper sanitation, anti-corruption, and political accountability. Their stances on these issues, which are popular among Middle East constituents, have provided them a powerful voice in the Muslim community.

The group’s popularity in the Middle East has made it difficult to dismiss. If the U.S. government continues to use the strategy of democracy promotion in order to fight terrorism, it will not be easy for them to ignore the organization, according to some experts.

Steven Brooke, a researcher at the Nixon Center who specializes in the Muslim Brotherhood, said, “The U.S. cannot engage in democracy promotion and ignore groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, who are the largest opposition force in the Middle East.”

Brooke said there is speculation that the United States has already been working with the Muslim Brotherhood’s wing in Syria, the National Salvation Front, in order to weaken the current Syrian regime.

However, not all political leaders agree about allying with the Muslim Brotherhood. Many U.S. officials believe that they are still far too radical to rely on as a partner, and several experts outside of the State Department say it is weary of the organization.

Joshua Stacher, an adjunct history lecturer at the American University in Cairo, said the State Department uses the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is still illegal in Egypt as an excuse not to engage with them.

And Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab politics at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, said that the State Department is “generally skeptical of Islamist movements.”

Complicating the situation, the Brotherhood has maintained relationships with Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Its connection with these groups has raised concerns about the Brotherhood’s stance against Israel. However, Stacher said the relationship between the Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah is “not a very firm” one.

“The Brotherhood serves as an organizational model,” Stacher said, for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Many presidential candidates, though, still treat the group the same as they treat radical jihadists.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) has spoken about the Muslim Brotherhood as though it is equivalent to Al-Qaeda, and focuses on the group’s connections with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yet, Romney has also called for “a rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims.”

The Brotherhood officially renounced violent tactics in the 1970s. Stacher also points out that the Brotherhood condemned Al-Qaeda’s acts on Sept. 11 roughly 12 hours after it occurred.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-N.Y) has an attitude similar to Romney’s, arguing for a broad definition of terrorism that does not distinguish between Islamists and terrorist organizations.

Giuliani’s senior Middle East advisor, Martin Kramer, is adamantly opposed to working with the Muslim Brotherhood. During a panel discussion at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Kramer said, “The United States has no use for equivocating Islamists.”

Stacher argued that the only presidential candidate who might open communication with the Brotherhood is Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). One of Obama’s senior foreign policy advisors is Daniel Shapiro, who has extensive experience with negotiating peace in the Middle East, and might offer a more nuanced attitude towards the Brotherhood, Stacher said.

However Shehata said, in light of the nature of U.S. politics, no candidate would raise the issue.

“No presidential candidate would have anything positive to say about the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other Islamist group,” Shehata said.

If they did, he added, they would be “knocked out of the race immediately” due to attacks from other candidates.

Clearly, the decision to embrace the Brotherhood as an ally is not without political complications, regardless of the possible benefits.

Even though the group is unquestionably different from radical Islamic fundamentalists, it is by no means an ideal U.S. ally, especially as it continues to advocate for the use of Shariah law in a theocratic Islamic state.

But considering that the U.S. does not have a great number of allies in the Middle East, presidential candidates might consider diplomacy with more influential moderate groups.