Romney Versus The Muslim Brotherhood

While Mitt Romney impressed me and most other reporters with his presentation, it would be good for some to observe that he also put forward a completely insane policy idea on the leading issue of the day:

We’ll move everything to get him. But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another. This is about Shi’a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.

To put it bluntly, the trouble here is that the Muslim Brotherhood just isn't a violent terrorist organization, and certainly doesn't commit acts of violence against the United States. It's an extremely traditionalist multinational civil society organization. It's true that a lot of violent types used to be in the Brotherhood and now they're in terrorist groups, but used to be is the key phrase here, they left the Brotherhood because the Brotherhood wouldn't sign on for their agenda. In one clause, Romney's just gone and broadened the war to include a huge new category of people who have no intention of waging war against the United States or even against Israel.

Note that even without the Muslim Brotherhood bit, this is a terrible idea. If you liked Iraq, you're going to love trying to root Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon and Hamas out of the West Bank. Check out Spencer's remarks on this as well. He notes that "it's hardly remarkable that Romney doesn't know what he's talking about." It isn't surprising, but then again this point needs to be driven home again and again -- Mitt Romney displayed zero understanding of political Islam or global terrorism, none of his Republican opponents called him on it, and as far as I know, nobody in the press (the same press, you'll recall, that's concerned with the Pursuit of Truth above all else) bothered to notice.

Comments

what jumped out at me is the bit about the shia. is he saying that the shia are part of a "worldwide jihadist effort" to bring about a caliphate? since when do the shia want a caliphate? the shia-sunni split happened because the shia didn't recognize the authority of the caliph.

Posted by upyernoz | May 4, 2007 11:43 AM

upyernoz,

As I posted in comments at Ezra Klein's blog and on Eschaton, I found that aspect of Romney's comment odd too ... Romney claims the Dems. don't see the big picture? And then he gets something so ovious so wrong?

If I may (hopefully not misrepresenting her position) paraphrase the lovely Dr. GWPDA's comment addressing my comment at Eschaton, people like Romney merely see the 'threat from brown people' as being a singular threat and any nuance that 'not all brown people are out to get us, and those people out to get us might not be unified in their causes and goals' is oh so 'French' to them ...

but are these the people we want to keep us safe? oy ... according to too many Americans it's exactly this kind of un-complicated thinking that we need ... all I can say, again, is "oy" ...

Posted by DAS | May 4, 2007 11:50 AM

"Facts are stubborn things." -- Ronald Reagan

Romney's campaign strikes me as the most remarkable of the big three on the R side. His campaign footage (see Powerline (ack)) contains no minorities. He has a well-polished media presence and understands how to use it. He seems best poised to capture the proto-fascist vote... and any pointing to his flip-flopping on social issues--abortion and gay rights, for example--is likely to have no impact.

Posted by sdh | May 4, 2007 11:51 AM

yeah, of course Mitt Romney doesn't know what he's talking about on this, none of the Republican candidates are even minorly well informed about the Muslim world. that's by design though, I'm quite sure any of them who displayed actual knowledge of the situation would lose support from their base. those people don't want to see any Muslims humanized or given normal human consideration, to the Republican base they're animals and there is nothing to understand about them other than that they should be killed / tortured / imprisoned at any opportunity.

Posted by benj | May 4, 2007 11:53 AM

Romney was hardly impressive. His pandering was creepy, and his comments on this topic were just outright stupid. (Interesting that Giuliani was able to answer the question about the difference between Sunni and Shia. He's an authoritarian nut, but not an idiot.) I couldn't believe a single thing that came out of his mouth. It looks like you're ready to be gulled yet again by a duplicitous Republican. I don't get it. As smart as you are, why can't you see through a guy like this?

Posted by hullfan | May 4, 2007 11:55 AM

I can't understand the argument that we shouldn't go after bin Laden because there will be more terrorists after him. We don't use that logic when someone murders a single person; why would we buy it when someone murders 3,000 people?

The fact is that although violent jihadist movements seem to have no problem recruiting grunts willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause, they have very few people who are capable of planning and executing a sophisticated terrorist operation, let alone providing the financing for it. It is, in fact, very important to go after terrorist leaders like bin Laden, and not just treat them as fungible commodities who barely deserve any resources.

Posted by Steve | May 4, 2007 11:55 AM

Mooslims... niggrahs... same xenophobia, different bunch of folks.

Posted by patrick | May 4, 2007 11:56 AM

"Facts are stubborn things" was actually coined by Adlai Stevenson, and he was talking about Republicans...the more things change...

Posted by mftalbot | May 4, 2007 11:57 AM

sdh - well, from what I know about the Mormons, they are not exactly a minority-friendly bunch of folks. one of their core beliefs is that the light and dark skinned people of the earth had a war long ago, and the whiteys pleased god more and have therefore been rewarded and saved by him. which is a good place for Romney to position himself from as he is obviously most blatantly in pursuit of the voters out there who will salivate as soon as they hear the name 'reagan'.

Posted by benj | May 4, 2007 11:57 AM

Maybe you're being unfair. Reading your transcription, it doesn't seem like he considers the Muslim Brotherhood any more part of the "world-wide jihadist effort" than he considers the Shia and the Sunni to be part of the "world-wide jihadist effort." Maybe he thinks that all Shia and all Sunni are part of that effort, but kinda doubt he's that far off his rocker. More likely, his "It's about . . . " phrases were just designed to show that there are many facets to the problems we face with Muslim world, and only the jihadists want to destroy all the moderate Islamic governments.

Posted by Barry | May 4, 2007 11:59 AM

Maybe Romney would like us to send the Knights of Columbus into battle against the Muslims. I mean, they've already got armor, right?

Posted by biggerbox | May 4, 2007 12:00 PM

Hezbollah is not not a terrorist organization like AQ with international reach aimed at the Continental U.S. or U.S interests everywhere. Most of Hezbollah's violence was/is directed against occupying soldiers.* Moreover, they've transitioned to a legitimate political movement within Lebanon. Unlike AQ they do not target the U.S., nor do they represent a significant military threat to the U.S.

(*Exception, rocketing of Israeli cities, but significantly, Israel killed far more civilians by it's bombing supposedly targeted at "infrustructure".)

Hamas, while using terrorist tactics against Israel, have purposely never attacked the U.S. Their fight is with Israel.

There does appear to be some cooperation between these groups with respect to the fight against Israel, but they are not part of some unified Jihadist movement led by AQ.

Posted by chew2 | May 4, 2007 12:01 PM

In last night's Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library, former Massachusetts Mitt Romney added Osama Bin Laden to his rapidly growing list of flip-flops. By alternately downplaying or emphasizing the importance of capturing Bin Laden as political circumstances require, Romney finds himself in good company - with President Bush.

For the details, see:
"Romney Joins Bush Flip-Flop on Bin Laden."

Posted by Angry One | May 4, 2007 12:02 PM

Straw man alert: Is there any Democrat pitching that this is all about bin Laden? Certainly a lot of Democrats think we should have gotten bin Laden already and should still be trying to apprehend or kill him, but that's not the same as "all about."

Posted by greennotGreen | May 4, 2007 12:12 PM

In passing it should be noted that Hamas and Hezbolla have never shown any interest in attacking "the far enemey" (us). They are terrorist organizations, to be sure, but with an exclusive interest in Israel.

Posted by Dick Mulliken | May 4, 2007 12:15 PM

The importance of including the Muslim brotherhood in the list is its name. Its inclusion both appeals to and incites the anti-Muslim racist hatred that if properly nurtured can aid a racist-dependent and hatred-0dependent party like the Republicans.

Posted by della Rovere | May 4, 2007 12:32 PM

I think Matt is being a little unfair to Romney here. Sure , lumping MB, Hezbollah, Hamas, and AQ together is more than a little bit simplistic. But Romney's understanding of political Islam is not exactly zero: he seems to be the first Republican candidate to mention AQ's long term goal of restoring the caliphate. Now, that isn't a groundbreaking insight, but it's a big step forward from "they hate us for our freedom."

Posted by foolishmortal | May 4, 2007 12:36 PM

the trouble here is that the Muslim Brotherhood just isn't a violent terrorist organization

This, BTW, isn't factually correct. It's been a tough morning for Matthew and facts.

Posted by Al | May 4, 2007 12:36 PM

Actually, the one thing the Muslim Brotherhood is not, is a "civil society organization". They're a religious group dedicated to Islamic principles. Here's a list of objectives from their homepage:

1- Building the Muslim individual: brother or sister with a strong body, high manners, cultured thought, ability to earn, strong faith, correct worship, conscious of time, of benefit to others, organized, and self-struggling character [3].
2- Building the Muslim family: choosing a good wife (husband), educating children Islamicaly, and inviting other families.
3- Building the Muslim society (thru building individuals and families) and addressing the problems of the society realistically.
4- Building the Muslim state.
5- Building the Khilafa (basically a shape of unity between the Islamic states).
6- Mastering the world with Islam.

Please note that this doesn't mean that I believe they want to impose terrorist jihad on the entire world and make Americans dhimmis in their own nation. It's just that they are in fact a religious outfit, and would like to see Arab states run by Islamic principles, in much the same way that conservative Christian outfits in the US would like to see our government run.

Posted by pastordan | May 4, 2007 12:38 PM

In passing it should be noted that Hamas and Hezbolla have never shown any interest in attacking "the far enemey" (us).

Well, Hezbollah was responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Now, granted, that was in Lebanon, and not here, but I don't think you can say that they've focused exclusively on Israel.

Posted by Dave J. | May 4, 2007 12:42 PM

Maybe Romney would like us to send the Knights of Columbus into battle against the Muslims. I mean, they've already got armor, right?

Cute, but last I checked the Knights of Columbus were a Catholic organization, a Christian sect with which Romney's Mormons share little mutual love.

Surely we can snark without committing our own version of Shia-Sunni idiocy?

Posted by melior | May 4, 2007 12:45 PM

As much as I hate to say it, I agree with some of the Romney defenders above. The way he layed the sentences down didn't imply the logical connection between the terms that Matt is infering. What he said is only as idiotic as the typical Republican talking point.

On the bigger point, I also agree there is a danger in focusing too much on bin Laden. First of all, lets face it: Al Qaeda is small potatoes. Secondly, trying too hard to get bin Laden now could have adverse side effects, such as destabilizing the government of Pakistan.

Posted by Jim W | May 4, 2007 12:47 PM

My Google search reveals that "Facts are stubborn things" was coined neither by Reagan nor Stevenson, but by John Adams...and that should take care of my minimum daily requirement of irony for the day.

Posted by Asinistra | May 4, 2007 12:49 PM

This was the comment that caused me to start screaming at the TV -- and it came pretty early in the debate. Much as I hate John McCain, I did have to give him props for his "No, Osama attacked us on 9/11 and I'll follow him to the gates of Hell" comment -- more for its obvious smackdown of Mitt than anything else. We all know those remarks mean as little to McCain as they do to Bush.

Posted by Litz | May 4, 2007 12:49 PM

Pastordan:

How does its status as a religious organization make it not part of civil society? I think generally churches and religious groups fall into that category.

Posted by Sam L. | May 4, 2007 12:59 PM

Racial minorities are welcome in the Church of Jesus Christ (the religion forerly known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or LDS "Classic"). The church officially discarded racial discrimination when it was revealed by as an evil to the president of the church in the late sixties. As a remarkable coincidence, the LDS had begun making enormous inroads in South America and had started building its first temple in Brazil. Limiting your appeal to "white folk" in Brazil is a dead-end marketing scheme if there ever was one. More and more, a church based in the whitest state in America is being run based on its appeal to racial minorities in South America and the Pacific islands.

Well, maybe Idaho is whiter.

The Mitt Romney quote was ridiculous, however. He's doing exactly what he claims the Democrats are doing, exaggerating a threat for political gain.

Posted by Brian C.B. | May 4, 2007 1:03 PM

It's worth remembering that in his 2007 SOTU President Bush similarly conflated all potential Islamic entities into a single unified threat:

"The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."

This is just one of the dangers of the "Global War on Terror." We're not fighting an abstraction. We're fighting Al Qaeda.

Posted by Angry One | May 4, 2007 1:04 PM

Well, at least Romney didn't go Mark Steyn and declare that we're at war with Arabic...

Posted by Steve in Sacto | May 4, 2007 1:05 PM

While Mitt Romney impressed me and most other reporters with his presentation...

'Mkay, but here's the thing, though. Were YOU really impressed, or was it the same meta-impressed that the plundits usually mean by "Romney impressed me"? Because what they really mean is "I bet other people, much dumber than me, will be completely taken in by that robotically controlled expression, impeccable hair, teevee smile, and those glib (if utterly substanceless) answers. Whereas I personally can tell he's an idiot."

This is why I find this kind of commentary so confusing. I know you (and they) are not stupid enough to really be taken in by the performance, at least I'm pretty sure of that, so I have to conclude (or at least conjecture) that you're not actually voicing your own real, personal opinion but instead modelling in your head what you think most other (less clued-in) people will think and finding him "impressive" on the basis of that model. A meta-opinion, in fact.

You couldn't really have been "impressed" by that blowdried automaton, could you? I speak here as a citizen of Massachusetts, who is all too familiar with the item in question and experiencing a sudden concern for your mental health.

Posted by DrBB | May 4, 2007 1:07 PM

"As a remarkable coincidence, the LDS had begun making enormous inroads in South America and had started building its first temple in Brazil. Limiting your appeal to "white folk" in Brazil is a dead-end marketing scheme if there ever was one. More and more, a church based in the whitest state in America is being run based on its appeal to racial minorities in South America and the Pacific islands."

Overall, Mormons are very hated in South America because their conversion attempts show a lack of respect for their cultures and because the missionaries or whatever are actually very racist, but are too stupid to realize how they treat people is racist and that everyone thinks they're racist. The few that do convert usually do it just to fuck slutty Mormon girls, who have a bad reputation in South America.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, just about everyone in it who has been involved in terrorism is in prison. The organization's on-the-ground work is often carried out by non-violent women doing social work.

Posted by Reality Man | May 4, 2007 1:19 PM

"He {Romney] seems best poised to capture the proto-fascist vote... and any pointing to his flip-flopping on social issues--abortion and gay rights, for example--is likely to have no impact."

Romney's problem is that Guiliani seems to have the formerly-moderate-pro-choice-Northeast-Republican-turned-fascist-warmonger-willing-to-pander-mindlessly-to-the-wingnut-base market kind of sewn up.

Posted by Peter Principle | May 4, 2007 1:31 PM

On the subject of what the Muslim Brotherhood is and isn’t, the NYTimes magazine last weekend had a must-read article about the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/magazine/29Brotherhood.t.html?pagewanted=all

here’s an excerpt:

One night I drove out to the far northeastern edge of Cairo — a trip that took an hour and a half through the city’s insane traffic — to meet with Magdy Ashour, a member of the brotherhood’s parliamentary bloc. The caucus is heavy with lawyers, doctors and professors, but Ashour is an electrician with a technical diploma. …..He joined the brotherhood when he was 23. Why? “From my reading and my earliest meetings with brotherhood members,” he said through a translator, “I could see that they were moderate, that they don’t impose their religion on people, but at the same time they’re not loose with their religious principles.”...
Ashour then embarked on a brief oration: “We would like to change the idea people have of us in the West,” he said, “because when people hear the name Muslim Brotherhood, they think of terrorism and suicide bombings. We want to establish the perception of an Islamic group cooperating with other groups, concerned about human rights. We do not want a country like Iran, which thinks that it is ruling with a divine mandate. We want a government based on civil law with an Islamic source of lawmaking.” If Magdy Ashour was a theocrat — or a terrorist — he was a very crafty one.
As it has fully entered the political arena, the brotherhood has been forced to come up with clear answers on issues about which it has been notably ambiguous in the past. Some are easy enough: There seems to be little appetite among them for stoning adulterers or lopping off the hands of thieves; and all deprecate the jizya, or tax on nonbelievers, as a relic of an era when only Muslims served in the military. Some are not so easy. I asked Magdy Ashour about the drinking of alcohol, which is prohibited in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Islamic states. He was quite unfazed. “There is a concept in Shariah that if you commit the sin in private it’s different from committing it in public,” he explained. You can drink in a hotel, but not in the street. This was flexibility verging on pragmatism. I wondered if Ashour, and the other brotherhood candidates, had offered such nuanced judgments on the stump; a number of detractors insist that the group’s campaign rhetoric was much more unabashedly Islamist...
I asked Muhammad Habib, the deputy supreme guide, how the brotherhood would react if the Legislature passed a law that violated Shariah. “The People’s Assembly has the absolute right in that situation,” he said, “as long as it is elected in a free and fair election which manifests the people’s will. The Parliament could go to religious scholars and hear their opinion” — as it could seek the advice of economists on economic matters — “but it is not obliged to listen to these opinions.” Some consider grave moral issues, like homosexual marriage, beyond the pale of majoritarianism; others make no such exception. Hassan al-Banna famously wrote that people are the source of authority. This can be understood, if you wish to, as the Islamic version of the democratic credo.
The acceptance of democracy is itself a proxy for something else — the repudiation of violence and terrorism. Here the brotherhood has a fair amount of history to answer for. The organization was established in 1928 in the wake of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s secularization of Turkey and his abolition of the caliphate, the line of religious rulers that stretched back to the Prophet Muhammad. Hassan al-Banna, the charismatic founder, aspired to revitalize the spirit of Islam among the umma, the worldwide body of believers, and ultimately to restore the caliphate and Shariah. But for all al-Banna’s emphasis on peaceful evangelizing, he also created a paramilitary wing, like Mussolini’s brown shirts, known as al-nizam al-khas — the Special Apparatus. During the ’40s, when Egyptians fought to free themselves from British rule, brotherhood operatives engaged in a campaign of bombings and assassinations. The organization was banned in 1948; soon afterward, a member of the group assassinated Egypt’s prime minister. Al-Banna denounced the deed, but he was himself murdered by government security forces. And when a brotherhood plot to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser miscarried, most of the leading figures were jailed and tortured.
In 1964, the most prominent of the jailed leaders, Sayyid Qutb, produced a tract, “Milestones,” which magnified the militant side of the brotherhood and rejected al-Banna’s faith in the merits of instruction and moral example. Islamic regimes that failed to establish Shariah were apostates, he declared no better than the infidels themselves. Egypt was, of course, just such a state. “Milestones” was read as a call to revolution. Qutb was sentenced to death and hanged in 1966, making him a martyr throughout the Middle East. Among his disciples were the radical Islamists who conspired to murder Sadat in 1981 including Ayman al-Zawahiri, now Al Qaeda’s second in command. Osama bin Laden was deeply influenced by Qutb’s works and regularly attended lectures given by Qutb’s younger brother, Muhammad. “Milestones” is now considered the founding manifesto of jihadism.
Qutb remains a heroic figure for many Egyptians. But Ibrahim Hudaybi, the young activist who sent me the text message about the arrest, pointed out to me when we met the next day that his own grandfather, Hasan Hudaybi, who replaced al-Banna as supreme guide and was jailed along with Qutb, wrote a book from prison, “Preachers, Not Judges,” designed to reassert the brotherhood’s commitment to peace and to open debate. Hudaybi was a thoroughly modern figure; we met in a coffee shop near the American University in Cairo, where he recently received his master’s in political science. He was now working as a business consultant. Hudaybi wanted to see the brotherhood deal explicitly with the legacy of Qutb, even if doing so might not play well in the hustings. Other, more senior figures I spoke to insisted rather implausibly that Qutb had been misunderstood; but all swore by the philosophy of tolerance and the program of gradual reform laid out in “Preachers, Not Judges.”
The brotherhood is an international organization. It has, however, no Comintern, no central apparatus. In Sudan, brotherhood members have formed an alliance with a deeply authoritarian ruling party. The brotherhood in Jordan and Morocco is considered relatively moderate. But in the Palestinian territories, the organization mutated into Hamas. Policy makers and academics in the West tend to be more concerned with the brotherhood’s views of Hamas than with its understanding of Shariah. And here there is little satisfaction to be had. When I asked Muhammad Habib about Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians, he said, “With the continuous crackdown and ongoing war launched by the Israeli Army, which does not distinguish between civilians and noncivilians, you cannot speak about the Palestinians disregarding Israeli citizens.” Brotherhood figures do not, at bottom, accept Israel’s right to exist. Seif al-Islam, the son of Hassan al-Banna and a venerated elder of the group, said to me, in his stylized version of English: “Not any Palestine man or Egypt man feels that Jews who come from the outside have the right to stay in Palestine. At the same time, the Palestinian people on the outside cannot have a grave to bury in. This is not religion.”
The more worldly among the brotherhood’s legislators and thinkers understand that Israel is a test just as Qutb is a test, and that the Western audience matters even if it doesn’t vote. Hazem Farouk Mansour, a dentist who is the head of the foreign-policy committee of the parliamentary bloc, says of Camp David, “We accept it as an agreement, whether we like it or not.” Essam el-Erian, a clinical pathologist who is head of the brotherhood’s political committee and perhaps its most sophisticated thinker, said to me: “Look, this is a historical and ideological and religious crisis. It cannot be solved in a few years. Every part in this conflict can be put forth for dialogue.” Like virtually all of his colleagues, el-Erian urged me not to get too hung up on this or any other question of what the brotherhood might do in some unimaginably remote future in which the regime had somehow relinquished its grip on power. “We can solve the problem of our society,” he said, “to have democratic reform respected by Europeans and Americans, whatever happens to the Palestinians.”

Posted by RC | May 4, 2007 1:37 PM

The way he layed the sentences down didn't imply the logical connection between the terms that Matt is infering.

Well, we've seen this tactic over and over again in the last 7 years--it ought not to fool us any more. Yeah, if you carefully parse what he said, he didn't say anything at all. His words were carefully chosen to suggest far more than he said. This is how such a large pecentage of the country came to believe that Saddam had nukes and was the guy behind al Qaeda . . .

Posted by rea | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM

Dave said:

"Well, Hezbollah was responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Now, granted, that was in Lebanon, and not here, but I don't think you can say that they've focused exclusively on Israel."

Arguable not an act of terrorism since it was directed at *soldiers* who, while designated peacekeepers, were intervening on the side of Israel in the Lebanon civil war.

Arguably not an act by Hezbollah since occurred before Hezbollah created, possibly by the Amal militia. In any case, Hezbollah has undergone many transformations since then.

Was an acted directed against the Israeli invasion and their Christian allies during the Lebanese civil war.

Posted by chew2 | May 4, 2007 1:48 PM

SamL: I always understood "civil society" to be secular. But then, my major was cultural studies, not sociology.

Posted by pastordan | May 4, 2007 1:51 PM

I've read a lot of stuff on civil society in political science literature and I cannot think of a single definition of "civil society" that had a secular requirement. I would guess Gramsci's definition would require secularism because he was a communist, but that is about it. For instance, studies of the role that civil society played in Korea's bottom-up movement towards democracy emphasize the role that several organizations played in Korea, especially unions, Buddhist groups and Christian churches. The Civil Rights movement in the US was based in civil society, but it included several religious groups within it.

Posted by Reality Man | May 4, 2007 2:00 PM

Following up on chew2's post at 12:01, Hezbollah is a Shia group, making it highly unlikely they would cooperate or be involved in any movement associated with AQ.

Well, Hezbollah was responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Now, granted, that was in Lebanon, and not here, but I don't think you can say that they've focused exclusively on Israel.

We left Lebanon after that, and they didn't follow us back home, did they?

Posted by Karin | May 4, 2007 2:11 PM

It seems to me that nobody here has a good appreciation for what is being said in Londonistan. The point that a few are willing to suggest that the LDS church is racist adds to the irony.

If you acknowlege that the GWOT is to be fought on more than simply military grounds, then one must recognize the viability of a political solution. What has the Muslim Brotherhood done to ally itself with American politics against the excesses of Islam? What makes anyone think that they would? What is wrong with making The Muslim Brotherhood a political enemy? Jihadis are not born, they are made, and the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood is an organization that doesn't expressly oppose Islamist Jihad, then it is one that is compatible with it. Surely nobody here believes they are neutral or incapable of having a position.

You might not like the fact that Jihadis have attacked and do attack from mosques. You may not like the fact that they recruit from madrassas. You may not like the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is compatible with all that, but it is a political enemy and it must be engaged as one.

Posted by Cobb | May 4, 2007 2:24 PM

Cobb, I don't think the word "Jihad" means what you think it means. It's actually one of the 5 pillars of Islam.

Posted by Karin | May 4, 2007 2:31 PM

melior --

So sorry my snark failed to work for you. My intention was to ironically highlight the apparent ignorance of Romney's view of Islamic sects and organizations by translating it into a equally (faux-)ignorant Christian context. I would have thought that my suggestion that the Knights of Columbus actually wear armor was enough to betray the tongue firmly wedged in my cheek, but obviously, since I had to explain it to you, I was wrong.

I shall endeavor to do better in future.

Posted by biggerbox | May 4, 2007 2:34 PM

the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood is an organization that doesn't expressly oppose Islamist Jihad, then it is one that is compatible with it.

Bullshit. Unless you're going to describe the USPGA as a political enemy, too.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 4, 2007 2:46 PM

Al- just saying something is incorrect makes it so. You're a Bushie through and through. No need to back it up.

Posted by Gregorio | May 4, 2007 2:50 PM

You may not like the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is compatible with all that, but it is a political enemy and it must be engaged as one.

How do we properly engage a "political enemy" from another country? Do we run negative ads against them on Egyptian TV, or what?

Posted by Steve | May 4, 2007 3:14 PM

No Karin, the 5 Pillars of Islam do not include jihad. I'll list them for your information:

Witnessing (a statement professing belief in the muslim faith)
Prayer
Charity
Fasting (during Ramadan)
Pilgrimage (to Mecca, at least once in a lifetime)

Posted by Duck Turkin | May 4, 2007 3:19 PM

Jihad means 'struggle', and I know the difference between political struggle and armed struggle. In either case it is a deep soulful commitment and duty. It is not the kind of human motivation to be trifled with.

Jihadis are those who have committed themselves to armed struggle against the West. Simple. This is the consensus definition of counterterrorist experts.

Posted by Cobb | May 4, 2007 3:20 PM

Cobb's got the meaning of jihad all wrong but it is not one of the 5 pillars. Jihad is a religious struggle, usually to improve yourself from within but with the ultimate goal of improving your environment as well. It is not the duty of Muslims around the world to assuage the racist fears of Americans. They have more important things to do than to be focused on denouncing everyone who misuses the religion.

Five pillars= charity, pilgrimage to Mecca, prayer, asserting that there is only one God and that Muhammad was his prophet and fasting. That's what it takes to be a Muslim.

Posted by Jonathan *a mozlem* Miles | May 4, 2007 3:21 PM

Is it possible to be a proper muslim and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic? If so, it seems to me that there is nothing racist about agitating politically against anyone from anywhere who does not defend the constitution. The exact interpretaion of jihad has nothing to do with it. Although considering the butchery of Iraqi muslims one against the other, my mistake is certainly not the first, nor anywhere near the most grievous.

Posted by Cobb | May 4, 2007 3:32 PM

More and more, a church based in the whitest state in America is being run based on its appeal to racial minorities in South America and the Pacific islands

The Mormon Church moved its headquarters to Maine? I must have missed that.

Utah is actually the 11th whitest state in America. To put it in perspective, Minnesota and Kentucky are less diverse than Utah.

Posted by C.L. | May 4, 2007 3:46 PM

Interestingly enough Jonathan I agree that the term 'moderate' in 'moderate Islam' is strictly used as an adjective. There should be no expectations that those muslims who have no beef with the West are going to moderate the actions of those muslims who do. That would be like Presbyterians moderating Baptists. It ain't gonna happen.

I think you make the case for calling the issue on the table by all major muslim groups. Who among them will denounce the fatwas of Iranian mullahs? Who among them will denounce the fatwas of Osama Bin Laden and radical Wahabbists? Who among them will step away from the consensual 'humiliation' they feel in sympathy for Palestinians which is used as an excuse to further the cause of the Caliphate.

I don't see any of these issues as one which does or should challenge the faith of Muslims. It certainly challenges the politics of many in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. It is part of the political fight from which Americans should not retreat. There must arise a general consensus of opprobrium against the rise of Jihadis and an organization by organization accounting given.

If muslim groups in the Middle East are unable or unwilling to distinguish themselves on a political basis - if this whole idea of separating the ideas of faith vs political ideology is too foreign for them to accept, who can blame those who call this a clash of civilizations? Whether you love or hate Mitt Romney as a candidate, his point stands.

Unless of course you hate him because he is white, or because he is Mormon.

Posted by Cobb | May 4, 2007 3:55 PM

If muslim groups in the Middle East are unable or unwilling to distinguish themselves on a political basis - if this whole idea of separating the ideas of faith vs political ideology is too foreign for them to accept, who can blame those who call this a clash of civilizations?

Are you kidding? That's a concept too foreign for a lot of Christians in the US to accept.

Posted by Mike | May 4, 2007 4:06 PM

But you really only mean Republican Christians.

Posted by Cobb | May 4, 2007 4:30 PM

Who among them will denounce the fatwas of Iranian mullahs? Who among them will denounce the fatwas of Osama Bin Laden and radical Wahabbists? Who among them will step away from the consensual 'humiliation' they feel in sympathy for Palestinians which is used as an excuse to further the cause of the Caliphate.

are you kidding? there are a ton of examples of muslims speaking out on all of those issues (indeed, the wahabbis regularly oppose the fatwas of iranian mullahs and the iranian mullahs are opposed to osama bin laden and the wahabbis)

it gets really tiring to see people in the west proclaim that muslims aren't speaking out about stuff that muslims are regularly speaking out against. yes, sometimes its in another language, like arabic, urdu, indonesian, or farsi. i am truly sorry that they haven't bothered to translate it for your convenience, but frankly you're not their audience. and it really comes across as profoundly ignorant when you write something like this.

and as for "further[ing] the cause of the caliphate" see the first comment on this thread above.

Posted by upyernoz | May 4, 2007 6:10 PM

This is in response to chew2's defense of Hezbollah, including his statement that they're not against the US. Tell that to the families of the 243 Marines they killed in Lebanon in 1983. Maybe chew2 isn't old enough to remember that, but I am. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Period.

Posted by Barton Paul Levenson | May 4, 2007 8:50 PM

Thank you for understanding that the reason Zawahiri and co. were former Brotherhood members is that they left because they were dissatisfied with the Brotherhood's relatively non-violent positions (at this time.) 99% of people, right-wing or not, simply call them "Brotherhood alums" as if the Brotherhood was some vast underground Jihadist university...

One slight remark, it's somewhat unclear whether the (Egyptian) Brotherhood would or would not maintain the treaty with Israel. They've been really, really squishy on this subject. Given that their biggest base is religious businessmen, they have a huge faction which is strongly opposed to another costly war. However among their greatest recruiting points is their impressive performance in 1948 against Israel (at least impressive relative to the Egyptian army regular troops) and they are religiously opposed to the Israeli state. It's a tough call.

Posted by SKyler | May 4, 2007 10:49 PM

Hey Levenson, you do know that terrorist attacks are by definition against civilians, not MARINES, right? And the marines were on Lebanese soil.

There's many other stronger arguments to make for calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization, why write this one?

Posted by Skyler | May 4, 2007 10:52 PM

It's nice to see it's business as usual, bashing whites, Christians, and America and Bush. I'm no Bush lover, but reading this gives me the willies. The Democratic Party will defend everyone but Americans and blame no one but Americans. Scary.... The French and Germans are having an awakening while we... are not. Every world problem was not created by Bush, you do know that? I believe democrats served as Presidents and in the house and senate while these situations were occuring, but I guess they get let off the hook because they believe America sucks too.

Posted by jb | May 4, 2007 11:33 PM

Skyler,

"There's many other stronger arguments to make for calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization, why write this one?"

I'm curious what you think those arguments are.

Posted by chew2 | May 5, 2007 12:44 AM

jb, are you on crack? If this was a thread explaining why Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, then we would be bashing Al-Qaeda. However, it is kind of assumed among those who don't see communist nazis under their beds that fellow Americans are anti-AQ and anti-all of America's real enemies. This isn't so much a Bush-bashing thread as a Romney-bashing thread because Romney has shown he doesn't understand Egyptian politics despite wanting to be president. Really, cry me a river and cut the bullcrap.

Posted by Reality Man | May 5, 2007 2:15 AM

It's nice to see it's business as usual, bashing whites, Christians, and America and Bush.

it looks like someone needs a new pair of reading glasses!

Posted by upyernoz | May 5, 2007 8:04 AM

If it's not translated into English, I'm not going to read it. Period. I will read those experts who do read other languages and speak out in English, like Douglas Farah.

Again, I find it remarkable that somehow college educated Americans who participate in blog discussions are 'profoundly ignorant' and Muslims abroad are not. You've shown me nothing, in English or otherwise, that makes the Muslim Brotherhood worth defending. The fact that some perfect argument exists somewhere on the planet in some other language... didn't Fermat use that excuse?

Posted by Cobb | May 8, 2007 4:50 PM

It appears Mitt Romney shortened up a previous speech in what he said - following Bush, he's trying to make the case for a new version of the Cold War.

"Jihadism - violent radical fundamentalism - has emerged as this century's nightmare. It follows the same dark path as last century's nightmares: fascism and Soviet-styled communism.

In America, the attack by Al Qaeda has led some to believe that we are threatened by a band of fanatics that live in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They imagine that if we could only get Osama Bin Laden and put him away, all this unpleasantness would simply end.

But Jihadism is much, much greater. Jihadists are among Sunni and Shia, promoted by Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, financed by knowing and unknowing Muslim governments, and preached to hundreds of millions in many nations. Their goal is the overthrow of moderate, modern Muslim nations and their replacement by caliphate. Their strategy is the collapse of our economy, our government, and the military of our nations.

To their eyes, this destruction is not delusional, but possible."

Posted by Hiram Wurf | May 8, 2007 10:09 PM

orufnzwlx qcft tlwusydjb qvip reqlgby cain qhjgpymx

Posted by stvrk qcwdbso | June 6, 2007 12:27 PM

fkbg wabyi rupbjscy fnjapb diqfwugjy rxhp aiujfbet http://www.ikznvbqp.uakjtinmz.com

Posted by nizu iukfljdv | June 6, 2007 12:28 PM