by Christopher W. Holton

The folks over at the Clarion Project have a review of a new report published by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. The report is entitled: “Struggle Over Scripture: Charting the Rift Between Islamist Extremism and Mainstream Islam.”

On the one hand, the report recognizes the close affiliation between the ideas of the Islamic State and other violent Jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood, which some describe as “Islamist” in that it promotes an Islamic political agenda.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the report refuses to recognize the “elephant in the room,” namely why the Islamic State and the Muslim Brotherhood are so closely aligned.

“The evidence now shows that there is considerable ideological overlap in how Islamic scripture is used by Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, and violent jihadists, such as ISIS and Al Qaeda,” said Dr Emman El-Badawy, head of research at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.

Clarion adds the following commentary:

The findings of the study about the close ideological connection between jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood were borne out historically as well as noted in current events. In the recently released CIA documents seized during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, papers show bin Laden’s ideology from the beginning was affiliated with the Brotherhood. “I was committed to the Muslim Brotherhood, despite their limited curriculum,” bin Laden said in hand-written notes. “I was religious from a young age…There was no one guiding me like the Brotherhood was. It was just natural instinct.” In a recent appearance, Palestinian-Jordanian historian Husni Ayesh, a former member of Jordan’s Board of Education, said ISIS and al-Qaeda developed from the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. The leader of al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen also recently said in a statement that his group has formed alliances with other Sunni jihadists in the country, including the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, despite Hamas’ apparent attempt to distance itself from its own terrorist past and its parent body, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Brotherhood insists the two are still connected.

The report notes that claims by groups such as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda to have theological backing for their violence are going unchallenged by mainstream Islamic scholars.

Now we get to the crux of the matter.

First of all, let’s point out that the term “Islamist” is basically flawed redundancy because mainstream Islamic doctrine has no recognition of secular government or politics. It has always been assumed in Islamic history that the government must govern by Allah’s law.

We don’t object strenuously to the use of this term though because we do not believe it covers up anything and mainly because the Ayatollah Khomeini, certainly one of the most infamous Islamic leaders of all time on at least one occasion referred to himself as an “Islamist.” At TTB we don’t believe in making up terms to describe the enemy, but if the enemy uses a term himself, then we see no problem in its usage.

There is a reason why the Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophy is so close to that of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and it has been known for decades to those paying attention: they all base their activities on Islamic doctrine.

It is mainstream Islamic doctrine that all Muslims must strive for the formation of the caliphate so that Allah’s religion is supreme over all other religions and so that Allah’s law rules over all (Allah’s law being shariah).This is not Jihadist ideology. It is not Islamist philosophy. It is mainstream Islamic doctrine, which forms the foundation for ideologies and philosophies. (More on the relationship between Islamic doctrine and Jihadist ideology in an upcoming article soon.)

The Islamic State, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are all fighting and working toward establishing a caliphate ruled by shariah. That is why they seem so similar in philosophy–they have the same doctrine and goal.

This is not new, though we welcome the Tony Blair Institute in recognizing it.

Now, this brings us to the question of why these groups’ justification for their actions are going “unchallenged by mainstream Islamic scholars.”

The reason is simple once again. No Islamic scholar can challenge their goals because their stated goals of establishing a caliphate and establishing rule by shariah is mainstream Islamic doctrine.

There is no disagreement. There may be disagreement on methodology from time to time but the doctrine is clear. And make no mistake, organizations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State base all their actions with copious quotation and interpretation of Islamic scripture, either the Quran or the just as important Sunnah of Mohammed.

The Sunnah of Mohammed is the doctrine that the Prophet Mohammed was considered the perfect example for all Muslims to follow and all Muslims should do their best to emulate him in every way. The Sunnah of Mohammed comes from the Hadith (stories and sayings about his life) and the Sira, which is his biography.

Believe it or not, from a practical standpoint, the Sunnah of Mohammed is more important than even the Quran because there is simply not enough information in the Quran to learn to be a pious, devout Muslim. But the Quran does command Muslims to do as Mohammed did, so they go to the Hadith and the Sira to find out what to do.

Mohammed waged violent jihad–often. Mohammed killed Jews–on a mass scale. Mohammed married a 6 year old girl. Mohammed had multiple wives. Mohammed owned many slaves, including concumbines–Christian sex slaves. All of this is part of Islamic doctrine because Mohammed did it and no one is authorized to change that.

You won’t hear a mainstream Islamic scholar criticize anything Mohammed did. To do so would amount to apostasy, for which he can be put to death.

https://clarionproject.org/ideology-links-brotherhood-isis-tony-blair-study/

https://www.thenational.ae/world/islamic-scholars-failing-to-challenge-isil-narrative-1.681784