Militant Islamists willing to pick up a gun to kill for the sake of Allah are a special breed whose legitimacy, both in their own eyes and the eyes of their peers, is largely dependent on their belief that they are theologically enlightened and blessed.

Radicalization, as we have learned in many books published, is almost never an overnight event, but rather a process of some duration in which time the individual, through a combination of personal experience and theological training, comes to believe that Allah requires him to use lethal force to defeat the infidel.

If that fundamental belief structure and narrative begins to unravel, so do the justifications for the violence, especially the violence against civilians.

A counter-narrative that is theologically sound is imperative in this effort and must be led by Muslims.

(That, to me, in a nutshell, is a major reason not to engage with the Muslim Brotherhood-their narrative of their faith is not significantly different from the _jihadist_ narrative that leads to violence. While not all directly to violence, the children of the Brotherhood now engaged in violent jihad bear testimony to the fact that the narrative does not go against that grain.)

We also know, from our own experience in this country, that incarceration often leads to radicalization in many different forms, whether Islamic, white supremacy groups or gangs. Breaking that cycle in prison is vital, and not often successful.

So it is interesting to note that U.S. military efforts to counter that training have had some success. The Washington Post reports on the efforts in Iraq, among detainees, particularly those who are younger than 15.

This is crucial, because those children in this war, as with most insurgent movements, view the insurgents as people to be admired and emulated. They begin by acting as look outs, couriers and messengers, finding a sense of belonging and purpose. If they continue, they often become the most hard core and proficient militants.

The military methodology is to bring in non-jihadi Muslim theologians to help them pick apart the radical theology that many have embraced, particularly focusing on the attacks on civilians. It also places a great deal of emphasis on sports and other activities aimed at young men.

It must be extremely difficult to measure the levels of success of these efforts, but perhaps the best measure is that the commander says that of the 2,000 people released so far, none has been re-arrested.

This type of effort, both in the U.S., to combat the Brotherhood groups, and abroad to counter the increasingly-popular narrative people on the violent edges of faith, are vital.

It should not surprise me (but still does) that the military, rather than the civilian side, seem to grasp this and take the lead. It would be nice to hear of this type of initiative from the office of Karen Hughes and others who are supposed to be focusing on just these issues.

Today's Washington Post carries a fascinating look at the way Hamas, the West Bank branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, runs its government.

The two trends that have made Islamist governments both accepted and disliked are clearly on display. The first thing the Hamas government seems to have done is get rid of the perpetual insecurity, crime and endemic corruption. This is a pattern repeated from Afghanistan to Somalia, and one that is often at the top of the list of priorities of civilian populations.

These actions, as they did elsewhere, buy an enormous amount of goodwill among the general public, and is a facet that is usually sorely lacking in U.S.-led efforts to win hearts and minds.

The second trend is the imposition of Islamist behavior. The article notes that "Gaza's streets have taken on an increasingly Islamic cast in recent months. The improved everyday security has brought people back to the markets, beaches and parks, many of them women wearing for the first time the full black gown, gloves and face covering favored by the most conservative Muslims."

In the mosques, Imams appointed by Hamas are preaching not only hatred toward Israel, but also against Fatah, a dangerous trend. And the tolerance for dissent is extremely limited. The economy has stalled, as the international community has been largely unwilling to fund the Hamas government.

There are several interesting things to consider in this. One is that most of people voted for Hamas, and, in their territory, if we believe our own rhetoric, should be allowed to live under a government of their own choosing.

The flip side to that is that it seems unlikely to me that Hamas would actually cede power if it were to lose elections, following the old adage, "One man, one vote, once."

And there is the unsettling notion of a strict Islam government whose stated goal is to eliminate its neighbor, and who employs suicide bombings as an acceptable tactic in that war.

But ultimately, the Gaza experience shows us what the Muslim Brotherhood wants to create. It has a chance on the ground to build a government that has actual authority. How will it use that authority, and how will it respond to dissent?

The answer, so far, is not a very bright picture.

This week brought the welcome news of the arrest of Diego Montoya, one of the world's largest drug traffickers and most wanted criminals. His organization worked both with right-wing paramilitary squads and the Marxist FARC rebels to move tons of cocaine to the United States and Europe.

Montoya, before he had a $5 million bounty on his head, was an old nemesis of mine, along with his co-founders of the Valle del Norte cartel, operating out of the lush valleys north of Cali. I was the first journalist to write about him, in 1992, and was then cordially invited to visit with him on the farm of one of his best friend and fellow cartel leader, Ivan Urdinola. They offered to provide hospitality for me and my family, or, if I preferred, to provide any entertainment I might desire should I choose to go alone.

For some reason, the thought of breaking bread with men best know for using chainsaws to hack their enemies to pieces did not appeal to me. Authorities say Montoya's organization killed some 1,500 people. He penchant for gratuitous, vicious killing was well-known, and anyone suspected of betraying him or his organization could look forward not only to an unbelievably cruel
death, but also to the same fate for his or her entire extended family.

Montoya, like Pablo Escobar and the Rodriguez Orejuela brothers before him in the Medellin and Cali cartels, is a serious player not only in funneling cocaine to the streets of the United States and Europe, but a major cause of instability in Latin America.

The magnitude of the threat from Montoya (and before the Urdinola brothers and others) is demonstrated by the purge of hundreds of senior military officials for their ties to drug cartels. Not only have the cartels bought and sold politicians, cops and army officers, they have posed a direct threat to U.S. security.

Last year Montoya's organization, allied with right-wing paramilitary forces, acquired from corrupt military officials the exact position of U.S. and British warships off the northern coast of South America. Imagine how valuable that could be to terrorist groups seeking a vulnerable target!

This is a particular vulnerability given Montoya's dealings with the FARC as well, and the reported presence of some of his senior lieutenants in Venezuela.

While decapitating the Montoya organization will unlikely make much of a mid or long-term dent in cocaine trafficking, it does have the benefit of taking out a central player on whom a significant organization relied for its decision making. It was also an organization with enough centralized capacity to corrupt the upper echelons of the state.

That is not an easy thing to replicate, and at least helps re-establish some credibility of the state. My old friends Juan Manuel Santos, Francisco Santos and others had the courage to carry out the necessary purges.

The Montoya organization will likely devolve into several small, less influential cartels, until the next aggregator comes along, ruthless enough to attempt another bloody takeover.

The following recent, unclassified memorandum, a military intelligence analysis of some of the Holy Land Foundation documents, was sent to me by a friend concerned with these issues. For the first time that I know of, the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States are classified as "threat organization" in an official writing.

It also directly addresses the campaign by Truespeak Institute, led by Jim Giurard, to change the language of the war on terrorism.

J. Michael Waller is an important part of that campaign as well, and, in his recent monograph Fighting the War of Ideas Like a Real War: Messages to Defeat the Terrorists argues, a Giurard does, that one should classify Islamist terrorist attacks as _hirabah_ rather than _jihad_.

It is not an insignificant semantic difference, and its importance is given below, and in Waller's own work. Thanks to the work of Waller and Giurard, the concept is gaining some currency in the U.S. counterterrorism community.

I have done nothing to the document except remove the name of the author who did the analysis, at the request of military officials. While this is circulating widely in the Pentagon and policy making circles, I honored that request. Neither the officer who wrote this nor the official who wrote the introduction had any role in giving it to me.


This document is part of a broad debate that is finally being engaged, on the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated groups in the United States.

------

*This assessment makes the point that the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered a threat organization and the affiliated US domestic Muslim NGOs and associations identified in the strategy document should likewise be considered part of the Muslim Brotherhood network, that these are "front" functional organizations operating as links and nodes of the overall network.*

*Exceptionally important in the analysis is the role of the "Truespeak" organization and Jim Guirard who has been arguing in DoD circles and academic institutions that the term jihad should be suspended from the GWOT lexicon to be replaced by hiraba. This analysis demonstrates that "Truespeak" contributors are part of the Muslim Brotherhood threat network, with the implication that this entire communication and lexicon effort is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign.*

*Those involved in strategic communication or IO, whether senior leaders, practitioners or analysts should take a close note.*

*This analysis begins to provide clear I&W for domestic threats that DoD, DHS and the USG must come to terms with.*

*LTC Joseph C. Myers*
*Senior Army Advisor*
*Air Command and Staff College*
*Maxwell AFB Montgomery, AL*





*ANALYSIS OF MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S
GENERAL STRATEGIC GOALS FOR
NORTH AMERICA MEMORANDUM*

*7 September 2007*


*INTRODUCTION*

*The following is a brief analysis of a Muslim Brotherhood document entered into evidence in the U.S. v Holy Land Foundation trial (Trial) that the U.S. Justice Department is currently prosecuting in Federal Court. Analysis is based on this document as well as other publicly available documents. (For a broad offering of Trial documents, see here ). The attached documents relate to ISNA and the Trial.*

· *The first document is a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that was accepted into evidence in the U.S. v Holy Land Foundation (HLF) case. The first 16 pages are in the original Arabic and the second are English language translations of the same. It is dated 22 May 1991 and titled "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" (Memorandum). The document includes an Attachment 1 that contains "a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends." *

*Among those noted in the Attachment are ISNA, MSA, AMSS, AMSE, NAIT, IFC, IPAC, IAP, UASR, ICNA (typo in the second listing) and IIIT. ICNA and ISNA are the only two organizations named in the body of the text. ISNA is additionally represented on the list as IFC (ISNA Fiqh Committee – now the Fiqh Council of North America) and IPAC (ISNA Political Awareness Committee).*

*The second document is a signed letter from Members of Congress Pete Hoekstra and Sue Myrick to the Justice Department dated 28 August 2007 formally requesting that Justice stand down from "co-sponsoring" a conference with ISNA due to its very close relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Justice attended anyhow. The Memorandum was admitted into evidence at the same time the Letter was sent addressing Congressional concerns.*


*DISCUSSION*


*(A) ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE.*

*It should be noted that the Memorandum met evidentiary standards to be admissible as evidence in a Federal Court of law. *



*(B) THE ENUMERATED ENTITIES ARE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.*

*As noted, both ICNA and ISNA are identified and described in the body of the Memorandum in these contexts:*

· *The positive development with the brothers in the Islamic Circle in an attempt to reach a unity of merger.*

· *We have the seed for a "comprehensive Dawa’ educational" organization: We have the Dawa’ section in ISNA.*

*The enumerated recognition suggests that ISNA and ICNA, as elements of the entity that drafted the Memorandum, are likewise elements of the Muslim Brotherhood. Additionally, the Memorandum refers to the entities designated in Attachment (1) as currently held possessions:*

· *What encourages us to do that – in addition to the aforementioned – is that we possess "seeds" for each organization from the organization we call for [See attachment (1)].*


*(C) MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN CHARGE IN NORTH AMERICA.*

*The Memorandum expressly recognizes the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikkwan) as the controlling element. For example, the first authority identified as the basis of the Memorandum is the Muslim Brotherhood:*

· *The general strategic goal of the Group in America which was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference for the year 1987 in "Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing the effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is."*

*Next, the Memorandum expressly identifies the Muslim Brotherhood as the leadership element in implementing the strategic goals:*

· *Also, we must summon and take along "elements" of the general strategic goal of the Group in North America and I will intentionally repeat them in numbers. They are:*

*(1) Establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood.*

*The status of the Muslim Brotherhood as being in charge of all Muslim organizations in North America is reinforced in a statement asserting that establishing Islam as a part of America is to be done through a civilization level Jihad:*

· *In order for Islam and its Movement to become "a part of the homeland" in which it lives, "stable" in the land, "rooted" in the spirits and minds of its people, "enabled" in the lives of its society and has firmly-established "organizations" on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of the civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain "the keys" and the tools of this process in carry out this grand mission as a "Civilization Jihadist" responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslim and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.*

*An analysis of the entities designated in Attachment (1) of the Memorandum, along with those entities that can be reasonably assessed to have spun off from them since 1991, should be assessed to see what organizational presence they represent.*


*(D) CIVILIZATION-JIHAD: THE STRATEGIC GOAL OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.*

*Having established its leadership, the Memorandum states the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America:*

· *The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.* *Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is not escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.*

· *As part of the process is "[the] conviction that the success of the settlement of Islam and its Movement in this country [America] is a success to the global Islamic Movement and true support for the sought after state [caliphate] God willing."*

*The first bullet is a clear threat statement of hostile intent while the second speaks to foreign agency to a transnational movement with stated objectives that overlap with al-Qaeda’s. When assessing members who belong to organizations known to be identified with the Muslim Brotherhood, the inference should be that their designated leaders have knowledge of its identified roles and missions. It is not reasonable to do otherwise.*

*The strategic goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is multifold: the destruction of Western civilization through a long-term civilization-killing Jihad from within ("by their [our] hands") and through sabotage ("the hands of the believers") and, secondly; to support the global Islamic movement to establish an Islamic super-state, the caliphate.*

*When conducting outreach with organizations identified as being a party to the "strategic goals" identified in the Memorandum, the gain/loss assessment of associating with them should be undertaken in light of their clearly stated hostile intent that includes the subversion of American institutions through outreach, strategic deception and perception management. To undertake outreach with known identified organizations without knowledge of their objectives is to run the extreme risk of strategic manipulation by declared Jihad entities in ways that fulfill stated Muslim Brotherhood objectives as enumerated in the Memorandum.*


*(E) ENUMERATED MB ORGANIZATIONS AND TRUESPEAK.*

*As part of a presentation designed to change the lexicon of the GWOT (hiraba not Jihad), Jim Guirard explains that his proposed terms and definitions come from a group of "moderate" Muslims and other experts. He provides a list of contributors as part of his handout. Cross-referencing the names from his TrueSpeak list with the list of organizations provided in Attachment (1) of the Memorandum gives cause for concern:*

· *For example, along with ICNA and ISNA, Attachment (1) also lists the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).*

*If one were to list all of Guirard’s contributors who are associated with, for example, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), one might be able to glean a web of Muslim Brotherhood associations. From the TrueSpeak list, it turns out that the following CSID members are also members of identified Muslim Brotherhood entities:*

· *Muqtedar Khan (AMSS, IIIT), Akbar Ahmed (AMSS, IIIT), Anthony Sullivan (AMSS, IIIT), Robert Crane (UASR, IIIT), Asma Afsaruddin (AMSS), and Layla Sein (AMSS, IIIT).*

· *Other CSID members listed in the TrueSpeak brochure are John Esposito and Radwan Masmoudi.*

*If one accepts the Memorandum statement that "the big challenge … is how to turn these seeds or ‘scattered’ elements into comprehensive, stable, ‘settled’ organizations that are connected with our movement," then it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded in getting CSID to "fly in our orbit and take orders from our guidance."*

*Other notables on the TrueSpeak list of "moderate" contributors:*

· *Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Awani. Chairman, North America Fiqh Council (in 1991 the IFC and still an ISNA affiliate) and was a co-founder and President of IIIT. He was also un-indicted coconspirator number 5 in the al-Arian trial.*

· *Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. [US designated supporter of terrorism] Co-founder of ISNA’s HQ in Boston along with ISNA founder Alamoudi (convicted and incarcerated for material support to terrorism related offenses).*

· *Dr. Aboul-Hakin (Sherman Jackson). Trustee of NAIT and the MSA (Muslim Student Association), Board Member of the Fiqh Council of North America (ISNA affiliate)*

· *Jeremy Henzell. Executive Director AMSS, published by IIIT.*

· *Sayed Syeed. President of MSA, cofounder ISNA, General Secretary AMSS, Director of Academic Outreach IIIT.*

*It is worth noting that when Mr. Guirard "cites" to authority for the terms and definitions he uses, it is to these individuals and not to reviewable published authoritative sources. This is hearsay.*

*Based on the Memorandum, it turns out that many of the individuals that provide TrueSpeak with the terms and definitions – that Guirard would have us use to conceptualize and orient to the enemy - are known to be associated with threat entities that believe "their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions." There are sound reasons to question the uncritical adoption of TrueSpeak’s uncritically accepted war on terror lexicon.*



*(F)[1] THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FOLLOWS THE MILESTONES.*

*As a Muslim Brotherhood document, it should not surprise that it follows Sayyid Qutb’s Milestone formula based on progressive revelation (revelation in stages) as first experienced by Muhammad and the first most perfect generation of Muslims. (For a more detailed explanation, see Appendix C [Abrogation and Progressive Revelation] of Thesis) Hence, Part Four, Section 3 "Understanding the historical stages …" lists 8 stages of development that emphasizes the need for a "gradual and balanced ‘time-frame’" approach that is patterned after the revelation in stages that reflects the "role during the time of Allah’s prophet" who was "the first pioneer of this phenomenon."*

*Because the Memorandum is understood to be a Muslim Brotherhood work, the lexicon used to define the terms it uses (for example jihad, dawa’, dar al-arqam and Usras) should likewise come from the Muslim Brotherhood dictionary (the "threat vocabulary").*


*CONCLUSION*

*The HLF Trial is turning up primary source threat documentation and information that provides new insights into global jihad organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood.*

· *These documents are beginning to define the structure and outline of domestic jihad threat entities, associated non-governmental organizations and potential terrorist or insurgent support systems.*

· *The Memorandum also describes aspects of the global jihad’s strategic information warfare campaign and indications of its structure, reach and activities.*

· *Consequently, outreach strategies must be adjusted in the face of credible information that seeming Islamic humanitarian or professional non-governmental organizations may be part of the global jihad with potential for being part of the terrorist or insurgent support system.*

*The Memorandum identifies ISNA as an element of the Muslim Brotherhood that the Justice Department already designated as an unindicted coconspirator that Congress has given formal notice that it has knowledge. Outreach as an end in itself can cause those responsible for its success to so narrowly focus on the outreach relationship that they miss the surrounding events and lose perspective. This could undermine unity of effort in Homeland Security, lead to potential for embarrassment for the USG and legitimize threat organizations by providing them domestic sanctuary. In light of unfolding events, disregarding a Congressional request to suspend attendance at the ISNA conference may result in some uncommonly uncomfortable public testimony.*

[1] From the ‘Umdat al-Salik, Islamic law defines jihad as "war against non-Muslims … signifying warfare to establish the religion." Qur’an Verse 9:5 is among the most pre-eminent and it states: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them." Islamic law recognizes no authority except that which comes from Allah (Islam is not just a religion but a complete way of life governed by Islamic law that comes from Allah Who is alone sovereign).

There is an interesting debate ongoing over whether the mass media, and particularly Arab-language television, should broadcast and assign great importance to the videos of al Qaeda leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden, when they appear.

Do the broadcasts help create a mystique around a cult figure that inspires those who want to participate in the broader al Qaeda project, even on an ad hoc basis? Or are such broadcasts necessary for the general public to see and understand al Qaeda, to understand the enemy more clearly? Or both, and does it make any difference?

I think it is both, and that in the Internet age it matters little what is broadcast on air. Those who want to access the entire speech will be able to do so in a matter of hours, and can download and forward it with great speed and efficiency. If there are hidden messages to followers, keeping the broadcasts off the air are hardly likely to be a deterrent or keep the message from getting through.

Broadcasting bin Laden's speeches, in whole or in part, are far less dangerous than the radical, hate-filled sermons that fill many mosques in London every week, as the Times of London documents.

There, preachers like Riyadh ul Haq spew their venom week after week, urging hatred for Jews and Christians, complete separation from the evils of the outside world, the need shed blood to defeat Israel.

In this time of darkness, "adhering to the fundamentals of Islam . . . is considered extremism and the struggle against oppression is called terrorism," ul Haq said in a sermon last year. "Nobody should be able to tell us what moderation is and what extremism is. One man’s poison is another man’s medicine."

This type of hate speech justifying violence, intolerance and the virtues of remaining entirely separate from the surrounding world while despising all who are different, is part of the radicalization process that is slowly but firmly taking root.

According to the Times of London investigation, "Riyadh ul Haq, who supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus, is in line to become the spiritual leader of the Deobandi sect in Britain. The ultra-conservative movement, which gave birth to the Taleban in Afghanistan, now runs more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques, according to a police report seen by The Times."

So, in 600 mosques on any given Friday, across London, Muslim youth and others are hearing a message of hate and violence, from platforms they believe are filled with people speaking the truth about their faith.

Ul Haq's books and tapes fill libraries, widely circulate on the internet and he is hailed as a true Islamic scholar.

Perhaps he is a scholar who is able to speak the truth as he sees it, including the necessity of the destruction of the West.

But regardless of the intellectual prowess demonstrated, that is a far more dangerous long-term effect than anything bin Laden or Zawahiri can say in one go every few months, much of it repetitious and out of date.

So, bin Laden is a new item, an unusual event, but the constant hatred and violence is an ongoing event on fronts around the world. That is what worries me.