The Growing Fragmentation of the Islamist Structures
One of the extremely significant and accelerating factor in the current development of Islamist groups is the rapid and visible fragmentation of the various jihadist infrastructures.
It seems clear that Iran is increasingly willing to aid non-state armed group, even if they are Sunni. Such seems to be the case with Hamas in Gaza and possibly elements of the al Qaeda structure in Iraq. Of course, this is in addition to the Iranian support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, its alliance of convenience with the secular Syrian power structure, its growing influence in nationalist/leftist governments in Latin America and its alleged aid to Salafist/Sunni groups in Somalia.
Another interesting example is Hezbollah’s unwillingness to join the armed confrontation with the Sunni/salafist Fatah Islam militants inside the Nahr el-Bared camp. In the past Hezbollah has had a very low tolerance for other armed groups operating in its territory. Now they seem to be not lifting a finger to expel the group or help the government expel them. Quite an interesting attitude.
What is equally clear is that the push for the armed Islamist movement starting NOW, rather than as a gradual, evolutionary process, is winning the day. The old guard of nationalist/secular groups is effectively over. Fatah is the clearest example.
But so is the waning power of corrupt and empty states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt to successfully back, at this point, Islamist movements that do not rely almost entirely on violence and the core jihadist tenets of recreating the caliphate and the eradication of Israel.
As I wrote earlier, this phenomenon of the rising armed jihadist movement is creating a difficult situation for the Muslim Brotherhood, which, while advocating the same tenets, has successfully created a niche for itself in the West as the ones following a political program with a long-term horizon.
Funding for “defensive jihad” was easy, in faraway places. But as the number of actions has multiplied the pressure to become more directly involved in the wars (rather than maintaining the masquerade of funding charities and social networks) will likely grow, or the groups will lose relevance.
One of the most interesting parts of the Hamas military triumph was the explicit recognition of the role of international Muslim Brotherhood in the success of the recent fighting.
As quoted in the Toronto Globe and Mail,Sheik Yazeeb Khader, a Hamas newspaper editor, said that Hamas had learned from the success of Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement. Hezbollah used a network of tunnels to smuggle weapons into position ahead of its war last summer against Israel.
“We buy weapons from every source. Everybody wonders where Hezbollah gets its weapons; same with the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Mr. Khader said. “Because we are a resistance movement, we can buy weapons from the devil. We buy weapons from every source, and we buy all the weapons we can get our hands on.”
Mr. Khader gave credit to the international Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot, for “never being stingy” in providing financial and other aid to the Palestinian wing.
With hot wars in the West Bank, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, Somalia and parts of Central Asia, it is increasingly hard to argue for a political plan of take over that could take decades, and this may be first public admission of serious changes underway in the Brotherhood thinking.
While policy makers here and in Israel and Europe know and understand the old guard and are used to dealing with them, they are hardly relevant any more. So new ideas on how to deal with whom (if one wants to deal with those with real power).
Understanding how the groups fragment and coalesce into new, often short-lived alliances, will be of vital importance in mapping the enemy’s networks. Unfortunately, we do not have the human resources or creative thinking to really dig into this.
commenting closed for this article
The Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) Now Faces Difficult Decisions Monzar al Kassar and the Criminal/Terrorist Nexus
Doug: some information for this post that may clarify things a bit.
When President Bush launched his Global War on Terror, first in Afghanistan in response to 9/11, and then into Iraq, in 2003, his critics, mainly the Mainstream Media and just plain opponents of the President for a variety of reasons: the 2000 election, because he’s a Republican, because he’s a “Christian”, etc., attacked his GWOT and the Iraq War, by saying that President Bush, by his actions, has made Al Qaeda and similar Jihadi groups, MORE POWERFUL, because by attacking them (as opposed to surrendering to them, which is what the critics want)he has united them under one group, and made the more powerful that they would’ve been, IF we had let them alone, basically!
That was the first Refrain the critics used.
It was also false, because Al Qaeda was already the Dominant Jihadi Group in the world, by virtue of the power vacuum left in Afghanistan, by a defeated Soviet Union, and our lack of interest. Other Jihadi groups, flocked to Afghanistan, to coalesce with Al Qaeda, way before we kicked the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan.
Then, as it started to become obvious, even to the ignorant MSM pushing a political agenda, that their refrain of a single, monolithic supra-Al Qaeda calling all the Jihadi shots worldwide, they switched tactics, and started to say that the GWOT & Iraq, in fact, caused something much worse, it caused the Jihadi movement to actually SPLINTER into hundreds of “local”/homegrown Jihadi groups, around the globe, not beholden solely to Al Qaeda/following it’s direction, and thus, this was a situation that was even MORE dangerous than a single, monolithic Al Qaeda in charge of everything!
That’s the refrain that is currently in vogue, and which, to a certain extent; though I think it’s clear, you DO NOT intend your post, as necessarily a political attack on the President or the GWOT or the Iraq War.
I think, in general, you are just making an observation, and it happens to overlap with the current clueless MSM critics.
However, the problem with the “critics” again, and your similar theme, is that it ignores 1400 years of Islamic Theological infighting, and 1400 years of Jihadi History, as well!
The roots of what are happening today, go back to the original schism between the Sunnis-Shias at the very founding of Islam, in the 7th century, and are neither new, nor in reaction to anything President Bush, nor the West, has done!
“Iran is increasingly willing to aid non-state armed group, even if they are Sunni.”
First, this has been the case with Iran, not only since the fall of the Shah in 1979, but going back to the very foundations of the Shia-Sunni split.
The Shia, since the schism, have always been a minority within Islam, and always sensitive to the fact that they were periodically labeled “apostates”, and pogroms were carried out against them by the Sunnis, whenever the Sunnis got bored, and had nothing else to do!
Enmity between the Sunnis-Shias really exploded however, when the Sixth Shia Imam, Ja’far Al-Sadiq, tried to convince Sunni Imams/Theologians, that Shias was in fact, nothing more than another “fiqh” (canonical school) of Sunni Theological Practice, and should in fact, be called the Fifth “Fiqh” of Sunni Islam, and be called the “Ja’afri” School! (The Sunni “fiqh’s”, then, as now, are: Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali & Hanafi)!
This attempt to “trick” Sunnis into accepting Shia’s as just another form of Sunnis was seen as particularly devious, and typical, in Sunni eyes, of Shia deception. Ever since then, Sunnis have used the term “Ja’afari’s” a pejorative term to refer to Shia’s!
However, the rejection of the Shias, by the Sunnis, have only, since that time, increased the Shia determination, to prove they are “Islamic” vice “Shia”, to the Sunnis, and thus Shia’s have always been open to helping Sunni Jihadis, even though the Reverse is not necessarily true! In fact, one can say, that the current state of Jihadism in the world today, dates most easily back to the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, and the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and their attempt to appeal to Islamic movements worldwide, in a General sense, as opposed to the traditional Sunni-Shia divide; this in turn, lead the Saudis, for fear of losing the hearts-and-minds of the worldwide Ulema to the apostate Shias from Iran, to step up their programs of Madrassas, Funds, and Literature to Sunni communities worldwide, to make sure they stayed firmly in the Sunni/Salafiyyah camp, and did not fall for the “Pan-Islamic” (and hence, accepting of the Shias) message out of Iran. Another recent example of the cross-pollination between Sunnis-Shias, occurred in 1992, when Israel expelled 415 members of Hamas & Islamic Jihad, from the Occupied Territories, and into Southern Lebanon, and right into the open arms of Hezbollah; which promptly trained them in bomb making, combat tactics, and more important, homicide-bomber tactics and Martyrdom theology!
So, to recap, going back 1400 years, the Shias have always been willing to work with, and advocate a “Pan-Islamic” mentality, to overcome their theological burden of being Shias/apostates, in the eyes of Sunnis; this is NOT a new phenomenon!
“...... its alliance of convenience with the secular Syrian power structure.”
Unfortunately, I’ve been trying to get this message out for Twenty years now, without much success!
There is NO SUCH THING as “secular”, in the Muslim world; never has been, never will be! There have been a very few, lame, half-hearted attempts; but they have all failed under the crushing weight of Islam. There is NO “secularism” in the Muslim world, and there is no “Politics”!
“Secularism” in the Muslim world, is an excuse for the “secular ruler”, who has NO Islamic Legitimacy! “Politics” is the word that “Secular” rulers in the Muslim world use, instead of Islam.
In fact, there are only Muslims in the Muslim world, and “secularites” are people who do not have an Islamic identity or history, and there is ONLY “Islam”, the religion, the “Politics” are ALL ABOUT Islam!
That’s just the way it is!
Thus, Saddam claimed he was “secular”, because he belonged to a 20% minority of Sunnis, trying to rule the other 80% of the country that was either Shia, or Sunni & Sufi Kurds; he can’t claim to rule them by Islamic “right”, because though his Uncle was a devout Sunni Jihadi/Salafi/Muslim Brotherhood member, Saddam himself, came from very questionable Islamic roots (and in fact, “may” have been illegitimate); thus, unlike a Sistani, or the King of Jordon or example, he had NO Islamic credibility!
When the Ba’ath party was formed in the 1940’s, as a supposed “secular”, “nationalistic”, Pan-Arab party by an Arab Christian and Sunni Arab, they formed it with the intentions of creating a Secular, socialist, radical movement, that would take Islam out of the Politics of the Middle East!
They failed miserably!
The Ba’athist Party in Syria, promptly became co-opted by the Alwais in Syria, a SHIA sect, I might add, and only 18% of the population! They have ruled Syria ever since. Ostensibly “secular”, to keep the Majority Sunnis in place; but actually dedicated Shias! Which is why your comment above, about Syria being “secular” and the “marriage of convenience” with Iran are so fundamentally wrong?
Syrian leaders, Assad and baby Assad, are Shi’ites, and align with Iran, because of that shared Shia heritage, and to keep the 82% of the Sunni/Christian/Jewish population of Syria in check!
In Iraq, the exact opposite happened; the Sunnis dominated the Ba’athist party, almost from the outset, and used the trappings of “secularism” to keep the remaining 80% of the Iraqi population that is Shia/Sufi/Kurd/Christian/Jewish, in check!
That’s how it works in the Muslim world!
If you lack “Islamic” identity, or credibility, claim you are “secular”; but it doesn’t make you secular!
Anyway, I could go on for pages; but I’ve already written too much, and I don’t want to anger you with a long post.
I would just add however, that the model for Decentralized, semi-independent, “local”-flavor/semi-nationalistic Jihadi organizations, working in their respective countries, was and is NOT “new”, nor a reaction to the GWOT and President Bush!
This Trend, actually started, in the 18th Century, when the Western World’s Colonialism increasing encroached upon “Muslim lands”.
If you study the “indigenous” Anti-Colonial Movements, of the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries, and in some cases, even further back than that, with the Russians in the Caucus Mountains, Central Asia, and Spain in North Africa, you will find, that almost Every single one of these Anti-Colonial Movements, from Senegal and Nigeria, to Mali, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, etc., were led by Salafiyyah-trained Scholars/Imams, coming out of 18th & 19th Century Mecca & Medina, traveling home, and setting up their own local Jihadi movement against the West/Infidels/Apostates/Crusaders!
This pattern of local, Decentralized, homegrown Jihadi movements, is NOT “new”, it is not in reaction to President Bush’s policies (I know you did not say that Doug, I’m putting it in for emphasis), it is not in response to the GWOT or the Iraq War; it is a pattern in Islamic History, that stretches back Centuries, if not Millennia!
— Dale in Atlanta Jun 18, 14:05 #
You have three points; I disagree with the first, then agree with the next two.
1. The word I read ahd hear is that Hezbolla has supporters of this North Lebanon war, and though no militia is fighiting, it provides more than tacit support fighting with the Army in Lebanon.
I’m not sure Iran saw this coming….they will need to bring Hezbollah under control.
2. The Brotherhood has a delima; Who will they support? Watch for ambassadors fromthe brotherhood to move in and try for reconciliation. Also note that two of the new 12 West Bank Fatah ministers are Christians…not a new thing, but this will add an interesting dynamic to complicated reconciliation
3. We definately need to track the factions as they fracture.
4. This is a great opportunity for an unesasy truce in Iraq when the US leaves – this Palestinian fight brought attention to the consciousness of the Arab world about Sunni-Sunni Fighting.
5. Dale – I think Iran is in the destabilization business – this is the reason they sell arms to the Taliban in private,while supporting the government in public.
Great comments from both of you guys…how do you guys see this impacting Africa?
2.
1.
— Shimron Issachar Jun 18, 14:41 #
Shimron: the increase in the most modern round of Jihadism, from 1979, came about as a THREE-Way race for the hearts and minds of the Worldwide Ulema, or Muslim Community.
The Shia’s of Iran started it with the overthrow of the Shah, and their appeal to “Pan-Islamisism”; which they have to do, to overcome the Shia-Sunni divide.
The Saudis, taking advantage of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, later that year, to burnish their Jihadi credentials, fanned the flames of “Pan-Arabism” under the Sunni/Salafiyyah banner.
The third leg of the triad/competition, was actually, believe it or not, Qadhaffi, over in Libya.
When he had come to power, he was from a localized Sunni Sufi Sect called the Sanusis, and he had “saintly” blood in his veins (see my discussion of “Islamic Legitimacy”)!
He then, issued his Universal Third Way, the “Green Book”, his Reinterpretation of Islam with a Revolutionary and Socialist slant; supposedly the people would govern themselves thru “popular committees”. Of course, just like “Animal Farm”, some animals are “more equal” than others, and that just happened to be the case with Qadhaffi.
However, his new interpretation of Islam in the “Green Book”; actually scared the Saudi Power structure so badly, with it’s appeal to the “masses” (and thus with no need for the current Hereditary and Theological leaders); that they actually took the step of having several inflential Imams from Mecca and Medina, label Qadhaffi an “apostate”, and outlawed the “Green Book”.
Qadhaffi by the way, was mainly motivated by trying to fulfill his dream of creating a “Berber” Empire, stretching from Morocco to Egypt; hence all his “adventures” in Mali, Mauritania, Chad, Sudan, etc.
He became too much of a nutcase, to actually be taken seriously, and dropped by the wayside, but the competition is still ongoing between the Saudis and the Iranians, that’s for sure.
Again, the Shias, for historical reasons I outlined in my first post, WILl cooperate, wherever possible, with Sunni Jihadi groups; the reverse is much less true, and only done under terms of real distress!
Yes, Iran is in the destabilization business Shimron; their whole brand of Ithna-Asheri (Twelver Shia Islam), is predicated on forcing the return of the 12th, “Occulted” Imam, as quickly as possible, in an “End of Days” Apocalyptic type event!
That’s the entire basis for their Theology, and the entire basis for their actions!
The quicker the better, in their opinion; it’s what the whole Islamic Revolution was predicated upon, in 1979!
Impacting Africa?
Heaven’s knows; I’ll just kind of reiterate what I said above; the Saudis will ALWAYS continue, under the table, and thru Islamic “Charities” and “private” individual Sheikhs, continue to fund Jihadi Sunni Salafiyyah movements worldwide, because it constantly reinforces THEIR credibility as the birthplace of Islam, the birthplace of Sunism, the birthplace of Mohammed, and “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”, and leaders of Sunni Islam, worldwide!
In an attempt to be recognized as an “Islamic” entity, vice a “Shia” one, the Iranians will continue to fund/train/arm ANY Jiahdi group, Sunni or Shia, that will take their help, and who promises to attack the Great Satan, the US.
Very few Shias in the general Muslim populations in Africa; actually, there are more Shia’s in the Expat Indian/Pakistani populations as leftovers of the British Empire, than there are in the General African Muslim Populations.
Countries such as Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Kenya, I think, all have 5% or greater Shia populations, or more; and a lot of those are Ismaili Shias, who are a bit different than the Ithna-Asheris of Iran!
To the extent that Iran can impact Africa then, I think that’s limited; the Saudis/Sunnis still dominate there. But any Sunni Jihadi movement anywhere, including Africa, will accept aid from Iran, if they are under stress, as I mentioned before!
I would say a bigger danger to West Africa, is the fact that the Lebanese are considered the “Jews” of Africa, and have been, for over a hundred years, again, going back to British Empire days; Lebanese merchants have controlling influence in the enconomies of many of the West African countries, and the majority of these Lebanese merchants, just happen to be Shi’ite!
— Dale in Atlanta Jun 18, 15:57 #
Shimron: upon further reflection, I can’t really determine if you’re saying you disagree with One point of Mine, or one point of Doug’s?
If it is mine, or Doug’s, would please be a little more clear as to what it is you disagree with/i.e. which point I made, or Doug made, in particular, that you disagree with?
Thanks!
— Dale in Atlanta Jun 18, 16:31 #
I think it’d actually be much more beneficial for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to, as they say, stay the course. The jihadis seem to have an advantage in their now-ness, but it shouldn’t be mistaken for initiative.
Look at Iraq, where slowly the nationalists are turning against the jihadis. The outmoded nationalism of the baathists seems to have more staying power. Because the jihadis are acting now, they lack the solid political and economic foundation that the nationalist has.
If al-Qaeda were to actually conquer Lebanon or Iraq, they don’t have any plans to keep the electricity on, much less how to print money or pass legislation. My guess is the Brotherhood wouldn’t have this problem.
Your average muslim citizen may not know this, but they probably feel this.
After all the now-ness and steaming political violence is over, at some point, grown ups have to come in and run a functioning state. That’s where the seemingly old-fashioned nationalist Brotherhood model will shine.
— UJ Jun 18, 16:46 #
It is a bit off topic, but it seems to me that communism or socialism of 70’s and 80’s was Golden Age for large parts of Muslim World.
I might be wrong, but looks to me that their present conditions are much worse.
What do you think ?
DG
— Drazen Gemic Jun 19, 11:40 #
Drazen: actually, it was the socialism/nationalism attempts, starting in the late 1940’s, up thru the 60’s, and some communism attempts in the 60’s, that were their “Golden Age”; you are very correct there; by the 70’s, except for maybe Southern Yemen, it was gone; primarily because of the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in places by like Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.
The 79 overthrow of the Shah, ended it for sure, as did the assassination of Sadat in ‘81.
I think it’s an astute observation on your part.
But also know, that the Ikhwan was challenging people such as Nasser, and Sadat, every step of the way; and Assad killed 20,000 of the MB in Homs & Allepo in the early 80’s; and Qadhaffi too had to kill thousands of MB members in the 70’s, to retain control.
— Dale in Atlanta Jun 19, 11:55 #
Arab socialism had certain Islamic and pan-Arab flavour. Those ideas are not very much different from the ones of Muslim Brotherhood.
That confirms my theory that similar ideologies and religions are conflicting and competing for followers and resources, I guess.
DG
— Drazen Gemic Jun 20, 12:27 #
Sounds like much of the resentment of ME Muslims towards the US intervention in Iraq is because it interferes with their attempts to settle scores with each other. In preparation for taking on the rest of the world with violence and immigrant fecundity, of course.
8-p
— Brian H Jun 24, 17:59 #