This is a serialization of the book titled ‘Crisis in Islam’. The full book and its Endnotes may be accessed here:
As soon as Zionist Imperialism gained control of the Arabian Peninsula after enabling the Wahhābis of Mecca, it scrambled to contain the rest of the Arab world through Islam. The Orientalists and researchers in the Zionist institutes in Europe and America were not oblivious to the fact that the rest of the Arab world was not generally like the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf in backwardness. This meant that it would not have been easy to export Wahhābi ideology to the rest of the Arab world, especially if they took into account that the aspirations of the new educated population in Egypt, Syria and Iraq were toward freedom more than to return their thoughts to previous centuries about which these people had no knowledge save perhaps an idyllic vision that had no deep roots.
It does not matter that Zionist Imperialists had contributed to the rise of Islamic movements in the Arab East or that it embraced these movements after their rise. What is important is that the religious movements that have arisen in the Arab East were mostly acting in accordance with the Zionist interests in the Arab world.
Eastern Arabs of the northern parts of the Arabian Peninsula would not have been satisfied with a simple call, such as that by Abdul-Wahhāb, which was no more than a superficial look at the meaning of monotheism, which he himself had not understood at all. These Arabs, by virtue of their intellectual antecedence over the Bedouin of the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf, were looking to link the state and religion in a new world, where relations are governed by new principles, such as the nation-state, international relations and the so-called ‘international law’, as well as treaties and alliances mostly created outside the scope of Islam without consultation with the Muslims. In other words, the nascent generation of Muslims of the East (which maybe is a loose term) wanted a political theory that may not be separated from Islam but able to deal realistically with the world where Muslims live after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which had for centuries been a distorted face of Islam. Wahhābi naïve ideology was not able to satisfy this aspiration, or even deal with the realities that surrounded the Muslim World.
It does not matter that Zionist Imperialists had contributed to the rise of Islamic movements in the Arab East or that it embraced these movements after their rise. What is important is that the religious movements that have arisen in the Arab East were mostly acting in accordance with the Zionist interests in the Arab world. This is not a conclusion reached after the events of the first decade of this century, but the objective reading of what happened in the aftermath of the First World War in the last century. A number of readers may find this an arbitrary attitude, which shows prejudice against some Islamic movements, but I call for an objective look at events. I do not know the innermost thoughts of Hassan Al-Banna, because that is unique to Allah.1 Nevertheless, I base my views on what Al-Banna and his followers did, and how that work served the interests of international Zionism, after which I rest my case.
Egypt was ahead of the rest of the Arabs in its attempt to seek a new path between Islam and European intellectual and political development. Egypt gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood movement, which called for the establishment of an Islamic state. The movement was not necessarily homogeneous in ideology nor did it have a comprehensive idea about the concept of the Islamic state it desired to see. In addition, those who supported the movement or joined it did not all have the same vision or aspirations. The carriers of the Islamic dream in Egypt in the early twentieth century can be categorized in a wide range extending from the secular Muslim to the blind Salafi! 2
Someone may ask – what is the evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood was riding the coattails of Zionism?
Zionist Imperialism began realizing that the emergence of a nation-state in the Arab East, as a result of the Sykes-Picot agreement after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, was probably not the best solution to ensure its interests in the Arab world. National and regional Arab movements were born, preaching the right to political and economic independence from Zionist hegemony. But Zionism was not going to give up its big plan to dominate the region for which it had worked for centuries, starting with the Wahhābi project a century and a half earlier. When it considered the situation in depth, it came to the conclusion that the Islamic movements were the best guarantee towards confronting the growing Arab National movement. Zionist Imperialism found itself facing two currents in the Arab world: The national movement calling for the unification of ‘The Arab Nation’ and achieving some level of social justice, and the pro-Moscow Communist movement that believed in the unity of the world socialist movement and dreamt of a global state based on the principles of Marxism. However, both were opposed to the goals of Zionism. Zionist Imperialism had two ways to confront this historical reality active on the ground. The first was fuelling the conflict between the Nationalists and the Communists, in which the gullible leaders of both movements took part and ended with both of them killing and stultifying each other, and both ended up after eight decades politically in semi-bankruptcy! The second way was to support the Muslim Brotherhood movement. That is because the majority of Arab populace are intuitively religious and they can more easily follow a religious movement than a secular national movement.
Someone may ask – what is the evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood was riding the coattails of Zionism? One look at the history of the movement in Egypt from the thirties of the twentieth century until today would reveal that its policies were all consistent with the Imperialist project. Since this is not an analytical study of the history of political or religious movements, I will not deal with each stage of the last eighty years and the conduct and attitudes it contained, but I will borrow some examples to show that, leaving those who want more to take a closer look at history.
- The Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt did not take a stand against King Farouk and his rule, which was in essence a pro-Zionist rule even if it was not its creation. Farouk’s rule was corrupt, unjust and contrary to the laws of Allah, whose name they were invoking. There was a strong movement when Islamic figures called for the revival of Caliphate in the figure of the Egyptian king following its end in 1924 after the fall of the Ottomans.
- The Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt found in the 1952 revolution, led by Jamāl Abdul-Nasser, an enemy and opponent even though it was a revolution of liberation that removed all restrictions imposed by the British colonialist. It should be sufficient as a confirmation of this to quote the words of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, who used to keep council for preaching and corruption among the ignorant Gulf people, when he stated that he prayed two prostrations in thanks to Allah when Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula. 3
- The Muslim Brotherhood movement did not stop at reconciliation with Farouk’s regime and hostility to the Egyptian liberation revolution, but it tried to assassinate the late Jamāl Abdul-Nasser, who was the expression of one of the most honest and faithful stages in the liberation of the nation. Any observer or reader of history cannot but judge the attempt to assassinate that symbol of Arab Nationalism and leader as a service to Zionist Imperialism. That attempt will remain until the day of judgement a disgrace in the history of the Islamic movement in Egypt. 4
- When the Muslims Brotherhood came to power in Egypt for the first time in 2011 following the ousting of Husni Mubarak, their veil of political hypocrisy, which they have spread among the people over the past decades accusing everyone of treason, was suddenly torn. The Muslim Brotherhood decided to recognize all the humiliating treaties signed by their predecessors with Zionist Imperialism in which Egypt recognized the Jewish state, which had usurped the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem. 5 They claimed that the necessity to build the promised Islamic state compelled them to do so. But they did not explain to the people the reason for the political philandering, which came in a letter from the Muslim Brotherhood’s President of Egypt to the Zionist President of Israel!
Egyptian President, the first Muslim Brotherhood to assume such a position, wrote a message to Israel President. This is how the Jerusalem Post reported it:
‘Mr. Shimon Perez (sic), president of the State of Israel,’ Mursi’s note read. ‘It was with deep thanks that I received your congratulations on the advent of the holy month of Ramadan. ‘I take this opportunity to reiterate that I am looking forward to exerting our best efforts to get the Middle East peace process back to its right track in order to achieve security and stability for peoples of the region, including [the] Israeli people. ‘ 6
After the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt, similar movements were established in Syria and Iraq. The Muslim Brotherhood movement in Iraq did not have the same role it had in Egypt or Syria, due to the different religious and political conflict in Iraq, which was built on sectarian grounds, with which I will deal later. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood proved to be the most violent and radical of the Arab Muslim Brotherhood movements and the fiercest enemy of the nationalist project, and thus the best friend for Zionist Imperialism. They reverted to killings and vandalism in an early stage of the Ba’ath Party rule. They may fool some naïve Arab and Muslim minds with the claim of today’s Brotherhood in Syria that they are fighting ‘infidel’ ‘Alawite authority as they call them. But without even giving a legitimate cover to show who gave them the right to label people apostates, and if this labelling occurred, who gave them the right to kill their opponents, even if they were infidels? No sooner such a question is raised, than they come back with a precedent dating back to Abu Bakr and throughout Islamic history of different practices by Muslim Caliphs. However, the facts reveal a different story because their first rebellion against the Arab Nationalist project happened during the period of the late Amin Al-Hāfidh in 1964, at which time their enemy the ‘Alawite Hāfidh Al-Assad (father of current President Bashhar Al-Asad) had not yet assumed the leadership of the party and the State. If their fight, as they claim now, is with the ‘Alawites and not against the Arab Nationalist project, how do they explain their rebellion against Amin Al-Hāfidh and his leadership? The fact of the matter is that the Syrian Brotherhood wanted a religious state to their liking in contrast with history, and is thus aligning itself with the Zionist project, which does not have any problem with a hireling Islamic state. What harm would befall the Zionists if Muslims would pray twenty times a day and curse Shi’ia, Druze, ‘Alawites, Isma’ilis, Yazidis, Kashfis and others and fight them, as long as they consider Jews and Christians ‘Dhimmis’ (non-Muslim people of the book) who must be protected? Zionists will be delighted with such a Brotherhood as long as they do not object to the Capitalist system that governs everything and divides Allah’s gifts as it pleases; takes what it wants and gives what it wants; confiscates what it wants and confines whom it wants? The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria was the first to have been proven to be following the Zionist plan when they attacked the Ba’ath Party rule during the reign of the Ba’athist President Amin Al-Hāfidh. What they are doing today in the devastating attack on the Arab Nationalist project is no more than a revived campaign, more aggressive and organized than that of fifty years ago. 7 They learnt the lessons from the failure of their first uprising against Amin Al-Hāfidh and trained their sons, some of whom were brought up in Arabia, to be better prepared and equipped for the new uprising.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, but a witness to the reality of the pro-Zionist policies of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is not difficult to understand these attempts, because the Islamic political movement in general is not interested in building an independent state with an independent political, national or liberal ideology. It is only concerned with establishing an Islamic State. If that State would emerge with the support and blessings of Zionism and under its dominance, then they have no objection so long as that State is established. This applies to most Islamic movements that have arisen in the Muslim world in a century, no difference whether it was the Sunni Wahhābi movement or the Muslim Brotherhood or Al-Qaeda or the Shi’a Da’wa Party.
Wahhābism was and still is openly and clearly in the bosom of Zionism in every political project of the last century. The Muslim Brotherhood movements in Iraq and Syria cooperated with Zionism at every stage against the national plan of the Ba’ath movement. It is public knowledge that Al-Qaeda was established at the hands of the CIA, and it was originally entrusted with the task of fighting the Soviet Union. 8 Al-Qaeda argued that they were conducting Jihad for Allah, as if Allah was a Zionist and anti-Communist! Hamas agreed to a truce with Israel as long as the latter was satisfied with the powerless meagre Islamic state in the Gaza Strip. 9
Perhaps it would be proper here to consider an important matter. During the past hundred years, we have not seen any Islamic writer who presented us with a theory on the desired Islamic State. Are we to accept such an Islamic State simply because it would carry such a name? Or do we have the right to ask what is that state and what does it intend to achieve? What laws is it going to apply? What kind of international relationships with others is it going to have? Where does it stand on international law if it contradicts Islamic law as they understand it? Where would the Islamic State stand regarding the capitalist economic system? Where would it stand on the rights of women in particular and human rights in general? Where would it stand towards non-Muslims who live within it? Where and Where? There is not a single book that can answer one who seeks information about this desired State. The talk about returning to the example of the ‘righteous predecessors’ is merely ridiculous in its absurdity. Who are the predecessors whose examples are we intended to follow? Would what was suitable for Al-Walid Ibn Yazid or Mu’tassim Ibn Hārun be suitable for the twenty-first century atheist? 10 Where does that fit with the verse: “Every day He is bringing about a matter” (Ar-Rahmaan 55:29).” And who says that these men were actually righteous? Their rule of the Muslims is not enough to prove their righteousness because there is no such Divine rule which establishes that everyone who had ruled the Muslims must have been righteous. If it were really like that, Allah would not have ordained that Baghdad be violated by Hulagu! 11
Someone may ask about the wisdom of creating more than one Islamic movement if one suffices. And the answer is not much different from the well-known human relationship rule prevailing in the world, which states that if you want to rule people divide them to keep them busy with their conflicts and differences, under which all would race to win your favours. When Zionist Imperialism discovered, as I mentioned earlier, that the Arabs outside the Peninsula were not like those inside it, it was natural to expect that Muslims in those areas would be looking for a movement that differs in its approach from Wahhābism; thus came the Muslim Brotherhood movement. If a dispute would take place between the Wahhābis and the Muslim Brotherhood, it would be in Zionist’s interest because both parties were towing the Zionist cart, and whoever the victor would be, it is in its favour. Furthermore, the conflict between the two would weaken them, leading each side to do more grovelling to the Zionist master, which is what happened and is happening today, as expressed by Kissinger over the Iran-Iraq War; ‘support both sides, we want them both to loose’.
For decades after the creation of Wahhābism and the Muslim Brotherhood, Zionism found it necessary to inflame the situation and stir the area after both movements lost their potency because of the partial success of the Arab Nationalist Movement represented by the Ba’ath in Iraq and Syria, and the military governments in countries like Libya, Algeria, Sudan and Yemen. It came up with another novelty: Al-Qaeda, which Zionism has made no secret of founding or supporting with money, weapons, training and intelligence. We do not need to prove it since it has been stated by the Zionists, and if anyone is still unaware of that, he either does not know the facts or want to acknowledge the truth or else he knows and deviates!
Zionist cunning came up with the smart idea of exploiting Afghanistan as the field for the implementation of this phase of the Zionist domination of Islam, which started in the project of creating Wahhābism more than two centuries earlier. It was a smart decision for several reasons. Firstly, the use of Afghanistan as a field to create that movement would overcome the impossibility of achieving this in the Arab world in the eighties of the last century.
Secondly, it would have been easier to exploit Arab feelings and emotions to support a group outside the Arab world, which claims to be defending Islam, than it would have been to coax Arabs to defend an Islamic regime in their own land. This may not seem obvious to many people, the reason being that the Arabs consider Islam a natural result of their existence, and they therefore do not feel the need for emphasis. But it is different for non-Arab Muslims whose identity is Islam. The Pakistani considers Islam his identity to distinguish him from the Hindu. He would even resent it if he were described as an Indian. Thus, the Arabs may strongly sympathize with the non-Arab Muslims if they wish to emphasize their religious identity.
Thus Zionism gathered whomever it managed to gather from Muslim lands and ordered its footmen in the Arabian Peninsula to finance the project fully, covering the cost of the weapons and the maintenance of the fighters and their families and the cost of training carried out by US special forces with coordination and control of the CIA. The rulers in the Arabian Peninsula acquiesced in this, despite their fears of the possibility of this act getting out of control causing them the loss of their claim to the leadership of the Islamic world.
Zionist Imperialism achieved two goals with the founding of Al-Qaeda and what was known as the Afghani ‘Mujahedeen’. The first goal was exhausting the Soviet army in a war terrifying in its nature for the army, as the Afghani ‘Mujahedeen’ were fighting in a manner unknown before. It was enough for the Russian soldier to hear that the Mujahedeen were playing football with the skulls of his comrades in an earlier battle to tremble with fear. Thus, Zionist Imperialism prepared the world to accept the culture of killing and belly ripping and beheadings under the pretext of combating Communism in Islamic Afghanistan. The killings and beheadings we see today in Iraq and Syria were born in the fighting of the ‘Mujahedeen’ in Afghanistan in the eighties of the last century under the auspices of the CIA. It makes me wonder when the Zionists express their surprise at the terrorism that has spread today in the Arab world as if they did not lay the ground for it over three decades ago. The so-called Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s are the current leaders of terrorist organizations in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt!
It is not difficult to find dozens of leaders of terrorist factions today who are proud that they fought in Afghanistan. Are we supposed to believe that the CIA, which recruited and trained these people, does not know anything about them or where they ended up after the end of the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan? Or did they cut their ties with the CIA after the end of the US war in Afghanistan in order to suddenly reassemble and appear in the streets of Syria and Iraq?
Lest the reader get confused and imagine that the political and religious movements that I have limited to three categories: the Wahhābi, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda, differ in essence from each other, I would like to emphasize that they do not, even though it may appear that there are apparent differences between them. All of these movements aspire to build an Islamic State. Though they may not all agree on the form the desired state should take, they nevertheless do not have a clear picture of what they want because they do not really know what they want more than one state claiming Islam as its ideology. Since all these movements are under Zionist hegemony, none of them has any faith in political independence because they do not believe in the modern state and instead believe that the establishment of an international Islamic State will obviate the need for a political system. It is not difficult for an observer to understand that Zionist Imperialism, which holds the reins of the world, cannot allow this dream to be achieved. But since it knows that these so-called Mujahedeen are living with the infantile mentality based on a metaphysical conviction that Allah will support them when the time comes, Zionism is not in a hurry to shorten the rope and pull them by their necks. There is more than one reason for the differences that may occur between these movements, which may be true in some cases. It is not difficult to understand the conflict between urbanism and nomadism, and the desire of the Islamists of each party to lead the wished-for political stage. It is also not unusual for the conflict to be personal, tribal, or even local, as is the case in any party affiliation in the world. This fact may explain the ease with which individual fighters in the terrorist groups in Syria move from one to the other, and why no one has a problem with paying allegiance to a new movement or ‘prince’ whenever he wants, making any talk about classifying armed movements in Syria as moderate or extremist nothing less than a myth. 12 No terrorism covered in the name of religion can be moderate, because terrorism is extremism and fanaticism. He who kills the soul, which Allah has forbidden, cannot be but an extremist killer outside the boundaries of humanity and has nothing to do with Islam, whether or not he recites one or a hundred invented Hadiths, or follows in the footsteps of one or more predecessors or a faqih.