Wahhaj’s popularity in American Islamic circles comes at a time when Western governments are giving increasing attention to the Muslim Brotherhood. A government-sanctioned study in Sweden launched a nationwide debate there in March with a report stating that the Brotherhood was secretly building a parallel society within the country, a conclusion similar to that of a recent British report. In the United States, Congress will soon vote on a renewed push to call on the State Department to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), a measure that would have ramifications for many of the groups Wahhaj and other imams like him support.
The legislation has 46 sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, is optimistic about its chances for approval under a new administration. A similar measure was introduced in the Senate, launching rigorous debate over the risks and benefits of the designation. If Congress passes the legislation and President Trump signs it, the State Department will have to produce a report either agreeing or disagreeing with the FTO recommendation.
Samuel Tadros, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and expert on Islamism, says the FTO designation is too broad and unsuitable for every branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Tunisia’s Ennahda is one example of a moderate splinter group.) And if the State Department decides against the FTO designation—which he believes would happen—the Muslim Brotherhood will claim the decision implies approval of the group. That is why Tadros prefers the path through the Treasury Department—a lengthier process but one that would “target the splinter groups and through that, build each case.” The Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Syria and Yemen are a good start.
But most analysts agree with at least the premise behind the legislation: To fight global jihad, lawmakers and officials must better identify and combat those manufacturing the Islamist ideology feeding into the movement. The question is whether prominent figures like Imam Wahhaj are quietly stoking jihadists.
After Wahhaj finished his fundraising appeal at ISOC, he rushed to the men’s prayer room and paused to remove his shoes, providing an opportunity to ask him if he still believes Sharia law is superior to the U.S. Constitution: “Well, that’s tricky. But generally, Sharia is for a Muslim majority country, not a non-Muslim majority.” On the Sharia death penalty for adultery, he was equally cautious: “Again, it is so far from us. They can do that in their country but not here.”
Former Muslim Brotherhood member Pierre Durrani, one of the authors of the Swedish report on the group, heard Wahhaj speak several times in the ’90s and describes him as a “Salafi light” imam who works closely with the Brotherhood. The Swedish native says its “better to have the Muslim Brotherhood in the mosques than al-Qaeda,” but notes their similar ideological roots. Both desire the rebirth of a Muslim caliphate and the decline of Western civilization.
Durrani lists ways to differentiate moderates from Islamists: Look at who they invite to conferences, the literature they promote, their political ideology, and the posts they “like” on social media. “You have to triangulate the movement, and it is difficult detective work.”
The Orange County mosque hosting Wahhaj shows the difficulty. The mosque’s imam, Muzammil Siddiqi, supported former President George W. Bush for his conservative stance on social issues and made a media appearance with him just three days after 9/11. But according to a 2007 New Yorker article, Siddiqi invited Abdel-Rahman to speak at his mosque in 1992 and translated as the sheik dismissed nonviolent interpretations of jihad as weak. And Adam Gadahn—a former al-Qaeda spokesman who died in 2015 during a U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan—attended Siddiqi’s mosque in the ’90s.
Comments
Caminho
Posted: Thu, 06/15/2017 07:40 amI generally like this article, but I need to add that Islam tends to be a very all-inclusive way of being, much as Christianity should affect all parts of our being, not just private worship part. And like many Christians, they believe that extends to the political sphere as well. Consequently, Islam is infused in all aspects of being; whether in charity work, overthrowing a despotic regime, seeking financial success, etc. Indeed, to be Islamic is to imbue whatever actions you may have -- supporting your regime or opposing it -- as indeed is largely true for sincere Christians. The consequence of this is that labeling a group as "terrorist" is challenging, for instance, Hamas believes in violently resisting Israel, but it also genuinely distributes aid. Muslim Brotherhood, as pointed out here, is a massively varied organization as well. Many sincere Muslims, with no violent inclinations, therefore support some of these large organizations that genuinely help the Muslim poor, even without supporting their (occasionally) violent ideology.
DakotaLutheran
Posted: Fri, 06/16/2017 10:44 amThe article frequently mentions that (at least certain) Islamic groups desire the overthrow of "Western civilization." What exactly does this mean? The last words of the article refer to the"destruction of Western values and freedoms." I'm certain this doesn't refer to all Western values and freedoms. We understand that at least part of this transformation is the institution of Sharia law. Much of Sharia law, as I understand it, has significant similarities with OT Judaic law. That law, as well as Sharia law, is intended to establish a theocracy, an institution that would be in apparent conflict with our contemporary notions of liberal democracy. Bear in mind, however, that Western civilization, whilst it was predomiantly Christian, bore many such similarities. Our present notions of liberal democracy, I would suggest, are not intrinsically Christian, and, instead, were born from the decline of Christian influence. It intends to maximize the freedom of the individual over every other institution. Out of it was born liberal divorce, legal adultery, and the right of a woman to abort their child. It is difficult to imagine a Christian society endorsing such freedoms. Liberal democracy, rather than being wed to Christianity, is born instead of a plurality of citiizens. It is an attempt to establish a peaceable society where there is significant disagreement about what is right and what wrong. It is a manifestation of the confusion of our age. I would think that many of us would decry, along with many Muslims, the condition of "Western civilization." We would rather have such liberal notions than the violent imposition of a Sharia or, for that matter, a Christian law. But that does not mean it is sacrosanct or even ideal.
socialworker
Posted: Tue, 06/20/2017 11:42 amI think it's the stoning, amputations and honor killings that appall us about Sharia. No, we don't endorse the flippant view of divorce and abortion, but violence didn't seem to be Jesus' approach to such sins either.
Jon from Maine
Posted: Wed, 07/05/2017 09:40 amThe article refers to "Islamist organizations stealing the spotlight and evangelizing their children." This kind of loose use of the term evangelize may often happen in the mainstream media, but I think that christians should be very careful calling any part of jihadist messaging "good news."