The mullahs and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are driven by fervent Islamic fundamentalism. Donald Trump’s opponents have shifted the focus from the existential threat posed by their ideology, weapons, and indiscriminate attacks on civilians across the Middle East to transient oil price spikes and Trump’s alleged derangement.
Although most Muslims are not Islamists (militant Islamic fundamentalists), all Islamists are Muslims. Because of immigration and fertility rates, the Muslim population in Europe and the United States has exploded, exceeding 50 million in the EU (about 8% of the EU’s population), and 4 million in the United States. Pew projects Muslims will exceed 2% of the U.S. population by 2050, surpassing Jews.
Merely mentioning these facts, or even referring to Islamic fundamentalism, is rebuked as “racist” and “fascist.” Going to war against it, as President Trump has done, is portrayed as monstrous. This framing is a tactic – one of many – to cow Americans and Europeans from asking fundamental questions about immigration and the nature of their societies. In Europe, where the rights to own dogs and for women to dress in Western fashions and live free from harassment are under siege, town councils have adopted elements of Sharia law, and some British police warn Jews not to wear kippahs (skullcaps) in public.
In the United States, the immunization of Islamists is a product of a 50-year influence and disinformation campaign undertaken by the Muslim Brotherhood and its extremist allies to change the West’s values, legal framework, and way of life. We see the transformation at universities; on the streets of Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle; in federal courts; in the views of New York’s new mayor; and in the rantings of far-right Groypers. The steady rise of antisemitism, decline in support for Israel, opposition to containing Iran, support for its development of nuclear weapons (see here and here), and contemptuous analyses of U.S. victories in the Iran conflict confirm the Brotherhood’s accomplishments.
To be crystal clear: I reject the view that Islam is a violent creed, or that we should bar Muslims from the United States. For many years I have traveled to Muslim countries for business and to visit with friends. Most people I meet are warm, hospitable, and pro-American.
Yet two things can be true at the same time: Most Muslims are either good people or no worse than anyone else; and Islamists pose a direct threat to Americans’ safety and culture.
A substantial number of radicalized Muslims are committed to propagating Sharia law and interpret the Quran to require the destruction of Western civilization. Many polls over the last 15 years suggest that from 5% to 8% of Muslims support terror attacks on the West, and up to 30% are sympathetic to that perspective (see here for a list of numerous polls, and here, here, here, and here). That’s a lot of dangerous people in a world with two billion Muslims.
A 2017 Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries found that from 8% to 99% (depending on the country) prefer to be governed by Sharia law. Oddly, Pew did not ask that question in the United States, while other polls that have done so had questionable methodologies. However, 30% of U.S. Muslims surveyed by Pew acknowledged that Islam and democracy have conflicting principles.
In November, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism & Policy published the results of an extensive analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood’s transformation strategy for North America. The Institute identified a long-term strategy “aimed at gradually transforming Western public discourse, community leadership structures, and policy environments from within,” and concluded that careful planning and implementation had achieved considerable progress.
The Muslim Brotherhood leverages democratic freedoms and institutions to pursue goals that are fundamentally incompatible with American values. In doing so, it emulates and benefits from the far left’s similar strategies, as two groups with contrary beliefs about individual and social rights and religion paper over their differences to bring down a common enemy. Their respective successes changing policy, achieving legal protection, institutional embedding, and narrative dominance underscores the inadequacy of the defenses deployed by conservatives and traditional liberals.
The Brotherhood refers to its efforts as a “civilization-jihadist process” that rests on the doctrine of “Tamkeen” (empowerment/settlement). The Brotherhood has reinterpreted Tamkeen as a phased political process for achieving Islamist governance in non-Muslim societies. According to the Institute, the Brotherhood is now in the fourth phase of its plan, focused on cultivating ideologically committed cadres, comprehensive preparation, and readiness to support armed Islamist movements. The Brotherhood closely coordinates with Hamas and other designated terrorist organizations.
The Brotherhood has gained access to government across multiple administrations, including through allied organizations such as CAIR, which has developed extensive relationships with federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. This provides the Brotherhood with both intelligence and a role in shaping policy. Numerous individuals with Brotherhood ties were appointed to senior positions in Barack Obama’s administration. Brotherhood networks have infiltrated the career civil service, including Homeland Security positions focused on countering violent extremism. They influenced the removal of “Islamic extremism” from training materials and, in 2012, the purging of Islamic terminology by numerous agencies.
Representatives like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib participate in Brotherhood-affiliated events, receive support from Brotherhood-aligned donors, and consistently champion Brotherhood-promoted positions. The Brotherhood also uses sophisticated legal strategies, such as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motions, lawsuits, and discrimination complaints to chill opponents and influence policy.
Qatar-funded Al-Jazeera has become a global network, streaming more moderate information in English and explicitly Islamist content in Arabic.
The Brotherhood’s university operations are among its most successful. The Muslim Students Association – which lists the Brotherhood as a participant – has more than 600 chapters, while Students for Justice in Palestine, which receives financial support from Hamas-connected organizations, has over 200 chapters. The response to the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, attained unprecedented success, rewarding the Brotherhood’s multi-faceted strategy and coordination with far left groups, and for the first time included explicit support for Hamas and its acts of terrorism.
This well-executed effort included activating student and faculty organizations, and managing the media narrative by presenting the attack as a Palestinian response. This framing appeals to leftist groups whose intersectional doctrine positions Palestinians among the oppressed, with Jews and Israel as powerful “white” oppressors.
Among the Institute’s recommendations are several that deserve immediate attention, including designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. This would empower the federal government to limit the Brotherhood’s access to government and institutional platforms and prevent the misuse of civil-rights and charitable organizations. Additionally, anti-discrimination laws should be reformed to distinguish religious freedom from political agendas. Security services must regain the right to use profiles, data, and descriptors that accurately identify the problem, risks, and alternatives. Congress should enhance foreign agent registration under FARA, and strengthen requirements that universities report foreign contributions. We must rethink America’s loose immigration standards.
When Marco Rubio addressed the Munich Security Conference in February, he condemned mass migration for destabilizing Western culture. It is too late to reverse current trends merely by curtailing immigration. Whether we can muster the will and means to do what is necessary in the face of stiff resistance from Islamists and the radical left is an open question.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.