Hostility towards Communism and the reality of the relationship between the Brotherhood and America!

Also, this thought does not consider that any action no matter how great it was has any value if it were not for the sake of Allah, and that is why the preachers and clerics in general, whether they were Muslims or belong to other religions, believe that atheism and non-recognizing the existence of the Creator of the universe is a disgrace and is inconsistent with the human nature or what they call human temperament, and that those who disbelieve in religion and in the existence of Allah deserve death and must be fought until they believe. 

For many years it was thought among the intellectuals and political analysts that the Muslim Brotherhood’s exposed or hidden relationship with the United States was founded on the idea of anti-communism, which represents a serious threat to both parties. Ever since the Bolshevik Revolution led by Lenin in Czarist Russia and then spreading it in the neighboring countries and establishing the Soviet Union, the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently attacked the fledgling States, worked to besiege them, and refused to recognize them. This was also adopted by similar policies as the American and its Western allies’ ones, creating a suitable ground for a meeting that cares about the issue of addressing the Communist tide in the world. 

The one who have followed the Arab politics in general and the positions of the Muslim Brotherhood toward the Soviet Union after the strength of the movement has intensified and its influence was spread all over Egypt and some overseas, will notice inevitably the hostility shown and its rejection of any kind of cooperation with the Great States, which adopted a moderate and more equitable policy towards the Arab issues. We can also say that the first socialist States in the world are the ones that exposed the Sykes - Picot agreement in the wake of the end of the First World War and called for granting the Arabs their right to freedom and independence, though the penalty was not recognizing these States and not establishing diplomatic relations with them but only with one or two countries only. 

The Muslim Brotherhood at the end of the Second World War had contacted the United States indirectly and identified its position on the issue of division of the world regarding the two camps and being bias in favor of the capitalist camp. The leader of the group considered that these are people who believe in the Book and thus they as a group can work with them while others are atheists and they should not deal with them and must fight them as well.

What the man has stated in his letter to the President Truman in the wake of the American recognition of the Jewish State was to disguise the reality of the position of the group on the issue of the conflict between the two winning parts in World War II. 

Sheikh Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the group in his memoirs published under the name “The memoranda of the call and the preacher”, says that the Westerners are the people of the Book and that there is no harm to deal with them or to cooperate with them unlike the Soviets, even the man has admitted in these same notes that he has taken from the Suez Canal Authority in the forties of the last century 500 Egyptian pounds, and this is a large amount comparing by the standards of that time. 

It is known that the Suez Canal and its company was owned by English and French people, and this explains that the movement had received aid and financial assistance from British and French people in charge and did not find anything wrong in doing so and did not consider this as a deviation from the right path or the proper religious Ijtihad (making of a decision in Islamic law/sharia). 

If we assumed that the ground for the reunion between the Muslim Brotherhood and America is linked to the hostility towards communism and disbelief as the Islamists themselves say and working to stop its spread in the world and to stop its extension and influence on the Arab-Islamic world, what would then explain today, since the Soviet Union is already finished and the Warsaw Pact is already disintegrated, the evolution of this relationship and taking the form of an alliance between the said movement and America? 

What explains the American care and Brotherhood’s satisfaction for such care in the absence of such common ground in sharing hostility towards the communists and the Soviets? 

In fact, we focused in all what we wrote so far on the Muslim Brotherhood movement in its country of origin, as it is said, but the issue that we are discussing to illustrate the fact of the relationship, positively or negatively, between America and the West in general and the Muslim Brotherhood will include the movement with all its components in Egypt and in other countries or as said by the economists we will be discussing it in its core and its side-lines. 

The anti-Western slogans and the incitement against the U.S. policy by the Muslim Brotherhood and the call to address its project by taking over the region to re-divide it and to qualify it so that to serve the U.S. interests and the Western interests, and particularly the great care to the Zionist project, protecting it and providing all forms of support to it, all these slogans did not prevent the movement from meeting with the United States.

This reached to the extent of the informational coordination and cooperation regarding the Egyptian revolution after President Gamal Abdel Nasser assumed power in his country and changed Egypt from the subordination to the capitalist West into the cooperation and armament against the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union in particular and then dropping the Muslim Brotherhood’s conspiracy to kill him and to change the regime so that to keep it under its leadership. 

In recent years, the Muslim Brotherhood’s overt slogans that show hostility towards America and its colonial project in the region did not prevent the Islamic Party in Iraq (the Iraqi branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement) from the full cooperation with the occupation by accepting the orders of the American ruler of the country and participating in the governance arrangements in Iraq under occupation. 

They also  did not prevent and even helped in pushing Syria’s Brotherhood to embrace the Americans after they reached initial understandings with the Baath regime in Syria led by Bashar al-Assad and before him Hafez al-Assad, whom they agreed to deal with through his deputy in that period Mr. Khaddam. 

The position of Syria’s Brotherhood members regarding the mobility taking place in their country, and transforming it into a war launched by the West and its mercenaries against Syria in order to divide it and to take it out of its Arabism, indicates very clearly that the base of convergence between the Muslim Brotherhood and the United States is much more than just sharing hostility towards communism, and this must be examined seriously and its serious dimensions should be understood.