Mideast: Jordan Bans The Muslim Brotherhood

Manuel Augusto Moreno

Several weeks ago, Jordanian intelligence officials arrested sixteen men they claimed to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood planning a violent attack. One week later, Interior Minister Mazen al-Faraya announced to the media that the Muslim Brotherhood was prohibited from operating or engaging in any activities in the Kingdom. 

On the same day, police raided the Islamic Action Front’s (IAF) headquarters. The IAF is considered the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, although it claimed this week that it was an independent organization with no ties to other groups.

The decision is controversial as many interested parties hold grudges against the Muslim Brotherhood for being an unpredictable, destabilizing force. Others, wary of the consolidation of political power in Jordan, are concerned about the punitive action against the only organized political dissent in the nation. Those who support Jordan’s decision paint the Brotherhood as a radical terrorist organization. Critics argue the Brotherhood is a largely peaceful political party focused on community service and that banning them was simply to appease US President Trump. Both arguments have good evidence to support them. In reality, the Muslim Brotherhood is a broad entity and it is hard to identify what they are and are not. 

What is the Muslim Brotherhood? That is a difficult question to answer. In the 1920s, a Sunni Egyptian teacher, Hassan al-Banna, fed up with European colonialism and the Middle East being carved up and controlled by outside powers, predicted that a revival of religious traditionalism could counteract Western influence. He founded the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Most broadly, it is a Sunni Islamist movement that strives to create nations guided by Muslim governance and opposed to European, American, Christian, and Jewish influence or values. The Muslim Brotherhood has aligned itself with various political and social ideologies to further Islamic nationalism. These ideas have ranged from Arab socialism to extreme theocracy, and they have engaged tactics from grassroots campaigning to violent attacks.

The Muslim Brotherhood first took root in Egypt. They were part of the popular uprising that led to Egypt’s independence from Britain and helped launch Gamal Abdel Nasser, the famed pan-Arabist and socialist, to power. Then Nasser turned on the Brotherhood, executing its leader and imprisoning thousands of members.

This story reflects the Muslim Brotherhood’s history in the Middle East. Their pyramidal power and growth structure are excellent for grassroots organizing and expansion. They were involved in several of the most significant popular movements in Arab countries over the last century. However, they often find themselves in opposition to heads of state, even those they initially helped bring to power.

The organization's stated goals have always been radical. The Muslim Brotherhood seeks an Islamic Nation governed by Sharia Islamic law and to proselytize within and across its borders. At the top of their leadership, an executive makes decisions in the group's ideology, goals, and actions. They have recruiters below them who find young men in Mosques and schools and coax them into the organization. These begin with invitations to events, community service opportunities, and Quranic study groups, among other things. The groups of recruits formed into small families of Brothers who were each other’s essential social circles, creating a network of relationships that strengthened the Brotherhood. 

Arab Socialism or Islamic Nationalism?

In the mid-twentieth century, the modern Middle East was taking shape, and Muslim political culture was moving in two directions, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean region. 

There were the politically radical, pan-Arab socialists and the religiously radical pan-Arab Islamists. This binary explanation obscures the plurality of ideas at the moment, but these two forces loomed particularly large. Nonetheless, the histories of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine are hard to understand without this context. 

Pan-Arab socialism took several forms. It began with popular workers' movements that sought to free themselves from oppression generated by imperialism and capitalism. It often resulted in its versions of oppression with Nasser, the Assad Dynasty, and Saddam Hussein. 

On the other hand, the rise of radical Islamic conservatism and fundamentalism is also growing. Salafi ideologues are increasing in popularity, preaching that the way to counter imperialist powers and grow Arab strength is through strict adherence to Islam and theocracy. This liberation theology also results in brutal, oppressive groups like the Taliban, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and al-Qaeda.

These two political shifts occurred in the mid-twentieth century and have continued through the Iranian Revolution, the Second Intifada, and the Arab Spring. Notice that both of these seemingly polar opposite political movements have something in common: opposition to “the West” and Arab Nationalism. Both political movements are telling a story of Arab dominance and supremacy, harkening to the age of the Caliphs, and attempting to tap into the strength of the Arab Middle East to grow formidable nations, either secular or theocratic. 

Nationalists rely on telling stories about how strong their country is or could be, identifying causes or symbols for its weakness, and destroying them. The Muslim Brotherhood continues to make conflict with Israel a central tenet of their organization. The Muslim Brotherhood was legitimized in the eyes of many Arab observers across the Middle East when their fighters stayed engaged in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war after Egypt had made peace. Hamas’s origin mythology was with a Palestinian-Egyptian member of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Simultaneously, this led to the decline of the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in the region in the twenty-first century. Any country wanting good relations with America has to be in tolerable relations with Israel. And, any country wanting tolerable relations with Israel has to be in poor relations with the Muslim Brotherhood. In the twenty-first century, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two long-time state backers of the Muslim Brotherhood, announced they would never support the organization in an apparent play for pacification with America. 

King Abdullah’s New Approach

Jordan has conflicted with the Muslim Brotherhood before and has never had a good relationship with the organization. The Hashemite Dynasty in Jordan has ruled the modern nation for over a century and has been a regional power for much longer than that. In the last century, they have survived and escaped conflicts and coups by generally being an easy neighbor and staying in the middle lane. The Muslim Brotherhood is the primary opposition group in Jordan, but Jordan is not a full-fledged democracy, and political parties have few rights under the monarch. 

Jordan’s move is far from the first time that Muslim Arab rulers have tried to limit the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in their countries. It reflects Middle Eastern leaders’ heightened resentment for political radicalism, potentially a consequence of the many belligerent non-state groups in the region. It will be vital for Jordan to open other lanes for political dissent now that they have shuttered a primary outlet.