western civilization

On Tuesday, New York City radio host Sid Rosenberg asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio about whether the State Department intends to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and Council on American-Islamic Relations as terrorist organizations. Rubio responded that “all of that is in the works,” although “obviously there are different branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, so you’d have to designate each one of them.”

Logistics and bureaucracy aside: It’s about time.

For far too long, the United States has treated the Muslim Brotherhood with a dangerous combination of naiveté and willful blindness. The Brotherhood is not a random innocuous political movement with a religious bent. It is, and has been since its founding about a century ago, the ideological wellspring of modern Sunni Islamism. The Brotherhood’s fingerprints are on jihadist groups as wide-ranging as Al Qaeda and Hamas, yet successive American administrations — Republican and Democratic alike — have failed to designate its various offshoots for what they are: terrorist organizations.

That failure is not merely academic. It has real-world consequences. By refusing to label the Muslim Brotherhood accurately, we tie our own hands in the fight against Islamism — both at home and abroad. We allow subversive actors to exploit our political system and bankroll extremism under the guise of “cultural” or “charitable” outreach.

Enough is enough.

Founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated mission has never wavered: the establishment of a global caliphate governed by sharia law. The Brotherhood has always attempted to position itself as a “political” organization, but it is “political” in the way Lenin was political. Think subversion through infiltration — or revolution through stealth.

Consider Hamas. Hamas is not merely inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood — it is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian-Arab branch. The link is unambiguous; as Article Two of Hamas’ founding charter states, “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.” And Hamas’ charter also makes clear its penchant for explicit violence: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.”

This is not the rhetoric of nuance or moderation. This is the ideological foundation of contemporary jihadism. Yet, while Hamas is rightly designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department, other branches of the Muslim Brotherhood remain off the list.

Why? Because Western elites have allowed themselves to be duped by the Brotherhood’s two-faced strategy. Abroad, they openly sow the seeds of jihad, cheer for a global caliphate and preach for the destruction of Israel and Western civilization more broadly. But in the corridors of power in the U.S. and Europe, they and their Qatari paymasters don suits and ties, rebrand as “moderates” and leverage media credulity and overly generous legal protections to plant ideological roots.

What’s more, CAIR — an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history — has extremely well-documented ties to the Brotherhood. And yet CAIR agents continue to operate freely in the United States, masquerading as civil rights advocates while pushing Islamist narratives that undermine the core constitutional principles of equality that they purport to champion. Today, almost two years after CAIR-linked Hamas executed the Oct. 7 pogrom in Israel, CAIR remains in good standing with many elected Democrats.

It shouldn’t be so. In November 2014, the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR as a terrorist organization, citing its links to the Brotherhood and Hamas. And the Brotherhood itself is recognized as a terrorist organization by at least Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain and Russia. Jordan also banned the Brotherhood earlier this year. Put bluntly: There is absolutely no reason the United States should have a warmer approach toward CAIR than the UAE or a warmer approach toward the Brotherhood than Saudi Arabia.

The first Trump administration flirted with the idea of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. It was the right impulse. But the effort was ultimately bogged down by internal bureaucracy and international pressure — most notably from Qatar and Turkey, both sometime U.S. partners that harbor strong Brotherhood sympathies and bankroll Islamist causes. And the second Trump administration’s troubling embrace of Qatar may well nip any designation in the bud before it even takes off.

Critics argue that such a designation would complicate relations with countries where Brotherhood affiliates participate in local politics. But since when did the U.S. place a premium on building alliances with the ideological cousins of Al Qaeda and ISIS?

Moreover, designating the Muslim Brotherhood would empower domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies to go after its networks and financial infrastructure. It would send a clear signal that the U.S. government no longer accepts a claim of “nonviolent Islamism” as a pass when designating terrorist groups.

In a time when the threat from Islamic extremism remains global and decentralized, we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the architects of the movement. The Muslim Brotherhood is not, as “Arab Spring” boosters risibly claimed a decade and a half ago, a Western partner in “democracy.” It is the mother’s milk of modern Sunni jihadism.

The question is not whether we can afford to designate Muslim Brotherhood offshoots as terrorist organizations. It is: How much longer can we afford not to?

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

It’s the 249th birthday of the United States. And as Americans begin to prepare for our nation’s grand semiquincentennial celebration next year, it is worth reengaging with the document whose enactment marks our national birthday: the Declaration of Independence.

The declaration is sometimes championed by right-libertarians and left-liberals alike as a paean to individualism and a refutation of communitarianism of any kind. As one X user put it on Thursday: “The 4th of July represents the triumph of American individualism over the tribalistic collectivism of Europe.”

But this is anything but the case.

We will turn to lead draftsman Thomas Jefferson’s famous words about “self-evident” truths in a moment. But first consider the majority of the text of the declaration: a stirring enumeration of specific grievances by the American colonists against the British crown. In the declaration’s own words: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

One might read these words in a vacuum and conclude that the declaration indeed commenced a revolution in the true sense of the term: a seismic act of rebellion, however noble or righteous, to overthrow the established political order. And true enough, that may well have been the subjective intention of Jefferson, a political liberal and devotee of the European Enlightenment.

But the declaration also attracted many other signers. And some of those signers, such as the more conservative John Adams, took a more favorable view of the incipient America’s inherited traditions and customs. These men thought that King George III had vitiated their rights as Englishmen under the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights that passed Parliament the following year.

It is for this reason that Edmund Burke, the famed conservative British statesman best known for his strident opposition to the French Revolution, was known to be sympathetic to the colonists’ cause. As my Edmund Burke Foundation colleague Ofir Haivry argued in a 2020 American Affairs essay, it is likely that these more conservative declaration signers, such as Adams, shared Burke’s own view that “the Americans had an established national character and political culture”; and “the Americans in 1776 rebelled in an attempt to defend and restore these traditions.”

The American founding is complex; the founders themselves were intellectually heterodox. But suffice it to say the founding was not a simplistic renouncement of the “tribalistic collectivism” of Britain. There is of course some truth to those who would emphasize the revolutionary nature of the minutemen and soldiers of George Washington’s Continental Army. But a more historically sound overall conception is that 1776 commenced a process to restore and improve upon the colonists’ inherited political order. The final result was the U.S. Constitution of 1787.

Let’s next consider the most famous line of the declaration: the proclamation that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” We ought to take this claim at face value: Many of the declaration’s signers did hold such genuine, moral human equality to be self-evident.

But is such a claim self-evident to everyone — at all times, in all places and within all cultures?

The obvious answer is that it is not. Genuine, moral human equality is certainly not self-evident to Taliban-supporting Islamic extremist goat herders in Afghanistan. It has not been self-evident to any number of sub-Saharan African warlords of recent decades. Nor is it self-evident to the atheists of the Chinese Communist Party politburo, who brutally oppress non-Han Chinese ethnic minorities such as the Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang.

Rather, the only reason that Jefferson — and Locke in England a century prior — could confidently assert such moral “self-evidence” is because they were living and thinking within a certain overarching milieu. And that milieu is Western civilization’s biblical inheritance — and, specifically, the world-transforming claim in Genesis 1:27, toward the very beginning of the Bible, that “God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him.”

It is very difficult — perhaps impossible — to see how the declaration of 1776, the 14th Amendment of 1868, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any other American moral ode to or legal codification of equality, would have been possible absent the strong biblical undergird that has characterized our nation since the colonial era.

Political and biblical inheritance are thus far more responsible for the modern-day United States than revolution, liberal rationalism or hyper-individualism.

Adams famously said that Independence Day “ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.” Indeed, each year we should all celebrate this great nation we are blessed to call home. But let’s also not mistake what it is we are actually celebrating.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer