Hays 1 Emily Hays Professor Spence History of the Middle East December 2, 2011 The Muslim Brotherhood: Extremist

Organization or Moderate Progressive Movement? I. Topic Introduction In 1928 Hassan al-Banna formed The Muslim Brotherhood, a religious charity organization. The group quickly developed into a major political movement in the late 1930s and grew in size exponentially. Despite having to go underground after being banned as a result of connections to assassinations and bombings in the late 1940s, the group has continued to play a massive role in Middle Eastern politics and social organization. Currently the Muslim Brotherhood publically promotes a non-violent stance. However, there have been definite connections to violent acts in the past committed by various factions of the Brotherhood. Hamas, an openly violent jihadist group, is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Due to this conflicting history and ambiguous current status, the question as to the true position of the Muslim Brotherhood is a common topic of discussion for politicians, religious leaders and scholars. In the three sources Ive selected for examination the basic question being posed is whether the MB is a progressive positive force for political change or an extremist organization
Comment [M1]: A.Define the basic question addressed in the sources. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial

Hays 2 working toward a kind of domination in the name of Islam, with an additional focus on how democracy functions in Islamic society. The following analysis is presented in three parts, beginning with a general overview of the sources Ive chosen along with background information on their authors. Next I examine the credibility of the research materials for these sources, followed by a focus on the use of language by the authors and how this bears upon the overall objectivity of the text. II. Source Introduction and Author Background A. Source Introduction The first source, The Muslim Brotherhood Evolution: An Overview by Rachel Ehrenfeld, presents a critique of the Muslim Brotherhood. It seeks to demonstrate that the Brotherhoods mission is to establish a global Islamic Caliphate, and that their claims about being a freedom-loving organization are a masquerade (69). In the next source, Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke argue that the MB is a moderate organization in their aptly titled essay The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood. They explore the MBs precarious position as they are rejected by Hamas due to their belief in democracy,y but also receive a great deal of criticism from not supported by the United States because of their connections to jihadist groups and support of violence in the pasttheir categorization as a Salafist group etcccccc . Lastly, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan by Mohammed Zahid and& Michael Medley, discusses the role that the Muslim Brotherhood has

Hays 3 played in Egypt and Sudan. Chronicling the two movements and the development of associated offshoot organizations, Zahid and Medley establish the necessary background in order to pose questions about the compatibility of Islamism with liberal democratic politics. with a level of skepticism the role of the MB. B. Author Background Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of the New York Center for Democracy and the Center for the Study of Corruption and Rule of Law. She has also acted as a consultant for the CIA and appears regularly on conservative news programs. This seems to deeply influence her obvious mistrust of the Muslim Brotherhood and her Westernized view of how politics should be run, a theme that is treated more fully in later sections. She is a commentator and consultant on the problems of terror financing, international terrorism, political corruption, money laundering, drug trafficking, and organized crime (www.intelligencesummit.org). Some of her published works include: Narco-Terrorism; How Governments Around the World Used the Drug Trade to Finance and Further Terrorist Activities; Evil Money; Encounters Along the Money Trail; and Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. After publishing Funding Evil, Ehrenfeld was sued under charges of libel in England and found guilty. Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the courts ruling in light of the fact that her accuser had gone to great lengths to accuse her in England where libel tourism is popular and judges often rule in favor of the accusers.

Hays 4 She countersued in the states and as a result a bill was passed called the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, also known as Rachels Law (The Libel Tourist). Given that she received her PhD from the Hebrew University School of Law in Jerusalem, there is a pronounced potential for negative bias toward Islamic religious and political matters. The fact that the Brotherhood has published anti-semitic material, coupled with the tenuous historical relations between Israel and Palestine, may very well play a role in her assessment of the Brotherhood (townhall.com). Although it appears Ehrenfeld has obvious motivation to not support the Muslim Brotherhood, she has a great deal of experience in issues of terrorism and appears to have well researched material. Co-author of The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood A (1) Define basic question addressed in sources. Steven Brooke iswas a researcher at the Nixon Center in Washington, DC (Center for the National Interest). He His articles have been published in major publications and he frequently appears in the media. Steven received his B.A. in History and International Affairs from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. He Brooke has a Master's degree in Middle Eastern history from George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia (www.jmu.edu). It is unclear what motivated him to study Middle Eastern history, but he appears to be a credible source for information and seems relatively unbiased despite his seeming limited connection to the Middle East aside from his studies.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt, English (U.S.) Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt, English (U.S.) Formatted: Normal (Web), Indent: First line: 0" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt, English (U.S.) Comment [M2]: B Compare the Authors backgrounds and points of view on the works. Biases, Credible? Who are they and why are they interested? Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial

Hays 5 The other author of the article, Robert S. Leiken, works at the Center for the National Interest as the director of the Mexico, Immigration and National Security Programs. Leiken received his doctorate through St. Anthonys College, Oxford University. He has just recently published a book called Europes Angry Muslims. This is an interesting title choice in light of the essay he published with Steven Brooke, which it will be shown below exhibits a generally objective approach to the Muslim Brotherhood (Center for the National Interest).
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Italic Formatted: Normal (Web), Indent: Left: 0", Line spacing: Double

Robert S. Leiken is Director of the Mexico, Immigration and National Security Programs at the Center for the National Interest. His forthcoming book, Europe's Angry Muslims, will be published by Oxford University Press in 2011. He is currently working on U.S. policy options vis a vis Mexican violence. Dr. Leiken graduated Harvard College Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa and received his doctorate from St. Antonys College, Oxford University. Robert Leikens areas of expertise include: European Muslims, immigration and integration, terrorism, and Latin America. He has served as a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution in Washington DC, a nonprofit, independent public policy think tank. Brookings stated goals are to (i) strengthen American democracy; (ii) foster economic and social welfare, as well as the security and opportunity of all Americans; and (iii) to secure a more open, safe, prosperous, and cooperative international system (www.brookings.edu).Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of the New York Center for Democracy and the Center for the study of Corruption and Rule of Law. She is a commentator and
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt Formatted: Normal (Web), Indent: First line: 0"

Hays 6 consultant on the problems of terror financing, international terrorism, political corruption, money laundering, drug trafficking, and organized crime and the connections that binds these groups together. (http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/RachelEhrenfeld.php)
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan was co-authored by Dr. Mohammed Zahid. Zahid is an academic in Middle East politics, with a special focus on North Africa and Islamic movements. He attended The University of Leeds andHe has published widely in peer reviewed journals and provided consultation to a number of governmental bodies and private institutions. Mohammed Zahid wrote his PhD thesis in 2007 on Economic and Political Liberalization in the Middle East: The Muslim Brotherhood and the Politics of Succession in Egypt. It was a challenge to find current information about Zahid because there isnt a large body of work that he has published or information that is public about him. I regard his source with a certain amount of skepticism (etheses.whiterose.ac.uk). Michael Medley, the second author of The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan, studied at the University of Bristol and the University of Bath. He also acted as an administrator at Leeds University center for African studies. His main focus is on Sudan and humanitarian work; he has not published a great deal. Currently Medley works as a guest lecturer and course coordinator for Masters in International Development Studies at Chulalongkorn with the University of Bangkok (th.linkedin.com).

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Italic

Hays 7 Much like his fellow publisher Muhammed Zahid, it was very difficult to find material about Michael Medley. Again, for this reason, particular questions about the trustworthiness of the authors as reputable sources arise. It is much more simple to understand the position and biases of authors who have published many works and have maintained a somewhat public career. However, on Medleys site, one of his listed credentials is that he worked in Sudan as a Consultant Field Food Monitor in rebel-held areas of southern Sudan, managing field food distribution until he broke his legs in a car accident. Although he is the person publishing this information, if it is indeed true, it does credit him with a certain level of hands on experience that is not without value. III. Comparison of Source Materials A. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld The source material of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is somewhat suspect. She lists her sources in 125 notes that cover seven pages, although her paper itself is only eleven pages. It appears that in many of these notes she has only utilized a small portion of the material presented by the source. Also, she actually cites herself several times in these notes as a source. Furthermore, Ehrenfeld uses lots of internet-based material and even some blogs. It is also noteworthy that many of her sources are largely Western based sources like The Washington Post, The New York Times, Times Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, ABC news, Fox news, and MSNBC. Very few sources rely upon material actually published by the Muslim Brotherhood, while most of the material comes from other news sources critiquing the Brotherhood.

Hays 8 B. Robert S. Leiken & Steven Brooke The source material of Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke was not available with the article. After searching the Foreign Affairs magazine, and contacting publishers to no avail, I began to search for the authors themselves. I did have the good fortune to get in touch with Steven Brooke who personally sent me an early draft with footnotes that listed sources and interview notes. Mr. Brooke told me that many of the people who were interviewed were activists and members of the Brotherhood and they requested to not be named, and therefore I must not circulate the draft that he sent to me. It would be really interesting to see how many individuals were interviewed as it is unclear whether or not one interviewee is commenting on several topics or if the information is coming from various individuals. It makes sense that some of the people interviewed remain anonymous but it puts their credibility in an uncertain position. Furthermore, anonymity was granted for every person interviewed by Brooke and Leiken. It seems improbable that members of the Brotherhood who were interviewed would claim that they were anything but moderate. In this way I question the validity of the position stated. Interestingly both The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood by Brooke and Leiken and The Muslim Brotherhood Evolution: An Overview by Ehrenfeld, use Capitalism Magazine as a source. However, for Brooke and Leiken this source is a neutral type of source whereas for Ehrenfeld this is more of the same type of material shes using throughout her piece. Just in skimming her sources one

Hays 9 sees an obvious bias, e.g., The Truth about the Muslim Brotherhood, Qaradawis Extremism Laid Bare, The Muslim Brotherhoods Conquest of Europe, etc. C. Dr. Mohammed Zahid & Michael Medley The bibliographic information of Dr. Mohammed Zahid and Michael Medley cited a great deal of material which was published in print form which, in contrast to Ehrenfelds resources, seemed much more reliable. The bibliographic material was also much more accessible thus giving an impression of being more forthright than Ehrenfelds sources, which were listed in miniscule print over seven pages. Their research materials were taken from diverse sources, which both critiqued and supported the Brotherhood but also mainly focused on historical and Islamic components in Egypt and Sudan. Not only did Medley and Zahid utilize many print sources but they also conducted eight interviews. Several of the interviewees were from the Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, Egypt. Individuals from the University of Cairo and people from the Ahran Centre for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo were interviewed as well. IV. Noting Various Approaches, My Personal Reactions A. The Differing Approaches Among Authors Two of my sources had very clear messages about their position on the status of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood Evolution: An Overview from American Foreign Policy Interests by Rachel Ehrenfeld conveyed an incredibly anti-MB message throughout the piece. This was communicated in strongly worded, emotionally based rhetoric. Ehrenfeld refers to

Hays 10 the devious true agenda of the MB and tells the reader that they need to probe beyond (MBs) freshly made-up benevolent public image to understand the nature of the Brotherhood (69-71). Another one of my sources stood in direct opposition even in its title: The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood. The piece begins by acknowledging the controversial status of the MB as it is condemned by the West as a radical organization but also by radical organizations like its offshoot Hamas. Authors Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke directly state that despite the factional nature of the Brotherhood all reject global jihad while embracing elections and other features of democracy (108). Ehrenfeld opposes this in her quotation from former leader Mohammad Mahid Akef who states that Jihad is the only way to achieve the Brotherhoods goals of being an all-encompassing Islamic organization on a global scale, preaching for Allah according to the guidelines of the Muslim Brotherhood (71). But unlike Ehrenfeld who drives home her point without any Rogerian approach to speak of, Leiken and Brooke acknowledge the occasional double speak put forth by the Brotherhood. While this serves to weaken their argument somewhat, it also shows them to be a realistic source because they are not arguing in absolute terms, which is usually a bad sign demonstrating that the writer is biased or has only pulled information that supports their claims. This is, however, the method that is evident from Ehrenfelds research. Leiken and Brooke state that through Islam, the MB seeks to fuse religious revival with anti-imperialism and resistance to foreign domination (108). This

Hays 11 same idea is posed in Ehrenfelds piece as their secret agenda of domination (69). The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood and The Muslim Brotherhood Evolution: An Overview read as though they are working directly to prove or disprove the MBs radical agenda. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan, on the other hand, presents a logos argumentation that concludes in a somewhat ambiguous manner that allows the reader to make conclusions based upon facts presented. B. Personal Reactions The work by Rachel Ehrefeld was written in a highly leading, emotionalized way. I mistrust her as a source because her writing appeared to be almost completely opinion driven. She wrote about some of the very same events that both other sources wrote about, but her portrayal was completely different because of the lexicon she utilized. Her sources for the piece were also noted in a strange way, and when I looked at a number of her sources, it was clear that only small portions that supported her points were being used. Because of this she had many, many sources in comparison to the size of her work. The fact that the piece was published in the American Foreign Policy Interests is another tipoff. The place in which her work was published bears directly upon the negative opinion she presents. When reading the Moderate Muslim Brotherhood I found that the language was much less charged but, as I stated before, I was curious about what sources
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Italic

Hays 12 the material came from. I also found it interesting that Brooke and Leiken openly admit to discrepancies between what they were told by the Muslim Brotherhood members and what the members said publically; this somewhat discredits their argument but not the authors as a source. I wanted to believe the information that was stated in this piece but the sweeping statements made by the Brotherhood about how the group helped to actually steer disgruntled youth away from violence seemed unconvincing in light of historical evidence. However, one crucial statement made by Brooke and Leiken was that the tendency for the Muslim Brotherhood to be viewed as a cohesive unit is problematic in that it simply isnt the case. The various factions dispute over how to deal with political, religious and social issues as well as the needs of the group based upon location, financing, and organization. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan read like a historical document. It was by far the most neutral sounding source of the three. Despite the relative lack of credentials supporting the authors, had I not known this the source would have most certainly sounded like the most reliable one of the three and the best researched. V. ConclusionsD. (3) Use specific examples from each source to illustrate the similartites and diffrences in teheir approach. Do not use long quotations E. (1) Note your personal raction to the authors and their Works. Why do you find one more convincing or more readable than another ? Which areguments impress you and which do not ? F (1) BRiefly summarize your conclusions about the Works.
Comment [M3]: D. Use examples from each source to illustrate simi/diff in approach. 0 long quotations Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Comment [M4]: E. Personal reaction to authors and their works. Why is one more convincing or readable than another? Which arguments impress and which do not Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Comment [M5]: F. Brief conclusions about works Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial

Hays 13 Based upon these three readings Ive come to the conclusion that cultivating a neutral tone is a beneficial strategy for communicating researched findings. The point should be evident enough that the reader will be drawn to the point due to the researched evidence not inflammatory vernacular or single minded source choices. In regard to the question explored by the three sources, it is clear that the Muslim Brotherhoods various sects have engaged in questionable activities such as anti-Semitic propaganda, sanctioning of violence, and committing violent acts, as Rachel Ehrenfeld said. However, it is also clear that the group is involved in numerous important charitable actions such as providing schools, hospitals and other crucial services to people in need. They are a respected and trusted group among communities in need, many members occupy high profile positions in governments, and they generally do not support violence, according to Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke. Essentially, as Mohammed Zahid and Michael Medley point out, based on evidence from the contemporary Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the MB in Sudan, a more general question lies at the base of the matter, which is how compatible is Islamism with liberal democratic politics? And as they note, there are serious conflicting interests within the two ideologies that creates a great deal of tension. In this way The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan proves to be, by my reading, the most reliable source for the central issue at the heart of the question about the status of the Brotherhood, as well as a superior document in its method of explication and presentation of evidence.

Hays 14

choose sources skim research authors source material examples diff/sim personal reaction conclusion The creation of The MusliWorks Cited Brooke, Steven, and Robert S. Leiken. The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood. Foreign Affairs 86.2 (2007) : 107-121. Print. Ehrenfeld, Rachel. The Muslim Brotherhood Evolution: An Overview. American Foreign Policy Interests 33.2 (2011) : 69-85. Electronic. Zahid, Mohammed, and Michael Medley. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan. Townhall.com. Rachel Ehrenfeld. Electronic. October 20, 2011. <http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelehrenfeld/>. Intelligencesummit.com. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld: Consultant to State and Defense Departments. Electronic. October 20, 2011. <http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/RachelEhrenfeld.php>.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt

Hays 15 The Libel Tourist. Acdemocracy.org. Movingpictureinstitute.org. Electronic. October 20, 2011. <http://www.acdemocracy.org/viewarticle.cfm?category=Radio/TV%20Inte rviews&id=1119>. Jmu.edu. Researcher/JMU Alumnus to Discuss Islam and Politics in Egypt. James Madison University, February 8, 2008. Electronic. October 27, 2011. <http://www.jmu.edu/nelsoninstitute/brooke020808.htm>. Center for the National Interest. Robert S. Leiken. Electronic. October 27, 2011. <http://www.cftni.org/indexb5e0.html?action=showPage&page=leiken>. Center for the National Interest. Steven Brooke. Electronic. October 27, 2011. <http://www.cftni.org/index4e89.html?action=showpage&page=brooke>. Brookings.edu. About Brookings. Electronic. October 30, 2011. <http://www.brookings.edu/about.aspx>. Etheses.whiterose.ac.uk. Economic and political liberalisation in the Middle East:the Muslim brotherhood and the politics of succession in Egypt. The University of Leeds, 2007. Electronic. October 30, 2011. <http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/view/iau/Leeds=2ERC-PIED.html>. Th.linkedin.com. Michael Medley. Electronic. October 30, 2011. <http://th.linkedin.com/pub/michael-medley/5/399/a74>. B. (2) Compare the backgrounds and points of view of the authors of Works. Who are they Why are they interested in the topic what else have they done. Do they have any obvious bias are they credible?

Hays 16
Formatted: Normal (Web), Indent: Left: 0", Line spacing: Double