Why Banning the Muslim Brotherhood in the West is not enough

In Muslim-majority countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, banning the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t about outlawing a single organization, it’s about surgically suppressing the political dimension of Islam. These semi-Islamic governments understand Islam as both a religion and a political system, and they realize that the Muslim Brotherhood represents the most coherent expression of Islam’s political ambitions. When these regimes ban the Muslim Brotherhood, they’re targeting the ideology it embodies. If a new group emerges with the same principles, advocating for sharia, Islamic rule, or a Caliphate, it faces the same fate. The ban isn’t just on the Muslim Brotherhood’s name or logo; it’s on the political vision it represents. In these countries, the state’s Islamic legitimacy allows it to enforce this boundary without being accused of attacking Islam itself. New groups can’t simply rebrand and operate openly. The ideology is effectively choked off, regardless of the group’s name.

In contrast, the West, particularly the U.S., can only ban the Muslim Brotherhood as a specific entity, not the ideology it represents. Western legal systems, rooted in freedoms of religion and speech, treat Islam as a protected religion, akin to Christianity or Judaism. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political goals, grounded in Islamic texts, are seen as expressions of religious belief, not a distinct political ideology. If the West bans the Muslim Brotherhood, new groups with identical aims, sharia advocacy, Islamic governance, can form under different names, such as “cultural societies” or “civil rights organizations.” These groups can operate legally, shielded by constitutional protections. Western authorities can’t ban new groups without evidence of criminal activity, as targeting its ideology would be seen as infringing on religious freedom. Any effort to restrict such a group will result in accusations of "Islamophobia."

Unlike Muslim-majority countries, the West lacks the cultural and religious authority to draw a line between Islam’s spiritual and political dimensions. It can only target specific groups, not the underlying ideas. Banning the Muslim Brotherhood in the West is like banning one brand of coffee while allowing others to sell the same blend under new labels. The ideology of political Islam, rooted in Islam’s dual nature as both faith and governance, remains untouched. New groups will exploit Western freedoms, advancing the same goals through advocacy, education, and policy influence. When challenged, they can claim persecution, framing their critics as bigots.

This dynamic is impossible in Muslim-majority countries, where the state’s Islamic credentials neutralize such defenses. The West’s secular framework assumes religions are private matters of belief, not political systems. It fails to grasp that Islam, unlike other faiths, includes a blueprint for law, governance, and societal order. Muslim-majority governments, operating within Islam’s ecosystem, can suppress this blueprint without undermining their legitimacy. The West, as an outsider, cannot.

To counter the spread of political Islam, the West must stop treating Islam solely as a religion. It needs to recognize Islam’s legal code, governance model, and vision of supremacy as a political ideology. This would allow governments to regulate groups promoting sharia or Islamic rule without violating religious freedom, much like they regulate other political ideologies that threaten democratic values. Stripping Islam of its automatic religious protection in policy and law is the only way to address the ideology the Muslim Brotherhood represents.

---