The Mohamed Akram Memorandum and the Strategy of ‘Civilisational Jihad’
The term ‘Jihad’ often brings to mind specific images of conflict. However, within certain Islamist strategic documents, a distinct and often debated concept exists: Civilisational Jihad. This idea refers not to military warfare but to a long-term, internal process aimed at shaping and ultimately dominating a host society from within. This strategy is typically referred to by critics as part of a ‘100-year plan’ due to its perceived multi-generational scope.
Critics of political Islam frequently point to one document as the clearest internal exposition of this strategy: the “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” View the full document. This text, a product of the Muslim Brotherhood’s planning, is considered a blueprint for operationalising this civilisational struggle within Western countries, particularly the United States. Its discovery and subsequent use in a major legal case cemented its position as a central piece of evidence for those defining and warning against this specific ideological threat. Understanding this document, its origin, and its explicit goals is essential for grasping the arguments made by critics regarding Islamist strategy in the West. This article will break down the memorandum’s content, its legal history, and the differing interpretations it has generated.
The concept of Civilisational Jihad suggests a sophisticated approach. It involves gradual encroachment rather than sudden confrontation. It encompasses cultural, legal, political, and social activities. The ultimate aim, as documented by critics, is not mere integration or coexistence but systemic change. This involves establishing self-governing cultural and social structures that eventually challenge the established norms of the host nation. It frames daily community work, political lobbying, and educational outreach as components of a grand strategic mission. It is this duality—the appearance of civil society work covering a declared “Jihadist” process—that makes the document so contentious and relevant to security and political debates today.
The Origin and Discovery of the Explanatory Memorandum
The history of the Explanatory Memorandum is as crucial as its contents. The document was written in 1991 by Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Akram. This individual was a key figure within the global leadership structure of the Brotherhood. The text was not a draft but a sanctioned policy, later approved by the Shura Council. This council is the Brotherhood’s highest consultative body. This approval indicates the document represented an official, high-level strategy for the group’s work in North America at the time.
The memorandum was a deeply internal document, intended for the eyes of the leadership and key operatives only. Its existence only became public through a legal investigation more than a decade after it was written. In 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) discovered the memorandum. This occurred during a search of the home of Ismail Elbarasse. Elbarasse was a close associate of the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee. The FBI’s discovery revealed a comprehensive internal strategy that had been in place for over ten years.
The document was subsequently entered into evidence. This occurred during the crucial 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terror-funding trial in the United States. The HLF was a major Islamic charity accused of funnelling money to Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation. The prosecution used the Akram memorandum to establish the overarching, long-term intent and strategic mindset of the defendants’ associated networks. They argued that the document proved a deliberate strategy of internal subversion. This legal context elevated the memorandum from a mere internal paper to a piece of evidence in a nationally significant criminal trial.
Decoding the Explicit Strategic Goal
The controversy surrounding the memorandum stems directly from one specific passage. This section explicitly outlines the strategic goal for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. It describes the group’s entire effort as a “Civilisation-Jihadist Process.”
The text then states the final aim of this process. It declares the work’s purpose is “eliminating and destroying the Western civilisation from within.” The quote continues: “and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is ruined, and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Source of the Quote This language is not coded. It presents a clear, unambiguous statement of revolutionary intent against the host society.
Critics argue that this passage serves as a definitive mission statement. It demonstrates that political and religious groups associated with the Brotherhood see their work in the West not as peaceful community building but as an integral part of a global, religiously sanctioned Jihad against Western liberal democracy. The term ‘Jihadist Process’ links everyday civic activities to the broader concept of Jihad. This suggests every action, from opening a mosque to political lobbying, is part of this larger strategic mandate. Defenders of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated organisations, however, offer a different interpretation. They often dismiss the document as an outdated historical relic or the extreme view of a single individual, even when acknowledging the Shura Council’s approval. They argue that the focus on “civilisation” implies cultural competition or religious outreach, not genuine political subversion. Yet, the explicit, aggressive language remains difficult for them to reconcile with claims of purely peaceful coexistence.
Legal Scrutiny: The Holy Land Foundation Trial
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) case was a landmark criminal prosecution Read the Department of Justice’s Statement. It was the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history. The trial began in 2007, with a retrial concluding in 2008. The Explanatory Memorandum played a crucial role in establishing the context for the financial crimes. It was used to demonstrate that the defendants were part of a larger, coordinated political network.
The prosecution successfully argued that the defendants, while claiming to be humanitarian workers, were operating under a clear political strategy. This strategy was not defined by simple charity work. Instead, it was framed by the goal of advancing the Muslim Brotherhood’s objectives. The HLF was found guilty of funnelling over $12 million to Hamas FBI Statement on Conviction. The Memorandum was instrumental in allowing the jury to understand the defendants’ mindset and their ultimate political allegiance. It helped link the money trail to an overarching ideological plan.
The trial’s outcome—the conviction of the defendants—was considered a vindication of the prosecution’s argument. The jury accepted the interpretation that the Brotherhood’s associated networks were engaged in more than just civil rights or community building. They accepted that the goal was the strategic, long-term destabilisation described in the memorandum. This case provided a critical legal precedent. It demonstrated that courts could use such internal, strategic documents to determine intent in cases of material support for terrorism. Constitutional Law experts continue to discuss the trial. They focus on how such broad ideological documents fit within the due process framework. The use of the memorandum has prompted debates about balancing free association with national security concerns.
The Strategy in Practice: Front Organisations and Influence
The memorandum is significant because it provides a rationale for the existence of various organisations. These groups are often described as ‘front organisations’ by critics. According to the document, the work of these groups—whether cultural, political, or social—is all unified under the banner of the Civilisation-Jihadist Process.
The strategy involves two main components. The first is building a robust, self-sufficient Muslim community in the West. This includes mosques, schools, community centres, and social services. This builds a powerful demographic and cultural base. The second component is engaging with the host society’s political and media institutions. This involves political action committees and lobbying groups. These groups aim to influence policy, legislation, and public discourse. The goal is to incrementally shift the political and cultural landscape to favour their objectives.
For the critics, this strategic model explains why certain groups appear to adopt a very confrontational stance on issues. These issues often relate to speech, blasphemy, or foreign policy. These actions are viewed not as isolated protests. Instead, they are considered tactical moves within the larger process of “destroying the miserable house” of Western civilisation. The ultimate purpose is to eliminate all barriers to the dominance of God’s religion, as stated in the memorandum. The debate over this strategy continues to inform policymaking, intelligence gathering, and public discourse across the United Kingdom and Europe. Whether the memorandum still represents current, active policy or is merely a historical snapshot remains a central point of contention in political analysis.
The Explanatory Memorandum stands as a pivotal document. It provides a unique window into a strategic mindset that goes beyond simple integration or community service. Its legal discovery and its explicit language on “eliminating and destroying” Western civilisation ensure its continued relevance. It will remain central to any discussion about the long-term goals of Islamist groups operating within Western nations. Its history in the Holy Land Foundation trial also serves as a strong reminder of how ideological intent can intersect with complex legal proceedings, especially those concerning financial support for terrorism.