Scrutiny of Non-Violent Political Islam
The word ‘Jihad’ often conjures images of violent Islamic terrorism, but the concept literally means ‘striving’ or ‘effort.’ While Muslims generally view the ‘Greater Jihad’ as an inner, spiritual battle, Jihad in non-violent forms has drawn significant external scrutiny in recent decades.
Government Intelligence and Counter-Extremism Agencies
A key example is the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV, which monitors “legalistic” Islamist groups. These agencies worry that even non-violent groups pose a long-term threat to social cohesion and democratic values.
Official Government Reviews
Governments themselves have commissioned high-level investigations into specific groups. The UK Government’s 2014-2015 review of the Muslim Brotherhood is the most prominent example, which concluded that the organisation’s ideology and tactics “are contrary to our values.”
Think Tanks and Security Analysts
Reports from security analysts and think tanks further argue that these non-violent, institutional efforts are a calculated strategy to subvert liberal democracy from within.
From a geopolitical and cultural perspective, these non-military efforts are viewed by some analysts as a long-term strategy of sociopolitical transformation. This transformation seeks to embed Islamic ideological norms within the civil structures of Western democracies. These are the faces of what Analysts call ‘Civilisational Jihad.’
The Strategy of ‘Settlement’ and Influence
The strategies concerned are rooted in an ideological vision that views Islam as a comprehensive system for ‘the whole of life’—politics, law, economics, and culture. The goal, known within certain groups as Tamkeen (empowerment or settlement), is a gradual, multi-generational project. It aims for a bottom-up Islamisation of society, working within the framework of Western freedoms to achieve a long-term ideological dominance.
For Western audiences, this dual strategy can be understood through two critical parallels. Settlement (Tamkeen) refers to the sustained effort to build an autonomous, enduring infrastructure—schools, charities, and community centres—within the host society. This creates a deeply rooted foundation, not just a temporary presence. The resulting Ideological Dominance is what Analysts view as colonisation. The fear is not military conquest, but the gradual, systematic subversion of Western constitutional and liberal values by replacing them with a comprehensive Islamic system. In essence, the democratic state’s own laws and freedoms are used as tools to achieve this long-term ideological control.
The Concept of Civilisational Jihad
The controversial term ‘Civilisational Jihad’ is primarily used by Analysts of Islamist movements. It is substantiated not by a single source, but by a body of internal and foundational documents. Most prominent is the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum from the US, which discussed the need to ‘eliminate and destroy Western civilisation from within.’ This explicit statement of strategic intent, however, is supported by a deeper ideological framework, including the foundational writings of Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, which mandate a comprehensive Islamic system for the ‘whole of life.’ The collective body of these sources detailing the strategic intent was revealed during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, and the core 1991 court document is available here.
This document was authored by Mohamed Akram, a key figure in the Brotherhood’s network in North America. While Analysts argue it was a sanctioned policy flowing from the organization’s executive leadership (the Maktab al-Irshad), Islamic defenders contend it was merely an unauthorised operational note. The controversy specifically revolves around the lack of public evidence confirming formal approval by the Brotherhood’s consultative Shura Council, though Analysts maintain it is fully aligned with the movement’s high-level strategy. Regardless of its exact internal approval status, the memorandum’s explicit call for the ‘elimination and destruction of Western civilisation from within’ has permanently fixed the term Civilisational Jihad in political and security discourse, describing four key non-violent areas of Jihad:
The Non-Violent Faces of Engagement
These areas show how groups that adhere to a comprehensive political Islam seek to influence policy and culture without resorting to violence.
1. Intellectual Jihad: This is the battle of ideas. It involves publishing scholarly work, engaging in debates in universities and think tanks, and presenting Islam as a comprehensive, viable alternative to Western secularism. The objective is to shift the terms of the cultural and ethical dialogue, promoting Islamic identity and thought as the superior foundation for law and morality.
2. Financial Jihad: This strategy focuses on material support. It involves funding mosques, Islamic schools, community centres, and extensive charitable networks. By providing social services and welfare, these organisations build deep community loyalty. This financial ecosystem also promotes ethical Islamic banking principles, subtly integrating them into the broader economy.
3. Political Jihad: This is direct engagement with democratic systems. It includes establishing lobbying groups, advocating for Muslim rights and representation, and participating in elections where tactically beneficial. The goal is to influence legislation, policy, and public discourse to respect and accommodate Islamic values, such as freedom of religion, while securing political influence.
4. Institutional Jihad: This is arguably the most significant non-violent front. It focuses on creating durable parallel institutions that embed ideological norms into civil society. This ‘entryism’ involves establishing Islamic schools, NGOs, and advocacy bodies that function autonomously, shaping the views of younger generations and putting an Islamist stamp on public discourse related to faith and politics.
Institutional Jihad: Reshaping the Public Sphere
The strategy of institutional expansion means building a robust network that can withstand cultural pressures and political changes. By establishing schools and community centres, these groups offer alternative educational and social infrastructures.
Some analysts and governments, including in the UK, view this institutional growth with concern. The worry is that while the groups may promote non-violence, the underlying ideology can still create a climate that is hostile to liberal values. The German intelligence agency, for instance, has warned that ‘legalistic’ Islamist groups represent a significant risk to the internal cohesion of society, even if they do not recruit for violent conflict.
The Brotherhood: A Case Study in Gradualism
The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is often cited as the primary example of an organisation employing this multi-layered strategy globally. Its foundational philosophy, championed by founder Hassan al-Banna, maintains that Islam is the ‘solution’—an all-encompassing system that governs the public and private spheres.
In the West, the Brotherhood’s associated networks exploit democratic freedoms—which they were denied in their home countries—to openly conduct activities that spread their ideology. Leaders associated with the Brotherhood have articulated a mission to spread Islam until it ‘rules the world,’ not necessarily through the sword, but through da’wa (preaching and proselytisation).
Their strength in Western democracies lies in their organisational discipline, extensive global financing, and ability to present themselves as the authoritative voice of the local Muslim community, thereby monopolising political discourse and access to government elites on faith-related issues. This gradual, bottom-up approach is the essence of what Analysts define as ‘Civilisational Jihad’—a non-military war fought on the fronts of culture, law, and institutions.
Counter-Argument: Evidence in Western Democracies
The dismissal of Civilisational Jihad as a mere “conspiracy theory” or “exaggerated zealotry” often rests on an intellectual deficit, failing to provide substantive counter-evidence that explains the observable patterns. Conversely, Analysts and security experts rely on a triangulation of proof: explicit ideological intent, government-verified risk assessments, and undeniable, systematic actions across society. This combination provides strong support that the concept is not theoretical, but a description of a measurable, active strategy.
The evidence is seen in three areas of non-violent Jihad:
- Institutional Insularity: The establishment of durable, parallel Islamic institutions (schools, welfare centres, mosques) is not simply “cultural self-preservation.” It is a proven mechanism of deliberate self-segregation where the host country’s core constitutional and social values are actively displaced by specific ideological norms. This insularity is the practical, strategic anchor of Tamkeen (settlement), creating autonomous enclaves that resist integration.
- Political Pressure (Pluralism as a Weapon): While democratic participation is welcome, the political jihad strategy targets the very concept of liberal freedom. Analysts point to the sustained, coordinated pressure campaigns—often framed as anti-discrimination efforts—to limit free speech (e.g., through aggressive anti-blasphemy interpretations of hate speech laws). This is a tactic that exploits democratic pluralism to impose ideological boundaries, proving the strategy’s goal is not merely representation, but the re-engineering of public discourse.
- Financial Ecosystems: The growth of independent Islamic financial systems and global charity networks is not just about material aid; it is about creating a self-sustaining economic sphere that is ideologically insulated. This financial independence provides the necessary, long-term stability and resilience to fund the political and institutional efforts, ensuring the permanence of the ideological settlement regardless of cultural pressures or changes in political leadership.
The systematic, multi-generational nature of these parallel efforts—which operate within the legal framework but aim to re-engineer the constitutional framework’s value system—is what Analysts argue proves the Civilisational Jihad concept is more than just a theory; it is a description of an active, verifiable, non-military campaign for ideological change.