Islamist movements from the Muslim Brotherhood to militant factions often employ a rhetoric of convenience that shifts with the political winds.
When a political leader opposes them, any cooperation by that leader with Western powers (especially the United States) is loudly denounced as a betrayal of Islam. They hasten to quote scripture like “never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion” in order to brand engagement with the West as religious treason.
Yet, when an Islamist-friendly leader, or an Islamist movement itself, engages with Washington, the narrative flips. What was previously decried as capitulation is suddenly praised as realism and strategic savvy. This glaring double standard raises serious questions about the consistency and integrity of such movements
These groups show a pattern of self-serving discourse, tailoring their message to each audience. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, for example, extolled democracy to Western listeners even as it glorified martyrdom to its base at home. Such calculated double-speak, essentially a form of political dissimulation (taqiyya), is justified internally as serving a higher cause. In fact, insiders note that the groups often “see lying to opponents as a virtue” if it advances their goals.
Equally striking is their ideological inconsistency. Today’s religious red line becomes tomorrow’s footnote when power is at stake. Analysts see an “acute schizophrenia” between the Islamists’ declared ideals and their actual conduct. They trumpet piety and principle when out of power yet compromise those same tenets if in office. This cynical flexibility erodes any claim to the moral high ground.
When their rivals collaborate with Washington, the Islamists vilify it as treason. Quranic warnings about befriending Christians and Jews are hurled at any Muslim leader who aligns with the US, painting them as “sellouts to the infidels”. Yet, when an Islamist-aligned leader or group seeks US partnership, the tone changes dramatically.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt railed against “American puppets” under the old regime, but when in power it quietly courted Washington. Brotherhood MPs who had refused to salute Egypt’s flag on principle stood for the US national anthem when meeting an American official — a glaring contradiction.
Likewise, the Taliban in Afghanistan long swore that any dealings with the country’s US occupiers were anathema, until its own leaders sat down to sign a peace accord with the Americans in 2020. What the fighters were told was a heinous betrayal suddenly became a prudent deal, with none of the earlier religious objections in sight.
The human cost of this opportunism has been tragic. Islamist leaders fire up their supporters with absolutist and emotional rhetoric, urging them to risk life and limb for the cause only themselves to alter course later. In Egypt in 2013, Brotherhood preachers thundered “martyrdom or victory” and encouraged thousands of young followers to stand their ground against the army. Many of these followers, believing that they were defending Islam itself, refused to disperse. The result was the clearance of the Al-Rabaa Square in Cairo, when those who died had been assured by their leaders that they were engaged in a holy struggle.
The same pattern has recurred elsewhere. Idealistic youths, told that working with the “Crusaders” is apostasy, have marched into unwinnable conflicts at their leaders’ behest. Tragically, many have died for causes their chiefs later abandoned or betrayed. As one ex-member noted bitterly, these movements often “say what [they] do not do,” a Quranic definition of hypocrisy. How many would rush to jihad if they knew their commanders would eventually shake hands with the same enemy they had earlier demonised?
A key tool in this duplicity is the manipulation of sacred texts. Verses are cherry-picked to lend divine cover to political agendas. In order to denounce an opponent’s ties with the US, Islamist spokesmen eagerly quote scripture about shunning Jews and Christians. But when the same groups find it expedient to deal with former “infidels,” these religious strictures vanish.
Even core Islamic prohibitions prove negotiable. One Islamist government, for example, condemned a proposed alcohol tax as un-Islamic, only to then approve it when it saw the potential revenue that was at stake. Brandishing holy writ one day and discarding it the next is a cynical abuse of faith that undermines these movements’ moral credibility.
The rhetorical opportunism of the Islamist movements has corroded both their political credibility and their religious authority. Each time an Islamist faction condemns an act as sinful or treacherous, only to embrace it later, it proves expediency has trumped principle. The Quran pointedly asks, “O you who believe, why do you say what you do not do?”
For global observers, the lesson is to look past their fervent slogans and judge these groups by the consistency of their deeds and not their words. Principled consistency — not strategic double-talk — is the true test of integrity. By that standard, those who preach piety while practicing expediency cannot claim any credible moral or political leadership.
The writer is a senior adviser to the Grand Mufti of Egypt.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 22 May, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: