Many supposed experts are lauding the the apparent “change” in philosophy by the Muslim Brotherhood since the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

If they really believe that the Brotherhood has dramatically changed its belief system, then the United States has a long and troubling road ahead in understanding the war on terrorism and attempting to deal diplomatically with the Middle East.

Writing in Foreign Policy Eric Trager says many policymakers believed, “…the Muslim Brotherhood—had made its peace with democracy. This was based on the assumption that, since the Muslim Brotherhood participated in virtually every election under Mubarak, it was committed to the rule of the people as a matter of principle.”

History quickly shows that such presumptions have no foundation comprehending the basic tenets of Islam that have been at the core of its ideology since its inception in 622. Fourteen centuries should have been time enough to figure them out. But even allowing for 1,400 years of ambivalence, it seems only natural that during the ten years following the fall of the Twin Towers some sense of curiosity would have evolved into a broader level of understanding.

Why then should we have been caught off guard by the Muslim Brotherhood’s “change of heart” once it gained control in Egypt? The concept is not new. Islamists make no secret about their desire to dominate the world and to institute Sharia law on a global basis.

In the foreword to Serge Trifkovic’s book, The Sword of the Prophet, published in 2002, former Canadian diplomat James Bissett warned that “the most virulent form of Muslim extremism owes its growth to shortsighted United States foreign policy.”

 “The Muslim Brotherhood is first and foremost a political organization — a power-seeking entity that uses religion as a mobilizing tool,” Trager continues.

Following 9/11/01, Trifkovic was among the first to offer insights into the unrevealed workings of Islam. Others have followed, although all too frequently, much like Trifkovic’s predecessors, their cautions have fallen upon deaf ears or become victims of political correctness.

Trifkovic agrees with Trager when he writes, “Islam is not only a religious doctrine; it is also a self-contained world outlook….” The difference is that Trifkovic authored his observations ten years earlier.

Awareness is awareness, however. Slow though the process has been, the numbers of those who now question the ideals of the so-called “religion of peace” are gradually increasing.

Ambassador Bissett reinforces Trifkovic and Trager, “…under Islam there can be no separation of church and state.  Islam is a way of life, and the faithful must accept and affirm their surrender to Allah, and live as members of the total Islamic community.”

While the nuances of Islam’s diverse factions can be complex, the above concept is not difficult when attempting to understand the Brotherhood’s philosophy. So why then is it taking so long to realize the daily realities of Islamic extremism that are staring us in the face?

When Trager writes, “To be sure, the Brotherhood’s long-term vision is religious: It calls for ‘instituting God’s sharia and developing the Islamic nation’s renaissance on the basis of Islam’,” it’s as though he has had some sort of epiphany.

Even stronger is his assertion, which others have made but which rarely appears in any form of mainstream journalism, is that “…far from approximating a devout religious group akin to evangelical Christians, the Muslim Brotherhood’s disciplined pursuit of power – which included indoctrinating members and using force against detractors – makes it similar to Russia’s Bolsheviks.”

The Brotherhood was born in Egypt. Since its beginning in 1928 its credo has been “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

If that philosophy has not changed since the outset. Why should we now believe the group has in any way moderated?

Nothing is ever as it seems in the Islamic world. Everything is always just a little off center. Yet we continue to naively believe we can alter things to be compatible with the ways of the West. When we speak of democracy at home, there is no correlation whatsoever to a similar concept of democracy in the Islamic world.

As Trager points out, “non-Islamists are asking why the United States has been loath to squeeze a new ruling party that is neither democratic nor, in the long run, likely to cooperate in promoting U.S. interests.”

It is a reasonable question for which the answer is simply that the United States is basically apathetic. We really don’t care.

Trager continues, “Whether or not these non-Islamists can effectively challenge the Brotherhood, they are right in challenging the Washington conventional wisdom that fails to see the Brotherhood for what it is: a deeply undemocratic movement concerned above all else with enhancing and perpetuating its own power.”

Unfortunately, be it the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah or other groups such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, the methods for achieving their goals may vary but they are all “deeply undemocratic movements concerned above all else with enhancing and perpetuating their own power.”