1. Home
2. Highlights
3. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood: Between Ideological Lineage and National Adaptation

On April 23, 2025, Jordan’s Ministry of Interior formally banned Brotherhood-related activities in Jordan, citing  an alleged plot threatening national security, orchestrated by a group linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The decision came amid heightened regional tensions. In the west of the kingdom, the Israel-Hamas war was raging, and public discontent with the government’s stance toward Israel, considered too conciliatory, was growing. While no direct evidence was established at the time, one group was suspected of an indirect connection to the plot because of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood: Hamas.

Often described as a direct offshoot of the Brotherhood, the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas undeniably shares its ideological foundations. Yet it has also forged its own trajectory, shaped by the specific context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Navigation between doctrinal heritage, strategic adaptations, and shifting regional alliances, Hamas exemplifies the ability of political Islam to reconfigure itself according to evolving power dynamics and local realities.

Acknowledged Affiliation

Founded in 1987, at the outset of the First Intifada, on the initiative of its founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yacine — who was later killed by Israel in March 2004 — Hamas, an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Islamic Resistance Movement), positioned itself from its inception within the ideological lineage of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna.

In its original 1988 charter, Hamas explicitly describes itself as “a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.” The document outlines a vision of total Islam, encompassing religion, social order, and political governance, rejecting any separation between the spiritual and temporal spheres.

According to David Rigoulet-Roze, a researcher at the French Institute for Strategic Analysis (IFAS), “Hamas emerged from the Brotherhood’s framework, even if it is not directly the Brotherhood. It took shape in the 1970s and 1980s in their wake before emerging as an independent actor in 1987.”

The movement embraces several core pillars of Brotherhood thought: the belief that moral and social reform must precede any political change, the central role of da‘wa (preaching), and the conviction that national liberation cannot be separated from the Islamization of society.

A Nationalized Political Islam

While Hamas takes its cue from the Muslim Brotherhood, it quickly sets itself apart by anchoring its mission on the Palestinian national struggle. Whereas the Egyptian Brotherhood aims to transform Muslim societies as a whole, Hamas grounds its efforts in a specific territory and cause: resistance to the Israeli occupation.

According to David Rigoulet-Roze, a researcher at the French Institute for Strategic Analysis (IFAS), Hamas “nationalized their struggle” to give it “a foundation that is not solely Islamized.” The movement seeks to be perceived not as a mere ideological offshoot, but as a genuinely Palestinian actor, capable of speaking on behalf of the people rather than representing a single religious movement. 

This process of “nationalizing political Islam” culminated in the 2000s, particularly with the publication of a new charter in 2017. This text, which partially replaced the 1988 charter, no longer explicitly mentions the Muslim Brotherhood. It also, for the first time, acknowledges the possibility of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, while stopping short of recognizing Israel. This shift reflects a desire to appear more pragmatic and to avoid alienating Arab states hostile to the Brotherhood, such as Egypt or the United Arab Emirates.

Part of a Transnational Movement

Despite this “nationalization,” Hamas remains rooted in a transnational ideological framework. According to David Rigoulet-Roze, “Within the Brotherhood’s logic, there is a projection beyond the notion of the nation-state, with the idea of a broad regional Islamist sphere.” From this perspective, a Hamas victory is not merely a local achievement but part of a broader project: the revival of political Islam on a global scale.

The movement has therefore maintained active ties with international Brotherhood networks. Qatar, the Brotherhood’s main backer, has provided consistent financial and diplomatic support, while Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, positions itself as its political protector. These alliances reflect both ideological solidarity and strategic pragmatism.

“Qatar has provided financial and media support to Hamas, while Turkey offers diplomatic and political backing,” the researcher summarizes. This external support has enabled the movement to survive despite the regional isolation imposed by its Arab adversaries.

Between Doctrinal Loyalty and Real-World Constraints

On the ground, this ideological heritage does not prevent Hamas from acting pragmatically. Since 2007, the movement has governed the Gaza Strip, where it must run an administration, provide public services, and address the daily hardships of two million residents living under a strict blockade and, over the past two years, a full-scale war.

This reality compels Hamas to reconcile its religious rhetoric with political and economic demands. “Hamas is both an ideological actor and a governing actor,” notes Rigoulet-Roze. “It must address local realities while remaining faithful to the doctrinal framework inherited from the Muslim Brotherhood.”

This ongoing tension becomes especially evident during wartime. On one hand, Hamas strives to embody resistance, upholding the ideal of martyrdom. On the other, it must take into account a population that is exhausted and increasingly critical of its authoritarianism and military decisions. “It might seem that Hamas is widely disliked, but the reality is more complex,” notes Rigoulet-Roze. “There are no reliable polls, and in a less extreme context, popular support could very well endure.”

Regional Perceptions and Arab Ties

Hamas’s position in the Arab world also underscores the ambivalence within the Brotherhood movement. States that oppose the Muslim Brotherhood see Hamas as a threat. Egypt under Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for instance, regards the movement as an extension of the Egyptian Brotherhood and has designated it a terrorist organization.

However, Qatar and Turkey continue to support Hamas as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian cause. This regional divide reflects the broader fractures within the Muslim world over political Islam.

Rigoulet-Roze notes that “this divergence reflects a wider ideological confrontation between the counter-revolutionary camp (the Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) and the proponents of assertive political Islam (Qatar, Turkey).”

A Fragile Balance

More than thirty years after its founding, Hamas remains shaped by its Brotherhood heritage, yet it has adapted this framework to a distinctly Palestinian context. By combining Islamist ideology with nationalist strategy, the movement embodies a complex interweaving between religion, politics, and resistance. 

According to Rigoulet-Roze, this flexibility explains its longevity: “Hamas is an ideological movement, but also deeply pragmatic. It knows how to operate on multiple fronts at once.” 

Yet this dual nature, Islamist and nationalist, exposes the movement to internal contradictions and ongoing strategic dilemmas. Balancing fidelity to the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood with the demands of governing a besieged society, Hamas walks an increasingly narrow tightrope.

Two days after the ceasefire under the plan proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, the movement’s future remains more uncertain than ever. The plan envisions, in the long term, its disarmament and the relinquishing of power, presenting Hamas with an unprecedented challenge to its political survival.