Since the emergence of Islamist movements with their varying ideologies and references, from the Muslim Brotherhood to al-Qaeda to ISIS, these organizations have been accompanied by recurring internal splits. These have taken the form of both individual defections and group schisms, with breakaway factions forming new entities based on ideological differences or revised doctrinal views. Across the Arab region and beyond, multiple Islamist and jihadist currents have branched off, often rooted in similar or overlapping origins.
After Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928, the movement spread to Syria, Jordan, Tunisia, Palestine, and neighbouring states. Yet the Brotherhood saw repeated splits, not least when Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri founded al-Qaeda, adopting a more radical jihadist outlook. Other fractures appeared in Syria, such as the rivalry between Brotherhood branches in Hama and Homs. One of the most notable offshoots came when Syrian-born Muhammad Surur founded the “Sururiyah”, a Salafi Islamist movement, which spread in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
Ideological Differences Within the Muslim Brotherhood
Although the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria has lost much of its past influence, divisions persist. Scholars attribute this to ideological disputes, differing responses to new political realities, ties with outside states, and ripple effects from the Brotherhood’s internal rifts abroad. A recent example was the 2022 split between the “London Front” and the “Istanbul Front.” The Brotherhood’s “General Guide” expelled Ibrahim Munir and 12 senior figures aligned with London, prompting each faction to establish separate structures.
Also read: Women in Syria: Between Political Islam and the Struggle for Equality
ISIS and Al-Qaeda
Other jihadist groups have followed a similar trajectory. Al-Qaeda, founded by Bin Laden in Afghanistan, later spread into Arab states. After Bin Laden’s death in 2011 and Zawahiri’s succession, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Iraq declared a break from al-Qaeda, forming the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS quickly surpassed its predecessors in extremism, carrying out mass killings and attracting militants from across the world, including Europe.
In Syria, Abu Muhammad al-Jolani (Syria’s current president), leader of al-Nusra Front (originally affiliated with ISIS), later broke away and pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda. This was seen as a pragmatic adjustment to the Syrian context, diverging from ISIS’s rigid extremism.
Hassan Abu Hanieh, an expert on Islamist movements based in Amman, explains that splits are common in rigid, ideologically inflexible jihadist groups. He points to the example of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which emerged from diverse ideological strands, making internal fissures inevitable. Pressures such as local constraints, geopolitical dynamics, recruitment efforts by state actors, and the stresses of war often exacerbate these divisions, creating right, centre, and left “wings” within groups.
Anas al-Kurdi, political analyst based in Damascus, adds that Islamist movements are inherently closed and rigid, based on inflexible religious doctrines. Yet practical realities often force pragmatism, producing internal contradictions. Despite their claims of transcending tribal or regional affiliations, such factors often resurface in practice. For example, the Syrian president Ahmad al-Shar’a, when he was the emir/ leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, used tactics that suited the reality on the ground in Syria, despite his initial allegiance to ISIS before the subsequent split occurred.
Power Struggles and External Pressures
The phenomenon of defections from Islamic organizations and groups of various orientations, in addition to the ideological and intellectual differences among their leaders and members, is seen as stemming from their ties to regional or international states. These connections bring with them the need to adhere to agendas and courses of action imposed by the logic of support and funding, alongside struggles for influence among leaders and attempts by some to remove obstacles in their path toward leadership, according to experts on these groups.
Abu Hanieh stresses that “as a result of external and geopolitical pressures, in addition to internal divisions within Islamic and jihadist organizations, the wings that make up these groups, ideologically split between reformists, radicals, and pragmatists, fragment or break away.” He points out that “when Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham wanted to shed the label of terrorism, it allowed the more hardline faction linked to ISIS to split, as well as the one tied to al-Qaeda. This became the pattern of defections, driven by ideological rigidity, lack of flexibility, and internal incoherence within the organizational structure, alongside local and external pressures.”
Also read: Political Islam Without a Single Authority: Syria’s Crisis of State Identity
He further explains that “defections have occurred, and continue to occur, within Islamic organizations because of ambitions for power, such as when a strong leader within an organization seeks to carve his own path apart from the other emirs. A case in point is Abu Muhammad al-Jolani (Ahmad Al-Shar’a), whose break from ISIS was partly because, as a Syrian, he wanted to distance himself from Iraqi leaders. Yet part of the split was also personal, as he turned to al-Qaeda to gain the legitimacy he needed.”
Al-Kurdi adds that “defections within Islamic organizations affect their ideological structures. Those who defect conduct intellectual revisions, which may lead them toward greater extremism, such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s ISIS splitting from al-Qaeda after Osama bin Laden’s death, or toward less extremism, as in Al-Jolani’s break from ISIS despite their shared ideological roots. This increases the importance of security within these groups, given fears of infiltration, since they are essentially breakaways from one another; as with Syria’s current Interior Minister, Anas Khattab, who was once the security chief of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (known as Abu Ahmad Hudud).”
Experts stress that one of the main reasons for the recurring phenomenon of defections within these organizations is the attempt by influential actors inside them to adapt to changes taking place in the region and the world. This reflects what might be called a “continuous internal dynamic”, attempts to rearrange affairs and confront challenges. Added to this are the many other factors previously mentioned, as well as the lack of clear mechanisms for managing disputes and maintaining internal discipline, given that these groups are not institutions that follow a clear administrative hierarchy.
