The Muslim Brotherhood and Terrorism… The Janjaweed and Barbecue!

Esam Alhusein
In the balance of international justice and the measure of moral conscience, organisations and groups should not be classified according to selective standards or transient political considerations. Rather, they should be judged by the extent to which legal definitions apply to their actions and conduct, particularly those related to terrorism.
If there are serious efforts to classify certain political movements in Sudan—such as the Muslim Brotherhood—according to terrorism criteria, then ethical and legal consistency requires a more serious examination of the practices of the Dagalo militia (the RSF/Janjaweed) in light of the grave violations and documented crimes attributed to it. These actions cannot be described as mere human rights abuses; rather, they constitute a full-scale humanitarian tragedy and a historic crime against society and the state.
The actions of the Janjaweed militia have manifested as violence unconstrained by moral or legal limits. Their brutality has extended to defenceless civilians, where sanctities have been violated, towns and villages laid waste, and people’s homes turned into arenas of terror, looting and forced displacement.
Since its rebellion against the state in April 2023, this militia has evolved from a semi-regular force into an armed actor practising forms of organised violence which, according to many international legal definitions, fall within the scope of terrorism. Meanwhile, the article alleges that financial support from external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates, has continued despite these crimes.
These violations have been documented in reports issued by international organisations, including the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, describing a broad pattern of crimes that include:
Mass killings
Ethnic cleansing
Systematic rape
Forced displacement
Looting of public and private property
Attacks on vital infrastructure, hospitals and markets
Systematic Violence Against Civilians
The atrocities attributed to the militia, in essence, do not represent isolated battlefield excesses. Rather, they reflect a systematic and organised pattern of violence aimed at terrorising society and breaking its will through mass killings, sexual violence, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of livelihoods.
In many areas—particularly in Darfur—the scenes appeared to echo some of the bloodiest chapters of history. Gunfire mingled with the cries of victims, their blood with tears, while the land itself bore witness to a humanitarian tragedy that shook the conscience of the world.
Such conduct aligns with definitions of terrorism adopted in a number of international legal frameworks, which generally describe terrorism as the organised use of violence against civilians for political or military objectives.
A Challenge to the Idea of the State
The actions of the Janjaweed militia represent more than just another chapter in the war. They constitute a direct assault on the very idea of the state itself.
When armed power transforms into an instrument of terror against society rather than a means of protecting it, it undermines the foundations upon which political and legal legitimacy rest.
For this reason, the crimes described—given their scale, severity and systematic nature—represent not merely an attack on individuals but an affront to the conscience of humanity and a blow to the credibility of international justice.
This explains the growing regional and international condemnation of the militia’s actions, including reports issued by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which warn of increasing concern that this force could become a direct threat to human and regional security, particularly in light of the extensive violations documented in Darfur and central Sudan.
The Case for International Classification
Against this backdrop, there is a growing argument for opening a serious international discussion regarding the classification of this militia as a terrorist organisation.
Such a step would not be driven by political rivalry but by an objective assessment based on documented actions and conduct on the ground. In this context, classification could serve as an important legal tool for:
Drying up sources of financing
Pursuing those responsible for crimes
Preventing impunity
Consistency in International Standards
If the international community wishes to preserve the credibility of its legal and moral frameworks, it must apply a single standard to all armed actors.
Terrorism should not be a label reserved only for political opponents; it is a legal description that must apply to any actor who systematically employs violence against civilians and undermines the foundations of the state.
In this sense, classifying this militia as a terrorist organisation may not simply be a legal measure. It could represent a necessary step towards protecting the Sudanese people, preserving the unity of the state, and paving the way for accountability that would help end the cycle of violence that has continued to undermine security and stability.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=12124