This essay explores the Jordanian Muslim Brothers(JMB)' activities in legislative politics. Since the mid 1940s, JMB has enjoyed popularity among Jordanians as a state-authorized social and missionary association. JMB, not only became the largest Islamist organization in Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, but also gained political power through the struggle against the anti-state movements led by the leftists and the pan-Arab activists from the late 1950s to the 1970s. JMB has deeply committed to legislative politics since the break through 1989 lower house elections, to promote its Islamic concept and methodology in political sphere. In the first stage, JMB enjoyed its strong position as vanguard of Islam in the lower house, sole legislature chosen by Jordanians. Contrary to its radical discourses concerning domestic and foreign policies, JMB has shown its flexibility in the lower house. For example, during the Persian Gulf Crisis, though JMB mobilized masses and organized a pro-Iraqi bloc in the lower house, it joined the cabinet for national unity. However, the organization has been involved in the great debates and structural transformation in the lower house since the early 1990s. Thus, the domestic and international political processes and social movements in Jordan that changed arguments in the lower house will closely be scrutinized. Peace negotiations with Israel were the main cause. Because JMB used to criticize Israel as Zionist enemy, the government's normalization policy toward Israel made JMB irritated. Thus, JMB formed an anti-normalization group in the lower house, and often criticized the government. Regarding those issues above, JMB has had inner and outer problems. First, JMB experienced political dichotomy inside in the mid 1990s. Despite its strong position as Islamist group in the lower house, JMB felt ambiguity whether or not cooperate with the government that sought to reach a peace agreement with Israel. Moreover, its experiences in the lower house confirmed that JMB did not represent a homogenous framework from ideological or political standpoints. JMB conservatives claimed its withdrawal from the lower house, however, the liberals preferred to stay in legislative politics. Not long after, JMB met powerful challenge from its political branch, Islamic Action Front Party (IAFP). IAFP gradually acquired its own voice, and then challenged JMB's authority. In 1997, finally, JMB and IAFP crashed over their participation in the 1997 lower-house elections. Secondly, I attempt to clarify the complicated relationship between the government and JMB (IAFP) in the lower house, in regard to state in society discipline. I also attempt to clarify why the relation between the government and JMB (IAFP) became so deteriorated, and why the government took series of actions which continuously worsened relations with JMB and IAFP, key actors in the lower house. And there were seeds of trouble not only with the peace process but also in debates on "democratization." JMB and IAFP strongly opposed to a series of attempts by the government to inactivate the lower house's role. Moreover, I will examine political backgrounds in Jordan. In this argument, there has been a serious dichotomy among urban and local since the 1993 elections.