London hears calls to ban the Muslim Brotherhood

Banning the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK was top of the agenda of a top-level forum on the threat posed by violent Islamist ideology held in the Houses of Parliament, London, last week. Politicians from the UK sat alongside representatives from the Middle East expressing their frustration at Westminster’s failure to deal decisively with the MB.

The forum convened in a committee room of the House of Lords, which was packed to capacity. This reflects growing concern at the way in which London has become a global centre of Islamist activity. UK parliamentarians from across the political spectrum agreed that the MB has taken advantage of British values of tolerance and fair play to extend its tentacles.

Baroness Foster of Oxton, a Conservative peer in the House of Lords, told the meeting that “Islam, basically Muslims, have been hijacked by the ideology. Having grown up experiencing sectarian tensions between Protestants and Catholics in her hometown of Liverpool decades ago, she was saddened that a group like the MB was playing the sectarian card.

The Catholic/Protestant hatred of her younger days was fuelled by a murderous conflict in Northern Ireland – the so-called “Troubles” that raged from the 1960s to the 1990s. Foster argued that while the UK sorted that crisis out, it failed to notice the growth of MB-inspired terrorism emerging in the shadows.

Contributions from around the table revealed that UK politicians are finally understanding the difference between ‘Islam’ and ‘Islamism’ and how the MB has played western liberals, silencing any criticism with false accusations of ‘Islamophobia’.

A politician from the Reform Party said there was too much ignorance in Britain about the issues:

“So much of this comes down to education. So few people in the United Kingdom would understand, when they hear the word Islam, Islamist, or Islamism, if you asked ten people on the street, what does that mean, you’d be lucky if you got one person who understood.”

He went on to say that less than one in ten people in Britain knows the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and other legal Muslim organisations. His view was that a “major job of re-education is required” in the UK to teach people about the MB. He praised the UAE for banning groups that were “inappropriate, bad actors, bad elements”. He contrasted the UAE’s robust approach with those in the UK who had “talked the talk but not delivered”. 

Also present was Mohammad Tawhidi, dubbed the “Imam of Peace”, who is an Australian Shia Muslim commentator. His opposition to jihadi Islamism is well documented. He praised Baroness Foster for her full-throated condemnation of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Those were probably the most important words that I have heard being said in the United Kingdom and I travel a lot.”

Tawhidi reminded the room that the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks was upon us, and everybody should be aware that the mastermind behind that atrocity was Osama bin Laden, who had been affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood before founding Al-Qaeda.

Tawhidi said that all these terrorist groups, plus Hamas, are “children of the mothership of terrorist organisations that is the Muslim Brotherhood”. They all follow the script set by the MB. Their leadership sits at present in Turkey, pumping out “decrees and fatwas”, instructing people to commit terror acts. They had usurped the concept of the “ummah”, the global Muslim community, to direct individuals into terrorism.

“We must not be put in a position where there is no other Muslim voice than theirs.”

There was general agreement that the MB has avoided being proscribed because it operates through front organisations and projects a different face in Britain to that it shows in other countries. The analogy was made to the Greek mythological hydra – a beast with many heads.

The UK government carried out a detailed review of the Muslim Brotherhood over a decade ago under the Conservative government of Prime Minister David Cameron. However, even though it was clear that the organisation’s renunciation of violence was not matched by the evidence, outright prohibition was rejected.

It’s been argued that the legal bar in the UK is set too high for proscription. To impose a ban, and avoid it being challenged in the courts, would require showing that the MB is directly involved in terrorism. While offshoots of the MB are clearly committing terrorist acts, the MB itself has worn a democratic, community-engaged face in the UK. This has clearly been very effective in terms of avoiding a ban.

Some politicians have also expressed worries about potential diplomatic fallout with Qatar and Turkey, who have hosted senior MB figures. But with the position of the United States hardening and European Union governments adopting a tougher stance, London is likely to come under growing pressure to do something. Simply stating that the question is “under review” will not hack it in future.