TRENDS exposes dangers of Muslim Brotherhood at House of Lords
By: Mohammed Al-Ali*Think tanks work hand in hand with governments and their various institutions to achieve a vital goal that is directly tied to security and stability at the national, regional, and global levels: the fight against extremism and terrorism. Within this effort, think tanks serve as the intellectual core that analyses data, draws evidence-based conclusions, devises present-day scenarios, and anticipates future developments. They do so by drawing on a deep understanding of both recent and distant past experiences, especially as they connect theoretical and practical approaches to uncover the roots of the phenomena. In addition, think tanks gather academic and scientific insights to support counter-extremism initiatives and raise public awareness about the dangers of extremist groups. This is particularly vital when certain tactics, which may not initially appear extremist, are in fact rooted in violent ideologies. Behind such tactics lie groups and organisations that exploit existing conditions to recruit more extremists and terrorists, viewing societies merely as pools from which to draw the tools needed to implement their destructive plans.TRENDS Research & Advisory has consistently shared insights with academics and policymakers worldwide on a range of international issues, especially in the fight against extremism and terrorism. Its most recent initiative took place in the UK, right in the historic House of Lords, where TRENDS organised a symposium titled "Strengthening the Middle East-UK Partnership in Countering Extremism and Promoting Prosperity". The event brought together several members of the House of Lords and leading UK counterterrorism experts to outline the best strategies for tackling extremism and fostering tolerance across different cultures and religions globally. The discussions centred on the Muslim Brotherhood, given the serious threat it poses as the parent organisation for many of the world's terrorist groups. Participants highlighted the dangers the Muslim Brotherhood represents in any society where it operates and underscored the importance of designating the group as a terrorist organisation in the UK.Extremist groups and organisations, including most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, have long sought to cultivate an alternative identity for their followers. Under this framework, individuals develop a sense of emotional isolation that distances them from their societies, making them more inclined to reject societal values and threaten public security and stability. Some European countries have increased surveillance of extremist groups, but the efforts are fragmented rather than a coordinated initiative. Moreover, the ideology underpinning these extremist groups has not been subjected to the depth of study or comprehensive analysis it requires.At TRENDS Research & Advisory, we have taken on the responsibility of deconstructing the rhetoric employed by extremist outlets to expose the ideology driving these movements. We accomplish this through in-depth research as well as through engagement, interaction, and knowledge sharing by hosting broad intellectual dialogues aimed at understanding the roots of extremism that lead to violence. Our goal is to find ways to shield societies from destructive extremist ideas and groups. Given that the Muslim Brotherhood serves as the primary ideological umbrella, and indeed the foundational root, for many other extremist organisations, TRENDS refutes its ideology and arguments through a variety of research publications, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood Encyclopedia.We furthered our efforts by engaging with lawmakers in key parliaments to expose the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and to raise policymakers' awareness of the group's risks, particularly in a country like the UK, where it remains active. This led to the recent symposium, which featured highly constructive discussions. The remarks from British lawmakers and counter-terrorism experts demonstrated a genuine understanding of the breadth and danger posed by the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda in the UK and the West as a whole.By examining and understanding the Muslim Brotherhood's methods and operations, it becomes evident that it is highly dangerous to allow the group to continue its activities and develop complex networks across Europe without fully assessing the influence of its discourse. Islamist extremism cannot be understood without a deep dive into the Muslim Brotherhood's intellectual foundations and the ideological links later adopted by other terrorist organisations, such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. This reality calls for redefining terrorism to encompass not only those who commit violence but also those who theorise it and justify its use.In our view, Islamism is rooted in a foundational violence that deems society to be in a state of ignorance and views Muslims who hold differing views as infidels, before it even does the same to non-Muslims. As such, it is a takfiri ideology that underpins terrorist thought. To counter this threat, we must continue to trace its ideological development using practical approaches and foster dialogue between Western and Arab think-tanks. It is also crucial to investigate the sources of funding for these groups and for governments to adopt more robust measures to curb both theoretical and actual violence, given its grave impact on societies and states. One such measure is designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation, in line with decisions already taken by certain European and Arab countries. Such a designation would effectively limit the group's activities and prevent it from benefiting from public funding or operating under the guise of a European charitable organisation.
*The writer is the CEO of TRENDS Research & Advisory
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
Introducing my son to Lebanon helped me heal my relationship with home
As the wheels touch down on the tarmac at Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport, my wife and I turn to our 20-month-old son, Dia, kiss his soft head and whisper: 'Welcome home.' Then we both cry. It's his first time in Lebanon – a trip long delayed by an interminable war. Like many Lebanese born in the diaspora, my relationship to the country has always been complicated. Raised abroad, I absorbed it through Sunday meals at Lebanese restaurants in London, family stories and summer visits. As a teenager and young adult, I would go on to live there for 10 years, turning it into a site of belonging and often heartbreak. For the past five years, I've been estranged from it. I had seen a lot during my years in Lebanon, but nothing broke me like the August 4 Beirut port explosion. I felt I lost too much that day. I almost lost my father, who was in a building by the port. We couldn't locate him for hours. I lost far less important things – our company's brand-new office, my car, work projects. After that trip, I left broken. Something had snapped in my already tense relationship with a country that was often exhausting to live in, however much I loved it. Since then, I've only returned for work, family emergencies or deaths. My relationship with Lebanon calcified into something unpleasant. But something shifted on this trip. I came back as a different person. I came back as a father. Lebanon today feels hopeful but precarious – a country both limping out of war and still staggering from the collapse of 2019. The streets are tired. Shoots of wild grass protrude from the pavements and highways. I have become obsessed with these unkempt public roads. They remind me of the way Lebanon looked at the end of the civil war. The country has the air of an aristocratic home fallen into disrepair – once proud, now crumbling, its residents unable to afford its upkeep. But still full of life and stories. But none of that matters when I see my son here. To see how he belongs to this place. He's surrounded by doting grandparents. Even the neighbours beam when they see him. He devours zaatar and stuffed vine leaves. He's wide-eyed with curiosity. As Lebanese, our link to the motherland can often be tied to the kind of nostalgia these scenes can evoke. Nostalgia is a powerful, sometimes dangerous thing. It led many in our diaspora to invest life savings in Lebanon out of duty or hope, only to watch them vanish in the banking collapse. I used to be so weary of that dangerous form of nostalgia that led people to be irrational. But I find myself understanding it this time. For me, returning to Lebanon has always carried a hint of regression. Like anyone revisiting their parents' home, you slip back into old habits, old roles. You unlearn everything that's happened in the intervening years. But this time is different. There's no regression – only transformation. I'm here not as a son, but as a father. I'm not trying to make sense of my place, I'm building a bridge for my son between his heritage and his future. In a recent therapy session, while speaking about my connection to the Mediterranean, I had a surprising realisation: it wasn't the sea I was so anchored to. It was the mountain. I wanted to see if Dia had the same connection. On a visit to Jaj – a village 1,200 metres above the historic coastal town of Byblos – my wife's aunt left some cherries unpicked in the garden just for Dia. He picked them himself, dropping them into a plastic tub with glee. Nour noticed the cherries at the top had been pecked at. 'The top of the tree is for the birds,' her aunt said. 'The bottom is for us.' One simple sentence. Centuries of understanding how to live with the land, not just on it. And now, my son is learning that wisdom. And through him, so am I. Back in Beirut, we realise the city is not exactly toddler-friendly. Pavements are often a suggestion. When they do exist, they're broken, cluttered, blocked by scooters and cars. Electrical cables dangle from poles. It's whatever the opposite of baby-proof is. One afternoon, Nour suggests we might find more space to roam by taking Dia to my alma mater – the American University of Beirut. I haven't set foot there in years. I don't often reminisce about my time there, or much else. But walking through the main gate feels like a reckoning. I tell the security guard I remember my student number – a strange fact to recall from 2001. He pulls up my record, and there it is: my old ID photo. I barely recognise the boy in the image – fresh-faced and naive. Closer in age to Dia than to me now. I'm carrying my son and pointing at the ID photo on the screen, wondering if he'll recognise me. He smiles. Maybe he does. Maybe he's just happy to be here too. As he runs around the grounds of the 19th-century campus, I remember something Nour told me recently – about mycelium networks that connect trees underground, allowing forests to share resources and nutrients. That's how I feel, watching my son plant his feet on this soil. He's connected to people he's never met, to land he's never seen. And in watching him, I realise I'm part of that network too, in a way I haven't felt in years.
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
What happens if Iran were to acquire the bomb?
The recent attacks on Iran and its nuclear facilities shocked the global community. While the world watches closely for further developments and hopes for a diplomatic resolution to this crisis, the attacks on Iran and its next steps will have a profound impact on the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The existing nuclear non-proliferation regime, established to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, is based on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), negotiated in 1968. It enjoys nearly universal membership and was instrumental in preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by another two dozen states, as was predicted before the treaty was put in place. Iran, a party to the NPT, threatened to withdraw even before the attacks. If Iran were to leave the NPT and focus on resurrecting its nuclear programme to build nuclear weapons, it would deal a major blow to the non-proliferation regime and its credibility. Moreover, regardless of Iran's decision about its membership in the NPT or pursuit of nuclear weapons, the damage to the efforts to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons has already been done. The 21st century has witnessed several attacks by nuclear-armed states against non-nuclear-weapon states, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with the rationale of preventing the alleged acquisition of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. Some countries, like Libya, agreed to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons and were nonetheless attacked later. Ukraine, which inherited a nuclear weapons arsenal from the Soviet Union, gave them back to Russia and joined the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state. Many in Ukraine today ask themselves whether the decision to forgo nuclear weapons was the right one, and whether Ukraine would have been attacked if it had chosen to keep them. Countries also look at North Korea, which left the NPT and rushed to build nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US as a deterrent against military attacks. So far, this strategy has worked, and North Korea continues to expand and enhance its nuclear arsenal, proudly exhibiting it to ensure the US and others get the message. With the waning reliability of US commitments to its allies, some states may decide that they can only protect themselves with the ultimate deterrent – nuclear weapons. In South Korea, for example, public opinion already favours the nuclear weapons option. Iran's nuclear programme has made countries in the Middle East and beyond nervous for decades. We've heard disconcerting statements from Turkey and Saudi Arabia regarding a potential pursuit of nuclear weapons if Iran were to acquire the bomb. Would attacks on Iran and its nuclear programme shift the calculus of some of these countries regarding their own nuclear ambitions, serving as a catalyst for further nuclear proliferation? Iran insists on the peaceful nature of its programme. However, several elements of it were developed without a particular need for an existing or even planned nuclear energy programme and have been a source of proliferation concern. Iran was on the verge of having everything, including significant stocks of highly enriched uranium, but the bomb itself. It played the nuclear hedging game for over two decades but vastly expanded and accelerated it in the last couple of years. Future proliferators will take note of the risks posed by the ambiguity of their intentions while acquiring nuclear technologies and capabilities that could lead to weaponisation. It remains to be seen whether Iran will leave the NPT and focus on resurrecting its nuclear programme. Iran has already moved forward with the suspension of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, a key component of the non-proliferation regime that inspects nuclear activities and facilities and is a legal obligation under the NPT. It would be in its own interest to return to full co-operation with the IAEA and offer full transparency of its nuclear programme. Ultimately, further proliferation in the region, ignited by Iran's withdrawal from the NPT and pursuit of nuclear weapons, would be against Iran's own interests. Beyond a diplomatic solution to the existing crisis, there are several steps that NPT states could pursue to prevent further proliferation in the Middle East and beyond. One of these is an explicit legal obligation or regional agreement not to pursue national programmes for uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent fuel – two critical elements of the nuclear fuel cycle capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. In this regard, the UAE stands as an example of steering clear of any ambiguity in its nuclear power programme. In its agreement on nuclear co-operation with the US (the so-called 123 agreement), it took on an obligation not to pursue these sensitive technologies. Another option is for any new facility involving enrichment and reprocessing to be established as an international or multilateral facility subject to international safeguards. One could argue that robust regional and international co-operation on nuclear energy and its peaceful applications could eventually pave the way for co-operation, transparency and trust-building among countries in the region. Another way to alleviate proliferation concerns in the Middle East is the establishment of a regional verification arrangement to supplement IAEA safeguards, modelled on the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC). Such an arrangement could build confidence in the peaceful nature of nuclear activities. In recent years, interest in nuclear power as a carbon-neutral energy source has significantly increased, including in the Middle East. It holds the promise of reliable and clean energy, with uses in various other applications beyond electricity generation, including desalination of water and many other benefits. For this promise to be realised, the NPT must hold firm, and the system of checks on proliferation must remain in place.
UAE Moments
6 hours ago
- UAE Moments
BBC Staff Accuse the Broadcaster of Forcing Israeli PR
More than 400 media figures, including 111 current BBC journalists, have signed an open letter condemning the corporation for acting as 'PR for the Israeli government and military,' following a series of editorial decisions perceived to downplay Palestinian suffering and prioritize Israel's narrative. Core Allegations The letter claims the BBC's coverage 'falls short' of its own impartiality standards, failing to analyze UK government arms sales or airlifting narratives critical of Israel's actions . BBC's decision to shelf 'Gaza: Doctors Under Attack' and 'Gaza: Medics Under Fire'—films with harrowing footage of attacks on Palestinian medics—was seen as political censorship, driven by fear of appearing anti‑Israel. Staff condemned Sir Robbie Gibb—a BBC board member with close ties to the Jewish Chronicle and Conservative circles—accusing him of ideological interference in editorial affairs. Employee Testimonies An anonymous BBC insider said the following about the broadcaster: 'All too often it has felt that the BBC has been performing PR for the Israeli government and military.' Another insider also said, 'Opaque editorial decisions and censorship … we believe the role of Robbie Gibb … is untenable.' They also warn that staff are being 'gaslit' and that editorial standards are being suspended to accommodate political agendas. BBC's Response and Repercussions The BBC leadership has defended its editorial integrity, citing guidelines and internal checks for content decisions. However, these reassurances have done little to quell criticism. Critics, including prominent public figures like Miriam Margolyes and Mike Leigh, have called for Robbie Gibb's removal, arguing his presence undermines credibility. This revolt compounds other recent controversies: live-streaming anti‑IDF chants at Glastonbury, delayed removal of footage, and earlier suspensions of Gaza-related documentaries—all prompting over 400 current staff to demand an internal reckoning and renewed commitment to impartial reporting. This article was previously published on qatarmoments. To see the original article, click here
