Donald Trump has ordered a ban on specific chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US – Sara Hernández Díez asks whether the UK should do something similar
A closed branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Amman, Jordan, which banned the group (Image: Getty)
Would banning the Muslim Brotherhood be enough to curb its influence? This is a question that is weighing on Parliamentarians, former ministers and experts. The issue was at the heart of TRENDS’ sixth annual Political Islam Forum, which talked about the networks linked to political Islam, their funding and the tools they use to maintain a presence across Europe.
The debate comes amid growing political pressure on the British government. Opposition groups are pushing the government to do more about the impact of Muslim Brotherhood activities on social cohesion. There are clear questions to be answered but the government has little more than trite rote responses about monitoring all potential extremist groups.
The evolution of political Islam, particularly its relationship with violent extremism, is something that Europe is waking up to. I believe that there needs to be a more serious discussion in the UK about possible legislative responses and cooperation between allies.
Of course, there is a fundamental distinction that needs to be maintained: Islam and Islamism are not the same. The former belongs to the religious, spiritual and cultural sphere; the latter uses religion to pursue political power and influence. The distinction is necessary to prevent an ideological movement from presenting itself as the representative of European Muslims and indoctrinating them into extremism.
A core point still remains though. Individuals and institutions associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam have operated in the UK for decades thanks to a worrying lack of interest or care from successive governments. There are blind spots in the charity and education sectors that must be pointed out and closed, with tighter scrutiny of funding and tax privileges granted to charities.
If we do ban the Brotherhood, a move which has growing support in Westminster, what happens next? The Brotherhood has deep hooks into Britain. What happens after a ban? Proscribing an organisation may not be enough if the tools through which its ideas are disseminated remain available. It has a network of non-affiliated organisations, former staff and sympathisers, an infrastructure and funding system that doesn’t belong to one simple organisational structure.
How would Britain stop the circulation of its messaging in an age of artificial intelligence, which can dramatically increase the production and circulation of content.
We must then turn to prevention. Education, critical thinking and digital literacy are vital skills to prevent people being sucked into propaganda networks and false narratives. Muslims themselves are among the principal victims of extremism – either through violence or through deliberate social isolation by those grooming them.
The Global Brotherhood Power Index 2025 provided a broader picture of the Brotherhood’s global power. Europe accounts for 17% of the Brotherhood, behind the Americas at 24.8%, Asia at 22.5% and Africa at 20.2%. Hamad Al Hosani, a TRENDS researcher, described flexible structures capable of operating through community institutions.
The central question therefore remains the one posed at the outset – would a ban be enough? Proscription can target an organisation, but funding, affiliated groups, education and new digital tools make it far harder to curb the wider influence of political Islam.
Andy Burnham torn apart on air after migrant alert sparks fury
The presenter didn’t hold back on his feelings about Labour’s policy.
TalkTV’s Jeremy Kyle made his feelings about the recent vote in Piddington (Image: TalkTV)
TalkTV‘s Jeremy Kyle fumed that Andy Burnham cares more about migrants than British citizens as he laid into the Prime Minister following the furore over the proposed migrant centre in Piddington, Oxfordshire. Speaking on his morning show, he raged after learning the centre may potentially be cancelled due to environmental worries over a rare breed of newt in the area.
“The government were going to build a detention centre and put 1,250 migrant men…with a government-paid or rather taxpayer-funded minibuses to take them wherever they wanted to go in Oxfordshire, and perhaps the most interesting thing is a high-vis jacket because there’s a lack of pathways and lighting. You know, because let’s be honest, they were more concerned about the safety of migrants than they were of the people. Now, a group of people led by the excellent Tim McNally sort of said in the village, ‘This is unacceptable’,” he said.
“It got to the point where there was so much media interest they had this referendum yesterday, and this referendum absolutely categorically stated that these people had no respect or belief in its government, and that it needed to change.
“Whether that makes any difference or not… I mean, honestly, the Home Office – they’ve got to be idiots.
“The unaccounted presence of protected great crested newts, which is a protected species, could seek immediate legal action to constitute a wildlife violation.
“So crested newts are a protected species, but not men, women, and children of this country. That’s absolutely spot on, isn’t it?
“Sounds about right, doesn’t it? This is typically British story. Spotted these newts, and they are now suggesting a High Court challenge,” he raged.
The newt development comes just a day after residents of the village voted to secede from the UK in objection to the site. New reports now suggest has the Home Office may have made a catastrophic blunder by saying that there was no evidence of protected animals at the site.
Campaigners in the sleepy village say that mandarins will need to redo their ecological assessment of the site and introduce measures to move the newts.
As a result, the Home Office could be open to a legal challenge from locals keen on saving the protected newt species.