British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that the domestic intelligence service, M15, is to launch an investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood presence in the UK with a view to proscribing the organization, writes Abdel Bari Atwan.
The Times devoted half its front page and a whole page inside the paper to scare-mongering about the Muslim Brotherhood; another long article worried about what the paper calls “convenience Islam” in British prisons and described acts of blood-curdling violence by Muslims both in and out of jail.
Despite the Times having been the bastion of excellent journalism for more than 200 years, its writers were apparently unable to find and interview a single Muslim for either story, relying instead on “experts” on the subject, such as the former head of M16 who declared that the Muslim Brotherhood “is at heart a terrorist organization.” The paper recklessly added that, “Many commentators say that the violent extremism of al-Qaeda can be traced back to the Brotherhood.”
I mention this because it is indicative of the level of spin that Downing Street is putting on this story in order to drum up public support for suppression.
The justification offered by Downing Street for this sudden and unprecedented clampdown is homeland security. The British public are at implied risk because the Brotherhood are implicated in the murder of three tourists on a bus in Egypt in February and may be planning extremist activities from Britain.
In fact the UK is under immense pressure from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE who are waging a bloody war against the Muslim Brotherhood for political reasons. These countries have classified the movement as a “terrorist” entity and claim that its exiled leaders are finding a safe haven in Britain… from where they can continue their political activism (particularly online) unhindered.
Political Islam
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
During the 1990s, Britain became a magnet for political Islam and its activists. Arab mujahideen returning from the war in Afghanistan (where they were backed by the US and Britain) flowed in their thousands to Britain whose flexible asylum policies and independent judiciary allowed them to settle.
Among these Islamist figures was Khalid al-Fawaz, al-Qaeda’s “ambassador” who set up an office in Oxford Street; Abu Musab al-Suri, at one time bin Laden’s press manager and, the darling of the British press, Abu Qatada.
When I was researching my book, The Secret History of al-Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Suri told me that there was an unspoken agreement between the Islamists and the British security services that while they were guests in this country, they would never act against or harm its people. All that would change, of course, in the aftermath of 9/11.
By comparison with al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood – which is nearly a hundred years old and not a new, unknown phenomenon – is moderate. There is a very real risk that clamping down on the Brotherhood would channel its followers into the ranks of extremists.
It is ironic that the first Arab country to take advantage of Britain’s liberal media climate was Saudi Arabia. It launched the pan-Arab daily newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat, in London in 1978; in 1991 the first Arab satellite broadcasting channel, the Middle East Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) followed. These media outlets allowed Saudi Arabia to influence opinion throughout the Arab world, among people and governments.
In those days the Saudi line ran happily alongside the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and utterances. The Brotherhood had supported the Afghan jihad, as did the Saudis. Well-known Muslim Brotherhood Kuwaiti preacher Tareq al-Suwaidan was appointed head of a Saudi TV channel by Prince Al-Walid bin Talal.
All of this changed following the military coup in Egypt which deposed the Muslim Brotherhood’s President Morsi. The Saudis approved of the coup and the Muslim Brotherhood was swiftly moved from the list of friends to top the list of enemies. Mr al-Suwaidan was sacked in August.
Arab Spring
On a wider level, as the only organized political opposition in many Arab countries, the Muslim Brotherhood has become inextricably associated with the “Arab Spring” revolutions; uprisings which the Saudis quite reasonably fear might one day reach Riyadh.
In Britain, nervousness about radical Islamists which began after 9/11 was compounded by the July 2005 London bombings which killed nearly sixty, wounded hundreds, paralyzed the economy and instilled a state of panic in the general population.
The authorities’ previously tolerant attitude towards Islamists was replaced by wariness and tighter controls. Radical preachers and clerics, such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, were refused entry and mosques were attacked. More recently, legislation has been introduced allowing Britain to withdraw nationality from any Muslims who travel abroad to fight, from joining al-Shabaab in Somalia to fighting the regime in Syria. Thirty six young people, mostly of Arab origin, have been stripped of their nationality to date.
If the government goes along with the call to clamp down on the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain it will face many serious obstacles, not least that a large proportion of members hold British citizenship; in addition, unlike most Arab states, the British judiciary is independent of the government.
In the early 1990s, two leading Saudi opposition and reform figures took refuge in Britain – Dr Saad al-Faqih and Dr Muhammad al-Massari. They continued with their political activities from their homes in London, prompting the Saudi royal family to threaten to cancel the $70 billion Yamamah arms deal with the UK. The then British Prime Minister, John Major, had a hard time convincing King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz that he could not simply deport the two men without a court ruling, because they had applied for political asylum. Al-Faqih and al-Masari still enjoy the protection of Britain, hold British nationality and have put their children through have British universities.
Ten days ago, an Egyptian court sentenced 528 people to death, most of them members of the Muslim Brotherhood. If any one of these unfortunate people presented themselves at Heathrow airport, they would be automatically entitled to political asylum in Britain on the grounds that they could prove beyond doubt that their lives were in danger in their country of origin.
Arab governments have issued edicts criminalizing the Muslim Brotherhood and listing it as a terrorist organization but in the West it’s a different picture; such a charge must be proven and documented. This would be a difficult task and, in our view, would take years of investigation, deliberation and legal actions. If MI5 do indeed begin an investigation, it too would require many years to come to any concrete conclusions.
The Arab countries putting pressure on the UK will have to learn the lesson once again, that a fair and independent judiciary is the cornerstone of democracy. British justice is not for sale.
