Turkey and Iran are main sponsors of Muslim Brotherhood operating in Europe, America and Africa.

By

 


The Muslim Brotherhood (MB): A Global Overview of Networks, Influence, and Sponsorship-

The Muslim Brotherhood (Arabic: Jamāʿat al‑Ikhwān al‑Muslimīn) is a transnational Sunni Islamist movement founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al‑Banna. It originally combined social services with political activism and later evolved into a broad ideological network seeking to reshape politics and society around Islamist principles. Its reach now extends into political parties, social organizations, charities, and educational institutions across multiple continents.

The movement’s structure is decentralized and organizationally complex, with local groups, affiliated parties, and ideologically aligned organizations operating independently in many countries. Analysts confirm that contemporary Brotherhood networks are not a monolithic command structure, but rather a constellation of linked groups with shared ideological roots.

1. Historical Sponsorship and State Backing

Turkey

Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been widely described as fostering close ideological and political ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, especially after the 2013 overthrow of Brotherhood‑affiliated Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. The AKP provided political space, media platforms, and organizational support for Brotherhood figures and media outlets based in Turkey, even as diplomatic relationships with Cairo and Gulf states shifted.

Key elements of Turkey’s involvement documented by independent research include:

  • Hosting Brotherhood‑linked media outlets such as El‑Sharq, Mekameleen, and Watan, which are oriented toward audiences in the Middle East and diaspora communities.

  • Supporting organizations such as the Islamic Orientation and Social Policy Institute (IOSPI) that operate with close links to the Turkish government and broadcast to millions of followers.

  • Political facilitation through state bodies such as the Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communities (YTB), which collaborates with networks tied to Brotherhood ideology and global outreach.

The Turkish state has also been criticized by multiple Western governments and analysts for permitting extremist financing and logistics via charities and NGOs that have historical links to internationally designated terrorist actors—although such accusations are politically controversial and subject to dispute.

Qatar

Qatar’s involvement with movements linked to the Muslim Brotherhood has been well documented in academic and policy research over several decades. Doha has been a major base of media and ideological influence for Brotherhood figures, notably through:

  • Long‑running support for figures such as Yusuf al‑Qaradawi, a prominent Sunni preacher associated with the Brotherhood who hosted programs on Qatari state‑backed media such as Al‑Jazeera.

  • Grant funding and institutional sponsorship tied to Islamist networks and affiliated charities internationally.

Qatar’s alignment with the Brotherhood was a central issue in the 2017 diplomatic crisis with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain, who accused Doha of enabling political Islam and interference in other countries’ domestic affairs.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Gulf Rivalries

Although your focus mentions Turkey and Iran, it is critical to note that the Brotherhood’s position has also been shaped by regional rivalries. States such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have explicitly positioned themselves against the Brotherhood’s spread, supporting opposing political movements and governments across the Middle East and Africa.

The UAE, for instance, frames its foreign engagements in the region as efforts to counter political Islam and specifically Brotherhood‑linked actors, backing military and political allies hostile to Islamist movements.

2. Brotherhood Networks in Europe

The Muslim Brotherhood’s expansion into Europe dates back several decades. European authorities and researchers identify multiple organizations linked either directly to Brotherhood ideology or originating from Brotherhood networks:

  • The Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) was established in 1989 as an umbrella body for Brotherhood‑linked groups and has member organizations across many European states.

  • Through these networks, the Brotherhood has established educational, congregational, and policy‑oriented institutions such as the European Council for Fatwa and Research and other councils that influence Islamic discourse on the continent.

  • Related entities such as The Europe Trust have acquired assets and operated philanthropic activities in the UK and Europe, sometimes drawing scrutiny over transparency and links to Islamist networks.

  • Reports and government investigations in European countries have examined Brotherhood influence, outreach funding, and political engagement by affiliated groups.

Critics argue that some of these organizations receive foreign funding and play roles as social service providers while also advancing political Islamism. Supporters counter that many are legitimate civil society groups serving Muslim communities.

3. Brotherhood Ties and Activities in the United States and North America

In the United States, several organizations rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood’s outreach ecosystem have operated legally and engaged in community, civil rights, and educational activities:

  • Groups historically associated with this network include the Muslim American Society (MAS), North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR), although formal links between these groups and the Brotherhood vary by organization and are the subject of debate.

  • Some U.S. state and national political actors have pursued designations of certain Brotherhood branches or affiliated organizations as terrorist or extremist entities, reflecting ongoing controversy over their roles and influence.

It is also a subject of public debate whether foreign funding into U.S. academic institutions or cultural programs by states with Islamist ties constitutes ideological influence in service of broader geopolitical ambitions.

4. Brotherhood Influence in Africa and the Middle East

Muslim Brotherhood networks and affiliates have had enduring presence in numerous African and Middle Eastern political and social contexts:

  • Brotherhood‑inspired political parties like Al‑Islah in Yemen and affiliated Islamic parties in North Africa and the Horn of Africa operate as local Islamist political forces.

  • In some countries, Brotherhood branches have been banned or designated extremist organizations; Egypt and Jordan, for example, have taken legal measures to criminalize Brotherhood activities.

The Brotherhood’s model in Africa is not uniform; it ranges from political engagement and charitable activity to more radical offshoots in certain regions.

5. Iran’s Relationship with Islamist Networks

Although Iran is a major geopolitical actor with its own transnational Islamist agenda, its relationship with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood is historically uneven and ideologically distinct (Shi’a versus Sunni frameworks). There is no strong evidence that Iran sponsors the traditional Sunni Brotherhood structures in the same coordinated way that Turkish and Qatari actors have been documented to do. Many Iranian backed groups (e.g., Hezbollah, certain militia networks) operate with their own Shi’a‑oriented ideological bases rather than through Sunni Brotherhood networks.

Iran does support Islamist and proxy groups across the Middle East and beyond, but their network is generally separate from the Sunni Brotherhood ecosystem. This distinction matters in understanding sponsorship patterns and ideological alignments.

6. Key Organizational and Political Features

Decentralized and Adaptive
The Brotherhood does not act as a monolithic hierarchical organization worldwide. Instead, it functions as a network of ideologically linked groups that adapt locally.

Political and Social Strategy
The movement has historically engaged in:

  • Social services and charity work

  • Educational and religious outreach

  • Political engagement through parties and elections

  • Media and cultural dissemination

In some cases, these activities are legal and peaceful; in others, they intersect with radical interpretations and controversial political aims.

Controversy and Designation
Some governments and analysts argue that Brotherhood affiliates provide ideological cover or support for violent extremist organizations and should be designated accordingly. Others defend these entities as legitimate civil society actors.

7. Conclusion: A Complex, Global Network

To prepare this for publication, the following are the essential, evidence‑based points:

  1. The Muslim Brotherhood is transnational but not monolithic; it comprises ideologically linked networks that vary widely in structure and activity.

  2. Turkey’s AKP government has supported Brotherhood‑linked media, organizations, and individuals, providing political shelter and platforms.

  3. Qatar has been a long‑standing supporter of Brotherhood figures and networks, using media and institutional sponsorship as soft power tools.

  4. Europe hosts multiple Brotherhood‑linked organizations, some of which receive funding and operate within civil society structures.

  5. In the United States and North America, groups historically connected to Brotherhood networks engage in community and civil society activities, and are subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny.

  6. African and Middle Eastern dynamics involve local Brotherhood affiliates, with varying legal statuses and political roles across countries.

  7. The movement’s influence is controversial and contested, with governments and scholars divided over whether it should be classified as extremist, political Islamist, or benign civil society.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

China and the United States approach income and wealth differently, especially when considering how the rich, middle class, and poor are affected.

By
Image
                                        1. United States (U.S.) Tax Approach a. High-Income / Ultra-Rich: Income Taxes: The U.S. uses a progressive federal income tax system; the highest marginal rate is 37% (as of 2026) for individuals earning above roughly $600,000 per year. Capital Gains Taxes: Wealthy Americans often earn more from investments than wages, which are taxed at lower rates (0–23.8% depending on income and type of gain). Wealth Inequality Factor: Many rich people use tax deductions, offshore accounts, trusts, and business structures to reduce effective tax rates, sometimes far below the statutory rate. Estate Taxes: The U.S. has an estate tax, but it applies only to very large estates (over $13.6 million for individuals), so most inheritances are untaxed. b. Middle Class / Hard-Working: Income Taxes: Progressive but lower brackets; they pay between ...
Read more

Is Democracy Being Universalized as a Value—or Selectively Applied as a Foreign Policy Tool by the United States and the European Union?

By
Image
The promotion of democracy has become a defining feature of Western foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Both the United States and the European Union consistently articulate democracy, rule of law, and human rights as universal values. Official documents, strategic doctrines, development programs, and diplomatic engagements frame democratic governance not merely as a political system but as a normative global standard. Yet critics argue that democracy promotion is not applied consistently. They contend that democratic principles are often subordinated to strategic interests—security alliances, energy access, trade partnerships, or geopolitical competition. This tension raises a central question: Is democracy genuinely being universalized as a value, or is it selectively instrumentalized as a foreign policy tool? The answer is not binary. It involves both normative commitment and geopolitical calculation. 1. Democracy as a Universal Normative Framework Following the Col...
Read more

Is the presidency of Donald Trump influencing authoritarian tendencies globally—particularly in Africa?

By
Image
  To assess this properly, we need analytical clarity rather than rhetorical framing. Authoritarianism does not spread through personality alone. It spreads through incentives, institutional erosion, and geopolitical signaling. Below is a structured analysis. I. What Is “Authoritarian Drift”? In political science, authoritarian drift refers to: Weakening judicial independence Politicizing security forces Undermining electoral integrity Concentrating executive power Delegitimizing media Extending tenure beyond constitutional norms This phenomenon has been documented globally over the last 15 years—not beginning with Trump. Scholars often cite: Democratic backsliding in Eastern Europe Executive aggrandizement in parts of Latin America Entrenched incumbency in several African states So the trend predates and exceeds any single U.S. administration. II. Did Trump Normalize Executive Aggression? Trump’s presidency was marked by: Confrontational rhetoric tow...
Read more

FACTS- On constitutional doctrine, institutional function, and democratic accountability.

By
Image
  I. Investigative-Style Article Presidential Immunity and the Rule of Law: How Accountable Is a Former President? When the framers drafted the U.S. Constitution, they feared monarchy. Yet they also feared paralysis. The presidency they created was powerful—but not royal. The question confronting modern America is whether that balance still holds. In recent years, litigation surrounding Donald Trump has forced courts to confront constitutional ambiguities that had lingered unresolved for over two centuries. Can a president be prosecuted? Are former presidents immune for actions taken in office? And where does official power end and personal liability begin? These questions are no longer theoretical. They define the legal frontier of American executive authority. Constitutional Silence and Expanding Power The U.S. Constitution outlines impeachment procedures and removal from office. It states that impeached officials remain subject to indictment after removal. But it does not expli...
Read more

This is a legal-institutional examination—not a moral judgment.

By
Image
  Presidential Immunity and Accountability: Constitutional Boundaries in Practice I. The Constitutional Silence Problem The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state whether a sitting president can be criminally indicted. It provides: Impeachment (Article I) Executive power (Article II) Removal procedures Post-removal criminal liability (“shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”) However, it does not answer: Can a president be indicted while in office? Does executive authority create immunity for official acts? Where is the line between official and personal conduct? That silence has created interpretive conflict for over two centuries. II. DOJ Policy vs. Constitutional Law The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued opinions in 1973 and 2000 stating that a sitting president should not be indicted while in office because it would impair executive functioning. Key d...
Read more