Friends contributing to DIVA

In December 2024, I had the honour of receiving the Multicultural Achievement Award from the Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs. The recognition was for my efforts to promote dialogue between followers of different religions and cultures, to support pluralism, and to encourage coexistence among diverse communities.

Such awards are meant to celebrate the universal values of mutual respect and understanding. Yet in this case, the reaction from certain circles was far from celebratory. Shortly after the announcement, I became the subject of a coordinated campaign of criticism by figures associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly some of its founders in Yemen. One of them, a sitting Member of Parliament, is known to maintain connections with Brotherhood affiliates in Turkey.

The accusations against me focused on two specific claims: first, that my work “undermines the sanctity of Islamic religious texts and shows hostility toward Islam,” and second, that I promote “coexistence with all beliefs and ideas.”
At first glance, such accusations might seem paradoxical. After all, promoting dialogue and peaceful coexistence should not be seen as contrary to faith. But within the worldview of the Brotherhood’s ideologues, calls for openness and interreligious cooperation are often interpreted as attempts to dilute religious identity. This illustrates a key feature of the movement’s ideology: it views engagement across religious or cultural lines not as a means to strengthen understanding, but as a threat to its own doctrinal control.

What this episode revealed is not a personal conflict, but a broader ideological struggle between moderation and extremism — one that continues to shape religious and political discourse in many parts of the Muslim world and, increasingly, within Europe itself.

The Brotherhood’s Ideological Ambiguity

The Muslim Brotherhood presents itself publicly as a movement of reform, advocating peaceful activism and social development. However, its ideological underpinnings have long inspired more radical offshoots, including Al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State (ISIS).

Over the decades, many of the key intellectual frameworks that underpin these violent organizations can be traced back to Brotherhood thinkers, particularly Sayyid Qutb. While the Brotherhood distances itself from direct acts of terror, it rarely issues unequivocal condemnations of the extremist ideologies that emerged from its ranks.

This silence raises an important question: why has the Brotherhood, which claims to promote moderation, consistently avoided confronting the theological justifications for violence that stem from its own doctrinal heritage?
The answer may lie in the movement’s dual strategy — a public narrative of moderation designed to appeal to Western and democratic audiences, coupled with a private discourse that continues to reinforce exclusivist and anti-pluralistic interpretations of Islam. In public, the Brotherhood speaks the language of democracy and tolerance; in internal discussions, its rhetoric often shifts toward political dominance and moral superiority.

Understanding this ambiguity is essential for policymakers, journalists, and researchers who wish to engage critically with the organization’s influence — especially as it adapts to the European context, where freedom of religion and association are constitutionally protected.

Europe’s Growing Debate

In recent years, several European governments and civil society actors have expressed concern over the Brotherhood’s expanding networks and influence. While the group often operates legally under the banner of community associations, educational foundations, or humanitarian organizations, critics argue that some of these entities promote social segregation, political activism under a religious guise, or narratives that undermine integration.

For instance, some mosques and cultural centers linked to Brotherhood-affiliated figures have been accused of spreading messages that discourage coexistence and fuel mistrust toward Western institutions. Similarly, certain charitable organizations have been investigated for their financial or ideological connections to political Islam movements abroad.

This has led to an ongoing debate across Europe: how can governments safeguard freedom of belief while ensuring that such freedoms are not exploited to advance divisive agendas?

In Austria, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, policy responses have varied. Some governments have introduced stricter transparency requirements for religious funding; others have moved to dissolve associations found to promote extremist rhetoric. In parallel, civil initiatives have emerged calling for greater awareness of the ideological roots of movements like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The International Campaign to Classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a Terrorist Organization (#ClassifyMBNow) is one example of this growing awareness. Whether or not formal classification takes place, the campaign reflects mounting concern over how the Brotherhood’s presence in Europe intersects with national security, social cohesion, and democratic resilience.

A Challenge for European Policy

European policymakers face a difficult balancing act. On one hand, it is essential to uphold the principles of religious freedom and inclusion that define the European project. On the other hand, the misuse of these freedoms by movements that reject coexistence and pluralism presents a tangible risk to the very values Europe seeks to protect.

A purely securitarian approach — treating all forms of Islamist activism as terrorism — risks alienating moderate believers and undermining trust. Yet ignoring ideological extremism under the banner of cultural diversity can also erode social cohesion and create fertile ground for radicalization.

The solution lies in a nuanced strategy based on transparency, education, and engagement. Governments should:
• Strengthen oversight of foreign funding for religious institutions while ensuring accountability in how funds are used.
• Support community initiatives that promote inclusive, locally rooted expressions of faith.
• Encourage dialogue between religious leaders, academics, and policymakers to counter ideological polarization.

At the same time, journalists and civil society organizations have a role to play in documenting and exposing the narratives that seek to divide societies from within.

Conclusion: Learning from Contradictions

The controversy surrounding my award in Austria may appear minor in the larger geopolitical picture, but it reflects a deeper contradiction that Europe can no longer ignore. When calls for dialogue and mutual respect are denounced as betrayal, it reveals not merely a clash of interpretations, but a contest over the meaning of religion in public life.

Europe’s democratic societies are built on the coexistence of differences — religious, cultural, and political. Defending this coexistence requires not only laws and policies, but also a shared moral conviction that pluralism is a strength, not a threat.

Recognizing the complexity of movements like the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean criminalizing faith or alienating communities. It means understanding how certain ideologies can exploit freedoms to weaken the societies that protect them.
The challenge before Europe is therefore not only to classify or ban, but to comprehend and address — with clarity, courage, and fairness — the ideological currents that shape our shared future.