Talk:Muslim Brotherhood

Questionable source about who funds the "brotherhood"

Currently there's this line in the text: "In recent times, the primary state backers of the Muslim Brotherhood have been Qatar and the AKP-ruled Turkey." And the only source provided (currently numbered "47"), is this one: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/pakistans-support-the-haqqani-network-undermining-us-21300

I see two issues with this source:

  • First, in the article this is claimed: "The two states are the region’s staunchest supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and have been rather willing to flirt with Tehran." but no source, no numbers, no official report is provided.
  • Second, based on the first critics, now it's important to look at the authors of this only source. The authors are: Aykan Erdemir and Merve Tahiroglu. And there's an issue also with this.

Bear with me, because it's the combination of the TWO elements above that are, in my opinion, problematic: they provide NO source for their claim AND they are widely biased authors.

So why do I dare to call them "biased authors":

  • First author: On the same website as the source mentioned above: https://nationalinterest.org/profile/merve-tahiroglu, Merve Tahiroglu is described as "Merve Tahiroglu is a research associate focusing on Turkey for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies." And, the wikipedia article about this (Foundation for Defense of Democracies) describes this foundation as: "The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a non-profit neoconservative think tank and (since 2019) a registered lobbying organization based in Washington, D.C., United States. It has also been described as a pro-Israel, anti-Iran lobby group due to its focus on Iran and opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.". So it's safe to say that an author who provides no source and who's part of a "neoconservative" American based foundation is probably not the most neutral and unbiased source.
  • Second author: https://nationalinterest.org/profile/aykan-erdemir, is described as "Aykan Erdemir is a former member of the Turkish parliament and the Director of Global Research and Diplomatic Affairs at the Anti-Defamation League." This Anti-Defamation League is described as "ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy. It has advanced the concept of new antisemitism, including a definition that says anti-Zionism and some criticisms of Israel are antisemitic. It has received criticism, including from members of its staff, that such advocacy has diverted ADL from its historical fight against antisemitism." on Wikipedia. Again, that's far from being a neutral and unbiased or even a journalistic organization.

Conclusion

So we have one source to "prove" that Qatar and Turkey are funding the brotherhood. That source provides no numbers, report or database to read from, it's just a claim in an article written by two authors who are massively biased and part of think tanks and foundations which are clearly not journalistic.

I am not saying that the initial claim is wrong (I have no doubt that Qatar and Turkey fund the brotherhood), but the source that is provided is not sufficient, worse it does not even provide one number or any kind of financial information. Mrjay42 (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i agree national interest is unreliable 2600:480A:4A51:9300:416A:8D90:9C53:BFF1 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
France's interior ministry report titled "The Muslim brotherhood and political Islamism in France" claims that Turkey and Qatar are the MB's biggest supporters.
1) page 24 2.1.1.1 "This growth was supported and favored by Turkey and Qatar, where the political power developed close relations with the movement in the 1950s and demonstrated its support both through media (launch of the Al-Jazeera channel in 1996 and broadcast of Youssef AL-QARADAWI's talks) and politics. The support provided by the Emir and Prime Minister Hamad BlIN JASSEM, convinced that the movement was experiencing a moment of apogee, contributed to the dynamic initiated by the Arab Spring."
2) Simogne (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
continuing-
2) page 281 2.1.2.2 "on the scale of the Middle East, Turkey has constituted with Qatar a powerful axis of support for the Muslim Brotherhood, which opposes that (axis) formed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates: the latter, which went so far as to decree a blockade against Qatar in 2017, financially support the regimes in place in Egypt and Tunisia as well as the factions of Eastern Libya, while Turkey intervened militarily in Libya and Qatar politically supports the Islamist factions"
3) page 38/39 2.2.2.5 "In the Netherlands, the movement's establishment came late (...) - A branch of the Europe Trust made it possible to build the country's most important mosques in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, with the help of Qatari and Kuwaiti funds. Like Austria and Germany, Sweden hosts an active branch of the movement which, in addition to its small size, is characterized by its influence on the European structures of the movement. The influence of the Swedish branch can be explained by the provision of Qatari funding (...) Finally, in Denmark, a small local movement was founded in the 1970s by exiles and students. This branch stood out above all for its funding from Qatar (...)"
4) page 40 3.1.1.1 "Via its endowment funds and SCIs, the projects of Muslims of France were able to benefit until 2019 from foreign funding from Qatar (Strasbourg. Mulhouse, Villeneuve d'Ascg, Schiltigheim, Lille, Marseille, IESH and mosques of Seine-Saint-Denis)" Simogne (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it would be more useful if there is an academic source, but this could be suitable unless there is furhter information.
I don't like that the french ministry is pushing the idea in that report that many muslim civil society orgs are somehow all part of the muslim brotherhood either.
both the national interest and the interior ministry could be used, with attribution. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
both authors and the think tank journal are biased, that doesn't make them unusable. this should probably just be attributed. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2025

Please update to reflect the most recent ban from Kenya.

1. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001530012/kenya-widens-terror-list-to-include-muslim-brotherhood-and-hizb-ur-tahrir

2. https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/116431-hassan-omar-slams-murkomen-over-labelling-muslim-brotherhood-terror-group

3. https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2025-09-21-kenya-declares-muslim-brotherhood-a-terrorist-group

4. https://nation.africa/kenya/news/kenya-outlaws-muslim-brotherhood-hizb-ur-tahrir-terror-groups-5201048?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=NTV+Socials LuffyDe (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please detail what you want written specifically. Nubzor [T][C] 17:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Charity is a major part of its work"

The linked source doesn't talk about the organization as a whole, it focuses on the Egyptian branch. Furthermore, it doesn't even characterise what percentage of the association's work is "charity", neither attempts to do such an analysis. Verbatim "Founded by Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood - or al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Arabic - has influenced Islamist movements around the world with its model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work." - it doesn't tell us whether the Muslim Brotherhood as a transnational entity has kept its model of Islamic charity work from the start, whether that Islamic charity work was essential or tangible in quantity. I suggest simply removing that phrase , as it is unsupported by sources. Simogne (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove unsourced infobox parameter (Spokesperson) – policy compliance

I request the removal of the “Spokesperson: Gehad El-Haddad” field from the article’s infobox.

This entry is not supported by any reliable sources and therefore violates both WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:BLP, which require that any material about living persons must be sourced and strictly maintained. The parameter appears to be outdated, unsourced, and potentially misleading.

For policy compliance, please remove the entire “spokesperson” parameter from the protected page.

~2025-39987-37 (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting the removal of the following sentence from the article:

“Gehad El-Haddad, a Muslim Brotherhood member, denied that terrorism was practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood in an editorial published by The New York Times.”

Reason: This sentence introduces a living individual into a highly controversial topic in a way that may be misleading and undue. While a source is cited, the statement constitutes contentious material about a living person and gives disproportionate weight to a single individual’s opinion within a broader political narrative.

Per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, material about living persons must be handled with extreme care, and individual viewpoints should not be highlighted in a manner that implies representativeness or endorsement. The sentence is not essential to the encyclopedic understanding of the organization and can be removed without loss of informational value.

Request: Please remove the sentence in full from the article body.

~2025-39987-37 (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The sentence in question is properly sourced and attributed; it accurately describes El-Haddad's own views as published by him in the New York Times and so does not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Day Creature (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISGAP report

@ShoBDin @Butterscotch Beluga k, think we are parties to this slow moving edit war. feel free to add more as necessary

Regarding the ISGAP report, YNetNews is apparently reliable for content related to Israel-Arab conflict, according to a few RSN archives i looked up, so we can keep it. YNet has in the past been called out for being a propaganda mouthpiece for the Israeli government according to our own wikipedia article about it, and this study. [1], but there is nothing wrong with being biased as long as its reliable and we attribute.

We could feasibly keep in the primary source to IGAP itself, but as it is WP:PRIMARY and possibly WP:SPS, i feel its undue, so i removed it. the house committee hearings is definitively undue and PRIMARY, i would strongly object to its inclusion. YNet should be enough by itself. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the paper seems to mostly rely on the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood Memo, a mostly discredited memo, and the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory to push this 100 year idea. in general, I wonder if this would fit the WP:FRINGE policy. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder about dueness. the academic paper as it reads suggests every islamic organization in North america is part of this 100 year conspiracy. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2026

al nusra is not alleged to be part of the islamic brotherhood, there is no proof of the allegation, removal is needed ThatMister144 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The infobox does not say that the Al-Nusra Front is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, merely that it is an alleged ally. Day Creature (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs discussion

I don't follow this topic but I want to nitpick some details in the article hoping for improvement by editors more informed than I. I'm not clear on the intended meaning of the word ban in the image File:Map of countries that ban Muslim Brotherhood.svg and in its caption here echoing the image file name -- I think it is meant as shorthand for official designation as a terrorist organization, but I'm not sure and I'm not sure what else it might be intended to indicate. the file page on common says "own work" and names Austria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan, linking supporting sources for each; this raised concerns re WP:SYNTH. I noter that this list differs from the list given in the Designation as a terrorist organization section of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina

Argentina designate Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group
REF: [2] ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260116-argentina-designates-muslim-brotherhood-branches-as-terrorist-organisations/?amp ~2026-33592-5 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
came here to say the same thing. should be added to the article Jesuliz (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_Brotherhood