The Case Against the Muslim Brotherhood’s NGO Network in Canada

The fundamental threat: infiltration under a benign cover

• According to a 2025 analysis by Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), entities with documented links to the Muslim Brotherhood and even to designated terrorist organizations such as Hamas have embedded themselves in Canada’s political, academic, financial and civic infrastructure — all under the veneer of religion, charity, or social service. (Middle East Forum)

• The network allegedly weaponizes Canada’s pluralist values — tolerance, multiculturalism, charitable giving — to legitimize extremist ideologies. (Middle East Forum)

• By operating via educational institutions, mosques, relief charities, student associations, and advocacy groups, the Brotherhood-linked organizations avoid direct association with violence. Instead, they build legitimacy, influence, and a long-term presence. This kind of “soft infiltration” is harder to detect and more dangerous than overt terrorism — it seeks to reshape civic culture, politics, and public discourse over time.

Taxpayer money and public funding: an egregious scandal

• The flagship member of this network, Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), reportedly received nearly C$31 million in public funds from federal, provincial, and municipal governments between 2018 and 2022. (Middle East Forum)

• Additional organizations associated with the Brotherhood — such as Islamic Relief Canada (IRC), ISNA‑Canada, and National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) — have reportedly received millions more. (Middle East Forum)

• This represents a gross misuse of public resources: taxpayer money backing organizations that promote ideologies contrary to Canada’s democratic values, and in some cases with ties to extremist entities. Proponents argue this is morally indefensible and constitutes a betrayal of public trust. (Middle East Forum)

Documented instances of extremist links — not just conjecture

• A government audit by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) found “grounds for concern” regarding MAC’s links to the Muslim Brotherhood and to IRFAN‑Canada — a charity previously designated as a terrorist entity for funneling funds to Hamas. (Global News)

• According to reporting, MAC provided roughly US$296,514 to IRFAN-Canada between 2001 and 2010. (Middle East Forum)

• Audit findings alleged that MAC had supported “activities that further the advancement of the Muslim Brotherhood organization.” (Global News)

• Meanwhile, organizations such as NCCM / former CAIR‑Canada have had leaders who publicly “praise” the Brotherhood, suggesting ideological alignment rather than mere cultural or religious community work. (Middle East Forum)

These are not unsubstantiated accusations or hearsay — these are findings from official audits, investigative journalism, and NGO-watch analyses.

Risk to democratic values, social cohesion, security

• The ideological worldview promoted by the Brotherhood — including its historical statements on governance, the separation of religion and state, pluralism, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and religious minorities — has repeatedly been criticized as being fundamentally incompatible with liberal-democratic values. Critics argue that allowing such groups to operate as civic institutions undermines social cohesion, pluralism, and the rights of minorities. (Middle East Forum)

• The infiltration does not only pose a symbolic or political threat; it also raises real national security concerns. Through financial networks, foreign funding (for example from Gulf-state charities), institutional footholds, and student- and community-level activism, these organizations could become nodes in a broader transnational extremist architecture. (Middle East Forum)

• Moreover, by receiving government funding and political legitimacy — including appearances by high-level officials — these organizations gain an aura of respectability, making scrutiny and resistance more difficult. (Middle East Forum)

Moral and civic hypocrisy: using democratic freedoms to subvert democracy

• The Brotherhood-linked NGOs exploit Canada’s openness, tolerance, and generous social-service policies to operate. By presenting as “charities,” “community service providers,” or “faith-based organizations,” they shield themselves from suspicion while building networks of influence. (Middle East Forum)

• Government funding of such groups — especially given documented audits and links to extremist networks — amounts to state complicity in subsidizing ideological extremism. For democratic societies that pride themselves on pluralism, multiculturalism and human rights, this is a betrayal of foundational values. (Middle East Forum)

• The fact that these networks continue — even after audits, public debate, and increasing scrutiny — suggests systemic failure in policy, oversight, and political will. As long as the status quo persists, the Brotherhood’s long-term objective of social and political influence remains unimpeded. (Middle East Forum)

What Must Be Done — An Urgent Policy Agenda

If Canada — and by extension other Western democracies — is serious about preserving liberal values, civil society, and national security, the following measures are essential:

1. Immediate ban of the Muslim Brotherhood and all its activities and operations (direct and indirect) in Canada.

2. Immediate suspension of public funds to NGOs with documented or credible ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or designated extremist organizations. The state should not subsidize groups promoting ideology incompatible with democratic values.

3. Comprehensive audit and investigation of all major Islamic charities and NGOs that received significant public money — with full transparency about findings. Secretive or partial audits are not enough.

4. Formal designation of the Brotherhood (or its relevant affiliate networks) as a threat — comparable to what has been done with terrorist organizations — when evidence warrants. This would enable legal oversight, transparency, and better control of funding and operations.

5. Strict regulation of foreign funding, especially from sources known to have extremist linkages. All foreign donations to charities should be fully traceable and subject to public reporting.

6. Veto of government and political engagement with organizations under investigation or audit. High-level appearances or endorsements lend undue legitimacy and weaken public trust.

7. Public awareness and civil society pushback: Citizens, journalists, academics and lawmakers must demand transparency, hold institutions accountable, and ensure that identity politics, religious freedoms or multiculturalism are not used as shields for extremist influence.

Why a Stronger Stand Is Needed — Not a Balanced Approach

Some critics argue that labeling charities and civic organizations as “Islamist infiltration networks” risks stigmatizing entire Muslim communities, undermining civil liberties, or feeding prejudice. That argument assumes good faith, transparency, and pluralism. But when evidence — including audits, financial flows, documented ties to extremist organizations, and ideological alignment — points to a coordinated network with strategic goals, the stakes change.

This is not about religion or ethnicity, but about ideology and political-social engineering. The Brotherhood’s global record — its known history of radicalism, political Islamism, and in many contexts, association with violence — cannot be ignored. In Canada, tolerating such networks under the guise of charity weakens social cohesion, erodes public trust, and jeopardizes national security.

In sum: this is not a debate about faith or religious freedom. This is a matter of safeguarding Canada’s democratic institutions, civic integrity, financial transparency, and public safety — before the soft infiltration becomes irreversible.