German audit findings released after a lengthy legal fight say the Foreign Office gave millions in taxpayer funding to Islamic Relief Germany despite prior warnings and alleged links involving the Muslim Brotherhood.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Germany’s Federal Foreign Office provided millions of euros in public funding to Islamic Relief Germany despite prior warnings about alleged Islamist ties involving the organization and its parent group, according to audit reports obtained by Die Welt.
The reports from Berlin’s Federal Audit Office said the Foreign Office gave Islamic Relief Germany nearly 8.5 million euros, or about $9.9 million, between 2013 and 2016, along with additional funding beyond that period.
The funding has drawn scrutiny because Islamic Relief Germany’s parent organization, Islamic Relief Worldwide, was classified by Israel as a terror group in 2014 over allegations that it helped funnel money to Hamas. The organization has denied the allegation. A 2009 report from Germany’s Baden-Württemberg Office for the Protection of the Constitution also accused the group of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement seeking to impose Sharia law.
A 2019 German government report later found that Islamic Relief Germany had “significant personnel connections to the Muslim Brotherhood or organisations close to it.” After that finding, the Foreign Office stopped funding the group.
The Federal Audit Office reports examining the grants were classified and kept from public release for more than five years. The German government argued that publishing the findings could “lead to polemics” and risk public debate that would not be “conducive to the welfare of the federal government.”
The documents were ultimately released after a legal challenge brought by attorney Seyran Ateş and the Institute for Secular Law.
According to Die Welt, one audit report found that the Foreign Office was “unable to explain on what basis” it had determined Islamic Relief Germany was a reputable charity eligible for millions in public grants.
The report also said the Foreign Office disregarded a “clear and binding directive” from 2009 instructing officials not to work with the organization.
A second audit report said the Foreign Office provided financial support to Islamic Relief Germany “blindly” and “without first verifying the legality and economic efficiency of the previous funding.”
Islamic Relief Germany has denied any connection to the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas. Höcker, the law firm representing the organization, said its client has no such ties.
“Our client has no contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, does not see himself as part of or a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood,” the law firm said.
The firm also denied any Hamas connection and said Islamic Relief Germany operates independently from Islamic Relief Worldwide. It said the German organization’s purpose was limited to raising money for charitable work.
The release of the audit reports comes as European governments face growing scrutiny over Islamist networks and foreign-funded religious organizations. A French intelligence report produced last year found that the Muslim Brotherhood had, since the 1950s, “designed the matrix of political Islamism adapted to be established in the West,” with the reported objective of political subversion and establishing a theocratic system.
The French report identified about 280 Islamic associations in France with alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, including charities. It also described Germany and Austria as major centers of Muslim Brotherhood activity in Europe, calling them “historically the first lands of establishment of the movement” on the continent.
The findings prompted Sweden to open its own investigation into Islamist infiltration, including efforts to “strangle foreign funding of religious communities, where states fund radical mosques,” and to counter “Islamist and undemocratic forces.”
The German audit disclosures have raised new questions about how public grant decisions were made, why earlier warnings were not followed and how government agencies should vet organizations accused of links to extremist movements before distributing taxpayer funds.
Original article
Comments