The Amjad Taha and Islamic Relief controversy: Why charities linked to foreign political movements need clear labels

In February 2025, Emirati political commentator Amjad Taha appeared on GB News’ Camilla Tominey Show and levelled explosive allegations against Islamic Relief, one of the UK’s most prominent Muslim charities. He claimed the organisation was funnelling money to terrorist groups in the Middle East. Within hours, the controversy dominated social media and triggered frantic political commentary.

Islamic Relief initiated legal proceedings almost immediately. In September 2025, GB News issued a full public apology, retracted the allegations, and paid substantial damages. The broadcaster admitted the claims were “untrue,” marking a decisive victory for the charity in defending its reputation.

This episode — now widely referred to as the “Islamic Relief saga” — illustrates the dangers of broadcasting unsubstantiated claims. Yet it also exposes a deeper structural problem: the absence of transparency standards for charities linked, historically or ideologically, to foreign political-religious movements.

Beyond Accusations: The Real Question Is Transparency

Calling Islamic Relief a “terrorist charity” is not just inflammatory — it is demonstrably false. The UK Charity Commission has scrutinised the organisation several times, examining its financial controls, governance practices, and allegations of extremism. In 2021, an independent review cleared it of institutional antisemitism while recommending governance reforms. Courts have dismissed claims that the charity funds terrorism. Islamic Relief itself consistently asserts — and regulators have corroborated — that its mission is humanitarian, not political.

But the debate cannot end with disproving defamation. A much more consequential question remains:

Should Western regulators require ideological transparency from charities with roots in foreign political movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or Jamaat-i-Islami (JI)?

The answer must be YES.

The Sultana Khan Revelation: A Missed Warning

In 2015, journalist Sultana Khan, writing for Gawker’s Phase Zero, revealed a detail that should have triggered a national alarm in Britain. Among the intelligence recovered by US Navy SEALs during the 2011 Abbottabad raid — an operation in which American service members risked and nearly lost their lives — was a letter from Osama bin Laden mentioning a British Islamic charity leader active in Pakistan.

The letter addressed the charity’s earthquake and flood-relief operations and served as evidence of direct communication between bin Laden and the individual. Though the charity was unnamed, Khan’s investigation narrowed the possibilities to a small number of major British Muslim charities active in Pakistan at the time — the ones with the scale, the resources, and the operational footprint bin Laden described. Global intelligence agencies are almost sure that the charity leader was tied to Pakistan's ISI. 

The most astonishing part is not the letter's content. It is the silence that followed. The UK government did nothing. The British press did nothing. Politicians buried their heads in the sand.

A piece of intelligence taken from the world’s most wanted terrorist — intelligence for which US special forces risked their lives — was simply allowed to fade into obscurity.

This failure did not make Britain safer. It made us less secure because it demonstrated a structural unwillingness to scrutinise the ideological ecosystems in which some charities operate.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami: Political Movements With Militant Shadows

Neither the MB nor JI is proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK, the EU, or the United States. But they are not apolitical movements. Their leaderships have, across decades, expressed support for or cooperation with armed Islamist groups, shaping an ideological ecosystem that blends social welfare with political mobilisation — and, at times, militant solidarity.

A striking, fully documented example comes from Pakistan.

Qazi Hussain Ahmad: The “Godfather of Jihad”

The late Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Emir of Jamaat-i-Islami Pakistan, was described in the Pakistani press as the “Godfather of Jihad.” His career embodied JI’s model of transnational Islamist activism: political struggle domestically, and open solidarity with militant causes across the Muslim world.

One incident is beyond dispute. An Associated Press / Press Trust of India (AP/PTI) photograph shows Qazi personally handing a cheque for Rs 10 million (approximately $185,000) to Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, the former President of Chechnya. The caption makes the purpose explicit:

“for the militants fighting against the Russian army.”

Yandarbiyev was later placed on the UN Security Council al-Qaeda sanctions list in June 2003 for his association with extremist networks.

Qazi’s support extended further. He openly championed:

Hamas, hosting its representatives in PakistanKashmiri militant factions, including groups aligned with Hizbul MujahideenAfghan “mujahideen” commanders, before and after the Taliban’s rise

This history matters because many Islamic charities in Europe and North America were established or staffed by individuals shaped by MB or JI ideological training, especially during the jihadist solidarity era of the 1980s to the present.

None of this means these charities are engaged in terrorism. But it does mean donors deserve clarity.

 The Missing Label: “Politically Exposed Charities”

Western regulators already recognise the concept of the Politically Exposed Person (PEP): individuals who — by virtue of their political or organisational roles — require enhanced due diligence.

Why, then, should charities with roots in transnational political Islamist movements be treated as ideologically neutral?

These charities are not terrorist entities. But they are politically exposed entities.

What would “politically exposed” mean in the charitable sector?

A charity should be classified as politically exposed if:

Individuals from a foreign political movement founded itIts trustees have held senior roles within such movementsIts organisational networks overlap with political-religious structures abroadIts leadership has a history of political or militant solidarity activism

This is not a criminal designation.

It is a transparency requirement, similar to:

banking compliance (PEPs),conflict-of-interest disclosures in procurement,political donations transparency laws.

What would charities need to disclose?

Founders’ political-religious backgroundsHistorical ideological links to MB, JI, or similar movementsAny formal or informal ties to foreign political actorsA clear statement of their present-day political neutrality

Such transparency:

protects donors,protects genuinely humanitarian charities,and protects the public from misinformation and hidden influence.

Why the Islamic Relief Saga Shows the Need for Reform

The Taha incident exposes two parallel dangers:

Baseless allegations can cause immense damage.A lack of ideological disclosure leaves donors vulnerable to confusion — or manipulation.

Introducing a “politically exposed entity” label for charities would:

prevent misinformationstrengthen public trustprotect charitable reputationsimprove counter-extremism due diligenceensure informed donor consent

This is not about harassment or stigma. It is about truth in labelling.

Conclusion: Transparency Is the Only Way Forward

The Amjad Taha–Islamic Relief controversy is a cautionary tale. Accusations must be evidence-based. But so must be denials of political influence. When charities operate within ideological ecosystems shaped by foreign political movements, the public has the right to know.

A politically exposed entity label is simple, reasonable, and fair. It empowers donors. It protects charities from slander. And it ensures that humanitarian work is not undermined by confusion or undisclosed political histories.

In an era of global instability — from the Middle East to Europe — transparency is not optional. It is the foundation of public trust. The UK is stuck, and it's become a haven for foreign political activism. Foreign political movements should not abuse charities and zakat. Amjad Taha was wrong, but the fact is that there are British charities linked to extremists. Sultana Khan and Osama bin Laden confirmed it.