V24 Exclusive: Emirati activist Amjad Taha about how Islamist extremists exploit Western freedoms to spread radicalism.
Adam Starzynski
Jul 30, 2025 - 10:03 AM
Share
In an exclusive interview filmed in Abu Dhabi, Emirati journalist, and political strategist Amjad Taha poses a damning question to the West: Why are radical Islamist groups and their affiliates banned across much of the Arab world, yet welcomed with open arms in Western democracies?
“You cannot be more Muslim than me,” Taha asserts. “You will not be more Arab than I. So why have I banned the Muslim Brotherhood, but you haven’t?”
His challenge exposes a glaring contradiction. Organizations like Islamic Relief- banned in the UAE and Saudi Arabia for alleged ties to terrorism - operate freely in cities such as London and Paris.
The West’s Blind Spot
Amjad Taha warns that individuals once fugitives in their home countries now hold trusted roles across the West - as lecturers, teachers, doctors, and community leaders. Some openly lead protests supporting groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, organizations banned even in several Muslim-majority countries.
These are not refugees fleeing persecution but ideological operatives spreading the doctrines they claim to have escaped. After gaining citizenship, many establish Islamist propaganda networks recruiting disaffected locals and sending radical ideas back to the Middle East. Children born in the West, who should grow up free and safe, are often drawn into a global conflict they barely understand.
Taha reveals the alarming scale of jihadist recruitment in the West. At ISIS’s peak, more British citizens joined the Islamic State than enlisted in the British Armed Forces. Thousands of European passport holders traveled to Syria and Iraq to fight alongside terrorist militias. Most recruits were homegrown, radicalized within Western societies by extremist preachers protected under free speech laws.
He highlights key hubs of radicalization, including Birmingham, Sheffield, West Sydney, and parts of Canada, where hate spreads under the cover of religious freedom and cultural rights.
Why are Western-born Muslims more vulnerable to radicalization than their peers in places like the UAE?
Exploitation of Western Freedoms
Taha points to a stark contrast: in the West, ideological tolerance has created space for extremism to thrive. Radical preachers run weekend schools, Islamist media spreads propaganda with little resistance, and hate speech is often shielded by claims of religious freedom. By comparison, Gulf nations such as the UAE reject groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and maintain strict oversight of religious institutions to promote national cohesion. Ironically, Muslims in the Gulf are often less radicalized than those growing up in European suburbs.
Taha cites Islamic Relief as an example of Western goodwill being manipulated. Though banned in parts of the Gulf, the charity operates across Europe, where funds raised under humanitarian pretenses are allegedly diverted to militant networks tied to Hamas and other jihadist groups. Clinics and schools Western donors believe they support are often run by Islamists whose mission is not to heal but to indoctrinate, often unknowingly funded by Western taxpayers.
This radicalization is not accidental; it is the product of systematic abuse of Western freedoms. Taha draws a crucial distinction: the problem is not free speech itself, but how it is exploited. Islamist preachers use democratic freedoms not to promote tolerance, but to normalize hatred, framing support for terrorism as legitimate “resistance.” This deliberate strategy weakens the very societies that protect them.
The Urgent Need for Democratic Self-Defense
Instead of fostering pluralism and coexistence, campuses and public spaces have become battlegrounds of ideological warfare. Institutions once respected as centers of knowledge - Harvard, Oxford, Sciences Po - now face turmoil. Jewish students endure intimidation, professors are attacked, extremist flags fly openly. Debate is stifled, dissent punished, and violence excused.
“You are allowing it to break in front of your eyes,” Taha cautions. He argues that liberal democracies cannot survive if they continue enabling ideologies that seek their undoing. Defending freedom requires confronting radical actors, closing legal loopholes, and refusing to confuse incitement with activism.
Taha calls for decisive measures: those who preach hatred or glorify terrorism must be deported swiftly and without hesitation. But many extremists are second- or third-generation citizens; deportation alone is insufficient. He advocates legal reforms to prevent radical clerics from directing mosques, youth initiatives, or educational programs. Spiritual leaders who fail to advocate peace and coexistence must not be allowed to teach.
Taha’s message is not a plea for censorship but a call for clarity, resolve, and the defense of the principles that make Western societies worth protecting.
