Islamic infiltration vote in European Parliament divides Maltese MEPs

The European Parliament called for an EU-wide strategy to counter Islamist infiltration of institutions and curb the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-linked networks.

The resolution, tabled by the European People's Party (EPP), was adopted by 381 votes to 167, with 15 abstentions.

Of Malta's MEPs, Nationalist Party representatives Peter Agius and David Casa voted in favour of the resolution, while Labour MEP Thomas Bajada voted against it. The remaining Maltese MEPs did not participate in the final vote.

The resolution calls for a coordinated European strategy to identify and counter what parliament describes as Islamist entryism, a practice through which political networks seek to influence democratic institutions from within through religious, cultural, educational, and charitable organisations.

The resolution specifically identifies the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational Islamist movement founded in Egypt, as an example of a network allegedly pursuing political influence through such organisations.

In its resolution, parliament stressed that Islam as a religion must not be confused with political Islamism, which it described as a distinct political ideology seeking to impose religiously influenced norms on society.

The proposals

Among its proposals, parliament called for a European methodology which identifies signs of Islamist entryism, including financial opacity, institutional influence, links to known networks, and the alleged misuse of anti-discrimination frameworks.

It also urged the EU Council to consider adding individuals and organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood to the EU's terrorist list, provided they meet the necessary legal criteria.

The resolution further called for tighter scrutiny of EU funding to ensure that public funds do not reach organisations linked to terrorist networks, alongside greater transparency over foreign funding and political influence, particularly involving Qatar and Turkey.

Parliament also supported national bans on full-face coverings, including the niqab and burqa, in public spaces, citing security concerns, social cohesion, and women's rights.

Additionally, MEPs called for organisations allegedly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO), to be excluded from EU institutional meetings and removed from the EU Transparency Register.

However, the allegations concerning such organisations remain contested, with FEMYSO rejecting claims of links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

What does the vote mean?

Although the resolution received majority support, it is not legally binding and does not automatically introduce any of the proposed measures.

Instead, it establishes parliament's political position and places pressure on the European Commission, the council, and member states to consider further action.

Any terrorist designations, funding restrictions, or legislative measures would require separate decisions under the relevant EU or national legal frameworks.

The vote marked a political push for greater scrutiny of alleged Islamist influence within European institutions, rather than the immediate introduction of new EU-wide restrictions.

How did Maltese MEPs vote?

Of Malta's six MEPs, Nationalist Party representatives Peter Agius and David Casa voted in favour of the resolution, while Labour MEP Thomas Bajada voted against it.

The remaining two PL MEPs, Alex Agius Saliba and Daniel Attard, abstained from the final vote.

Peter Agius criticises PL MEPs over vote, or lack of it

PN MEP Peter Agius expressed disappointment over the Labour MEPs' voting positions, accusing them of “not having the courage” to take a stand and condemn the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a video posted on Facebook, Agius questioned whether the Labour Party was willing to tolerate the spread of radical Islam in Malta.

“In Malta, we don’t want radical Islam. We don’t want to hear that, in Europe, girls and women are forced to wear hijabs or burqas, that women need their husbands’ permission to study, have money, or to work,” he said.

“We want to have freedom of expression and religion, but a religion of tolerance, whatever religion it is.”

David Casa raises ‘serious questions’ about PL MEPs position

PN MEP David Casa, who voted in favour of the resolution, also attacked Labour’s three PN MEPs for their “contradictory positions” in the final vote on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Casa claimed that their disagreement “raises serious questions” about the PL’s ability to defend Malta’s interests in Europe.

“Peter Agius and I voted in favour because we believe that protecting our democratic institutions, our freedoms, and our European values requires a firm and consistent approach to extremism,” Casa said.

He stressed that the EU needs clarity and resolve at a time in which extremist ideologies threaten democratic values and fundamental freedoms, adding that these are serious concerns for many Maltese families.

Agius Saliba: Resolution is an attack on humanitarian work in the West Bank

PL MEP Alex Agius Saliba defended his position, arguing that abstaining is itself a voting choice in the European Parliament and explaining that he was uncomfortable voting either for or against the resolution.

On one hand, Agius Saliba said he opposed extremism, terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood, meaning he could not vote against the resolution.

“I can’t choose not to condemn terrorist organisations,” he said.

However, he argued that he could not support the resolution because of its wording, which he claimed risked portraying Muslim organisations more broadly as being associated with terrorism.

He further claimed that the resolution originated from far-right political forces in Europe and that its definition of entryism could be applied to NGOs associated with Islam, including Palestinian humanitarian organisations.

“Are all Islamic NGOs encouraging terrorism?” he questioned.

“The resolution makes reference to antisemitism and Palestine. It’s a direct attack on humanitarian work in the West Bank.”

Thomas Bajada: Is humanitarian aid to Palestine terrorism?

PL MEP Thomas Bajada, who voted against the resolution, insisted that he could not support measures that risk undermining the work of civil society organisations whose sole purpose is to provide humanitarian assistance.

“Especially in Palestine,” he said, questioning whether organisations providing humanitarian aid could be labelled as terrorists under the resolution.

He argued that although the resolution's title focuses on the Muslim Brotherhood, its contents extend far beyond the organisation, potentially affecting a wider range of associations linked to the Islamic faith.

Bajada referred to a section of the resolution which calls on the EU Council “not to limit this assessment to formally declared structures, but to take into account associated entities, front organisations, reconstituted structures, financial relays, youth networks, ideological platforms, logistical support networks and individuals playing a leadership, coordination or facilitation role.”

The MEP concluded by insisting that his position was clear and that the implications of the resolution's wording spoke for themselves.

Racism is also a form of extremism, Daniel Attard says

PL MEP Daniel Attard faced criticism from PN MEPs and Net News, who claimed that he “had not even bothered” to attend the vote.

However, Attard explained that he had been attending the Global Travel and Tourism Summit, which he said he had helped organise, before hosting the EU Tourism Commissioner in Malta.

He also posted a photograph of himself attending the summit on Facebook last week.

“This was intentional fake news from the PN’s media, because one MEP wanted political gain,” Attard insisted. “Why are we choosing to sow hate?”

Attard stressed that he opposed all forms of extremism, but added that he also rejected fascism and considered racism another form of extremism.

He also raised concerns about the resolution's potential implications for Palestinian humanitarian organisations.

“What about Palestinian NGOs who were targeted by Netanyahu’s government after they were all put in the same box?” Attard questioned. “Let’s not forget what happened.”

Attard appeared to be referring to Israel's decision in October 2021 to designate six Palestinian human rights and civil society organisations as terrorist groups, accusing them of links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

The organisations, including Al-Haq and Defence for Children International–Palestine, were involved in human rights advocacy, legal assistance, and support for vulnerable communities.

They were consequently outlawed under Israeli law, although some continue to operate despite restrictions which allow authorities to close their offices, seize assets, and pursue criminal action against staff.