
Exclusive: British Muslim Network backed by charity set up by former archbishop Welby
A new national body appearing to challenge the leadership credentials of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has lost many of its earlier backers and is being backed by a charity set up by disgraced former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, Middle East Eye can reveal.
The new body, the British Muslim Network (BMN), is set to hold its launch event on 25 February but faces an escalating crisis as increasing numbers of Muslim MPs refuse to attend, MEE understands.
Last July, MEE first reported on plans to create a new Labour-supported Muslim group designed to engage with the government.
Since then, MEE understands that the initiative has lost most of its backing, including hundreds of thousands of pounds in funding.
Several Muslim MPs have privately said they will not accept invitations to attend the upcoming launch event.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
BMN co-founder Akeela Ahmed said in late January that the network was 'only speaking to potential funders within the British Muslim community'.
But three anonymous Labour insiders with knowledge of the matter told MEE that the BMN is receiving a large part of its support from the Together Coalition.
The coalition is a charity co-founded by Welby and Brendan Cox, the husband of the Labour MP Jo Cox who was murdered by a far-right-inspired gunman in 2016.
Muslims Don't Matter: Sayeeda Warsi lacerates her former Tory colleagues Read More »
According to its website, the Together Coalition's steering group, which oversees its direction, is chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a title held until recently by Welby.
Welby resigned as archbishop late last year after a report found that the Church of England covered up sexual abuse by a barrister who attacked as many as 130 boys and young men.
Welby's successor as archbishop has not yet been appointed.
Prominent members of the Together Coalition's steering group include Matthew Elliot, who was the chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign that advocated for Brexit in 2016, and Lord Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British army.
Women's equality activist Julie Siddiqi, another member of the steering group, is understood to be heavily involved in the BMN.
'No credibility '
Labour insiders told MEE that Cox, who is the Together Coalition's head of strategy and is understood to be close to the Labour leadership, is a key figure behind the new network.
MEE also understands that Cox is concerned that figures like Siddiqi who are behind the BMN lack credibility within the Muslim community.
'The BMN has not gone in the way that they expected and instead of bringing people together, it is creating further division'
- Labour source
"Brendan is aware that figures who are rumoured to be involved with the BMN, like Julie Siddiqi or Imam Asim Hafez, have no credibility within the community,' said a source who is in regular contact with grassroots Muslim groups.
"The BMN has not gone in the way that they expected and instead of bringing people together, it is creating further division."
Cox, who is not a Muslim, has previously praised the controversial Prevent programme and warned that 'You don't need to import the conflict from Israel-Palestine into the UK'.
In 2018, Cox confessed to inappropriate behaviour and resigned from two charities after multiple allegations of sexual assault surfaced. He strongly denied the accusations.
MEE understands that a number of people involved in the project to create a new Muslim organisation held a meeting last May which was organised by the Together Coalition at Cumberland Lodge, a 17th-century country house in Windsor.
The BMN has presented itself as seeking to allow the government to engage with British Muslim communities, which is what the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), founded in the late 1990s, aims to do.
British Jews explain their turn away from Israel and Zionism Read More »
An invitation to the BMN's launch event, seen by MEE, said the network had been created as a result of 'the joining of many heads and hearts over the past few months and is linked to conversations that have been taking place in British Muslim communities for many years.'
The proposal document MEE reported on last July said that the government and policy makers 'are not easily able to access, connect or seek credible and expert advice from diverse British Muslim communities', creating a 'dire need for a credible group'.
But consecutive governments have followed a policy of refusing to engage with Britain's largest umbrella body claiming to represent British Muslims, the Muslim Council of Britain.
The MCB has over 500 member organisations, including mosques, schools, local and county councils, professional networks and advocacy groups.
In August, MEE revealed that the Labour government even ignored communications from the MCB during the far-right riots that raged across the country for over a week.
Another Labour insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, told MEE there was outrage over 'repeated attempts to divide the Muslim community into so-called good Muslims that will be allowed to engage with the government, and so-called bad Muslims that will be boycotted.
'It is as dangerous as it is racist,' the source added. 'The involvement of non-Muslim individuals and organisations in driving these divisive projects particularly reeks of Islamophobia.'
A spokesperson for the Together Coalition told MEE: 'As part of our work to address threats to community cohesion, we work with a wide variety of civil society groups to help ensure voices and communities that are marginalised get the support they deserve.'
Access and representation
MEE understands that Cox has played a central role in shaping Labour's broader faith engagement strategy, with the party relying heavily on the Together Coalition for community outreach.
According to a Labour Party source, Cox has emerged as a key figure in these efforts.
His influence is reportedly tied to his connections within the party and his broader interfaith work, particularly through relationships with figures like the former archbishop.
'You don't need to import the conflict from Israel-Palestine into the UK'
- Brendan Cox
Cox's involvement has facilitated structured engagement with faith communities, but sources suggest that these efforts are often not representative.
And Cox has previously taken controversial positions on contentious political issues such as the Gaza war.
In December 2023, the Together Coalition held a mass vigil aiming to 'bridge divisions' by bringing people who lost family in Gaza together with those who lost family in Israel.
'The vast majority of the debate is dominated by the loudest, most extreme voices,' Cox said in an interview before the vigil.
'What we're being told time and time again is you have to take a side, there's only one side and the other side is evil. And in those moments, I guess my concern about it is you whip up this anger, you whip up this hatred.'
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has so far continued the previous government's policy of not engaging with the MCB (AFP)
He added: 'You don't need to import the conflict from Israel-Palestine into the UK.'
Cox has also advocated 'increasing public support' for the controversial Prevent anti-extremism programme, advocating for its reform but defending it against criticisms made in 2023 by government-appointed reviewer William Shawcross, who accused Prevent of insufficiently targeting Islamist extremism.
Cox also disputed the 'perception of Prevent as biased against Muslim communities', saying that the policy's mistakes in its early stages had been 'exploited by groups who wanted to undermine Prevent for ideological reasons'.
British Muslim creators 'herded' into Prevent funding, says Equi think tank Read More »
The Times reported in late January that prominent supporters of the new network included Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, a former Conservative minister and member of the House of Lords.
The report came just days after Warsi was one of the main speakers at the Muslim Council of Britain's annual dinner, where she criticised successive governments for not engaging with the organisation.
"How dare they? How dare we be told who we can have to speak on our behalf? How dare we not be allowed the agency of our own representation?" Warsi said in her speech.
"How dare we be told that we are going to be accountable for what somebody may have said two decades ago? How dare we be held accountable for every single word of every single person who's ever been involved in an institution?"
MEE contacted Warsi for comment but did not receive a response by time of publication.
A spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain said the organisation "welcomes all genuine efforts to serve British Muslim communities. With over 500 affiliated organisations and regular democratic elections, we remain focused on uniting, empowering, and serving our communities through impactful grassroots work and constructive dialogue with all partners.
"As part of this commitment, our Vision 2050 sets out a long-term roadmap for a confident, successful, and engaged British Muslim community."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Argentina's embassy to move to Jerusalem in 2026, President says
Javier Milei, who made the announcement in the Knesset, has been supportive of Israel amid the war in Gaza and votes in its favour at the UN


Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
US warns countries not to join French, Saudi UN conference on Palestine: Report
The US is lobbying foreign governments not to attend a UN conference next week sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a US diplomatic cable reported by Reuters. The cable, sent to countries on Tuesday, warns them against taking "anti-Israel actions" and says attending the conference would be viewed by Washington as acting against US foreign policy interests. France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a US ally in Nato. Saudi Arabia is one of the US's closest Middle East partners. US President Donald Trump was feted during a May visit to Riyadh, where Saudi Arabia signed billions of dollars of investment deals with the US. France and Saudi Arabia are co-hosting the gathering between 17 and 20 June in New York. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "We are urging governments not to participate in the conference, which we view as counterproductive to ongoing, life-saving efforts to end the war in Gaza and free hostages," the cable says, according to Reuters. "The United States opposes any steps that would unilaterally recognise a conjectural Palestinian state, which adds significant legal and political obstacles to the eventual resolution of the conflict and could coerce Israel during a war, thereby supporting its enemies,' it added. France had been lobbying the UK and other European allies to recognise a Palestinian state at the conference. However, Middle East Eye reported in June that the US has warned Britain and France against recognising a Palestinian state at the conference. At the same time, Arab states have been urging them to proceed with the move, sources told MEE. In late May, United Nations member states held consultations in preparation for the conference, during which the Arab Group urged states to recognise Palestinian statehood. The Arab Group said they would measure the success of the conference by whether significant states recognise Palestine, sources in the UK Foreign Office told MEE. Since the 1950s, successive American administrations have stated that their ultimate goal in ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a two-state solution. Many experts and diplomats have earmarked occupied East Jerusalem, the occupied West Bank and Gaza, which Israel seized from Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 war, as the heartland of a future Palestinian state. But US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told Bloomberg News on Tuesday that a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank was no longer a US policy goal. He said Israel's 'Muslim neighbours' could give up their land to create one. According to the cable, the US said that "unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state would effectively render Oct. 7 Palestinian Independence Day'. Hamas led an attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, killing around 1,200 people. Israel responded by launching a devastating assault on Gaza that has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children, and reduced the enclave to rubble. The US cable also said Washington was working with Egypt and Qatar to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and free the captives there. "This conference undermines these delicate negotiations and emboldens Hamas at a time when the terrorist group has rejected proposals by the negotiators that Israel has accepted,' it said. The Trump administration pushed Israel to agree to a three-phase ceasefire with Hamas in January. Israel broke that agreement by refusing to begin talks on ending the war permanently and unilaterally resumed attacking Gaza.


Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Could David Cameron be prosecuted for threatening the ICC?
David Cameron, the former British foreign secretary, may be liable for prosecution under international law and within the UK for his attempts to obstruct the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC), experts have said. Middle East Eye revealed on Monday that Cameron privately threatened Karim Khan, the British chief prosecutor at the ICC, in April 2024 to defund and withdraw from the ICC if it issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. "A threat against the ICC, direct or indirect, is an obstruction of justice," Francesca Albanese, the UN's special rapporteur on Palestine, told MEE's live show on Tuesday. "It's incredibly serious that someone in a position of power might have had the audacity to do that." And Professor Sergey Vasiliev of the Open University of the Netherlands reacted: "If the reports are confirmed, David Cameron did cross the legal line when he threatened the Prosector with all kinds of consequences for applying for the warrants. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "This is a serious matter that shows Cameron's utter lack of respect for the ICC's judicial and prosecutorial independence." What did David Cameron do? Cameron, then foreign secretary in Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, made the threat on 23 April 2024 during a heated phone call with Khan. Cameron told Khan that the UK would "defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute" if the ICC issued warrants for Israeli leaders. At the time, Khan and his team of lawyers were preparing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant, as well as for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif. Khan's office applied for warrants on 20 May, less than a month after the phone call. 'Per the reported dialogue, David Cameron clearly seeks to pressure the ICC Prosecutor's decision regarding whether to pursue warrants for Israeli officials' - Professor Tom Dannenbaum Six months later, on 21 November, the warrants were approved by a panel of judges, officially charging Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza since October 2023. MEE revealed details of the call based on information from several sources, including former staff in Khan's office familiar with the conversation and who have seen the minutes of the meeting. Cameron, a former British prime minister who was appointed foreign secretary by Sunak in November 2023, told Khan that applying for warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant would be "like dropping a hydrogen bomb". He said Khan was "on the brink of making a huge mistake" and that "the world is not ready for this". The report has drawn condemnation from British MPs who called for an investigation into Cameron's actions. Cameron has not responded to multiple requests for comment. Approached by MEE for a response to the exchange with Cameron, Khan said on Monday: "I have no comment to make at this time." What's the background to David Cameron's demands? The Conservative government was accused last year of being behind the delay in the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli and Hamas officials, after filing a request with the pre-trial chamber to challenge the court's jurisdiction on Israeli nationals. The request prompted dozens of submissions from other states, but was later dropped by the Labour government, which came to power in July 2024. The revelations about Cameron came after the administration of US President Donald Trump said last week that it would sanction four ICC judges for investigations into the US and its ally Israel. In February, Khan was the first ICC official to be the target of US sanctions, carried out under an executive order issued shortly after Trump took office. The revelations also follow Khan's decision to take a leave of absence pending a UN-led investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, an accusation denied by his lawyers. What are the legal risks for Cameron? The ICC, established by the Rome Statute in 2002, is the only permanent international court that prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It has 125 signatories, including the UK and all EU countries, though Hungary has officially begun the withdrawal process. Leading international law experts have told Middle East Eye that Cameron's behaviour is an attack on judicial independence, and is prohibited under the Rome Statute and British law as an obstruction of justice. Professor Tom Dannenbaum of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy said that, in general, the UK is entitled to withdraw from the ICC, and, upon exit, would then cease its financial contribution. Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe Read More » Additionally, as a state party to the Rome Statute, the UK can advocate budget cuts within the Assembly of States Parties, the court's governing body, without having to pull out. But, he said, the issue here arises before any such withdrawal or defunding. "The problem here is David Cameron's reported threat to condition possible UK action or inaction in those respects on the decisions of the ICC Prosecutor regarding whom to investigate and prosecute," said Dannenbaum. "That threat is deeply concerning. The rule of law depends on prosecutors' insulation from political pressure in their identification of individuals for investigation and prosecution,. That is true at the ICC just as it is in domestic systems of criminal justice." Under what law could Cameron be charged? The four experts MEE spoke to said the ICC could charge Cameron, given the nature of the phone call with Khan, based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute, which prohibits offences against the administration of justice. These include "impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties; and retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official." Dannenbaum argued that Cameron's threat to withdraw the UK from the ICC and defund the court may amount to "corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of … persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties". Although this particular provision has never been litigated before the ICC, Dannenbaum said, the relevant offence of "corruptly influencing a witness" has. "That case law indicates that 'corruptly influencing' includes 'pressuring' the protected person in a way 'capable of influencing the nature' of their contribution and thereby 'compromising' it, with the term 'corruptly' signifying the aim of 'contaminating' the person's contribution," Dannenbaum explained. "Per the reported dialogue, David Cameron clearly seeks to pressure the ICC Prosecutor's decision regarding whether to pursue warrants for Israeli officials. It is possible that this pressure would be understood to have been designed to 'contaminate' the Prosecutor's decision, although that concept may be less clear here than it is in the context of witness testimony. "Considerations regarding state withdrawal and budget cuts are plausibly 'capable' of influencing such decisions, albeit that the Prosecutor appears to have resisted the pressure in the case at hand." Given the above points, Dannenbaum concluded that Cameron's conduct may be consistent with the prohibited offences against the administration of justice listed under Article 70. The court has jurisdiction over Article 70 offences, irrespective of the nationality or location of the accused. What penalty could Cameron face? If successfully charged, Cameron is likely to face an arrest warrant by the court and, if convicted, could be sentenced to up to five years of imprisonment in The Hague or a fine. However, given the vulnerability of the ICC, with Trump's sanctions and Khan's leave of absence, Vasiliev suggested that Cameron's prosecution in The Hague would be "rather unlikely. "The ICC could in principle open the investigation into these allegations under Article 70 or request the UK to do so (or the UK could do so on its own). Whether this will in fact be done, is a big question." Could Cameron be prosecuted in the UK? Toby Cadman, a British barrister and international law expert, said that if the allegations are substantiated by clear evidence, then Cameron could be investigated at an international and domestic level "provided there's political will". Francesca Albanese: David Cameron could be criminally liable for threatening ICC Read More » In the UK, an investigation could be opened for the common law offence of obstruction or perverting the course of justice or the common law offence of misconduct in public offence, he said. An investigation in the UK can be carried out in accordance with Section 54 of the ICC Act 2001, which is based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute. The attorney general's consent would be required for any prosecution to go ahead. "It is quite clear that the allegation is serious and if the UK is committed to maintaining a system based on the rule of law with full respect for the state's international treaty obligations it should open an investigation and if the evidence supports it, bring charges," Cadman told MEE. Could Cameron be prosecuted outside the UK? But Vasiliev suggested that Cameron's prosecution before the courts of other states would be precluded by his functional immunity - the protection granted to senior officials if an alleged offence was committed during their official duties. "Cameron has a functional immunity for that act as he uttered those threats in the exercise of his official functions, and there is no exception to such immunity applicable in foreign courts for offences against the integrity of judicial system," Vasiliev argued. "The prosecution authorities of other states parties therefore will not eagerly pursue such a case."