The British approach to defining both "terrorism" and "extremism" has sparked a myriad of reactions and controversies, raising questions about its effectiveness and implications. This discourse is epitomised with the recent unveiling of the new British definition of "extremism," a move that has ignited criticism and debate among various stakeholders within the United Kingdom. The genesis of this debate can be traced back to the decision by Rishi Sunak's conservative government to introduce a revised definition of extremism, which serves as the basis for classifying organisations and institutions as either extremist or not. This announcement, made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Economic Development, Housing, and Communities in Britain, was presented as part of a broader government initiative to tackle extremism, particularly in light of escalating tensions following the Israel-Gaza conflict. The essence of the new definition of extremism revolves around the promotion of ideologies rooted in violence, hatred, or intolerance, with the objective of either revoking the basic rights of citizens, undermining the UK's democratic system, or fostering an environment conducive to achieving these goals. This departure from the previous definition, which focused on explicit actions contrary to British values, underscores a shift in approach towards identifying and addressing extremism within the country. One of the contentious aspects of the new definition lies in the absence of an avenue for appeal for institutions accused of extremism.

Additionally, government employees and institutions are prohibited from engaging with or participating in activities associated with alleged extremist entities. While the government has emphasised the establishment of rigorous standards for identifying extremists and the provision of a re-evaluation process for those classified as such, concerns linger regarding potential repercussions for targeted groups and individuals. Michael Gove's announcement of a preliminary list of institutions deemed extremist, including Nazi organisations and right-wing groups, has further fuelled the debate. The inclusion of certain Islamic institutions, such as the CAGE organisation and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), has drawn particular scrutiny and criticism. Gove contends that these measures are essential to prevent the unwitting endorsement of extremist agendas and safeguard democracy and fundamental rights, positioning them as the initial steps in a broader strategy to counter extremism. Proponents of the new definition argue that it is a necessary response to the surge in hate crimes against Jews and Muslims following recent events in Israel and the subsequent military campaign in Gaza. They assert that it reflects the government's commitment to confronting extremism and protecting democracy in the face of deliberate efforts by extremists and the far right to undermine multiracial democracy in Britain, as articulated by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. However, critics caution against the potential ramifications of the government's approach, expressing apprehension about the erosion of civil liberties and the stigmatisation of certain communities. They warn of the risk of exacerbating tensions and alienating marginalised groups, ultimately undermining the very democratic values purportedly being defended. In essence, the discourse surrounding the new British definition of extremism underscores the complex and multifaceted nature of confronting extremism in contemporary society. As stakeholders continue to grapple with the implications of this definition, the debate surrounding its efficacy and implications is likely to persist, shaping the trajectory of efforts to address extremism and uphold democratic principles in the United Kingdom.

Sunak's address to the nation following pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London, marked by instances of anti-Semitism and violence, raises questions about the timing of such statements. The protests, triggered by Israel's military response to the attack on October 7, 2023, saw arrests for anti-Semitic behaviour and assaults on emergency service personnel. It appears that the British government's decision to release a new definition of "extremism" amidst these events stems from the challenges posed by the demonstrations, which Islamic-oriented groups have exploited to blur the line between supporting Palestinians and endorsing Islamist agendas. Consequently, London aims to curb the influence of Islamist groups, presenting the new definition as a measure to combat rising anti-Semitism. However, doubts linger regarding the efficacy of these efforts, both in addressing immediate concerns and dismantling the base of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe. Criticism has been swift since the introduction of the new definition, with civil liberties advocates, community organisations, and Members of Parliament expressing reservations. Jonathan Hall, the independent government reviewer of terrorism legislation, warns of potential damage to the United Kingdom's reputation, cautioning against perceptions of undemocratic governance. Specialists in extremism and terrorism also question the definition's ability to deter Islamist organisations, whose ambiguous names and slogans obscure their true intentions. The definition's broad language provides government agencies with ample leeway for interpretation, potentially allowing them to target any ideology deemed "promoting and strengthening," regardless of its true nature. Critics fear this ambiguity may stifle dissent and exacerbate societal tensions, opening the door to legal challenges and undermining governmental credibility. Prominent figures, including Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and former Conservative government ministers, echo these concerns, highlighting the risk of disproportionately targeting Muslim communities already facing heightened levels of prejudice and discrimination. Welby and his deputy, Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, caution against divisions sparked by the definition's implementation. Despite efforts by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to address accusations of Islamophobia, such as visiting mosques and allocating additional funds for Muslim protection, hate crimes against Muslims and anti-Semitic incidents continue to rise. Official statements from Minister of Security Tom Gundhat affirm the government's commitment to combating hate crimes and protecting Muslim communities, underscoring collaboration with law enforcement and civil society partners to safeguard individuals, facilities, and religious institutions. In the wake of these developments, questions arise about the impact of the new definition on the Muslim Brotherhood group. Critics argue that its generalisation may unfairly target organisations with legitimate political or religious affiliations, contributing to societal divisions. However, some government members view the definition as a crucial first step in addressing extremism within certain groups, citing plans to utilise it to identify and address extremist behaviour effectively. In conclusion, while the British government's introduction of a new definition of extremism may have been prompted by recent events and concerns, its implementation and potential consequences remain subjects of intense debate and scrutiny. Balancing the need to combat extremism by safeguarding civil liberties and fostering societal cohesion presents a complex and ongoing challenge for policymakers and communities alike.

However, some followers of political Islam anticipate that the new definition could potentially encumber the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, diminishing their sway within the community and curbing the propagation of extremist ideologies, which manifested prominently during recent demonstrations. Yet, they remain skeptical about whether London will enact comprehensive enforcement on the ground or selectively target specific parties. This skepticism arises particularly because London has provided refuge to Brotherhood leaders fleeing judicial verdicts resulting from their involvement in crimes in their home country, Egypt, subsequent to their removal from power. However, Britain has faced repercussions for its lenient policies, witnessing a surge in hate crimes following the Gaza War. The British government's action coincided with this upsurge in hate crimes, making it challenging to discern a shift in approach towards the Brotherhood. In reality, Rishi Sunak's government appears to adopt a pragmatic stance to safeguard its interests amidst a dual crisis. It aims to uphold principles of free expression and liberal values while grappling with the exploitation of these values by Islamic and far-right groups to propagate their agendas, potentially leading to volatile circumstances. According to a report by The Guardian, the Muslim Brotherhood is intricately linked to a vast network of political, security, and social interests, comprising approximately 60 organisations in Britain alone, with financial assets estimated in the tens of billions of dollars.

Consequently, the impact of the new definition on the Brotherhood and its operations in Britain and Europe may be limited, as the group operates discreetly, employing aliases and slogans to obfuscate its identity.

Furthermore, its supporters infiltrate various institutions and cultivate alliances with Western leftist factions. Moreover, the Brotherhood leverages the spectre of Islamophobia to shield its activities from scrutiny, accusing critics of Islamophobia and manipulating its influence over segments of the Muslim populace to exert pressure on politicians seeking Muslim votes during elections. The group and its advocates are likely to launch a campaign against the new definition, endeavouring to diminish its efficacy, reminiscent of their efforts to discredit the 2015 Cengiz-Far report, which acknowledged the Brotherhood's extremism. Nonetheless, some observers believe that if the British government proceeds with classifying the British branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (the Islamic League in Britain) as extremist, it could have far-reaching implications for the group's presence in Europe and beyond, given Britain's status as the Brotherhood's stronghold on the continent.