When I first began investigating the Islamist charity Islamic Relief (IRD) and its parent organization Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) in 2015, I did not think the franchise would be allowed to operate in Germany for much longer. I concluded that IRD would be put out of business by government regulators once the organization’s true agenda and ties to the Islamist movement came to light.
IRD’s connections to the German Muslim Brotherhood were too obvious, the channels through which funds flowed too questionable, and the assessments from abroad too clear-cut. After all, Israel had banned Islamic Relief from operating in the West Bank because of its ties to Hamas. As reported elsewhere, the Baden-Württemberg Office for the Protection of the Constitution had come to the same conclusion. Clearly, the organization’s Islamist ties were a matter of state concern.
Ties to Islamists
It seemed like an open-and-shut case to me. The political support for IRD’s projects such as “Speisen für Waisen” (charity dinners for orphans) or the “Muslimisches Seelsorgetelefon” (a pastoral care hotline for Muslims) in Berlin—appeared to stem from a combination of naïveté and guilt. A number of prominent figures—primarily from the political sphere, and often from the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD)—helped publicize IRD charity dinners.
Imran Sagir, serves as the director of the pastoral care hotline. In 2023, the German news outlet Die Welt reported that Sagir was “a founding member” of the Berlin-based association, Inssan, serving on its board from 2007 to 2012. Die Welt added that in 2008 the Berlin Office for the Protection of the Constitution described Inssan as “linked to supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (This declaration did not stop the German government from giving Insaan €1.3 million in taxpayer funds, Die Welt reported in 2021.)
Predictably, donations routed to the pastoral care hotline flowed directly into IRD coffers with little complaint from the larger community. In Germany, church officials have long shown a particular talent for dispelling concerns about even the most questionable figures.
Failed Lawsuit Against Author
I wrote about my concerns regarding the IRD in mid-2016 on my blog—and was sued by the organization. Even after the courts confirmed the accuracy of my facts and documented false statements made by IRD’s then-managing director—who inaccurately claimed there were no connections between IRD and its parent organization, Islamic Relief Worldwide—IRD suffered no consequences until 2019. The German government continued to give money to the organization until January 2020.
One can no longer claim that a lack of information is the problem. The issue is a lack of political will, a problem that cannot be fixed quite so easily.
The effort to stop government funding to IRD started in earnest in November 2016 when I submitted my reports about the organization to the Federal Court of Auditors (BRH), the government agency responsible for investigating cases of improper funding. Apart from a brief acknowledgment that officials would look into the matter, nothing happened. Subsequent reporting by investigative journalist Sascha Adamek broadcast by regional broadcaster RBB in January 2017 also failed to trigger any consequences. In sum, responsible officials ignored what should have been a matter of state concern.
Exposed in Parliament, Protected by Bureaucracy
In April 2019, the FDP parliamentary group, a liberal party in the Bundestag, submitted an inquiry regarding IRD. In response, the Federal Government admitted it had been aware of both the significant personnel overlaps between IRD and Muslim Brotherhood. They were also aware of Israeli government’s assessment that Islamic Relief’s chapter in Gaza had ties to Hamas. Officials also cited an ongoing review by the Federal Court of Auditors that had yet to be concluded. The report was completed in December of that same year—and immediately classified as “restricted,” rendering it unavailable to the public.
Releasing the reports could “lead to controversy,” the authorities later argued, according to court transcripts. “There is a risk that discussions would be steered in a particular direction that would not be conducive to the well-being of the Confederation.”
In the meantime, IRD and its parent organization, Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) faced new problems. In July 2020, The Times reported on antisemitic rhetoric espoused by IRW director Heshmat Khalifa—who also served on IRD’s board—prompting his resignation. After the newspaper followed up on a separate investigation of mine from 2017 concerning another IRW director—Almoutaz Tayara, who was also the organization’s chair for Germany—the entire UK board resigned in August 2020. Key cooperation partners in Germany partially distanced themselves.
‘Cash in a Suitcase”
Seyran_Ates
(Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung via Wikimedia.)
But the audit remained under wraps. In 2021, Seyran Ates, an attorney supported by the secular Institute for Worldview Law (Institut für Weltanschauungsrecht), sued for access to the documents. A final decision was issued in February 2026 with judges ruling that the public interest in the matter outweighed the desires of public officials to avoid controversy. Only sections containing intelligence information were redacted.
The report revealed how, for years, the Federal Foreign Office funneled German taxpayers’ money to IRD in defiance of directives and terror warnings. In some instances, the money simply vanished in suitcases in Turkey.
For one project in Syria, IRD requested support from the Federal Foreign Office. The German-Syrian Association (DSV)—an IRD cooperation partner—was reportedly experiencing difficulties transferring funds to Turkey. Transfers with “Syria” in the reference line were not possible, the charity declared. Consequently, in consultation with IRD, the DSV intended to transport “cash in a suitcase” to Turkey.
No one asked questions. The money just disappeared. “We found no further information regarding this matter in the Federal Foreign Office’s files on [the project],” auditors reported.
Upon inquiry, the Federal Foreign Office stated that it had not pursued the matter further. Officials in the Foreign Affairs Ministry justified their willingness to ignore the problem with claims that Islamic Relief had a good reputation and that the Federal Ministry of the Interior had signed off on the arrangement.
“The Federal Foreign Office is unable to explain the basis for its assessment that ‘IR’ enjoyed a good reputation as a humanitarian NGO,” auditors declared. The report further states that “the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) reportedly agreed to continued funding for IRD during a meeting in June 2017. The BMI confirmed to the Federal Court of Auditors that discussions with the Federal Foreign Office took place in 2013 and 2017, but did not confirm the agreement to fund IRD.” In other words, the Federal Foreign Office said it received approval from the Ministry of the Interior to keep sending money to IRD, but auditors could find no evidence of such approval.
Despite all this, the scandal remained under the radar. Even after the story broke, IRD remains a member of the Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee which serves as the “central forum for dialogue and coordination between the Federal Government, humanitarian non-governmental organizations, and other institutions involved in humanitarian aid.” Furthermore, many other projects in crisis regions could be similarly riddled with flaws.
Politicians Avoid Scrutiny
Every Foreign Minister to date has been spared scrutiny—first by BRH covering up the scandal—and now by media outlets fail to cover the issue sufficiently.
Public funding of IRD began in 2013, soon before Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s current president, began serving as Germany’s minister of foreign affairs. Around this time, Steinmeier endorsed IRD charity dinners. By early 2017, shortly before Steinmeier was elected Federal President, the broadcaster RBB started addressing issues with public funding of IRD. Journalist Adamek revisited the matter a few days ago and reiterated his criticism. Steinmeier does not wish to comment on the matter, Adamek reported.
One might question whether Steinmeier would still have been considered a suitable candidate for the nation’s highest office had his role in the scandal been documented.
One might also question whether Annalena Baerbock would have been appointed president of the United Nations General Assembly in late 2025 had people understood how the bureaucracy she led worked to keep the controversy under wraps during her tenure as foreign minister from 2021 to 2025. From my perspective, these actions took place in a legal gray area bordering on fraud, but the prospects of prosecution are low because of the statute of limitations in Germany.
Public officials continue to downplay the controversy. In early June, a state secretary offered an evasive response to a Green Party MP’s question about the Federal Foreign Office’s decision-making process and the new information that supposedly justified its post-2009 shift in stance toward IRD. The secretary vaguely cited an exchange with the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) about IRD’s purported unique access to Syria—arguments the BRH had already thoroughly refuted in its 2019 report.
Media Mostly Uninterested
To make matters worse, German media outlets have not pursued the story with much vigor. This may be because, in recent years, IRD has strategically positioned itself as a valued advertising client for several major media outlets. In the years following 2020, IRD spent about €3.5 million annually on advertising. In 2024, this item no longer appears separately and is presumably included under “other operating expenses.” And yet, insisting on proper oversight is crucial. In 2026 alone, Germany is set to allocate €200 million to Syria—a deeply corrupt country where a terrorist group has been painstakingly rebranded from a band of militants into a quasi-legitimate government. Link to article to document this entirely legitimate assessment. Among the recipients of these funds may be individuals whose organization had previously smuggled cash into Turkey in suitcases.
The controversy does more than draw attention to problems within the Islamic Relief franchise but also exposes the failure of German officials to do their job. The critical reports were presented publicly in Berlin on June 24, 2026. Although both the Federal Foreign Office and the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ)—which also came under heavy criticism in the BRH report—were invited to attend, neither sent representatives. As a result, there has been no official statement on the matter beyond the evasive response to the parliamentary inquiry earlier this month.
Michael Roth, the former deputy to Social Democratic Party Foreign Ministers Frank-Walter Steinmeier (2013–2017), Sigmar Gabriel (2017–2018), and Heiko Maas (2018–2021) did speak at the June 24 event. He delivered a brief address, but first emphasized that he was speaking neither on behalf of the Federal Foreign Office nor the SPD. While he acknowledged that mistakes had likely been made and needed to be addressed, he provided no further details. There was almost no opportunity for questions from the audience, despite his senior role in the institution during the relevant period.
Granted, Roth left the political arena last year. Yet that very departure should have given him the freedom to speak more openly. One can no longer claim that a lack of information is the problem. The issue is a lack of political will, a problem that cannot be fixed quite so easily.
