PDA

View Full Version : THE ISLAMIST: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left


Showkat
29-04-07, 10:39 AM
THE ISLAMIST: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Husain

Penguin £8.99 pp300

Made in England is the first chapter of Ed Husain’s memoir of his voyage into and out of Islamist militancy in the East End of London. But what does he mean by made? Like many Britons of similar background, Husain may have been “made” in England but he was born of Indian parents with a commitment to an alien creed and a vague sense of identity with peoples and causes far from England’s shore.

To a sensitive, intelligent boy, these tangled roots brought confusion and near disaster. Living in Limehouse (where he loved his integrated primary school), Husain went on to Stepney Green school, exclusively male and Muslim. Here he sought refuge from Bangladeshi gangland mores in a few kindly teachers and the imams of his mosque. He studied Islam, first under his parents and then, as he advanced through his teens, through radical groups who seem to have free access to London’s school system. The standard text for Muslim religious education was (and apparently still is) Ghulam Sarwar’s Islam: Beliefs and Teachings. This declares that “religion and politics are one and the same in Islam . . . it teaches us how to run a state, form a government, elect councillors and members of parliament”. Husain, used to the hierarchical paternalism of his father’s mosque, was exhilarated.

The story is that of many an insecure youth taken up by a fundamentalist sect, of seduction from family and community into a rigid discipline that answers every question and replaces teenage doubt with mental rigour. Husain would slip out at night to visit study groups across east London. Front organisations cascade past his excited eyes, in particular Jamaat-e-Islami, fighting for control of the East London Mosque, and the Young Muslim Organisation, for which he became school organiser. Moving from school to Tower Hamlets college for his A-levels, Husain became a pain in the neck to the authorities. He organised prayer rooms, demonstrations for Muslims in Bosnia, campaigns against discos and for hijabs, rooms, demonstrations for muslims in Bosnia, campaigns against discos and for hijabs and invitations to an inexhaustible supply of rabble-rousing imams. For militancy, the Islamists pushed the socialist workers into the shade. Terrified of being thought racist, the college authorities capitulated to their every demand.

Soon Husain is swimming in a wider sea. His nocturnal visits stray to Islington, Hounslow, Regent’s Park mosque and the LSE. He is assigned a cell and finds his associates include a Tower Hamlets planner, a doctor from the Royal London and a JP Morgan banker. He hangs on the words of the radical, Omar Bakri, reads Sayyid Qutb (Osama bin Laden’s mentor) and eventually graduates to TaqiTaqiuddin al-Nabhani’s militant Hizb ut-Tahrir, for which democracy is idolatry and all other groups are traitors to the cause of the Prophet.

The true Islamist, he is told, should fight for a global caliphate, an “ummah”. All who disagree “were swiftly branded as lackeys, lap dogs or puppets of the British government.”. Every institution in Tower Hamlets is targeted for infiltration, not least George Galloway’s Respect Pparty. The talk is of struggle and jihad. Friends disappear for “training” abroad. Sinister groups offer “protection”, in one case leading to a murder over the occupation of a pool hall. The relative moderates at the East London mosque are terrified.

Husain is rescued partly, it seems, by the shock of the murder and partly by his own dedicated scholarship. Now approaching university, he finds his associates seem not to know the Koran, or at least their politicised interpretation is at odds with his own. The breach with his parents has become painful. He falls in love with a devout (and clearly more sensible) fellow student whom he eventually marries. Above all, the fanaticism of Hizb ut-Tahrir clashes with his new interest in Sufism and with what he most values about Britain, its political tolerance. His initial reaction to 9/11 was that of most of his former colleagues, that “any attack on the bully-boy of the world, ardent supporter of Israel, puppet-master of Arab dictators and exporter of McDonald’s-style globalisation was certainly good news for the rest of us.”. Yet he is soon appalled at that response. Finally, “filled with remorse, I turned to God for forgiveness and prayed for world peace.”. He is no less shocked that Hizb members should be siding with Saddam Hussein.

Two years spent studying Arabic in Damascus — awash with jihadists but open to all faiths — and a visit to Wahhabist Saudi Arabia are enough. The latter leaves Husain devastated by such authoritarianism, racism, sexism and slavery committed in the name of Islam. “What has happened to the Muslims?” he wails: “Once producers of great thinkers, grammarians, theologians, scientists, innovators, poets, jurists and architects, today’s Muslim schools and universities are producing government-fearing sycophants or extremist zealots.” He returns to London renouncing the Hizb and political iIslam and pleading with British mMuslims “to stand up and reclaim our faith” as a spiritual not a political journey. He tries to warn various college authorities of various snakes in their midst, but nobody listens.

All who glibly generalise about the no-man’s-land between terrorism and multi-culturalism should read this articulate and impassioned book. It is a plea not only for tolerance, but also for recognising that freedom requires guardianship. Husain has two villains, Islamist fanaticism and its appeasers among the British Establishment. The government demands that Syria and Pakistan expel radical British students and suppress madrasas deemed “a training ground for terrorists”, yet is “content to allow a sophisticated extremist organisation [the Hizb] to operate and recruit in Britain”. Asif Hanif, Britain’s first suicide bomber (in Israel), was recruited not in Syria but in London at Hounslow mosque.

Husain is appalled by the liberty given to the groups with whom he was involved and by the media space afforded to those claiming to speak for “British Islam”, such as the Muslim Council of Britain. Nobody seems to have a clue which Muslims these people purport to represent, how they are elected or what is their agenda. Thanks to Husain, they will have less excuse in future, except that, inexcusably published without an index, this book is unusable for reference.

Available at the Sunday Times Books First price of £8.54 (inc p&p) on 0870 165 8585

Comment:

He attacks every single Islamic group and Islamic idea, this seems to be the new tactic by the West. Use former Islamists like Hassan Butt and this guy to try and destroy the Islamic movements and the dawah.

Mohammad Islam
13-06-07, 01:12 PM
"As for those who sell for a small price the covenant and faith they owe to Allah and their own plighted word for a small price, they shall have no portion in the Hereafter. Nor will Allah speak to them or look at them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He cleanse them: They shall have a grievous torment, a painful doom." [3:77]

The huge coverage given to the book by the former Islamic activist Ed Husain has got me thinking. After reading the book it was clear to me that he was a troubled soul – on a journey through the radicalism of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahreer he ends up doubting his own faith and even contemplates leaving Islam for Buddhism or Christianity. Still confused, he starts teaching English at the British Council and rediscovers what he describes as "traditional Islam". He later returns to the UK and decides to write a book cataloguing his experiences and urges the Government to move strongly against Islamists'. The 'Islamists', according to him, are the greatest threat facing all Muslims and non-Muslims in the UK he argues.

Muslim writers and bloggers including Andrew Booso, Yahya Birt, Faisal Haque, Yusuf Smith, Ziauddin Sardar and Inayat Bunglawala have concisely articulated the deficiencies of Husain's rather simplistic analysis. Earlier this week, Husain made a brief appearance to defend himself against the criticisms levelled against him on DeenPort, however he soon departs, with dozens of questions left unanswered. Husain argues that the people who have asked him questions have no adab and anyone who disagrees with him is accused of harbouring some hidden 'Islamist' affiliations. This was no surprise as Husain had earlier suggested suspending registrations on the discussion forum in order to "facilitate discussion"! One Muslim on DeenPort correctly observes that "either you're with him or you're an extremist". It is not surprising then that even Ziauddin Sardar accuses Husain of being a neocon who wants "everyone locked up".

Interestingly, Ziauddin Sardar writes that Husain's book, "seems to have been drafted by a Whitehall mandarin as a PR job for the Blair government." He is the first writer to openly articulate this possibility. While some readers on the Muslim blogs have labelled Husain a traitor, Sardar is the first to suggest that the book may have actually come out of Whitehall and in effect been 'ghost written' for Husain. However, other writers have noted that the book perfectly fits Blair's narrative of 'ordinary decent peace loving Muslims' vs. a tiny minority of 'Islamists' who desire Shariah, the destruction of Israel, etc, etc.

In the light of these comments I want to raise the following points:

(1) We cannot underestimate the actions that the Government are taking with respect to the Muslim community. Is it that surprising that some Muslims will be used to infiltrate Islamic groups, not only to provide intelligence, but to leave at an opportune moment amidst a blaze of publicity? Of course, many Muslims leave one Islamic group or another, but generally they rarely decide to sell their story to the highest bidder or seek to divide the Muslim community. Those who have become disillusioned with the 'Islamic scene' tend to just fade away and those who have genuine disagreements tend to move on to pastures new.

(2) The suggestion that Husain may have had some association with Government is not without foundation. Aside from him joining the Labour Party and supporting the Iraq war, in his recent interview with the New York Times, Husain explains that he has been approached by British government officials to join their "anti-extremist efforts". In an interview with Sky's Adam Boulton, Husain does not deny Boulton's suggestion that he has been called in by "Gordon Brown or government". Given his previous association with Islamist groups and his work for the British Council, he would have been ideal material for recruitment.

(3) The other aspect which tends to lend weight to the suggestion that Husain may be close to the Government and security service is not only his insistence on banning Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahreer, but his stated aim at dividing Islamist groups into moderates and extremists and his attack on other leading Muslims and organisations. In November 2006, on the DeenPort forum, Husain writes, "Even within HT in Britain today, there is a huge division between modernisers and more radical elements. The secret services are hopeful that the modernisers can tame the radicals. And hence the suspension of any ban. I foresee another split. And God knows best. Ya Rabb! I have said more than I should on this subject! Henceforth, my lips are sealed!" So he alleges that there is a "huge division" between modernisers and more radical elements and suggests that the security services are working for a split in the organisation. In a more recent thread, Husain writes of Hizb ut-Tahrir, "Allah is opening a window of opportunity for their hidayah. There is a major development within Hizb ut-Tahrir that will lead many of the more thoughtful activists to reconsider their worldview and relationship with mainstream Islam and Muslims. Once news breaks within party ranks of what is happening within their leadership, some of the Hizb people will be receptive toward traditional Islam and may well leave their brand of radical Islamism." Then on the same thread on 2nd May 2007, Husain writes, "Maajid Nawaz has left Hizb ut-Tahrir. And there are several others inside waiting to escape, but waiting for the right moment and reason. Don't ask me how I know. Until last weekend, Majid was a member of the Hizb's National Executive Committee in Britain. Some of you may remember him from the media coverage of his imprisonment and release from his four-year prison sentence in Egypt. Huge reverberations within the Hizb as to why and who is else is next etc. Ideal moment to engage with HT people, particularly those on the Jalaludding Patel wing of the group."

(4) Continuing with the theme of trying to foment divisions within Hizb ut-Tahreer, with respect to Majid Nawaz, a former member of Hizb ut-Tahreer, Husain has claimed that Nawaz is linked to him and that Husain influenced Nawaz's decision to leave Hizb ut-Tahreer. In an interview with altmuslim.com, Husain says, "In this, I'm backed by Majid Nawaz who, alhamdulillah, recently left Hizb-ut-Tahrir partly as a result of conversations we had about these issues, and more importantly, his exposure to traditional Islam in all its diversity. Soon, Majid will speak publicly and I ask Hizb members and others to listen and learn from Majid's wisdom, knowledge, and experience. Now the good news is that Hizb-ut-Tahrir has proven in Britain that it can change and when pressure is applied it has changed. And I'm hopeful that this pressure that's on them now - exposing those core fascist values - that exposure will cause them to change those ideas and come on board the mainstream Muslim caravan." In an interview with Husain by the New York Times, Husain said that Nawaz would soon go "public with the reasons for his departure, and explanation he hopes that will cause a stir like his own." It is hard to tell whether Husain is being entirely truthful about the reasons for Nawaz's departure from Hizb ut-Tahreer – however if Nawaz does come out with his own "kiss and tell" story about his time with Hizb ut-Tahreer, seeks to exacerbate divisions within the Muslim community or if Nawaz is closely associated with Husain, then this would place huge question marks in my mind over Nawaz. A poster on sunniforum.com has suggested that he saw Husain and Nawaz at last week's Hamza Yusuf event in London. He also alleges that Husain and Nawaz have been arguing that the scholars differ over the Islamic prohibition of homosexuality. In any case, I am sure that Husain will not be the last person to write his 'Islamist' memoirs.

(5) Andrew Booso has rightly argued that the divine obligation of the Caliphate is a "standard, orthodox belief expounded and endorsed by the jurists throughout time." Husain has said that he does not accept the concept of the Caliphate or an Islamic State. He misrepresented Shaykh Hamza Yusuf by alleging that he said that there was "no such thing as an Islamic state". When questioned on DeenPort as to whether the Caliphate was fard kifayah, as discussed by the classical scholars, Husain says that he does not discuss in terms of fard ain or fard kifayah. Husain writes that the Islamic state "is not a rukn of the deen and without it the deen is not lost. An individual can remain a firm believer, a mutadayyin, without the imam and the jama'ah." However, the classical scholar, Sa'd al-Din Mas'ud bin Umar al-Taftazani, wrote, "There is consensus that appointing a Caliph is obligatory. The difference of opinion is on whether the appointment must be by Allah or by his servants, and whether the basis (for appointment) is textual evidence or rational proof. The adoption is that it is obligatory upon the servants by textual evidence because of the saying of the Messenger, "Whoever dies not having known the Imam of his time, dies the death of the days of ignorance." Also, the Ummah agreed that this was the most important duty following the death of the Messenger, so important in fact that they considered it more important than the matter of his burial, and so also has it been after the death of each Imam."

(6) Although Husain has focused a lot of his attack on Hizb ut-Tahreer he has also attacked other Muslim groups including the Muslim Council of Britain, the Young Muslims Organisation, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Islamic Society of Britain. He also attacks the Salafi movement and the Ahl-e-Hadith. He criticises the Islamic Foundation, Regent's Park Mosque in London and the East London Mosque. In fact, in an article in the Observer he alleges that worshippers at East London Mosque have threatened to kill him. Not content with attacking these organisations he has insulted the ulema and the mashaikh by twisting their opinions and misrepresenting them. So he said that Sheikh Hamza Yusuf (may Allah protect him) legitimises the marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men and he wrote that the other mashaikh denied the idea of the Khilaafah in Islam. He has also attacked the journalist Yvonne Ridley. In his writings on DeenPort he questions whether she is really a Muslim, asserting that she "converted to Islamism and not Islam". He goes on to write, "Ridley is an extremist, a cheer-leader for terrorists…Shun Islamism, accept Islam." Is Husain not aware of the Hadith of al-Habib (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), “If a man calls his Muslim brother kafir, it applies to one of the two.” (Bukhari)

Brothers and Sisters!

Those who sell their Deen for a small price, tarnished traditional orthodox Islam the day they decided to become popular amongst those who enjoy the humiliation of the followers of Al-Habib. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf was correct when he said that the fastest way to get a book published was to attack Islam and the Muslims. There can be little doubt that Shaytan runs from the word of truth. We must ask why it is that Shaytan and his followers amongst the men and the jinn are running in support of those Muslims who have chosen to become popular? In the name of addressing 'Islamism', the haraam has been made halaal and there is no sense of outrage at eating the flesh of one's own brothers.

It is time for you to wake up to this web of propaganda, lies and deceit which is targeting our entire community. Don't you remember those in days gone by who sold their Deen for a small price? Do you not see the efforts to tarnish Islam from within? Do you not see the efforts to divide the Muslims amongst themselves so that their ranks remain disunited?

Is it not the case that the propaganda of Husain and those who follow him is being used to attack Muslims, not Ikhwan or Tahreer or Tabligh or Young Muslims, but Muslims? It is the people of La ilaha illallah who are now on the receiving end of the attack from right-wing Zionists and the neo-Nazis of the BNP who are using these misguided Muslims as a platform to attack Muslims. From our recent history in Bosnia and Gujarat, it is never long before words are easily translated into aggression.

Our community needs to stand united against this propaganda – irrespective of being Sufi or Salafi, Ikhwaani or Tahreeri, Tableeghi or Barelwi, we must realise that first and foremost we are Muslims. Was it not the case that Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, a Sufi and an Ashari criticised Ibn Taymiyyah but said that Ibn Taymiyyah had a right to the opinions he arrived at because of his level of knowledge?

Why is it that Shaykh Hamza is willing to share platforms with well known Salafis such as Dr Usama Hasan and Shaykh Abu Muntasir, while it is clear they do not believe it is fard to follow a madhab and ascribe to Ashari/Maturidi theology'? Is it because these differences can swiftly be put aside at a time when Islam is under siege?

As for those Muslims who wish to sell their Deen for a small price, remember that Al-Habib Rasoolallah (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said, "Indeed a servant speaks a word (which is pleasing to Allah) to which he pays no attention and for which Allah elevates him many grades. And indeed the servant speaks a word (which is displeasing to Allah) to which he pays no attention and for which he shall fall in Jahannam." (Bukhari)

In conclusion, I am reminded of the saying of the famous Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, the author of Risale-e-Nur who wrote, "To forget and abandon internal enmities when foreign enemies appear and attack is a demand of social welfare recognized and enacted even by the most primitive peoples. What then ails those who claim to be serving the Islamic community that at a time when numberless enemies are taking up positions to attack, one after the other, they fail to forget their petty enmities, and instead prepare the ground for the enemies' attacks? It is disgraceful savagery, and treason committed against the social life of Islam." (The Letters, 318)

Sue

http://sumayyahevans.blogspot.com/2007/06/beware-of-those-who-sell-their-deen-for.html

a mu-min
14-06-07, 12:51 AM
5 minutes of fame, most likely a fraud trying to make someone from his book.

Irfan GBH
14-06-07, 04:27 AM
5 minutes of fame, most likely a fraud trying to make someone from his book.

I read another article about this guy. Hizb ut tahrir stated that they have no record of this Ed guy actually becoming a proper member. he may have attended their functions and talks but never actually formally joined them.