The 'Islamist' bogeyman
Ed Husain's book about his experiences with Hizb ut-Tahrir perpetuates a false narrative about Islam.
"Islamism" has become the bogeyman of the modern world. It is a loose term for the body of political ideas that emanate from Islamic texts and thought - in particular Shariah as the basis of the legal system and the caliphate system as a mode of governance in the Muslim world.
In 2005, the International Crisis Group argued that the term "Islamism" was unhelpful as Islam passes views on all areas of life - political life included. They argued that the it was used by western governments to malign groups or governments that contradicted their interests and that a minority of "Islamists" were violent.
Ed Husain's book, The Islamist, has been endorsed by hawkish commentators because it reinforces a narrative previously articulated by the likes of Michael Gove and Melanie Phillips. However, it is the same false narrative that has been used to justify Messrs Bush and Blair's global war on terrorism.
The book is a personal recollection from over 10 years ago. Leaving aside the many flaws and inaccuracies, it claims to be an account of Hizb ut-Tahrir [the Party of Liberation] under a brief period of aberrant leadership, which was recognised at the time. That is why Omar Bakri Mohammed was expelled from Hizb ut-Tahrir. Husain's brief association also ended, and the group, as many others will testify, moved on.
Husain's own remorse for the infatuation he had for Omar Bakri Mohammed and the antics that he describes about himself have perhaps not left him the best person to deliver a much needed, well-informed understanding of Islam and its political ideas. This is amply illustrated by merging Young Muslims Organisation through Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Society of Britain (all of whom have spoken against 9/11 and 7/7) to violent extremist groups in a quite preposterous way.
The arguments he presents against "Islamism" are misconceived for several reasons. Foremost, like the British and US governments, he argues that these ideas are fringe ideas and inherently related to violence. The false impression left with the public is that all Islamic political ideas need addressing for national security reasons and that all that needs to be done is attack one group militarily, ban the others and "bingo" the job is done. Lastly, he argues that key orthodox political ideas such as the caliphate are alien to "traditional" Islam.
Tackling this last point first, one of the scholars who Husain cites as a new found reference point is the respected Sufi Shaykh Nuh Keller. In his translation of the classical jurisprudential work Reliance of the Traveller he states that the caliphate is "obligatory in itself" and an integral part of orthodox Islamic thinking. There are many examples of Muslim scholars and thinkers more famed for their spiritualism who endorse the ideas of Shariah and caliphate as inherently part of Islam. Husain has chosen to ignore the opinions of these Sufis who agree with those he labels Islamists.
The suggestion that these ideas are either fringe or inherently violent, is utterly refuted by a poll last month by the University of Maryland. The survey of Muslims from four different countries shows an overwhelming public opinion for Shariah as the basis of legislation and the caliphate as a system of government in the Muslim world. The same survey shows an overwhelming opinion against violence towards civilians, no matter where in the world, despite the fact that the poll shows these populations strongly oppose western foreign policy and occupation.
Hence there is no link between violence and holding the political ideas of Islam - ideas that carry massive public support in the Muslim world. Yet the entire war on terror strategy is targeting anyone who carries these ideas and works to ensure that these ideas should never be given significant political expression in the Muslim world.
Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke told the Heritage Foundation that "there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Shariah law". Surprisingly, this was the same caliphate that even Blair had admitted had "led the world in the discovery, art and culture".
It should be clear to all, as it is to us, that there is an urgent need to discuss these ideas and to understand them and the realities of political feeling in the Muslim world. In the corridors of Washington and Westminster, these ideas mean opposition to the control and interference that has occurred for decades. Yet on the "Muslim street" these ideas mean liberation from tyranny and oppression, and the control of their own political destiny.
Click here for Madeleine Bunting's interview with Ed Husain
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/taji_mustafa/2007/05/the_islamist_bogeyman.html
