This coming Tuesday, 22nd April will witness the launch of the Quilliam Foundation, led by self-styled former Hizb-ut-Tahrir Islamists; namely Maajid Nawaz, Ed Husain and Rashad Ali. A cursory glance at the ideas and tendencies of this group clearly posits a modernist understanding of Islam, one which is growing increasingly secular. Fairly standard stuff most of us would say. However, what is most intriguing (and baffling) is that they seem to have a number of ‘mainstream’ figures apparently as their advisor’s. These include Usama Hasan, TJ Winters and Ahmad Babikr. This is most puzzling.
Whilst many Muslims have always been critical of strands within ‘Islamism’ in that they can subordinate theology to political ends in a manner which diverges from the methodology of the Prophet (saw) and the early generations, what has not really been in dispute is the end consequences of embracing Islam as a creed in both belief and action. Once Muslims adopt this and purify themselves spiritually and reform their character and behavior and that of their immediate surroundings, the effect will be far-reaching social and political changes…and yes…their will be a khilafah. Naturally, such consequences will breed opposition, as indeed the Prophet (saw) faced as he challenged a way of life not through a force of arms, but by appealing to the hearts and minds of the people.
Such changes were, however, built upon the edifice of la illaha illalah (That only the Creator is worthy of worship) and not upon abstract concepts of justice, freedom and equality, rather they flow from it’s creed and do not originate independently from it. A case in point is the example of the leaders of the Quraysh coming to the Prophet (saw) and offering him peace if he would worship their idols for a period and they would likewise worship his Lord. The Prophet (saw) rejected this. He did not use this as leverage to bring about an end to female infanticide, he did not use this to end slavery…. in short, he didn’t use this as a tool for bargaining some form of social and political reform. He upheld the central and core tenet of Islam, which he understood was the only way to truly carry out the said reforms.
The Quilliam Foundation takes a different perspective on these issues, and would like to see Muslims act independently of their creed. In fact they see such an assertion of acting holistically within the purview of shari’ah as being akin to separatism. The question comes round again, why do they enjoy support from some of these high profile indivdiuals? Is it because they are not fully conversant with the real ideas being espoused here, or is it because they see the Islamists, and dare we say ‘literalists’ as a bigger problem than those who call for a separation of action from creed?
Let’s see what happens on Tuesday…insha’Allah we will try to get one of our contributors down there.
