Quilliam (think tank)

The Quilliam Foundation is a group founded by ex-Hizb ut-Tahrir activists that describes itself as "a think tank and campaign group that believes that Western Muslims should revive Western Islam, our Andalusian heritage of pluralism and respect, and thereby find harmony in West-Islam relations."

The foundation takes its name from William Abdullah Quilliam, a convert to Islam who was influential in advancing knowledge of Islam in the British Isles.

Founders

“The fixation with HT is somewhat understandable considering the history of Husein. However, the obsession to blame it for the environment of terrorism is taking reductionism to its extreme.” (Ziauddin Sardar)

The three public founders, Maajid Nawaz, Mohammed Mahboob “Ed” Husain and Rashad Zamaan Ali, are ex-activists of the UK branch of the Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir. Their total opposition to the party they studied with has ensured notoriety and attention of media and governments alike. Throughout Hizb ut-Tahrir’s history, no member has undertaken such a high profile u-turn.

Mohammed “Ed” Mahboob Husain

Husain’s family hails from Sylhet in Bangladesh; after failing his GCSEs he drifted between Islamic groups achieving nothing noteworthy. His claim to fame is his time with Hizb ut-Tahrir chronicled in his book “The Islamist”. His critics see his narratives as no different to those of the infamous Hasan Butt - full of inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies. A friend reminisces, “I knew mehboob when he was busy radicalising Newham college and the whole of East London. It was as much as you could do to get him to hand out a flyer on a cold day. The most radical thing about him was his odd socks. The accounts he gives are pure fiction.”

Neo-conservatives Nick Cohen, Melanie Phillips, Michael Gove and David Aaronovitch provided rave reviews whilst Taji Mustafa, Andrew Booso, Azam Tamimi and Yahya Birt were more critical with Ziauddin Sardar questioning whether the book was penned by Whitehall.[14]

Husain argued he was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and left due to his contribution to the atmosphere surrounding the murder of a student at Newham College.[15] Critics however disclosed the cause as sexual indiscretions, unacceptable in Muslim circles, strangely confirmed in his book where he writes he was in the library with his “girlfriend” when a student was murdered.[16] Hizb ut-Tahrir categorically denied he had ever been a member and the trial Judge’s report concluded the Newham College murder had in fact resulted from an argument over a table tennis game.[17] Husain’s version subsequently became, “Their understanding of membership is idiosyncratic and involves swearing cultish oaths to Arab control-freaks” – exhibiting a lack of understanding of the oath process that transforms novices to official party members, ensuring conformity and obedience from members.[18] From one extreme to another appears to be Husain’s journey. Currently, co-director of the Quilliam Foundation, he leads with Nawaz and Ali following in his wake.[19] Now a member of the Labour party he has yet to articulate the Islamic jurisprudence that permits membership of such an entity yet forbids “Islamist” organisations.

His critics cite numerous unusual and extreme views. Regarding politicised Muslims he says, "Call them jihadists, Islamists, but I wouldn't call them Muslim. Being Muslim is not enough for them. They make politics seems religious…"[20] His hatred drove him to inform the Syrian secret service of Hizb ut-Tahrir members he encountered in Damascus and has called for them to be banned in the UK.[21] The al-Assads and their fellow elites hail from the Alawite sect, an offshoot considered to be apostates. Alawite rule in Syria is secular, dictatorial and the government has a historic fear of an uprising by the majority Sunnis – massacring its own population during the 1980s. Husain’s sentiments against Muslim activists and Palestinians are also similar to this regime - when Syria first invaded Lebanon in 1975, it was against the Palestinians and in support of Lebanese Christians. Husain supports the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, compares Hamas to the BNP, describes the Arab "psyche" as irredeemably racist, cites Gandhi as his hero,[22] criticises the director of MI5 for "pussyfooting around" with extremists, pours cold dismisses western policy in the Muslim world contributes to terror attacks in Britain, believes penal sharia punishments to be barbaric, inhumane and outdated, dismisses the idea of Islamophobia, defends the government's decision to ban Muslim cleric al-Qaradawi from Britain because (like his own scholars) he defends Palestinian martyrdom operations and attacks multiculturalism, declaring there to be too many immigrants in the country.[23]

Critics argue Husain was never known in any of Britain’s Mosques, Muslim charities or youth organizations, never gave a Friday sermon nor was he invited by any of Britain’s Muslim youth. Whatever else, Husain is hardly a voice of moderation or reason.

Maajid Nawaz

Nawaz entered the spotlight when jailed in Egypt in 2002 with two others for belonging to Hizb ut-Tahirir. Whilst in prison, he allegedly underwent the Egyptian dictatorship’s “detox” program developing his understanding of “traditional Islam”. Critics however argue he simply adopted the Egyptian regime’s secular narrative. On his return, he appeared on BBC’s Hardtalk claiming Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideas were peaceful and had prevented him from becoming violent despite the oppression he had faced, in fact arguing, his time in prison had “convinced me even more...that there is a need to establish this Caliphate as soon as possible”. Maajid has never satisfactorily explained why he continued working with Hizb ut-Tahrir for over a year since returning from Egypt – it is suspected that his early release from prison may have been facilitated by the British government, continuing with Hizb ut-Tahrir to cement a high-profile position before leaving.

Nawaz's previous knowledge of Islam, like Husain, is based on studying a few Hizb ut-Tahrir books – beyond this it is lacking. Nawaz’s new view of Islam is secularist in nature, one that denies that the Prophet (pbuh), his companions and successors were rulers of a religiously structured expansionist state for over thirteen centuries. Like Husain and Butt, Nawaz’s narratives have an inconsistent quality. In 2007 Nawaz claimed he had been with Hizb ut-Tahrir for 12 years,[24] in 2008 this became, “I have been training people [in Hizb ut-Tahrir] for 14 years, every single week for two hours a week…“[25]

Reasons for Nawaz’s departure from Hizb ut-Tahrir, like his colleague Husain are unclear. He argues he resigned due to profound doubts. His critics argue it was unethical activities (nightclubbing and girlfriends) and subversive meetings and activities with Ali and Husain resulting in a rapid resignation before the disgrace of expulsion.[26] In a recent Newsnight interview, Nawaz sought to distance himself from some of Husain’s extreme and damaging positions.[27] Nawaz states the Quilliam Foundation started with over 20 members however refuses to cite any of them.

Rashad Zaman Ali

Rashad Zaman Ali is of Bangladeshi origins living in Sheffield; he encountered Hizb ut-Tahrir when a party member delivered a school assembly. Following this he read a tract of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s economic system which deconstructed western economic theory of Adam Smith, Ricardo and Malthus through to Marx.[28] He began studying with Hizb ut-Tahrir and was with them for 12 years before being expelled for alleged criminal and fraudulent activities. [29]

Rashad Ali has no significant academic background – he has commenced a number of courses however has not completed them. His limited self-taught Islamic jurisprudence and Arabic along with studies in some Hizb ut-Tahrir books makes him the most qualified of the trio. He provided content for Nawaz’s theological paper of 2007 and academically flawed responses to the resulting critique.[30] His theology is radically reductionist in nature, believing that revelation provides a limited number of abstract ideas like justice and reason with liberal use of utilitarianism. Squaring this with traditional theology poses a significant challenge – one where Ali appears unperturbed by questionable techniques of misinterpretation and misrepresentation.[31] All three have enrolled on postgraduate doctorates – apparently not for the educational content but “for the legitimacy such a piece of paper will give their views.”[32]

What’s in a Name

"An Armenian explodes a bomb in the crowded streets of Constantinople and slays innocent women and children and, because he calls himself a Christian he is extolled in England as a hero and as a patriot! An Afghan fights for his fatherland in the Khyber Pass, and because he is a Muslim he is denounced as a traitor and a rebel, and his land is to be raided and his wives and children slain. Such is the British Christian logic at the end of the 19th Century in the diamond jubilee year of the reign of the Queen Empress." (Abdullah Quilliam, 1917)

Abdullah Quilliam was a 19th century British convert to Islam. He was influential in advancing knowledge of Islam within the British Isles, and gained converts through literary works and charitable institutions he founded.[34] In 1894, Sultan Abdul Hamid II, gave him the title of “Sheikh al-Islam of Britain”, leader of British Muslims. The Sultan of Afghanistan gave him £2,500 to help him continue his good works and the Shah of Persia made him a consul. He opened the first mosque and centre to help the local community Muslims and non-Muslims.

The Quilliam Foundation argues Abdullah Quilliam advocated a British Islam in contrast to the likes of Syed Qutb. However, this is inconsistent with Quilliam’s political activism, critique of the British way of life and politics, blending of scripture and politics, addresses to the Muslim world (ummah), and relationships with the Ottoman Caliph.

Objectives and Ideology

Think tanks conduct research and engage in advocacy in areas ranging from social policy, political strategy, economy through to military advice. Supporters like the NIRA[37] hail think tanks as "one of the main policy actors in democratic societies..., assuring a pluralistic, open and accountable process of policy analysis, research, decision-making and evaluation". Critics like SourceWatch have called them "little more than public relations fronts... generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors."[38]

The Quilliam Foundation proclaims itself to be a counter extremism think tank and campaign group, believing Muslims are required to revive a “Western” Islam of Andalusian heritage comprising pluralism and respect. Nawaz states, “The first (objective) is I want to demonstrate how the Islamist ideology is incompatible with Islam. Secondly, I want to develop a Western Islam that is at home in Britain and in Europe. We want to reverse radicalisation by taking on their arguments and countering them.”[39] However this is contradicted when asked why it has no grassroots supports, answering “We are a think tank, we do not aspire to being a representative body and do not actively seek mass support.”[40]

The Quilliam Foundation believes Islam is not an ideology but a faith,[41] namely “Islam is not Islamism.”[42] Denying Islamic politics it advocates Western secular politics in its place, resulting in a position of moderate secularism, akin to that of modern Turkey which the Foundation supports.[43] Researchers have described such positions in their typologies of modern Islam as ideological stances.[44]

Though not mentioned explicitly, the Foundation has an additional objective focused on opposing Hizb ut-Tahrir. A number of references across its website and speeches makes this clear.[45] Unusually however, it appears not appear to have considered the only serious in-depth academic research conducted on Hizb ut-Tahrir by Dr Farouki of Durham University,[46] preferring to take anecdotal comments and Civitas papers as the basis of its critique.

In relation to the Islamic Caliphate, Husain argues there was no glorious history as the first three Caliphs were assassinated.[47] Furthermore, Spain, Africa and Persia were apparently autonomous at different points in history resulting in there being no one Caliphate state.[48] This contradicts traditional historiography which relates the Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman Caliphates as maintaining general political and territorial integrity with fragmentation and divisions being the exception.

The Foundation controversially argues Islam has no specific prescriptions for modes of governance, as Muslim history has illustrated a plethora of approaches to government – none of which are detailed or referenced. A review of Muslim political jurisprudence, philosophy and practice indicates a consensus on the Caliphate form of government with a clear structure comprising a Caliph, assistants (mu’awinoon), governors (wulaat), judges (qudaat) and administrators (mudeeroon).

Cultural baggage brought by the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent to the UK is to be replaced by the culture of Muslim Spain. Given the history of Muslim Spain spanned several centuries, much of it turbulent, it is not clear which period is referred to. Why Spanish history and culture dating over a millennium ago is preferable to contemporary subcontinent practice is also unclear.

Unlike Christianity, it argues, Muslim history has not battled for the separation of church and state since clerics were almost always a separate entity from the rulers.[49] This goes against legal historiography where leading jurists worked with governments of their times: Abu Yusuf, Mohammed Ibn al-Hasan, Shafi’i, Yahya bin Said, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Ismail bin Yasa, Ibn Tulun, Abu Zura, Abu Hasan al-Mawardi and Tabari.[50] Furthermore, prominent theologians would write moral advice literature to help the Caliph discharge his Islamic duties, often on the request of the incumbent Caliph. Many rulers provided patronage to scholars across all disciplines, the most famous being the Abassids who funded extensive translation programmes and building of libraries.

From calling for the removal of religion from public space, the Quilliam Foundation is attempting to build on Middle Eastern modernist discourse. Its political philosophy is based on a Hellenistic Juedao-Christian state-religion relationships, ethics are little more than Rashid Rida’s utilitarianism justified with a thin veneer of Shatibite maslaha.[51] Rational and empirical reasoning is replaced by an “unjustifiable, inarticulate and non-intellectual, intuition” [52] reminiscent of the mystic gnosis.

Critics argue the Foundation is a neoconservative organisation, whose objectives are the forceful implementation of a questionable form of “democracy” and “universal” Western values on Muslim states. Its views are influenced by extreme right wing organisations like Civitas and the Policy Exchange and advisors like Michael Gove and Dr Green despite the Foundation’s protestations that it has many advisors.[53]

Proposals

A policy proposal has been published for the British government and journalists. Copies appear to have been sent to the Muslim community in hindsight – prior consultation not having been considered relevant. There has been no comment regarding response. The Foundation claims it has relied on organisations including Civitas, Policy Exchange, Demos, IPPR and RUSI for its content, however, does not reference any of its proposals to these organisations. The recommendations comprise high level outlines with little detail hence limiting serious deliberation or debate.

The primary recommendation comprises rehabilitation centres[55] – a proposal to “detox” extremists based on the “success” of unnamed Egyptian and Saudi programmes. These centres would expose extremists and terrorists who wish to leave their organisations to “genuine and authentic” scholars.[56] However detail is missing as to who these scholars will be, how they will be differentiated from “non-genuine unauthentic” scholars, how the detox process would work, what results are being relied on from Saudi/Egypt etc. Even Quilliam endorsed scholars like the Egyptian al-Gomaa state such processes do not work:

“Our experience with such people is that it is very difficult to move them two or three degrees from where they are. It’s easier to move from terrorism to extremism or from extremism to rigidity. We have not come across the person who can be moved all the way from terrorism to a normal life.”[57] Quilliam Foundation may have underestimated Western sensitivities when relying on Saudi and Egyptian processes which incorporate arbitrary arrests and torture including sexual abuse and genitalia electrocution. MPs rebelling against extended detentions will no doubt find Saudi and Egyptian tactics unpalatable.

Other vague recommendations instruct communities, groups, scholars and leaders to exclude “Islamists” from their midst, with colleges and universities, bastions of Western open and free debate, “to prevent the call of jihad and other problematic concepts in Friday sermons”. The target audience is said to be the Muslims of Britain with a particular focus on “extremists” and “radicals”. To date the focus has been mainly non-Muslim audiences through presentations, interviews and discussions across Europe and the Middle East with an aversion to engage with Islamist groups. Even the launch venue at the British Museum, reflected a lack of grass roots feel. Husain did state that they will be sending out special units to places like Bradford – no further detail was provided. Critics argue that in the rush to launch, the target audience has not been considered, thus all that is happening is “preaching to the converted”.[58]

The advisors, publications and events appear to be designed to gain credence with a governmental audience rather than the community. Critics cite the founders jet-setting to pre-organised events in Europe and the Middle East comprising civil servants, politicians and high profile individuals – for a new organisation accessing an audience of this nature is unsurprisingly quickly.

Funding

“If you press the right buttons on integration and ‘radicalisation’ and hold your tongue on western foreign policy, there are rich pickings to be had...” (Seamus Milne – The Guardian) [59]

The Quilliam Foundation claims its source of funding is from anonymous Kuwaiti businessmen,[60] allegedly in excess of £0.5 million. Businessmen from the Arab world do not give money away for no return.[61] Given the concern regarding hidden agendas and the need for transparency, refusal to openly declare sources is problematic. It raises questions as to what the actual sources of funds are and their associated conditions. Furthermore, such anonymity does not sit well with a call for democracy. (The most recent notice on the Quilliam webstite indicates even these funding sources have been terminated). Hizb ut-Tahrir’s funding policy on the other hand is stated clearly in its Administrative Law, basing its operations on voluntarily contributions from members.[62]

The British government's national security strategy contains a Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) Pathfinder Fund, amounting to £45 million over three years.[63] As its name suggests, it is largely about countering violent extremism.[64] A number of groups operating in the UK have received funding however with strings attached. Nawaz has denied that they have taken any funds from the PVE fund despite being offered it although he would have no problems in principle in receiving “without strings” taxpayers’ funds.[65]

Critics allege the UK government is providing funding citing strong hints being dropped by senior officials at the Department of Communities and Local Government recently that financial support from the government would be available but only if they were prepared to work with and thereby help lend credibility to the Quilliam Foundation.[66] Both Husain and Nawaz are on record as stating they would be happy to take government funds[67] - a process that has commenced judging the leaked emails from the founders detailing the Foundation’s applications for government funding.

Advisors, Associates and Affilliates

The Quilliam Foundation site had listed a number of scholars as supporters and advisors, apparently driven by the need for recognition and credibility given the insignificant backgrounds of the founders and lack of response from the community. These were rapidly taken down when allegedly a number of scholars including Shaikh Abu Laith Maliki, Shaikh Abdus Subhan and Professor Yahya Michiot[68] objected to their names being used without permission, the Foundation’s ideas and agendas, questionable behaviour by the directors highlighted on a number of sites.[69] The Foundation states it had received permission from all scholars before it put their names on its site.[70] Website postings however indicate otherwise:

“Sheikh Babikar is my brother in law and I spoke to him today about this very matter, Ed Husain approached the sheikh a matter of months ago to ask him to become an advisor to their group. The sheikh having no knowledge of Ed Husain or his group said he would consider it but only after researching their agenda. The sheikh was extremely shocked when I informed him that his name appears on Husain’s site and he is now taking steps to having it removed. May Allah strengthen our resolve to expose Husain and his cronies for all they are worth. Saeed” [71]

The Quilliam Foundation website has finally removed all mention of advisor names which critics claim result from more advisors pulling out:

“In the meantime, we have decided to respect our advisors' wishes that they continue to advise us in private so as to save them the indignity of constant Islamist-Wahhabite harrassment. We have therefore decided to no longer publicise their names.”[72]

Husain cited a number of scholars whom he approved of in his book, including Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Nuh Keller and T.J. Winter;[73] most have disassociated themselves from him because of his attacks on traditional Islamic notions along with his questionable views.[74]

Those speaking at the Quilliam Foundation launch appeared to be little more than an ad hoc collection, none exhibiting any serious understanding about the Quilliam Foundation. Speeches were contradictory with none contributing anything of note. Nawaz’s attempts at putting a spin on Dr Musharraf’s controversial views regarding the superfluousness of a reformation of Islam during question time indicated vetting had been inadequate.[75] Others like Ahmad Babikr, T J Winters and Hamza Yusuf were conspicuous by their absences. The Foundation is very circumspect about putting government advisors on their site despite Husain’s public comments about his close relationship with Whitehall. Those who attended the launch along with their contribution included:

Jemima Khan (ex-wife of Imran Khan) claimed she probably not the best person to talk on Islam – no doubt a reference to her dress sense, extra-marital relationships and media antics. However she was happy to challenge the “dark side”, allegedly receiving death threats as a consequence – she did not explain why these had not been reported these to the police.[76]

Dr Husain argued Islam and its values as being universal, citing the al-Hambra palace of Muslim ruled Spain.[77] Contradicting his hosts, he argued Islam did not need reform, citing the Quranic verse “This day I have completed your deen for you.”[78]

Dr Hasan (mis-)cited Ibn Khaldun to argue Islam prescribes a secular form of government – maybe unaware Ibn Khaldun wrote in support of the Caliphate in his famous Muqaddima: "The appointment of the Imaam is obligatory, its obligation known in the shar’ by the ‘ijmaa (consensus) of the companions and the taabi’een … and the settling of that consensually/ upon consensus indicates the obligation of appointing the Imaam."(Chapter 1, Section 26)In secular-modernist tradition, he incorrectly generalised a tradition that related to specific technological processes - the Prophet(saw) commented on those undertaking agricultural cross-pollination, “you know your worldly matters best.” Dr Hasan is affiliated with JIMAS (a Wahabite organisation) and his attendance is unusual given Husain’s public contempt for JIMAS, Wahabis and Saudis. Dr Hasan's new views have been heavily critiqued by Wahabite/Salafite organisations and others. In his defense, he has revised his position arguing that he simultaneously supports a just Caliphate (fusion of religion and politics) whilst also supporting Islamic political secularism whilst denying metaphysical secularism - a position unknown to the Quilliam Foundation and not espoused at the launch.[79]

Dr Sidiqi unconvincingly argued Islamism to be the cause of Muslim decline.[80] Known for his views of opposition to the Shabina Begum’s jilbab case[81] and his request that Khomeini issue the death sentence on Salman Rushdie, Ummah Pulse had said, “Yet using his extraordinary chameleon-like abilities, Mr Siddiqui has now metamorphosed into a leading authority on social cohesion and Islamic reformation.”[82]

Dr David Green of the Civitas is regarded as a close advisor – it is instructive reviewing his organisation’s book, “The ‘West’, Islam and Islamism - Is ideological Islam compatible with liberal democracy?”. Critics state the organisation’s vitriolic thought exemplified by the book is reflected in the Quilliam Foundation. It also goes some way to explain the poorly researched positions with extensive neoconservative citations (including Lewis and Pipes) on epistemology, politics, Muslim history and theology and policy orientation.[83]

The Quilliam Foundation promotes scholars like Ali al-Goma as a "scholastic giant" for making a stand against extremism[84] - based in Egypt it is not clear if he is aware of his association with the Foundation.[85] Ali Al-Gomaa is an Egyptian scholar, appointed the Grand Mufti of Egypt by the dictatorship government of Hosni al-Mubarak in 2003. However Gomaa’s favourable views on 'martyrdom' operations[86] contradicts the Foundation views and its criticism of the cleric Qaradawi being extremist for holding similar views. Qaradawi is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a popular opposition movement in the Arab world, while Gomaa is appointed by the pro-Western Mubarak dictatorship. [87]

In conclusion, it is unclear which individuals remain associated with the Foundation, however right-wing Civitas and Policy Exchange clearly inform its intellectual positions.

Competitors

The Quilliam Foundation is operating in a very competitive arena, with numerous organisations clamouring for government funding. The main contenders comprise:

British Muslims for Democracy

A re-launched group (who first launched around 2005) seem to incessantly complain how little media and government attention they have received in comparison to the Quilliam Foundation. It comprises primarily a set of secular “Muslim” journalists. With the Muslim community seeing no separation of religion and politics, they have an uphill struggle facing them to convince them otherwise. Their impact has been negligible to date and the lukewarm response to their launch indicates that the media and the government are becoming bored with the “me-too” organisations.

The Sufi Muslim Council

This organisation came from nowhere and began gaining publicity from the media and government. It argued the majority of Muslims in Britain were apolitical Sufis whom this group represented, its head being Kabhani. However, it soon fell out of favour of the government as most Muslim organisations condemned its views as neo-conservative with links to Washington and the infamous ISCA (a neo-conservative group furthering the US administration’s overseas agendas).[88]

The Quilliam Foundation appears to be resuming from where the Sufi Muslim Council left off. With views remarkably similar, it is no wonder allegations of neo-conservatism are regularly made against them. The two organisations believe in: the legitimacy of Israel, the separation of Islam and politics, the opposition to “Islamists” (Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Jamati Islamiya etc), opposition to extremism in the Muslim community, silence on foreign policy atrocities, and have close relationships with neo-conservatives.

Muslim Council of Britain=

An umbrella group comprising a loose coalition of a variety of groups and institutions from across the UK, the MCB has been working with British government for several years trying to influence policy before being marginalised in favour of SMC. Since the 7/7 bombings the government distanced itself from the MCB for its vocalisation of the Iraq war, its stance on Islamic values and Sharia – however, having been most recently replaced by the Quilliam Foundation with its more favourable positions, MCB is being pressurised to change its stance with Innayat Bunglawala recently relenting on the stance on homosexuals and memorial day.

Critics and Response

"I don't think the Quilliam Foundation knows the grassroots... Their focus is on the mosque and religions and then young people. It's the same way the British government thinks." (The Muslim News )[89]

Critics have condemned the Quilliam Foundation, its theological position, its relationship with the government, its neoconservative politics, attacks on other groups and the behaviour of its directors. Critics have included Azam Tamimi (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen), Inayat Bunglawala (MCB), Ziauddin Sardar, Yahaya Birt and Seamus Milne (Guardian). Others like Anas al-Tikriti, Yvonne Ridley, Ihtisham Hibatullah, Ismail Patel, and Roshan Salih have written: “We represent a cross section of the Muslim community, and reject the simplistic narrative about the dangers of Islamism espoused by the Quilliam Foundation… We believe this is just another establishment-backed attempt to divert attention from the main cause of radicalisation and extremism in Britain: the UK's disastrous foreign policy in the Muslim world, including its occupation of Muslim lands and its support for pro-western Muslim dictators. The foundation has no proven grassroots support within the Muslim community, although it does seem to have the ear of the powers that be, probably because it is telling them what they want to hear. It is quite possible to be a politically engaged Muslim without wanting to fly planes into tall buildings. Yet the foundation equates all forms of political Islam with extremism and terrorism. But those misguided few who are willing to cross the line into terrorism are not driven by disfranchisement or Sayyid Qutb's writings; they do it because they are furious about western foreign policy...”[90]

On a Newsnight discussion with Nawaz, Azam Tamimi of the Muslim Brotherhood alleged the Quilliam Foundation comprised of neocons. Others have cited that the founders of Quilliam Foundation are no different to those contained in Dr Sa'id Al-Ghamdi’s doctorate, issued by Medina University, “Deviation from the Faith as Reflected in [Arab] Thought and Literature on Modernity”, which names more than 200 Arab intellectuals and authors as heretical, controversially making it permissible to kill them.[91] A number of websites satirize the lack of originality and content whilst others have focused on exposing the antics and speeches of the founders for their distinctive lack of Islam thought.

Critique of the Quilliam Foundation or its founders is seen by the media as a hate campaign. Journalists have refrained from criticising the Foundation’s simplistic narratives, ties with radical scholars, extreme positions and indiscretions.[92] This appears consistent with the Rand Corporation recommendations to expose shortcomings of extremists whilst providing platforms publicising views of secularists and modernists – the 9/11 bombers were widely reported as having visited nightclubs, Omar Bakri Mohammed’s comments about Jews were publicised as were the MCB’s attitudes to Holocaust Memorial Day and homosexuals.

The Muslim response has generally been outright rejection. From scholars, imams, religious leaders, organisations and communities, there has been condemnation for this organisation as the latest in a long line of (Western backed) Uncle Tom organisations, its views and the government’s attempts at propagating a neoconservative agenda. The Foundation however believes “the vast amount of supportive correspondence we receive bears out” facts to the contrary.[93] This section reflects a sample of the views posted on internet forums and comment pages:

“In fact this is just a carbon copy of the RAND foundation in the US, which promotes Sufi-mystic Islam as being True Islam and everything else is non-Islamic according to them. Ironically this makes them a cult. But a Western backed, funded and friendly one.”[94]

“I note that there [appears] to be a distinct dearth of invites for the Quilliam Foundation in places like Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Brick Lane.”[95]

“The Quilliam Foundation's leading lights could not be less representative of mainstream Muslim opinion in Britain... Officials from Hazel Blears' communities department recently made clear to a Muslim organisation involved in youth work that it would need to line up with the Quilliam Foundation if it wanted government funding.”[96]

“…chairman of the National Association of Muslim Police, Zaheer Ahmad, warned… while Husain had "few supporters within the Muslim community", some senior officers had been "seduced" by his "celebrity status" and "taken in by the stereotypical image of Islam he portrays". The dangers of trying to impose the voices you want to hear on the Muslim community should be obvious.”[97]

“The community are not naive, only genuine, sincere and principled individuals can apply, not those who tarnish and attack entire movements which have been actively serving their respective Muslim and non-Muslim communities for nearly 50 years and have histories dating back hundreds of years…”[98]

“And you really do need to get away from this idea that foreign policy is not in any way a cause for the rise is extremism. "Oh but extremism started way before 9/11". Yes, but western interference in the Islamic world didn't start with the invasion of Afghanistan!!!”[99]

Criticism

“Quilliam Foundation sound palatable as their surface arguments seem to make sense, however when you dig deeper they are full of holes, inconsistencies and overtly deterministic towards a pre-defined agenda of historical and theological revisionism.” (Pickled Politics)[100]

Think tanks engage with issues and introduce clarification and precision to a debate avoiding bias and partisanship. According to critics the Quilliam Foundation has done little more than build emotive arguments,[101] labelled opponents pejoratively and undertaken incessant public speeches.[102] Given the number, breadth and depth of issues addressed, surrounded by intellectual clutter, the critique has tried to maintain a focus on key issues intentionally. References have been provided for further reading.

Philosophical Beginnings

What philosophy terms episteme is an intellectual construct, concerned with the scope and nature of knowledge, informing ethical positions built upon it (politics, economics, social constructs, law etc). Its importance is paramount to any serious and significant intellectual discourse.

Hizb ut-Tahrir documents its epistemological positions in a number of publications,[124] detailing clear paradigms of knowledge, thought and reason along with deconstruction of secular and Marxist positions. Bringing Asharite theology into modernity, Hizb ut-Tahrir commences with fundamental axioms which it uses to build an intellectual doctrine. This doctrine rationally concludes the necessity of an eternal creator, through demonstrable and empirically verified phenomenon, arguing revelation to be the correct basis for ethics.[125] It then follows the contours and fluctuations of revelation to construct its jurisprudence in a manner similar to that of the classical jurists.

The source of Quilliam Foundation epistemological ideas on the other hand appears to be rooted in Egypt’s modern secular discourse. Commencing in the late nineteenth century, Mohammed Abdu and Rashid Rida who whilst “defending” Islam undertook a project to modernise it to match Western institutions and social processes. This project superimposed the transitory world of the nineteenth century on the extensive body of Islamic knowledge that had accumulated in a different milieu. These efforts had little impact at first, however were catalysed with the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 and promotion of secular liberalism – particularly with a new breed of writers being pushed to the fore including Egyptian Ali Abd al-Raziq’s publication attacking Islamic politics for the first time in Muslim history.[126] Subsequent secular writers including Farag Foda, al-Ashmawi, Muhamed Khalafallah, Taha Husayn and Husayn Amin et al have argued in similar tones. Having been marginalised in recent years by resurgent Muslim activists, support and platforms for the secularists are increasingly having to be provided by the Egyptian state - with ideas and terminology increasingly undergoing revision – terms like “secular” (‘almani) in relation to the state are being replaced with the more acceptable “civil” (madani) – in vain attempts to remain relevant to the masses.[127]

Maajid Nawaz, founder of the Quilliam Foundation, spent a number of years in an Egyptian prison where he appears to have come into contact with these state sanctioned ideas and adopted them in a wholesale and uncritical manner. Much of his ideas appear to be influenced by writings of secularists like al-Ashmawi: “Islamists confuse Sharia and fiqh”, “Egyptian law is consistent with the Sharia”, “Governance is civil (secular) in Islam”, “There has never been a glorious Caliphate”, “Extremists are descendants of the earlier Khawarij” and “Religious governance is disastrous.” [128] The Quilliam Foundation opposes Hizb ut-Tahrir’s epistemological outlook contending the standard Civitas view that an ideological mode of thought represses truth.[129] Rashad Ali’s presentation at the Institute of Ideas states, “There is [sic] a number of reasons why they [Hizb ut-Tahrir] believe the Quran is divine and the prophetic narrations are divine… They have a set of intelligible arguments for this…”[130] However, he provides no refutation or critique simply branding the ideas as “left-wing multi-culturism”[131] and “intuitively wrong”. Whilst acknowledging the role of intuition in human life, classical scholars like al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah rejected the fact that intuition (usually associated with mystics) could yield certain knowledge let alone provide an episteme.[132]

More particularly the Foundation appears to be building a Western pragmatic episteme inherited from American writers Peirce, James and Dewey.[133]

Towards a Typology

Modern ideological and political thought in Islam can be described in terms of two separate but inter-related debates, one about secularism and westernization; the other about religious renewal and modernization. The first debate is about Western ideology, philosophy, civilisation and culture whilst the latter is about ijtihad, material technology and modern techniques of social organisation and mobilisation.[135] The complexity of the Muslim response to Western political, cultural, military and economic encroachments over the last two centuries makes meaningful discourse difficult. Biases and political point scoring abound with labelling and categorisation used to stunt rather than further debate.

Faith, Religion and Ideology

The Quilliam Foundation, like minority modernists,[144] believes Islam to be a faith like other religions, a personal and private religion as opposed to an ideology.[145] A review of its advisors highlights the source of this perspective - the Policy Exchange describes Islam as "a religion practiced by Muslims worldwide" and Islamism as "a political ideology that aims to create a state and society in strict conformity with religious doctrine." Civitas describes Islam as “the Arabic word denoting submission or self-surrender to Allah as revealed through the message and life of his Prophet Mohammed” and Islamism as “radical, militantly ideological versions of Islam, as interpreted by the practitioners and in which violent actions such as terrorism, suicide bombings or revolutions are explicitly advocated, practised and justified using religious terminology”.[146]

The terms faith and religion are commonly used to denote Christianity and Judaism and ideology for Capitalism and Communism. Muslims have traditionally used the term “deen” which does not immediately translate to any of these terms, the rendering “way of life” usually being used translators. These terms when used by Muslims have resulted in some confusion, both in terms of their definition, and more concerningly, statements of fact about Islam.[147]

Imam Zaid Shakir’s unsuccessful attempt at distinguishing religion from ideology, is promoted on the Quilliam Foundation’s website:[148]

“[an ideology is] any systematic and all-embracing political doctrine, which claims to give a complete and universally applicable theory of man and society, and to derive there from a programme of political action.…This limitation to the political realm marks where Islam parts with ideology. Islam is not simply concerned with man’s political condition; it is also concerned with his spiritual condition, and at the heart of the Islamic call is a normative program for spiritual salvation... Moreover, ideologies are also utilitarian in that the doctrines they espouse are informed as much by their effectiveness as they are by any overarching principles. Few ideologies would deviate far from the Machiavellian maxim that “the ends justify the means”.”[149]

The term ideology has been defined and used in a number of ways: · The body of doctrine, myth, belief etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.[150] · a systematically developed worldview oriented toward stimulating and guiding social change[151] · The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture or a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.[152] · A system of beliefs or theories, usually political, held by an individual or a group.[153] · a system of ideas, beliefs and myths justifying or attacking a given social order[154] · The important 'belief systems' adhered to by groups or whole societies - it is our 'world view' or 'mind set' concerning how things are and ought to be.[155] · Those underlying assertions, propositions, or kernels of personal-truth that integrate and organise each individual’s expressed socio-political attitudes.[156]

The term ideology can be said to denote fundamental ideas that provide belief systems for individuals/ groups. The term has frequent usage in relation to secular or materialistic systems but is not limited by this usage nor does it pose any contextual problems when transferring its use to the Islamic context. Classical literature reveals a spiritual creed (aqeedah/imaan),[157] a set of fundamental and decisive concepts, providing guidance through values and ideas enforceable and regulated via political authority. These ideas include both natural matters (morality, ethics, socio-political, law etc) as well super-natural matters (meta-physics, the hereafter etc).

Labelling Islam as an ideology importantly results in no loss of any aspect of the subject matter nor does it introduce anything unwarranted, adhering to accepted notions of typology (jami’ wa mani’). Those who deem ideologies are limited to a political realm ignore their comprehensive nature.[158] Some instances of ideologies have Machiavellian tendencies however this is a characteristic of an instance and not a necessary aspect of an ideology’s definition.

The term religion has been defined and used as: · Theological beliefs, private prayers and ritual worships.[161] · A set of beliefs concerning cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.[162] · Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power(s) regarded as creator and governor of the universe or a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.[163] · A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.[164] · Veneration or reverence of the Supreme Being, and love of his character; loving obedience to the will of God, and earnest devotion to his service.[165]

And faith has been defined and used as: · A belief that is not based on proof or belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion or a system of religious belief.[166] · Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence or the body of dogma of a religion.[167] · A system of religious belief of any kind.[168] · An institution to express belief in a divine power.[169]

The term religion emphasizes belief and reverence of a supernatural power and the system that regulates that relationship (e.g., the church in Christianity). The term faith focuses on the belief of a God or associated doctrines. Either term is acceptable in Christianity, which displays a clear dichotomy between God and Caesar due to its early political formative experiences – something absent in the Muslim historical experience.[170] As such, neither of these two terms have the propensity to provide a sufficiently comprehensive definition that includes the socio-political dimensions that are present in Islam. As such, it is inaccurate to label Islam a religion or faith, despite the fact it exhibits aspects or components that may be loosely termed religion or faith (e.g., tawhid, worships, morality etc).

Quilliam Foundation’s opposition to the term ideology appears to be a political stance rather than an intellectual position. Its lack of definitions and semantic analysis is something one would not expect of a think tank. Comments like “Islam, like other world faiths, is a religion, not a political ideology”[171] and “the Islamist ideology is incompatible with Islam” and “[Hizb ut-Tahrir state] we need a Prophet to define a political ideology”[172] show the argument to be disingenuous – objecting to defining Islam as a “political ideology” rather than defining Islam as an “ideology”. The attempt reminiscent of modernists suggests Islam is not inherently political and Muslim activists are attempting to politicise it through the use of ideologies. The same argument is presented by neoconservative politicians:

“…respect for Islam as a religion of peace suggests by implication that Islamic activism in general is un-Islamic, a perverse exploitation of religion for political ends, and that jihadi activism in particular -- conceived as merely the extremist end of the Islamist spectrum - is simply evil. But while it is rooted in the understandable concern of Western governments to make clear that "the war against terrorism" is not a war of religion, this approach renders jihadi activism inexplicable in terms of cause and effect…

Since Islam is above all a religion of law, all forms of Islamic activism - including the government-sponsored activism of "official Islam" - are naturally political to a degree. Secondly, to suggest that Islam is a religion of peace that has been "hijacked" by jihadis is in effect to imply that jihad has no place in the Islamic tradition, whereas it has a very clear and time-honoured - but also rule-bound - place. For the US president or the British prime minister to deny this is for them to claim to be the arbiters of what true Islam is, a remarkable claim by any standard, and one which ensures that official Western discourse can have little or no purchase on the reflexes of the populations of the Muslim world.”[173]

Politics of Terminology

Use of terminology is no doubt important, informing and directing discourse. The Quilliam Foundation’s use of terminology is often vague, unclear and contradictory – with attempts at politicising the language appearing to be focused on countering dissenting voices. Critics argue the abuse of terminology, including hijacking of terms like “Islamist”, demonstrates its political nature whilst rendering its critique of its opponents questionable.

Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies outside the perceived political centre of a society – it is almost always exonymic and almost invariably used pejoratively. The term is used to describe those who have become radicalized, in some way, even though the term radical originally meant to go to the root of a (social) problem. Many researchers object to the term as "at best this characterization tells us nothing substantive about the people it labels; at worst it paints a false picture."[176]

The Quilliam Foundation argues that “[Islamists] are extreme because of their rigidity in understanding politics”[177] – likewise it can be argued the Quilliam Foundation are extreme because they staunchly and rigidly believe in secularism.

Nearly any movement that brought about significant change has not been at the political centre, but at one extreme or another - this includes figures ranging from the Prophet Mohammed(saw), Martin Luther, America’s founding fathers, the Suffragettes, Nelson Mandella, through to the Communists. Those whom Husain sees as advocates of peace were also extremists of their time – “The discourse of peaceful political change comes from great people like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Aung Sun Su Chi” - interestingly excluding the Prophet Mohammed (saw).[178]

Laird Wilcox, a researcher specializing in the study of political fringe movements, defines extremism by identifying 21 traits of "political extremists".[179] He argues we define as extreme our opponents’ positions and our positions as reasonable and moderate. It is not a position a group takes that makes it extreme, but the styles. The key styles comprise those that involve fanaticism, hatred, intolerance, and a strong tendency to oppress differing viewpoints. Applying these styles to the pronouncements and publications of the Quilliam Foundation paradoxically classify it as an extremist organisation (references follow each criteria).[180]

Laird Wilcox's Traits of Political Extremism have been applied to the Quilliam Foundation resulting in the conclusion that the Foundation is an extremist organisation that has a tendency to character assassination, name calling and labelling and the making of irresponsible, sweeping generalizations.

Islamism

In charting Muslim political discourse, a number of terms have been considered by researchers. Terms like “fundamentalist” have been rejected for their pejorative connotations whilst terms like “Islamists”, though commonly used, harbour other hidden problems. Islamism[197] has been defined as:

· “the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life”,[198] · “Islam must be the ideology that guides society as a whole and that law must be in conformity with the Islamic sharia”,[199] · “a movement that seeks cultural differentiation from the West and reconnection with the pre-colonial symbolic universe”,[200] · Islam in political mode,[201] · “the whole body of thought which seeks to invest society with Islam which may be integrist, but may also be traditionalist, reform-minded or even revolutionary”,[202] and · "a political ideology that aims to create a state and society in strict conformity with religious doctrine."[203]

Secularists are usually defined in converse to “Islamists” as “any view that openly rejects Islamism”[204] or “any view that would follow an ideology other than Islam in most areas of public life”[205] – the Quilliam Foundation being amongst the secularists by this definition.

Popular analyses of the term have generally explained it with reference to cultural, religious, or regional concerns, the nature of Arab civilization, the tenets of Islam, the Arab-Israeli conflict. The first problem with these definitions is they assume Islam is not inherently political – which it is. And secondly, they designate groups as diverse as 19th century reformers, mystics (sufis), warriors and educationists through to contemporary movements[206] as broad as Turkey's elected AK Party and al-Qa'ida – assuming all forms of “Islamism” are politically equal which they are not.[207] Such monolithic definitions do not assist in clarity of thought, debate or policy prescriptions.

The Quilliam Foundation introduces its own definitions, stating, “The modernist attempt to claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that the Shari'ah equates to state law, and it is a religious duty on all Muslims to create a political entity that reflects the above… Islamism is the belief that Islam is a political ideology”[208] – without citing which “Islamist” organisation believes Islam is solely a “political ideology”. Husain’s definition of Islamism comprises: [209] · the rejection of 1400 years of Muslim traditional scholarship and re-reading of scripture with political lenses (the Foundation uses politically “secular” lenses when interpreting revelation) · a world view that's based on eventually at some stage confronting the West (missing the US essentialist-contingencist debate with the essentialists driving US foreign policy into a confrontation based on the success of such an approach against the Russians in the Cold War) · the rejection of mainstream Muslims giving them all sorts of labels such as 'non-practising Muslims', 'jahils', 'partial Muslims'… (the Foundation calls its opponents non-Muslims) · those individuals from al-Qaida to Ikhwan who believe sovereignty is for God (ignoring the breadth of movements covering all Islamic orientations spanning two centuries) · underwritten by the works of particular writers - Mawdudi, Syed Qutb, al-Nabhani and Fathi Yaqoun (ignoring the jurists, scholars, historians, journalists, politicians etc who have written on the topic for over two centuries) These definitions simply dichotomise Muslims into two camps, the Islamists and non-Islamists. Western leaders support this dichotomisation narrative: "…on the one hand, Islam qua religion and its adherents - 'ordinary decent Muslims' for whom 'Islam' is a matter of personal piety, not political commitment - and, on the other hand, 'Islamism' or 'political Islam' - by implication an affair of a minority of agitators exploiting the faith of their fellow-Muslims for political ends, stirring up resentment, constituting a problem for Western interests and 'friendly' Muslim states alike."

Scholarly treatments of the subject have dug deeper and perceptively analyzed particular national Islamist movements and the regimes they confront.[210] The ICG's report makes the point: "…the conception of 'political Islam' inherent in this dichotomy is unhistorical as well as self-serving. The term 'political Islam' is an American coinage which came into circulation in the wake of the Iranian revolution. It implied or presupposed that an 'apolitical Islam' had been the norm until Khomeini turned things upside down. In fact, Islam had been a highly politicised religion for generations before 1979. It only appeared to have become apolitical in the historically specific and shortlived heyday of secular Arab nationalism between 1945 and 1970."[211] The ICG thus suggests a more meaningful and useful definition of Islamist, terming it synonymous with “Islamic activism”:“the active assertion and promotion of beliefs, prescriptions, laws or policies that are held to be Islamic in character.”[212]

The Foundation’s consideration of the “Islamist” chain is arbitrarily cut short at al-Banna, Qutb and Mawdudi, believing these to be the causes of modern Islamism. Were it to follow the chain further back, it would identify nineteenth century modernist reformers like Afghani, Abdu and Rida who not only inspired these writers but a number of modernist and secular writers such as al-Raziq, Hanafi and Khalid et al whose arguments informs the Foundation’s ideology. Strangely, the Foundation argues most violence emanates from those who aspire to an “Islamist” agenda, and that most conservative Muslims oppose Islamism. No evidence or citations are provided for such remarks.[213]

The Quilliam Foundation argues Hizb ut-Tahrir's “Islamism” is a post-colonial ideology, at odds with fourteen centuries of Muslim scholarship. What scholarship Hizb ut-Tahrir contradicts is unclear as the only paper Nawaz has written on theology was refuted as ahistorical, politically motivated and self-serving as well as discredited for its intellectual dishonesty, misrepresentations and misinterpretations of classical scholarship[216] (akin to critique levelled against his colleague Husain).[217] Contradicting Nawaz, Husain in his book confirmed Hizb ut-Tahrir adopted from classical scholarship in much of their works – as such, the allegation appears disingenuous. Little research material exists that has critiqued Hizb ut-Tahrir theology in any depth[218]as it comprises a traditional fusion of the Shaffite legal school of law with Asharite theology.[219]

These allegations are also a strange inversion of reality – the Quilliam Foundation is attempting to fuse Islam with western secularism contradicting classical scholarship it asserts it follows. "If militant Islam is the problem, then the opposite, moderate Islam, must be the solution," concludes neoconservative Daniel Pipes. And the Quilliam Foundation, as with secularists in general,[220] fall into this camp, busy creating a new ideology, a grand theory that seeks to replace traditional Caliphate theory with secular political thought - where the Islamic political narrative of “God created Adam(as) and made him his Khalifah on earth…”[221] is replaced with, “Man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains…”[222] Such ideas are seen as radical and extreme by Muslims. Thus, the play on terminology appears to be more political than a statement of fact.

Political Thought

Political philosophy is the study of fundamental and normative questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever.

Quilliam’s position on this is that “Islam has no role in politics” and sovereignty is not solely for God. Secular democracy is advocated in place of the classical Islamic theology of the Caliphate and existing dictatorial post-colonial regimes in the Muslim world are legitimate.

Muslim thinkers, the most well known being Ibn Khaldun, historically utilised the terms mulk, hukm and sulta for political power, the Islamic manifestation termed Khilafah.[227] Although the Caliph was not the source of law, its essential function was to use its power to execute the sharia laws. If sovereignty is understood to mean the highest, greatest and final political power it comes close to mulk. However, mulk has never been seen as absolute and unlimited, being seen as enforcing law rather than making it. This is the difference between mulk and sovereignty.

Husain argues against fundamental notions such as “sovereignty is for God”, basing his argument on the fact that the Arabic term siyaadah does not appear in the Quran – failing to note that technical terms used by jurists were coined to reflect concepts found in the revelation and usually did not appear in divine texts. Al-Nabhani uses the term siyadah for sovereignty whereas Syed Qutb and Mawdudi use the term hakimiyyat – all cite verses where judgment (hukm) is ascribed to Allah alone (12:40, 12:67, 5:44, 5:45, and 5:47).[228]

The Caliphate system historically has been an essential part of the body of Islam. Its purpose was to promulgate a universal moral order; arguably similar in perspective, if not content, to other religious traditions and to policy making based on natural law arguments. Western scholars and think tanks are beginning to consider the policy implications of a future Caliphate and potential convergence points across the political, social and economic spheres.[239] The Quilliam Foundation’s rejection of it is untenable marginalising it in any meaningful debate about the future of the Muslim world.

Neoconservatives

Neoconservatism, a political philosophy emphasizing foreign policy, sees America's role as the world's sole superpower as indispensable to maintaining global order.[254] The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyite theory of permanent revolution. [255] It is to its critics a unified ideology that justifies military adventurism, sanctions torture and promotes aggressive Zionism.[256] Neoconservatives argue that the lack of freedoms, economic opportunities and secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Aggressive support for democracies and nation buildingshould reduce extremism, a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism.

Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative, has through 20 years written about and spoke of militant Islam as a totalitarian ideology in line with fascism and communism. "The Islamists' agenda is very different than the communists' and fascists'. It's about belief, and, unlike communism and fascism, they don't have large states like the Soviet Union and Germany behind them, but if one looks at methods and goals, the similarity is striking. All three ideologies are radical utopias, which basically have a theory for how the human race can be improved... Whenever it's succeeded in a country, the ambition has been to develop its control over others. The two earlier confrontations with communism and fascism shed light on the current conflict between the civilized world and militant Islam.”

Critics argue the Quilliam Foundation is little more than another neoconservative organisation. David Edgar of the Guardian cited “all three are straight out of the cold war defectors' mould trading heavily on their former associations and travelling rapidly in a conservative direction”. The Quilliam Foundation has recruited the likes of Tory frontbencher Micheal Gove, David Goodhard and David Green, director of the rightwing think tank Civitas, as advisers.

Husain's book was greeted with enthusiasm last year by British neoconservatives such as Tory frontbencher Michael Gove and Mail columnist Melanie Phillips.[257] Nawaz has befriended Douglas Murray, author of “Neoconservatism: Why we need it”.[258] When asked to criticise neoconservatism in a City Circle discussion, he said to Murray, "I mean American Neoconservatism, but not the British Neoconservatism." [259] Douglas's brand of Neoconservatism is not significantly different to that practised in the US, arguing: "Islam is a proselytising faith, and one that is incompatible with British history, British law, and British society. With nearly two million Muslims currently living within Britain's borders, no risk whatsoever should be taken... the Muslim community in Britain is innately hostile to any integration with British society... To defend our tolerance we must be intolerant to those who oppose us, even when we express tolerance. We must not tolerate them."[260]

The Quilliam Foundation defends the regimes in the Muslim world and their systems as being consistent with Islam. It believes that if any reform is needed the existing systems should be modified, allowing more representation, accountability and population centred policies, rather than demolishing the system and replacing it with something new.

In the area of legal reform, secularism in its "pure" form replaces the Shari'a in all areas of public law with codes of other, in practice Western, origin and makes citizens of all religions in principle equal before the law. The best known example of this is, of course, the Turkish legal reforms of the 1920s. Most other Muslim countries have in fact done the same thing in many areas, usually excepting the more "sensitive" areas relating to family life, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. This, too, is secularism insofar as it establishes substantial areas where the Shari’a does not apply, although the line between the "religious" and the "secular" is drawn in a different place from where it is drawn in the West.”

In this the Foundation’s views resemble those of the neoconservatives. Their origins appear to be from Egyptian government policy (originating in the US) for Nawaz during his time in prison and Whitehall and MI5 for Husain as a result of his close and public ties with Whitehall and intelligence.

What went wrong?

“Traditionally, the argument states that the Ottoman Empire reached its peak in the sixteenth century under Suleiman the Magnificent, and thereafter began an inexorable stagnation and decline lasting until the twentieth century.” (Jonathan Grant - 1999) [261]

The Quilliam Foundation premises its political views on the division of the Ottoman state in 1924 into the plethora of nation states and the narratives that deemed this necessary. Muslim activists however dispute this believing oriental and nationalist revisionist history has dislocated Muslim history and therefore identity, allegedly peaking in the 12th century and then declining. Through magnifying and generalising isolated problems and periods, the Caliphate in general, and the Ottoman period in particular, was shown as an irreligious and decadent state. The reality is argued as markedly different – the Caliphate had political independence and sovereignty and leadership that was able to respond to a fast changing world. Despite internal problems no different to its contemporaries it provided a unified political and moral leadership that reflected the Islamic values of its populace.

Jurisprudential Revisionism

“I cannot give a fig about fiqh” – (Timothy Ashton, Quilliam Foundation Launch)

Critics argue the Quilliam Foundation is undertaking theological revisionism[295] to support its objective of creating a Western Islam.[296] This section reviews its theological pronouncements along with a comparative analysis of the theological positions of the classical jurists and also that of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Historically the science of Usul al-Fiqh was developed to determine the sources of Islamic law, rules of interpretation, philosophy and rationale and procedures by which the law is to be applied and extended. Over the centuries two main approaches were identified by the Sunni jurists, that of the Hanafites and the Shaffites.

The modernist movement of the nineteenth century attempted to reconcile Islamic thought with Western social processes, philosophies and institutions. This led to an emphasis on utilitarian principles and selective scriptural readings rather than a coherent and detailed methodology. Considerable critique against this approach includes allegations of politicisation and manipulation of jurisprudence for secular ends.

The Quilliam Foundation has not documented its methodology. It claims it follows classical scholarship, without stating which historical legal school it follows, however its publications imply a methodology that is neither orthodox nor traditional – resembling the modernist approach to jurisprudence: · Reduction of Quranic revelation to ethical principles such as mercy, reason and justice, · Use of categories of ibadaat and muamalaat to infer human moral agency in matters of muamalaat especially politics, · Careful selection of Quranic ayaat based on potential utility, · Category errors due to viewing different realities as homogenous – e.g., jihad to free land from occupation being equated to war against civilians, · Rejection of laws by arbitrary “contextualisation” – e.g., implemented laws were relevant to Arabia of the time and not relevant today, and, · Legal systems in Muslim countries being in accordance with Sharia – e.g., the Egyptian French Napoleonic code is equated with Islamic jurisprudence.

Hizb ut-Tahrir documents its methodology in detail in a number of its publications, the core legal and linguistic principles being similar to the Shafi’i school of law but also including critique of western philosophical positions. Hizb ut-Tahrir argues its methodology is used consistently for all its legal arguments.

In conclusion, the absence of any substantive methodology negates any juristic arguments the Foundation may advocate.

Traditionally Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) has been elaborated by scholars over thirteen centuries of seeing jurisprudence as a means to understand divine texts and provide practical solutions to human problems.

The Quilliam Foundation however rejects this body of knowledge believing Sharia comprises more a spirit and movement than a body of law. It particularises the Quranic texts, arguing that most had causes (asbab al-nuzul), which jurists de-emphasise in favour of lexical analysis, limiting the application of Quranic texts to specific situations which cannot be generalised. For example the verses of “not taking disbelievers as allies” is argued to be applicable to the turbulent relations with Jewish tribes at the time of the Prophet(saw) so do not apply in general. This approach however makes obsolete a vast number of verses, leaving behind only general ethical principles such as justice, reason and mercy - an approach rejected by jurists. There is nothing in the causes of revelation that provides support to the notion that texts should be limited to the problem that was originally addressed and scholars have noted the bulk of Quranic texts were not accompanied by causes. Moreover, with this approach texts are open to the accusation of double standards. For instance, Surah al-Baqarah condemns the Jews of concealing and manipulating revelation. According to the Foundation’s logic, the Muslims are not mentioned and could do the same without censure as the textual discourse is limited to the Jews – an absurd proposition.

Much of Quilliam Foundation’s jurisprudence has been controversial and is regularly aired by the unqualified Husain – receiving considerable criticism.[301] His juristic arguments have regularly proven to be incorrect despite his insistence that he follows traditional classical scholarship. Regarding apostasy, Husain debated it did not appear in the Quran, subtly omitting its mention in the Sunnah[302] – however the matter appears in both and is argued as such by numerous classical scholars.[303]

Ali regularly cites the scholars Shawkani and Shatibi as the source for his jurisprudence. Shawkani is (mis-)cited as having called for ijtihad and revival, and Shatibi for his views on the purposes of the sharia (maqasid al-sharia) and utility (masalih al-mursala). Both are interestingly cited heavily by Abdu and Rida, selectively adopting what suits their purposes and misrepresenting what did not. Many of their views on jurisprudence have been omitted as they are at odds with the Foundation, such as Shawkani’s critical stance against the colonialist hegemony ad the rationalism of the Mutazila.[304]

The following table summarises a number of key juristic issues comparing the Foundation’s stance against that of the classical jurists and groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir – it highlights the fact that the Quilliam Foundation does not adhere to the classical scholars.

Rules of Fiqh Regarding: Islamic governance (Caliphate) Q - X [305] C - Y [306] H - Y [307] Society/Lands (Dar paradigm) Q - X [308] C - Y [309] H - Y [310] The penal code Q - X [311] C - Y [312] H - Y [313] The laws of inheritance Q - X [314] C - Y [315] H - Y [316] The laws of apostasy Q - X [317] C - Y [318] H - Y [319] The laws of evidence Q - X [320] C - Y [321] H - Y [322] Social laws (prohibition of mixing, sexual freedoms, nightclub etc) Q - X [323] C - Y [324] H - Y [325] Offensive warfare (jihad) Q - X [326] C - Y [327] H - Y [328]

Key: Q - Quilliam Foundation’s Stance, C - Classical Scholars’s Stance, H - Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Stance X - Disagree, Y - Agree

Eastern Islam or Western Islam

The Quilliam Foundation argues for the creation of a new “Western Islam”,[331] modelled on Andalusian Spain between 711 and 1492 AD,[332] begging the question, “…what the hell was the Islam of al-Andalus? Could Maajid or Eddy explain that in more detail? Is it the Islam of ibn Rushd and ibn Hazm…, who believed in jihad and shari'ah? Is it the Islam of the Arabs and Berbers who invaded the Iberian Peninsula and waged jihad against the Visigoth Christians and other Christian powers?”[333]

The period of the Caliphate is seen by Muslim writers as the golden age of al-Andalus. Crops produced using irrigation, along with food imported from the Middle East, provided the area with an agricultural economic sector by far the most advanced in Europe. Among European cities, Córdoba under the Caliphate overtook Constantinople as the largest and most prosperous city in Europe, one of the leading cultural centres. The work of its most important philosophers and scientists[335] had a major influence on the intellectual life of medieval Europe.

The jurisprudence of Andalusian Spain, Malikite law, was that of much of North Africa.[336] The cultural and civilisational manifestations in art and culture had a distinct flavour of their own and these varied across the Muslim world as did technological changes and progress. However these did not negate the universalism of the Islamic creed, sharia laws and the Caliphate system all defined by Islam.

There appears little substantive difference between the Islam implemented in Spain and that implemented in the rest of the Muslim world. The Quilliam Foundation does not explain how its version of “Western Islam” differs from “Eastern Islam” nor the criteria and theology underpinning this idea. Furthermore, a number of questions arise when one wishes to begin dividing Islam by geography – when would one stop subdividing? Could there be an Islam for the: US, British, English, Scottish, Welsh, or Birmingham, Leicester, London, East London, Walthamstow etc? Based on comments by the founders, the following appears to be the version of Islam that is being labelled “Western Islam”:[337] · Removal of Islamic law from governance – Islam is a personal faith and has no say in politics · Removal of the Penal Code – existing punishments are barbaric · Changing the laws of inheritance – the Quranic prescribed inheritance ratios are unfair · Changing the laws of evidence – the conditions for witnesses are unfair · Secular democracy with capitalist economics and a liberal social system

Its inspiration appears to be two historical projects - the first undertaken by the Indian ruler Akbar (1591) who commenced with legislating religious freedom and tolerance and then established a new religion, fusing Islam and Hinduism. Akbar failed in his effort, being generally seen as an apostate by Muslims and his rule was regarded as an exception to the Islamic rule over India. The second project was that of the 19th century reformists Afghani, Abdu and Rida,[338] influenced by European thought, who argued European institutions and social processes could be accommodated by Islam, providing precedents in Islamic history that would provide justification. Abdu received backing from Lord Cromer whilst Afghani was a member of French Masonic lodges.[339]

Like their historic predecessors, the Quilliam Foundation’s efforts of fusing Western secular democracy with spiritual Islam has already brought allegations of apostasy from a number of quarters as well as backing from the Western establishment.

Terrorism

Contemporary Western analysis lumps all violent activism as a single phenomenon – terrorism. Aside from the problems of definition,[341] it fails to consider or address that those undertaking a global jihad are differentiated from internal and irredentist jihadists by the fact they lack attainable objectives. Secondly, it attempts to argue that jihadi activism is evil and has no place in Islam – factually incorrect.[342] This section considers the Quilliam Foundation’s views on the causes of terrorism and its political context.

A number of writers have discussed the causes of the terrorist phenomena from a number of perspectives. When one considers the range of views, the picture becomes more complex than the Foundation would portray. An academic study by Professor Robert Pape, Associate Professor at Chicago University, demonstrates suicide bombers are not unique to Muslims but are generic cross-human phenomena driven by political factors rather than theological beliefs. His study compiled every suicide attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004 identifying:[349] • The world leader in suicide attacks was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka – a Marxist, secular group – originators of suicide bombings, • Suicide-terrorist attacks (95 percent) are driven by the key objective of getting countries to withdraw military forces from their homeland, • Two thirds of Muslim 'suicide bombers' have been from countries where US forces have or are still maintaining military forces, and, • The presence of US forces in Iraq created suicide attackers where none existed prior to the 2003 invasion.

The question for Muslims however is, “which approach is legitimate?” There is a consensus amongst Islamic jurists that collaboration with an enemy invader or aggressor is forbidden. However, the remaining two alternatives are disputed. Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir argue that armed resistance should be undertaken until a land is occupied following which political options should be considered including resisting and changing the political status quo. Others like al-Qaida argue that armed rebellion is required in all cases.[352] The point is that both views are derived from Islamic jurisprudence. One simply needs to compare Hizb ut-Tahrir’s narrative with that of the Prophet’s life in Mekka or al-Qaida’s narrative with that highlighted by Ibn Taymiyyah during the Mongol invasions of the 14th century.[353] “Al-Qaeda today draws a similar line. The following passage from its manual on guerrilla warfare describes the emergence of the apostate ruler: "After the fall of our orthodox caliphates on March 3, 1924 and after expelling the [European] colonialists, our Islamic nation was afflicted with apostate rulers who took over... These rulers turned out to be more infidel and criminal than the colonialists themselves. Muslims have endured all kinds of harm, oppression, and torture at their hands."[354] The role that the Mongols played as the threat to Islamic civilization in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is currently played by Western civilization.”[355]

The Quilliam Foundation’s narrative blames Muslims for not doing enough against extremism for the current problems.[356] The contours and interactions of foreign policy, challenges of modernity, failure of enlightenment/modernist projects, vacuum of political discourse, dictatorial governance, and tensions between Western and Islamic value systems are generally ignored, substituted with Islamist based polemic. Even when foreign policy is mentioned there is a concerted effort to couple it and blame activists. For instance, the launch pamphlet states: “Just as Western policies in Afghanistan, coupled with the growth of an aggressive Islamist ideology over the last two decades have contributed to the creation of international terrorism...”[357] “Our foreign and domestic policies… have created an environment wherein Islamist politics and ideology can spread and therefore can be manipulated into providing political justifications for terrorist theology...”[358]

Husain even cites arguments used by Western rulers, “Undoubtedly, foreign policy has some role to play but let's not forget that countries such as Indonesia (Bali), Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and others have also suffered terrorism. Islamist terrorism started long before foreign policy blunders of Western government. The terrorists' targeting of nightclubs last year and talk of killing "slags" while they dance indicates a medieval mindset that cannot tolerate social freedoms.”[359] However, it is not only the “terrorists” who oppose these innovations and social freedoms that the Foundation approves of – most Muslims oppose nightclubs, drink, sexual indecency etc and the authoritarian regimes that permit these are western educated elites imposed on their peoples.[360]

Abdullah Quilliam

“So the Foundation is named after a man who was an enemy of Britain - and the West - and whose sole loyalty was to Islam and to promoting the interests of Muslims. We have been warned. Hizb ut Tahrir at least have the merit of openness.” (WHYS)[373]

Many of Abdullah Quilliam’s activities in nineteenth century Britain were remarkably similar to those currently undertaken by the Muslim activists in the West, particularly Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain.[374] It is unclear why the Quilliam Foundation has adopted this name - unusual for a secularist/modernist organization. It is not that the founders of the Foundation are unaware of Quilliam’s legacy. Nawaz delivered a number of speeches whilst a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and used Quilliam’s legacy to define the political role of Muslims in contemporary British society and its website details Quilliam’s legacy – albeit choosing to focus on those aspects that purport its version of Islam.[375] The table below compares and contrasts Abduallah Quilliam's stance on a number of important issues to that of the Foundation and its nemesis, Hizb ut-Tahrir:

Issues: Caliphate - A - Y [376] H - Y [377] Q - X [378] Jihad - A - Y [379] H - Y [380] Q - X [381] Ummah / Nationalism - A - Y [382] H - Y [383] Q - X[384] Shariah A - Y [385] H - Y [386] Q - X [387] Western Civilisation - A - Y [388] H - Y [389] Q - X [390] Integration - A - Y [391] H - Y Q - X [392] British Foreign Policy - A - Y [393] H - Y [394] Q - X [395]

Key: A - Abdullah Quilliam’s Position, H - Hizb ut-Tahrir’s (UK) Position, Q - Quilliam Foundation’s X - Disagree, Y - Agree

Critics like Yahya Birt have highlighted the attempt to project Abdullah Quilliam as a kind of proto-Brownite patriot, a social entrepreneur working in the third sector.[397] This would not be the first time – accusations of revisionism were made in the blogs Maajid contributed to[398] before he published the first (and only) in his series of papers where he tried to refute the intellectual basis of the “Islamists”.

Associates and Advisors

“It’s difficult to find an intellectual who is considered to be merely a scholar, because everyone is associated with some tendency, some faction, some ideological or political line.” (Akbar Ahmed)[399]

All of those on the Quilliam Foundation website have distanced themselves from the Foundation and the remaining Dr Hasan has defended his and their position with a plethora of confusing statements claiming he believes in the Caliphate (fusion of religion and state) whilst simultaneously believing in secularism (separation of relition and state).

Furthermore, if one considers the background and stances of the scholars that are cited, one notes a decidedly establishmnet orientation, with a number of views that the Foundation consider "extreme" in "Islamists" they criticise. The example of Ali al-Goma is briefly considered below. Ali al-Goma has had a traditional education at the al-Azhar University and is familiar with the Islamic sciences. The Quilliam Foundation cite him as one of the greatest contemporary scholars. However, since his appointment as Grandi Mufti of Egypt by one of the region’s most heavily criticised dictators, President Mubarak, brings his neutrality and views into question. The Quilliam Foundation whilst promoting his political views, which are little more than those of the Egyptian state, fails to mention some of his not so progressive views: • Stating the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times,[405] • Drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad is deemed a blessing,[406] • Stating apostasy is a sin punishable in this world and the hereafter,[407] • Authorizing women Imams and women led prayer,[408] (contradicting its other scholar, bin Bayah, who prohibits it), • Openly supported Hizbullah during the 2006 Lebanese war, • Stating it was forbidden for the Taliban to hand Osama bin Ladin over to the Americans in 2001, • Stating it is permitted for Egyptians to carry out martyrdom operations in Palestine/Israel.[409]

Regarding the issue of Israel and Jews, Goma contradicts the Foundation’s stance stating: “The world has let the Jews spread corruption throughout the land and they have succeeded in obtaining international legitimacy to territories that were conquered after 1967... We are facing a criminal occupation that is the source of terror" and "The Zionists themselves do not differentiate between civilian and military personnel. They have set the entire people to military service. The civilian settler who occupies land in a state of war is a Harbi. Besides, everyone in Israel, civilians and military personnel, bear arms. That is, they are Ahl Al-Qital [those who deserve to be killed]." [410]

When asked, "Is it permitted to kill an Israeli travelling outside the borders of his land?" Goma said, "Yes, it is permitted to kill him, because he is a Harbi and the Harbi spreads corruption throughout the face of the earth."[411]

Gomaa also said Hizbullah, the resistance group, was defending Lebanon against Israeli injustice: "The attacks, killing and destruction that are taking place in Lebanon now by Israeli forces are injustice itself. This gives the Lebanese the right to defend themselves. Hizbullah is defending its country and what it is doing is not terrorism.”[412] Quilliam Foundation see Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation.

Nawaz in 2007 wrote a paper attacking Hizb ut-Tahrir’s stance on the classical notions of Dar al-Islam arguing against these notions.[413] In the Quilliam Foundation launch document it argued, “Muslim seminaries should… Explain religious texts of the past in their context and assess relevance to today’s world (for example, the invalidity of notions of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam).”[414] In a fatwa approved by Goma however, selling pork and alcohol is permitted in the West because, “it is allowed taking the opinion of the scholars from the Hanafi madhhab who allow to deal with wrong contracts in dar al-harb (the house of war).” Furthermore he cites a Prophetic narration, “No usury between the people of war in dar al-harb.”[415]

Husain has criticised Muslim dress however Goma states that hijab is an obligation on all Muslim consenting female adults, as firmly established in the Holy Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad’s hadiths as well as unanimously agreed upon by Muslim scholars.[416]

These views are glanced over by the Quilliam Foundation, as he provides justifications to some of their secular views on politics arguing Islam does not call for and has never known a theocratic state and that there is no contradiction between Islam and liberal democracy.[417]

Activist Scholars

“From the very beginning up to now, Islam is the only system of thought that provided a pure ideological system without a trace of nationalism…” (Mawdudi, 1940)[418] “Man progresses according to the concepts he carries…” (Al-Nabhani, 1953)[419] “It requires a realistic and practical code and system of life; and any theories that are presented to it will be judged on the benefits that are proved to result from their application in the realm of practical life.” (Qutb, 1966)[420]

The modern history of revivalism and reformation began in the nineteenth century across the Muslim world, catalysed by the interventions and occupations of colonial powers. Unlike the Quilliam Foundation narrative, it reflected views from a broad spectrum of Muslims, movements, thinkers and scholars encompassing sufi, theological, political, and militant traditions.

The Quilliam Foundation alleges “Islamist” scholars have imposed political interpretations on the Islamic faith by considering revelation through a political lens. However, it has have not substantiated these allegations and has opened itself to allegations of double standards by doing the same, arguing Muslim history was secular – something factually incorrect.

All of these scholars claim Islam is for all aspects of social and personal life. They agree that Islam is flexible, the need for the implementation of Sharia and absolute ijtihad, so long as it is not done as a covert means of copying the West. Mawdudi says, "The purpose and object of ijtihad is not to replace the Divine law by man-made law. Its real object is to understand the Supreme Law." Syed Qutb says Islam is "flexible" but not "fluid" and stresses that "if there is an authoritative text (nass), then that text is decisive and there is no scope for ijtihad. If there is no nass, then comes the time for ijtihad, in accordance with the established principles of God's own method." Consistently with this, they accept more of the past ijtihad of the scholars strongly emphasizing the distinctiveness of Islam. None have any difficulty accepting modern material technology, as is seen from use of computers and the web for communicating their message. This does not compromise authenticity since classical Islamic civilization had little problem borrowing purely material technology. Mawdudi and Nabhani however do object to those who wish to identify Islam with "democracy," "communism," or "dictatorship" on the grounds that such identifications result from "the belief that we as Muslims can earn no honour or respect unless we are able to show that our religion resembles modern creeds" and confusion in culture and civilisation (hadhara/madaniyya). In accord with this concern for authenticity and distinctiveness, they all see an "inferiority complex" in modernist apologetics.[427]

The Quilliam Foundation has not addressed any of these writer’s works or thoughts in any significant detail. Nor does it present any analysis of the historical political movements in the Muslim world and the origins of its associated political thought – the context to the contemporary debate. This is surprising given the profound impact they had on Islamic revivalism and reform over the twentieth century and beyond. From the citation of Islamist scholars, who include traditional jurists, thinkers, philosophers, politicians and activists, one would have expected a critique identifying the commonality of mistake or error amongst them. More importantly, a critical conceptual or legislative articulation of their works with a critique thereof would also have been expected if the Foundation expected its views to be taken seriously.

Quilliam Challenges

“Anti-Americanism in any community is only dangerous if there is a group within that community that can organize and channel that sentiment into an intelligently conceived strategy. Destroying such groups is the highest priority, but it is extremely difficult...” (American Enterprise Institute) [428]

The Quilliam Foundation challenges “Islamist” groups to public debates, in particular Hizb ut-Tahrir.[429] However, when given the opportunity on BBC’s “World Have Your Say” (WHYS) programme, "Husain declined the offer to challenge a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir live on air, claiming that he did not want to give a platform to activists.”[430]Husain argued, “‘Sometimes it’s as simple as some people being wrong, and some being right. I’ve better things to do than argue with these people.’ …he went on, ‘I suppose you’ll be asking the British National Party on next’. ‘We did just that last year’ I replied.”[431]

The Foundation’s arguments may have been credible if Hizb ut-Tahrir did not already have a high profile, providing global media appearances, reviews in leading academic journals, periodicals, and research papers, debated across the web and present in communities across the UK and the globe. Hizb ut-Tahrir no doubt will want to carefully consider whether it wishes to give Quilliam Foundation any profile by engaging with it.[432]

Inverting the Foundation’s challenge, critics have posted challenges which the Foundation has failed to respond to - “…could you, "Ed" or your Research policy guy, Rashad, please post your evidences that you said that you would have making the case from Islamic texts, for Muslims to recognize the state of Israel and have FULL diplomatic relations with it. Would you also be willing to condemn those academics who have tried to organize an embargo/boycott of Israel on University campuses? Please put this in writing if so.”[433] Husain’s evasive and feeble response, "…kindly tell us more about yourself and your past/current affiliations with Islamism (of any shade). For others waiting in the wings, please introduce yourself or your family connections to Islamism which make you vulnerable to rise to the defence of Islamism. Otherwise, I reserve the right to silence. Mohamed Mahbub Husain."[434]

Support from the anti-multiculturalism movement and right-wing writers

Ed Husain has also come under fire for his support of both the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. He further does not consider these wars as a cause for extremism. Ed is also a member of the New Labour party, specifically to the right of the Labour party, where he has received considerable support from pro-zionists such as Nick Cohen, Martin Bright, Melanie Phillips, Michael Gove, David Aaronovitch and Denis MacShane.[1] [2] [3]

Kuwaiti Funding Withdrawn

The financial backers, based in the Gulf, cut off funding incensed at Ed Husain's criticism of Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The Kuwait financial backers of the Quilliam Foundation withdrew support of the foundation in May 2008 due to Ed Husain's negative campaigning. Ed Husain is now seeking new sources of funding from Muslims based in the UK and blames a variety of Muslim organisations for mounting "a character assassination attempt" on his organisation and for allegedly intimidating its advisers.

External Links

• Quilliam Foundation
• Comprehensive Critique of the Quilliam Foundation
• Abdullah Quilliam: The History of British Muslims
• Ex-extremists call for 'Western Islam'
• Does Saudi Arabia Preach Intolerance in the UK?
• All mod cons
• To lionise former extremists feeds anti-Muslim prejudice

[7] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/25/islam.uksecurity

[8] The likes of Nasr Hamid, Naguib Mahfouz, and Farag Foda have long emphasized the compatibility of Islam with modern civilisation – Najjar, F M, “Islamic Fundamentalism and the Intellectuals: The Case of Nasr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov. 2000), p. 178

[10] The fourth, Dawud Masieh, is an ancillary figure bringing little to the organization.

[11] http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2007/05/muslim_association_of_britain.html

[12] http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=9240&page=4

[13] “The 'Islamist' bogeyman”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/14/theislamistbogeyman

[14] Sardar, Z, “The Islamist by Ed Husain; Journey into Islam by Akbar Ahmed”, http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-islamist-by-ed-husain-journey-into-islam-by-akbar-ahmed-451160.html

[15] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/arts/ceriradford/august07/theislamist.htm; Husain, E, “The Islamist”, Penguin, 2008;

[16] Husain, E, op cit, 2008

[17] http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/145_584.htm

[18] The oath comprises: “I swear by God Almighty to be loyal to Islam and to defend it, to embrace Hizb al-Tahrir’s opinions and constitution, to have confidence in its leadership, and to implement its resolutions even if they are contrary to my own opinion, as long as I remain a member. In all this I place my trust in God. (Leaflet, al-Qanun al-Idari, 4)” – Taji-Farouki, S, op cit, 1996, p. 134

[20]http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=March2007&file=Local_News200703041416.xml

[21] Husain says, “…but banning Hizb ut-Tahrir would be an excellent first step” - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/02/do0203.xml

[22] “Ed Husain: You Ask The Questions”, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ed-husain-you-ask-the-questions-808652.html

[23] “The Heretical Counter”, http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/the-heretical-counter/, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/08/comment.terrorism, “A pointless attack on liberty that fuels the terror threat”

[24] http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/09_september/11/newsnight.shtml and http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/09/why_newsnights_interview_with_former_ht_member_is.html

[25] http://quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-video/173 and http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1063960.ece

[26] http://quilliamexposed.blogspot.com/2008/04/quilliam-under-new-management.html

[27] http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/maajid-distances-himself-from-ed-husain/

[28] http://www.instituteofideas.com/events/secularism2008.html

[29] “Was your head of research Rashad Ali suspended from HT for being involved in criminal activities? …who 'turned' after being arrested for dubious fraudulent activity and dealing with stolen luxury cars! He is renowned across the country for being a con-man!”, “It is ludicrous to dismiss us as neocon former extremists”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/25/islam.uksecurity

[30] “Towards Political Engagement”, http://www.maajidnawaz.blogspot.com/

[31] http://www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com/

[32] Rashad Ali Q&A – January 2008

[33] Taji-Farouki, S, op cit, 1996; International Crisis Group, “Radical Islam in Central Asia: Responding to Hizb ut-Tahrir”, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1441&l=1

[34] “William Abdullah Quilliam”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Abdullah_Quilliam

[35] “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 9

[36] "Understanding Islamism", International Crisis Group, http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf

[37] National Institute for Research Advancement

[38] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tanks

[39] “How I’ll fight against Islamic extremism”, http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local/display.var.2220706.0.how_ill_fight_against_islamic_extremism.php

[40] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/faqs.html

[41] Husain states, “Islamists are at odds with Islam as a faith. Islam is a faith not an ideology” – “How I’ll fight against Islamic extremism”, http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local/display.var.2220706.0.how_ill_fight_against_islamic_extremism.php

[42] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ed-husain-you-ask-the-questions-808652.html

[43] Article 2 of the constitution resonates the Quilliam Foundation position: "The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law,. . . loyal to the nationalism of Ataturk, and based on the fundamental principles set forth in the Preamble" (Article 2).

[44] Shepard, E, “Islam and Ideology: Towards a Typology”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, Aug 1987, Cambridge University Press, p. 307

[45] A number of references to Hizb ut-Tahrir on the Quilliam Foundation include: http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/, http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/openchallenge.html, http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/publications.html, http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/104, http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/media.html, http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/events.html,

[46] Taji-Farouki, S, "A Fundamental Quest: Hizb al-Tahrir and the Search for the Islamic Caliphate", Grey Seal, London, 1996

[47] “Of the four Righteous Caliphs who followed the Prophet in the headship of the Islamic community, three were murdered. The second Caliph, Umar, was stabbed by a Christian slave with a private grievance; learning this, the Caliph on his deathbed thanked God that he had not been murdered by one of the faithful. Even this consolation was denied to his successors Uthman and Ali, who were both struck down by Muslim Arabs—the first by a group of angry mutineers, the second by a religious fanatic…” - CIVITAS, "The West, Islam and Islamism", http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs29.pdf, p. 22

[48] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-%20%20%20%20video/161

[49] Early Muslim rulers (Imam Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law, for example) fought those who claimed "rule is for God". Muslim scholarly giants such as Ibn al-Qayyim (d 1350) condemned those who claimed to rule in God's name - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ed-husain-you-ask-the-questions-808652.html “Muslims have never had a church that defined all aspects of faith and politics. Muslim scholars have always existed outside of the political sphere and developed diverse traditions, religious and ethical codes outside of political authority.” – Comment – Rashad, http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/how-can-we-fight-islamist-extremism/

[50] Hallaq, W, “The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law”, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp.173-6, 182-7 Salahi, A, “Pioneers of Islamic Scholarship”, The Islamic Foundation, 2006, pp. 51-2

[51] Haddad, M, "Arab Religious Nationalism in the Colonial Era: Reading Rashid Rida's ideas on the Caliphate," Journal of the American Oriental Society, 117.2 (1997) 253-77.

[52] http://www.instituteofideas.com/events/secularism2008.html

[53] Civitas’s publication provides a case in question - CIVITAS, "The West, Islam and Islamism", http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs29.pdf

[54] Kurth, op cit, 1993, p 52

[55] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-%20%20%20%20video/161

[56] http://quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-video/173

[57] “http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wright/?currentPage=all

[58] As commented by a journalist at the Quilliam Foundation launch

[59] “All mod cons”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seumas_milne/2007/04/all_mod_cons.html

[60] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/faqs.html

Recent revelations claim funding has been termiinated due to the Quilliam Foundation's extreme views and opinions forcing Husain to campaign for further funds - http://aqidah12.wordpress.com/?s=quilliam

[61] Osama bin Laden and the jihadists in the field of operations opposing the Russian threat in the 1980s were unaware of the American hand behind their ISI contacts and that they were being used to further American interests in the Cold War.

[62] Taji-Farouki, S, 1996, pp. 130-32

[63] It was created after the 7/7 bombings, reflecting Tony Blair's belief that the Muslim Council of Britain had not done enough to fight the extremists, despite MCB's lifting of its boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day and its acceptance of homosexuals as a respected minority – “Our third way”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/asim_siddiqui/2008/04/our_third_way.html, retrieved 4th May 2008

[64] “No way to combat terrorism”, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3613690.ece, retrieved 5th May 2008

[65] http://quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-video/173, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[66] “Abandoning Banning”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2008/04/abandoning_banning.html, retrieved 4th May 2008

[67] “All mod cons”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seumas_milne/2007/04/all_mod_cons.html, retrieved 7th May 2008

[68] http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=35330&page=3, retrieved 16th May 2008

[69] http://www.quilliamexposed.blogspot.com/, retrieved 12th May 2008 http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2007/04/abandoning_banning.html, retrieved 12th May 2008

[70] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/faqs.html, retrieved 7th June 2008

[71] “Response from Shaykh Babikr Ahmed Babikr”, http://maqasid.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/response-from-shaykh-babikr-ahmed-babikr/, retrieved 11th May 2008

[72] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/advisors.html, retrieved 15th May 2008

[73] Abdul Hakim Murad

[74] “Mawdudi, Qutb and Al-Nabhani cannot be accused in this specific regard of believing and propagating anything but a standard, orthodox belief expounded and endorsed by the jurists throughout time. Moreover, Husain misrepresents Hamza Yusuf’s statement that there was ‘no such thing as an Islamic state’, because I remember that speech, and Yusuf was simply denying the English word ‘state’ as a way of understanding the khilafah, and it was certainly not a rejection of Islam being the ‘signifier’ of the political order” - “Review of “The Islamist”: Ust. Andrew Booso [complete]”, http://thetranslators1.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/review-of-%E2%80%9Cthe-islamist%E2%80%9D-ust-andrew-booso-complete/, retrieved 21st May 2008

[75] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-%20%20%20%20video/161, retrieved 9th May 2008

[76] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-%20%20%20%20video/156, retrieved 8th May 2008

[77] Dr Husain’s strategy of not rocking the boat with organisations that invite him have led him to some extreme positions – on his website he commiserates the pain of Christ on the cross, something most Muslims would see as heretical as they do not believe he was crucified.

[78] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-%20%20%20%20video/155, retrieved 9th May 2008

[79] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-video/150, and http://thehalaqa.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!649F4AA3FB0CBA94!2283.entry, retrieved 10th May 2008

[80] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-video/149, retrieved 11th May 2008

[81] http://maqasid.wordpress.com/2007/05/04/muslim-clothing-and-mental-health/#more-231

[82] Other contributors added very little: Lord Paddy Ashdown cited the Arab transmission of works of Plato/Socrates/Virgil in a bizarre argument that equated Muslim values with Hellenic Judea-Christian values – freedom, democracy and secularism should be adopted by Muslims as universal values - http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-%20%20%20%20video/152, retrieved 11th May 2008 Timothy Ash, a staunch secular liberal, told the audience he “couldn’t give a fig for fiqh.” He argued Islam to be an ideology and compared ex-Islamists to ex-Communists - aids to help the West to understand and combat radicalisation. He hoped the Foundation would take western “universal” values forward – no doubt unexpected comments for the Quilliam Foundation. Embarrassingly he added “Faiths are not entitled to respect which curbs freedom of expression when compared to any other ideas”, he said, and more controversially, “faith requires less respect than propositions such as 2+2=4.” Dr Saleh’s contribution comprised, “do not judge British society – judge oneself.” http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-video/157, retrieved 9th May 2008 Mohammed Hee, yet another ex-Hizb ut-Tahrir member, was provided with a Quran and Hadith texts along with convincing arguments which transformed him from an “unassuming Muslim” into an “Islamist”, from a citizen to a counter-citizen. As a result he argued those who provide such material are extremists and young Muslims must be warned against them – writing off every Muslim in the process - http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-%20%20%20%20video/159, retrieved 10th May 2008

[83] CIVITAS, "The West, Islam and Islamism", http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs29.pdf, retrieved 5th June 2008

[84] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/, retrieved 19th May 2008

[85] Last year, David Cameron also went out of his way to praise Gomaa and the Times called him "The Wise Mufti".

[86] "he is a Shahid [martyr], because Palestine is a special case and not the ordinary case existing in the world…", "Al-haqiqa", July 2003; “al-Hayat”, 30th September 2003

[87] “All mod cons”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seumas_milne/2007/04/all_mod_cons.html, retrieved 11th May 2008

[88] “The Sufi Muslim Council (SMC) have emerged from nowhere… But hardly anyone knows who they are or what they stand for… worrying links between this new council and the neoconservatives in Washington… The majority of the content is written by neoconservatives that criticise Islamic groups 'Wahhabis', the Muslim Brotherhood, MCB, MAB, Hizb ut-Tahrir… One of the prominent authors on the SMC website… is Zeyno Baran, a self confessed neocon who works for the ultra right-wing Hudson Institute… She says that Islam should play no role in politics and condemns even the mere mention of Islam in the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions. Baran has been trying to establish a neocon-friendly Muslim organisation in the UK. She has talked of the need to, "provide money and help create the political space for moderate Muslims to organize, publish, broadcast, and translate their work." She has also held meetings with government officials in the UK, urging them to ban the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir... The hard right neocon think tank the Nixon Center published a document by Zeyno Baran which encouraged using Sufism as a means to attack Islam. [4]… The SMC is closely linked to Shaykh Hisham Kabbani (ISCA). The SMC website and magazine are full of Kabbani's writings and Haras Rafiq has admitted that Kabbani is the spiritual leader of the SMC. Kabbani infuriated Muslims in the US when he gave a clandestine testimony to the State Department in which he claimed 80% of mosques and Muslims in the US were "extremists", Muslims pose a threat to the USA and the US government needs to act quickly and Israeli occupation is legitimate and should be accepted. All the major US Muslim organisations issued a statement condemned the ISCA.”

[89] “UK Muslim group to tackle extremism”, http://mwcnews.net/content/view/21898/0/, retrieved 15th May 2008

[90] “What turns some Islamists to terror”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/26/uksecurity, retrieved 15th May 2008

[91] “Saudi Doctorate Encourages the Murder of Arab Intellectuals”, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP107006, retrieved 20th May 2008

[92] “Muslim moderates 'face hate campaign'”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/20/islam.religion “Extremists target Jemima with death threats”, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\04\24\story_24-4-2008_pg1_8, retrieved 13th May 2008

[93] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/faqs.html, retrieved 5th June 2008

[94] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/25/islam.uksecurity, retrieved 15th May 2008

[95] “All mod cons”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seumas_milne/2007/04/all_mod_cons.html, retrieved 7th May 2008

[96]Ibid.

[97] Ibid.

[98] http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/asim_siddiqui/2007/04/our_third_way.html, retrieved 13th May 2008

[99] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/25/islam.uksecurity, retrieved 14th May 2008

[100] Comments, http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1892, retrieved 6th May 2008

[101] “Quilliam's launch manifesto calls on Muslims to take a stand against radical Islamists whose rhetoric "provides the mood music to which suicide bombers dance"”, “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf - retrieved 5th May 2008

[102] “Ed Husain told Reuters “Most Muslims are still in denial about this cancer of extremism in our midst. Unless we Muslims accept we have a serious extremism problem, then we cannot turn to rejecting it”, “Ed Husain: You Ask The Questions”, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ed-husain-you-ask-the-questions-808652.html, retrieved 11th May 2008

[103] BBC News Online, “EU deplores 'dangerous' Islam jibe,” 27th September 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1565664.stm, retrieved 12th May 2008

[104] Khir, B M, “Concept of Sovereignty in Contemporary Islamic, Movements”, Encounters Journal of Inter-Cultural Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1995, pp. 12-13

[105] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/346.php?nid=&id=&pnt=346&lb=hmpg2

[106] Salla, M E, “Political Islam and the West: A New Cold War or Convergence?”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4, Sep 1997, Taylor & Francis Ltd, pp. 730-3

[107] The National Intelligence Council set out the likely scenario the world will face in 2020. It concluded the appeal of Islam is a call to return to where Islamic civilisation was at the forefront of global change under the Khilafah. At the highest levels of US policy planning, preparation is being made for the emergence of the Khilafah. Other reports acknowledge there is a broad based ideological movement seeking its return – Khan, A, “Islamic Reformation – Exposing the Battle for Hearts and Minds”, http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/images/PDF/Books/IslamicReformation.pdf, retrieved 10th May 2008

[108] Former secretary general of NATO, Willie Claes

[109] Washington Post, “President Bush Delivers Remarks on the War on Terror”, 5th September 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090500656.html, retrieved 14th May 2008

[110] “THE CRUSADER vs. THE CALIPHATE...The Bush Doctrine: Defeat The Radical Islamic Empire”, http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-17-2005-79053.asp; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html, retrieved 14th May 2008

[111] “Poll confirms massive support for the caliphate in the Muslim world”, http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/issues-explained/poll-confirms-massive-support-for-the-caliphate-in-the-muslim-world.html, retrieved 15th May 2008

[112] Heritage Foundation Speech, 6th October 2006

[113] One of the most influential think tanks on US policy

[114] “Islamists Are Intrinsically Anti-Democratic”, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22611/pub_detail.asp

[115] The US methodological approach to Islamic politics is seen by two camps as either essentialist or contingencist – the former argue that the Muslim world is “dominated by a set of relatively enduring and unchanging processes and meanings, to be understood through the texts of Islam itself and the language it generated” whilst the latter oppose such conceptual frameworks stating, “The challenge today is to appreciate the diversity of Islamic actors and movements to ascertain the reasons behind confrontations and conflicts, and thus to react to specific events and situations with informed, reasoned responses rather than predetermined presumptions and reactions” - Salla, M E, op cit, 1997, pp. 729-31

[116] “Reunified Islam: Unlikely but Not Entirely Radical - Restoration of Caliphate, Attacked by Bush, Resonates With Mainstream Muslims”, 14th January 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301816.html, retrieved 4th May 2008

[117] http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28007,filter.all/pub_detail.asp, retrieved 6th May 2008

[118] Ibid.

[119] The fundamentalists are seen to be hostile to belligerent western states like the United States and Britain and Israel, believing post-colonial structures imposed on the Muslim world are the causes of decline and decadence and are pre-conditional to any meaningful change. Traditionalists hold similar juristic views to fundamentalists, however, are less vocal on political matters. Modernists and secularists are seen closest to the West in terms of values and policies. However, they are weaker, lacking theological justification and seen as carrying Western values and culture, often supporting the unpopular status quo.

[120] Banard, C, “Civil, Democratic, Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies”, Rand, National Security Research Division, 2003, http://rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1716.pdf, retrieved 5th May 2008

[121] Ibid.

[122] Fieschi, C, “Engagement with political Islam is not a question of if, but of how”, http://www.progressives.org.uk/Magazine/article.asp?a=2011, retrieved 7th May 2008

[123] Shepard, W E, op cit, 1966, p. 317

[124] Al-Nabhani, T A, “Islamic Personality”, “Thought”, and “The Islamic System”

[125] Taji-Farouki, 1996, op cit, pp. 45-54

[126] Ali Abd al-Raziq was a senior member of al-Azhar University and in 1925 he wrote, "Islam and the Bases of Government", arguing for the first time that Islam did not lay down any particular political system, nor did Islam have anything to do with the Caliphate. He said the rules the Prophet (pbuh) laid down only related to prayer and fasting. He was expelled from al-Azhar, his books were condemned and he was dismissed from his post as a religious judge. Rosenthall said: "we meet for the first time a consistent, unequivocal theoretical assertion of the purely and exclusively religious character of Islam." - Black, A, "The history of Islamic Political Thought", Edinburgh University Press, 2001, pp. 316-9

[127] Shepard, W E, “Muhammad Said al-Ashmawi and the Application of the Sharia in Egypt”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, Feb 1996, Cambridge University Press, p. 42

[128] Ibid., p. 43

[129] CIVITAS, "The West, Islam and Islamism", http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs29.pdf, retrieved 5th June 2008, p. 19

[130] Ibid.

[131] Ironically whilst Ali is presenting to a predominantly left-wing audience at the Institute of Ideas

[132] Watt, M W, “Muslim Intellectual A Study of al-Ghazali”, Edinburgh, 1963, pp. 58-68, 164-5

[133] “The encounter with this discourse had such a profound impact on the consciousness of Muslim intellectuals that until today their replies to it have been conditioned on its very premises. The elites that took power after independence swore by the ideals of secular reason, not realizing that these ideals were responsible for the loss of identity in their societies and isolated them from the religious consciousness of the Muslim masses” - Hoebink, M, “Thinking about Renewal in Islam: Towards a History of Islamic Ideas on Modernization and Secularization”, Arabica, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1999, Brill, p. 29, 46

[134] Shepard, E, op cit, 1985, p. 307

[135] The first debate developed in response to Western expansion. Influenced by European thought Muslim secularists argued a complete break with religion as a source of legitimacy for social and political life was a precondition for the modernization of society. Their opponents rejected secularism as simply Western domination and an obstacle to Muslim freedom and development. The demand for an Islamic order was not a rejection of modernization, but a rejection of Western cultural hegemony and westernized elites in the Muslim world. The issue of modernization, conditioned on the premise that the Quran is the ultimate source of social legitimacy, takes the shape of a debate on religious renewal and interpretation, a continuation of the classical Islamic debate concerning human moral autonomy and the authority to interpret the Quran - Hoebink, M, op cit, 1999, p. 62

[136] Shepard, W E, op cit, 1985

[137] The Westerners may be kafirs to be resisted by force or to be tolerated as one of the punishments God visits upon his faithful for their sins or one of the trials by which He tests their faith, to some extent the Crusades and the Mongol invasions can offer historical precedents and God may grant kafirs worldly success but reserves the bliss of paradise for the Muslims. The tradition has always had its ways of gradually coping with change. Even if the gate of "absolute" ijtihad had been closed, ijtihad within the framework of tradition has always been possible. The traditionalists have been those who felt that the time-honored ways of change were adequate or, if they became rigid, did so in reaction to the modernizing pressures put upon them.

[138] David, M and Wild, L , “Reform in the Middle East”, Institute for Public Policy Research, http://www.ippr.org/articles/index.asp?id=2053, retrieved 2nd May 2008

[139] "Understanding Islamism", International Crisis Group, http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf, retrieved 2nd June 2008

[140] Hoebink, M, op cit, 1999, pp. 61-2

[141] CIVITAS, "The West, Islam and Islamism", http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs29.pdf, retrieved 6th June 2008

[142] In Jordon the Islamic Action Front (Ikhwan oriented) accept and even defend the Hashemites, as does the PJD in Morocco, the AKP in Turkey and Ikhwan in Egypt – Noyon, J, “Islam, Politics and Pluralism: Theory and Practice in Turkey, Jordan, Tunisia and Algeria”, London, 2004, Ch. 6; "Understanding Islamism", International Crisis Group, http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf, retrieved 3rd June 2008

[143] Gellner, E, “Islam and Marxism: Some Comparisons”, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 1991 Royal Institute of International Affairs, p. 2

[144] Some Muslim intellectuals play down or even deny legal prescriptions in the revelation but this remains a minority view - Nabih Ayubi, N, “Political Islam: Religion and Politics in the Arab World”, London and New York, 1991, pp. 201-13

[145] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/openchallenge.html, retrieved 24th May 2008

[146] CIVITAS, "The West, Islam and Islamism", http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs29.pdf, retrieved 5th June 2008

[147] Asim Siddiqui of the Guardian, a pro-Quilliamite, writes Islam is a religion and not an ideology – however in the same article he continues to state that Islam can guide a Muslim in how they conduct themselves in their personal, social and political life, but (strangely), their interpretation cannot be imposed on others - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/asim_siddiqui/2008/04/our_third_way.html, retrieved 13th May 2008 Dr Mustafa al-Shaka of Ayn Shams University includes “man made” to the definition of ideology (thus excluding Islam) whereas Nasr Hamid does not accept this attribute and believes Islam is an ideology - Najjar, F, “Islamic Fundamentalism and the Intellectuals: The Case of Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov. 2000), pp. 180 [148] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/publications.html, retrieved 3rd June 2008

[149] “Islam: Religion or Ideology?”, http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/islam_religion_or_ideology/, retrieved 12th May 2008

[150] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology

[151] Shepard, W E, op cit, 1996, p. 328

[152] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology

[153] The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology

[154] St. John, R B, “The Ideology of Mu’ammar Qadhafi:Theory and Practice”, IJMES, Vol. 15, 4 , November 1983, p. 471

[155] www.englishbiz.co.uk/grammar/main_files/definitionsa-m.htm

[156] Hayduk, L A, Ratner, P A, Johnson, J L and Bottorff, J L, “Attitudes, Ideology, and the Factor Model”, Political Psychology, 1995, International Society of Political Psychology, p.479

[157] Abu Hasan Al-Asahri, Maturidi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Abu Jafar al-Tahawi, Ibn Abu al-Iz etc.

[158] Communism for instance informs discussions on theology, science, politics, economics and society. Capitalism informs economics, ethics, politics, society and individual lifestyle choices.

[159] Al-Nabhani, T A, “The System of Islam”, p. 35, http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/PDF/EN/en_books_pdf/system_of_islam.pdf, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[160] Hasan al-Banna, Five Tracts of Hasan al-Banna' (1906-1949): A Selection from the Majmu'at rasa'il al-Imam al Shahid Hasan al-Banna, Translated by Charles Wendel, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1978, p. 46.

[161] Shepard, E, 1987, p. 308

[162] Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

[163] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

[164] WordNet 3.0. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

[165] Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

[166] Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

[167] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

[168] Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

[169] faith. (n.d.). WordNet 3.0. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

[170] "Understanding Islamism", International Crisis Group, http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf, retrieved 2nd June 2008

[171] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/openchallenge.html, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[172] http://www.instituteofideas.com/events/secularism2008.html, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[173] "Understanding Islamism", International Crisis Group, http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf, retrieved 2nd June 2008

[174] Shepard, W E, op cit, 1987, p. 308

[175] Ibid., p. 324

[176] Himmelstein, p. 7 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremists, retrieved 19th May 2008

[177] “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 3 - retrieved 15th May 2008

[178] “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer, One Nation, One State, One Caliph”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_husain/2007/07/chilling_similarities.html, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[179] Wilcox, L and George, J, “Nazis, Communists, Klansmen and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America”, Prometheus Books, 1992

[180] Interestingly, similar results are found when applied to the British Blair government and the US Bush administration.

[181] Hussain says, “The Saudi royal family, close allies of the clerical class, has a moral duty to rein in the bigots who masquerade as ‘scholars’” - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/20/reforminriyadh, retrieved 30th May 2008 Husain states, “Their (Hizb ut-Tahrir) understanding of membership is idiosyncratic and involves swearing cultish oaths to Arab control-freaks.” Furthermore he states “All this can easily be dismissed as extremist claptrap” - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/02/do0203.xml, retrieved 20th May 2008

[182] Hussain argues “Consequently, there is palpable confusion about extremism, jihadism, Wahhabism, terrorism, Islamism, and ‘Islamofascism’.” - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/26/stopsupportingbinladengeor, retrieved 30th May 2008 Husain’s views are well documented where he labels opponents as extremists, militants, fanatics etc and describes the Arab "psyche" as irredeemably racist Rashad Ali labels Hizb ut-Tahrir’s episteme to be “left-wing multi-culturism” and “intuitively wrong” - http://www.instituteofideas.com/events/secularism2008.html, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[183] “Everything about your life is HT, you marry within HT, you hope your children will be with HT, your friends are HT…” - http://quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-video/173, retrieved 22nd May 2008 Husain describes the Arab "psyche" as irredeemably racist, rejects Western policy in the Muslim world make terror attacks in Britain and elsewhere more likely, argues penal sharia punishments to be barbaric, inhumane and outdated and dismisses the idea of Islamophobia. Hussain states, “Muslim extremists with petrodollars seek to impose a new, bastardised, soulless, rigid religiosity on the world's Muslims.” - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/26/stopsupportingbinladengeor, retrieved 30th May 2008

[184] No or scant proof is provided for the Foundation’s positions on philosophy, politics, history, law and reform

[185] Nightclubbing, affairs, drinking, stolen vehicles, girlfriends etc. contradicting Islamic norms http://quilliamexposed.blogspot.com/2008/04/quilliam-under-new-management.html, 21st May 2008 Challenging Hizb ut-Tahrir to a public debate and then refusing to debate when presented with opportunities nor responding to challenges despite issuing them to others (see section “Challenges” for details)

[186] Husain’s description of Hizb ut-Tahrir is compared to the evil German Nazi party - “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer, One Nation, One State, One Caliph”, op cit and says, "Call them jihadists, Islamists, but I wouldn't call them Muslim. Being Muslim is not enough for them. They make politics seems religious…" Nawaz supports this line saying, “Force is sometime necessary. We had to resist Hitler, for example…” - http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/sunday-review/regulars/credo-maajid-nawaz-828783.html?r=RSS, retrieved 8th June 2008

[187] Ibid. - The Quilliam Foundation sees those as pro-“western universal values” or against, i.e., Islamists. Furthermore, Husain argues, “it’s as simple as some people being wrong, and some being right”, http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=35713, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[188] “We can wait for their state to come about and then confront them as we did the Nazis, at a very late stage and at a high human cost, or we can stop appeasing Hizb ut-Tahrir and its offshoots and demand: either change, or perish.” - “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer, One Nation, One State, One Caliph”, op cit “‘Sometimes it’s as simple as some people being wrong, and some being right. I’ve better things to do than argue with these people. He went on, ‘I suppose you’ll be asking the British National Party on next’. ‘We did just that last year’ I replied.” - http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=35713, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[189] The Foundation defines itself in relation to Islamists – it is everything and anything other than Islamism. Ali at the IDeA conference explains how Islamist ideology exploits grievances and political concerns, manipulating them to meet and foster their own warped ideological and political agenda - http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/191, retrieved 10th June 2008 Nawaz states, “I regret being in Hizb ut-Tahrir. It is not a terrorist organisation, but it shares the ideological foundations that inspire the terrorist movement, in that it believes Islam is a political ideology that must dominate the world.” - http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/sunday-review/regulars/credo-maajid-nawaz-828783.html?r=RSS, retrieved 7th June 2008

[190] “…university authorities should actively monitor which Muslim faction controls the Islamic society and content of Friday sermons.” “Pulling together to defeat terror”, op cit Husain justifies his handing in members of Hizb ut-Tahrir studying in Damascus to the dictatorial regime’s secret police – Husain, E, “The Islamist”, Penguin. Rashad Ali argues, “It is nonsense that it [views of Islamists] is all good…” - http://www.instituteofideas.com/events/secularism2008.html, retrieved 22nd May 2008 Husain states, “There is no quick fix to the problem of home-grown terrorism, but banning Hizb ut-Tahrir would be an excellent first step…” - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/02/do0203.xml, retrieved 3rd June 2008

[191] The Foundation makes use of numerous clichés including: violent extremists, fanatics, moderate Islam etc

[192] Islamists must be educated that the first group of people that called for the equivalent of ‘political sovereignty belonging to God’ (as Islamists do) were the Khawarij, who killed Imam Ali, son-in-law of the Prophet” - “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 2 - retrieved 5th May 2008 Husain argued, “‘it’s as simple as some people being wrong, and some being right. I’ve better things to do than argue with these people’”, http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=35713, retrieved 22nd May 2008. Furthermore he states, “I did not, however, expect to hear the same facile argument repeated by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Dutch MP, author, and ex-Muslim. She should know better.” - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/26/stopsupportingbinladengeor, retrieved 3rd June 2008

[193] Husain’s handing in members of Hizb ut-Tahrir to the dictatorial regime’s secret police. Op cit

[194] Rashad Ali argues, “It is nonsense that it [views of Islamists] is all good…” op cit Husain argues “We can wait for their state to come about and then confront them as we did the Nazis” op cit Husain states “All this can easily be dismissed as extremist claptrap” - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/02/do0203.xml, retrieved 20th May 2008

[195] Azzam, A A, “The Eternal Message of Mohammed”

[196] Glazer, S, “The Future of Culture in Egypt”, trans. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies, 1954, p. 21

[197] Western academics use the term “Islamism” instead of "fundamentalism" to refer to Islamic anti-secularism. This term is also used by Islamic anti-secularists to refer to themselves. Muhammad 'Amara thus uses it (islamiyyan) referring to those who, opposing secularism and Western hegemony, are "committed to the Islamic colouring and the Islamic standard." - Burgat, F, “Islamic Movement”, pp. 39-41, 67-71, 309 Abu Zayd’s analysis conceptualises Islamists of: (1) blending human thought and religion, eliminating the distance between subject and object; (2) explaining all phenomena, natural and social, by attributing them to a primary principle or cause; (3) reliance on the authority of the ancestors (al-salaf) or the heritage (al-turath), investing secondary texts with the sacredness reserved for primary texts; (4) rejection of any intellectual disagreement with their own views, claiming to have a monopoly on truth; (5) ignoring the historical context. - Najjar, F, “Islamic Fundamentalism and the Intellectuals: The Case of Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, Nov 2000, pp. 185; Abu Zayd, Naqd, pp. 67-8

[198] Berman, S, “Islamism, Revolution, and Civil Society, Perspectives on Politics”, Vol. 1, No. 2, Jun 2003, American Political Science Association, p. 258

[199] Shepard, W E, op cit, 1996, p. 40

[200] Burgat, F, “Islamic Movement”, pp. 39-41, 67-71, 309

[201] "Understanding Islamism", International Crisis Group, http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf, retrieved 3rd June 2008

[202] Ibid.

[203] Policy Exchange

[204] Ibid.

[205] Fazlur Rahman says, "Secularism in Islam... is the acceptance of laws and other social and political institutions without reference to Islam, Islamic modernism... means precisely the induction of change into the content of the Shari'a" - "Islamic Modernism", p. 311; Shepard, W E, op cit, 1987, p. 309

[206] Including but not limited to: Sayyid Ahmad Shahid (India 1786-1831), Mirza Hasan Shirazi (Iran 1815-94), Imam Shamil (Central Asia, 1796-1871), Amir Abd al-Qadir (Algeria, 1808-83), Mohammed ibn Abdille Hasan (Somaliland 1864-1920), Mahdi (Sudan, 1885), Uthman Dan Fodo (Nigeria, 1754-1817), Mohammed Iqbal (Pakistan, 1877-1938), Abul-Kalam Azad (India, 1888-1958), Mawlana Husain Madani (India, 1879-1957) and Mawdudi (Pakistan, 1903-79)

[207] John Esposito analyses what Islamism might actually mean in his book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Islam-Revolution-Radicalism-Reform/dp/1555871682, retrieved 15th May 2008

[208] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/faqs.html, retrieved 24th May 2008

[209] Husain, E, “My qualm is with Islamism and not with Islam”, retrieved 10th May 2008, http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/ed_husain_my_qualm_is_with_islamism_and_not_with_islam/

[210] Berman, S, op cit, 2003, p. 258

[211] "Understanding Islamism", International Crisis Group, http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf, retrieved 3rd June 2008

[212] Ibid.

[213] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/faqs.html, retrieved 5th June 2008

[214] Ibid.

[215] Contained in publications including: “Islamic Personality” (in three volumes), “The Ruling System in Islam”, “The Economic System in Islam”, “The Social System in Islam”, “The Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir”, “The Islamic State”, “Political Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir”, “Introduction to the Constitution” and “The Khilafah” - http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/index.php/EN/books/, retrieved 28th May 2008

[216] The Quilliam Foundation’s theological basis was refuted in a response to Maajid Nawaz’s first paper – despite Maajid stating he would undertake a point by point refutation, the most that appeared on his site in response comprised some paragraphs written by Rashad Ali reiterating a misinterpreted secondary source in reply to the full quote from the a primary source - http://www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com/, http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/evaluating-a-theologically-confused-stance/, retrieved 5th May 2008

[217] “Review of “The Islamist”: Ust. Andrew Booso [complete]”, http://thetranslators1.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/review-of-%E2%80%9Cthe-islamist%E2%80%9D-ust-andrew-booso-complete/, retrieved 21st May 2008

[218] Dr Taji-Farouki in her doctoral research dedicates only a few pages to the subject – op cit, 1996

[219] Islamic scholarship historically reached an equilibrium in legal and theological thought with two positions – in the Sunni world at least – comprising a Shaffite/Asharite or Hanafite/Baqilinite fusion which have been accepted as mainstream - Hallaq, W, “The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law”, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 150-77; Taji-Farouki, S, op cit, pp. 45-63

[220] Shepard, W E, op cit, Feb 1996, pp. 40-1

[221] Quran Al-A'raf 7:11-27

[222] Rousseau, J J, “The Social Contract and Discourses” - French political philosopher (1712 - 1778)

[223] Euben, R L, “Comparative Political Theory: An Islamic Fundamentalist Critique of Rationalism”, The Journal of Politics, Southern Political Science Association, 1997, p. 28

[224] Skeat, W W, “An Etymological Dictionary to the English Language”, Oxford, 1882, p. 576

[225] Knolles, R, “The Six Books Of Commonweal”, Cambridge, 1962, Book 1, ch. 9, p. 94

[226] Khir, B M,op cit, 1995, pp. 7-8

[227] Ibn Khaldun, A R, “al-Muqaddima”, tr. Franz Rosenthal, London 1958

[228] Akhavi, S, op cit, 1997, Cambridge University Press, p. 386

[229] Whether this was proven rationally or through divine text however was contested.

[230] Mawardi, “Al-ahkam Al-Sultaniyah”; Nawawi, “Mughni Al-Muhtaj”, volume 4; Qalqashandi, “Subul Al-Asha”, volume 9; Ibn Hazm, “Al-Muhalla”, volume 9; Al-Sharani, “Al-Mizan”, volume 2; Al-Mughni fi abwab Al-Tawheed, volume 20; Abdul Jabbar, “Al-Fiqh Alal-Mathahib Al- Arba’a”, volume 5; Al-Jozairi, “Al-Fasl Fil-Milal”, volume 4; Abu Yala, “Al-ahkam Al-Sultaniyah”; Qurtubi, “Tafseer ul-Qurtubi” 264/1; Al-Ghazali, “al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad”; Ibn Taymiyah, “Siyaasah Shariyyah”

[231] With increased conflicts in the Muslim world this is seen as important: In Tunisia, Israelis attacked PLO headquarters twice, Libya was bombed by the United States in 1986 and suffered a major military defeat by Chad in 1987; Algerian-Moroccan fought in the 1980s over the Western Sahara; insecurity has been prevalent in Gaza and on the West Bank, Lebanon’s civil war and air raids by Israel culminating in the 1982 invasion and occupation, Indian-Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir, Iraq has been invaded twice – these are but a fraction of incidents over recent decades - Deeb, M J, “Militant Islam and the Politics of Redemption”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 524, Political Islam (Nov., 1992), p. 54

[232] Mawardi, “Ahkaam al-Sultaniyyah”, Cairo, 1973

[233] Akhavi, S, “The Dialectic in Contemporary Egyptian Social Thought: The Scripturalist and Modernist - Discourses of Sayyid Qutb and Hasan Hanafi”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3, Aug. 1997, Cambridge University Press, p. 386

[234] Ibn Taymiyyah, A, “Al-Fatawa”, al-Ribat, 35, p. 46

[235] Mawardi, op cit, 1973

[236] Al-Nabhani, T A, “The Ruling System”, al-Khilafah Publications

[237] ‘As-Sira’ of Ibnu Kathir, ‘Tarikh ut-Tabari’ by at-Tabari, ‘Siratu Ibn Hisham’ by Ibn Hisham, ‘As-Sunan ul-Kubra’ of Bayhaqi, ‘Al-fasil-fil Milal’ by Ibnu Hazim and "Al-A'kd Al-Farid" of Al-Waqidi

[238] For example the Abbasid revisionism in relation to Umayyad rule or the nationalist revisionism of the Ottoman period

[239] “In the social arena, convergence might be reflected in terms of an incorporation, to some extent, of (Islamist) religious norms in the domestic policy-making process. This would suggest that there is an underlying normative framework embodied by religious norms that cannot be ignored by policy makers. In the political arena, there would be an effort to entrench religious norms in the constitutional framework in terms of either explicit clauses 'protecting' religious norms and/or a constitutional mechanism designed to preserve the religious normative framework. And in the economic sphere, a more extensive state welfarism and a more equitable international trading system would be probable normative outcomes… Thus convergence might lead to Western governments taking on reforms that incorporate aspects of the programmes of political Islam; and by taking a more ethical approach to international trading inequities.” - Salla, M E, op cit, 1997, pp. 739-40

[240] Scruton, R, “DEMOCRACY SPECIAL:Tyranny of the majority”, http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/cartoons/10003/part_2/democracy-specialtyranny-of-the-majority.thtml, retrieved 16th May 2008

[241] Legislature, judiciary and executive

[242] Waterhouse, E S, "Secularism" in J. Hastings (ed.), Encycl. of Religion and Ethics, Vol. XI, Edinburgh, NY, 1934, pp. 347-8.

[243] Kurth, 'The Vatican's foreign policy', The National Interest, Summer 1993, p 41.

[244] Hobbes argues for the state, Roussaeau argues for the masses and Austin places it in the hands of their representatives - Khir, B M, 1986, pp. 149-55

[245] Najjar, F, “Islamic Fundamentalism and the Intellectuals: The Case of Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov. 2000), pp. 180

[246] Husain, E, “My qualm is with Islamism and not with Islam”, http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/ed_husain_my_qualm_is_with_islamism_and_not_with_islam/, retrieved 15th May 2008

[247] “The flaws of democracy”, http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/islamic-thoughts/islamic-thoughts/the-flaws-of-democracy.html, retrieved 23rd May 2008

[248] “All mod cons”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seumas_milne/2007/04/all_mod_cons.html, retrieved 7th May 2008

[249] “The flaws of democracy”, http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/islamic-thoughts/islamic-thoughts/the-flaws-of-democracy.html, retrieved 23rd May 2008

[250] http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=6127

[251] The Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan undertook a survey of key Middle Eastern countries in 2005, finding two thirds in central Arab countries felt Shariah should be the sole source for legislation (a key requirement for an Islamic State) and the remaining third felt Shariah should be a source of law. A recent study by the University of Maryland in April 2007 confirmed this trend towards Shariah, "Large majorities in most countries support the goals of requiring a strict application of sharia, keeping out Western values, and even unifying all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state." in addition to greater than 70% support for Shariah and a unifying Caliphate the respondents overwhelmingly rejected the change would come via violence, "Large majorities in all countries oppose attacks against civilians for political purposes and see them as contrary to Islam. Attacks on civilians are seen as hardly ever effective. Politically motivated attacks against civilian infrastructure are also rejected as not justified." The CSS’s survey "Revisiting the Arab Street" in February 2005 in which they interviewed numerous population samples in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. In addition to findings that showed support for a greater role of the Shariah and Islamic scholars in the politics and governance of their countries, the findings also suggested that hostility towards the West was largely down to political reasons, such as the foreign policy of the US and Britain towards the Muslim world, rather than religious or theological arguments." – “Radicalisation, Extremism & 'Islamism' - Realities and Myths in the 'War on Terror'”, http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/images/PDFs/htb_radicalisation_report.pdf, retrieved 30th May 2008, pp. 7-18

[252] Hoebink, M, op cit, 1999, pp. 40-43

[253] “Islamists Are Intrinsically Anti-Democratic”, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22611/pub_detail.asp, retrieved 19th May 2008

[254] Prominent neoconservative periodicals are “Commentary” and “The Weekly Standard”. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the AEI, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

[255] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism, retrieved 17th May 2008

[256] "The neoconservatives have been routed", The Times, 13/04/2007, retrieved 17th May 2008

[257] “All mod cons”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seumas_milne/2007/04/all_mod_cons.html, retrieved 7th May 2008

[258] An invitation to British politicians to adopt the ideas of Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol et al

[259] Al-Qadi, H, “Transferable Egos of Ed Husain, Maajid Nawaz and Ziauddin Sardar”, http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=9240&page=13, retrieved 19th May 2008

[260] Murray, D, “Neoconservatism: Why we need it”, 2005, p.160

[261] Grant, J, “Rethinking the Ottoman "Decline": Military Technology Diffusion in the Ottoman Empire, Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries”, Journal of World History, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1999, p. 180

[262] Doumani, B, 1995, op cit, p. 12; Fortna writes, “A comparative perspective has helped students of the period recognize that the late Ottoman Empire shared and took action against many of the same problems confronting its contemporaries, East and West. The assertion of Ottoman agency has been critical to finishing off the stereotype of “the sick man of Europe” but the persistent legacies of modernization theories and nationalistic historiography continue to obscure our view of the period.”

[263] Itzkowitz, N, Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition, University of Chicago Press, London, 1980, p. 63

[264] From across the Balkans (Bulgaria, Rumania, Greece and Serbia) and the Arab world including Turkey

[265] In most textbooks on Bulgarian and Greek history six centuries of Ottoman history barely warrants a chapter and even then, a very dark and hostile one.

[266] Quataert, D, “The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, p. 192

[267] The Egyptian al-Mashawi argues “The ancient Egyptians were basically monotheists and Muslims in the generic sense in which the Qur'an uses the term. The goddess Maat was a personification of the Muslim values of truth, justice, and uprightness. This view of Idris and the ancient Egyptians is hardly the standard Muslim one, but it does accord with a sense of Egyptian nationalism and a desire to base Egyptian identity partly on the Pharaonic past.” - Shepard, W E, op cit, 1996, p. 51

[268] Poppe, I and Ma’oz, M, 1997, Toledano, E R, “Ottoman-Local Elites”, op cit, p. 145; Sardar, Z, op cit, 2004, pp. 260-75

[269] In countries such as Serbia to Rumania, Turkey to Syria and Iraq - Quataert, D, 2000, op cit, pp. 193-5

[270] Williams, M J, “The Empire Writes Back”, International Affairs, Vol. 83, Iss. 4, Sept 2008, p. 948

[271] For instance, the Crusader and Mongol invasions,

[272] Toledano, E R, 1997, op cit, p. 157

[273] Bonney, R, “Jihad: From Qur’an to Bin Laden”, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2004, p. 149

[274] Inalcik, H, 1994, op cit, pp. 44-54

[275] Berkes described the Ottoman economy as a “war economy” where its primary revenue comprised booty from expansion. This idea has been supported by Ottomanists Halil Inalcik, 1994, op cit, and Suraiya Faroqhi - Faroqhi, S, The Ottoman Empire and the World Around it, Library of Ottoman Studies 7, I B Tauris, London, 2004

[276] Inalcik, H and Quataert, D, 1994, op cit, pp. 5-6

[277] Pamuk, S, 1987, op cit, p. 8

[278] Inalcik, H and Quataert, D, 1994, op cit, p. 5

[279] Quataert, D, 2000, op cit, p. 110

[280] None developed uniform economies – the British commercial strength developed around thetextile industry with technological innovations being applied to other economic areas. Through diplomacy and a strong navy, they leveraged their cheaply manufactured textiles to penetrate overseas markets.

[281] Ibid., p. 110

[282] The Caliphate Committee in India was established to help the Ottomans and peoples of Anatolia. During 1920 and 1922, members sent financial and spiritual assistance to the Ottomans during the War of Independence. The goal was to display the importance of their ties to the Caliphate as well as to inform and support the Muslims of India. Women and young girls were also involved, gladly handing over their golden bracelets, earrings and other valuables in support. For Indian Muslims, the Ottoman state was a matter of pride and honor – Zaman newspaper, Turkey http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=143879, retrieved 12th June 2008

[283] Deringil, S, “The Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1993; Lieven, D, “Dilemmas of Empire 1850-1918. Power, Territory, Identity”, Journal of Contemporary History, 1999

[284] Quataert, D, 2000, op cit

[285] Hourani, A, op cit, 1991, pp. 48-9

[286] Al-Nabhani of Hizb ut-Tahrir argues a similar problem in his book “Mefaheem”

[287] Taji-Farouki, S, op cit, 1996, pp. 77-8

[288] In line with Cox’s view, “Decline, though, does not just happen because a major power loses a regional war. It also occurs when other actors either begin to play by a different set of rules... or play by the same set more effectively...” - Cox, M, 2008, op cit, p. 651

[289] Britain had defences in Egypt and Palestine to protect its Indian routes so had little need of the Ottomans – the French were keen on the Levant and North Africa – Quataert, D, 2000, op cit, pp. 56-72

[290] Russia’s policy evolved to perpetuate Turkish weakness, keeping her open to Russian influence. Germany however worked with Turkey to modernize and strengthen her - Milgrim, M R, “An Overlooked Problem in Turkish-Russian Relations: The 1878 War Indemnity”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 9, No. 4. Nov 1978, p. 521-24

[291] Germany went from a cluster of insignificant states in the 1850s to the most powerful state in Europe in the period of a lifetime. Under Bismarck, Prussia’s first minister, the sheer speed an extent of Germany’s growth in industrial commercial and military/naval terms was phenomenal and by 1914 put it well ahead of France and Russia and maybe Britain too. It had a well-educated population, an efficient army, a protected and productive agricultural sector and prodigious industrial growth. The dramatic build up of the German navy... (second in the world behind Britain in a decade) was another impressive indication of German capacity. For political reasons the German army was not expanded so dramatically (the elite feared socialist infiltration of the ranks), but after 1910 and 1914 there was a change where it could mobilise and equip millions of reserves and the army’s equipment and training was of the highest standard - Darby, G, Origins of the First World War, Addison Wesley Longman Ltd, Essex, 1998, pp. 3-4

[292] Nasr, V S R, “Legacy of Colonialism”, Oxford History of Islam, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999

[293] “Critique Of "Evaluating Hizbut-Tahrir's Theo-Political Stance", http://www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com/, retrieved 20th May 2008

[294] Palairet’s work on the Bulgarian positive economic experience during Ottoman rule compared to that since independence is illustrative of the positive Ottoman experience on Europe

[295] “The Exposition of Modernist and Revisionist Thought”, http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/academic-refutations/, retrieved 21st May 2008

[296] “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 2 - retrieved 25th May 2008

[297] Muhammad 'Abduh, for example, said a Muslim was obliged to accept only mutawatir hadith, and was free to reject others about which he had doubts - Risalat al-Tawhid, 17th Printing, Cairo: Maktabat al-Qahira, 1379/1960, pp. 201-3; English translation by K. Cragg and I. Masa'ad, The Theology of Unity London: Allen and Unwin, 1966, pp. 155-56. Ahmad Amin, in his popular series on Islamic cultural history, cautiously suggested that there were few if any mutawatir hadith (especially, Fajr al-Islam, 10th edition Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahda al-Misriyya, 1965, p. 218; see also G. H. A. Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature: Discussions in Modern Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 1969), and my Faith of a Modern Muslim Intellectual, p. 113.

[298] See Quran 4:3 on polygyny, 5:38 on cutting off the hand of the thief, 24:2-5 on whipping for fornication (the provision for stoning for adultery is in the Hadith). On jihad and the treatment of unbelievers, the difficult passages for modernists are the so-called "verses of the sword," such as 9:5 on the Arab pagans and 9:29 on the people of the Book – Shepard, W E, op cit, 1987, p. 330

[299] Ibid., pp. 312-13

[300] Smith's criticism of Farid Wajdi in Islam in “Modern History”, pp. 139-59, and Gibb's complaint about "the intellectual confusions and the paralyzing romanticism which cloud the minds of the modernists of today" - “Modern Trends in Islam”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947, pp. 105-6.

[301] In his critique of Husain, Andrew Booso references from Nuh Keller’s translation of the classical Shaffite handbook of Islamic law, “Reliance of the Traveller”:

• A father marrying off a virgin bride ‘without her consent’ where he may ‘compel’ her (m3.13-3.15)
• Offensive jihad (see o9.1), with the objective being to fight ‘Jews, Christians… until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax’ (o9.8)
• The Islamic state not retaliating against a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim (o1.2).
• It being ‘obligatory for Muslims to rise against’ a leader of the government if he ‘becomes a non-Muslim, alters the Sacred Law … or imposes reprehensible innovations while in office’…
• It being ‘obligatory to obey the commands and interdictions of the caliph… even if he is unjust’ (o25.5).
• ‘Non-Muslim subjects… are distinguished from Muslims in dress… [and] must keep to the side of the street’ (o11.5) - “Review of “The Islamist”: Ust. Andrew Booso [complete]”, http://thetranslators1.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/review-of-%E2%80%9Cthe-islamist%E2%80%9D-ust-andrew-booso-complete/, retrieved 28th May 2008

[302] “Centre hosts debate between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ed Husain”, http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2007/11/centre_hosts_debate_between_ay_1.html, and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/26/stopsupportingbinladengeor, retrieved 30th May 2008

[303] “And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becomes a renegade and dies in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter." (Quran 2:217) and “But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them” (Quran 4:89). Baydawi explained this verse as, "Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wherever you find him, like any other infidel.” Furthermore, narrations state, "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him" (Bukhari 4.52.60) and "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Bukhari 9.84.57)

[304] Dallal, A, “Appropriating the past: Twentieth-Century Reconstruction of Pre-Modern Islamic Thought”, Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2000), Brill, pp. 345-46

[305] Islam is a personal faith and has no say in politics – the system advocated is Western secular democracy

[306] Classical scholarship agreed on the Caliphate model of governance - Mawardi, “Al-ahkam Al-Sultaniyah”; Nawawi, “Mughni Al-Muhtaj”, volume 4; Qalqashandi, “Subul Al-Asha”, volume 9; Ibn Hazm, “Al-Muhalla”, volume 9; Al-Sharani, “Al-Mizan”, volume 2; Al-Mughni fi abwab Al-Tawheed, volume 20; Abdul Jabbar, “Al-Fiqh Alal-Mathahib Al- Arba’a”, volume 5; Al-Jozairi, “Al-Fasl Fil-Milal”, volume 4; Abu Yala, “Al-ahkam Al-Sultaniyah”; Qurtubi, “Tafseer ul-Qurtubi” 264/1; Al-Ghazali, “al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad”; Ibn Taymiyah, “Siyaasah Shariyyah” etc

[307] Al-Nabhani, T A, “Nizaam al-Hukm – The ruling System”, al-Khilafah Publications

[308] Western countries as well as Muslim dictatorships are deemed to be Islamic (Dar al-Islam)

[309] Classical scholarship deemed a land to be Islamic when the authority and security were in the hands of Muslims who ruled by sharia - Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, "Usul al-Din", Ibn Abideen, "Haashiya ibn Abideen", Sulayman bin Mohammed al-Bujayrimi, "Sharh al-Bujayrimi ala al-Khatib" and "Nihaya al-Muhtaj", Shawkani, "Nayl al-Awtar” and "al-Sayl Jaraar alaa hadaiq al-azhaar", Vol 4, Maawardi, "al-Hawi", Kasani, "Badai wa al-Sanaai", Mardawi, "al-Insaaf fi marifah al-rajih min al-khilaf", Vol 4, Ibn Qayyim, "Kitaab Ahkaam ahl al-Dhimmah", Vol 1, Dusuqi, as well as al-Rafi’I, Ibn Muflih, Ibn Hazm etc

[310] “Methodology of Hizb ut-Tahrir for Change”, al-Khilafah Publications

[311] Existing punishments are barbaric

[312] Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Shaybani, Ibn Hanbal, Shafii, Ibn Rushd, Nawawi, Shawkani, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya etc [313] Al-Nabhani, T A, “The Penal Code” and “The Refutation of the Theory of Liability in Western Law” [314] The Quranic prescribed inheritance ratios are unfair - http://youtube.com/watch?v=nXFMHlJMTs0&feature=related

[315] Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Shaybani, Ibn Hanbal, Shafii, Malik, Nakha’i, Da’ud, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Hazm etc

[316] Al-Nabhani, T A, “Introduction to the Constitution”

[317] The Quranic prescribed inheritance ratios are unfair - Centre for Social Cohesion debate

[318] Muslim, Malik's “Muwatta”, Ibn Hibban, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, An-Nassai, Ibn Majah, “Sunan al-Kubraa”, Bayhaqi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Ya`laa, Humaidi, Abd al-Razzaq, and Ibn Abi Shaybah, Shafi'i and Baydawi

[319] Al-Nabhani, T A, “Introduction to the Constitution”

[320] The conditions for witnesses are unfair according to Husain

[321] Abu Yusuf, Nawawi, Ghazali, Shatibi, Shawkani etc

[322] Al-Nabhani, T A, “The Rules of Evidences” and “The Refutation of the Theory of Liability in Western Law”

[323] Husain even cites arguments used by Western rulers, “Undoubtedly, foreign policy has some role to play but let's not forget that countries such as Indonesia (Bali), Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and others have also suffered terrorism. Islamist terrorism started long before foreign policy blunders of Western government. The terrorists' targeting of nightclubs last year and talk of killing "slags" while they dance indicates a medieval mindset that cannot tolerate social freedoms.” - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ed-husain-you-ask-the-questions-808652.html, retrieved 19th May 2008

[324] Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik, Ibn Hanbal, , Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Rushd, Nawawi, Ghazali, Qurtubi, Shawkani etc

[325] Al-Nabhani, T A, “The Social System”

[326] “I know how these terrorists are inspired”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/02/do0203.xml, retrieved 20th May 2008 [327] Abu Yusuf, Shaybani, Sarakhsi, Shafi’i, Tabari, Nawawi, Izz al-Din, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ghazali, Shawkani etc

[328] Al-Nabhani, T A, “The Islamic State” and “The Islamic Personality”

[329] Banard, C, op cit, 2003, pp. 49-50

[330] These are found in Ahmad Amin's series on Islamic cultural history, Fajr al-Islam (Cairo, 1929 and later editions), Duha al-Islam, 3 vols. (Cairo, 1933-1936 and later editions), Zuhr al-Islam, 4 vols. (Cairo, 1944-1955, and later editions). Such writing undoubtedly contributed to the secularist opinion in educated circles in Egypt - Shepard, W E, op cit, 1987, p. 324, 334

[331] http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/, retrieved 24th May 2008

[332] The Quilliam Foundation may not have realised the length of time Islam existed in Spain

[333] http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=9240&page=9, retrieved 24th May 2008

[334] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus, retrieved 24th May 2008

[335] notably Abulcasis and Averroes

[336] Hallaq, W, “The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law”, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.169 and pp.174-5

[337] The Foundation do not see their call as a political ideology even though it exhibits all the characteristics of one– arguably a Capitalislam or Secularislam.

[338] Said, E, “Orientalism”, Vintage Books, New York, 1979

[339] Dallal, A, “Appropriating the past: Twentieth-Century Reconstruction of Pre-Modern Islamic Thought”, Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2000), Brill, pp. 334-37

[340] El Fadl, K A, “Islam and the Theology of Power”, Middle East Report, No. 221, Winter, 2001, Middle East Research and Information Project, pp. 28-33

[341] The UN, Nato and EU have all tried to find a common definition of terrorism - none getting very far. The Nato-brokered "framework agreement" for a peace settlement in Macedonia says: "The use of violence in pursuit of political aims is rejected completely and unconditionally." An admirable principle, but not to be taken too literally. After all, in bombing Afghanistan, America and Britain are pursuing political aims through the use of violence – “First, the Biography...”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/10/afghanistan.terrorism7, retrieved 6th June 2008

[342] "Understanding Islamism", International Crisis Group, http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf, retrieved 4th June 2008

[343] Malik, A A, “Importing imams from Pakistan is irrelevant”, http://www.birminghampost.net/comment/birmingham-columnists/agenda/2007/04/24/importing-imams-from-pakistan-is-irrelevant-65233-20817430/, retrieved 12th May 2008

[344] http://www.counterpunch.org/lind04232003.html

[345] "Understanding Islamism", International Crisis Group, http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf, retrieved 4th June 2008

[346] http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1056

[347] Hoebink, M, op cit, 1999, p. 51

[348] Bobbitt, P, “Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century - A manual for our times”, Allen Lane, 2008

[349] Pape, R, 'Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism'

[350] “Radicalisation, Extremism & 'Islamism' - Realities and Myths in the 'War on Terror'”, http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/images/PDFs/htb_radicalisation_report.pdf, retrieved 30th May 2008, p. 15

[351] “Radicalisation, Extremism & 'Islamism' - Realities and Myths in the 'War on Terror'”, http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/images/PDFs/htb_radicalisation_report.pdf, retrieved 30th May 2008, pp. 15-18

[352] The IRA bombing campaign in Britain was nothing to do with integration or religious extremism but an issue of uniting Ireland. However, the government presented it as a Catholic vs Protestant problem in its propaganda efforts. Once political negotiations started, bombings, violence and tensions significantly subsided.

[353] In 1300 the Mongol Ghazan invaded Syria projecting himself as a legitimate Muslim ruler. Ibn Taymiyya argued that although Ghazan appeared to be of be a Muslim, his policies as a ruler proved he remained loyal to Mongol law and belief. By failing to raise Islamic law in his realm, he demonstrated his conversion was a sham. On this basis, Ibn Taymiyya pronounced him an apostate presenting a strong legal case for war on the Mongols.

[354] Al-Qaeda Training Manual 7 allegedly discovered in the house of an al Qaeda operative in May 2000, and introduced as evidence at the trial of the East Africa Embassy bombers - http://www.justice.gov/ag/trainingmanual

[355] Doran, M, “The Pragmatic Fanaticism of al Qaeda: An Anatomy of Extremism in Middle Eastern Politics”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117, No. 2, (Summer, 2002), The Academy of Political Science, p. 179

[356] http://clients.mediaondemand.net/thedohadebates/index.aspx?sessionid=31&bandwidth=hi

[357] “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf - retrieved 5th May 2008

[358] Comment – Rashad, http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/how-can-we-fight-islamist-extremism/, retrieved 21st May 2008

[359] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ed-husain-you-ask-the-questions-808652.html, retrieved 19th May 2008

[360] Another strategy that appears to have been adopted is the use of staged events with loaded agendas. The Doha debates in Qatar is a case in question - where Quilliam Foundation have been asked to speak at events where set questions include, “Are Muslims doing enough to address terrorism?” Inviting only those who do not question the underlying assumptions ensures there is little substantive discussion.

[361] “HT is not a terrorist organization, but it can usefully be thought of as a conveyor belt for terrorists. It indoctrinates individuals with radical ideology, priming them for recruitment by more extreme organizations where they can take part in actual operations” - http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/30/opinion/edbaran.php, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[362] Taji-Farouki, S, 1996, op cit

[363] "Hizb ut-Tahrir-The Next al-Qaeda, Really?", http://hei.unige.ch/psio/fichiers/Meyer%20Al%20Qaida.pdf, http://www.nixoncenter.org/Program%20Briefs/PB%202004/confrephiztahrir.pdf, retrieved 20th May 2008

[364] Radicalisation, Extremism & 'Islamism' - Realities and Myths in the 'War on Terror'”, http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/images/PDFs/htb_radicalisation_report.pdf, retrieved 30th May 2008, p. 15

[365] “George Galloway about the wars on the Arab world”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTHEvNYzjm8&feature=related, retrieved 17th May 2008

[366] “Radicalisation, Extremism & 'Islamism' - Realities and Myths in the 'War on Terror'”, http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/images/PDFs/htb_radicalisation_report.pdf, retrieved 30th May 2008

[367] “Ed Husain: You Ask The Questions”, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ed-husain-you-ask-the-questions-808652.html, retrieved 11th May 2008

[368] Gulam said: “Behold! I have come to you people with a directive that henceforth jihad with the sword has come to an end but jihad for the purification of your souls still remains. This injunction is not from me but rather it is the will of God.” He forbade fighting the Empire due to his favor for British rule and support, in a letter to Queen Victoria he said ‘For the sake of the British government, I have published fifty thousand books, magazines and posters and distributed them in this and other Islamic countries. It is as the result of my endeavours that thousands of people have given up thoughts of Jihad which had been propounded by ill-witted mullahs and embedded in the minds of the people. I can rightly feel proud of this that no other Muslim in British India can equal me in this respect…’' - Khazaen, R, Sitara-e-Qaisaria, Vol. 15, p. 114, Sitara-e-Qaisaria, pp. 3-4, Letter to Queen Victoria, Khutba-Ilhamia

[369] Furthermore, on 1st July 2007 he said, "And that's why the cultural effort - almost similar to what happened in the Cold War in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, when we had to mount a propaganda effort, if you like, to explain to people that our values represented the best of commitments to individual dignity, to liberty and to human life being taken seriously. And I think that's what we are going to have to talk about in the next few years."

[370] http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/images/PDF/Books/IslamicReformation.pdf

[371] “All mod cons”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seumas_milne/2007/04/all_mod_cons.html, retrieved 7th May 2008

[372] The only exception is the failed attempt by Nawaz to respond to “Islamist” theology prior to the establishment of the Quilliam Foundation.

[373] http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/how-can-we-fight-islamist-extremism/, retrieved 21st May 2008

[374] “Abdullah Quilliam: Shaikh-ul-Islam for the British Isles and Dominions”, http://www.caliphate.eu/2008/01/abdullah-quilliam-shaikh-ul-islam-for.html, retrieved 15th May 2008

[375] Calling the society to Islam as an alternative way of life, maintaining the Islamic identity of British Muslims and undertaking Islamic political activity, accounting the British government whilst calling for the unity of the Muslim world under the Caliphate system.

[376] “O Muslims, do not be deceived by this hypocrisy. Unite yourselves as one man. Let us no longer be separated. The rendevous of Islam is under the shadow of the Khalifate. The Khebla of the True-Believer who desires happiness for himself and prosperity to Islam is the holy seat of the Khalifate…”, W.H. ABDULLAH QUILLIAM, Sheikh-ul-Islam of the British Isles - The Crescent, Vol. VII, No. 171, April 22nd 1896, pp. 681-2

[377] Hizb ut-Tahrir argues, "Our campaign will show the sublime values of Islam and the ability of the Islamic system to solve modern problems. The Muslim world is crying out for Islam… People need to know the real nature of Islam, not the lies pedalled by western politicians and media." - “PRESS CONFERENCE: Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain launches ‘Stand For Islam’ mobilisation campaign”, http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/press-centre/press-release/press-conference-hizb-ut-tahrir-britain-launches-stand-for-islam-mobilisation-campaign.html, retrieved, 15th May 2008 “The model for Hizb is the "righteous" Caliphate, a militaristic Islamic state that existed in the 7th and 8th centuries under Mohammad and his first four successors, known as the "righteous Caliphs."”, Cohen, A, “Hizb ut-Tahrir: An Emerging Threat to US Interests in Central Asia”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1656.cfm, retrieved 20th May 2008 Zahra, K A, “The Obligation of Khilafah”, http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/islamic-thoughts/islamic-thoughts/the-obligation-of-khilafah.html and http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/islamic-thoughts/, retrieved 22nd May 2008

[378] "Call them jihadists, Islamists, but I wouldn't call them Muslim. Being Muslim is not enough for them. They make politics seems religious…" - http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=March2007&file=Local_News200703041416.xml, retrieved 12th May 2008 “Normal Muslims, those not influenced by Islamists, are increasingly more comfortable in rejecting notions of a single Caliphate, ruling by one interpretation of Shari’ah law, and accepting their indisputable British heritage.” and “Moreover, those who uphold the ideas in Syed Qutb’s Milestones or Mawdudi’s books on jihad and believe in an Islamist state with an expansionist army are extreme because of their rigidity in understanding politics” - “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 3 - retrieved 5th May 2008

[379] “Know ye, O Muslims, that the British Government has decided to commence military and warlike operations against the Muslims of the Soudan, who have taken up arms to defend their country and their faith. And it is in contemplation to employ Muslim soldiers to fight against these Muslims of the Soudan. For any True Believer to take up arms and fight against another Muslim is contrary to the Shariat…” - The Crescent, March 25th 1896, Vol. VII, No. 167, p. 617

[380] Al-Nabhani, T A, “Shaksiyya Islamiyya”, Vols 1 and 2, al-Khilafah Publications; Taji-Farouki, S, op cit, 1996, pp. 109-10

[381] “Moreover, those who uphold the ideas in Syed Qutb’s Milestones or Mawdudi’s books on jihad and believe in an Islamist state with an expansionist army are extreme because of their rigidity in understanding politics” - “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 3 - retrieved 5th May 2008 “In his recent appearance on Radio 4’s ‘Any Questions’ he announced his support for the occupying British forces in both countries (Iraq and Afghanistan), praising prince Harry’s job for queen and country, while demonising those forces that resist the occupation as evil and against everything British” - http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/would-ed-mahbub-husain-please-stand-up/, retrieved 20th May 2008

[382] “…Among Muslims none should be known as Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Ajem, Afghans, Indians or English. They are all Muslims, and verily the True-Believers are brethren. Islam is erected on the Unity of God, the unity of His religion, and the unity of the Muslims.” - The Crescent, Vol. VII, No. 171, April 22nd 1896, pp. 681-2

[383] “Now, after flirting with a mixture of nationalism, socialism, corrupt democracies and tyrannical dictatorships this Ummah yearns for a change, and she yearns for that change via Islam." - Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain Delivers Strong Message to Muslim Embassies, http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/press-centre/press-release/hizb-ut-tahrir-britain-delivers-strong-message-to-muslim-embassies.html

[384] Nawaz states, “I want to develop a Western Islam that is at home in Britain and in Europe.” - “How I’ll fight against Islamic extremism”, http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local/display.var.2220706.0.how_ill_fight_against_islamic_extremism.php, retrieved 12th May 2008 [385] “For any True Believer to take up arms and fight against another Muslim is contrary to the Shariat, and against the law of God and his holy Prophet…” W.H. ABDULLAH QUILLIAM, Sheikh-ul-Islam of the British Isles - The Crescent, March 25th 1896, Vol. VII, No. 167, p. 617 [386] The Quilliam Foundation’s view on such people is, “Radical sermonizers should be actively rejected by Muslim student bodies, and not given succour in the name of ‘Muslim unity’” - “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 10

[387] The Quilliam Foundation’s view is “The vast majority of mosque imams and congregations cannot distinguish a pious believer from an extremist. Matters are made worse by the fact that organizations that claim to represent British Muslims have at their helm men who believe in foreign political ideologies that seek to usurp Islam for political purposes.” - “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 5 [388] “At the present time union is more than ever necessary among Muslims. The Christian powers are proposing a new crusade to shatter the Muslim powers, under the pretext that they desire to civilise the world. This is nothing but hypocrisy, but armed as they are with the resources of Western civilisation it will be impossible to resist them unless Muslims stand united as one solid phalanx.”, W.H. ABDULLAH QUILLIAM, Sheikh-ul-Islam of the British Isles - The Crescent, March 25th 1896, Vol. VII, No. 167, p. 617

[389] “Given that the West is aggressively and violently forcing it's ideas upon the Muslim world, it's claims' to achieving good governance need to be critically examined in two fundamental ways; is democracy the only way of achieving good governance and is democracy really delivering good governance in the first place?” - “The Flaws of Democracy”, http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/islamic-thoughts/islamic-thoughts/the-flaws-of-democracy.html

[390] “Normal Muslims, those not influenced by Islamists, are increasingly more comfortable in rejecting notions of a single Caliphate, ruling by one interpretation of Shari’ah law, and accepting their indisputable British heritage.” - “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 5

[391] Quilliam was said to have appeared in court wearing Turkish ceremonial dress - Birt, Y, “Abdullah Quilliam: Britain’s First Islamist?”, http://www.yahyabirt.com/?p=136 He did not accept the Christian date system completing his documents with, “Signed at the Mosque in Liverpool, England, this 10th day of Shawwal, 1313 (which Christians erroneously in their ignorance call the 24th day of March, 1896); He felt himself to be part of the Muslim Ummah and not British Society – “…verily the True-Believers are brethren. Islam is erected on the Unity of God, the unity of His religion, and the unity of the Muslims.” - The Crescent, Vol. VII, No. 171, April 22nd 1896, pp. 681-682

[392] “…believing students and imams should be encouraged to wear clothes that ensure belonging to mainstream society, and not Pakistani ethnic attire designed for a different climate. Islam requires modesty, not Arab or Pakistani clothing” - http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 9

[393] Abdullah Quilliam launched a series of attacks on the British government. When the Prime Minister, William Gladstone, was due to give a speech in Liverpool urging action against the Ottoman Empire, Quilliam gathered his congregation at the mosque to make a rival speech, during which he declared the West was quite happy to ignore “Christian atrocities”.

[394] Hizb ut-Tahrir’s view is: "The current smears against Islam and the Shariah, the filthy cartoons defaming our beloved Prophet (saw), and the calls in Holland to ban the Quran - are part of the propaganda used as part of the war on Islam, commonly called the war on terror. It is a supremacist war that aims to force one system - capitalism - and secular liberal values on the whole world." “PRESS CONFERENCE: Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain launches ‘Stand For Islam’ mobilisation campaign”, http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/press-centre/press-release/press-conference-hizb-ut-tahrir-britain-launches-stand-for-islam-mobilisation-campaign.html

[395] The Quilliam Foundation’s views on British Foreign policy lack any critique preferring to criticize its critics – “Educate Islamists that the first group of people that called for the equivalent of ‘political sovereignty belonging to God’ (as Islamists do) were the Khawarij, who killed Imam Ali, son-in-law of the Prophet.” “Pulling together to defeat terror”, http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, p. 6

[396] …clearly borne of a revisionist agenda of Islamic scholarship - http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1892

[397] “Abdullah Quilliam: Britain’s First Islamist?”, http://www.yahyabirt.com/?p=136,

[398] http://www.tftd.ws/; “The twisting of ahadith to justify the abandonment of the Shariah”, http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2007/08/twisting-of-ahadith-to-justify.html, retrieved 7th May 2008

[399] Ahmed, A.S., “Postmodernism and Islam: Predicament and Promise”, Routledge, 1992, pp. 168-69

[400] “Lawyer says ex-militant released in UK”, http://www.pr-inside.com/lawyer-says-ex-militant-released-in-r602004.htm, retrieved 21st May 2008

[401] Channel 4 News, 21st May 2008

[402] http://quilliamexposed.blogspot.com/2008/04/quilliam-under-new-management.html, retrieved 21st May 2008

[403] “Critique Of "Evaluating Hizbut-Tahrir's Theo-Political Stance", http://www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com/, retrieved 20th May 2008; “The Exposition of Modernist and Revisionist Thought”, http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/academic-refutations/, retrieved 21st May 2008 [404] Ibid.

[405] http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/11/news/fatwa.php, retrieved 15th May 2008

[406] Ibid.

[407] “Gomaa's Statement on Apostasy”, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/gomaas_statement_on_apostasy.html, retrieved, 25th May 2008

[408] http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2005/03/thank_you_sheik.php, retrieved 14th May 2008

[409] In relation to the question of Jihad in Palestine, when asked about the rule of an Egyptian man illegally entering Palestine and carrying out a 'martyrdom' operation without the express permission of the head of state he replied that "he is a Shahid [martyr], because Palestine is a special case and not the ordinary case existing in the world..." - "Al-haqiqa", July 2003; “al-Hayat”, 30th September 2003

[410] Ibid.

[411] http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ali-Gomaa, retrieved 12th May 2008

[412] http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/08/lebanon_sunnis.html, retrieved 15th May 2008

[413] http://www.maajidnawaz.blogspot.com/

[414] http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, retrieved 24th May 2008

[415] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Gomaa#cite_note-4, retrieved 11th May 2008

[416] “Qaradawi Threatens Legal Action Against French Hijab Ban”, http://www.ummah.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5600.html, retrieved 13th May 2008

[417] Nahdah Masr, Feb. 3, 2008

[418] Haq, F, “Jihad over Human Rights, Human Rights as Jihad. Clash of Universals”, Negotiating Culture and Human Rights, ed. Bell, L S, Nathan, A J, Peleg, I, Columbia University Press, New York, 2001, p. 247

[419] Al-Nabhani, T A, “The System of Islam”, al-Khilafah Publications

[420] Abu-Rabi, I M, “Intellectual Resurgence in the Modern Arab World”, State University of New York Press, New York, 1996, p. 129

[421] The Indian/Pakistani thinker Iqbal was one of the first to emphasize the comprehensiveness of the Islamic world-view and the need for an Islamic state. Referring to the principle of divine unity (tawhid), he claimed Islam demands the recognition of God as the spiritual basis of all aspects of life, among which are also the law and the state. The concept of an Islamic state was particularly elaborated by Muhammad Rashid Rida, a pupil of Muhammad Abdu. For Rida, the establishment of an Islamic state meant in the first place the application of Islamic law - Hoebink, M, op cit, 1999, pp. 147-66; Rida, R, “Al-hildfa aw al-imama al-'uzmd”, Cairo, 1922-3, Mitchell, Society, pp. 234-5

[422] Bonney, R, op cit, 2004, p. 201

[423] Ibid. pp. 203-04

[424] Syed Qutb, “Signposts on the Road - Ma'alim fi al tariq”, Mumbai, India, Bilal Books, 1998

[425] Doran, M, “The Pragmatic Fanaticism of al Qaeda: An Anatomy of Extremism in Middle Eastern Politics”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117, No. 2, Summer, 2002, The Academy of Political Science, p. 180

[426] “Methodology for Change”, al-Khilafah Publications

[427] Shepard, W E, op cit, 1987, p. 314