Quilliam (think tank)

The Quilliam Foundation is a group largely 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, an english convert to Islam known for his criticism of British foreign policy and his loyalty to the Ottoman Caliphate and the Ummah.

The Quilliam Foundation is a new political actor, with a secular-modernist ideology, coinciding with attempts by Western powers in stemming the rising tide of Muslim sentiment for the Caliphate.

Founders

The three public founders are Maajid Nawaz, Rashad Zamaan Ali, and Mohammed Mahboob “Ed” Husain, ex-activists of the UK branch of the Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir:

“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)

Throughout Hizb ut-Tahrir’s history, no member has undertaken such a high profile u-turn.

Mohammed “Ed” Mahboob Husain

Hailing from Bangladesh, after failing his GCSEs Husain 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 narratives are 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.

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. His book however disclosed the cause as girlfriends, unacceptable in Muslim circles. 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.

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…"

He informed the Syrian secret service of Hizb ut-Tahrir members in Damascus and has called for them to be banned in the UK.

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, criticises the director of MI5 for "pussyfooting around" with extremists, dismisses the idea that 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 Husian attacks multiculturalism, declaring there to be too many immigrants in the country. 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.

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”. 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.

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, in 2008 this became,

“I have been training people [in Hizb ut-Tahrir] for 14 years, every single week for two hours a week…“

Reasons for Nawaz’s departure from Hizb ut-Tahrir, like his colleague Husain are unclear. He argues he resigned due to profound doubts. Websites highlight unethical activities and subversive meetings and activities with Ali and Husain resulting in a rapid resignation before the disgrace of expulsion. In a recent Newsnight interview, Nawaz sought to distance himself from some of Husain’s extreme positions.

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. He began studying with Hizb ut-Tahrir and was with them for 12 years before being expelled for alleged criminal and fraudulent activities.

Rashad Ali has no significant academic background. He provided content for Nawaz’s theological paper of 2007 and academically flawed responses to the resulting critique. 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. 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.”

The Quilliam Name

Abdullah Quilliam, a 19th century British convert to Islam was influential in advancing knowledge of Islam within the British Isles, and gained converts through literary works and charitable institutions he founded.

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

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. 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 radicalization by taking on their arguments and countering them.”

However 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.”

The Quilliam Foundation believes Islam is not an ideology but a faith, namely “Islam is not Islamism.” 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.

The Foundation has an additional objective focused on opposing Hizb ut-Tahrir. Unusually however, it appears not to have considered the only serious in-depth academic research conducted on Hizb ut-Tahrir by Dr Farouki of Durham University, preferring to take anecdotal comments and Civitas papers as the basis of its critique.

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.

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.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 - 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.

The Foundation's 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.

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.

The primary recommendation comprises rehabilitation centres – 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. 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.

Other 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.

Funding

The Quilliam Foundation claims its source of funding is from anonymous Kuwaiti businessmen. Given the concern regarding hidden agendas and the need for transparency, refusal to openly declare sources is problematic, such anonymity not sitting well with a call for democracy. (The most recent notice on the Quilliam webstite indicates even these funding sources have been terminated). Seamus Milne of the Guardian has claimed:

“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)

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 like Banglawala 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. Both Husain and Nawaz are on record as stating they would be happy to take government funds - a process that has commenced judging the leaked emails from the founders detailing the Foundation’s applications for government funding. 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.

Advisors, Associates and Affilliates

The Quilliam Foundation site had listed a number of scholars as supporters and advisors, which ciritics argue is 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 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. The Foundation states it had received permission from all scholars before it put their names on its site. 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”

The Quilliam Foundation website has finally removed all mention of advisor names following a number of 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.”

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

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).

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

The Quilliam Foundation has been condemned for its staunch 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...”

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. 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.

Journalists have refrained from criticising the Foundation’s narratives, ties with radical scholars, extreme positions and indiscretions. 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, 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. 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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“…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.”

“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…”

“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!!!”

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)

Think tanks engage with issues and introduce clarification and precision to a debate avoiding bias and partisanship. The Quilliam Foundation has done little more than build emotive arguments, labelled opponents pejoratively and undertaken incessant public speeches.

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.

The source of Quilliam Foundation epistemological ideas 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. 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 attempts to remain relevant to the masses.

Maajid Nawaz 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.”

The Quilliam Foundation opposes Hizb ut-Tahrir’s epistemological outlook contending the standard Civitas view that an ideological mode of thought represses truth. 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…”

However, he provides no refutation or critique simply branding the ideas as “left-wing multi-culturism” and “intuitively wrong”.

More particularly the Foundation is building a Western pragmatic episteme inherited from American writers Peirce, James and Dewey.

Towards a Typology

The Quilliam Foundation believes Islam to be a faith like other religions, a personal and private religion as opposed to an ideology. 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”.

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.

The term ideology has been defined and used in a number of ways. It 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), 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).

The term religion has been defined and used as theological beliefs, private prayers and ritual worships. 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. 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. 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” and “the Islamist ideology is incompatible with Islam” and “[Hizb ut-Tahrir state] we need a Prophet to define a political ideology” 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…"

Politics of Terminology

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

Laird Wilcox, a researcher specializing in the study of political fringe movements, defines extremism by identifying 21 traits of "political extremists". Applying these styles to the pronouncements and publications of the Quilliam Foundation paradoxically classify it as an extremist organisation,that has a tendency to character assassination, name calling and labelling and the making of irresponsible, sweeping generalizations.

Islamism has been defined as “the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life”. Secularists are usually defined in converse to “Islamists” as “any view that openly rejects Islamism” or “any view that would follow an ideology other than Islam in most areas of public life” – the Quilliam Foundation being amongst the secularists by this definition.

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”

– without citing which “Islamist” organisation believes Islam is solely a “political ideology”. Husain’s definition of Islamism comprises:

· 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 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 analyzed particular national Islamist movements and the regimes they confront. 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."

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.”

The Foundation argues most violence emanates from those who aspire to an “Islamist” agenda, and that most conservative Muslims oppose Islamism. 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 (akin to critique levelled against his colleague Husain). 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 as it comprises a traditional fusion of the Shaffite legal school of law with Asharite theology.

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 is “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.

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).

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. 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. It is to its critics a unified ideology that justifies military adventurism, sanctions torture and promotes aggressive Zionism."The neoconservatives have been routed", The Times, 13/04/2007</ref> 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.

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. Nawaz has befriended Douglas Murray, author of “Neoconservatism: Why we need it”. When asked to criticise neoconservatism in a City Circle discussion, he said to Murray, "I mean American Neoconservatism, but not the British Neoconservatism."

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.

What went wrong?

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

The Quilliam Foundation is undertaking theological revisionism in line with its views on modernity to support its objective of creating a Western Islam. 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 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.

The absence of any substantive methodology negates any juristic arguments the Foundation may advocate.

Much of Quilliam Foundation’s jurisprudence has been controversial and is regularly aired by Husain – receiving considerable criticism. 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 – however the matter appears in both and is argued as such by numerous classical scholars.

Eastern Islam or Western Islam

The Quilliam Foundation argues for the creation of a new “Western Islam”, modelled on Andalusian Spain between 711 and 1492 AD, 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?”

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 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. 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.

The Foundation's inspiration derives from 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, 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.

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

The Quilliam Foundation’s narrative blames Muslims for not doing enough against extremism for the current problems. 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...”

“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...”

Husain 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.”

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.

Abdullah Quilliam

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. It is unclear why the Quilliam Foundation has adopted this name - unusual for a secularist/modernist organization.

“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)

Critcs argue 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.

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. This would not be the first time – accusations of revisionism were made in the blogs Maajid contributed to before he published the first (and only) in his series of papers where he tried to refute the intellectual basis of the “Islamists”.

Quilliam Challenges

The Quilliam Foundation challenges “Islamist” groups to public debates, in particular Hizb ut-Tahrir. 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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

Husain’s response was:

"…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."

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
• Abu Ibrahim's Critique of Quilliam Foundation theology
• Traditional Islam's refutation of Quilliam Foundation Secular Thought
• Quilliam Foundation Exposed
• Does Saudi Arabia Preach Intolerance in the UK?
• Ex-extremists call for 'Western Islam'
• All mod cons
• To lionise former extremists feeds anti-Muslim prejudice
• The Quilliam take on Islam: fascinating but flawed