Indigo Jo Blogs

" HT and Hamas are substantial movements and it is ridiculous to shut them out of any discussion, because you then end up with half the picture. It is dishonest to then pretend that this is the whole, even if you tell yourself that the "decent" bit is all that matters."

Does the same apply to the B.N.P.? Kach? Hindutva?

Thersites, the above named organisaations in your post have nowhere near as much support or legitimacy as the ones mentioned by Yusuf in the context of the wider debate regarding the Islamic world.

Do you think people should not be allowed to hear all views and make their minds up? Or do you support pre-emptive smears due to fearing another (possibly valid) point of view, or even discredit the person who is disapproving?

I don't think HT, Kach or the BNP are significant movements.

Is there any link between the quasi-Leninist vanguard party ideology of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the fact that it has its greatest following in ex-Soviet Central Asia?

Perhaps they don't have as much support or legitimacy (an interesting distinction in itself- can an organisation without support have legitimacy? Can an organisation with strong support not have legitimacy? In both cases, if not, why not?) in the muslim world, Random Guy, but many more people in the UK, for example, agree with BNP policies than support the BNP, according to polls. Should it not be granted legitimacy in the UK on those grounds, then, or is that all the more reason for refusing it? Do you think people should not be allowed to hear all views and make their minds up? Or do you support pre-emptive smears due to fearing another (possibly valid) point of view, or even discredit the person who is disapproving or is it a different matter with a bunch of racialist bigots in Britain to a bunch of religious bigots in the islamic world?

If HT, Kach or the BNP are not significant movements, Anonymous, is that because they are they are shut out of the discussion- predefined as "not significant", rather than because of real or potential support or the power of their arguments?

This is yet another case of Ed Husain demonstrating just why he is unable to engage with those who he claims that he was a part of. Surely if he has so much inside info on HT then he should welcome being able to expose their folly live on air, this is precisely what the Quilliam Foundation manifesto itself claims to try and champion. So when the doors to dialogue with those who have incorrect understandings of Islam are opened up for Eddie Husain why does he refuse to enter them, yet boast to the whole (non-Muslim) world that he has strategies to counter their ideas?

This gets us to the point that many within the younger Muslim community have realised with this whole circus with Ed Husain, his claims are nothing short of the fables of a fantasist. An example of this is in his book The Islamist he claims that the murder of who he calls a “Nigerian student” was due to HT and Islamism, when the reality of the situation, as it involved people I know, was that the murder was related to gang violence. Yet in Ed Husain’s bizarre world, he managed to construe that it was due to Islamism.

Therefore, I remind about what Quilliam Foundation claim to uphold in their manifesto entitled ‘Pulling Together to Defeat Terrorism’, they claim on p.3 to want to ‘reach out to extremists’ but if Ed Husain has already run a mile at the mere thought of speaking to a member of HT (hardly one of your Abu Hamzas or Abdullah el-Faisal’s) then what about trying to engage with youth. Indeed, Ed Husain has no credibility with Muslim youth he only speaks at events for non-Muslims - he has yet to hold an event for a majority Muslim audience which would include those grassroots elements that he and Quilliam claim to want to reach out to.

As a result, I would suggest reading the Quilliam Foundation Manifesto entitled ‘Pulling Together to Tackle Extremism’ and compare it with these recent antics of Muhammad Mehbub ‘Ed’ Husain.