Technorati Tags: ghayasuddin siddiqui, quilliam foundation, islamism
Last week the Quilliam Foundation, a think-tank founded by Ed Husain and his acolyte Maajid Nawaz, held its grand launch event at the British Museum in London. It was entitled "Reviving Western Islam & Uniting Against Extremism", and attended by, among other people, Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, Jemima Khan, Timothy Garton Ash, Dr Usama Hasan, Shaikh Abdul-Aziz Bukhari, Dr Musharraf Hussain of Nottingham (a prominent and fairly moderate Bareilawi imam), and Rachel North, a prominent survivor of the 2005 London bombings. All the speeches, and the question-and-answer session afterwards, are now available to be watched online. The first speech after the introduction was by Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, and I intend to concentrate on that here. (More: Abu Eesa.)
I have written about Ghayasuddin Siddiqui before; he was the leader of the Muslim Parliament, which was originally set up by Kalim Siddiqui and was part of what I call the Khomeini fan-club in London. It is best-known for supporting Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie. I am neither sympathetic towards Rushdie nor do I take the position that Shi'ites are infidels, but the Muslim Parliament and its related institutions were clearly a public relations effort on behalf of the Iranian regime in its effort to extend its influence over the Muslims outside Iran. Besides giving a spurious legitimacy to this outfit, he also turned up at "British Muslims for Secular Democracy" along with Taj Hargey a couple of weeks ago.
Siddiqui begins his speech on "The Need to Rid Ourselves of Islamism" by saying Islamism is a distortion of Islam, and thus must be rejected, and that Islam is a deen (religion), not an ideology. He tells us that Islam involves belief in Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, who is the Creator of all children of Adam, who "does make any distinction", and that Islamists regard Him as "a private god, obedient to their wishes; if they like something, they can provide all kinds of justification to support that love and affection". The accusation against Islamists that they regard Allah ta'ala as "private" to them is absurd and scandalous, particularly if applied against all Islamists of whatever persuasion, and there are many, and the weird use of English reflects his lack of fluency in English. One would have thought that, having been in this country since the 1960s, he would have better command of English than he does, particularly as he is a public figure, or aspires to be.
Siddiqui opined that the core values of an Islamic society are justice (adl), benevolence (ihsan), wisdom (hikma) and compassion (rahma), and that "whatever we do in life, that action has to be a middle path, not going either way into either extremes". Clearly he has misunderstood what the Middle Path in Islam means; the Middle Path is Islam itself. In most respects, Islam does indeed take a middle path between the strictures of some of the older book-based religions and, say, Christianity or modern secularism. Its rules on ritual purity, for example, are considerably less onerous than those of Judaism or Zoroastrianism, while those of some other faiths, notably Protestantism, and of none, have no concept of ritual purity at all.
He states that mankind are all brothers and that neighbours have rights over us, but as an Islamist, his "priorities were different; Islam was an ideology", and he was on a mission to "create a 7th-century Arab society", because he believed that that was "the best exemplar of society", and to establish such a society, he was expected to use jihad against the non-believers, and as such he was expected to regard his neighbours as enemies unless they were Muslims. Islamists, he says, reject serving society in favour of dominating it. This is a huge generalisation; it may be true of some Islamists, but the rights of neighbours and the duties of Muslims towards them - in particular, to avoid being of grief or nuisance to them - are clearly laid down in the source texts of Islam.
He then claimed that one thing which "decided the fate of Islam" was what happened in Moorish Spain in the 12th century, when people like Ibn Rushd (Averroes) declared that truth can be reached through human reason as well as by faith; Ibn Rushd allegedly "went on to say that we need to separate religion and politics, and secularism ought to have a space when it comes to public space" (sic). After 300 years, after much debate, he said, Europe accepted "the supremacy of human reason over faith", while the Muslims came to regard philosophers as enemies of Islam and concluded that "dogmatic faith should have precedence over human reasoning". Besides the dubious claim about Ibn Rushd, who was a well-regarded Maliki scholar and acted as a qadi (Shari'a judge) in the sultanates of his time, the notion of "dogmatic faith" is problematic when applied to Islam. While we are commanded to believe in the Unseen, proof is a major component in faith also and has been since the beginning, when the character of the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), whom nobody, not even Abu Jahl, would call a liar, was the foremost proof of his authority and authenticity. One could say that the western world rejected one set of dogmas in favour of another - that there is no Unseen and that whatever cannot be seen or measured is simply not there.
The love Muslims have for the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), he alleged, "gave rise to Salafism, and over 800 years, these ideas went through various avenues, even taking some of the ideas from Marxism, and eventually it gave rise to Islamism". This is a bizarre over-simplification of how modern Islamism appeared. He then places Islamism at "the root of our decline and irrelevance", when much of it in fact appeared after the political decline of the Muslims and the colonisation of our lands, not before. "Salafism", i.e. Wahhabism, appeared in the deserts of Najd and was propagated by one errant scholar and his disciples who were eventually crushed by the Ottomans; they were able to reappear and dominate the Arabian peninsula, and to profit from the oil supply and propagate their ideology overseas, particularly among the diaspora and some convert populations in the West, because the Ottomans had been defeated from without and then from within.
Siddiqui seems not to notice the difference between the various modern forms of Islamism. The extreme Wahhabis and the likes of Osama bin Laden may be Islamists, but their attitudes and character are nothing like those of Hizb-ut-Tahreer, while the modern Muslim Brothers are different again, as are Jama'at-e-Islami. Many of them were in fact influenced by modern ideas, and most regarded many aspects of traditional Islam, such as the following of the four madhhabs and the prohibition of speaking ill of the First Generation, as partly responsible for an intellectual decline which led to a material and political decline. (Many traditionalists today would counter that, on the contrary, not spending too much time discussing matters of religion that were settled centuries ago actually frees Muslims for other intellectual endeavours.)
Siddiqui's poor grasp of Muslim history and scholarship have been displayed on previous occasions: for example, in a speech at SOAS in 2006, he talked of Islamists wanting to return to a "pure Islam" based on 7th-century Mecca, when in fact the first genuine centre of Islamic civilisation was Madinah. Even so, most of them would not reject most of the material advances that separate modern civilisation from 7th-century Arabia; even though they might live for a while in a camp in the desert or the mountains, they would prefer to go back to a house which had running water and electricty, and an Internet connection. Many of them embrace constitutional government (Hizb-ut-Tahreer have actually published a draft Islamic constitution) and not all of them reject participation in a non-Islamic democratic system.
Of course, Siddiqui's playing fast and loose with history in his speech fits in perfectly with the entire modus operandi of the Quilliam Foundation and those behind it going back to 2006 when "Ed" Husain first raised his head on DeenPort. They have misrepresented their so-called allies, having claimed at least four "advisers" who turned out not to be (they have now taken their list of "advisers" off their website altogether); they have misrepresented their critics, claiming that the response to their efforts has consisted of threats and abuse, and largely ignoring the cogent criticism; and they have been content to be presented as brave Muslims who speak out against Islamism, capitalising on the desire of many non-Muslims to see such people in the wake of the 2005 bombings, which had nothing to do with the group they are most concerned with, when in fact many Muslims have been working within the community against all of those elements for years; and to top it all they have even misrepresented the man whose name they appropriated. I am sure they have many perfectly sincere fellow travellers, but they should be warned that the Quilliam clique's credibility with the Muslims is very, very low indeed.
I wonder why nobody ever asks about what the 'Muslim Parliament' actually does? Because the answer would be nothing!! It doesn't exist! It split in 1998 into Manchester and London factions. Ghayasuddin led the London faction which rapidly evaporated. He is the "leader" of himself!! His involvement with QF, BMSD and the like shows that he is nothing more than a publicity-seeker. Just like the rest of them!
Another QF 'advisor' that Ghayasuddin is happy to be seen with is Prof. Timothy Garton-Ash who said this (from Martin Bright’s New Statesman blog!):
http://www.newstatesman.com/200804230006
"The sage professor began by saying that he didn’t know a great deal about the Quran, the traditions of the Prophet (”hadith” ;) or Islamic law (”fiqh”). He even made a made a joke that he ‘didn’t give a fig for fiqh’ to which the audience chortled politely.
He told the gathered Muslims that the respect of the West had to be earned and (wait for it) ‘the central tenets of religions demand less respect than the proposition two plus two equals four’. Everybody clapped.”
Your write-up on Ghayasuddin Siddiqui is good, but you should seriously consider amending it by sitting down and discussing how he ran the Muslim Parliament into the ground, a good source would be to speak with Kalim Siddiqui's son who has no love lost for Ghayasuddin.
Secondly, just as the father infiltrates organizations for publicity, consider doing a follow up piece on the son, Asim, who allegedly did the same thing with CityCircle i.e. the organization was started by some sincere brothers for one purpose, he hijacked it for his own use and now has firmly entrenched himself into it as his own publicity machine.
regards,
Sam
Indigo Jo - interesting piece, thank you. I would only take particular issue with your allusion that my father is "playing fast and loose with history". You are entitled to disagree with my father's understanding of history, of course - as is anyone else - but the suggestion that he is intentionally misrepresenting his own views is misplaced. With almost 50 years of involvement in the Islamic movement and Muslim activism, my father does speak from long and intimate experience.
Sam Jaffer - the City Circle was indeed established by "some sincere brothers". Whilst it is for God to decide how sincere I am, I would simply point out that I was one of those founders (which I thought was obvious). I have slaved away with the group in a voluntary capacity since its formation in 1999. Whilst I expect no credit from bloggers, I would simply say that the idea that I "infiltrated" it is a bit much. I really wish arm chair critics would look at the City Circle's almost 10 year track record and make a judgement on that. The credit goes to Allah (swt) and then the hundreds of selfless young men and women who made that possible through the events and projects. People can visit the site here: www.thecitycircle.com. We look forward to welcoming you (and Indigo Jo) either tonight or at any of our future weekly events, insha’Allah.
Asim,
The record of CityCircle and what it was and what it has become speaks for itself actually.
Secondly, do you care to comment on any of the following:
1. Why was the Muslim Parliament split in two during the time your father took it over? Was there any misappropriation of funds or hijacking of an agenda and organization as alleged by others who left?
2. http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=71
relevant passage is here:
"During BBC Radio 4's PM programme, Eddie Mayer interviewed Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, a professional Muslim (as opposed to Muslim professional) who has various links to organisations like the Muslim Parliament, the Muslim Institute and British Muslims for a Secular Democracy (whose board of trustees reads like a Who's Who of "want-to-be-reformers of Islam" including Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Taj Hargey). Those of us with better memories will recall that it is the self-same Ghayasuddin Siddiqui who requested Ayatollah Khomeini to issue the death sentence on Salman Rushdie nearly 20 years ago, and yet using his extraordinary chameleon-like abilities Mr Siddiqui has now metamorphosed into a leading authority on social cohesion and Islamic reformation.
During the PM interview, Mr Siddiqui was more than happy to relay that he felt that Islamic law needed revision as it was outdated, and he blamed Muslims for not already revising it due to our collective inability to take any criticism of Islam.
What Mr Siddiqui fails to understand is that whilst revision and re-revision may work for the constitution of your local Anglo-Asian Friendship Society, if one believes that the Quran is the word of Allah, then one should take it for granted that Allah's laws do not need revising - especially by the likes of Ghayasuddin Siddiqui.
This revisionist thinking appears to have a genetic component with his son Asim Siddiqui - Chairman and Founding trustee of The City Circle - muscling in with some featherweight views about reformation himself. According to Asim Siddiqui, "it is for progressive Muslim scholars to ensure the more liberal and tolerant interpretations that are rooted in the Islamic tradition...become dominant over time." Not since Homer and Bart Simpson entered the world's consciousness has there ever been a father and son team that exudes such fortitude and gravitas.
In this entire episode one is also left wondering why it is that when the worldwide Anglican Communion is threatening to implode due to the African bishops' refusal to acknowledge gay priests, the only subject the Archbishop and his sidekick Nazir-Ali can seem to find time to talk about is Islam. Is it a convoluted way of raising awareness of Christianity amongst disenchanted Christians?"
-------------------------
regards,
Sam
Indigo Jo.
I agree entirely with your piece and critique.
What doesn't make sense is the silence on another of those leading reformists: Dr Usama Hasan.
His speech was much more problematic then even Ghayasuddins. The inherent misrepresentation of Ibn Khaldun and other great thinkers was highly dubious. Why are you silent on this?
I know that Dr Usama Hasan is closely linked to Yahya Birt, but this should be no excuse.
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
There has been an ongoing critique of Usama Hasan at [Traditional Islamism](http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com). That post took me hours to write and concentrated on one speech. I did not listen to all the speeches and do not feel the need to respond to all of them.
There's a small piece about the rise and fall of the Muslim Parliament here:
http://www.islamicthought.org/mp-intro.html
There is a very detailed article here on QF and Usama Hasan:
http://salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_UsamaHasan.pdf
What would you make of the suggestion that nihilistic Muslim terrorism has its origins within the Western world itself (and not even in the field of foreign policy)?
You may be interested in Meet the Al-Qaeda Archetype.
I'm not sure how much outside inspiration the al-Qa'ida people needed; their origins lie with the 1991 Gulf War, when their offer to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait was turned down by the Saudis and other Gulf rulers who wanted the job done quickly and probably did not trust them either. That was when the present problem of highly-destructive takfeerism emerged. Keep in mind that many of them, according to that article, lacked further education, so their exposure to foreign influences would have been limited, although the fact that they did not have a great deal of religious education either probably partly explains their amoral and destructive activities as we recently witnessed in Exeter.
"the fact that they did not have a great deal of religious education...probably partly explains their amoral and destructive activities as we recently witnessed in Exeter."
Well, let's wait and see about Exeter. The most important fact about the man alleged to have tried to bomb Exeter is that he is said to be autistic. Autistic people are sometimes completely literal-minded, believing in "truth absolute" and unable to recognise or understand metaphors and likely to take the more repellent bits of a religious text absolutely literally, rather than (mis)interpreting it. Indeed, it's notable that quite a few other would-be suicide-bombers have had technical educations and backgrounds- town-planners, neurologists, engineers, mechanics- where the literal-minded application of given absolute predetermined truths is what matters rather than the discovery or questioning of possible hypotheses.
He was not only autistic, but he had a low mental age. That explains why he was an easy mark for the "jihadists" who were too cowardly to do the job themselves or wanted someone to carry out a "trial run", but also it explains the strange things the papers reported him saying - for example, that "Islam is king and everyone should worship it".
That's strange, because I thought that for many Islamist terrorists (particularly 9/11's Egyptian contingent), the problem that made them easy marks was "loads of letters after my name, but no job" (because of the parlous state of most Middle Eastern economies outside the oil sector).
Shirk??
Well, "a low mental age" isn't a very precise description, nor are people with a "low mental age" necessarily easily persuaded. As I said, one problem, I think, comes from the way people read the quran. If someone believes it is absolutely and literally the exact word of god or reads it like a motor maintenance manual or the Highway Code they're likely to come up with even more alarming interpretations than the standard ones.