The Islamist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(February 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
The Islamist
Author Ed Husain
Country United Kingdom
Language English
Subject(s) Islamism
Genre(s) Nonfiction
Publisher Penguin Books
Publication date 2007
Media type Print
Pages 304
ISBN ISBN 0-141-03043-7

The Islamist is a book about Ed Husain's (full name Mohammed Mahbub Hussain) five years as an Islamic fundamentalist. Husain became an Islamist at the age of sixteen, but "rejected fundamentalist teaching and returned to normal life ... after much emotional turmoil". The Islamist was published in May 2007.

Contents

[edit] Overview

In The Islamist, Husain describes becoming an Islamic fundamentalist at 16 and "five years later, after much emotional turmoil", rejecting "fundamentalist teachings and returned to normal life and my family." Husain says that his book explains "the appeal of extremist thought, how fanatics penetrate Muslim communities and the truth behind their agenda of subverting the West and moderate Islam."

Husain writes that in the early 1990s he was associated with Jamaat-e-Islami, East London Mosque, Young Muslims Organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Society of Britain. Although some writers have described him as a former terrorist or jihadi, Husain does not write of any association between him and terrorist organisations.

In the mid-1990s, Husain writes that he became disillusioned with Islamic groups in the UK and became fond of Hamza Yusuf and Nuh Ha Mim Keller. After a period working for HSBC, Husain works for the British Council in Damascus where he learns Arabic. He later works for the British Council in Jeddah before returning to London after the July 7 bombings.

Husain criticises Islamism and argues that the desire for the re-establishment of an Islamic caliphate is borne out of an alien, Wahhabi or extremist interpretation of Islam. (However others argue that the concept of the Islamic State or caliphate has been well documented in Islamic theology.) [1].

Husain writes in The Islamist of his former association with Inayat Bunglawala, Dhiren Barot[citation needed] and Omar Bakri Muhammad.

In the first few chapters of The Islamist Husain argues The Islamic Foundation and Ghulam Sarwar, director of the Muslim Educational Trust, are extremist. Sarwar's book, Islam: Beliefs and Teachings, was "The first book I read about Islam in English. [2] It "filled a gap" because prior to it his knowledge of Islam had come orally from his family.

He had been taught that Islam and politics didn't mix, but Sarwar's chapter "Political System in Islam" preached that politics within Islam was fundamental. That became the "one part of the book has stayed with me."[2]

Husain goes on to say that he later felt misled by Sarwar. "What I did not know at school was that Sarwar was a business management lecturer, not a scholar of religion. And he was an activist in the organisations that he mentioned Muslim Brotherhood and Jamat-e-Islami]. Sarwar's book was not the dispassionate educational treatise it purported to be." and that "He was also the brains behind the separation of Muslim children from school assemblies into what we called 'Muslim assembly', managed by the Muslim Educational Trust (MET) [of which Sarwar is the Director]. What seemed like an innocuous body was, in fact, an organisation with an agenda. In my school, a Jamat-e-Islamic activist named Abdul Rabb represented the MET and awarded us trophies and medals for our performance in MET exams. Ostensibly it all seemed harmless, but the personnel all belonged to Jamat-e-Islami front organisations in Britain. Their key message was that Islam was not merely a religion but also an ideology that sought political power and was beginning to make headway." [2]

[edit] Reception

[edit] Positive

The book has been called "much-praised."[3]

The Sunday Times described the book as "insightful and gripping".[4]

Martin Amis wrote that "Ed Husain has written a persuasive and stimulating book."[5]

The Times columnist David Aaronovitch argued that "Husain's account is not sensationalist, tending more to understatement than to hyperbole." [6]

Anushka Asthana of The Observer wrote, "This captivating, and terrifyingly honest, book is his attempt to make amends for some of the wrongs he committed. In a wake-up call to monocultural Britain, it takes you into the mind of young fundamentalists, exposing places in which the old notion of being British is defunct."[7]

The Daily Mail columnist and author of Londonistan, Melanie Phillips says Husain "should be applauded for his courage" and displayed "intellectual honesty and guts".[8]

According to John Gray of the London School of Economics, "The Islamist is first and foremost a riveting personal narrative, but it also carries a powerful and - for some - unfashionable message. Particularly among the new army of evangelical atheists, there will be those who see his story as another proof of the evils of faith schools and of religion in general. Yet Husain did not finally sever his links with Islamism by becoming a militant atheist and converting to an Enlightenment faith in humanity - as secular fundamentalists urge. He did so by rediscovering what he describes as 'classical, traditional Islam', which includes Sufi mysticism"[9]

[edit] Neutral

  • Brian Whitaker, who was Middle East editor of The Guardian for seven years, concludes his review by writing that, "The tricky question is what, in the hothouse of youthful politics - whether at Oxford, in Liverpool or east London - leads some to violence while others, like Ed Husain, end up writing books about it. Ed doesn't seem to have an answer, and I doubt that anyone else really knows either."[10]

[edit] Critical

In contrast to praise he received from mainstream reviewers, Islamists and some leftists have been highly critical of the book:

  • In The Independent, Ziauddin Sardar, complains of what he sees as Husain's "reductive extremist," first embracing "the extremist cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad, and ... the atrocious Hizb ut-Tahir", and then going in the opposite direction blaming multiculturalism "for the radicalisation of Muslim youth". He goes on to dismiss Husain's book saying "The Islamist seems to have been drafted by a Whitehall mandarin as a PR job for the Blair government."[11]
  • Writing in The Guardian, Madeleine Bunting, argues that "Husain's book will be used in many debates - the future of multiculturalism, whether infringements of civil liberties are necessary to combat terrorism, what parts of Islamist histories from Asia and the Middle East a British Muslim community needs to jettison. One suspects the naivety which took him into Hizb-ut Tahrir has blinded him as to how his story will be used to buttress positions hostile to many things he holds dear - his own faith and racial tolerance, for example. A glance at the blog response to a Husain piece in the Telegraph reveals how rightwing racism and anti-Islamic sentiment are feasting on his testimony."
  • A commentary page piece in the Guardian by Riazat Butt accused Husain of having been a peripheral character whose association with Islamic groups in Britain occurred over a decade ago. "He is happy to reinforce stereotypes and justifies this by saying he knows what inspires terrorists - the likely inference being that his book is an educational tool. But Husain was not a terrorist and his account is dated and misleading. The groups he mentions, and their modus operandi, are more fluid and sophisticated now. Husain provides no new answers and no fresh information. The activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir and their ilk have been well documented already. I have to ask why, when his experiences are firmly based in the 1990s, this book is being published now and is being greeted with an adulation that is both embarrassing and unwarranted."[12].
  • In his blog [13], Islamic researcher Yahya Birt criticises other reviews of the book in the mainstream press noting that they were "quick to draw sweeping and general conclusions about today’s situation, even though the heart of this book is really about the early Nineties." Birt goes on to say that "While this personal memoir is a must-read, offering with authority and nuance an insider’s view of the context that shaped the period, it is not a definitive analysis." He opposes Husain's stance on banning Hizb ut-Tahrir, and Husain's mischaracterisation of the positive work of the East London Mosque.
  • Another blog by Muslim writer Andrew Booso [14], claims that Husain "shows a serious inadequacy of knowledge regarding theology and Sacred Law as expounded by the masters through the ages." Booso is critical of Husain's criticism of Islamism and challenges Husain's assertion that the Caliphate is associated with an extremist interpretation of Islam. Booso argues that the divine obligation of the Caliphate is a "standard, orthodox belief expounded and endorsed by the jurists throughout time."
  • Yet another Islamic activist blogger asserts that Ed Husain’s appearance, has been orchestrated by pro-war groups and individuals within the media connected to the government and New Labour.[15]


[edit] References

  1. ^ John O. Voll: Professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University
  2. ^ a b c The Islamist, pp 20-22
  3. ^ How Mohammed became Ed
  4. ^ The Sunday Times, April 29, 2007, Confessions of a former fanatic
  5. ^ The Times, May 5, 2007, Martin Amis reviews The Islamist
  6. ^ May 08, 2007, David Aaronovitch , The bishop and the Islamist: a cautionary tale
  7. ^ A true Islamic voice, Anushka Asthana, May 6, 2007
  8. ^ April 24, 2007, Another brave Muslim speaks up
  9. ^ John Gray, The Pathology of Faith
  10. ^ Bank of fundamentalism
  11. ^ Reviewed by Ziauddin Sardar, 1 June 2007
  12. ^ How Mohammed became Ed
  13. ^ The Islamist: A Review
  14. ^ review
  15. ^ ‘Ed’ Husain’s family Pir « WELCOME TO TRADITIONAL ISLAMISM

[edit] External links

[edit] See also