I was invited as a guest, along with Ed Husain (Quilliam Foundation) on Islam Channel’s ‘Politics and Media’ show – or so I thought.

As it turned out, Ed was not happy to be on a live show with me. His voice broke, his face screwed up with disdain, and the whites of his eyes were plain to see as he retorted, “I’m not going on if he is”.

Ed was apparently upset at my previous post about him, Maajid and Hasan Butt on this blog. I assured him that he had nothing to fear, and that if he truly believed what he said – why not debate them? After all, I had no hard feelings about Ed calling me an ‘extremist’ on national television!

All to no avail. After Ed threatened to walk away, the presenter decided that he would rather have Ed on the show than me, and herein lies the folly of ‘enagement’ – or to be more precise, conditional engagement! It seems that Ed will only ‘engage’ on his terms. That is, Inayat Bunglawala (the co-presenter) cannot be present, nor anyone else who can counter his arguments! So much for democratic debate.

And this is not the first time that Inayat has been ‘sacrificed’. At the recent ‘Living Islam’ camp (by ISB), Ed was also a guest panellist in the ‘Question Time’ debate. His appearance was again apparently conditional on Inayat Bunglawala’s absence from the panel.

So what led the Islamic Society of Britain and others to sacrifice their ‘own’ for a one-way discussion with Ed? Has ISB forgotten Ed’s remarks about the Prophet Muhammad? Or his ‘comical’support for the Iraq war? He was for the war against Iraq, but stopped supporting it after the first innocent Iraqi was killed! Can you imagine the naïveté? Ed, you really should not believe what you read in those comic books!

For what possible motive has ISB, and others like the Radical Middle Way, overlooked these transgressions without challenge or debate, and capitulate to an open endorsement? Has any of the Islam-bashing been publicly retracted by Ed without us noticing?

It cannot surely be in the interest of free speech and debate. After all, Ed ensures that doesn’t happen. And for all those believe it was good to have included Ed on the panel discussion, so he could face the barrage of disapproval, jeering and boos, I have one question. When have Muslims ever supported Ed? Did they applaud when he called the Hadith (prophetic tradition) that prescribes the [Hadd] punishment for adultery as ‘barbaric’? They never did, in case you wondered.

All that has been achieved is ‘credibility’ in the eyes of Ed’s patrons, ie the government which now formally funds his think-tank. It was the same government that tried to bolster the ‘credibility’ of the Quilliam Foundation and others like the Sufi Muslim Council, and ensure that they in turn had the ability to launch initiatives such as the ‘theology board’. Only then, can they claim “it was the Muslims themselves that asked for it”.

I have a feeling that the true reason for the likes of ISB and RMW ‘endorsing’ Ed Husain [et al], is between wanting to be ‘accepted’ by the government themselves. Their fear of being isolated by the government or losing funding opportunities makes them feel insecure, or they actually believe the ‘heretical’ views that Ed and Maajid espouse.

The question is – which is it?