Is the call for a ‘British’, ‘European’ or even a ‘Western’ Islam, still a call for Islam?
The advocates of these usually assert that Islam, as practised by all the varied constituencies, has become cultural, and lost its way or purpose for which God revealed the last message to His beloved Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.
If this premise is accurate, then is the call for a ‘geographical’ Islamic renaissance any different from the renaissance called upon by ‘Salafi’, ‘Sufi’, ‘Jihadist’, ‘Islamic Movement’, ‘Tablighi’, ‘Traditionalists’ and others? After all, these groups use the same premise that Islam has become cultural, or lost its purpose depending on which banner you choose to stand under?
The reason I raise this, is to help us focus on issues and respond more accurately. I do not subscribe to the ‘collateral’ theory that we in the West like to use, where the mentality is ‘any means necessary’. I choose instead to describe events as they are, be it murder or terrorism and apply it equally to those that carry it out against innocent people at wedding parties or those that carry it out against innocent passengers on the underground.
It is this clarity and balance that is missing from the discourses we often hear or read about. In all of this the value of human life seems to be different for both sides, the West is incessant about asking Muslims to condemn every act of violence, yet it fails to do so itself, rather it chooses its words carefully and betrays its two-faced policy. In turn, the Muslims that condemn these acts of violence never seem to quite make the mark – until it also condemns certain other practices. These include Jihad itself, the need for a Caliphate, aspects of the Shari’ah and of course support (even spiritual) for the oppressed Palestinians.
With good intention, sometimes we are ‘knocking’ people due to our lack of understanding and sophistication in sifting the positive from negative. Our love for our religion sometimes makes us rebuke genuine discussions and efforts – without any sound Islamic principles.
Of course the Quilliam Foundation ilk are obvious contenders to be refuted, ignored and marginalised, since their premise is not a call back to Islam but away from it, with the tools of shaytan. But can we say the same about those that advocate the Salafi, Sufi, Tablighi Dawah or even those that promote the Hizbut Tahrir (HT) Dawah?
We must be careful to not get caught up in the trap laid down for us to create divisions and rancour amongst ourselves. Methodologies should be robustly debated and refuted where necessary, and we must expose those methodologies that are not part of our religion categorically. The politics (small p) between different Dawah groups need to be tempered and our focus should be on the issue at hand. HT, in my view, has changed from its past, It does not call for disengagement from wider society, this should be a good enough reason for us to welcome them more to the mainstream and ask them to put their money where their mouth is by engaging where it matters.
Further, HT’s position on various Islamic principles is not different from Salafi, Sufi or Islamic Movement – so aiding those neocon zealots to ban HT will indeed be a slippery slope for all. Instead what we need to do is define the criterion we could all use to keep focus. It will of course be based on Qur’an and Sunnah – but we need to break this down a little more.
Our measuring tools should include those aspects of Islam that are not negotiable. One wonders if there is a need for another Aqeeda Tahawiyah moment? After all – wiping over the socks was not intended to form part of our articles of faith – yet it did so for good reason. Of course this is easier said than done, but what other alternatives do we have?
Does it not make sense for us to pen and explain the fundamentals of our religion and ensure that we are equipped with the right tools to distinguish genuine renaissance from the nefarious ones?
I’m assuming this is in response to Asif’s comments in the other post? I’ve got no problems with people changing their opinions.
If what Asif says is correct – I also believe that the main faction is HT has changed for the better and welcome it.
But to be accepted into the mainstream they need to acknowledge their past mistakes and all the silly and sometimes outrageous policies. Not asking for them to beg just a simple ‘yes, we did say that and now know it was wrong’. It’s a bit like tawba – where to have any chance of forgiveness – one needs to acknowledge the wrong actions.
That also doesn’t mean every other group is angelic! The ‘Islamic Movement’ acknowledge that Maududi was wrong to say that Prophets were not Ma’sum (free of sin). That was just an error, which doesn’t reduce the many good aspects of his scholarship and leadership.
Similarly HT acknowleding its past mistakes would not stop it making positive contributions in the future.
Too much assumption is bad for you Abdullah! No this is something that I have been thinking about and it seemed appropriate to express it now.
As for the conditions you mention, it’s all well and good – but for me it is not a show stopper. Of course any un-Islamic comments made will need to to be taken back!
I believe there is a very strong need to explain the fundamentals ’so that we can distinguish genuine renaissance from the nefarious ones’. I wish the scholars would take up this role and be more clear in providing guidance on complicated and sensitive matters. But then again, the fundamentals are fundamentals, they can be grasped and understood by any Muslim.
The danger that the enemies from within represent is the ability to guise something as Islamic when it really has no basis in Islam. It is also to create a debate in issues where there really isnt any debate. Moving the goalposts, so to speak, so far that you actually miss Islam itself!
As long as the call and mathodology does not contravene Sharia and principles of the Qur’an and sunnah, then it is from the beautiful shades of Islam…
A very good article brother Azad! Indeed, sometimes differences can lead to extreme reactions from all sides. One thing the Quilliam Foundation has done is allow us to reflect. It has made the agenda of the government as clear as the sun! What a blessing from Allah!
Dear Brothers,
one thing that i have noticed is that the PVE (prevention of violent extremism) has now become PE (prevention of extrmism). What that means is that the government is making it clear now that the funding to our community is now for a broader agenda to change islam – to attack the parts of islam that are not compatible with liberal western values and label these things as extremism.
The question i have is should we take this money from this pot designed to bring about a ‘british islam’? maybe we just take money use it to extend our masjid?
Jzks for your kind words all.
As for PVE becoming PE – I was thinking the same! Taking the money is not the issue to b honest – its what you do with it that matters. But this needs to be further discussed.
[1]
I also wish to bring to the attention, Minab an organisation that has been found in the corridors of the home office – initially created with intellectual guidance from think tanks such as RAND and now some parties who contributed to the development of this organisation such as MAB are battling to keep it independent. it’s likely they will fail to keep it independent and thus potentially they have created a monster for the muslim community. what do we do next?
[2]
What about the gov sponsored muslim theology board something which is quite widely rejected by muslims.
see http://islamineuropa.cafebabel.com/en/post/2008/07/22/UK-government-proposes-Muslim-theology-board or http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7512626.stm
who are the faces behind the theology board?
I think we need to realise that HT has not changed in terms of its principles and ideas. HT still believes that voting is haram in this country (Britain), still believes in the estabilishemnt of a Caliphate in the Muslim World, still believes that democracy is Kufr and that Islam and democracy are completely different.
What has changed is the style rather then the ideas, concepts or method. Whereas historically maybe HT would not have performed a particular style, it might be used today. The reason I say this is because it seems from the article that HT have compromised on their ideas and concepts which is just not the case. This is evident from their literature which has not changed since it was founded.
Secondly we need to keep this “British, European” Islam in its correct context and discussion. Its not the traditional Islamic groups who are trying to find a ‘new’ Islam rather it is this government with its proxies (QF & Sufi Council) trying to carve out a new Islam which has no Jihad, Khilafah and Shariah (that is why HT is at the forefront of the attack because these are things HT normally talks about.) It just has the personal aspects and we need to becareful on this issue because the way the government is going to enforce this is via the PVE where it will only give this funding to groups and people who ascribe to certain key targets which the government has and this has been made quite clear by MP Hazel Blears. So we need to becareful of any funding people and groups recieve from government.
This is something I congratulate Hizb ut Tahrir on where it completely funds itself without any assitance from anybody, group or government apart from its own members. This is something Muslims can learn from.
No Islamic party, mosque or organisation should align itself with the government or take money from it. Just like scholars should remain independant, institutions of Islam should also do the same.
Brothers,
When I read this:
The question i have is should we take this money from this pot designed to bring about a ‘british islam’? maybe we just take money use it to extend our masjid?
I get worried. I truly feel that our religion must adapt to where we live. Are we not British?
As long as we separate our national and religious identity, we are creating trouble.
Do you, for instance, think that it would be better for Britain to be turned into an Islamic nation?
Assalam alaykum
Let’s not concentrate on HT too much and keep our focus on what I see a very important discussion raised by brother Azad Ali. I agree with the brother, HT is like all other groups, they don’t believe in voting and are anti-democracy but so are many salafis and believe me or not some Sufis too. I believe these to be difficult and testing times, times in which we need to aid and support eachother, find common grounds. We all need to make more effort to listen to what people from different groups are saying and positively engage with them which does require lots of patience. Islamic movements and groups are all changing very quickly, their methods and styles, all of which requires for aware muslims to keep up with to know who is going where and where is genuine ‘renaissance’.