The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has written an open letter to the Guardian criticising their decision to cover the soon-to-be launched Quilliam Foundation, a thinktank dedicated to countering Islamic extremism in the UK.
The letter, written by Inayat Bunglwala, the MCB's assistant secretary-general, additionally queried the article's claim that UK Islamist groups have previously declared their moderate opponents "apostates" and attacked the Guardian writer's decision to quote Usama Hasan, one of the group's advisors, in the article. It also criticised the Quilliam Foundation's members for supporting government anti-terrorism measures.
The letter raises important questions about the MCB's own commitment to tackling Islamic extremism.
Inayat Bunglawala has previously written vitriolic criticisms of Ed Husain, the deputy-director of the Quilliam Foundation, accusing him in one article of being a racist and attacking his description of Hizb ut-Tahrir as extremists.The same article, however, also helps explain the reason for Bunglawala's anger - namely that he sees Ed Husain and those like him as a threat to Islamist organisations like the MCB:
"In Husain's worldview, 'political Islam' = 'extremism' = 'Islamists'. And who exactly does Husain identify as 'Islamists/extremists'? It is not just the pre-1996 Omar Bakri-led Hizb ut-Tahrir, but also the Young Muslim Organisation, Islamic Forum Europe, UK Islamic Mission, JIMAS, the Muslim Association of Britain, the Islamic Society of Britain and the Muslim Council of Britain, amongst others. In short, many of the most active and dedicated Muslim organisations in the country."
Bunglawala's opposition to the Quilliam Foundation suggests that the MCB already views the nascent organisation as a serious threat to their influence and a challenge to their claim to represent and speak for all British Muslims.
This indeed raises very important questions and brings under the spotlight the MCB's commitment to tackling Islamic extremism.
They will probably say "why do we have to do it?" as if it is not their responsibility,and as such they should not be afforded a voice.
They have shown their hand now and we can hear them loud and clear.
Thank you MCB for illustrating what most of us suspected of you in the first place.
I think Ed Husain's initiative is much to be welcomed. Ideas, as he appreciates, are very powerful. Political Islam is much more dangerous to social cohesion than a handful of radicals who push it to terrorist conclusions. But the slow attack on Britishness that Islamists mount, and their pushing for exclusive 'Muslim' rights goes far beyond the freedom of religion that is willingly accorded in a liberal society.
MCB and MAB are mischief makers who are intent on a programme of the Islamisation of Britain: 3% dictating to 97%. This is a form of neo-colonialism and it is bound to sour inter-community relations. If they wish to live in a 'truly Islamic' society there are plenty on offer furth of the UK, like Saudi or Pakistan.
Bunglawala gave it away completely when, twice on TV and at least once in print, when shown the hate literature found by Policy Exchange last year, instead of leaping at the opportunity to condemn the material, he instead claimed it was perfectly legal. Only a committed extremist would choose to do that, especially when he is at pains to describe himself and the MCB as 'moderates'.
I think there is also some basic jealousy at work here: the MCB were once a media and political darling; the first point of call for politicians or journalists wanting a "Muslim voice". A whole series of events conspired to cause the MCB's fall from grace (its connections to dubious Pakistan-based political groups being just one of them) - now Inayat sees the rise of a new organisation that is gaining column inches and positive political influence and he's simply jealous.
Let's be honest. The MCB does not represent the Muslims in Britain - and how can it? The British Muslim community is more diverse in its views than the rest of the country put together (owing to their different ethnicities and countries of origin).
Despite all this, we should be careful not to give too much credit to the Quilliam Foundation who are a group of individuals foolish enough to be duped by Hizb-Tahrir in the first place, and are now all confused about their identity, as is clear from their contradictory discourse. Asking for a return to 'traditional islam' and wanting a new secular British Muslim identity is a contradiction in terms. These QF gentlemen are confused.
The only thinkers making real progress in actually creating a British Muslim identity are reformist scholars such as Tariq Ramadan. What's needed are foundations like this one but run by people who know the social dynamics of Western Muslims, hence can offer real insights into how to overcome terrorism, rather than giving these undeserving, frankly ignorant people the limelight.
Just let us muslms grt on with out lifes- why cant people accept muslims as they are. If you want to talk about terrorism than do so- dont mix it with our Islamic culture and then bring it all into question.
An excellent and detailed critique on the Quilliam Foundation and their secularist thought has been done on
http://islamic-considerations.blogspot.com/
There is an excellent critique of Quilliam at:
http://islamic-considerations.blogspot.com/
It's one of the most detailed and comprehensive I've seen...