M A Q A S I D - مقاصد

Telling them What they want to hear:

The Quilliam Foundation is more than just about tackling terrorism, it is a whole broad trajectory of political views that fit into issues of community relations, integration and lifestyle choices. It is true that these different aspects may interrelate with each other, but there must be some evidence to correlate them, otherwise it is mere speculation and hearsay, based on prior prejudice or ideological commitments. Instead of demonstrating their link (how is wearing a jilbab or a kufi linked to terrorism?), the document makes blanket statements. Quilliam Foundation is more than a counter-extremist think-tank and holds, politically, right-wing (and some elements of the liberal left) views on integration, immigration and multiculturalism. For example, it recommends the interference in the lives of citizens. In the document “Pulling Together to Defeat Terror”, we read:

Encourage Students and Imams to wear clothes that ensure belonging to the main stream society and not Pakistani ethnic attire designed for a different climate. Islam requires modesty, not Arab or Pakistani clothing. We are not like Polish Jews that insist on wearing black clothes, unrelated to religion.

That is a strange recommendation, the idea that we should all look the same and appear the same, seems to come from a sentiment of self-identifying and other identifying, that often comes from a ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality, something which is often noted in New Labour i.e. authoritarian speak, which emphasises ’shared values’ and belonging. Just note how the document speaks of ‘western clothing, as opposed to ‘ethnic clothing’, a clear indication of how rudimentary the author’s thinking actually is (ironic since ‘Ed’ Husain often speaks of how ‘Islamists’ have an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality). I cannot comprehend how this has anything to do with terrorism and I doubt if ‘Ed’ Husain (the author of this point) can provide any evidence, he is simply noting his blinkered prejudices in the document. Another point, doesn’t Hamza Yousef and other Zaytuna Institute staff dress in what is termed ‘ethnic clothing’, would ‘Ed’ link their lifestyle choices to terrorism?!

Make up your Mind Majid

In this document Majid declares the idea “Dar Islam” and “Dar Harb” to be defunct. I quote from the document “Pulling Together to Combat Terror”

Explain religious texts of the past in their context and assess relevance to today’s world (for example, the invalidity of notions of Dar Islam and Dar Harb)

I find this a strange U-Turn from Majid, in previous writings he emphasises the importance of the ‘Dar paradigm’, that these classifications are important and not semantic. In fact, he claims that these terms are essential for the ideas of Hijra. Now he seems to say that these classifications are no longer relevant to today’s geo-politics!  Did he use the terms previously just to score polemic points? Maybe he should have been more coherent and refused the application of these ideas from the very beginning. But then Majid is not here to be coherent.

You must accept Israel

As stated previously, the document is not an anti-terrorism document and how to combat this phenomenon. Take the example of the state of ‘Israel’. the document states:

Liberal Newspapers should think twice before allowing column space to Hamas and its supporters while they remain committed to the destruction of Israel

The recognition, or lack thereof, of the existence of an ethnic supremist state is a political point, you will find groups from the left of the spectrum to ultra-orthodox Jewish groups, who now argue that such a state needs to be dismantled, due to its nature and the suffering it has caused. Many who would hold such a view do not necessarily advocate terrorism or suicide bombings, to conflate this difference, indicates political manoeuvring. Once again the document shows its political colours, it establishes links between terrorism, issues of integration, lifestyle choices and political opinions, despite no evidence being demonstrated on how they may link.

Interestingly, I wonder what is the position of TJ Winters (Abdul Hakim Murad) on the legitimacy of this Apartheid State? Maybe ‘Ed’ can provide an answer to the question.

Kosher names

The document then identifies which individuals are to be considered kosher (political McCarthyism):

Promote the works/scholarship of these Muslim academics such as Abdul Wahab Effendi and others who have illustrated with their publications that it is possible to be fully Muslim in a secular, religiously neutral society

Abdul Wahab Effendi, is a lecturer at the University of Westminister who is an avid secularist. I wouldn’t know how his opinions are especially outstanding in tackling terrorism. Once again the selective namedropping of certain individuals, positions the document as a political statement and not a ‘pulling together’ document on how to tackle the problem phenomenon of terrorism. It is saying — you must hold these views, adopt these lifestyle choices, to be accepted by the New Labour government, liberal literati and right wing establishment in Britain. As one journalist stated when attending the Quilliam launch “Well they are preaching to the converted here a bit really aren’t they.” The document tells them what they want to hear, and as such it is nothing more than a New Labour document, written and influenced by the New Labour member ‘Ed’ Husain. If anything it should be called ‘Pulling apart’, due to its political positioning and manoeuvring.

Dress Code and Religious separatism:

I want to return to this statement in the Quilliam Foundation launch document:

Encourage Students and Imams to wear clothes that ensure belonging to the main stream society and not Pakistani ethnic attire designed for a different climate. Islam requires modesty, not Arab or Pakistani clothing. We are not like Polish Jews that insist on wearing black clothes, unrelated to religion.

First, the Orthodox Jews dress in black due to religious motive, rather the mode of dressing is deeply symbolic. Let me quote:

Black is the color of Gevurah (severity), and thus is a symbolically appropriate garb for serious and important events (praying, holidays, etc.) Those who wear such clothes all week are thus indicating that their daily life is also bound up in divrei yirah shamayim [fearing heaven].

As for the Gartel:

It is required by the Shulchan Aruch (code of Jewish law) to have a separation between the top half of the body and the bottom while praying. Those who do not wear a gartel hold that other clothes satisfy the halacha; e.g., a regular belt or the waistband of his pants.

Individuals from ethnic minority communities, of the Muslim faith, can dress in something like a sharwal kameez for a variety of reasons, though little evidence exists to suggest it is due to any religious motivation, let alone religious separatism. Dressing for exclusivity and distinction however does have precedence amongst those of Salafi persuasion for example (among other schools of thought as well). However, how representative is this of the general Muslim community? Even if individuals should make these lifestlye choices, does the state have any right to encourage or intefere in how individuals should look and what dress they should choose from? Are these ideas even entertained for other communities? Why is this argument even related to terrorism, when speaking about Muslims, while for other faith communities, who may have similar attitudes, it is often left to issues of pecularities of belief among certain sections of the more ultra-orthodox?

The Quilliam Foundation by emphasising such ideas in their documents, simply recycle and feed into public prejudice on Muslims, in which the attitudes or dress of Muslims or even nominal Muslims can often be ascribed to religious separatism, and little else. Dress codes, which are often due to simple personal choice, fashion, tradition or comfort of dress, rather than religious separatism, are viewed or held with suspicion and even worse related to initiatives of counter terrorism! Now I do not know of any study that ‘Ed’ has cited to make this huge logical jump — that ethnic minority communities, that happen to be Muslim by faith, behave and dress in certain ways as to ghetto themselves from their wider society, due to their faith. This conclusion is simple blinkered prejudice from ‘Ed’, and many elements of the media love him for it! At last they have a native informant to state what they were to afraid to say, unless they be rightly accused of racism or Islamophobia.

The Quilliam Foundation continues to feed into this Anti-Muslim bashing that has become alarming in recent times, it is no suprise that the launch of the Quilliam Foundation was celebrated with acclaim from the liberal and right wing press.

www.traditionalislamism.wordpress.com