When Ed Husain taught English in Syria, his students had many questions about life and politics in his home country in the United Kingdom. One question, he found particularly telling:
Many of my students asked why, if Britain was not an enemy of the Arabs and Muslims, did it give shelter to the Arab religious fanatics who wanted to kill and replace political leaders of the Arab world. Why was Britain home to Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada, and Omar Bakri, rejects of the Middle East?
It was darn good question, and Husain was particularly well placed to answer it. A Muslim of Bangladeshi descent, Husain spent much of his youth as an organizer for Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a radical organization which sought to create an Islamic state. His thought-provoking memoir The Islamist describes his involvement with "the Hizb" and other Islamic fundamentalist organizations, and his eventual disillusionment.
Islamism, according to Husain and many of the radicals to whom he was once devoted, is as much a political ideology as a religion. Gulam Sarwar, one of the first Islamists with whose work Husain became familiar, made that very clear:
Religion and politics are one and the same in Islam. They are intertwined. ... Just as Islam teaches us how to pray, fast, pay charity and perform the Haj, it also teaches us how to run a state, form a government, elect councillors and members of parliament, make treaties and conduct business and commerce.
Indeed, Husain notes, many of his fellow radicals seemed more interested in political power — gained through intimidation, thuggery, demagoguery and, not infrequently, violence — than promoting their faith. "We were too tired to pray," he notes. "Establishing the Islamic state was more important than minor matters such as praying, reciting the Koran, giving to charity, or being kind to our parents and fellow Muslims."
Article comments
1 - Rich Rostrom
Yes, it's possible for a devout Moslem to be not a violent Islamist. That's not sufficient. Even today, the vast majority of Moslems are not violent Islamists. The problem seems to be that Islam consistently generates violent fanatics in non-trivial numbers. It's arguable that the text of the Koran offers so many justifications for violence as to make this inevitable.
There are over 1 billion Moslems; 1% of those going Islamist is 10 million terrorists. If there is a 1% chance that a food product is contaminated, it is discarded. If there is a 1% chance that an airplane might crash, it is grounded. Can the world tolerate a religion if even 1% of its adherents become "mad dogs"?
But wouldn't be unfair to the peaceful 99% to suppress it, in gross violation of freedom of religion?
2 - ?????
Every Living Person Has Problems
3 - ?????
Every man is the architect of his own fortune.
4 - kvov
All that ends well is well.