Muslim Traitors-The enemy within

[Showkat]

Salaams

The accusation of traitor is a big one indeed.

Ed Hussain has written a book which I have read, in it he betrays private conversations he had with people. In Islam it is forbidden to betray peoples trusts.

He attacks the concept of Khilafah as an expansionist state. Question is how was Khilafah established and by whom and how did it spread?

He seems to have a problem with this issue.

If there are problems amongst Muslims and Islamic groups, lets resolve it among ourselves and not by writing books attacking each other and being used as a pawn by the enemies of Islam.

Do some research to find out which non-Muslims are happy with these guys.

As for Majid Nawaz and everybody else, as and when they do anything against Islam, then we as Muslims have a duty to account them, even if it means calling them what they are " Western Agents".

[sufisticated]

Ed Hussain has written a book which I have read, in it he betrays private conversations he had with people. In Islam it is forbidden to betray peoples trusts.

i agree. yet i would also expose such conversations if they posed risk to the greater well-being of muslims, and society in general. clearly that is his intention. regardless of what you think, some of the things being said 'behind the scenes' in these political groups is horrendous.

He attacks the concept of Khilafah as an expansionist state. Question is how was Khilafah established and by whom and how did it spread?

He seems to have a problem with this issue.

the commonly held idea that an islamic state is expansionist that aims to govern the world is quite easily challenged from the primary sources, and secondary and the statements of the ulama.

If there are problems amongst Muslims and Islamic groups, lets resolve it among ourselves and not by writing books attacking each other and being used as a pawn by the enemies of Islam.

my feelings exactly. yet, writing the book will reach a lot of muslims, which 'internal' discussions don't reach. as for the enemies of islam, they have their agenda regardless of ours.

you seem to forget or even deny that there extremists out there whose agenda and philosophy is damaging to islam, is a threat to the general welfare of muslims, and destroys any dawah work which is done in the west.

extremism really is a cancer.

Do some research to find out which non-Muslims are happy with these guys.

i don't really care which non-muslims are happy. let them - i am more concerned about the welfare of society at large, and that included non-muslims for me.

As for Majid Nawaz and everybody else, as and when they do anything against Islam, then we as Muslims have a duty to account them, even if it means calling them what they are " Western Agents".

and what about the political groups - they need accounting also.

[xii]

did mr ed join the labour party?

[asifmohammadabbas]

Traitor is a very big accusation - Allah says "Oh believers abstain from suspicion, for indeed much suspicion is a sin. And spy not." (49:12)

What worries me is the strange opinions being attributed to Husain and Nawaz. Husain has said that Muslim women can marry non-Muslim men. He has said that Islam has no role in politics or governance. A brother also told me that Husain and Nawaz have said that there is difference of opinion on the prohibition of homosexuality and the obligation of the hijab. Husain has openly said that the "Islam of 2,000 years ago" [sic] is no longer applicable and that it must be modernised. Apparently, Husain and Nawaz were together at Hamza Yusuf's event at Friend's House last weekend.

This sudden change of heart over these issues strikes me as a little odd.

I note that both of them are from SOAS - is this a neo-orientalist attack??

[Ahmed]

im with this guy

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...65&postcount=3

[leonidis]

I went to college with Mehboob aka Ed Hussain.

It is ludicrous for him to say he 'radicalized' an entire college. He had neither the charisma nor the wherewithal to be an effective dawa carrier.

Do not be fooled by his pseudo intellectual speech and garbage philosophy. The man is an ignoramus of the highest order

As for being a member of HT the man is a fantasist. Certainly he had designs to be something big within the rank and file and he would loiter around the likes of Farid Kasim and OBM like a groupie, but a member, never!!

His ambitions in becoming a HT big shot failed but like a latter day St Paul, the desire for status and recognition remained. Armed with his furtive yet highly flawed insider knowledge he branched off in his own direction, willing to sell out to the highest bidder. The fact that HT recognised their internal problems and threw out OBM pretty much scuppers much of what Mehboob has to say anyway.

The same cannot be said of Maajid Nawaz. Here is a man who has suffered for his beliefs and is honest and sincere to a fault.

Sincerity alone doesnt equate to being correct and it remains to be seen what will emerge from all this, but with regard to his sudden shift in direction it is important to first hear him before casting any aspersions.

[Muawiyah]

the commonly held idea that an islamic state is expansionist that aims to govern the world is quite easily challenged from the primary sources, and secondary and the statements of the ulama..

That the Islamic state is ordered by Allah to enforce the Deen all over the world, by force if necessary/possible. This can be clearly seen in Jihad sections of classical fiqh books. For example see.

Risala Ibn ABi Zayd

Hanbali Fiqh

Now if this makes the Islamic state "expansionist", so be it. Let's not forget Bush is trying to "make a new Middle East" which is nothing other than spreading secularism by force, similarly the Soviets/Communists did not shy from trying to spread communism by force. It is usually characteristic of anyone who truly believes in any political idea that he would not hesitate to spread it by force.

The only thing that the Muslims in west need to make clear is that they themselves have treaties with Western governments (whether explicit or implicit) that prevent them from commiting violent activities against western forces (or civilians, which is haram anyway).

[mohammadislam]

"As for those who sell for a small price the covenant and faith they owe to Allah and their own plighted word for a small price, they shall have no portion in the Hereafter. Nor will Allah speak to them or look at them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He cleanse them: They shall have a grievous torment, a painful doom." [3:77]

The huge coverage given to the book by the former Islamic activist Ed Husain has got me thinking. After reading the book it was clear to me that he was a troubled soul – on a journey through the radicalism of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahreer he ends up doubting his own faith and even contemplates leaving Islam for Buddhism or Christianity. Still confused, he starts teaching English at the British Council and rediscovers what he describes as "traditional Islam". He later returns to the UK and decides to write a book cataloguing his experiences and urges the Government to move strongly against Islamists'. The 'Islamists', according to him, are the greatest threat facing all Muslims and non-Muslims in the UK he argues.

Muslim writers and bloggers including Andrew Booso, Yahya Birt, Faisal Haque, Yusuf Smith, Ziauddin Sardar and Inayat Bunglawala have concisely articulated the deficiencies of Husain's rather simplistic analysis. Earlier this week, Husain made a brief appearance to defend himself against the criticisms levelled against him on DeenPort, however he soon departs, with dozens of questions left unanswered. Husain argues that the people who have asked him questions have no adab and anyone who disagrees with him is accused of harbouring some hidden 'Islamist' affiliations. This was no surprise as Husain had earlier suggested suspending registrations on the discussion forum in order to "facilitate discussion"! One Muslim on DeenPort correctly observes that "either you're with him or you're an extremist". It is not surprising then that even Ziauddin Sardar accuses Husain of being a neocon who wants "everyone locked up".

Interestingly, Ziauddin Sardar writes that Husain's book, "seems to have been drafted by a Whitehall mandarin as a PR job for the Blair government." He is the first writer to openly articulate this possibility. While some readers on the Muslim blogs have labelled Husain a traitor, Sardar is the first to suggest that the book may have actually come out of Whitehall and in effect been 'ghost written' for Husain. However, other writers have noted that the book perfectly fits Blair's narrative of 'ordinary decent peace loving Muslims' vs. a tiny minority of 'Islamists' who desire Shariah, the destruction of Israel, etc, etc.

In the light of these comments I want to raise the following points:

(1) We cannot underestimate the actions that the Government are taking with respect to the Muslim community. Is it that surprising that some Muslims will be used to infiltrate Islamic groups, not only to provide intelligence, but to leave at an opportune moment amidst a blaze of publicity? Of course, many Muslims leave one Islamic group or another, but generally they rarely decide to sell their story to the highest bidder or seek to divide the Muslim community. Those who have become disillusioned with the 'Islamic scene' tend to just fade away and those who have genuine disagreements tend to move on to pastures new.

(2) The suggestion that Husain may have had some association with Government is not without foundation. Aside from him joining the Labour Party and supporting the Iraq war, in his recent interview with the New York Times, Husain explains that he has been approached by British government officials to join their "anti-extremist efforts". In an interview with Sky's Adam Boulton, Husain does not deny Boulton's suggestion that he has been called in by "Gordon Brown or government". Given his previous association with Islamist groups and his work for the British Council, he would have been ideal material for recruitment.

(3) The other aspect which tends to lend weight to the suggestion that Husain may be close to the Government and security service is not only his insistence on banning Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahreer, but his stated aim at dividing Islamist groups into moderates and extremists and his attack on other leading Muslims and organisations. In November 2006, on the DeenPort forum, Husain writes, "Even within HT in Britain today, there is a huge division between modernisers and more radical elements. The secret services are hopeful that the modernisers can tame the radicals. And hence the suspension of any ban. I foresee another split. And God knows best. Ya Rabb! I have said more than I should on this subject! Henceforth, my lips are sealed!" So he alleges that there is a "huge division" between modernisers and more radical elements and suggests that the security services are working for a split in the organisation. In a more recent thread, Husain writes of Hizb ut-Tahrir, "Allah is opening a window of opportunity for their hidayah. There is a major development within Hizb ut-Tahrir that will lead many of the more thoughtful activists to reconsider their worldview and relationship with mainstream Islam and Muslims. Once news breaks within party ranks of what is happening within their leadership, some of the Hizb people will be receptive toward traditional Islam and may well leave their brand of radical Islamism." Then on the same thread on 2nd May 2007, Husain writes, "Maajid Nawaz has left Hizb ut-Tahrir. And there are several others inside waiting to escape, but waiting for the right moment and reason. Don't ask me how I know. Until last weekend, Majid was a member of the Hizb's National Executive Committee in Britain. Some of you may remember him from the media coverage of his imprisonment and release from his four-year prison sentence in Egypt. Huge reverberations within the Hizb as to why and who is else is next etc. Ideal moment to engage with HT people, particularly those on the Jalaludding Patel wing of the group."

(4) Continuing with the theme of trying to foment divisions within Hizb ut-Tahreer, with respect to Majid Nawaz, a former member of Hizb ut-Tahreer, Husain has claimed that Nawaz is linked to him and that Husain influenced Nawaz's decision to leave Hizb ut-Tahreer. In an interview with altmuslim.com, Husain says, "In this, I'm backed by Majid Nawaz who, alhamdulillah, recently left Hizb-ut-Tahrir partly as a result of conversations we had about these issues, and more importantly, his exposure to traditional Islam in all its diversity. Soon, Majid will speak publicly and I ask Hizb members and others to listen and learn from Majid's wisdom, knowledge, and experience. Now the good news is that Hizb-ut-Tahrir has proven in Britain that it can change and when pressure is applied it has changed. And I'm hopeful that this pressure that's on them now - exposing those core fascist values - that exposure will cause them to change those ideas and come on board the mainstream Muslim caravan." In an interview with Husain by the New York Times, Husain said that Nawaz would soon go "public with the reasons for his departure, and explanation he hopes that will cause a stir like his own." It is hard to tell whether Husain is being entirely truthful about the reasons for Nawaz's departure from Hizb ut-Tahreer – however if Nawaz does come out with his own "kiss and tell" story about his time with Hizb ut-Tahreer, seeks to exacerbate divisions within the Muslim community or if Nawaz is closely associated with Husain, then this would place huge question marks in my mind over Nawaz. A poster on sunniforum.com has suggested that he saw Husain and Nawaz at last week's Hamza Yusuf event in London. He also alleges that Husain and Nawaz have been arguing that the scholars differ over the Islamic prohibition of homosexuality. In any case, I am sure that Husain will not be the last person to write his 'Islamist' memoirs.

(5) Andrew Booso has rightly argued that the divine obligation of the Caliphate is a "standard, orthodox belief expounded and endorsed by the jurists throughout time." Husain has said that he does not accept the concept of the Caliphate or an Islamic State. He misrepresented Shaykh Hamza Yusuf by alleging that he said that there was "no such thing as an Islamic state". When questioned on DeenPort as to whether the Caliphate was fard kifayah, as discussed by the classical scholars, Husain says that he does not discuss in terms of fard ain or fard kifayah. Husain writes that the Islamic state "is not a rukn of the deen and without it the deen is not lost. An individual can remain a firm believer, a mutadayyin, without the imam and the jama'ah." However, the classical scholar, Sa'd al-Din Mas'ud bin Umar al-Taftazani, wrote, "There is consensus that appointing a Caliph is obligatory. The difference of opinion is on whether the appointment must be by Allah or by his servants, and whether the basis (for appointment) is textual evidence or rational proof. The adoption is that it is obligatory upon the servants by textual evidence because of the saying of the Messenger, "Whoever dies not having known the Imam of his time, dies the death of the days of ignorance." Also, the Ummah agreed that this was the most important duty following the death of the Messenger, so important in fact that they considered it more important than the matter of his burial, and so also has it been after the death of each Imam."

(6) Although Husain has focused a lot of his attack on Hizb ut-Tahreer he has also attacked other Muslim groups including the Muslim Council of Britain, the Young Muslims Organisation, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Islamic Society of Britain. He also attacks the Salafi movement and the Ahl-e-Hadith. He criticises the Islamic Foundation, Regent's Park Mosque in London and the East London Mosque. In fact, in an article in the Observer he alleges that worshippers at East London Mosque have threatened to kill him. Not content with attacking these organisations he has insulted the ulema and the mashaikh by twisting their opinions and misrepresenting them. So he said that Sheikh Hamza Yusuf (may Allah protect him) legitimises the marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men and he wrote that the other mashaikh denied the idea of the Khilaafah in Islam. He has also attacked the journalist Yvonne Ridley. In his writings on DeenPort he questions whether she is really a Muslim, asserting that she "converted to Islamism and not Islam". He goes on to write, "Ridley is an extremist, a cheer-leader for terrorists…Shun Islamism, accept Islam." Is Husain not aware of the Hadith of al-Habib (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), “If a man calls his Muslim brother kafir, it applies to one of the two.” (Bukhari)

Brothers and Sisters!

Those who sell their Deen for a small price, tarnished traditional orthodox Islam the day they decided to become popular amongst those who enjoy the humiliation of the followers of Al-Habib. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf was correct when he said that the fastest way to get a book published was to attack Islam and the Muslims. There can be little doubt that Shaytan runs from the word of truth. We must ask why it is that Shaytan and his followers amongst the men and the jinn are running in support of those Muslims who have chosen to become popular? In the name of addressing 'Islamism', the haraam has been made halaal and there is no sense of outrage at eating the flesh of one's own brothers.

It is time for you to wake up to this web of propaganda, lies and deceit which is targeting our entire community. Don't you remember those in days gone by who sold their Deen for a small price? Do you not see the efforts to tarnish Islam from within? Do you not see the efforts to divide the Muslims amongst themselves so that their ranks remain disunited?

Is it not the case that the propaganda of Husain and those who follow him is being used to attack Muslims, not Ikhwan or Tahreer or Tabligh or Young Muslims, but Muslims? It is the people of La ilaha illallah who are now on the receiving end of the attack from right-wing Zionists and the neo-Nazis of the BNP who are using these misguided Muslims as a platform to attack Muslims. From our recent history in Bosnia and Gujarat, it is never long before words are easily translated into aggression.

Our community needs to stand united against this propaganda – irrespective of being Sufi or Salafi, Ikhwaani or Tahreeri, Tableeghi or Barelwi, we must realise that first and foremost we are Muslims. Was it not the case that Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, a Sufi and an Ashari criticised Ibn Taymiyyah but said that Ibn Taymiyyah had a right to the opinions he arrived at because of his level of knowledge?

Why is it that Shaykh Hamza is willing to share platforms with well known Salafis such as Dr Usama Hasan and Shaykh Abu Muntasir, while it is clear they do not believe it is fard to follow a madhab and ascribe to Ashari/Maturidi theology'? Is it because these differences can swiftly be put aside at a time when Islam is under siege?

As for those Muslims who wish to sell their Deen for a small price, remember that Al-Habib Rasoolallah (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said, "Indeed a servant speaks a word (which is pleasing to Allah) to which he pays no attention and for which Allah elevates him many grades. And indeed the servant speaks a word (which is displeasing to Allah) to which he pays no attention and for which he shall fall in Jahannam." (Bukhari)

In conclusion, I am reminded of the saying of the famous Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, the author of Risale-e-Nur who wrote, "To forget and abandon internal enmities when foreign enemies appear and attack is a demand of social welfare recognized and enacted even by the most primitive peoples. What then ails those who claim to be serving the Islamic community that at a time when numberless enemies are taking up positions to attack, one after the other, they fail to forget their petty enmities, and instead prepare the ground for the enemies' attacks? It is disgraceful savagery, and treason committed against the social life of Islam." (The Letters, 318)

Sue

http://sumayyahevans.blogspot.com/20...-deen-for.html

[Muawiyah]

Masha Allah - May Allah increase the writer in khayr.

[sufisticated]

good article with valid concerns

Husain has said that he does not accept the concept of the Caliphate or an Islamic State. He misrepresented Shaykh Hamza Yusuf by alleging that he said that there was "no such thing as an Islamic state".

the 'islamic state' proposal from HT is certainly open to debate. i have heard many ulama question this.

When questioned on DeenPort as to whether the Caliphate was fard kifayah, as discussed by the classical scholars, Husain says that he does not discuss in terms of fard ain or fard kifayah. Husain writes that the Islamic state "is not a rukn of the deen and without it the deen is not lost. An individual can remain a firm believer, a mutadayyin, without the imam and the jama'ah."

this latter statement is true. one can practice his deen fully with an unjust ruler.

However, the classical scholar, Sa'd al-Din Mas'ud bin Umar al-Taftazani, wrote, "There is consensus that appointing a Caliph is obligatory. The difference of opinion is on whether the appointment must be by Allah or by his servants, and whether the basis (for appointment) is textual evidence or rational proof. The adoption is that it is obligatory upon the servants by textual evidence because of the saying of the Messenger, "Whoever dies not having known the Imam of his time, dies the death of the days of ignorance." Also, the Ummah agreed that this was the most important duty following the death of the Messenger, so important in fact that they considered it more important than the matter of his burial, and so also has it been after the death of each Imam."

interesting you mention the oft-quoted hadith by HT. yet time and time again i have heard ulama mention that the 'death of the days of ignorance' refers to the one who has not pledge allegiance to an imam if he is in existence. the obligation rests on the people of influence in society - (clearly not the awwaam in the modern world - perhaps possibly so in madinah at the time of Rasul ). today we would be talking about politicians, scholars etc.

secondly, the tools of islam have to be applied to the modern world. all of these classical scholars were living at a time when a sultan existed. the scenario is very confusing today. nevertheless, revolutions, military coups and so forth are out of the question.

thirdly, what contribution and what role to do we as muslims in the west play in terms of building an 'islamic state' in a muslim country thousands of miles away from us? our concern should be having true representation on a local level and working for the betterment of society around us. that is something we can easily work for.

Not content with attacking these organisations he has insulted the ulema and the mashaikh by twisting their opinions and misrepresenting them. So he said that Sheikh Hamza Yusuf (may Allah protect him) legitimises the marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men and he wrote that the other mashaikh denied the idea of the Khilaafah in Islam.

shaykh hamza yusuf mentioned that a non-muslim lady, married, if she embraced islam while her husband remained a non-muslim, could stay married to him, if he was supportive, or the harm of divorce would put a strain on her/him leading her to leave islam, him to avoid islam. interestingly he permitted this to one lady, whose husband later embraced islam. but you are right, our friend 'ed' still misinterpreted the shaykh (or misquoted him)

mufti ali jumu'a did openly challenge the idea of an khalifah extending across thousands of miles with one ruler, and said that alternative forms of governance are permitted.

He has also attacked the journalist Yvonne Ridley. In his writings on DeenPort he questions whether she is really a Muslim, asserting that she "converted to Islamism and not Islam". He goes on to write, "Ridley is an extremist, a cheer-leader for terrorists…Shun Islamism, accept Islam." Is Husain not aware of the Hadith of al-Habib (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), “If a man calls his Muslim brother kafir, it applies to one of the two.” (Bukhari)

I don't see where he made takfir of sister Yvonne. at the same time, sister Yvonne needs to watch her adab on occasions. she has indirectly referred to shaykh abdallah bin bayyah and shaykh hamza yusuf as 'happy clappies'.

just some comments. brother 'ed' has made valid points. but generally, his whole approach and the majority of his conclusions are utter garbage.