Frequently Asked Questions – A Candid Response

Many of the questions below may seem incredulous to most people. However, the rumour mill of the Islamist underworld in Britain, featuring agenda-driven meetings, lobbying of Muslim scholars, character assassination attempts and slander is underpinned by the assumptions that produce the following questions:

What is your definition of Islamism?

The modernist attempt to claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that the Shari'ah equates to state law, and it is a religious duty on all Muslims to create a political entity that reflects the above. Islamists are of varying shades, and differ in exactly how to bring about this utopia. Most are socially modern yet politically extreme. Islamists usually hold some contempt for Muslim scholars and sages; disdain for most normal Muslims, and a hatred of the West. In short, Islamism is the belief that Islam is a political ideology.

Are all politically active Muslims Islamists?

No. Many Muslim democrats are involved in politics without sharing the above ideology. Instead, they follow their conscience in choosing their political allegiances. We encourage Muslims to engage in politics as citizens - who happen to be of a certain faith - representing all fellow citizens, not as ideologues with a Muslim-centric approach.

Are all Islamists terrorists?

No, but in the context of Islamist terrorism, most violence emanates from those who aspire to an Islamist agenda. Please see bbc news article. 

Jihadists fight to realise the Islamist ideology. Non-violent Islamists provide the mood music to which suicide bombers dance. Finally, Islamists provide a narrative that justifies terrorism.

Are all conservative Muslims Islamists?

No. Despite their raising a host of other social questions, most conservative Muslims oppose Islamism. In juxtaposition to Islamists, the same anti-modernity that informs the conservatives' opposition to modern Islamism is also reflected in their social conservativism.

It has been suggested that Abdullah Quilliam was an Islamist. Are you naming your think tank in the memory of an Islamist?

Islamism emerged with Hasan al-Banna's Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s. Further developed by al-Mawdudi and Qutb it was crystallised by al-Nabhani in the 1950s. Abdullah Quilliam, a politically active British Muslim, lived in the nineteenth century during a time of empires and colonial conflict. He was not an advocate of Islamist supremacism.  He did not claim that Islam was a political ideology, nor did he share the methodology of Islamists. To suggest that he did is not only anachronistic and disingenuous, but also a failure to understand the tenets, history, and politics of Islamism.

For fuller analysis, please read here.

It has been said you have no grassroots support – how do you respond?

We are a think tank, we do not aspire to being a representative body and do not actively seek mass support. Our aspiration is to inspire new thought-trends for existing grassroots bodies.

Despite this, our activities have been supported bravely by mainstream Muslim institutions and scholars, despite extremist intimidation.  And in coming months, greater co-operation with normal Muslims at grassroots level will become apparent. The vast amount of supportive correspondence we receive bears out this fact.

Why have you abandoned Palestine?

We have not. Repeatedly, in private and public meetings at the highest level (nationally and internationally) we have highlighted the Arab-Israeli conflict and the need to help both sides come to an agreement.

Hamas has a duty to halt politicking with the lives of ordinary Palestinians, and Israel must limit their military. Criticising the targeting of non-combatants, on either side, does not equate to siding with one party or the other. Muslims should and do care about other conflicts and issues in the world, including Burma, Darfur, climate change, poverty, and gender inequality.

Ed Husain, one of your co-founders, is a neocon. What do you say?

Ed in his speeches (e.g RSA lecture, 1 May 2008) has spoken out against neoconservative supremacist tendencies and called for Muslim contributions to Western history to be recognised. He does not believe in the supremacy of the West (or the East for that matter) and has argued for the best aspects of all cultures to be preserved. That flies in the face of neoconservative tendencies that assume Western superiority over other cultures.

Finally, our director, Maajid Nawaz, has responded directly to those whose last refuge is crying 'neocon' when all else has failed.

Why do you engage in Muslim-bashing?

We do not. The focus of our criticism is Islamists not normal Muslims. Islamists, by merging religion and politics, cannot see this distinction. We believe in standing for justice, even if against our own selves (Koran 4:135). Globally, Muslims are in a deep socio-political malaise that warrants public analysis. Having said this however, as citizens we are also keenly self-critical of our own country's policy errors. Open debate and discussion should not scare anyone. Our noble Prophet counselled us to, 'speak the truth, even if it is bitter'.

Why is Conservative MP Michael Gove one of your advisors?

Michael has defended Islam and Muslims at places that are beyond the remit for most British Muslims. He is a vociferous critic of Islamism, not Islam. Our other advisors include Lord Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats. We also have several Labour party associates, as well as Muslim and non-Muslim scholars from various denominations.

The Quilliam Foundation is politically non-aligned and we are therefore proud of all our advisors.

Who funds the Quilliam Foundation? The UK Government?

In fact, no. We started the foundation with generous donations from Muslim individuals in Kuwait, Egypt, and Britain.  We remain grateful to them for their support. Their kindness contributed to the impact of our launch. However, some of our donors have been the victims of our success. Just as our Muslim advisors and their family members have been harassed and intimidated by radical Islamists in Britain, their counterparts in the Arab world have threatened business interests of our donors and their extended families.

Moreover, our vocal criticism in Qatar of Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi's stance on suicide bombings, and our condemnation of extreme Saudi Wahhabism resulted in our funding being stopped from our Gulf resources.

So who funds you now?

We are identifying new sources in Britain and abroad.  We will welcome contributions from individuals, institutions, and multi-national organisations, provided we retain our independence.

Are you opposed to funding from the UK Government?

To date, we have not accepted any 'government funding'. Moving forward, we state for the record that we have no objections to utilising no-strings-attached funds from fellow taxpayers for a good cause. Is that not what good government is about?  Strangely, many Islamists who peddle this as a charge against us have been amongst the largest recipients of government monies to date. Others seem to have no qualms receiving social security services, working for the civil service or receiving higher educational grants, which do involve highly restrictive application criteria. Muslims must begin viewing this government as our own government, which is a custodian of our taxpayers' money.

Did you ask permission from Muslim scholars before publicising their names as advisors?

Yes, all of our advisors were asked by our directors in person. Many spoke at our launch. Their ongoing support and advice remains a source of inspiration for us.

The Quilliam Foundation
22nd May 2008