Uniting Against Extremism - Homeland Security Policy Institute

Maajid Nawaz speaks at the HSPI, George Washington University
11th July 2008

In an event moderated by Frank Cillufo, Director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI), Maajid spoke at length about the process of radicalisation and de-radicalisation.

He spoke of his experiences in Egypt and with particular focus on his time spent in the same prison complex as Sayed Qutb, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Maajid spoke of his interaction with those who conspired to assassinate Anwar Sadat with Istanbuli. He explained how Qutb's text, 'Milestones', whilst being an inspiration and source book for Jihadists, was really the Islamist 'Das Kapital'.

Maajid contrasted his experience of the US with that of Qutb's version of the US and the 'Jahili' society that Qutb presented based upon it being in direct contradiction to the Islamist ideal. It was in contrast to this that the message of the Quilliam Foundation, Maajid explained, that Islam, rather than an alien ideology, was a faith, a religion that was and is compatible with the West. The conflict lies with Islamist narrative, and Islamist ideology - a distortion of Islam - something the Quilliam Foundation seeks to illustrate by refuting Islamist ideology, and facilitating the development of a Western Islam.

After this introduction - Maajid delivered a detailed exposition and explanation of Islamism. He explained how it was a thoroughly modern idea, an 'irrereligious manifestation', though it claimed religious authenticity. Maajid mentioned the title of a forthcoming Quilliam publication authored by Maajid, 'Islamism - the Last Man-Made Ideology' - an ironic title as Islamist reject anything 'man-made' - such as Capitalist and Communist ideologies, yet their own ideology is built on modern "man-made" paradigms.

Maajid explained that throughout history Muslim religious code/s (Shariah) developed independent of government and state power,and never were any of these schools (madhahib) adopted as state law - except in rare occasions and, even then, not as a religious duty. He cited the example of Imam Malik, one of the founders of the Muslim law schools, where he was approached by the Caliphs several times and asked whether he should make Malik's book - the Muwatta the law of the land, and Malik refused, saying leave the people to follow the religion as they understand it. So the idea that Shariah is state law or should be adopted as state law, is 'ahistorical' as it was never the case. The rulers ruled according to the manner they saw fit, in the interests of the country and its people. Today, unfortunatelt the above notions have become widespread and it is often assumed that these are the normative positions of Islamic discourse. In a similar manner, debates such as "Western Vs Islamic concepts of sovereignty" are still heard today - whilst in reality, according to Maajid, this was an anachronistic debate - as there is no Islamic concept of sovereignty and the whole debate itself is a modern debate. Yet it has become the default position even within academic and political circles.

Most Muslims do not subscribe to Islamist ideology, the voice of the organised minority has overcome the silent majority.

Where have these notions arisen from? Maajid explained that the seeds of the above idea i.e. of an Islamist nation state, with an Islamist constitution, and Shariah as state law, arose towards the end of the Ottoman Empire. It was in this period that the Ottomans attempted to synchronize their adoption of a constitution and statutes, and develop a system based on 'laws', that the initial attempt at drafting a guidebook based on the Hanafi school of legal interpretation took place. This was the Majalla project - which was attempted but failed and eventually the Ottoman State itself collapsed. It was this failed attempt though, that left the seeds of Islamism, and the Islamist project proceeded from there. Prior to this, the Ottomans had a millet system which embraced pluralistic legal schools of all different religions within the empire.

Maajid explained the Islamism went through an evolutionary development. Starting with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, which continued the idea of ruling by the Shariah, with the Shariah and the Quran as the constitution of the state. It was then further developed by Hizb ut-Tahrir and Taqi ul-Din al-Nabhani, who explained that the Quran and the Shariah were not the constitution but were rather the sources of the constitution, and the sources of the law to be adopted by the ruler. What was also important, Maajid explained was, the fact that Nabhani was from an Arab Socialist background, and therefore Islamist ideology took on the shape of Socialism with a heavy state aspect, with state controlled policies and economy etc.

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) was the vanguard party which embraced this ideology, which had set certain core aims; the overthrow of every Arab regime and replacing them with a single Islamist entity (the Islamist super-state termed the caliphate); the destruction of Israel and the conquest of the rest of the world in order to rule the world according to Islamist ideology.

It was HT's ideology that defined the whole world as Dar ul-Harb - it was Qutb's interaction with HT in prison, that influenced his thinking and he included the dar ul-Harb paradigm within 'Milestones'. This was fundamentally what allowed Islamists movements to then justify the forceful overthrow of all regimes in the Arab world and in fact outside of it. HT may well not advocate militant activities but they do advocate the military overthrow of such regimes. Terrorism was just a tactical difference i.e. create your own army and military to take over the regimes as opposed to HT's infiltrate the military and use them to overthrow the regimes. It is this ideology which justifies Jihadist activities, as the whole world is a zone of war, it is a fine line between using and converting existing force and creating and using your own.al-Qaeda and Jihadist movements were inspired by HT and embrace the same ideology, with the same world view, the same political perspective and the same mind-set.

Maajid explained, that though there were those like Gama'a al-Islamiyah (the largest Egyptian Jihadist terrorist group which has denounced Jihadism and then opted for Islamism and a very austere form of Wahhabism) and Dr Fadel, formerly a leading al-Qaeda cleric, has rejected and denounced Islamist ideology - Wahhabism was not the answer to Islamist extremism. It was Wahhabism that lead the revolt against the Ottoman State, and therefore when it is argued by them that you must raise arms against your rulers, it would appear problematic. Also the notion of ruling by Islam is still latent within the Wahhabist mindset in many cases - though not all.

What was the Quilliam Foundation's response? Maajid explained that fundamental notions of sovereignty, state, state law and constitution and political Ummah formed the key tenets of Islamist ideology which required refuting.

Maajid explained that the words sovereignty, state and constitution did not even exist in the taxonomy of classical Islam and were not to be found in the Quran and the Sunnah (prophetic sayings). They were modern ideas and therefore it is completely unacceptable to make takfir (excommunicate) people on the basis of rejecting "Islamic" or rather Islamist forms of these ideas.

He re-iterated the ahistorical notion of 'Shariah' being 'State-Law' as being a modern, irreligious idea. He explained how in Islam, God had not set down punishments for sins, and therefore it was not from Islam to equate legal with halal (Islamicaly permitted) and illegal with Haram (unacceptable). This was in fact an innovation in religious terms and considered by many as a heresy.

The notion of 'Ummah' (nation) as meaning the political community of the Muslims. rather like the international proletariat movement, served and protected by the 'State' was more in common with Socialist Communism than Islam. The Prophet Muhammad, in Medina described all who signed the famous 'document of Medina' - polytheists, Jews and Christians, as one 'Ummah' i.e. a political community and social entity was completely at odds with this.

It was these ideas, that formed the foundation of Islamist ideology, and were the ideological pull factors towards Islamist terrorism - and it was to combating these ideas, recognizing them, refuting them that Muslim and non-Muslims of all faiths can stand together as a family of humanity.