Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad is perhaps the most significant British Muslim leader around. It is too bad that so few people know about him. Now that he has launched the Cambridge Muslim College, which is designed to train "local" specialists in Islamic knowledge who are able to "celebrate their identity" as British and Muslim, he should be given his due and treated like a national asset.

The Cambridge Muslim College is an important initiative for three reasons. First, as a Quilliam report recently showed, most of the imams in British mosques are foreign-born, and disconnected from the people they represent.

Second, the situation with the imams is dire, such that until last year the UK was considering importing imams from Pakistan. Not a good idea.

The third reason has to do with Islam's crisis of authority. Islam, like Judaism, is a juridical religion. It has a longstanding legal component to it. When average Muslims start taking the religious law into their own hands it usually results in the politicisation, or bastardisation, of the religion – everything from ideological movements to regressive puritanical cults spring up. That is when untutored demagogues like Bin Laden and Bakri Muhammad strike.

Murad has long argued that in order to represent Islam, one must be steeped in the long history of Islamic law, which always pays attention to social nuance. Bringing that ethos to his college will go a long way in creating a better, more British, culture among Muslims. It will produce leaders that Muslims won't be embarrassed about and who probably won't give much fodder to the tabloids. They will probably shout less.

I have never spoken or communicated with Murad. I read his writings in the mid-90s when he began posting his articles on the internet – compiled here by Masud Ahmed Khan, a Guardian contributor. In those early essays Murad critiqued Wahhabism and the poison of extremism. Murad's basic argument, embedded inside a lot of hyperbolic prose, was that fanaticism had a deleterious effect on one's spirit and that it distanced a Muslim from God.

This message, stripped down, was an extremely effective way of talking to young Muslims because they were in a very confused place. On one hand they wanted to be seen as good, pious, God-fearing types; but on the other, the only people who were around to talk in the language of piety were those who sought to manipulate the kids for political or ideological benefit. By telling young Muslims that extremism was tantamount to impiety, all while showing them Islam's long history of spiritual learning, Murad gave youth, especially boys, an extremely effective mechanism for resisting those who tried to turn them into fanatics. I would be curious to hear what Muslims who became all-out Islamists, like Shiraz Maher, thought of Murad. My guess is that they either ignored him or were taught to demonise him. What is clear, however, is that without Murad there would have been more Mahers.

Murad remained true to his message after 9/11. "Terrorists are not Muslims," he wrote shortly after the attacks. His condemnation of the hijackers was immediate and loud – and he was perhaps alone among the Islamic intellegentsia in arguing that the hijackers be excommunicated. It was a tricky position for him to hold because moderate leaders usually avoided throwing Muslims out of Islam (arguing instead that every Muslim can be saved). Murad definitely took a hit among some Muslim circles for taking such a hard line. They disparagingly began calling him a neocon.

More recently, it is Murad's name that occurs at the very top of an open letter by British Muslims which strongly condemns anti-semitism.

Despite having taken such open and courageous positions, Murad's work has remained ignored by most media, an oversight which has prevented his work from gaining a foothold in mainland Europe and the US. Instead, quite absurdly, young Muslims are encouraged to emulate non-Muslims and rightwing hacks.

I am not arguing that Murad is infallible or that he should be venerated like a living saint. He has held some curious positions. His view of Islamic history is romantic. He puts too much emphasis on evangelism. His social conservatism would not fit very well with the left. His reading of modernist Muslim thinking is unfairly dismissive. Some of his followers have needless tension with some Salafis.

However, on the important religious questions – Muslim extremism and politicisation of Islam – Murad has been right more consistently than any other Muslim leader in the western hemisphere. He identified the increasing extremism among western Muslim youth and diagnosed its causes before most. He has condemned conspiracy mongering, arguing that "wild denunciations of Great Satans or global Crusader Conspiracies are ... not only dangerous, but are also discourteous". Most important, he has argued for "de-ideologising" Islam, a position that puts him directly at odds with those who want to make Islam a political project bankrolled by extra-national syndicates.

When, long ago, I graduated from college, I stopped keeping up with Murad regularly, but I think now I will check in from time to time to see how his college is doing. The school seems to be off to a good start. It takes no government money. It is non-denominational. In addition to Islam, it offers coursework in the history of science and Western intellectual thought. To lay a foundation for the future it is offering 10 full scholarships. It is, in every way, a welcome part of the future of religion in Britain.

He's not an Imam, he's a scholastic academic who has studied under Muslim teachers, but has not competed the dars-i-nazami, and therefore has no authority to issue judgements on Muslim issues according to ahl-as-Sunnah wa-jamaat maddhab. Or train Imams.

"However, on the important religious questions – Muslim extremism and politicisation of Islam – Murad has been right more consistently than any other Muslim leader in the western hemisphere."

Why don't we celebrate his achievements as a visionary, Muslim leader - we badly need pro-active Muslims like him who are 'doers' rather than 'critics'! Personally, I think his initiative at founding this college should be applauded - we need more schools like this around the world.

A number of problems with this article, most especially:

1. the source cited to show that "most of the imams in British mosques are foreign-born, and disconnected from the people they represent." is a very very discredited one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5549138.ece

while the conclusion may not be new, a 1 million pound govt. paid to a "think-tank" to reach said conclusion for policy reasons clearly cannot claim independence much less legitimacy.

2. Murad and his own gang of "moderates" at the "Radical Middle Way"

http://www.radicalmiddleway.co.uk/scholars.php?id=1&art=1

are in the exact *same* position as the discredited "Quilliam Foundation", getting govt. subsidies to reach conclusions and conduct actions for policy goals:

" The Radical Middle Way initiative has received funding totalling £350,000, of which £250,000 was provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and £100,000 by Home Office."

source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm061204/text/61204w0034.htm

British govt. Strategy to Police British Muslims leaked:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/musl-j03.shtml

3. The problem with this is that like a crack addict or welfare mother, you enter into a cycle of dependency on the state to conduct your actions and form your opinions. If your actions or opinions contradict the govt. they can always pull the plug, as Mr. Shiraz Maher openly advocated here:

"The RMW admits to being ‘primarily funded’ by at least two separate government departments and is then supporting a group who would rather replace our liberal democracy with a puritanical Islamist theocracy? That doesn’t strike me as the most effective way to spend taxpayer’s money."

source: http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/07/the-radical-middle-way-attacks-quilliam-endorses-hizb-ut-tahrir/

a. Shirah should know having fleeced 1 Million pounds from British taxpayers for Quilliam Foundation with ZERO achievements to date.
b. Muslim institutions and "scholars" if they claim to represent and speak for the community should be funded by local Muslims IN the community.
c. You cannot condemn "petrodollar wahabbis" for being promoted by the Saudi govt. while you in turn are being promoted and funded by the EMPLOYERS of the Saudis, the UK and US.
d. You cannot oppose controversial political legislation in regards to Muslims/Islam in the UK and still maintain your independence while doing so:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/17/counterterrorism-strategy-muslims

4. Lastly, this writer has NO grounds to condemn Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Stephen Schwarz, or David Horowitz for using the term "Islamofascism" the term was coined originally by none other than
Abdul Hakim Murad himself (in his hyperbole and rhetoric in condemning Syed Qutb):

"What (Syed) Qutb fails to inform his vanguard, however, is that the code of conduct he subsequently elaborated in his ‘commentary’ on the Koran matches that of Carrel much more than Muhammad’s own Traditions.’ The result is not an indigenous form of governance, but ‘a Third World version of Islamo-Fascism."

source: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/07spring/eikmeier.pdf

regards,
Kw

>>>> He's not an Imam, he's a scholastic academic who has studied under Muslim teachers, but has not competed the dars-i-nazami, and therefore has no authority to issue judgements on Muslim issues according to ahl-as-Sunnah wa-jamaat maddhab. Or train Imams.

Its easy to dismiss people who aren't part of the establishment. But when that establishment is at times duplicitous, self-serving or self-actualising, its up to people outside that establishment to effect change. No group can lay an absolute claim to dars-i-nazami or ahl-as-Sunnah without legitimately taking responsibility for its influence. Yet when you have a morality driven understanding of society then violence, poverty and discrimination can be made legitimate and pious, while integration, civil-rights and freedom of conscience are made impious. What kind of "authority" exercises such judgement and who gave them that "authority" in the first place? When you're only accountable to Allah SWT, who holds you accountable for your influence here and now?

Besides, what's wrong with getting your Islamic education at Cambridge or under a tree by yourself in a desert?

>>> c. You cannot condemn "petrodollar wahabbis" for being promoted by the Saudi govt. while you in turn are being promoted and funded by the EMPLOYERS of the Saudis, the UK and US.

Thanks for all the links. I do think however that you've reached some wayward conclusions. Mostly driven by pre-conceived ideas that aren't necessarily reflected in the articles. What is wrong with the British government co-opting people who aren't extremist, to defend itself? If divide and conquer means supporting people who are in favour of your policies, what does that make those Muslims who exclude the free participation of other Muslims in their institutions? The British government is throwing money at the local community. Not nearly as much into religious policing as the Saudi government, but enough for Muslims to use at their own discretion. If the community can't organise itself to jump at those resources for their own benefit, why would they be able to quell extremism themselves?

This funding is from the British Muslim public who have canvassed THEIR OWN government. This is not ill-conceived when you consider the background of the July bombings. The responsible way for holding the British government responsible is by letting them take responsibility for what is appropriately their responsibility. If Muslims want to be accountable to each other for religion, how should the government hold that community accountable for extremists in that community that want to usurp the rule of law?

Technically, the UK and the US employ everyone. Think about which industrys that aren't of western origin or don't pass through a western market. Where would people be working if it weren't for Western economy? Are all those people then considered complicit? Maybe I'm wrong, but if you want a socialist form of policy directed towards you with governments within governments, then you need to ascribe to that philosophy in full. You can't juggle individual freedoms on one hand and the right of society to organise independently of government, then blame government for alienating the community or be upset when the government purposefully affiliates with the groups that are most supportive of its national interest.

From the wsws site >>> One briefing says, “Muslim representatives should be challenged to work harder at improving their relations and image with other communities and to be more unequivocal in their condemnation of terrorism and espousal of democratic values.”

What an awful and evil challenge to Muslim leadership. Unequivocal condemnation of terrorism and espousal of democratic values .. noting that the UN has not made an accurate definition of terrorism and challenging the community is not the same as attacking the community.

"Its easy to dismiss people who aren't part of the establishment."

This is a daft comment on two fronts.

(1) I'm not dismissing him, merely pointing out he isn't an Imam and to imply the title of this piece amounts to misrepresentation, and
(2) In his whole manner, Timmy is indistinguishable from any other upper middle class elitist member of the Oxbridge establishment.

Okay, that sounds a bit personal. So judge the man by his works if you somehow think he should be taken seriously. Try out (if you can without laughing) his essay on Western feminism (actually a review of one book by Greer), his childishly spiteful review of Esack's first book, his sanctimonious videos, his arch anti-intellectual aphorisms (slogans) targetting all the things he disgrees with. I have. And I won't be going back for more, thank you very much.

>>>> I am not arguing that Murad is infallible or that he should be venerated like a living saint. He has held some curious positions. His view of Islamic history is romantic. He puts too much emphasis on evangelism. His social conservatism would not fit very well with the left. His reading of modernist Muslim thinking is unfairly dismissive. Some of his followers have needless tension with some Salafis.

>> (2) In his whole manner, Timmy is indistinguishable from any other upper middle class elitist member of the Oxbridge establishment.

I presume then that he is considered an Imam because he has followers. I assume that when you speak of an Imaam you imply that its someone who leads the prayers or has a congregation who has allocated him some form leadership. These issues regarding his views have been raised, but its obvious that dismissing the man is the same as dismissing the issues his raised and arguments posed in the article.

@kwaleed: >>should be funded by local Muslims IN the community.

Well, how then would Muslim institutions promote new ideas among the community when the community may not want to hear those ideas? Such in-house funding usually fosters stagnation or at least a very lethargic intellectual climate where the community only gets to hear what it wants to hear or already knows.

@Yakub: >>merely pointing out he isn't an Imam

Wait, so do we now have clerical bodies who certify clerics? I thought that old canard about Islam not having a vested clergy is crumbling? Don't mistake this for a defense of Murad, I'm simply uncomfortable with the whole idea of saying who is or is not / can be or can't be a leader of Muslims. I don't think going down that road is useful, because it in effect, calls his/her followers fools.

@khwaleed's point 4. Concerning Murad's invention of the term "Islamo-fascism."
"the term "Islamofascism" the term was coined originally by none other than Abdul Hakim Murad himself."

Stephen Schwartz, writing for The Weekly Standard in an article called "What is Islamofascism? A history of the word from the first Westerner to use it," dated 8/17/2006, claims he invented the term and first used in the days following 9/11/01.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/593ajdua.asp

@Yacoub Gura "I'm not dismissing him ...Timmy is indistinguishable...."

Using the diminutive of his birth name certainly seems in this context not to be a term of endearment. I suppose you are right...you are not dismissing him, but you appear to be insulting him. By all means, make your critique of his work. Avoid ghiba, which is to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike.

Hey, there are prominent Muslims whose writings and speeches drive me up the wall, too. That's how I know how hard it is to keep hold of my tongue when someone praises them. Just think, every time someone mentions them, and you say "la howla wa la quwatta illah billah" you get a reward for your dhikr and a reward for not backbiting. just sayin...

I'm simply uncomfortable with the whole idea of saying who is or is not / can be or can't be a leader of Muslims. >>>

When that becomes interesting is when someone presumes to have the authority to speak for a lot, or all Muslims, and then issues a fatwa which intends to compel the actions of all, many, most, or some Muslims. There was an interesting article in The Gulf News a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia "cracking down" on the number of people and the type of people issuing fatwas. Indeed. What if someone rises up and calls for a fatwa that ousts the ruling family, party, regime, from power. Do some Muslims feel compelled to answer the summons of every fatwa? It starts getting silly when you have hundreds on the airwaves from countless people with no authority or voice beyond their bullhorn and a few adoring fans.

Hey Akenanubis or Nifertiri:

I see your point except people in that part of the world are not literalistic per se. Not anyone issues fatwas. You will have your knuckle heads here and there who think they are the Messiah or whatever (time to send them to the funny farm). However in the West since Christianity is already compromised and we are in the post-Christian era in the Western world, its easier to point at Islam as being the stranger in a world of devoid secularism. Prior to secularism Europeans were killing each other over religion and continued to forge battling sects. That is why the colonies in the Americas turned out to be a safe haven for religious people who were considered (heretics, terrorists, extremists, fundamentalists) of their day.

But what is the consensus amongst the people posting here? That there needs to be an accrediting body with documented standards to become an Imam with the documents notarized at Kinkos? What standards do you see being practiced in Christianity today? Cafeteria style Christians or Jews who don't proselytize their religion? You are talking about almost like having a central authority figure with rigid standards, and then if that figure doesn't say what you want to hear then of course people will say the emperor imam is not qualified. Don't confuse secular tin pot Middle-Eastern dictatorships with Islam. 99% of those governments don't follow the religion. Its clearly mentioned in the hadith that scholars/Imams who lead people astray will go straight to hell fire.

>>>> It starts getting silly when you have hundreds on the airwaves from countless people with no authority or voice beyond their bullhorn and a few adoring fans.

It is clear that this issue of imamate actually runs deep into the meaning of this article. Who grants authority in the real world? Allah SWT certainly raises the station of people, but who then do we in the earthly realm take as our spokespersons and guides? Are we supposed to allow some natural system of leadership to form out of these schismatic culturally rooted factions, or do we instead find some harmony with the way the community is organised and the roots of our traditions?

I certainly don't think Murad is undermining anyones principles. If anything, he's actually acting in tandem with other community groups when it comes to the way he has mobilised himself. He has an exclusive set of principles, controls a certain amount of infrastructure and dictates his ideas from a one-man podium. Fit in or shove off. Quite ordinary. But certainly there is a good middle ground between having a thousand authorities and a disorganised parasitic community, and a single authority and an oppressed citizenry.

Omarg >>> Such in-house funding usually fosters stagnation or at least a very lethargic intellectual climate where the community only gets to hear what it wants to hear or already knows.

I think the issue of funding is secondary to the principles of the community. Money doesn't represent ideas unless we make it so. If you are part of a community and you have an unpopular opinion, doesn't make you less beholden to them or them less beholden to you. I don't think that the lack of an organised church body necessarily makes us less of an Ummah. And the more we fund and develop our own interests together, the better we serve our common interests and Islam too. I see it more as the citizenry petitioning its own government for assistance. Nothing untowards in that because it serves the community.

>>> Such in-house funding usually fosters stagnation or at least a very lethargic intellectual climate where the community only gets to hear what it wants to hear or already knows.

>I think the issue of funding is secondary to the principles of the >community. Money doesn't represent ideas unless we make it so. If >you are part of a community and you have an unpopular opinion, >doesn't make you less beholden to them or them less beholden to you. >I don't think that the lack of an organised church body necessarily >makes us less of an Ummah. And the more we fund and develop our own >interests together, the better we serve our common interests and >Islam too. I see it more as the citizenry petitioning its own >government for assistance. Nothing untowards in that because it >serves the community.

It is the hypocracy and inconsistency here that is rather interesting. When the Saudis fund mosques and 'sheikhs' to spout Wahabbism, further it as the authentic version of Islam, or further their geo-political interests it is howled and attacked (by the likes of Tim Winter no less) but yet when the same individuals take govt. funds from the very same govt. body that currently funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to promote parts of Islam suitable to the UK govt. and its interests all of a sudden it is somehow seen as "community work" and "charity".

Either have one principle and stand by it or stay silent.

regards,
Kw

>>>> the Saudis fund mosques and 'sheikhs' to spout Wahabbism, further it as the authentic version of Islam, or further their geo-political interests it is howled and attacked (by the likes of Tim Winter no less) but yet when the same individuals take govt. funds from the very same govt. body that currently funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to promote parts of Islam suitable to the UK govt.


I don't think so. I think the criticism of the Saudi spending (largely from government sources), is the direct effect it is having on indigenuous Muslim communities and its puritanical self-effacing authoritarianism. Not only are they undermining the global Muslim community heritage, they are espousing a singular and exclusive revisionist version of the Muslim identity. Carrot and stick analogies apply far more to them than this incidence and its a substantially bigger carrot and stick.

The British government has an objective of promoting a mutually beneficial relationship with its citizenry. The Saudi spending is being done in an effort to legitimise its orthodoxies hold over the holy sites of Islam and promote its political leverage over the Muslim public. The British government supports one view over the other and is open to discussion with its citizenry. With the Saudis there is NO alternative view.

http://savethehijaz.com/5/saudi-wahabi-s-destroy-heritage-in-yugoslavia-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6213179/Arabization-Changing-Face-of-Islam-in-Asia
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx;_ttnews[tt_news]=26185

"The British government has an objective of promoting a mutually beneficial relationship with its citizenry. The Saudi spending is being done in an effort to legitimise its orthodoxies hold over the holy sites of Islam and promote its political leverage over the Muslim public. The British government supports one view over the other and is open to discussion with its citizenry. With the Saudis there is NO alternative view."

this is incredibly naive and bordering on childish. EVERY govt. will seek to promote and publicize elements of a religious community which say/do what it wants to legitimize its actions under a "spiritual" cloak. It was the U.S. govt. after all who worked behind the scenes to promote the Saudis in Afghanistan and around the world during the Cold War to further the fight against Godless communism. The leaked details of "Contest 2" confirm that:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/extremism-arrests-police-liberty-central

the British govt. wants to impose a "British" version of Islam suitable to its interests and that does not challenge its foreign policy acts i.e. shameless support for the invasion of Iraq, U.S. stopovers for rendition flights, or any questioning of British backing and support for both American policies (which allow British contractors and military companies to make profits) and the state of Israel. Domestically picking and choosing a set of groomed lackeys who say and do what you want on television or in the press is not really sincere dialogue but is a facade to whitewash yourself of any blame or responsibility for your actions. It brings to mind George W.'s "we don't talk to enemies" pledge during his time in office. It is very well exposed here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/21/allmodcons

More substance and less hypocracy would be a good place to start in terms of approaching this issue.

regards,
Kw

@kwaleed: Yes, gov'ts always like to have agreeable allies to support their policy of the month. However, I think your assertion is not the full story and kind of overly cynical. I think governments also like to have their consitutent communities not blow up buses and subways, which is the job of every government. So, this is part of it, too.

>>More substance and less hypocracy

If you mean supporting Islamist politcal groups and advocating their goals, I wouldn't expect any Western government to support that. If they did, it would be time for a good old French-style revolution.

>If you mean supporting Islamist politcal groups and advocating their >goals, I wouldn't expect any Western government to support that. If >they did, it would be time for a good old French-style revolution.

Why wait? Why delay the start to the "revolution"? There is one person who *already* is working on it as he feels America is currently supporting such "Islamist" groups and is slowly being infiltrated and co-opted by them:

http://www.danielpipes.org/77/the-danger-within-militant-islam-in-america

http://www.amazon.com/Militant-Islam-Reaches-America-Daniel/dp/0393052044

Mr Gura,
If you are going to take pot-shots make sure you aim properly. The article on feminism was a review of a work by Luce Irigaray, not Germaine Greer! As for our correspondent from Chicago, I hate to rain on your parade, but the fact remains that your beloved Saudis are responsible for a large proportions of the problems being suffered by Muslims everywhere through their ideology and finance of that ideology. Oh, do try to avoid Sesame Street level conflation of Pipes with AHM: it only makes people think that you are terminally stupid.
Finally, Mr Gura, he is not Timmy nor is he inbred, but does speak English; some properties rare in Huddersfield. He also appears to have the support of very heavyweight sheikhs, eg. Habib Ali al-Jifri, Habib Umar bin Hafidz

Mr MilonS

You evidently come from the same school of upper middle class Tory condescension as Timmy. And let's face it, the way you all talk, walk, write and sneer the same is proof that you ARE ALL inbred!

And by the way, the Luce Irigaray essay is no less dreadful, and his review of Esack's book no less spiteful, for your hoity correction.

Blow the heavyweights. Give me an obscure Imam out of the limelight whose concern is for others rather than his own career any day of the week.