Over five years after 9/11, a slew of books have emerged to describe the social, religious, and political lives of Muslims living in the West, including non-fictional memoirs such as Imran Ahmed's Unimagined, and fictional stories like Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist. Books such as these have helped push the often uncomfortable debate about extremism forward from a Muslim point of view. But few of these books have caused as loud a debate as Ed Husain's "The Islamist", a book published by Penguin last month in the UK, Australia and (possibly) soon in North America. Husain's book documents his 1990's involvement in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the global movement pushing for a restoration of the caliphate in the Muslim world that is banned in many Muslim countries (though as much for challenging autocratic regimes as anything else) and in some European ones (for engaging in anti-Semitism). The book has drawn support from a number of prominent British critics of Islam and Muslims, notably Londonistan author Melanie Philips, who praised Husain's "honesty and guts." But it is precisely this support that has led to raised eyebrows among some British Muslims, particularly those in other politically-orientated Muslim organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain and, of course, Hizb-ut-Tahrir itself, both of whom have been dismissive of his analysis and conclusions (Husain argues for a ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which was proposed and withdrawn after the July 7th London bombings). Despite the criticism, Husain makes no attempt to temper the thrust of the book - a blunt warning against Hizb-ut-Tahrir's extremism - and the subjectivity of his own experiences and political transformation, as even his critics have acknowledged that the time of Husain's peak involvement with Hizb-ut-Tahrir to be the group's most volatile, spinning off the Al-Muhajiroun group and it's founder, Omar Bakri Mohammad by the late 1990's. Still, Husain is at pains to engage Muslims in the debate he has helped accelerate, emphasising his religious sincerity and his desire to broaden the public discourse, even at the expense of his own comfort. We spoke with Ed Husain recently to find out what motivated him to write about his experiences, why Hizb-ut-Tahrir hasn't changed enough, and... er, the most obvious question.

You've obviously titled your book "The Islamist," which is a bit of a loaded word these days. What is your definition of "Islamist" as you're using it in this book?

Ed Husain: In very broad terms, three things. Firstly, there's the rejection of 1400 years of Muslim traditional scholarship and re-reading of scripture with political lenses. Secondly, they advocate a world view that's based on eventually at some stage confronting the West. And thirdly, they reject mainstream Muslims and give us all sorts of labels such as 'non-practising Muslims', 'jahils', 'partial Muslims', and so on. Generally it's those three things and all of this is underwritten by the works of particular writers - to be more specific, Sayyid Maududi, Sayyid Qutb, Taqiuddin al-Nabhani and, in our times, Fathi Yaqoun, and so on.

It's a really important question, especially from a Muslim point of view because many Muslims confuse Islam with Islamism. The lines have been blurred and my qualm is with Islamism - the ideology that's been set up in the name of the faith - and not against Islam, the religion that our Prophet left us and which was developed by our scholars of all traditions - Shia, Sunni, whatever. My qualm is with Islamism and not with Islam. I think increasingly Muslims, thanks to Islamist propaganda, have failed to see the difference between the two.

Your experiences, of course, centre around Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the 1990's, which has been the group most discussed by the UK government and media in terms of extremism. One of the key things you talk about is how too little was done before 7/7. What are the practical things that could have been done to stem extremism from a Muslim point of view?

From a Muslim point of view, I think in the 1990's, we failed to articulate a clear understanding of Islam that resonated with young people who were born and raised here - my generation, Asian Muslims who were out of place in mainstream Britain as well as out of place in their ancestral homelands - Pakistan, Bangladesh, India. The whole understanding of Islam, the whole Barelvi-Deobandi divide, and the failure of our imams to articulate a form of Islam - and our failure to try and reach out to them and understand what Islam was as they understood it. Islam's been in India for a very long time, they have an understanding that's deeply rooted in their culture and a tradition of Islam that's in harmony. Well that generation failed to give it to us and we failed to reach out to them and try to understand it. That gap was filled by Islamists. So perhaps, more of that would have helped that understanding.

And also, in the mosques, our elders also failed to detect the likes of Omar Bakri. I remember going to lots of Barelvi mosques with Omar Bakri and doing Mawlid sessions, for example. Omar was clearly against all of that, but he was quite happy to talk about the Prophet in Barelvi terms in order to appeal to that generation. That older generation gave these people platforms as well in the 1990's. But then when they woke up - it's on record, people like Omar Faruq, a free thinker, from the Islamic Society of Britain in the mid-1990's, called for Hizb-ut-Tahrir to be banned but that call was ignored then.

People like Kamal Helbawi - I remember hearing him after a conference organised by the Islamic Society of Britain in Worcester. He was asked what he thought about about Omar Bakri and Hizb at the time. And his point of view, backed up by other Islamist leaders at the time - Rachid Ghannouchi was with him - they were saying at the time that Hizb-ut-Tahrir was nothing more than an MI5/MI6 front to subvert the Muslims.

And from a government point of view?

Even at the level of Islamist leadership - never mind ordinary Muslim leadership - at that level there were real concerns about Hizb-ut-Tahrir and those concerns were articulated to the government. And Tablighi Jamaat again and again made petitions to local councils in the sort of area that I was working in. But local councils and local government ignored us because there was this feeling that it's a problem in the Middle East. These dogs may bark but won't bite us here, so lets let them continue.

Leaders of Hizb-ut-Tahrir were quite confident that whenever the caliphate came about, people like Bakri would be the ambassadors of the Caliph here in Britain. Their impression was that Britain knew that this was inevitable and therefore Britain was giving Hizb-ut- Tahrir a head start. Looking back, there might be some credibility to that argument in that even now the Foreign Office is quite content to deal with Islamist organisations abroad, fund Islamist NGOs and so on, in the hope that if one day these guys come to power, particularly in Egypt, then the British government would have a head start, a track record of co-operation. So it seems to me that that sort of strategy was in place then, that as long as they don't turn on Britain and British people then good luck to them, carry on.

Having these people here was used as a brow-beating instrument with Muslim leaders in the Middle East. "Look, we've got some of your most radical preachers, Abu Qatada, Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, Mohamed al-Masari and others here in Britain." Even the Saudi government was protesting against giving these fanatical individuals a total free ride in Britain. When Yasser Arafat visited Britain, Hizb-ut-Tahrir people went up and harangued the man. When King Hussein of Jordan visited, they harangued him. And the government was quite happy to let these people have a free pass.

But reading Yahya Birt's review of your book, while he acknowledges a lot of the points and experiences that you've shared with us, he does feel that things have changed significantly in the past few years to allay some of these concerns.

That's true. I don't disagree with Yahya Birt at that level. I make the point that Hamza Yusuf Hanson pre-9/11 and now post-9/11 is now different. The hallmark of intelligence is that when the situation changes, we must adopt and change but remain true to our core values. God did exactly that for and with the Prophet before and after the Hijra - the language and content of the Koran changed. So I make the point that Hizb-ut-Tahrir people, Majid Nawaz and others from the Hizb leadership that I've met since I've come back from the Middle East, have made that very claim that Hizb has changed. I make that point in the book.

But my contention is that it hasn't changed enough. At its core, it still remains committed to an expansionist, totalatarian, Islamist state in the Middle East with jihad as its foreign policy. And I use "Islamist" as opposed to Islamic deliberately. And also the commitment to the annihilation of Israel, the taking out of Muslims who oppose them, the hell-bent desire to confront the West, it's all in their literature and used for private instruction in cell meetings. 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 its 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. By all means, continue critiquing the government - they do a good job of that, much like Marxists. We need that criticism. But don't back it up with an alternative that's almost Nazi-like - Muslim supremacism, one Caliph for the whole ummah, I've got a problem with all that.

One of the things that strikes me about Hizb-ut-Tahrir in their view of the world is that it seems to rely on a critical mass that contradicts the pluralism within Muslim communities in Britain and the Muslim world in general. What prevents these issues from being hashed out in public? It would seem that debate would quash a lot of the rationale behind Hizb-ut-Tahrir's rhetoric.

As a community, we're afraid of debate and discussion. In the past, we were very open about it. If you look at the lives of people like Sheikh Abdul Qader al-Jilani, he openly debated and discussed and preached to people of other faiths � and no faith � in Baghdad. Abu Hanifa was renowned for having debates with people of other faiths and atheists in particular. We shy away from all of that now. It's part of our siege mentality. I'm hopeful, to some extent, that this book helps open up a debate and discussion not just among Muslims but with fellow human beings.

That debate helps because one of the reasons for my personal rejection of extremism was that I couldn't sustain those extremist ideas in the real world. It doesn't work. But when you are, sort of, protected in that underworld where jihad, khilafah, talking about kuffar � all those ideas in those meetings that they have � they're not challenged. But when you put them out into the real world in the light of day, somehow those ideas don't seem practical and relevant and applicable. And slowly you move away.

That's why it's important that we hold these discussions out in the open, whether it's through forums like you have, through the web, or through public meetings or through books. It has to happen with the rest of the world. We're not on our own anymore.

Taji Mustafa of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (UK) has written an article saying that your book plays up on Muslim stereotypes. What is your response to that?

Taji has failed to understand the difference between Muslims and Islamists. Again and again on their website, they've used this reference that Islam is being blamed. No, no, no, no. Islam isn't being blamed. Islamism, the perverse ideology set up in the name of our noble faith is being blamed. Taji's fallen prey to the very ideology that he's advocating, trying to hide behind the mask of being Muslim.

Being Muslim is a very simple identity. We're at a stage now where we're beyond Hizb-ut-Tahrir and beyond things in just black and white. That's what the problem is. Islamist stereotypes are being exposed, yes. And so they should be. Islamists are being exposed, and so they should be. We've had enough of them.

But I don't think most Muslims out on the streets feel that they've been stereotyped in any way. If anything, a thorough reading of the book shows that you can be a Muslim, a westerner, and at peace with the rest of the world, and that's what the ultimate message of the book is. We're here. We're here to stay, and we're sons of the soil. Islamists have been exposed as have their stereotypes, but not Muslims.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir cites polls throughout the Muslim world that claim a majority of Muslims want a Caliphate of some sort. If that's the case, what's wrong with it?

Very cunning of HT to employ those polls! I cite countries such as Indonesia and Bangladesh, the most populous Muslim countries in the world, who have repeatedly - at free and fair elections - rejected Islamist groups offering them a mythical Islamic state. That said, you know, in the Arab world most people would say yes to any alternative, any opening of political plurality so those polls do not surprise me. But tell people that a Caliphate, as proposed by HT, entails every Muslim giving ba'iah to the HT caliph in waiting, Abu Rishta, and the rejection of doing so is a sin for which a Muslim is killable and then I think the poll findings will be interestingly different.

One of the things that surprised me a little bit, not knowing earlier how Hizb-ut-Tahrir has been organised in this country, is that there may be a perception that a lack of education or knowledge would allow an ideology like theirs to continue. But a lot of the people involved with them that you met were educated in university or skilled in professions. Wouldn't educated people would be more open minded about what they're buying into?

Good point. There are two other issues to bear in mind. Most of these people that are �educated� have a technical education. Most of these guys are � with respect � doctors, accountants, or have a science background. Very few of them were lawyers or humanities-educated. Those who were, or are now, tend to be in the more moderate wing - if there is such a thing - within HT. And those who eventually left, most of them were politics graduates, law graduates, and so on.

The second point is that many of these individuals were recruited when they were 16, 17, 18. Their critical faculties hadn't been developed properly. Then you have the same individuals married within Hizb-ut-Tahrir. So it's like a cult. By the time they actually become critical, it's too late to leave. Leaving means divorce. Leaving means cutting family ties. I'm not making this stuff up. People who have left recently have gone through that very experience. And it's not easy to reject Hizb-ut-Tahrir once you're married into the party. Your whole world revolves around it.

A third point is that many of them are of the belief that their form of Islamism is the only way of being a Muslim. I know of someone who left HT six years ago and he now wants to get his wife to leave, because she's a fully fledged member. But she isn't prepared to discuss their love life or to discuss their children with him. Because for her, her allegiance to the party and the leadership of the party is her way of having fidelity to God. Her husband takes second priority. So he can't talk about her because she thinks she's betraying God by betraying the party. That sort of fanatical, zealot's understanding of the world has led him now to divorce his wife without having any discussions because she just can't talk to him without reporting their discussions back to the party leadership.

Sounds like Scientology.

Yeah. It's not just Hizb-ut-Tahrir. It's the same as the al-Muhajiroun fanatics. They have indoctrinated people's minds to the extent that they live inhumane lives. They think that Islamism is Islam and because they haven't had any other experience of being a Muslim, they're like born-again Christians � that that's the only way they can identify as being Muslim is by being HT.

I was blessed � Allah bless my parents and give them a long life � in that I was raised in a normal Muslim tradition. So I knew what it meant to be a normal Muslim without having to be an Islamist. Many of these guys don't have that experience because of the failure that we spoke about earlier. For them, HT is Islam, HT's education is their only education, and their ties are so deep with the party that they can't escape.

So on one level, they're educated. But on another level, Ayman al- Zawahiri is a paediatrician whose extremism has blinded him to humanity.

You write about how your trips to Syria and Saudi Arabia enlightened you in terms of the dichotomy between society there and society in Britain. Is that the kind of journey you recommend people make if they're trying to learn more about their faith and the political interpretation of their faith?

Yes, but with one condition. Go with an open mind. Don't go there to have your Islamism or Wahabbism confirmed. If you do, you'll come back with that. When I was in HT, they used to say you should visit the Muslim world because our perception of it now is different and we're going there with "our concepts." So they go out there and they come back with their world view confirmed. And lets not forget that some of the people that went out to the Middle East from Britain sadly became suicide bombers in Tel Aviv.

So it's crucial that people go out there with an open mind and ask themselves how is it that these people in Syria and Jordan and Lebanon and other countries have been Muslim for 1400 years and they don't share that world view of radical overthrow of government and confronting the West at that level. Go and sit at the feet of their ulema and learn from them. It's good to go over there and come back with a deeper level of enlightenment. Its been documented by the hundreds who have left in recent years and come back now, alhamdulillah. People like Sheikh Yahya Rhodus, Imam Zaid Shakir, and many, many others.

The British government sought the help of the Muslim Council of Britain in the past, especially after 7/7, but now they've fallen out of favour. Now the government appears to be looking towards other Muslim organisations, such as the Sufi Muslim Council, as an alternative. Is that the right approach? Should they get different Muslim representative groups together and help them come to a consensus? Or are they pitting Muslims against Muslims?

I'm in two minds about this whole � the creation of different Muslim organisations and, as you say, pitting Muslims against Muslims. Why can't Muslims just be Muslims and participate in civil society as citizens? Why do we need to have all these forums? They inevitably bring on board certain types of individuals and certain groups come with their own agenda and their own baggage. It's like Mosca said, the Italian thinker, that it's the organised minority controlling the discourse of the disorganised majority.

Why can't we just be human beings, be Western citizens of different countries, engage with the existing structure, be it through the political parties or whatever it is that takes our fancy or wherever it is we feel our niche lies � Greenpeace, for example? Engage at that level. Why do we need to have these councils where again and again they've always thrown up that sort of leadership that young Muslims � children of this soil � feel inherently uncomfortable with?

Are you optimistic about change from here forward?

Yes. Last night I was at an event where there were lots and lots of young Muslims who were listening to talks by Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad from Cambridge and Imam Hamza Yusuf Hanson. There's something in the air that's very promising, without a doubt.

I share your affinity with Sheikh Hamza Yusuf. Having come from San Francisco myself, it was the tradition I was fortunate to come in contact with.

Alhamdulillah. Without that, I probably would have been a suicide bomber. Seriously, I'm not joking.

But that led me to be active in doing something. It makes you want to do something constructive. That really is the answer, that kind of inspiration, isn't it?

You make a good point. It is inspiration. You found your niche and you're developing a project. It's the same for everybody else. Wherever people's strengths lie, we should just engage. On the point of optimism, there is also the point of pessimism in that Saudi Islam hasn't gone away. We need to be aware at the same time there are problems on campus, that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is still recruiting, that many of our campuses are controlled by people who have Salafi literalist bents.

There are issues that we need to confront, but at the same time there is a huge, huge silver lining in the cloud. And that, alhamdulillah, is the people who have been to the Middle East and have come back with the deen that the Prophet left us.

The lack of discourse and discouragement of questioning is an attitude which is apparent in many of the mosques in America.

Thanks for another in the series of informative and horizon-broadening Altmuslim interviews. Mr. Husain's reporting of his journey to Saudi, carried recently in a UK newspaper and picked up by internet sites, whetted my appetite, now I've got him on my Amazon shopping list. Hope your piece and Mr. Husain's critique are will receive attention in the "mainstream" (muslim and non-muslim). Especially appreciate the insights you and he offer for "reality testing" as a counter to Islamist thinking and propaganda.

Hmmm, we're seeing Mr Amanullah's true colours? <br>

For a proper assessment of Hussain's work, see Ziauddin Sardar's fantastic review in The Independent newspaper:

http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/article2600334.ece

The Islamist seems to have been drafted by a Whitehall mandarin as a PR job for the Blair government.

In the UK we're playing a silly game of who is your leader: no, not him, him, him, him!<br>

Question for Zahed, will you be interviewing, in the same vain as you do hear, officials from the MCB?

Zia Sardar wrote a review of the book. We've published an interview with the author. Different things.

I agree with everything Zia said about HuT (including that they shouldn't be banned) and I'm also a huge fan of his. Told him that personally a few weeks ago.

I don't see the gotcha moment in this. Sorry.

If the British governmnet is interested in solvivng the 7/7 London bombing case they need to contact this organization at

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/

Wasn't looking for a gotcha moment just yet. But you talked about most other reviews, not his.

And of the last question? Is MCB bashing the order of the day, or will you give them an opportunity to grace your pages?

sorry All .. The fristt one has typos . tjis hope les Sorry again for the Rush .
salam to All Islam Loving and Salam (peace ) agitatots of the Ummah .and the world
As for Hizb ut tahrir : it does call for debate with any one any time and about any topic . Hizb ut tahrir is not only fully capable of that but it,s doctrine is based on the concept that via debate and conviction only ,you will build your entitlemnt for resentation of the Ummah by the Ummah ,Ummah itself ,
and then Empwermrent on earth by Allah SWT . it si Because of hizb ut tahri did prove that id does posses the highest grounds for argument and Just cause this has enabled with the leave of Allah SWT
Hizb ut tahrir, this formidable pepole, to survive all types of bodilyy tortures and phsychological atrocities conducted upon him by the very regimes who work as proxy for the democartic regimes (USA . UK . Russai a and Yahudi Puppets . etc..
truley the world now its awaiting hizb ut tahrir next move .. whith exitement and Expectations of heavenly degree.i am too
final note : Hizb ut tahri will not frame any one who chosse to give bayah to other that Ata Al rashtah may allah preseve him ,as infidel or alike as atated in the intervie above .. But you ask me why we should truly opt him as the nezxt Khalifah : i say that he i likely to be the best man around .. as the best Group has lead the best ummah so the conclusion is given . this is by no way is binding on any one now . the khalifah that is going to be binding is the one that will bne first elected by the Ummah .
i hope he will be Ata abu Yasin .. or if not one of his Aids Ameen

The problem with his account of events is that he helps use a "brown" voice to help
sell and perpetuate right wing stereotypes.
His flaws are many, but some egregious ones are:

1. Mentality.
a) Reading Mr. "Ed" i.e. Muhammed Mahbub Husain's book, he comes across as a naive and rather shallow personality with an acute identity crisis. He states himself he was an "empty vessel" however none of his interviews that i've come across since show that he has changed much from his own earlier naivity. He needed a strong, controlling personality to worship and found it in a clown like personality in Omar Bakri Muhammed, who couldn't even back up his sloganeering during the bombardment of Lebanon last summer (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006330629,00.html)

b) his prescription of now jumping wholeheartedly into "academic sufism" suffers from the same complex, namely replacing worshiping one bankrupt "hero" by becoming the groupie of another "rock star" sheikh. The problem with groupies is that you have to compete with others for the unrequited love of your object, this quote sums it up best:

"The next evening, while we waited for Hamza Yusuf to arrive, I heard a young woman standing behind me tell her friend, "Even if Hamza Yusuf had three wives, I would kill to be his fourth wife!" What followed was the distinct sound of my brain shrinking."

source: http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2004/10/zaytunas_smelly.php

2. Publicity
I suspect that, like Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsa Ali, Irshad Manji, Wafa Sultan, he will get lots of publicity and exposure via the echo chamber of right wing blogs and media, since it reassures them that nothing is wrong with their behavior and helps deflect attention back to those dirty terrorists who "hate us for our way of life". It further helps fulfill one of the overlying objectives of the RAND corporation:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1716/

(cont'd next post)

(cont'd from earlier post)
3. Local Context
Groups such as HT, Al-Muhajiroun, and Wahabis/Salafis thrive in the UK and in parts of Europe because, unlike North America where Blacks and latinos are herded up into ghettos, Muslims in Europe ARE the underclass. Drugs, teenage pregnancy, gang culture are flourishing. Given this and the complete lack of any accountability or responsibility on the part of the same bankrupt "moderate" barelvi SUFI sheikhs Husain calls "enlightened", the vacuum is then plugged by groups which actually ARE doing something on a street level -- drug treatment/detoxification, openly gang mediation, etc.
The account of how the 7/7 bomber came to be in this article is illuminating:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?&id=9635

kwaleed,

You point out that in America, blacks and latinos are herded up in ghettos. The United States is involved in the same types of political and miltary interventions in Africa and South America, as in the Middle East. Yet there is not the same amount of terrorism done against America by blacks or latinos (if there, it does not get the same media attention that Islamic terrorism does.)

This is why I believe Western agent provocateurs are involved in the many terrosirst acts or plots blamed on Muslims.

But still it is important that the Muslim community educate their youth so that they do not fall into the trap of becoming agent provacateurs.

Western media outlets say they are concerned about Muslim fundamentalists. If they wanted to stop the influence of extremists, they would cover the actions of Muslim moderates, as much as they cover the actions of Muslim extremists. Young people would have an alternative lifestye to look at. But the West is not interested in this; it mostly shows a one-dimensional portrayal of Muslims as bearded, flag burning men with their submissive women, dressed head to toe in black. THe mainstream media and their audience need someone to hate and make fun of, these days it is the Muslims that they do this with.

Hello,

>The United States is involved in the same >types of political and miltary interventions >in Africa and South America, as in the >Middle East. Yet there is not the same >amount of terrorism done against America b>y blacks or latinos (if there, it does not >get the same media attention that Islamic >terrorism does.)

In Africa there clearly is -- The '97 U.S. embassy bombings of kenya and Tanzania, as well as the recent U.S. arming of the Transitional Somali government coupled with the bombardment of Mogadishu by U.S. warships.

As for South and Central America, this is considered the U.S. "backyard" due to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, keep in mind that the U.S. was willing to go to nuclear war with the Soviet Union under the Cuban missile crisis to enforce this.

2 more things that would be of interest to those on this topic:

"Ed" /Muhammed Hussain's piece in the Observer:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,2099538,00.html

and a rebuttal written against his claims so far:

http://islamicdiscourse.blogspot.com/2007/06/rebuttal-of-ed-hussein.html

enjoy.
kw

kwaleed,

The bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were blamed on Muslims and Somalia is a MUslim country. I am talking about U.S. interventions in non-Muslim African countries: Congo, Uganda, Liberia, apartheid era South Africa, etc

Whatever the U.S. considers South and Central America, doesn't mean the people in these regions agree with it or will accept it.

What about the U.S. bombing of VIetnam and Cambodia which resulted in 3-5 million dead?

Its not that terrorist acts don't occur in Africa, Asia and South America, its just that the Africans, Asians, and South Americans have not come to the United States or any other Western country to commit a terrorist act.

Does that mean they are less violent than Muslims? I don't think so, I think there are Muslims who get caught up in how they are represented in the media (they feel the West is against their people) and fall easily into the traps of agent provocatuers.

You guys need to get over the fact that there is genuine bloodlust with people who tout the civilisationary effect of caliphate. Need to get over the fact that some muslims do believe that only muslim life is sacred. Much of the violence being played out all over the muslim world is testament to a mentality of no compromise dogma. Thats it. Dogma's. Man made idiosyncratic nonsense that caters to pride based notions of identity. Empire empire empire and more bloodlust empire.

Ghulam,

Is it a sheer coincidence that the alleged mastermind of 9/11, Osama Ben Laden, was a CIA asset? Is it a sheer coincidence that the number of terrorist acts or plots discovered has increased since the "war on terror" began? Why have Pakistanis (in the 7/7 bombing) taken up the cause of Iraq or Palestine, when they have Kashmir to fight for? Why in the Madrid bombing, was it Moroccans, Syrians, even indigenous Spaniards that were involved in the Madrid bombing, but no Iraqis were involved in it? You would think that since the United States and its allies had caused mass killings and destruction of the infrastructure of Iraq, then Iraqis would be involved in these terrorist acts or plots in Europe and the U.S.

>> "This is why I believe Western agent provocateurs are involved in the many terrosirst acts or plots blamed on Muslims."

Pfft, that is flat out denial.

I have started reading the Islamist and was interested with Ed Husain's description of his family Pir Abdul Latif Fultali as being allegedly apolitical. I did some googling and found this site ...

http://www.fultali.com/

I then went to the website of an organisation he founded, which can be found here ...

http://www.fultali.com/leadership/al-islah.htm

... and here we find that among the "aims" of the body is "to make politics and society to be symmetrical with the Islamic orders". Their focus is on welfare and service provision.

I ask myself what is the difference between this and FIS or HAMAS which started in the same manner?

Irfy, good point. Have seen some discussions of similar points by some Muslims in the US, and queried them for clarification when I didn't get some nuance or another. They seem to be telling me that I, as a non-Muslim, need to be able to make a differentiation between orgs practicing "islah" and those practicing "jihad" if I want to make a judgment as to their potential for actions I may find disagreeable. Appears that both aim to achieve the stated symmetry, about the same way the GOP and Democrats seek symmetry. But the means deemed acceptable seem to raise significant questions, especially if an internal agenda is not running on schedule. At least, that's what I think they're suggesting. Be happy to see your take.

Social Engineering would be the mechanism of tyranny. All must be free to have freedom of conscience and choose their ideas and beliefs on the basis of their intellect and freedom of choice. It is the one political constant that human beings pursue. Its not a difficult concept. Pretending that this tyranny is positive in an Islamic context is futile as the doctrine of making politics and society symmetrical with an ideology has never succeeded anywhere.

>> You would think that since the United States and its allies had caused mass killings and destruction of the infrastructure of Iraq, then Iraqis would be involved in these terrorist acts or plots in Europe and the U.S. <<

Denialist. We have a failure in our politics that prevents real dialogue and real Ummah building because our basic political ideology is underpinned by technocratic dictatorships and fascist revolution.

Seems his "pir" has his own connections:

http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/ed-mahbub-husains-family-pir/