A few months ago Ed Husain, the Islamist – or rather the ex-Islamist – was never out of the news. Esmerelda posted about him here. To see what the fuss was about, I read his much-praised book The Islamist, in which he describes his involvement with Hizb ut Tahrir and other “extremist” or “Islamist” organisations, his rejection of their doctrines and his intention to promote “moderate Islam”.
I was less than impressed by the book, and I’m not inclined to remove any of the inverted commas in the paragraph above.
First, I must admit to a prejudice. If a new book by a young, photogenic member of an ethnic minority is praised to the skies, I assume that it is hugely overrated. If that person has changed his or her name in a pretentious or affected way – Mohammed to “Ed”, Sadie to “Zadie” – my dislike is compounded. That said, if the books are good, I can overcome my prejudice. But this wasn’t. Better written, certainly, than Zmith’s rambling, tricksy “White Teeth”, “The Islamist” was no more edifying, and potentially quite dangerous.
Husain’s journey from a moderate, personal, “spiritual” form of Islam into political “Islamism” was very believable. Students often drift into radical, extremist politics, and for someone who is already a nominal Muslim, Hizb ut Tahrir, rather than the Communist Party, is a natural choice.
Much of the book is taken up with explaining the various “Islamist” parties, groups and groupuscules - useful information as far as it goes. One is reminded, however, of Monty Python’s Life of Brian, in which the People’s Front of Judea is pitted against the Judean People’s Front and the Judean Popular front. Sects, sects, sects, as a character in that film cries – it’s all he thinks about.
The problem is that the sects all say pretty much the same thing. And it's all in the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira. And this is where Husain’s account falls down. The sects and groups he now claims to reject can back up their claims to be the true Islam. Husain is “horrified” to learn that these groups and parties divide the world into Believers and Infidels, segregate the sexes, allow killing of non-Muslims, demand world domination and the treatment of Jews and Christians as second class citizens. Yet this is mainstream Islamic doctrine. And the moderate Muslims? As a fond mother said of her son as he and his platoon marched past, they are the only ones marching in step.
Husain trumpets his embrace of moderate Islam. We are supposed to praise him for this, as the newspapers and television have done. But what exactly is moderate Islam? Husain doesn’t explain; he merely says what it is not, but fails – and must fail – to prove that the beliefs he has previously embraced are not Islam.
Perhaps I am being a little harsh. Husain is probably sincere, but sincerity is not enough. He has not confronted those tenets of Islam that have wreaked havoc on this earth for the past fourteen hundred years. If he genuinely believes that it is wrong to hate and kill Infidels, why continue to hold to Islam? Why not give up the religion altogether, or at least try to reform it?
It is tempting to see Husain as a prodigal son, but I think we should hold off killing the fatted calf and save it for the apostates.
