Stories from Muslims who turned away from extremism

[glo]

A long article from yesterday's Independent - but interesting nonetheless.
It tells the stories of Usama Hassan, Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain who turned away from extremism, and of Anjem Choudhary who hasn't.

A year ago, I began to hear about a fragile new movement that could just hold the answers we journalists have failed to find up to now. A wave of young British Islamists who trained to fight – who cheered as their friends bombed this country – have recanted. Now they are using everything they learned on the inside, to stop the jihad.


Seventeen former radical Islamists have "come out" in the past 12 months and have begun to fight back. Would they be able to tell me the reasons that pulled them into jihadism, and out again? Could they be the key to understanding – and defusing – Western jihadism? I have spent three months exploring their world and befriending their leading figures. Their story sprawls from forgotten English seaside towns to the jails of Egypt's dictatorship and the icy mountains of Afghanistan – and back again.

Full article here.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

When I see articles using our terms in a really ridiculous way, it turns me off from reading.

Islamism? Islam isn't a thing. Jihadism? Seriously. I feel like I'm reading gibberish no offense...

[KAding]

When I see articles using our terms in a really ridiculous way, it turns me off from reading.

Islamism? Islam isn't a thing. Jihadism? Seriously. I feel like I'm reading gibberish no offense...

Well, you still need words to describe these people. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not involved in what is understood here by 'Islamism' or 'Jihadism'. So how would you call it?

Jihadists = Muhajedeen? I think that is the proper term? The problem is that the word Muhajedeen implies they are truly fighting for 'true' Islam, while jihadists is more neutral and refers to all those that themselves claim to be fighting for it. Muhajedeen is a judgement call on their piety and pure intentions, while jihadist is more useful to categorize them.

Islamism = Political Islam? Again, I understand that separating those two probably makes no sense to you. But since there are enough Muslims who do not actively mix politics and Islam, we require a way to distinguish them.

[Justufy]

Blessed be those that turned away from extremism!

May God exalt them!

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Then find a different word, don't use terms applied to aspects in our religion to apply it to people have nothing to do with that word. I say this because we as Muslims know what it means and if you were to define these words in their literal sense, it would be contradicting. I don't care what excuse you want to give, but it's not correct at all. Jihadists is NOT neutral. Having this idea embedded in your mind doesn't make it so. It's just taking a proper word and adding "ist" to it. It even sounds as ridiculous as it's used. Take for example fundamentalist. It's taken like it's such a bad word...when really it means something so neutral and basic.

[جوري]

consider the source and the motive..
I think this is better aimed at a western audience to lull them into believing that their tax money is well spent on illegal wars to 'reform' these 'islamists'

they have coined the terms and always pre-maturely congratulating themselves for a job well-done!

[Ummu Sufyaan]

extremism is strongly condemned in Islam so, by default, every Muslim should be considered to have turned away from extremism

[Rabi'ya]

I have read Ed Hussains book. Very interesting. Thanks Glo for sharing!

[glo]

I have read Ed Hussains book. Very interesting. Thanks Glo for sharing!

Could you give me the details of the book? I would be interested to read it myself.

Thanks, sis.

[Uthman]

Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain run the Quilliam Foundation, don't they? It's a joke - they receive government funding to basically agree with whatever the government says. They don't represent the interests of the Muslim community one bit.

MuslimMatters had a good article about them here.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

an article of moderates.... who have turned away from islam


naudhubillaah !

[MSalman]

whether jihadists or no jihadists, isn't the concept of jihad itself 'extremism' to the kuffaar?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

whether jihadists or no jihadists, isn't the concept of jihad itself 'extremism' to the kuffaar?

yeah it is !

[MSalman]

^so what are they happy about few badwagons leaving so called extremism? I mean why are they so worried about Muslim jihadists when they should be ranting about the concept itself! how silly of me ..... they already do

[Muhammad]

Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain run the Quilliam Foundation, don't they? It's a joke - they receive government funding to basically agree with whatever the government says. They don't represent the interests of the Muslim community one bit.

MuslimMatters had a good article about them here.

Here are some more articles about them:

Strangers in our Midst

Ed's Pic 'n' Mix & Other Assortments

[Supreme]

Thanks for the article glo!

[KAding]

whether jihadists or no jihadists, isn't the concept of jihad itself 'extremism' to the kuffaar?

Well, from my understanding there are many forms of jihad. Jihad by the sword is just one of them.

But surely from a theoretical 'just war' point of view, a war of self-defense is perfectly legitimate, whether it is a 'jihad' or not. I think the biggest problem is that many of these 'jihadists' are fighting private wars. In other words, they are not states, but private citizens engaging in war. That certainly complicates the matter.

[AhmadibnNasroon]

lol, this is from the Quilliam boys

need I say more?

[glo]

I expected that this article would raise different views, and I wasn't wrong!

Reading the views overall, it seems that most people (Muslims and non-Muslims) view these guys' decision to turn away from extremism as positive.
The criticism of the Quilliam Foundation seems more related to their call to secularise Islam - am I correct in thinking that? (I might start a separate thread on that elsewhere ...)

[MSalman]

Well, from my understanding there are many forms of jihad. Jihad by the sword is just one of them.

But surely from a theoretical 'just war' point of view, a war of self-defense is perfectly legitimate, whether it is a 'jihad' or not. I think the biggest problem is that many of these 'jihadists' are fighting private wars. In other words, they are not states, but private citizens engaging in war. That certainly complicates the matter.

from the context of this thread it is understood by default that we are talking about physical jihad (defensive and offensive). From war point of view, both offensive and defensive wars are legitimate. It is fallacy to reject one but accept the other. The concept of jihad and its legitimacy is not based upon how you people view and understand it, it is based upon how Islam views and understands it. Why - because jihad is our concept and hence it should be understood by our standards and principles.

From Shari' point of view, by default, jihad is fard kafayah (communal obligation) so if a group of people are doing jihad then rest of people in that area are free from the sin. Hence, jihad is legitimate as long as a group of people are fighting and they have a leader among them. Obviously, they need to observer shari guidelines and follow the ways of pious predecessors. Our leaders have become corrupt and have abandoned jihad so if group of people among the Muslim fighting then that is fine. How can anyone brush it aside with labels of "private wars" or not "proper" jihad?

Dividing this whole thing into private wars vs public wars only displays lack of understanding of Shari' rulings on jihad.

and Allah knows best