Ed says:
Here is what Mawdudi had to say about the role of jihad in Islam:
It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confirm this rule to a single state or to a handful of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than a world revolution.
(Jihad in Islam by AA Mawdudi, chapter 3, p10)
The challenge is simple: do the above organisations, along with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), reject this Mawdudite world view, in letter and spirit? If not, why not? And if not, then why are they receiving government funds under the Prevent programme? Surely a minimum criterion of receiving such money should be to be able to disavow the ideas that lead directly to Islamist extremism and violence?
On the other hand, if these organisations do reject their ideational inheritance of Mawdudite ideology, and work actively to maintain a secular public space in Britain, then I believe the taxpayer should fund these organisations to challenge the political illiteracy, victimhood and confrontational separatism of some of the young British Muslims who turn violently against Britain. Thus far, however, that public rejection by even the most prominent leaders of such groups – such as Dr Abdul Bari or his assistants at the MCB – is yet to be heard.
They won’t reject it.
The MCB and the other groups named are part of the Jamaat-e-Islami network. Asking them to reject Mawdudi would be like asking the Socialist Workers’ Party to reject Trotsky.
So, why do they get public money?
