After Asim Siddiqui said that ‘Political Islam’ was the problem, in his Comment is free article (also republished on the MPACUK website), Inayat Bunglawa decided to counter his argument. In one of the most read websites in Britain, Comment is free, the debate raged between Inayat and Asim Siddiqui. Below we re-print part of the debate and ask you to comment on it and who you agree with?:

Inayat responds to Asim about the article ‘We do not need an Islamic state’ in the comment section of the article:

Asim, I think AbdelWahab el-Affendi has quite ably pointed to the deficiencies in many Islamic movements across the world. Of course, he also says (although you do not) many secular movements and parties in the Muslim world have proved to be just as corrupt and authoritarian, if not more. Establishing pluralist multi-party democratic states based on the rule of law should indeed be viewed as a priority. I don't think you do justice to Islamic thinkers like Rashid Ghannushi who have been championing democracy for several decades now (although again, unlike you, AbdelWahab el-Affendi does explicitly acknowledge Ghannushi's contribution).

But my main point is about this word 'Islamist'. What do you take it to mean and can you let us know whether you believe the Prophet Muhammad was an 'Islamist'. After all, he was a statesman as well as a religious leader, he negotiated peace treaties and conducted wars. He established a state based on Islamic laws. Did he 'politicise Islam' or was Islam from the outset political?

Asim Siddiqui responded to the comment by Inayat saying the following:

Our Beloved Prophet was both a temporal political leader and a recipient of revelation. There were numerous occasions when he would be asked by his companions if an opinion he had was from revelation or from his own judgement - where it was the latter the companions would be free (and did) to challenge him and suggest alternatives. There were also occasions when 'political' decisions were made guided by revelation.

However, revelation ended with him. No subsequent leader can claim divine guidance or an insight into God's mind on any political decision they make. Hence, my point is that all leaders must be accountable to the people, not claim they are accountable to God (which in reality means accountability to no one and allows them to get away with murder, literally).

It is the conflating of the two roles the Prophet held simultaneously that has so adeptly been manipulated by many Islamists to pursue their own political agendas. My definition of an Islamist is anyone who seeks political power to impose their interpretation of Islam on others. What yours, dear?

Inayat not happy with the response counters once again:

Quote: “My definition of an Islamist is anyone who seeks political power to impose their interpretation of Islam on others.”

But surely despots of all sorts - including secular ones - in Muslim countries seek to impose their own interpretations of Islam on people. According to your definition, President Mubarak of Egypt would be classified as an 'Islamist'!

You avoided my question about 'politicising Islam'.

Does not an honest reading of the life of the Prophet show that Islam from the very outset was a political faith. The issue of securing social justice by its very nature involves politics.

Muslims - of whatever persuasion, Islamic or secular - should lay out their programmes and appeal to the electorate to support them. In the end people will vote for parties that they believe will reflect their values and will deliver the goods and put food on the table and give their kids a decent future. Indeed, that is the message of El-Affendi's book.

Asim asks Inayat – do you really want to live in an Islamic state?

Inayat - the Prophet was involved in politics, I have already said that. However that does not make Islam a "political faith". We must not conflate the two roles he had (as I said earlier). Surely you can see the dangers in doing so? You don't need to be a Muslim to seek social justice - I'm sure you will agree? Many of the most humanitarian people are non-Muslim. Islam is a religion (like any other) which has a set of moral guidelines that urges believers to do good works - but its up to the believer how s/he goes about doing that. In my view, the role of ulema (Muslim scholars) is to act as the moral conscience of society, i.e. a modern day pressure group. Their role is not to vet/approve legislation - otherwise they would be above the law and accountable to no one. Do you see where this is going?

Inayat, seriously bro, you do not want to live in an Islamist-run 'Islamic state'. For us it's academic living happily in the secular west, for others it's a matter of life and death. So just chill out on the Islamism and promote some love.

Inayat counters again and goes on the offensive asking why Israel’s racist chimp David Toube from the Zionist hate site is backing Siddique?:

Quote: “The Prophet was involved in politics, I have already said that. However that does not make Islam a "political faith".'

I really can't see the distinction here, Asim. If the Prophet Muhammad was involved in politics, and the faith of Islam from the outset urged Muslims to become politically active (as well as socially, economically etc) what do you exactly mean in your blog above when you criticise those who 'politicise Islam'? I repeat: was Islam not from the very outset political? What is the problem? In Germany you have the Christian Democrats party. What is your objection to Muslims forming Islamic democratic parties: as they have been doing in many parts of the world?

Quote: “Their role is not to vet/approve legislation - otherwise they would be above the law and accountable to no one. Do you see where this is going?”

This is a straw man argument. I agree that ulama should not veto legislation and did not state otherwise! Ordinary people should elect the parliament and parliament should legislate on their behalf.

Quote: “Inayat, seriously bro, you do not want to live in an Islamist-run 'Islamic state”

Yes, just as I would not want to live in secular police states like Egypt or Tunisia. I already addressed this issue in my Cif blog about Affendi's book. I mentioned how a US poll had found that majorities in Muslim countries favoured seeing the caliphate re-established but even bigger majorities wanted to see democratic states established. That suggests to me that most want to see democratic states that reflect many of their own Islamic values.

I fully respect your preferred definition of an Islamist. My own view is that a definition that is so broad that it can include the AK Party on one side and Al Qaeda on the other seems to render the definition meaningless.'

Yes, but your own definition as I have already said allows Mubarak to present himself as an 'Islamist'.

Quote: “So long as they all accept that sovereignty belongs to the people. AK Party does, the same cannot be said for Jammat-e-Islami in Pakistan or the Ikhwan in Egypt. Can it, Inayat?”

As long as all the parties you mention accept democratic norms and accept the electoral verdicts of their people, what is your objection? Indeed, if the Ikhwan were allowed to contest elections instead of being prevented from standing as a political party by the US-backed Mubarak regime, it is quite likely that they would get the largest share of seats in parliament.

Asim: 'The point I made in my blog, quoting Affendi, is that Islamic movements have prolonged the lives of these secular despots by opposing/conditioning their commitment to democracy.'

As I stated earlier, Affendi has praised Islamic thinkers like Ghannushi who have long championed democracy. Affendi has also criticised secular despots who refuse to allow Islamic parties to contest elections.

Hope you don't mind me trying to extract from you what you exactly mean by those who 'politicise Islam'. As you may know the UK govt is engaged in trying to promote a depoliticised version of Islam.

BTW, I see that David Toube at the warmongering website Harry's Place has encouraged his readers to flock to this as well.

I can't imagine why.

What are your thoughts on this battle and who is right and wrong?

---