An interview with iThink: Syed Haider, author of iThink's first paper answers on behalf of the think tank.

When and how was iThink conceived?

The difficulty with questions of origin is always that they presuppose a kind of purity and a kind of singularity that rarely tallies with real life experiences. iThink began as an amorphous idea, a conviction that in the midst of all the disparate activities presently occurring in the Muslim context, there was a lack of cohesion and no real sense of direction. It was this shared intuitive feeling that really shaped the idea of the need for a body that concerned itself with thinking about the Muslim reality in Britain post-9/11 and 7/7.

You mention those dates; how significant were they in initiating iThink?

They are dates which, at least at the moment, are integral and unavoidable in a Muslim’s psychical landscape. I say at the moment because who knows what is going to happen in time to come. If for instance the world lasts another millennium, perhaps global warming will be the most remembered feature of our time. But right now these dates are, as I said, unavoidably significant.

You say unavoidable with a tinge of disapproval, why is that?

Because these dates have framed so much of the current discourse on Islam and Muslims in the West. They have straitjacketed legitimate resistance to a continuing colonial praxis present in this age of “multiple modernities”. Though I completely agree that we do need to condemn these criminal acts, I also think we need to resist the subconscious blackmail that requires us to walk always and forever on eggshells because of them. So while these dates are a necessary and unavoidable part of the context from where iThink has emerged, iThink aims to promote a more resilient mindset that will remain upright, truthful, and confident in the face of growing hostilities. It is only with such a mindset that Muslims will be able to actualise the beauty of Islam, which will benefit both Muslims and non-Muslim in Britain.

You mention one of the aims of iThink? What are the means by which iThink hopes to achieve those aims?

We believe a more concerted and analytically nuanced approach is required to combat the growing Islamaphobia in Europe and Britain. We also believe in the power of ideas and so are advocates of using ideas as catalysts for change. How to actualise this and the aim of shaping a confident mindset amongst the Muslims is primarily through our papers. We want our papers to espouse a spirit that marries theoretical musing with practical initiatives. Hence we present practicable solutions and ideas in our papers. We also market our papers to relevant individuals and create a network of relations by which we can both funnel ideas to different audiences and activate new collectivities.

Some of this you have detailed in your first paper, “The Intellectual Challenge of Da’wah and the Framework and Jigsaw as Metaphor”, but what do you mean by collectivities?

That’s right. I wrote about chains of promulgation and the need to build a more defined framework in the field of da’wah. The Jigsaw is one of the metaphors I believe is important to promote to build precisely the kind of effective network of relations we need. The collectivity is an idea that builds on this notion of frameworks and networks. It is basically a term to describe the different individuals and organisations that need to be involved to make changes happen. I lay this out in more detail in the second iThink paper, “Making Change Happen”. The collectivity exists in latent form and needs to be thought about by anyone interested in effectuating change or steps towards change. It is an understanding that while individuals are important ingredients in beginning processes of change, they are but one ingredient. The different collectivities need to be activated, sometimes consciously and sometimes by accident in order to build momentum behind an idea/movement and to help sustain a movement. Collectivities can be of writers, students, or factory-workers (very Gramscian!) It is in this way that the papers that are produced, though diverse themselves, share a commonality of themes and ideas which helps cohere them into something coming closer to a methodological practice than merely detached and academic hypothesising.

Tell us a little more about the theoretical significance of the first paper and how those theoretical positions are translated into practicable action.

That’s a good question. Ok, well, the paper’s theoretical foundation is really in its conviction that “reality” – what we “see” or “experience” – is not direct. Most of us, when we “see” a tree for instance believe that we have cast our eyes in that direction, the light and the image have been transmitted to our visual apparatus and thus we have come to “see” a tree. No doubt, many of us don’t even think that, since it seems so obvious as to be almost silly to start systematising it in that way. But what comes out of the systematisation is so useful. We do not in fact “see” something by simply casting our eyes in a particular direction. Instead, what we “see” is a process which we have learnt from a young age, and that reality therefore is as much inside us as it is outside us. This leads to a wealth of possibilities for social change. It renders the world a degree more malleable than otherwise admitted. It also places language and ideas as central players in conceiving “reality”. If that is accepted as a possibility, it opens up a host of practical actions which can be pursued in order to begin affecting the way one “sees” reality. Novels, plays, lectures, papers (such as those produced by iThink), khutbas, Muslim media, all become potential means of affecting “how” people “see” things. Thus the theory points to practical means. What it does not point to is content, i.e. what people should “see”.

Is that deliberate; to not venture into “what” people ought to “see”?

Quite honestly, yes. The ought is what is worrying. You see the means are important since they are the tools, but the content is the real weapon. If wielded unthinkingly or arbitrarily then there can be huge problems. The way to circumvent these troubles is to make the recipients more sophisticated, more thinking, to win them not through subterfuge but by their willing and thinking minds. Haqq (truth) does not need deception, indeed haqq destroys all deception. Hence, the main content at the moment is simply to position Muslims more critically to their “reality”, to transmit a habit of perception that makes Muslims see themselves as placed in a unique position from which to critique the centre, precisely because they do not engage in the vices of this society – drinking, fornication, lying, materialism etc. To promote this means to simultaneously promote in them the need to observe Islamic precepts and to remain upright members of society. To go against Islam or their Muslim identity is to loose that vantage point.

But how do you make sure that your discussion reaches all and does not end up being one conducted amongst an already converted minority?

Well that’s where the think tank comes in. It provides a space in the public domain and, organisationally, the capacity to link with other interested/activist groups/individuals out there.

Are you confident that you will make some impact on the current da’wah scene?

Yes, insha’Allah.