Nick Cohen, for the prosecution, seemed to change the frame of the debate. He attacked bloggers and bemoaned the decline of the newspaper industry. His main gripe seemed to be that bloggers are not the people going out and knocking on doors and doing proper old fashioned reporting. Bloggers, he argued, do not spend all day sitting in the House of Lords and reporting on some of the proceedings. He said that they could do it, but they don’t and a reason for this is that there is no money to be made out of blogging. Referring to Guido Fawkes, Cohen made the point that when he does get a scoop, instead of reporting it on his blog, he may sell it on to the newspapers to make some money.
He also argued that political blogs in the UK are very London focussed and they have not developed to where they are properly reporting on the news from local areas outside the capital. He gave weight to Alan Rusbridger’s argument of the possibility that problems in the newspaper industry are so acute that local newspapers in some areas may not survive and close down. There was a brighter side: blogging was not all bad as Cohen admitted that it was as result of blogs that he became familiar with Norm Geras and some others.
Sunny Hundal took a different line. He criticised the mainstream news organisations for their reporting and argued that blogs such as his could cover stories and make points not made by the mainstream. This brought an interjection from Cohen that Hundal will only be influencing his own small readership base, preaching to the converted and it does not make a difference. Hundal’s view was that his blog cared about the views of his readers and that was who he was focussed on. Cohen thought that this meant that he was not helping the Labour Party, the party of the left, and that such an attitude could lead to the Labour Party spending years in opposition.
On problems with the mainstream, Hundal made the point about The Sun reporting on a hit list of British Jews which turned out to be fake and was exposed by Tim Ireland. In the question and answer session, Hundal mentioned that the top ten Conservative blogs were all Climate Change “Deniers,” a comment that brought cheers from some of the men in suits at the back of the room.
Jonathan Isaby of Conservativehome defended political blogs. As a former mainstream news journalist who moved to be a fulltime blogger, this should be expected. He argued that shadow government ministers always return his calls and argued that blogs such as Guido Fawkes’s have more readership from many of his readers than a number of newspapers. He also commented that newspapers run stories that he reports.
Mick Fealty of Slugger O’Toole, a blog that specialises in stories related to Northern Ireland, argued that his blog is well read. He noted the allegations of Gerry Adams’s brother Liam’s sexual abuse that his blog highlighted and extensively reported. Cohen was not impressed: Fealty had not broken the story, he had just blogged about it. Fealty thought this was an unfair attack because what his blog was able to do was gather all the information in one place where mainstream journalists reporting on Northern Ireland, who did read his blog, would see.
Guido seems to have a lot of fun both blogging and debating. He aims his blog at the three thousand people in the country that matter, those in parliament, in Westminster and other people with influence. He hoped that about half of them read his blog. He emphasised that what makes a blog good is a good story. It does not matter if it is reported on a blog or in a newspaper, if it is a good story, it will be read. He questioned what breaking a story meant. For Guido, a tweet on Twitter does not really count. The reporting of the 2010 general election will be real test for bloggers and Guido hopes to come out on top.
In so far as Cohen’s comment that bloggers were not spending their time all day in select committees or in the House of Lords, Guido’s response was that it was because no one was really interested and if someone is interested they can read Hansard on line.
It was an amusing evening and my congratulations go to Westminster Skeptics for putting on the event. I shall read any comments below. I say this because Guido mentioned that he does not read his comments. To be fair, he does not have time. He said that last year he had some 400,000 comments to his blog. He questioned the lives of the fifty people who were responsible for half of them.
The al-Qaeda theorist Anwar al-Awlaki has an expansive network of supporters in the United Kingdom. My colleague Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens has produced an authoritative report on the matter for the Centre for Social Cohesion – a think tank that has consistently warned us about Awlaki. I won’t reproduce the report here, but would urge readers of this blog to consult it very closely.
After the report was released, a number of those who supported Awlaki scrambled for cover. Their defence centred around the argument that Awlaki had ‘changed’, that he had somehow been ‘radicalised’ during his incarceration in Yemen in 2006-07. Before then, they insist, he was good and progressive scholar.
A cursory look at Awlaki’s pre-incarceration lectures would clearly show just why he became so popular. He was not a radical ‘preacher of hate’ by any stretch of the imagination.
Muhammad Amin, who writes at the ‘between the lines’ blog which is also home to the notorious civil servant Azad Ali, says:
This new [post-incarceration] Anwar al-Awlaki is unrecognisable to every British Muslim organisation which invited him to give lectures in the past.
Inayat Bunglawala made a similar claim over at Comment is Free – the only place that will publish him these days, saying:
[Awlaki] was also invited to the UK by several Islamic organisations from the late 1990s onwards.
Friends tell me that at that time Aulaqi’s views were far more sensible, with no hint of his later extremism.
Finally, Osama Saeed, a prospective parliamentary candidate for the SNP and one-time spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, also claims that:
[Anwar] Al-Awlaki’s opinions have swung dramatically since I blogged about him following his incarceration in Yemen back in 2006. Before that he was middle of the road and had a significant following…He has changed.
Their claims merit serious assessment of what Anwar al-Awlaki was saying before his arrest in 2006.
As early as 2005 Anwar al-Awlaki translated the works of the Saudi jihadist Yusuf al ‘Uyayree. When he was 18, Uyayree travelled to Afghanistan to join the Arab Jihad against the Soviet Union before returning to Saudi Arabia when the conflict ended. Once there he continued to support Jihadist causes by fundraising for the Chechens and was repeatedly arrested by the Saudi authorities. In the end, Uyayree simply refused to be taken away by the police and was killed in a subsequent shootout.
What makes Uyayree significant is that he wrote one of the most important jihadist texts of the modern era known as Thawaabit Ala’ Darb Al-Jihad – which means ‘The Constants of Jihad’. Awlaki delivered a lecture series based on the book which was then transcribed and edited by a man called ‘Mujahid Fe Sabeelilah’ (meaning: holy warrior in the path of Allah) – hardly the kind of man you’d take home to meet your mother. You can download it here.
In the editor’s preface we are told:
Thawaabit ‘ala darb al Jihad is one of the best contemporary books on the subject of Jihad. It was written by Shaykh Yusuf al ‘Uyayree.
[...]
Imam Anwar al Awlaki brings this book back to life in his lecture series on the book. It is a very detailed lecture series which is extremely relevant to our time since there is no Khilafah [Caliphate] and many Muslims are claiming, "It is not the time for Jihad."
It seems pretty clear to me what this book is all about, and Awalki’s reasons for wanting to propagate Uyayree’s views. But, for the avoidance of any doubt, here’s what the editor’s note tells us:
I ask Allah to bless Imam Anwar al Awlaki with Jannah [paradise] for his efforts in explaining and bringing the words of this Shaykh alive into a time where Jihad is looked down upon. Finally, I ask Allah to make this book a book of practice and not just a book of knowledge.
Remember, this lecture series was delivered at least as early as 2005, long before Awlaki’s arrest in 2006. If you think it’s unfair to stop here without telling you what’s actually in the book here’s a quick glance of the chapter headings:
First Constant: Jihad will continue until the Day of Judgment
Second Constant: Jihad does not depend on an individual or individuals
Third Constant: Jihad is not dependent on a particular land (of which one sub-heading is: Jihad must be part of your life)
Fourth Constant: Jihad is not dependent on a battle
Fifth Constant: Victory is not limited to military victory
Sixth Constant: The definition of defeat
Similarly, in 2003, Awlaki released a lecture series called ‘The Story of Ibn al Akwa’ based on a book -called the Book of Jihad – written by a 14th Century jihadist, Ibn Nuhaas. It is regarded as a classical work on jihad and is endorsed by countless militants today. Abdullah Azzam, who led the ‘Arab Muhajideen’, during the Afghan campaign against the Soviet Union described it as ‘the best book on Jihad’. Awlaki’s lecture is full of praise for Ibn Nuhaas and his ideas. You can watch it here:
The Book on Jihad on which his lecture is based is available here, and its table of contents reveals the following (indeed, Awlaki even reads out this table of contents to his audience):
CHAPTER 1: ON THE COMMAND OF JIHAD AGAINST THE NON BELIEVERS AND ITS MANDATE, AND THE STERN WARNING AGAINST THOSE WHO DON’T PRACTICE JIHAD
[Sub-headings include] The command to fight; the punishment of those who don’t participate in Jihad; But I fear death!
CHAPTER 2: THE VIRTUES OF JIHAD AND MUJAHIDEEN
[Sub-headings include] The virtues of Jihad; Jihad is the greatest deed after believing in Allah; Jihad is the most beloved deed to Allah; The mujahid is the greatest of all people; The pinnacle of Islam is jihad; The virtues of encouraging jihad; The virtue of racing towards jihad;
CHAPTER 3: THE VIRTUES OF SPENDING IN THE CAUSE OF ALLAH
[Sub-headings include] The virtues of providing for the fighters in Allah’s path and taking care of their families
[...]
CHAPTER 7: THE VIRTUES OF KILLING A NON-BELIEVER FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH
CHAPTER 8: THE VIRTUE OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR A SMALL GROUP IMMERSING THEMSELVES WITHIN A LARGE ARMY OF NONBELIEVERS IN SEARCH OF MARTYRDOM AND CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE ENEMY
[...]
CHAPTER 10: THE SEVERE PUNISHMENT FOR THE ONE WHO TURNS HIS BACK DURING BATTLE
[...]
CHAPTER 12: MARTYRDOM
[Sub-headings include] The virtues of martyrdom; The earth does not consume the bodies of the martyrs; Desire to die again for the sake of Allah; Forgives all sins; The angels provide shade for the Shaheed with their wings; Martyrdom guarantees Paradise; They are not punished in their graves; The Shaheed intercedes for seventy of his family members; The angels continuously visit the martyrs and deliver their salaams to them
This lecture series was first produced back in 2003, almost three years before Awlaki was arrested.
Indeed, in 2003 Awlaki was busy touring the UK and spoke at the East London Mosque at an event hosted by the now defunct group ‘Stop Police Terror’. He focused on anti-terror arrests in the UK, urging Muslims not report fellow Muslims, under any circumstances:
A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim, he does not oppress him, he does not betray him and he does not hand him over…You don’t hand over a Muslim to the enemies…
You can hear his speech here:
‘Stop Police Terror’ later became ‘Stop Political Terror’ (now also defunct). It will come as no surprise to those who follow this issue that Asim Qureshi was involved with the latter of those two groups. To make matters worse ‘Stop Political Terror’ listed Anwar al-Awlaki as one of their supporters. And here’s Qureshi giving a speaking at a rally organised by Hizb ut Tahrir:
So when we see the examples of our brothers and sisters, fighting in Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel, we know what the solution is, and where the victory lies. We know that it is incumbent upon all of us to support the jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the West. Allahu Akbar!
Another lecture delivered by Anwar al-Awlaki before his incarceration is called ‘Allah is preparing us for Victory’, which you can watch here:
Awlaki’s ends his lecture by telling the audience:
…the solution for the Ummah is Jihad fe Sabeelillah [Jihad in the path of God]. When the Ummah revives this Ibaadah [worship], it becomes ironical; Jihad fe Sabeelillah becomes an irony. People run away from it because they see that is it a loss of money and it’s also a loss of self; you could loose [sic] life and you could loose [sic] your wealth in Jihad fe Sabeelillah. The irony is that when the Ummah fights Jihad fe Sabeelillah, the Ummah becomes the wealthiest and when the Ummah is fighting Jihad fe Sabeelillah, the least of this Ummah die.
Are these really ‘middle of the road’ opinions according to the SNP’s prospective parliamentary candidate Osama Saeed? Did Moazzam Begg not spot this during his ‘cursory look’ at Awlaki’s lectures? Are these the ‘far more sensible’ views that Inayat’s friends were telling him about?
In truth, Awalki was never moderate. He’s been an extremist for years.
In case you thought that Amnesty only promoted supporters of the Islamist far Right, but kept its distance from White racists and kooks, you’d be wrong.
We have previously written about Amnesty’s hosting of Kathleen and Bill Christison: a pair of far Right 9/11 “Troofers” who have made their livings out of pushing the notion of a world wide “Zionist” conspiracy, which controls the US Government, and dominates much of civil society.
Here is an example of their thesis, that American Jews present a “dual loyalty” problem, taken from the pages of the extremist Counterpunch:
“Dual loyalties” has always been one of those red flags posted around the subject of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, something that induces horrified gasps and rapid heartbeats because of its implication of Jewish disloyalty to the United States and the common assumption that anyone who would speak such a canard is ipso facto an anti-Semite. (We have a Jewish friend who is not bothered by the term in the least, who believes that U.S. and Israeli interests should be identical and sees it as perfectly natural for American Jews to feel as much loyalty to Israel as they do to the United States. But this is clearly not the usual reaction when the subject of dual loyalties arises.)
…
First to the cast of characters. Beneath cabinet level, the list of pro-Israel neo-cons who are either policy functionaries themselves or advise policymakers from perches just on the edges of government reads like the old biblical “begats.”
Here is another example of the Christisons in action, on the pages of Middle East Monitor:
Zionist lobbyists continued to work as assiduously, with results as “miraculous,” throughout the twentieth century, gaining influence over civil society and ultimately over policymakers and, most importantly, shaping the public discourse that determines all thinking about Israel and its neighbors. As Alam notes, “since their earliest days, the Zionists have created the organizations, allies, networks, and ideas that would translate into media, congressional, and presidential support for the Zionist project.” An increasing proportion of the activists who lead major elements of civil society, such as the labor and civil rights movements, are Jews, and these movements have as a natural consequence come to embrace Zionist aims.
…
Alam’s conclusion—a direct argument against those who contend that the lobby has only limited influence: “It makes little sense,” in view of the pervasiveness of Zionist influence over civil society and political discourse, “to maintain that the pro-Israeli positions of mainstream American organizations . . . emerged independently of the activism of the American Jewish community.” In its early days, Zionism grew only because Herzl and his colleagues employed heavy lobbying in the European centers of power; Jewish dispersion across the Western world—and Jewish influence in the economies, the film industries, the media, and academia in key Western countries—are what enabled the Zionist movement to survive and thrive in the dark years of the early twentieth century; and Zionist lobbying and molding of public discourse are what has maintained Israel’s favored place in the hearts and minds of Americans and the policy councils of America’s politicians.
This is a critically important book.
The Director of Middle East Monitor is Daud Abdullah, who signed the Istanbul Declaration: a document which threatened attacks on those who “stand with” Israel, and upon “foreign navies” enforcing the Gaza War ceasefire.
The partnering with jihadists and the sacking of Gita Sahgal is a symptom of a far greater problem at Amnesty.
From time to time, there is some discussion as to whether Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are the same organisation.
It is a silly debate, really. According to Hamas itself:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.
To make the point clearer, Hamas activists are also identified as Muslim Brotherhood office holders, on the Muslim Brotherhood’s own website. For example, look at the fugitive Hamas Commander, Mohammed Sawalha. He is also described as the “manager of the political committee of the International Muslim Brotherhood in Britain”.
Nevertheless, the Muslim Brotherhood itself claims that there are ‘no organisational links” between it and Hamas.
However, according to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, the Egyptian newspaper, Almasry Alyoum, has reported that the Prime Minister of the Hamas government in Hamas pledged a Bay’ah – that is, an Oath – to the new leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Badie:
In a phone call yesterday, Ismail Haniyeh, the Prime Minister of the Hamas government in Gaza, gave the oath [bayah] to Muhammad Badi’, the new General Guide of the MB, about a week after accepting his role. In a communique issued yesterday, Haniyeh’s governement maintained that the PM “called upon Allah to give a hand of assistance, support and soundness to Badi’, so the MB’s course in helping the Palestinian national cause and the besieged Gaza continues”, expressing his hope that “the MB will play a role in keeping relations between the Palestinian and Egyptian peoples”. The government further pointed out that Haniyeh also called Mahdi Akef, the previous General Guide, and expressed his “deepest thanks for his steadfast stance assisting the Palestinian cause, and the standing up to the right of the inhabitants of the Besieged Gaza Strip”
Assuming that this is true, it is important. A Bay’ah is an oath with deep religious/political significance. It is, in effect, an acknowledgement that the General Guide of the Muslims Brotherhood is Haniyeh’s boss.
Toyota’s troubles with recalls are undermining confidence in their products worldwide. Millions of cars have been recalled due to defective floormats, and accelerator pedals. As well as their luxury vehicles and popular family cars, Toyoto have a good pedigree in four wheel drive vehicles – and the Taliban can attest to their reliability under fire.
Despite the Taliban’s antipathy to technology, hanging television sets, smashing computers, and shredding video tape, their puritan beliefs did not extend to motor vehicles. While higher level Al Qaeda and Taliban preferred Land Cruisers, the ubiquitous Toyota Hilux became a firm favourite in the harsh Afghan environment. Wade Hoyt, Toyota’s spokesman in New York,said“It is not our proudest product placement,” he said. “But it shows that the Taliban are looking for the same qualities as any truck buyer: durability and reliability.”
The Taliban favour such vehicles because they are comfortable, air-conditioned and reliable, have large fuel tanks, and are good for carrying large numbers of people and weapons. One Taliban spokesman explained, “In our heyday,the pickups provided ideal platforms for intimidation and enforcement. We used to have great fun leaping down and beating women for showing a glimpse of ankle or to locking a man in a shipping container for three weeks until his beard grew to the approved length. They also fit down the players’ tunnel at the soccer stadium when we had to take an accused adulterer for execution. They also had these really neat cupholders.”
But the romance is over. The brake pedal issue has become a real concern for the Taliban, “How can you go on a martyrdom operation with any confidence, when at any moment you might career off the edge of a mountain road, or plough into a wall? I got really bad whiplash last week just dropping off some rocket propelled grenades! It’s cost me a fortune in osteopath consultations. I might well sue.”
Longer-term policy changes are also under threat, due to the mass recall of the Prius hybrid. A senior Taliban representative explained. “We are trying to improve our reputation. It’s a real struggle. In recent years we have been working with partners who have engaged with Amnesty International to highlight our concern with human rights and the rights of women to live in a safe controlled environment. It can be hard to present yourself in a media friendly manner, but we feel we have made some real progress. Another area that we thought we could improve on is our environmental reputation, we think the Greens would be willing to listen to our message. We are a low carbon organisation, something I don’t think we get enough credit for in the media. We did hope to start switching to low emission hybrids soon and the Prius was an obvious choice. Now, with the Toyota recall, we are having to revisit out entire strategy. Donkeys and bicycles are back on the table.”
In the Sunday Times article, Moazzam Begg is described as:
“Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban”
Begg is unhappy with the article. In his response to the Sunday Times, he says:
When asked specifically about the Taliban I told you my view: that I have advocated for engagement and dialogue with the Taliban well before our own government took the official position of doing the same – only last week – although, I did not say, like the government, we should be giving them lots of money in order to do so.
I also clearly told you, though you deliberately chose to ignore, that I had actually witnessed what I believe were human rights abuses under the Taliban and have detailed them in my book, from which you conveniently and selectively quote. I added that the US administration had perpetrated severe human rights abuses against me for years but that didn’t mean I opposed dialogue with them. I even told you that Cageprisoners and I have initiated pioneering steps in that regard by organising tours all around the UK with former US guards from Guantanamo and men who were once imprisoned there. Cagreprisoners is the only organisation to have done so. (One of these soldiers, upon in response to your article sent this message to me: They are attacking you and your causes…don’t forget you have real support by some of us ex-Soldiers who have seen the light… I expect he too will be accused by your likes of being brainwashed by me). Instead, you simply say, without qualification, ‘He defended his support for the Taliban….’
Had you – and Ms Sahgal no doubt – done your homework properly you’d have discovered also that I was involved in the building of, setting up and running of a school for girls in Kabul during the time of the Taliban, but of course, that wouldn’t have sat well with the agenda and nature of your heavily biased and poorly researched article.
So, is it accurate to describe Begg as a supporter of the Taliban?
The simple answer is that Begg regards Taliban’s ‘resistance’ against ‘occupation’ as theologically and politically proper. He also shares the Taliban’s goal of creating an Islamic state, and regards that Taliban’s regime as “better than anything Afghanistan has had in the past twenty-five years”. That is sufficient to describe Begg as a supporter of the Taliban. He would be foolish to argue that he is not.
Begg is not wholly uncritical of everything that the Taliban did, in power. However, criticism of aspects of the Taliban’s conduct most certainly does not make him an opponent of the Taliban. I am open to correction on this point, but I have not seen anything written by Begg which indicates that he would prefer a liberal democratic state to the sort of Islamic state that the Taliban sought to create. Begg might be likened to a member of the Communist Party, prepared to admit that Stalin sometimes might have gone a little too far, but quick to defend the old USSR as the embodiment of ‘actual, existing socialism’. In other words, Begg’s criticisms are not of the Taliban’s goals, but certain limited aspects of the manner in which they sought to achieve them.
The most important sense in which Begg can be fairly described as a Taliban supporter stems from his understanding of the legitmacy of jihad. In his article on Jihad for the Cordoba Institute’s magazine, Begg sets out his stall:
“By consensus of the Islamic schools of thought, jihad becomes an individual obligation, like prayer and fasting, on Muslim men and women when their land is occupied by foreign enemies. That obligation extends to neighbouring lands until the enemy has been expelled. If the whole body of believers abandon it, they are in a state of sin; if enough of them do it to complete the task, they are absolved.”
“Although in the West jihad is often seen as terrorism it is correct to describe it as tourism. Prophet Muhammad said: ‘The tourism of my nation is jihad.’ This is one reason why many Muslims from thousands of miles away travelled to places as far and wide as Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Afghanistan.”
“If resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was jihad, if the repelling the massacres by the Serbs in Bosnia was jihad, then how can resisting the current occupation of these Muslims lands be anything else?”
A footnote to that article gives Begg’s authority for this view: Abdullah Azzam:
“15. In his magisterial discourse on jihad during the soviet occupation, Defence of the Muslim Lands, the charismatic scholar, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam resurrected the famous 13th century fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah which states: ‘As for the aggressive enemy who destroys life and religion, nothing is more incumbent [upon the believer] after faith than his repulsion.’ Al-fatawaa al-kubraa, Ibn Taymiyyah.”
Azzam was the jihadist who reportedly persuaded Osama Bin Laden to come to Afghanistan. However, unlike Osama Bin Laden, he believed that it was incorrect, theologically speaking, to attack non-combatants. The importance of that distinction is also clear in Begg’s defence of the Al Qaeda preacher, Anwar Al Awlaki:
“A cursory look at Awlaki’s pre-incarceration lectures would clearly show just why he became so popular. He was not a radical ‘preacher of hate’ by any stretch of the imagination. Whilst teaching Islamic principles in an erudite and articulate way – he neither shied away from talking about the Islamic concept of jihad (in military terms) nor from condemning the September 11 attacks and terrorism in general. “
The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate jihad is of great significance to Cageprisoners. It goes without saying that they are of the view that jihad – including military struggle – is an essential part of Islam. They oppose attacks on “innocent civilians” (although it is not clear to me whether they regard all civilians as equally innocent) but support “resistance” against “occupation”. Take, for example, this article by Cageprisoner’s Asim Qureshi:
From all of our travels throughout the UK, a common theme that the team at Cageprisoners has found is that many Muslims believe that our brothers and sisters in faith fighting for their survival in various parts of the world have a legitimate right to do so – that policy of self defence from an Islamic perspective is known as jihad. It is a concept that has already been recognised by the Western world in the 80s through their support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation, and again in the 90s as they supported the Bosniaks and Kosovars in their resistance. What this means in practice is that the limitations and justifications require to be clarified and refined in the caldron of public debate between those who have an interest in these issues. Only then can there be a meeting of the opposing views – it is only through this mechanism that we have any hope of persuading, in light of the grievances mentioned by the 7/7 bombers, Abdulmuttalib and others like him, that the ends can never justify the means. It would seem common sense that an open and honest debate about jihad is very much required, indeed, the discussion on jihad is the solution.
In summary, the position of Cageprisoners is that recognising the legitimacy of jihad against ‘occupiers’ in places like Afghanistan will defend Britain against those who believe that the doctrine permits the killing of civilians. Cageprisoners’ solution is: let’s have a mass debate about Jihad.
Perhaps this is what Cageprisoners meant when they explained to the Quaker charity, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, their reasons for establishing their organisation:
To support Moazzam Begg’s work in educating, advocating and inspiring people about the possibilities of reconciliation between the values of the west and Islam.
You can see Asim Qureshi make the same point here:
We embrace the mercy. We embrace every single thing that is set upon us and we deal with it because we have no fear. So when we see the example of our brothers and sisters fighting in Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel, we know what the solution is and where the victory lies. We know that it is incumbent upon all of us to support the jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the west.
At this juncture, we should remind ourselves quite how illegitimate is any suggestion that the Afghan people support the Taliban, recognise them as their proper government, or support this ‘jihad’ against ‘occupation’. The most recent BBC poll of Afghans showed that 83% think that it was either very or mostly good that the Taliban were overthrown. 69% regard the Taliban as ‘the biggest danger in our country’ and only six percent of the population would like to see them as their rulers. They are about as popular as the BNP are in the United Kingdom.
It was to this country that Begg traveled. Here, in his autobiography, is Begg’s perspective on the Taliban in power.
“When I went to Afghanistan, I believed the Taliban had made some modest progress – in social justice and in upholding pure, old style Islamic values forgotten in many Islamic countries. After September 11 that life was destroyed” (p.381).
What attracts him to the Taliban’s rule is that it constituted an attempt to create an Islamic state. His regret at its destruction is made clearer in the account he gives of his interrogation:
‘I wanted to live in an Islamic state – one that was free from the corruption and despotism of the rest of the Muslim world’.
- ‘So you chose the Taliban?’
‘I chose Afghanistan. I admit I have made mistakes – but had it not been for 9/11, I think I would still be living happily in Afghanistan’
- ‘Probably as a member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban’
‘I knew you wouldn’t understand. The Taliban were better than anything Afghanistan has had in the past twenty-five years. You weren’t in Afghanistan – not before nor during the Taliban. Child sex, rape, looting, robbery, murder and opium production only ended when they took control. ‘ (p. 214)
He explains:
“I know the Taliban isolated themselves with their strict interpretation of sharia. But I am sure its regressed to how it used to be, now that the warlords are back” (p.214)
The attraction of the Taliban to Begg is easy to understand. He travelled not only to Afghanistan but also Bosnia. He tried, but failed, to get to Chechnya. Some “tourist”! On each occasion, his motivation was the same: to play his part within the closest thing that existed, in his mind at least, to a perfect Islamic state. Afghanistan under the Taliban may have fell a little short of the ideal: but just like the Soviet Union to the idealistic young Communist, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan had one major attraction. It existed.
It is also important to remember the intellectual milieu in which Begg is steeped. He quotes Azzam, and promotes Awlaki (but not his endorsement of killing civilians). Indeed, Begg has said that one of the most popular books that his bookshop Maktabah Al Ansar sold was Azzam’s “Defence of the Muslim Lands”. Awlaki was guest of honour – by videolink – at Cageprisoner events. Moazzam Begg describes himself as a Salafi. It is natural, therefore, that he is attracted by thinkers who provide a clear and theologically convincing justification of the centrality of jihad in defence of Islamic states.
Begg points out in his letter to the Sunday Times that he “had actually witnessed what I believe were human rights abuses under the Taliban”. That is true.
In his autobiography, Begg describes seeing the dead bodies of those killed by the Taliban, lying at a roundabout. His response is:
“I found the whole thing very shocking”
I have no doubt that he did. Perhaps he thought that a true Islamic state would not need to kill people to maintain its rule. However, it is difficult to think of any similar revolutionary group or regime which has managed to obtain and then retain power without the application of a little judicious force upon those whose purity of spirit is found wanting.
In conclusion, it is difficult to see why Moazzam Begg objects to being described as a supporter of the Taliban. It is clear that he regards their project of creating an Islamic state as a valuable one: so much so that he moved to live under their rule at the same time that many Afghans were fleeing their tyranny. Crucially, he supports jihad against ‘occupation’ in Afghanistan. The Taliban are the only major group fighting “occupation” in Afghanistan.
The United Kingdom is full of followers of a broad range of political movements. Those partisans are frequently and openly critical of aspects of their chosen party’s programme, but stick with them through thick and thin. But they’ll all cheer on their party’s success, when it romps home to victory.
Begg should should demonstrate a similar pride in his own convictions.
When he was putting together his week of lectures on the war against terror at UCL in 2007, the would-be bomber Abdulmutallab invited Begg, Qureshi, Ridley and that dangerous idiot George Galloway to speak. He did so because he knew that the cumulative effect of their commissions and omissions would be to radicalise his audience. Not in defence of human rights. Not in favour of Western agendas such as Amnesty’s, but against democracy, women’s rights and peace. You have to be a something of a fool not to see it.
To the embarrassment of its most principled supporters and against all internal entreaties, Amnesty International has persisted in whoring itself out to Cage Prisoners, a front for Taliban enthusiasts and al Qaida devotees that fraudulently presents itself a human rights group.
After two years of trying to reason with her bosses, Gita Sahgal, the head of AI’s gender unit, decided she’d finally had enough. This weekend, she blew the whistle. She gave the Times of London her January 30 appeal to her bosses, which states only the obvious: AI’s service to Cage Prisoners is both prone and supine, it “fundamentally damages Amnesty International’s integrity and, more importantly, constitutes a threat to human rights.” AI’s conduct has been driven by a cowardly fear of being labeled Islamophobic. More of the obvious: “To be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.” Read more »
The New Statesman has been a shadow of its former self recently. Even its blog ‘the Staggers’ has rarely managed to attract more than a couple of desultory comments under each article.
Until now that is. A recent online article has smashed previous records and attracted over two hundred comments, an unbelievable number for the ailing publication.
I set out a selection of the comments the article on Seventh Century Imam Hussein has attracted below:
Jacqueline Cainer: Thanks for this article, it has helped me to understand somewhat my son Jonathon’s new found faith.
Rachel S: Excellent article – please keep them coming. No one else on earth has been able to evoke such strong emotions in people and that too thirteen centuries later. Thank you God for this miracle.
Sarah: Great article – hope to see more articles like this that inform the reader truthfully about Islam, whatever their background or faith. The message of peace and tolerance of Imam Hussain from the tragedy of Kerbala has impacted upon the West’s modern day heros as well as the world’s Muslims
Kerry Hamilton: If one tenth of this event were to take place in the West, films upon films would have been made about it. Iraq, however, seems like “background noise” to most of us living in in the West. As a non-Muslim I feel like taking the journey there, hopefully when security improves. Thank you for the article NewStatesman.
Mark Bellfield – Auckland, New Zealand: This is the first time I read about the Shia pilgrimage to Karbala. It is a very informative and insightful account spoken by an Iraqi.
David: Ecellent, eloquent, clear and a well written peice. Captures the nectar of Hussein that is truly universal and beyond race, gender, religion and culture.
Gosh, hasn’t our knowledge of Islamic sects improved since the days when the New Statesman was a socialist magazine? Too bad the grammar’s not as good though.
No seriously it’s true that’s just what you are according to some new research that found the left favours Apple iPhones while the right favours the Blackberry (that hissing you heard just then was me dropping my Blackberry 8500 into my tea).
The research from new technology coalitionCALinnovates.org was done in the US around the hotly contested race for the governorship of California. What it found was that iPhone users prefer probable Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown while Blackberry users prefer the Republican Meg Whitman (the former CEO of Ebay).
iPhone users support Democratic candidate Jerry Brown over Republican candidate Meg Whitman 57% to 31% while Blackberry users support Whitman over Brown 47% to 38%.
I am betting that if the research was done in the UK we would see a similar left/right technology split. The research throws a fascinating light on the politics of technology. Apple with its cool design and sleek look has always had a particular liberal creative appeal as part of its brand giving it an almost rebel brand status that eschewed the dull corporatism of rivals.
It’s interesting to see that as Apple products have become almost ubiquitous, and much more widely owned than when it was simply a computer firm, its original market appeal does not seem to have been diluted.
I’d always suspected that as ownership became more widespread via the iPod and iPhone so would the character that makes up its customers and while there has been some change that we can lay at the doorstop of ubiquity apparently that is not as much as I’d once thought.
Apple owners it appears (whether they closely identify with the brand or claim not to) are still broadly residents of the liberal left.
I’m guessing if you own both a Blackberry and some kind of Apple Mac you’re probably a Liberal Democrat and Nick Clegg awaits your call.
