Victoria Brittain, “Dangerous Game: A Reply to Gita Sahgal and her Supporters”
In the week following June 26, International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the co-author with Moazzam Begg of his book Enemy Combatant: the terrifying true story of a Briton in Guantanamo, comes to the defence of his work and that of Cageprisoners. A bitter controversy has only fed Islamophobia, demonised an innocent person, and obscured the real human rights issues at stake
Moazzam Begg: Jihad and Terrorism — A War of the Words
Although jihad does seek to terrify those who are engaged in oppression, abuse and violation of the sanctity of Muslims (and those under their protection), ordinary, decent human beings should not have to fear it, even when their own governments have committed crimes in their names. The purpose of jihad is to protect – not oppress. Being just to the enemy might be the hardest jihad of the nafs but it is still incumbent upon Muslims. This notion couldn’t be clearer than in the Quranic verse: O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah.
In conclusion, jihad is an inseparable component of Islam which embodies the very highest principles of faith, morality and rules of wartime engagement. It is the belief of Muslims that ‘jihad is an ‘ibaadah (act of worship) that will continue until the Final Day.’ But as it is waged, in all its forms, Muslims must neither allow their oppressors to overcome them nor to become their teachers in the process. In doing so, the concept of jihad in Islam can be reclaimed once again by the Muslims.
و الحمد لله رب العالمين
_
وَأَعِدُّواْ لَهُم مَّا اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن قُوَّةٍ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدْوَّ اللّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ وَآخَرِينَ مِن دُونِهِمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَهُمُ اللّهُ يَعْلَمُهُمْ وَمَا تُنفِقُواْ مِن شَيْءٍ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ يُوَفَّ إِلَيْكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تُظْلَمُونَ
“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.”
Qur’an 8:60
Alternative translations for “turhiboona” could be: “terrify; dismay; threaten; strike terror into the hearts; frighten; spread awe into the hearts: but it comes from the same word used in Arabic for terrorism today — irhab….and indeed as Moazzam Begg points out in jihad one is commanded to strike fear into the hearts of the oppressors. What did you think the enemies were not supposed to be afraid of the Muslims during physical fighting?
The whole point of Begg’s piece however is that innocent people, even innocent citizens of oppressive nations, should not have anything to fear from jihad and if they do then it is not truly jihad.
I thought that was a very sensible way to put it.
thank you! I learned something.
I like the Google translate form:
Prepare for them what you can of power, including steeds of war you terrify the enemy of God and your enemy and others besides whom you know not what God teaches you spend nothing in the way of Allah fulfilled you and you do not unjustly.
Not Muslim but this concept of love bravery and sacrifice should be the way everyone lives. Much respect for the enlightenment.
Amazing and beautiful reminiscence from Moazzam Begg on one of the Guantanamo captives who has finally been freed:
Seated on the floor of the C130 transport aircraft,
with my hands tied behind my back, my legs shackled and my head hooded; under
the flashes of light from cameras of US soldiers taking trophy pictures and
over the roar of the engines I heard someone next to me say in Arabic:
“Brother, the time for prayer has come – let us perform our prayer.” That was
my first ever act of worship in US custody and it was marked by the fortitude of a man I
will never forget: Abdul Rauf al-Libee. It has been over eight years since
that day but finally, he and the others taste a freedom that has come after an immense test. The the fight for the others goes on…
Andy Worthington writes in defence of Moazzam Begg and Amnesty International.
Rift develops within Amnesty International over partnering with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners.
Amnesty International has been accused of putting the human rights of Al-Qaeda terrorists above those of their victims, following the charity’s affiliation with a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, who has championed the rights of jailed Al-Qaeda members and hate preachers.
Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty’s international secretariat, believes that collaborating with Moazzam Begg and his “jihadi” group, Cageprisoners, “fundamentally damages” the organisation’s reputation.
….Sahgal, who has researched religious fundamentalism for 20 years, has decided to go public because she feels Amnesty has ignored her warnings for the past two years about the involvement of Begg in the charity’s Counter Terror With Justice campaign.
“I believe the campaign fundamentally damages Amnesty International’s integrity and, more importantly, constitutes a threat to human rights,” Sahgal wrote in an email to the organisation’s leaders on January 30.
Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners have been on the outs around here for some time.
Ms. Saghal was suspended by Amnesty International after the story ran.
And Mr. Begg is not “on the outs” with me.
Nor is Cageprisoners.
This is the response by Moazzem Beg and Cageprisoners. I agree with Abu Noor, more right wing
propaganda with little or no basis. A simple reading of Begg’s biography would suffice to end this nonsense. On p. 91 of his book ‘Enemy Combatant’ he tells of a Taliban group who saved some children from becoming sex slaves of a local warlord. But on p 95 he says ‘”I soon got quite disillusioned with the Taliban’” His only attempt at jihad, according to his book, was to try unsuccessfully to join the Chechen struggle against the Russians.
Further, if one believes the allegations of Saghal then using the same logic one can make an allegation that Amnesty International by way of its support of Majid Nawaz is in support of neo-conservatism, since the British govt. funded Quilliam Foundation includes people such as:
Michael Gove (“Iraq War is the Triumph of Freedom over Evil)
Martin Bright (Neo-Conservatism: Why We Need It)
Ed Husain (“the Joy of American soldiers invading Iraq“)
Do only loose words and associations count when it comes to Muslims and not warmongering Neo-Cons?
Douglas Murray, not Martin Bright, is the author of NeoConservatism: Why We Need It.
Also, AI supported Nawaaz as a prisoner of conscience when he was locked up in Egypt due to his being a member of HT. There is no link, afaik, between AI and Quilliam.
The question here is about Awlaki’s purported views and Cageprisoners ‘relationship’ with him. I believe they had this response too in the wake of the ‘underpants bomb plot’.
My apologies about the mix-up of Douglas Murray. However the full list of neo-con advisors of Quilliam was taken down from Quilliam’s site after it got out. Bright made statements did make statements in support of it.
No link? What about this then:
Maajid Nawaz speaks at Amnesty Student Conference
Ed Husain Speaks at Amnesty International
further the post by someone at Amnesty in support of Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation over at Huffington Post
Again I am simply asking that the same criteria used to convict Begg for his ideas and associations be applied to Quilliam and Amnesty as well.
I don’t like Martin Bright, but he isn’t a neocon.
I guess the point is this:
Fred Husain and chums (at least on the face of it) claim to support HR, the very theory/practice/idea/whatever AI campaign for.
Do Cageprisoners’ and their associates? I think people can make up their own minds by reading various statements released for/against Cageprisoners.
Here’s a statement by Sahgal (from Bright’s Spectator blog as it happens).
Just because one is a neo-con does not necessarily mean that one is a racist. Many simply subscribe to neo-conservatism for opportunist reasons or because they have fantasies of empire building (as opposed to nation building). Similarly if one is not a neo-con per se that does not mean they don’t harbor sentiments and advocate policies, ideas, and actions that are explicitly anti-Muslim in nature.
Martin Bright, is first and foremost a supporter of Israel. His antipathy and hatred of all things Islam and Muslim doesn’t necessarily have to do with Muslims but with Islam itself. Like Wilders his hatred is not necessarily with Muslims but with Islam itself. He claims that the Quran is a forged lie, a con-trick , according to Islamophobia Watch he is a self-confessed Islamophobe (“There is a LOT in Islam to be afraid of”) he has won praise from the BNP and other right wing racists for his documentaries on Muslims/Islam in Britian, he has also advocated that govt. aid to Muslim groups and schools be conditioned on their support for the state of Israel. In short, what the BNP, EDL cannot say publicly he can and does to win praise.
All the more interesting that he is one of the cheerleaders of Gita Sahgal in this affair.
Just a few clarifications.
1. I am not first and foremost a supporter of Israel. I support its right to exist and not to be threatened by its neighbours or a victim of terrorism. I have been critical of Israel on a number of occasions, including on the front page this week’s Jewish Chronicle, which I commend to readers of this blog.
2. I do not claim the Quran is a forged lie or a con-trick. This was a headline put on a piece which said nothing of the sort. I am not a Muslim (indeed I have no faith) but I recognise the importance of the Quran as a remarkable holy book.
3. Islamophobia Watch is wrong on this matter (and just about everything else). I specifically said during the discussion to which Bob Pitt (not a known authority on Islam) refers that I was not Islamophobic although I understood that people were afraid of Islam. Indeed I am an Islamophile, who spent three years studying the history of Islam at SOAS.
4. I did not say that government aid should be contingent on support for the state of Israel. I said that the Muslim Council of Britain should not expect to have a role advising government while it boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day.
So… get your facts right before posting ill-founded untruths
Since its quite fun to obfusicate and parse words, lets get a shovel and start digging up some “truths”:
1. a) the Jewish Chronicle is the leading supporter of Israel in the UK, which puts even the Daily Telegraph to shame, so shilling your own zionist soapbox (of which you are an editor) doesn’t really prove anything.
b) your lock-step support for Israel during the Gaza bombardment notwithstanding, this quote from your piece is telling:
It is not the responsibility of the Israeli government to consider the consequences of their actions on the rise of militant Islam in Britain and Europe.
Valid question could be asked as to whether you (as a zionist) place Israeli interests above those of Europe or the UK?
2. the article about the “Quran is a forged trick” WAS written by you. It cited among others the works of Gerald Hawting, Patricia Crone, and Michael Cooke to question the authenticity of the Quran. ALL 3 took exception to your skewed and deliberate interpretation of their work. Your former teacher and SOAS professor Hawting wrote in response to it:
The spurious air of conspiracy and censorship conjured up in Martin Bright’s article is nonsense. All of the named scholars whose ‘conclusions’ are said to be so ‘devastating’ for Islam hold or held senior positions in front-rank universities and their books are published by leading university presses and other houses, freely available for anyone who cares to read them.
I did not ‘warn’ (whatever that might mean) the journalist concerned not to publish the article, and the ‘decent obscurity’ I suggested was for the right-wing and fundamentalist websites by which he is so fascinated. Penguin Books has not ‘postponed’ the publication of ‘a controversial new history of Islam’ by me. I was never contracted to them to write such a work. The implication that John Wansbrough was the founder of SOAS was probably the result of slipshod editing*, but the suggestion that his decision to live in France following retirement reflects a desire to live in ‘obscurity’ (a faraway country of which we know little!) is mere embroidery
source: http://www.newstatesman.com/200112170032
b. Since your recognition of the Quran as a “remarkable book” it is rather odd and curious to see how you wanted to sue for libel the Muslim Council of Britain when they didn’t agree with your zionist agenda:
c. This was then followed up with libeling Mehdi Hasan when he quoted an ayah of the Quran which you didn’t like. Something which must have eluded your “deep study” of Islam and the Quran for 3 years at SOAS?
3. Is Islamophobia Watch misquoting you when you said this at a FOSIS August 2005 conference:
“There is a LOT in Islam to be afraid of..”
1 word answer YES or NO? And please save your bullshit and linguistic acrobatics/gymnastics for the circus.
and if your one of your own former instructors at SOAS calls you a sorry excuse for a student in twisting and skewing interpretations for political ends, that should indicate clearly for what purpose you allegedly “studied” Islam at SOAS for for 3 years.
4. Using the Holocaust (along with reflexively shouting “anti-semitism”) as a political weapon to silence any and all criticism and dissent against the state of Israel or Zio-nazis and their policies is a time honored trick. One that Norman Finkelstein has done an excellent job in dissecting:
My last question is a simple one: Why do you maintain the farce of not being militantly not being racist against Muslims? Why go through the motions and just come all the way out of the closet and grow a spine, backbone, testicles, or any degree of manhood and proudly proclaim that you hate and despise Muslims/Islam? Wilders has done it. Nick Griffin and the BNP have done it?
Why not come out of the closet? Why spam and troll Muslim blogs/sites trying to howl and bark about something in your heart that you know that you are?
I’ve only just stumbled upon this thread. But for the record I should reply to Martin Bright’s claim:
“I specifically said during the discussion to which Bob Pitt (not a known authority on Islam) refers that I was not Islamophobic although I understood that people were afraid of Islam. Indeed I am an Islamophile,”
When Bright spoke at the FOSIS conference at City Hall in August 2005 he quite clearly did say that he had no problems being described as an Islamophobe – because, he said, there was a lot in Islam to be afraid of. He got booed, as you might imagine, given the audience he was addressing.
True, in reply to the discussion Bright did say that he shouldn’t have made that remark. But the fact is that he did. I was there. I heard him. As did a hundred or so other people.
Faisal Gazi unpacks the early days of Anwar al-Awlaki’s radicalism:
A Washington Post report examined tax records from as early as 1998, which showed that Awlaki served as vice president of a charity (CSSW) founded by his then patron Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, a Yemeni politician who is named as an associate of Al-Qaeda. The CSSW has been described a “front organization to funnel money to terrorists”. The FBI also know that he was paid a visit in 2000 by an associate of Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the blind sheikh, who was convicted in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The report also states that in 1999, Awlaki was investigdated by the FBI “when it learnt that he may have been visited by a “procurement agent” for bin Laden”.
Gazi sets out to prove that claims that al-Awlaki only recently left the moderate path are dissembling falsehoods meant to hide either embarrassing naivete, crass pandering, or secret support for radicalism.
He is chasing some Muslim politicians and prominent Islamic activists and groups in the UK who embraced al-Awlaki until recently such as Osama Saeed of the Scottish National Party and Azad Ali, the president of the Civil Service Islamic Society, as well as the East London Mosque and the Islamic Forum Europe and of course, Moazzam Begg’s Cage Prisoners.
Meanwhile, the Spittoon and other Liberal Muslims ignore the “evil ideology” that led to Britain illegally invading another country, aiding and abetting the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and one of the world’s biggest acts of war profiteering.
Not sure Moazzam Begg is doing himself any favours by hanging out with Anwar Al-Awlaki.
Have you read Enemy Combatant? Begg has read a selection of Victorian fiction and studied a bit of English law. And he speaks a few languages, too. And he’s read a selection of Victorian fiction and studied a bit of English law. And he speaks a few languages, too. And he’s read a…
I was going to read Enemy Combatant; then I started reading Begg’s public statements, the people he was hanging around with, and decided I’d rather not…
Moazzam Begg and Binyam Mohamed, both former guests of the US government c/o Guantanamo Human Rights Abuse Theme Park, in conversation — text or audio.
Kalon, 
aziz, 
Pretty Pink Unicorns, and 3 others are discussing. 
Bob Pitt, 
Sameer, 
Martin Bright, and 3 others are discussing. 
thabet is discussing. 
jihad seeks to terrify? wtf.