IW Gets a Well Deserved Kick in the Pants

Robert Pitt is the far-Left blogger who furiously documents any criticism of Islamism on “Islam0phobia-Watch”. Pitt publishes his anti-Muslim/pro-Islamist screed under the nom de guerre of Martin Sullivan.

Pitt/Sullivan published this childish rant in response to Gita Sahgal lambasting of Amnesty and Moazzam Begg:

Gita Sahgal is a member of a nutty group called Women Against Fundamentalisms. In a 2006 radio programme she defended the view that by consulting the Muslim Council of Britain the government was encouraging fundamentalism.

Stroppyblog fillets this defamatory nonsense and hangs poor Pitt up to dry:

Yeah, listen to the male community leaders instead boys, rather than women who have fought in their respective religious communities for the rights of women. A group who campaigned alongside Southall Black Sisters , stood up to men who shouted them down when they dared speak out against censorship, who screamed at them on demos saying they should be at home when they dared speak out about the Fatwa on Rushdie.

Shame IW had to stoop to the level of insults such as cranks and nutty, used by men to dismiss women who are a bit uppity . Hey boys, why not go the whole misogynistic hog and ask if she has PMT.

Still I’m sure that has put Gita and the girls in their place, hope they sit down and shut up , else they will be called Islamaphobic. That should silence debate as usual.

Ouch!

A message to silly Mr Pitt: If you’re going to trade in misogynistic, racist, sexist, Islamist drivel be prepared to take some flack once in a while.

Posted in Islamism, The Far Left | 1 Comment

Mixed Messages from CagePrisoners

This is a cross-post of an article by Alexander-Meleagrou Hitchens

****

In yesterday’s Sunday Times, CagePrisoners (CP) was criticised for promoting al-Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki on their site. The group’s head, Moazzam Begg, responded by saying that ‘I don’t consider anybody a terrorist until they have been charged and convicted of terrorism.’ The only problem with this is that his organisation’s website is replete with profiles and sympathetic interviews with convicted terrorists. Rightly, Begg follows the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ line, but when they are convicted, CP seem to give the terrorists a lot of sympathy.

CP’s website, for example, reproduces and publishes letters and poems written by people who have been convicted on terrorism charges in the UK. What is the justification for this? Begg has never addressed this issue, and it is about time that he did. I have already covered the materials on the CP site in previous blogs.

One organisation, which CP has some links with, addresses this issue much more clearly. Prisoners of Faith (PoF) is a group similar to CagePrisoners, except they are much more frank about what they think of Islamist terrorists behind bars:

Prisoners of Faith has been set up to inform the ummah about our current Muslim prisoners. The reason for implementing a penal system is to punish criminals so that they re-enter life rehabilitated or duly punished. How can it be a crime to only believe in ‘La ilaha illallah’ [there is no god but Allah] and to only want His rule to govern?

The incarceration of Muslims may seem like a relatively new phenomenon, since 2000 approximately 1000 Muslims have been arrested, many jailed without charge, and this is a fraction compared to other parts of the world where the atrocities are worse, yet how many of us actually remember them? How many of us take out time to find out what is happening to our brothers and sisters? Whether they are detained without charge, with charge or even convicted? Do we just believe what we see on the TV? Or should we make excuses for our brothers and sisters and give them the benefit of the doubt?

… So the role of Prisoners of Faith is to inform you about the prisoners and to help them to be remembered in your du’aas [prayers] constantly inshaAllah

The part I have put in bold is the most relevant here as indeed all Islamist terrorist are fighting primarily because they wish to establish the rule of God throughout the world, and for PoF striving toward this simply cannot be a crime. It’s also nice to see them doing their part to lionise terrorists by asking for Muslims to pray for them on a purely sectarian basis.

CP have reproduced PoF articles on their site and also include on their Facebook page this video produced by PoF:

The hooligan shouting at the police in the beginning of the video is Abu Hamza’s right hand man, Abu Abdullah (aka Atilla Ahmet). He is now serving a seven year sentence for soliciting to murder. Here he is praising ‘the honourable Sheikh’ Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and 9/11:

The PoF video then goes on to show pictures of numerous convicted and suspected terrorists, including Anwar al-Awlaki (3.47 mins) and it makes no effort to present these men and their actions as wrong or un-Islamic, instead telling viewers: ‘Do not forsake them! Remember your Brothers and Sisters in your du’as (prayers) this Ramadan’.

Posted in Islamism, Terrorism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Moazzam Begg Responds

Moazzam Begg of Cageprisoners has issued a reponse to the charges made of him and Amnesty International by Gita Sahgal in Richard Kerbaj’s article in the Sunday Times.

We are posting it in full here, but before we do so, here is a video by Asim Qureshi of Cageprisoners, pontificating on the “religious obligation” on Muslims to wage violent jihad.

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.

And here is Moazzam Begg:

7th February 2010

Richard Kerbaj

The Sunday Times

Dear Mr. Kerbaj,

Your Article: ‘Amnesty International is ‘damaged’ by Taliban link’

I was shocked and extremely disappointed to see your article in today’s Sunday Times make no reference at all to the questions you so ardently sought to have answered (as mentioned below) and, that I explained to you in some detail in our telephone conversation yesterday.

Your headline makes a serious accusation: that it proves to expose a tangible link between Amnesty and the Taliban. Can I ask exactly who in the Taliban you are referring to that is either linked to Amnesty or me?

It seems very odd that your article, which is entirely about Amnesty’s relationships with me, carries very little in the way of responses from me which you so clearly went out of your way to seek. Why is that?

When asked about the nature of my relationship with Amnesty you make no mention of my response: that I work very closely with them and that it stretches back to the time that Amnesty worked with my father when I was in Guantanamo.

I told you clearly that if you wanted to know my (and Cageprisoners’) views about Awlaki to refer to the article that is on our website: http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=30886 in which you could have quoted, had you wished, the following:

“Cageprisoners never has and never will support the ideology of killing innocent civilians, whether by suicide bombers or B52s, whether that’s authorised by Awlaki or by Obama. Neither will we be forced into determining a person’s guilt outside a recognised court of law.” This article also deals with any concerns about the recent Christmas day plot – something you asked us about.

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.

Posted in Islamism, Terrorism | 6 Comments

Statement by Gita Sahgal on Amnesty, CagePrisoners and Begg

This is Gita Sahgal’s statement following her suspension by her employers Amnesty International (originally posted at Stroppyblog):

****

Amnesty International and Cageprisoners

Statement by Gita Sahgal

7 February 2010

This morning the Sunday Times published an article about Amnesty International’s association with groups that support the Taliban and promote Islamic Right ideas. In that article, I was quoted as raising concerns about Amnesty’s very high profile associations with Guantanamo-detainee Moazzam Begg. I felt that Amnesty International was risking its reputation by associating itself with Begg, who heads an organization, Cageprisoners, that actively promotes Islamic Right ideas and individuals.

Within a few hours of the article being published, Amnesty had suspended me from my job.

A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when a great organisation must ask: if it lies to itself, can it demand the truth of others? For in defending the torture standard, one of the strongest and most embedded in international human rights law, Amnesty International has sanitized the history and politics of the ex-Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg and completely failed to recognize the nature of his organisation Cageprisoners.

The tragedy here is that the necessary defence of the torture standard has been inexcusably allied to the political legitimization of individuals and organisations belonging to the Islamic Right.

I have always opposed the illegal detention and torture of Muslim men at Guantanamo Bay and during the so-called War on Terror. I have been horrified and appalled by the treatment of people like Moazzam Begg and I have personally told him so. I have vocally opposed attempts by governments to justify ‘torture lite’.

The issue is not about Moazzam Begg’s freedom of opinion, nor about his right to propound his views: he already exercises these rights fully as he should. The issue is a fundamental one about the importance of the human rights movement maintaining an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination and fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights. I have raised this issue because of my firm belief in human rights for all.

I sent two memos to my management asking a series of questions about what considerations were given to the nature of the relationship with Moazzam Begg and his organisation, Cageprisoners. I have received no answer to my questions. There has been a history of warnings within Amnesty that it is inadvisable to partner with Begg. Amnesty has created the impression that Begg is not only a victim of human rights violations but a defender of human rights. Many of my highly respected colleagues, each well-regarded in their area of expertise has said so. Each has been set aside.

As a result of my speaking to the Sunday Times, Amnesty International has announced that it has launched an internal inquiry. This is the moment to press for public answers, and to demonstrate that there is already a public demand including from Amnesty International members, to restore the integrity of the organisation and remind it of its fundamental principles.

I have been a human rights campaigner for over three decades, defending the rights of women and ethnic minorities, defending religious freedom and the rights of victims of torture, and campaigning against illegal detention and state repression. I have raised the issue of the association of Amnesty International with groups such as Begg’s consistently within the organisation. I have now been suspended for trying to do my job and staying faithful to Amnesty’s mission to protect and defend human rights universally and impartially.

Posted in Human Rights | Leave a comment

Amnesty Suspends Gita Sahgal

Gita Sahgal’s accusations were published in today’s Sunday Times, blowing the whistle on Amnesty’s unholy alliance with Moazzam Begg.

Martin Bright praised Sahgal for her bravery but also warned darkly of the repercussions she would suffer for taking a stand against the consensus of the “human rights community”:

It is difficult to make a stand on these issues and keep one’s friends on the left and in the human rights community, so I take my hat off to Gita. I have often discussed with her how best to raise these issues and she has been deeply frustrated by the way the British liberal intelligentsia gives house-room to right-wing Islamists.

She was one of the first people in Britain to warn of the dangers of the politics of Jamaat-i-Islami, the south Asian blood-brothers of the Muslim Brotherhood. She was instrumental in the making of a Channel 4 documentary on alleged Bangladeshi war criminals who had found safe haven in Britain (I can give you no further detail because the Spectator will get an immediate letter from Carter-Ruck solicitors who are representing a key individual in the film).

Sure enough, Amnesty has now suspended Gita Sahgal as noted on Martin Bright’s blog.

AI have issued this statement on its website:

One of those who was released without charge, and has never been convicted of terrorist-related offences, is Moazzam Begg. Following his release in 2005, Amnesty International met him to discuss his experiences. Moazzam Begg’s account is consistent with the testimony of other detainees about human rights violations. He has since spoken at Amnesty International events describing his experiences and highlighting the plight of detainees who remain in Guantánamo and the need for accountability for human rights violations.

A European tour is currently underway as part of a campaign to encourage more EU countries to accept former Guantánamo detainees.

The tour was initiated by Reprieve and the Centre for Constitutional Rights but a number of Amnesty International national sections are hosting the tour in different European countries.

Tomorrow, Moazzam Begg will speaking alongside Amnesty International, speaking specifically on behalf of those detainees in need of protection in a third country.

Today, Amnesty International is being criticised for speaking alongside him and for being “soft” on the Taleban, when our record is one of unreserved opposition to their abuses over the years.

Interestingly, the US and other governments that have violated human rights standards in the name of countering terrorism justify those violations by saying that our security can only be protected by violating the rights of others. Mr Begg is one of the people that the US government defined as “other.”

But there is no place for the “other” in human rights because to argue that some people are more ‘deserving’ than others of having their rights protected is to argue that some beings are less than human.

We understand why we are ethically obliged to take a human rights position against illegal detention, torture and renditions. What we don’t understand, and conspicuously absent in that statement, is how in doing so Amnesty International justifies partnering with supporters of Jihadi terrorism.

Posted in Human Rights, Moral relativism | 24 Comments

Gita Sahgal Blows the Whistle on Amnesty and CagePrisoners

Here is an astonishing act of bravery by Gita Sahgal from within Amnesty International. We at The Spittoon applaud and support her on this principled act.

Sahgal, a senior official at Amnesty International, has accused AI of legitimising the jihadist Moazzam Begg and his organisation Cage Prisoners. This is a hugely significant intervention which, we hope, will finally point much-needed spotlight on Amnesty’s continued patronisation of this known jihadist group and the activities of its directors.

Sahgal’s accusations are based on a fundamental point of principle, which is this: It is correct for Amnesty to hold human rights positions on fair trial, torture, diplomatic assurances and work against renditions and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. However, these positions should also require us to hold salafi-jihadi groups and other religious absolutists accountable. Human rights abuses of torture, for example, should not be used to justify, legitimise and finally partner with proponents of violent jihad such as Moazzam Begg.

Finally, an internal investigation is now due in Amnesty International as a result of Sahgal’s intervention.

A SENIOR official at Amnesty International has accused the charity of putting the human rights of Al-Qaeda terror suspects above those of their victims.

Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty’s international secretariat, believes that collaborating with Moazzam Begg, a former British inmate at Guantanamo Bay, “fundamentally damages” the organisation’s reputation.

In an email sent to Amnesty’s top bosses, she suggests the charity has mistakenly allied itself with Begg and his “jihadi” group, Cageprisoners, out of fear of being branded racist and Islamophobic.

Sahgal describes Begg as “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban”. He has championed the rights of jailed Al-Qaeda members and hate preachers, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the alleged spiritual mentor of the Christmas Day Detroit plane bomber.

Amnesty’s work with Cageprisoners took it to Downing Street last month to demand the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Begg has also embarked on a European tour, hosted by Amnesty, urging countries to offer safe haven to Guantanamo detainees. This is despite concerns about former inmates returning to terrorism.

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. “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.”

Amnesty is the world’s biggest human rights organisation with 2.2m members and a galaxy of celebrity supporters, including Bono, John Cleese, Yoko Ono, Al Pacino and Sinead O’Connor. Its decision to work with Begg poses liberal backers with a moral dilemma and raises questions about the direction in which Amnesty has travelled since it was set up in 1961 to support “prisoners of conscience”.

“As a former Guantanamo detainee it was legitimate to hear his experiences, but as a supporter of the Taliban it was absolutely wrong to legitimise him as a partner,” Sahgal told The Sunday Times.

Begg, 42, from Birmingham, was held at Guantanamo for three years until 2005 under suspicion of links to Al-Qaeda, which he denies. Prior to his arrest, Begg lived with his family in Kabul and praised the Taliban in his memoirs as “better than anything Afghanistan has had in 20 years”. After his release Begg became the figurehead for Cageprisoners, which describes itself as “a human rights organisation that exists solely to raise awareness of the plight of prisoners … held as part of the War On Terror”.

Posted in Human Rights, Islamism | 10 Comments

Mohammad Mosaddeq: Some Myths Dispelled

This is a cross-post of an article by Michael Ezra on Harry’s Place

****

Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq was a popular Iranian politician. An Iranian nationalist, who hailed from a wealthy and prominent family he served as Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 – 1953.[1] According to one of his own cousins, as well as being “Distinguished,” he was “highly emotional.” He would gesture “wildly” in “theatrical” speeches. When he was nervous or in a rage, tears “sprung unbidden from his eyes” that he would wipe away with his hand.[2] His major political achievement was to nationalise the British controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company[3] (abrogating an agreement that would have expired in 1993).[4] Mosaddeq’s time as Prime Minister ended abruptly in August 1953 after a CIA sponsored coup that replaced him with a retired army major general, Fazlollah Zahedi.[5]

Myth 1: Mosaddeq was a Democrat.

In an otherwise interesting article about Iran, Danny Postel, writing in The Liberal, comments that “Mohammad Mosaddeq, was nothing if not a liberal democrat!”[6]

The Truth.

Mosaddeq was a constitutional democrat. He accepted the shah reigning but was opposed to him ruling.[7] In his memoirs he claimed that apart from nationalising the oil, his goal was “freedom and independence” for Iran.[8] His political biographer, Homa Katouzian, argues that “Democratic government” was his “most important objective.”[9] Despite this, Mosaddeq did not act as a democrat, at least, not in the way we understand a democrat should act. Kenneth Pollack explains how he gerrymandered an election in 1952 and arranged for the election to be halted when votes came in suggesting that his coalition, the National Front, was not going to win.[10] Moreover, in a national referendum that Mosaddeq called in July 1953:

There were separate ballot boxes for “yes” and “no” votes, and they were generally set up on opposite sides of a room so that a person’s vote was hardly secret. There were other charges of even more deliberate tampering. Not surprisingly, on August 3, Mosaddeq “won” the referendum with more than 99% of the vote.[11]

Pollack also argues that Mosaddeq “had effectively made himself dictator of Iran.”[12]This dictatorial view is shared by Patrick Clawson and Michael Rubin who add that Mosaddeq “increasingly showed himself unwilling to compromise or to tolerate parliamentary dissent”[13] and “increasingly relied on the [Communist] Tudeh and its street thugs to intimidate opponents and constrain any opposition.”[14]

Myth 2: The Coup Against Mosaddeq was all about oil.

I have had many discussions with people of Iranian origin who seem entirely convinced that the CIA led a coup against Mosaddeq for control of Iranian oil.

The Truth.

Mosaddeq was determined to nationalise the British controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. He felt that the 1933 oil concession provided by Iran to the company was invalid and illegal. As such, he actually wanted compensation from the British, arising from what he believed were past wrongs, as opposed to what the British wanted: compensation from Iran for nationalising the company.[15] The British view was that the oil in Iran was “clearly the property of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.”[16] This can be compared to Mosaddeq’s view: “The oil resources of Iran, like its soil, its rivers and mountains, are the property of the people of Iran.”[17] These respective positions could not be reconciled.

Posted in History | 5 Comments

Ambassador At Large

Some levity for a Saturday afternoon:

Despite having served for years as a distinguished Pakistani diplomat, Akbar Zeb reportedly cannot receive accreditation as Pakistan’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia. The reason, apparently, has nothing to do with his credentials, and everything to do with his name — which, in Arabic, translates to “biggest dick”

According to this Arabic-language article in the Arab Times, Pakistan had previously floated Zeb’s name as ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, only to have him rejected for the same reason. One can only assume that submitting Zeb’s name to a number of Arabic-speaking countries is some unique form of punishment designed by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry — or the result of a particularly egregious cockup.

The Arabs never offered the Pakistani Foreign Office an explanation for their decision. So the Pakistani FO assumed the US was behind it. Obviously.

Posted in International Affairs | Leave a comment

Mohammed Atif Siddique and ‘racism’

This is a cross-post of an article by Robin Simcox.

****

In September 2007, Mohammed Atif Siddique was jailed for eight years for various terror offences. The most serious of these charges – possession of an article for a purpose connected to terrorism – was quashed last week. The appeals judge, Lord Osborne, called the original verdict a ‘miscarriage of justice’, which is inevitably the headline that most of the press ran on. The impression given was that the British state was once again unfairly demonising its Muslim population.

What was missed in most of the reporting was that Lord Osborne was only referring to the main charge as a miscarriage of justice. Siddique’s convictions for providing instruction for the purposes of terrorism, circulating a terrorist publication and breach of the peace still stood. Looking through the court documents, it is clear that Siddique is an unapologetic admirer of al-Qaeda and its ideology. He amassed huge stocks of jihadist material and would regularly discuss his desire to become a suicide bomber. That he could be used as an example of how ‘discriminatory’ the British state is somewhat rankles, to say the least.

However the really depressing information to come out of the court documentation is how the Glasgow college Siddique attended utterly failed to deal with his increasingly extreme behaviour:

‘Stephen Aitken, who taught website development… had been concerned in the web design class that the appellant had been using the symbolism of black flags. He had sought, but failed to obtain, an explanation from the appellant as to why he was doing this, but the matter was taken no further.’‘Brian Glancey, who taught the use of information technology as a business resource, spoke of two occasions upon which he told the appellant to stop accessing the websites he was looking at, notably ones displaying images of Osama bin Laden and musings and exploits of suicide bombers. He had told the appellant that it was inappropriate to access what he called “terrorist websites”. He had reported that access to his line manager. Again nothing positive appeared to have been done about that…William Stein, who also taught aspects of desktop publishing, had also told the appellant to stop accessing what he considered to be “inappropriate sites” which contained the logo of a circle and a rifle, at about the time of Ken Bigley’s murder.’

So there were multiple occasions when Siddique’s tutors were aware of their pupil’s penchant for jihad. Yet nothing was done. Want to hazard a guess at to why?

‘The impression gained from the block of evidence concerned was that the staff were reluctant to do anything for fear of some accusation of racist conduct.’ [my emphasis]

This is textbook moral relativism. An unwillingness (or inability) to make a moral judgement results in college staff being afraid to act upon their student’s glorification of Osama bin Laden and other mass murderers because to do so would be ‘racist’. This is, ironically enough, about as racist as it gets. Assuming that Muslims can’t help themselves when it comes to supporting terrorist causes, pleasant, well-meaning people apply a much lower standard to their Muslim students then they would ever dream of applying to any other group.

It is precisely this kind of mindset that allowed Major Nidal Hassan’s erratic and extreme behaviour to go unnoticed in the US, and Umar Abdulmutallab’s here at UCL. It is also the mindset that still sees no problem with Islamic societies up and down the country to constantly host extremist speakers on university campus. It is prejudiced nonsense – and it needs to stop.

Posted in Islamism, Moral relativism | 25 Comments

(Sunni) Islamism’s Hatred of Shia Muslims Surfaces in Pakistan

Horrific scenes in Karachi

Two bombs were detonated within an hour of each other in Karachi, targetting the Shia.

A motorcycle fitted with explosives rammed into a bus carrying Shias near the Nursery bridge in Karachi, killing 12 people and wounding close to 50. The injured were taken to Jinnah Hospital. About an hour later another explosion outside the ward of the Hospital was detonated.

Shia-hatred is a mainstay of hardline Wahhabi-inspired ideology as promulgated by those darlings of the Islam Channel, Yasir Qadhi and Anwar al-Awlaki. Advocates of this line of takfiri thinking maintain the Shia are heterodox therefore lesser Muslims or, worse, not Muslim at all and even just simply kfar (“unbelievers”). They (wrongly) claim the doctrine of takkiyyah or dissimulation is embedded into Shia liturgy, they regard the practice of mutah to be degenerate and claim their texts are heretical.

It is very depressing to see sectarian hatred of this kind spilling across Pakistan. The Shia-Sunni sectarian hatred is deep-rooted and is old as Islam itself. For once, this violence cannot be blamed on the presence of the US Military or civilian deaths caused by unmanned US Air Force drones in the NWFP. The most depressing thought of all is that no solution for containing sectarian terrorist attacks on civilians is being put forward by the stakeholders. The only certainty is that US Military presence in Pakistan in peace-keeping mode is the only containment option we have.

Unfortunately here in Britain, Shia-hatred and Saudi-inspired ideologies continue to be peddled in mosques and on, particularly those funded by Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states.

Posted in Islamism, Sectarianism, Terrorism | 2 Comments