Comments on: Moazzam Begg Responds

By: Khalid

Khalid — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:01:21 +0000

Just curious, since we are alleging that Amnesty International has, based on its interactions with people it has supported in the past, such loose political associations — why then can we not also accuse Amnesty of being in support of neo-conservatism and by extension the illegal war in Iraq?

Why? because past support of one such individual at the Quilliam Foundation (Majid Nawaz) and his own associations with Michael Gove, Martin Bright, and Ed Husain all of whom supported the Iraq war calls into question the nature of the relationship between Amnesty, Quilliam, and Mr. Nawaz.

By: Abu Faris

Abu Faris — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:39:57 +0000

I would not be the first to indicate that UK’s libel laws need serious revision to stop clerical fascists and their supporters from abusing them in order to silence revelations about their vile views.

By: Alec

Alec — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:34:39 +0000

That worked well with Daud Abdullah and Hazel Blears.

By: Abu Faris

Abu Faris — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:05:32 +0000

Begg comes over all threatening:

I have referred your article to your editor and the Press Complaints Commission as a formal and major complaint and, to my lawyers to pursue legal action.

Oooooo, lawfare from an Islamist! Now there’s a surprise (not).

By: Abu Faris

Abu Faris — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:02:41 +0000

Actually, more precisely, the term “jihad” derives from a root meaning to “strive towards or against”; but that is by-the-by.

Meaning is given in use; and the use of the term “jihad” most certainly is equated repeatedly with violence by Begg in a number of places. Notably in the footnotes of an article he published on his vanity website cageprisoners.

By: jd

jd — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:54:16 +0000

I notice all those against Begg do not have the courage to post a comment below his response – silenced? By the way, the definition of jihad is ‘struggle’ that doesnt equal violence.