 |
   |
Human Rights Gets It Wrong
by Samuel Westrop
December 26, 2013 at 5:00 am
  Be
the first of your friends to like this.
For
the broadsheet newspaper editors who offered Ahmad column inches, and for the
"human rights" groups who joined arms with extremist institutions
in opposing Ahmad's extradition, what does Ahmad's guilty plea mean?
Will
these self-proclaimed champions of liberalism, human rights, and habeas
corpus also offer their time to Ahmad's victims – the women and children
slaughtered by the very Taliban fighters to whom Ahmad supplied money and
personnel?
On December 10, two British Muslims pleaded guilty to terrorism
charges in a Connecticut court. The U.S. government accused Babar Ahmad and
Syed Talha Ahsan of recruiting jihadi fighters and
sending money to terrorists in Chechnya and Afghanistan.Ahmad ran a website, azzam.com (now defunct), that urged recruits to take martial arts courses, read books on military warfare and learn how to use an AK47 rifle. The website further called for jihad against "infidels," appealed for financial support and provided detailed instructions about how to send funds to named Taliban officials in Pakistan. British police intelligence claim messages from the Taliban passed through a string of rented post office boxes operated by Ahmad. The U.S. government also alleged that Ahmad was linked to a Chechen terror leader "who participated in, among other things, the planning of the Moscow theater attack in October 2002," in which 120 civilians were killed.
The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), for instance, is one of the largest student umbrella groups and represents thousands of Muslims students. In 2006, Faisal Hanjra, Head of Student Affairs, said, "Deporting individuals like Babar Ahmad will serve further to reinforce the notion that when it comes to issues of terror the only thing you need to be guilty of, is being Muslim. Today it is Babar who has been extradited, tomorrow it may be any one of us. It could be your son, father or brother who is facing potential torture and injustice." The day before Ahmad's extradition, The Guardian published an opinion piece by Ahmad, in which he explained his admiration for the Western justice system, habeas corpus and the U.S. as a sovereign nation. Ahmad also expressed his concern for the erosion of civil liberties, questioned the equity of the U.S.-British extradition treaty, denounced the cost to the taxpayer of a lengthy extradition process and compared his plight to those killed in the Bloody Sunday shootings. These pained entreaties for Western human rights ideals to be upheld are a far cry from Ahmad's actions over the past decades, in which he fought with Bosnian killing squads, circulated letters by Osama Bin Laden justifying attacks on Western countries and "the Jews," and "sought to provide material support -- in terms of supplies, money, personnel, and weapons -- to aid the Taliban, Al Qaida, and the Chechen Mujahideen in Chechnya and Afghanistan." The campaign behind Ahmad, however, has always sought to exploit human rights rhetoric to garner support for his fight and further delay his extradition. Ahmad's supporters are "demopaths" – people who use democratic language and invoke human rights only when it serves their interests. The Free Babar Ahmad campaign, for instance, blames Ahmad's fate on institutional "Islamphobia" and treatment "usually found in dictatorial regimes." The campaign's website features a "messages of support" page, in which the first "key message" is from "Ivor Cohen," who claims to represent Britain's "Jewish community." Having exhibited its Semitic credentials, the campaign also, without any apparent confliction, lists messages of support from Suhaib Hasan, a leading Islamic Imam in Britain who claims Jews have secretly plotted the mass-killing of Christians. Hasan has also advocated, "The chopping of the hands off thieves, the flogging of adulterers, and flogging of the drunkard. Then, jihad against the non-Muslims, against those people who are the oppressors." The human rights veneer appears to be a thin one. Civil rights groups, nonetheless, have awarded "human rights prizes" to Babar Ahmad's lawyers for their work fighting US extradition requests. In 2011, another comment piece in The Guardian, penned by Guardian columnist Fiona Murphy, lauded Ahmad's "principled stand" against the police and commended Ahmad for his "bravery." In November 2011, the BBC's in-house magazine, Ariel, published an article reporting Ahmad's gratitude for the support of a BBC journalist. The BBC quoted their own journalist explaining: "It was such a personal gesture. A piece I did was heard by the man at the very heart of it. For me his letter shows how…[we] can make a difference." Ahmad has enjoyed strong political support as well. Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Justice Secretary and Ahmad's childhood friend, has lobbied against the extradition request. In 2005 and 2006, British police bugged conversations between Khan and Ahmad. The MP had visited Ahmad in jail "not as an MP, but as a friend." In 2012, Caroline Lucas, a Green Party MP, tabled an Early Day Motion, which stated, "it would not be in the public interest for anyone to be extradited to the US from the UK" until extradition legislation had been amended, and found 65 MPs to sign the motion. Public meetings were also held in Parliament, at which a number of MPs spoke out in support of Ahmad. It is not difficult to uncover much of this human rights rhetoric as a charade, or to understand who is the driving force behind these campaigns. The telephone number for the We Are Babar Ahmad campaign, for instance, is the same as the press office number for the East London Mosque, which frequently hosts extremist preachers such as Sheikh Saad al-Beraik, who has called for Jewish women to be enslaved: "Muslim brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh … Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?" What is more difficult to understand is why the media and a considerable of politicians join in with the puffery that paints these terrorist operatives as victims of terrible injustice. We have seen this before, though -- and to murderous effect. Just after the 9/11 attacks, the British authorities detained Mahmoud Abu Rideh, a Palestinian national, who was later placed under a control order. Rideh had admitted working in Pakistan for the Islamic Services Bureau, run by Osama bin Laden's mentor, Abdullah Azzam. Police further alleged that Rideh distributed funds to terrorist groups with links to al-Qaeda and procured false documents to help jihadi volunteers travel to training camps in Afghanistan. Newspapers such as the Guardian and the Independent printed puff pieces that included impassioned appeals by Abu Rideh's wife and children and painted Abu Rideh as a persecuted refugee unable to find peace in this world.   Groups such as Amnesty International launched a campaign in support of Abu Rideh, which implied he was the victim of state conspiracy. In 2009, Abu Rideh was finally granted permission to leave the UK. Then, in 2010, jihadi web forums announced that Abu Rideh had become a "martyr in Afghanistan" and died fighting as part of an Al Qaeda terror squad. Just before Rideh left the country, Amnesty International's "counter-terrorism campaigner" Sara Macneice told the media: "It is very welcome news that Mahmoud Abu Rideh will now be able to leave the UK and seek entry to a safe country, and will no longer be subjected to the repressive measures of his Control Order, which have driven him to utter desperation. I have spoken to Mr Abu Rideh and this decision has given him real hope that he may now be reunited with his wife and Children's rights, and be able to rebuild his life." As with Babar Ahmad, Abu Rideh's supporters only claimed that they fought injustice, and that Rideh was the victim of state brutality. Ahmad has now revealed, albeit less explosively than Rideh, that he, too, is guilty of acting in support of terrorist organizations. But it is most unlikely that Ahmad's media and political cheerleaders will renounce their former support for this Taliban operative, even though one only has to take the most cursory glance through the archived website once run by Ahmad to understand what this Al Qaeda operative was doing.  When the United Kingdom's Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Sadiq Khan, personally intervened to stop Babar Ahmad's extradition, what, then, did that mean? Is that Khan believed Ahmad to be innocent? Or is it that this politician -- who will most likely, under the next government, be the minister in charge of the Ministry of Justice -- believed the United States of America's judicial system is so institutionally corrupt that it will imprison an innocent man? Now that Ahmad has pleaded guilty, what does Khan believe now? Likewise, for the broadsheet newspaper editors who offered Ahmad column inches, and for the "human rights" groups who joined arms with extremist institutions in opposing Ahmad's extradition, what does Ahmad's guilty plea mean? Will these self-proclaimed champions of liberalism, human rights, and habeas corpus also offer their time to Ahmad's victims -- the women and children slaughtered by the very Taliban fighters to whom Ahmad's supplied money and personnel? The most important question, though, is why some of those purportedly dedicated to human rights oppose the extradition of terror suspects to face trial in United States. If they believe that justice should not transcend national borders, then why did Ahmad's supporters attempt to prevent Ahmad's extradition by appealing to the European Court of Human Rights, also an international court? If Ahmad were indeed an innocent man, he could have avoided the years of imprisonment without trial by accepting the extradition order, instead of incessant appeals through many layers of court dates. Ahmad could have flown to America and cleared his name. Those who expressed support for Ahmad's plight are aware of this. Who can truly believe Ahmad is an innocent man? As with Abu Rideh, Ahmad's supporters, therefore, must believe the American courts present a greater injustice than the murderous crimes of the Taliban. Babar Ahmad spent eight years in prison partly because of the support he received from human rights activists; they have worked not to effect justice, but to avoid it at all costs.
Related
Topics: United Kingdom | Samuel Westrop
Turkey: Are Erdoğan's Days Numbered?
by Harold Rhode
December 26, 2013 at 3:00 am
Be
the first of your friends to like this.
It
appears that the Islamic Gülenists and the secular Atatürkists -- not friends
in the past -- have forged an alliance and are now ascendant.
Major political events have rocked the
political scene in Turkey the past two weeks. Turkey's once
seemingly-invincible prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, seems in a
tailspin. A few days ago, he lashed out at U.S. Ambassador Frank Ricciardone
and threatened to expel him from Turkey. Erdoğan claimed the Ambassador told
other Western diplomats that the "empire [Erdoğan and his associates] is
about to fall.[1]"Clearly, Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu's policy of "Zero Problems With Our Neighbors" -- meaning the alliance with Turkey's Sunni-ruled Arab neighbors -- has failed. Turkey now has problems with almost all its neighbors. It appears that the Gülenists and the Atatürkists -- not friends in the past -- are now ascendant. It is unlikely that they, or whoever might take over in Turkey, would want to continue this failed approach.
To the outsider, these differences might seem to be distinctions without differences: supporters of both views understandably want Islam to be a major part of the political order. But for Turks, these differences are seismic: the question is, do they belong to the Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim political camp, or do they belong to the wider Turkish world? Since Erdoğan and his fellow Islamic fundamentalists took power in 2002, Gülen and his forces have been in the background, building prep-schools and propagating their version of Islam -- in Turkey, in the Turkic world, and also in America. It is not surprising that when Gülen faced legal difficulties in Turkey[4] in 1999, he fled to the U.S., ostensibly for medical treatment, apparently still ongoing.[5] On May 31, 2010, Erdoğan's government backed and encouraged a flotilla of Turkish ships supposedly to bring needed supplies to the Gaza Strip, ruled by their fellow Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalists, Hamas. Gülen may have seen this as an opportunity indirectly publicly to chastise Erdoğan. In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal [6], Gülen argued that as Israel legitimately controlled the waters off Gaza, the flotilla should have asked for Israel's permission to land there. Gülen did not criticize Erdoğan directly; people rarely criticize others directly in Turkey. But culturally, his choice of words indicated to Turks that he was blamed Erdoğan for creating the crisis. Gülen has not been known to be supportive of the Jews, nor for that matter of the U.S. or the West.[7] But now in his battle is evidently to ensure that Turkish Islam defeats the so-called Arab-Muslim Brotherhood type of Islam supported by Erdoğan, the Jews and the West might well seem useful allies. As many Middle Easterners say, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." A friendship, or alliance, might be temporary, but may continue as long as required.[8] Earlier this year, the enmity between Erdoğan and Gülen broke out into the open, evidently ignited by Turkey's Gezi Park protests -- weeks of riots and demonstrations against the Turkish prime minister[9]. Erdoğan encountered enormous difficulty putting them down; in so doing, he alienated large sections of Turkey's population. Gülenists, active in this uprising[10], possibly discerning political weakness, may well have used that crisis as an opportunity to try to defeat their opponents. Perhaps in revenge, Erdoğan -- often quick to respond emotionally[11] -- proposed laws to ban dershane [prep-schools], the bread and butter of the Gülen movement, and where Gülen recruits followers, who later become the political and financial backbone of his movement.[12] For the Gülenists, Erdogan's proposed ban appears to have been the decisive provocation. Since Gülen's self-imposed exile, his supporters, well-placed throughout the Turkish bureaucracy, have continued to provide him with extensive influence inside the Turkish police and judiciary, and are believed also to have infiltrated the secret services, law enforcement offices and even the AK party itself.[13] Gülen's supporters responded to this proposed ban by arresting 52 members of Erdoğan's closest associates, including sons of two of his cabinet ministers, and charging them with corruption. According to rumors circulating in Turkey, some of Erdoğan's relatives are also involved in the plot ; the facts are still unclear.[14] The central figure in this corruption scandal is an Iranian Azeri, Reza Zarrab -- married to a popular Turkish singer -- who was illegally trading with Iran. Zarrab is charged with bribing the sons of the Turkish ministers -- some of Erdoğan's closest associates. At the same time, the Israeli national airline, El Al, announced that, after a six-year hiatus, it would resume flights to Turkey. Apparently the Turkish government had been refusing to let Israel observe the flight security procedures it follows everywhere else in the world,[15] but out of nowhere, Turkey seems suddenly to have acceded to Israel's security demands. Further, the judiciary released from jail the retired General Çevik Bir, who had been strong advocate of U.S.-Turkish-NATO relations. Bir had been the central figure in the "February 28 Plot" -- evidently dreamed up by Erdoğan and his associates as a means of finding some legal ground for which to prosecute opponents. Bir, it was claimed, was the central figure of this alleged plot, allegedly hatched by the Generals of National Security Council, to overthrow the Islamist government of Erdoğan's mentor, Turkish Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan. Bir was also one of the major architects of the Turkish-Israeli rapprochement in the 1990s, and a strong opponent of Fethullah Gülen, whom he apparently saw as an Islamic fundamentalist and a long-term danger to Turkey's secular and democratic Atatürkist Republic. Because of Bir's outspoken animosity against the Islamists, which included the powerful Gülen, Bir seems to have been an important factor in Gülen's decision to flee the country. So why was Bir -- an opponent of Gülen -- released by a heavily Gülenist judiciary? Although the reasons behind Bir's release are not yet clear, as an opponent of the Erdoğan government, however, he could now be an ally of Gülen. Where Turkey's once highly influential military stands is unclear. So far, it has been silent. It has historically been -- and its senior officers still are -- steeped in the Atatürkist secular and pro-Western tradition. At least for the moment, the Islamist Gülenists[16] seem to have forged an alliance of convenience with Turkey's secularists. The beneficiaries of this political upheaval could well be the West, the U.S., NATO, and Israel. Stay tuned. Notes[1] "Erdoğan implies US ambassador to be expelled", Today's Zaman.[2] For a further explanation of the differences between these two Islamist factions, see Harold Rhode, "Mapping Political Islam in Turkey". [3] We in the West use the word "Turkish" as an adjective to describe Turkey, and "Turkic" to describe Turks in today's Russia, the Central Asian Republics, and in Xinjiang, China. Nevertheless, there is a feeling that despite their differences, all of these peoples emanate from one people, and are like close family. From their point of view, Non-Turkish and non-Turkic Muslims are not part of the "family." [4] See, "Fethullah Gülen's Grand Ambition", Rachel Sharon Krespin, and "Turkish investigation into Islamic sect expanded", BBC News. 21 June 1999. [5] "U.S. charter schools tied to powerful Turkish imam". 60 Minutes, CBS News, May 13, 2012. [6] "Reclusive Turkish Imam Criticizes Gaza Flotilla", Wall Street Journal. [7] From personal interviews with students educated in Gülen schools in Turkey and Central Asia, his people look for potential supporters from among their students. Those selected are invited to "sohbetler" ["conversations"] where anti-American/Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic views are often propagated, but kept private not to jeopardize political support abroad. [8] This is similar to the "alliance" at present between Israel and many Sunni leaders -- especially the Saudis, and the Gulf States - who oppose Shiite Iran. After "regime change" in Iran, it remains to be seen how long this "alliance" will last. Similarly, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, until America liberated Kuwait, the Saudis and Kuwaitis maintained relationships with Jewish groups in Western capitals. The day Kuwait was liberated, the Saudis and Kuwaitis severed virtually all contact with these Jewish leaders. [9] For more on these riots and demonstrations, see, "Turkish police storm protest camp using teargas and rubber bullets," The Guardian. [10] This is from conversations with Gülenists throughout the country at that time. [11] Public examples of these emotional outbursts are many. To cite just two: In June, 2009, Erdoğan lashed out at Israeli President Shimon Peres, calling Israelis killers. Earlier this year, when the Gezi Park demonstrations took place, he labeled the participants "Çapulcus" - low-life good for nothings. [12] "Draft law aims to ban all prep schools, punish if necessary", Today's Zaman. [13] "Fethullah Gulen: Is Islamic Cleric in Self-Exile Behind Turkey's High-Profile Arrests?", International Business Times [14] "More arrests as power struggle racks Erdogan government in Turkey," CNN.com [15] "Israeli airlines to resume flights to Turkey after six-year hiatus," The Jerusalem Post [16] For a detailed study of Gülen's Turkish/Turkic Islam, see "Fethullah Gulen and His Liberal 'Turkish Islam' Movement", GLORIA.
Related Topics: Turkey | Harold Rhode
Iran's "Treaty of Hudaybiyya in Geneva"
by Timon Dias
December 24, 2013 at 5:00 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
The significance of Hudaibiyya in
Islamic teachings is that…treaties are made to be broken.
The mainstream media portray the
tensions between Iran and Israel as a conflict between two malign
governments. But it is only the government of Iran that is the offensive
aggressor, and only that government which has pledged to wipe Israel off the
map -- not the other way around.
In reflections on the deal with
Iran, one particular Islamic theological construct has been largely
neglected: The treaty of
Hudaibiyya. During March
628 AD, the prophet Muhammad marched his army on Mecca, the stronghold of his
polytheistic opponents. Muhammad realized his forces were at that time not
likely to achieve victory, and the Meccans had no appetite for war. The two
parties thus agreed on a ten-year armistice. However, when Muhammad thought
his forces were strong enough to crush the Meccans, he unilaterally broke the
truce and conquered Mecca. Although possibly not the first time in history a
truce was broken, the significance of Hudaibiyya in Islamic teachings is
that, as the prophet was chosen and protected by Allah himself, and is
therefore the "perfect man" without flaw, all of his actions are
commendable, mandatory and to be emulated -- treaties are made to be broken.Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat frequently referred to the treaty not only whenever he sought a reason to turn down peace with the Israelis, but also to remind his people, even after signing the Oslo Accords, that treaties can be violated with impunity. One has to assume that the theocratic regime of Iran views this deal with its enemies in the same way their prophet viewed the truce with his enemies: a convenient episode to strengthen military capacities. As political advisor to Iran's former President Khatami, Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini, stated (2:14) on December 11 on Syrian News TV: "This is the Treaty of Hudaybiyya in Geneva," as he continued to elaborate on the magnitude of Iran's victory achieved with this deal. The signs are that the "deal" is indeed falling apart and that the Iranian regime is indeed just playing for time while Iran's "centrifuges are working at full capacity".
However, a positive and maybe even hopeful note is also widely underreported: the special historic and warm ties between the Persian and Jewish people, ties that even precede the story of the Jewish Esther becoming queen to Persian King Ahasuerus, by hundreds of years. Contrary to Western public perception, the Jews were not the only people of their time that created a concept of monotheism, where the belief in one universal ethical God was the central pillar of their theology. Bernard Lewis, a historian and Professor Emeritus of Near East Studies at Princeton University, points out that in the same era "Far to the east, on the high plateau of Iran, two kindred of peoples, known to history as the Medes and the Persians, had evolved out of their ancient paganism a belief in a single supreme deity, the ultimate power of good, engaged in constant struggle with the forces of evil"[1]. The emergence of this new form of religion is associated with the prophet Zoroaster, whose teachings were preserved in a very early form of the Persian language. The specific era in which the prophet Zoroaster lived and taught has not been validated, but it seems clear that the sixth and fifth centuries BCE were a time of major Zoroastrian religious activity. For centuries, these two peoples, each believing in a system of a unified god, went their separate ways and were, it seems, unknown to each other. However, a few cataclysmic events of the sixth century BCE brought them into contact for the first time, and the consequences of this encounter would reverberate around the world and through the ages: In 586 BCE Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, captured Jerusalem, destroyed the Jewish Temple and decimated the Kingdom of Judah in a series of wars and conquests. In accordance with customs of the time, the conquered people were imprisoned and enslaved in Babylonia. A few decades later however, the Babylonians were overthrown themselves by another conqueror, a certain Cyrus the Mede. Cyrus was the founder of a new, Persian empire, which extended to the lands of Syria and beyond. As it turned out, it seemed that both sides -- the new conquerors as well as one small group among the many conquered peoples -- recognized an affinity of outlook and belief. Upon this realization, Cyrus authorized the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity to the land of Israel, and gave orders for the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem at the expense of the Persian government. It might therefore seem understandable that in the Hebrew Bible, Cyrus is accorded a degree of respect given to no other non-Jewish ruler, and indeed to few Jewish rulers. The last chapters of the book of Isaiah, written after the Babylonian captivity, is illustrative on this matter: "He [Cyrus] is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shall be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid" (Isaiah 44:28). The subsequent chapter goes even further: "Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him..." (Isaiah 45:1)[2]. A profound influence of Zoroastrian thought on Jewish theology is probable: Bernard Lewis states that "Between the earlier and later books of the Hebrew Bible, those written before the Babylonian captivity, and those written after the return, there are notable differences in belief and outlook, some of which at least may plausibly be attributed to influences from the religious thought-world of Iran. Notable among these are the idea of a cosmic struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil, between God and the Devil, in which mankind has a role to play; the more explicit development of the notion of judgment after death, and reward or retribution in heaven or hell, and the idea of an anointed savior, born of a holy seed, who will come at the end of time and ensure the final triumph of good over evil. The importance of such ideas in the late Judaism and early Christianity will be obvious."[3] The Jewish-Persian connections of the time also had far-reaching political implications. The Jews loyally served Cyrus, who had shown them a tremendous amount of favors and good will. For centuries after, Jews, both in their homeland and in other countries under Roman rule, were suspected, sometimes with good reason, of sympathy or even collaboration with Persian enemies of Rome[4]. In current times, the affection between Iranians and Jews still manifests itself, as is shown, for example, by the Israel Loves Iran and Iran Loves Israel Facebook-pages and the high amount affectionate images about Israelis and Iranians. There are, after all, no such tendencies between for example the Israelis and Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians or Egyptians -- only with the Iranians. The mainstream media portray the tensions between Iran and Israel as a conflict between two malign governments, both of which would risk the suffering of their citizens in their thirst for war. The truth is that there is indeed a historic, and still manifest, mutual affection between Jews and Iranians. It is only the current government of Iran that is the offensive aggressor, and only that government which has pledged to wipe Israel off the map -- not the other way around. [1] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East (1995), p. 27. [2] Ibid, p. 28. [3] Ibid, p. 28. [4] Ibid, p. 28.
Related
Topics: Timon Dias
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment