Comments on: Review of Gita Saghal’s Hecklers appearance

By: Moazzam Begg Responds To His Critics | Andy Worthington

Moazzam Begg Responds To His Critics | Andy Worthington — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:14:13 +0000

[…] Ms Sahgal now avers that Amnesty’s relationship is damaged through association with me, but her ideas seemed a little more paradoxically amenable when I suggested that her thesis was flawed because the MCB, ISB, Mr. Ramadan and Ahmed — with all due respect — were largely regarded as sell-outs by some of the very people we needed to engage. I gave her the example of the British government’s banning the BBC from broadcasting Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams’ voice during the Irish “Troubles.” I said, based on this experience, that the government should in fact be speaking to people like Abu Qatadah, no matter how unpalatable that sounded. Ms Sahgal responded unexpectedly by saying she had no quarrel with my analysis. […]

By: Moazzam Begg defends Cageprisoners « Earwicga

Moazzam Begg defends Cageprisoners « Earwicga — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:19:03 +0000

[…] Ms Sahgal now avers that Amnesty’s relationship is damaged through association with me but, her ideas seemed a little more paradoxically amenable when I suggested that her thesis was flawed because the MCB, ISB, Mr. Ramadan and Ahmed – with all due respect – were largely regarded as sell-outs by some of the very people we needed to engage. I gave her the example of the British government’s banning the BBC from broadcasting Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams’ voice during the Irish ‘Troubles’. I said, based on this experience that the government should in fact be speaking to people like Abu Qatadah, no matter how unpalatable that sounded. Ms Sahgal responded unexpectedly by saying she had no quarrel with my analysis. […]

By: sunrise

sunrise — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:26:08 +0000

You nicely forgot to mention that the bulk of the work of Awaaz has been to bring justice to the (Muslim) victims of the Gujarat genocide, including bringing to court in the UK, Narendra Modi. Why is that? You also forget to mention that its is precisely the secular Asian groups you dismiss so easily that have done the work on the ground for decades around racist attacks, including attacks on Muslims. Why is that? None of the religious groups you mention are visible anywhere in the slow patient work and hard graft of cases, monitoring, legal work, campaigning etc. And you attempt to smear (incorrectly) secular Asians through associations with Zionist and Israeli war crimes apologists where no such association exists - and where in fact some of the same secular Asian groups have relentlessly worked to expose Zionism and work in solidarity with Palestinians, and have sought to bring to court various Israeli generals and Ariel Sharon. Why is that? And you conveniently forget the key issue of accountability that was raised in the programme - including the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Bangladesh in 1971 by the Jamaati-i Islami. Why is that? Don’t you think the MCB should be accountable for its support of the JI. Do you think that when Ahmadiyyas are declared non-Muslims, everyone just goes home? Those declarations end up in their being killed because of their self-identification as Muslims, (a human right surely guaranteed under freedom of religion, nor more no less that you are demanding for Muslims in Britain)? Or do you think it is ok to be complict in the violence against and pogroms of Ahmadis?

By: Usayd

Usayd — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:22:12 +0000

Yusuf, You’re quite correct!

Something that irritates me though is the perception that Sharia=beheadings.

in fact, Sharia=no stealing, belief in Allah and his Prophet (SAW), washing before Salat, giving charity, no murdering, educating the young, etc.

When Muslims, like Shahid Malik, say that Muslims who want to live by the Sharia should “live in saudi” what the hell does he mean? Does he want them to be suicide Bombers, because its the sharia that tells them not to. Does he want them to steal, because its the sharia that tells them not to. What does he want?

There is nothing in the Sharia that goes against British law, save the archaic “Blasphemy law” (Saying that Jesus is not God (PBUH)).

I’ll stop ranting now.

By: Abu Sinan

Abu Sinan — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:49:27 +0000

Thanks for the rehash of the show. I almost felt like I was there.

By: DrM

DrM — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:07:23 +0000

Fine. Impose sharia. Elsewhere not here.

By: Yusuf Smith

Yusuf Smith — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:01:31 +0000

Usayd: I don’t believe Tariq Ramadan is saying the hudood are reserved for a “perfect society” and that enforcing the laws of God be left to God; that sounds a lot like the anti-religious who say “if God intended an Islamic state or a Kingdom of God on Earth He would bring it about Himself”. Rather, he is saying that Muslims nowadays - or at least those in power - lack the knowledge of how to dispense them properly. That, I believe, is what lies behind his “moratorium” stance.

By: Usayd

Usayd — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:51:14 +0000

Tariq, it seems, follows the line that Man cannot impliment the hudud becasue we live in an imperfect society. Thus, allow the punishments for breaching the law of God be left to God. I like that. Considering most, if not all, of the places attempting toimplement the Shariat are dorrupt dictatorships, thats a good idea. You can listen to it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/hecklers

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:48:19 +0000

Old Pickler,

You would be lucky tho to have Shariah “imposed” on you? Yes or No.

Seriously, the Shariah is for the nobles, not for riff-raffs… something quite precious, …has to be earned, something you need to be worthy of….

Ironically tho, traditionally it is also possible for riff-raffs to be governed [in reality - guided] by the Shariah …when for example their filth begins to fall on noble grounds…. or even on suspicion that it might pollute the spiritual cosmos.

You see, the “world” or whatever it is - Is un-numerically One… at the end of the day.

Today America is imposing its shariah/new world order 10s of thousands of miles away from its shores. Similar to the British Vampire (Oops empire). Because they fear those cave men or Mullahs whether in the Afgan mountains or elsewhere would one day rise to disturb their “way of life” or limit their access to world wide wealth.

Similarly, when for example riff-raffism begins to threaten noble quarters or simply offset the “Mizan”, Shariah Power-Brokers (what a term!) are duty bound to take action (lack thereof is loss to none but them i.e SPBs), including the “offensive” type.

It is strange tho, in this case, that the riff-raffs get something quite HIGH in return for LOWLY vile indulgence, or to be charitable, ignorance.

By: Sadek Hamid

Sadek Hamid — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:25:13 +0000

AA Yusuf,

Excellent write up, are sure you weren’t in the audience?!

BTW, my name is spelt Sadek Hamid, apologies to any one who felt I was incoherent!

Keep up the good work.