10 Questions for Anjem Choudary

My challenge to the publicity-seeking, extremist windbag

From the Guardian:

The leader of Islam4UK has said he will try to persuade people in Wootton Bassett to back an anti-war parade along the main street -- the same route used to bring home the bodies of troops from Afghanistan.

Anjem Choudary, whose group is an offshoot of the radical al-Muhajiroun movement, has caused anger by calling for members to parade through the Wiltshire town carrying up to 500 coffins symbolising the Muslim dead from the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

But why do the media give the buffoonish Choudary so much time and attention? And why, when he is interviewed, are the questions so piss-poor and pathetic?

Here are ten questions that I think British journalists should be putting to the leader of "Islam4UK":

1) Do you have any qualifications as an Islamic scholar? If not, on what basis do you call yourself a "sharia judge" and why on earth should anyone take your pronouncements on Islam, Muslims or "the hellfire" seriously?

From Wikipedia: "He is a qualified solicitor and chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, although he was removed from the roll in 2002. He has also claimed to be a "judge" of the "Shari'ah Court of the UK",[4] alongside Omar Bakri;[5] although neither man is an official of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, the only legally binding sharia court in the UK."

2) Do you not think it is even slightly hypocritical to live off benefits from the same British state that you revile and reject? Why do you say it's "not of any importance"?

From the London Evening Standard: "Mr Choudary, a father of three, admitted he lived off benefits despite objecting to the British state. He rejected suggestions of hypocrisy, saying: 'I don't think it's of any importance.' "

3) After you've gone to Wootton Bassett, will you take your coffins and go to Kandahar as well, to protest against the killing of innocent Afghans there by the Taliban and al-Qaeda? If not, why not?

From the UN News Centre: "UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan] recorded 1,013 civilian deaths in the first six months of 2009, an increase of 24 per cent as compared to the same period in 2008. Of these, 59 per cent (595 deaths) were due to AGEs [anti-government elements] and 30.5 per cent (310 deaths) to PGFs [pro-government forces]."

4) Why did you call off your "march for sharia" in October 2009? Is it because you couldn't round up enough people to turn out for your "cause"?

From the Guardian: "At the eleventh hour, we heard that Islam4UK were cancelling their demonstration, rumours that were initially dismissed as the Choudary camp's standard tactical manoeuvring. When it later emerged that Islam4UK had indeed sheepishly withdrawn from their own protest, the official reason doing the rounds was that English Defence League members had made death threats towards Anjem Choudary. What an irony. Al-Muhajiroun have repeatedly praised the 9/11 terrorists as 'magnificent' yet they wholly failed to muster up the moral courage to square up to their first challenge from Muslim democrats. They ran scared -- terrified by the prospect of an intellectual duel of conflicting viewpoints, in full view of the media and the public."

5) You have called for people who drink alcohol to be lashed, but how do you square that with your own record of drinking? Do you plan to lash yourself?

From the Telegraph: "Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary has called for people who get drunk to be flogged. The lawyer, who recently praised the Mumbai terror attacks, said anyone becoming intoxicated by alcohol should be given 40 lashes in public. He claimed alcohol was 'the root of all evil'. The 41-year-old made the remarks on his website Islam4UK, which argues that Britain should become an Islamic state ruled by sharia law."

From the Daily Mail: "Photographs obtained by the Mail suggest 'Andy' -- as he was then known -- should be inflicting on himself the 40 lashes he prescribes for drunkenness. As well as downing cider and lager, the cleric is shown playing drinking games with cards, clearly forbidden under his strict Islamic laws, and holding a cannabis joint between his lips before smoking it. And the woman on the cover of the Mayfair pornographic magazine he is looking at is certainly not wearing a burka. On the evidence of friends from his student days, Choudary had sex with numerous white Christian girls."

6) You claim Islam is "not a religion of peace" but a "religion of submission" -- but have you not read the verse in the Quran which says that "there is no compulsion in religion"?

From the Evening Standard: "When a woman in a burkha asked how he could justify this when Islam was supposed to be a religion of peace, the crowd mocked her. But it was Choudary who rose to put her in her place. 'Islam is not a religion of peace,' he said. 'It is a religion of submission. We need to submit to the will of Allah.' "

From the Quran (2:256): "There is no compulsion in religion."

7) You and your allies have described 11 September 2001 as a "towering day" and the 19 hijackers as "magificent". Do you have a fatwa from any reputed Muslim scholar or Islamic seat of learning which supports your view?

From Wikipedia: Abu Hamza al-Masri created the Islamic Council of Britain to "implement sharia law in Britain", in 2002, on the first anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks, primarily through funding from al-Muhajiroun. Masri celebrated the establishment of the ICB and the 9/11 attacks by holding a conference at Finsbury Park Mosque in north London entitled "September the 11th 2001: A Towering Day in History". Bakri, who attended the conference, said that the delegates "look at September 11 like a battle, as a great achievement by the mujahideen against the evil superpower. I never praised September 11 after it happened but now I can see why they did it." Flyers distributed at the conference referred to the hijackers as the "Magnificent 19".

8) You say you have "no sympathy whatsoever" with the grieving parents of fallen soldiers, but how do you square that with the Islamic emphasis on mercy and compassion, even towards one's enemies?

From the Sun: "He also told grieving parents of war dead that he had 'no sympathy whatsoever' for fallen troops."

From the Islamic scholar Professor Ali Asghar Engineer: "The very opening of the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, is with 'Bism Allahir Rahmanir Rahim', ie, I begin in the name of Allah who is Compassionate and Merciful. Thus it will be seen that Compassion is one of the names of Allah and it is among the most popular names of Allah. Muslims always begin their name with this incantation, ie, 'I begin in the name of Allah who is Compassionate and Merciful'. A Muslim who worships Allah has to be compassionate in his own behaviour, else his/her worship would not be complete. There are four key values in Qur'an which are repeatedly emphasised: Justice ('adl), benevolence (ihsan), compassion (rahmah) and wisdom (hikmah) and compassion is one of them."

9) If one of your own four young children had been blown to pieces on 7 July 2005, would you still claim that "oppressed" Muslims had a right to defend themselves using "whatever means"?

From the Sun: "Anjem Choudary also claimed 'oppressed' Muslims had a right to defend themselves using 'whatever means'. Choudary, 38, right-hand man of exiled hate preacher Omar Bakri, repeatedly refused to condemn the 7/7 bombers at a press conference on the eve of the anniversary of the London blasts. But when asked if he would inform the police of another suicide mission he said in Walthamstow, east London: 'No I wouldn't. I don't think Muslims can co-operate with police.' "

From Wikipedia: "Choudary married 22-year-old Rubana Akhtar in 1996, who had recently joined al-Muhajiroun, which he led at the time.[46] They settled in Ilford, London, and had four children: three daughters (Hidayah, born 1999, Hajar, born 2004, and Wafa, born 2008) and one son (Luqman, born 2001)."

10) Why do you continue to reside in a country you hate so much?

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Britain cannot shirk its duty to defend Hong Kong from China's authoritarianism

Arrests of pro-democracy activists show China is breaching its commitments to the “one country, two systems” agreement.

When Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said in June that the Sino-British Joint Declaration no longer has any “practical significance”, shivers were sent down the spines of those who want democracy to flourish in Hong Kong.

“It is not at all binding for the central government's management over Hong Kong. The UK has no sovereignty, no power to rule and no power to supervise Hong Kong after the handover,” he said.

Going by the British government's failure to respond firmly to the jailing of Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow for standing up for democracy, it appears the UK agrees.

The Sino-British Joint Declaration, signed in 1984, was committed to the “one country, two systems” principle, making Hong Kong a Special Administrative Region of China but ensuring a range of freedoms, which future British governments would ensure were upheld.

China’s creeping influence over Hong Kong’s legal affairs and freedom of speech are not new. Earlier this year, Amnesty International said the human rights situation in Hong Kong was at its worst since the handover in 1997. That assessment followed the disappearance of five Hong Kong booksellers, later found to have been in the custody of the Chinese police, with one describing having been blindfolded and kept in a tiny cell. In other instances journalists have been attacked by police. 

But in Hong Kong, resistance is on display in familiar scenes on the streets. Tens of thousands of people have marched through the financial and legal hub in protest at the jailing of the three pro-democracy activists for their role in the Umbrella Revolution in 2014 – a fundamentally peaceful movement.

It was a moment where people came out to fight for universal suffrage, which I continue to support as key to safeguarding the island’s stability and prosperity (and something Hong Kong’s Basic Law secures by stating that the chief executive should be selected by “by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures”).

For showing courage in fighting for universal suffrage, Wong has already served 80 hours of community service and Law 120 hours. Chow received a three-week suspended prison sentence a year ago. Yet now Wong has been jailed for six months, Chow for seven months and Law for eight months.

Wong was even summoned again to court today for an ongoing contempt charge related to the 2014 "Occupy" pro-democracy protests.

Perhaps more importantly, Wong is now not eligible to stand for the legislative council for five years due to his six-month jail sentence, while Law, who was a member of the council, was removed from office.

This all comes after a 2016 order from Beijing for Hong Kong’s government to dismiss officials thought lacking in their allegiance to China, which led to six legislators being banned from holding office.

Many, including Hong Kong’s last Governor, Chris Patten, have suggested Wong, Law and Chow's sentences were a deliberate attempt to prevent them from taking on these legislative positions.

Patten added that he hopes friends of Hong Kong will speak out, having previously written the UK is “selling its honour” to secure trade deals with China, letting down pro-democracy activists who have been trying to fight to maintain freedoms that were guaranteed during the deal that ended over 100 years of British rule.

The prising open of the case by the Hong Kong government to push for tougher punishments reinforces concerns about Beijing’s willingness to interfere in Hong Kong’s democracy. As Amnesty International stated, seeking jail terms was a “vindictive attack” on freedom of expression.

China’s enthusiasm for subverting democracy has recently been on show in its attempts to censor Cambridge University Press (CUP), which initially complied with a Chinese request to block access to more than 300 articles from the China Quarterly, a leading China studies journal, including articles on Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Following public pressure CUP have now reversed their position.

But while freedoms granted under the Joint Declaration may have contributed to Hong Kong becoming fertile ground for those supportive of democracy and critical of China, it does not free the United Kingdom from its responsibility to uphold the “one country, two systems” principle, which promises extensive autonomy and freedoms to the island, except in the area of foreign relations and military defence.

Read more: The dream deferred by Chris Patten

The Joint Declaration is a legally binding treaty. It is registered with the UN and is still in force. As the UK is a co-signatory, it should be doing all it can to make sure it is upheld.

Yet, in late June one of Hong Kong’s most respected democracy activists Martin Lee described the British government as "just awful. I’m afraid I cannot find any kind words to say about that.”

It is not for either China or the UK to unilaterally decide the Joint Declaration is null and void. The people of Hong Kong understand that and are standing up for democracy in the face of adversity. Our Government has a duty to stand by them.

Catherine West is the Labour MP for Hornsey and Wood Green