The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Do books "prime people for terrorism"?

This week's terrorism conviction has serious implications for freedoms of speech and thought in mode

By Fahad Ansari Published 15 December 2011 15:45

This is a guest post from human-rights lawyer Fahad Ansari

In August 1966, Egyptian Islamist thinker and writer Sayyid Qutb was convicted in Cairo of conspiring against the state. The evidence used to incriminate him consisted primarily of extracts from his book Milestones, a treatise on Islamic governance written by Qutb during a previous stint in prison. For Egyptian President Nasser, the ideas contained in Milestones were as threatening to his position as the birth of Moses was to the Pharaoh thousands of years earlier. Nasser 's solution to his dilemma was little different from that of the Pharaoh. Kill the ideological revolution in its infancy. Qutb was executed in prison on 29 August 1966. All known copies of the book were confiscated and burned by military order, and anyone found in possession of it was prosecuted for treason.

Almost half a century later, on Tuesday 13 December 2011, British Muslim Ahmed Faraz was sentenced to three years in prison in London after being convicted of disseminating a number of books which were deemed to be terrorist publications and thereby "glorifying" and "priming people" for terrorism (despite, as the judge conceded, having had no role in any specific terror plots). One of those books is Qutb's Milestones - which is considered by some to be one of the core texts of the modern Islamist movement and the ideological inspiration for Al Qaeda. In a trial which lasted over two months, jurors had the entirety of Qutb's thoughts and ideas, as expressed in his book, read out to them to decide whether or not such ideas are permissible in 21st century Britain. They concluded that they were not and Milestones has now been deemed a "terrorist publication" and effectively banned in Britain.

Milestones is also published by Penguin Books, who previously found themselves in the dock in 1960 (around the same time that Qutb was writing Milestones) after publishing Lady Chatterley's Lover, the last case of its kind until now. However, the CPS case was that the Milestones special edition published and sold by Faraz contained a number of appendices intended specifically to promote extremist ideology. Yet these appendices consisted of a series of articles about Qutb by contemporary thinkers and writers and a syllabus of three books taught by Hassan al-Banna, the founding ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is on the verge of being democratically-elected in post-Mubarak Egypt .

Other books Faraz was selling which are now also effectively banned include those of Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian scholar who became one of the leaders of the jihad in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation, as well as a teacher and mentor to Osama Bin Laden. Ironically, Azzam's Defence of Muslim Lands and Join the Caravan were ideological and theological texts that were heavily promoted in the Western and Muslim worlds to encourage young Muslims to join the Western-backed jihad against the Soviet Union . Until very recently, both books were readily available to purchase from mainstream booksellers, Amazon and Waterstones, yet neither company seems to have been threatened with prosecution.

Whatever your view of Qutb or Azzam's works, the Faraz case has extremely serious implications for freedoms of speech and thought in modern Britain . In the land of Shakespeare and Wordsworth where more books are published every year than in any other country in the world, books could now be banned and ideas prohibited. Yet a core free speech principle is that the best way to defeat ideas is to debate and discuss them, not prohibit or criminalise them. Perhaps it is for this reason that Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf - the ideological inspiration for the most violent political movement of the 20th century - remains available in bookstores and libraries today. It is probably the same reason that the prosecution's expert witness, US-based terrorism analyst Bruce Hoffman, admitted under cross-examination that none of the books would have been banned in the United States under the first amendment of its constitution.

Many will argue that since Faraz was also convicted of possessing information likely to be of use to a person committing or preparing for an act of terrorism (including military training videos and bomb-making instructions), the books ought to be viewed through this prism. The reality is that over the course of three years, the police seized and examined 19 computers, 25 hard drives, 15,000 books, over 9,000 DVDs and videos and millions of documents, all of which belonged to a busy bookstore. Out of these, they could only find four documents which the jury concluded fell afoul of this specific law and which it could not even be proven had ever been read by Faraz.

The case also has wider implications for political debate inside the British Muslim community. To believe or to even discuss an Islamic mode of governance, the political union of Muslim countries in a caliphate and issues related to military jihad and foreign conflicts seem to have become synonymous with "glorifying" terrorism. Now that the dissemination of books which promote and advocate such ideas is being criminalised, the logical next step may be to try and ban the ultimate source of all Islamic political thought - the Qur'an itself - as Dutch politician Geert Wilders once proposed. (For those who may accuse this writer of scaremongering, journalist Yvonne Ridley was met with the same incredulity five years ago when she announced to thousands of Muslims that the government would try and ban Milestones.)

In Nasser's Egypt , thousands of copies of Milestones were destroyed and burned by the state. In 21st-century Britain , will all of us who possess copies of it now have to burn them ourselves or risk being arrested and prosecuted for possessing "un-British" books and glorifying terrorism?

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: islamism freedoms

More from Fahad Ansari

View the discussion thread.

34 comments

Fri, 2011-12-16 01:15 — Fahad Ansari (not verified)

@Des Demona and @acommentator - you have a series of questions about me you want answered to know my agenda and that you are against censorship. Yet do you not find it ironic that you censor your own names and the questions do arise as to who you are, what is your agenda and why the mystery.

As you know, I am very open about my opinions and you can read any of my articles to see where I stand about issues and what my belief system is. About being close to the British jihadi scene, as a human rights lawyer, you do tend to come in contact with those who society may not think too well off and be willing to strip them (and other innocents in the process) of their rights. Clive Stafford Smith, Gareth Peirce, and Louise Christian probably mix more with the international and British jihadi crowd than I ever will but they are spared your incessant and irrelevant questions. The same paranoia you show me is that of the US in their treatment of al-Jazeera journalists, killing and imprisoning their reporters for interviewing al-Qaeda members, whereas Robert Fisk is praised as a journalist of integrity.

As for your fearing me, I assure you there is nothing to fear of a professional solicitor who has never even received a speeding ticket. I find your comments ridiculous and insulting. They are more reflective of your cowardly desire to continue to shout from the bushes than to engage in civilized rational debate.

You could do far worse than read British Jihadi's comments above.

Thu, 2011-12-15 16:05 — Tony Inchpractice (not verified)

Only in the case of Muslims. As recent events have shown, it is apparently completely different when radical-right nationalists commit acts of terrorism.

Fri, 2011-12-16 10:50 — Des Demona (not verified)

@Fahad Ansari

My name is Desmond Demona - do you want my phone number and address?

If you choose to publish an article about free speech and an attack on a political ideology then I think rather than accusing me of being 'paranoid' you should state clearly what that ideology is and what your connection to it is.

I have no idea who you are and don't care that much, except in that I found your response to acommentator perplexing and evasive, much like your post above, which was what originally roused my interest.

Anyway.... I think I know all I need to know now. Good luck in your future endevours but a quick tip - if replying to a blog post try to retain a semblance of professionalism rather than resort to insults and goading.

Fri, 2011-12-16 11:27 — Des Demona (not verified)

@Fahad Ansari

Oh and I have just looked you up. You are a piece of work aren't you!

Thu, 2011-12-15 16:55 — Claire_M

For balance, The Islamist, covers this (and is itself, thoughtful and avoids knee-jerk conclusions): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islamist-joined-radical-Britain-inside/dp/014103...

Fri, 2011-12-16 11:52 — NaughtyLemming (not verified)

Regarding the comments about the Quran eventually being banned: if that did ever happen then surely, by the same logic, the Bible would have to be banned too? What a pickle.

Fri, 2011-12-16 11:57 — British jihadi (not verified)

How about a response to my comments Mr. Demona? Do you agree with them, or is it just a topic too hard to tackle?

Fri, 2011-12-16 12:14 — Des Demona (not verified)

@British Jihadi

Do you mean your comment about the British Government supporting Jihad?

That is not a difficult subject at all. It is a matter of semantics.

The UK Government did what was expedient at the time in supporting fighters or 'Jihadists' as you would have them.

You may call those involved in Libya Jihadists and impute a religious connection to their actions because that suits your agenda- I don't care what you call them and I'm sure most of them don't either. They're just glad they got rid of a tyrant.

Thu, 2011-12-15 17:46 — Fahad Ansari (not verified)

Amazing - Ed Husain, author of the Islamist, who got paid taxpayer's money for years for attacking "Islamism" as espoused by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood now declares in the Times today that they should not be feared.

Thu, 2011-12-15 17:49 — Mudassar Rana (not verified)

Boils down to no eternal enemies, no eternal friends only eternal interests.

It was under a previous regime that the americans pushed for the nizami course taught in madrassas in pakistan to be reduced from 7 years to 4 so as to have more fighters against the soviets. It was under Reagan that the Haqqani network was founded and even invited to the white house where Regan said they were the moral equivalent of the founding fathers of america.

Today as interests are different thought has been criminalised. Islamic governance is central tenet of islam. Hence will they ban the quran and hadith? An islamic State is the mother of all obligations so whom and how will they stop people from talking about it?

The re-establishment of a righteous caliphate is something all muslims know of. So will muslims be criminalized too?

Thu, 2011-12-15 17:55 — Des Demona (not verified)

What? Another Muslim-centric article in the New Statesman? Shurely some mishtake!
Seriously, for 3% of the population you guys really punch above your weight in the publicity stakes. Kudos.

But even more seriously, as a matter of principle books should never be banned, even if they do encourage some nutty religious twonk to commit violence. Society should never be geared towards the most stupid amongst it.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:04 — acommentator

I would recommend that readers acquaint themselves as to the full range of terrorist material that this man had. Also do a search on the internet for the material which his bookshop, Maktabah, has both published and sold. Then look for the relationship between Moazzam Begg and Maktabah bookshop.

You'll note that Ansari himself is a colleague of Begg at Cage Prisoners.

You'll also remember that Amnesty is a partner of Cage Prisoners.

You'll also recall that Gita Sahgal was hounded out of Amnesty for pointing out how inappropriate it is for Amnesty to partner with Cage Prisoners.

Ask yourself: why on EARTH is this man blogging here? What does this say about the New Statesman?

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:10 — acommentator

Here's a starter on Maktabah.

A little publication by them entitled The Army of Madinah in Kashmir:

http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/Barot/ArmyMadinahinKashmir.pdf

It praises the celebration of the hijacking of Indian Airlines flight 814 in 1999, and other terrorist acts.

Who was the author - the convert Dhiren Barot.

He was jailed for life in 2006 for plotting mass murder in London and New York in the name of al Qaeda.

The links between Maktabah and jihadism are well documented.

Fri, 2011-12-16 13:55 — British jihadi (not verified)

So, why don't you admit that jihad is good, and that whole on the one hand you don't complain about your taxes being used to support it, you are hypocritical when it comes to books - in the land of literature.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:15 — Des Demona (not verified)

'An islamic State is the mother of all obligations so whom and how will they stop people from talking about it?

The re-establishment of a righteous caliphate is something all muslims know of. So will muslims be criminalized too'

See.... the more you nutjobs spout on about a Caliphate the more you just piss people off.
Ain't gonna happen here matey. Get used to it.

Fri, 2011-12-16 15:19 — Des Demona (not verified)

@British Jihadi

You are clearly either a troll and idiot or a religious nutjob. Whichever it is I'm done.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:19 — Des Demona (not verified)

Wow that nutjob post about a Caliphate came down pretty quickly. Ironic in a post about freedom of speech!

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:20 — acommentator

Des Demona

Cage Prisoners is very convinced that a caliphate will be established, and that all Muslims are under a duty to do so.

This is the purpose of Cage Prisoners.

Remember, Cage Prisoners was the major promoter in the United Kingdom of Awlaki, the late Al Qaeda preacher. They wept buckets when he was killed.

The one thing you can't accuse Cage Prisoners of is being shy about what they believe in. They're completely open about it. Here, they're griping about one of their jihadi recruiter mates being banged up for publishing and distributing material which basically says:

"God wants you to become a jihadi".

... to people who we know later did become terrorists.

Why did Amnesty partner with these guys? Why is the New Statesman giving this man space?

Pretty grim times.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:22 — Adam (not verified)

It says that the NS isn't run by paranoid freaks thinking everyone with a beard is a terrorist.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:23 — Fahad Ansari (not verified)

@acommentator - interesting how in a discussion about freedom of speech, you prefer to retain anonymity, while looking up information about others. At least have the courage to name yourself and stand by your beliefs.

Question: would you object to someone from Amnesty also blogging here because of their relationship with Cageprisoners?

You should know that the book Army of Madinah by Dhiren Barot was actually cleared in the case of constituting a "terrorist publication". Shows how inconsistent the decision is.

Fact is - the Crown spent millions of our pounds over several years going through millions of documents on these computers and what they found to be criminal were primarily these books - not even the graphic videos mentioned were deemed to be "terrorist publications".

Which is the point - its political ideology that is being attacked here, nothing else.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:24 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

I always thought the NS was run by men with beards. It isn't the berds it's the funny clothes.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:27 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ Acommentator

Nothing surprises me when it comes to punting religion.

I would like to hear the author's rebuttle of your claims though, if there is one.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:29 — Mudassar Rana (not verified)

Its not about pissing anyone off. Its simply about how will you enforce this?

it sems ur agenda is something else and you are addressing something else.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:31 — acommentator

Fahad

I want to be blunt. You're evidently a man with a very close relationship to the British jihadi scene. It is easy to find out information about you.

Why on earth would I or anybody want to give my name or address to a man who spends his time defending jihadists, trying to get them released from prison, and praising dead jihadis?

I mean, how stupid do you think I am?

There is a clear difference between (a) supporting universal human rights and opposing torture; and (b) partnering with an organisation like Cage Prisoners which is ideologically aligned with leading jihadist thinkers, including Anwar Awlaki.

If Amnesty want to get into bed with jihadists, they're welcome to. Unfortunately, by doing so, Amnesty has significantly undermined its moral authority.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:33 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ Ansari

And just what political ideology are you referring to? I notice rather than answer any of acommentators allegations you choose to attack his anonimity.

What is your position with regards to the establishment of a Caliphate? Do you consider it your duty? How far would you go to establish one? Would you try to keep terrorists out of jail so they could do your dirty work for you?

I only ask so that your agenda is open and your article judged on its merits.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:40 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ Mudassar Rana

Oh you're back. Enforce what? No one is stopping you from talking about a Caliphate to each other or anyone else who cares to listen. It is the promotion or use of violence that would cause a problem and the need for enforcement.

Now this will be my last communication with you because I find you fanatics extremely irkesome. And in my book anyone who thinks there is the remotest possibility of a Caliphate in any western democracy is clearly a fanatic.

Thu, 2011-12-15 18:42 — acommentator

Des Demona

In partial answer to your question, here's Cage Prisoners and Maktabah's founder, Moazzam Begg in Arches Quarterly.

http://www.thecordobafoundation.com/attach/Arches_issue_02x_Web.pdf

"By consensus of the Islamic schools of thought, jihad becomes an individual obligation, like prayer and fasting, on Muslim men and women when their land is occupied by foreign enemies. That obligation extends to neighbouring lands until the enemy has been expelled. If the whole body of believers abandon it, they are in a state of sin; if enough of them do it to complete the task, they are absolved.

Jihad using wealth is also obligatory in securing the release of Muslim prisoners. Imam Malik said: ‘If a
Muslim is held as a prisoner of war…it is obligatory on others to secure his release, even if it requires all the Muslims’ wealth."

CagePrisoners regards their activities as constituting a form of jihad: to release Muslim prisoners.

The Muslim prisoners they're campaigning for, of course, aren't those who have been done for drink driving or a little bit of nicking on the side. No - they only campaign for those who have been accused of, and then convicted of, really serious criminal offences.

Thu, 2011-12-15 19:37 — British jihadi (not verified)

I hate to break the bubble of those attacking the author of the article but you're out of touch with the latest western view on jihad. The British Government officially supports jihad, while telling you that it is somehow illegal to even discuss books, that you are not even allowed to read anymore. How? The Libyan rebels called themselves mujahideen. Inheritors of the legacy of the mujahid Omar al-Mukhtar. They called their dead shuhadaa - martyrs. Some of their leaders had fought the Soviets, been imprisoned by the Yanks in Bagram and handed as 'gifts' by your Governments to Gaddafi. Now, your tax money was used to support the same men. The city of Derna, for example, produced more foreign fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan than anywhere in the world. You see, what you don't get - and seem too dumb to recognise - is that jihad is good more than it is bad. Thats why mujahideen units were trained in the UK during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The books outlawed now were written and praised back then. Confused, you should be. So, unless you refused to pay your taxes lately and are willing to go to prison for it you have been helping to finance jihad and, soon enough, the creation of an Islamic state.

Thu, 2011-12-15 19:44 — British jihadi (not verified)

@acommentator - you're out of touch again mate. The crown sought to prosecute Faraz for The Army of Madinah by, as you mention, Dhirent Barot but, oddly again, that was thrown out. So, its not illegal. Odd, don't you think? But then you only go on what you're told and can't discern what constitutes good and bad jihad. Too hard on the grey matter no?

Sun, 2011-12-18 01:36 — Mam Tor (not verified)

"For those who may accuse this writer of scaremongering, journalist Yvonne Ridley was met with the same incredulity five years ago when she announced to thousands of Muslims that the government would try and ban Milestones."

Yup, scaremongering to wind up the jihadi youth. BTW Ridley devotes that speech to Anwar al-Awlaki, I don't know if she mentions Milestones, it's just unwatchable.

Thu, 2011-12-15 22:14 — Yvonne Ridley (not verified)

It is interesting the feedback has been hijacked by islamaphobes who are too busy seeing a jihadist in every corner to make an intelligent comment on this article.
I would ignore Acommentator, I know who he is and he has the backbone of an amoeba and the balls and brains to match.
Every right minded UK citizen should be alarmed at this sort of censorship. Banning classical Islamic texts, literature and the like is on a par with the politics of Pol Pot.
This trial says much more about the nanny state which is on its way unless we all (people of faith and no faith) make a stand.

Thu, 2011-12-15 22:54 — eggnostriva (not verified)

(barry). I am more Al Quieda than any one of you.

Thu, 2011-12-15 22:55 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ Yvonne Ridley

I don't know acommentator and I don't know you, other than you have a penchant to use the word islamaphobe and have a poor grasp of entertaining insults.

I have already stated that I am against censorship. But I also like to know the agenda of those who write about it so that I can judge how seriously to take them.

Whether you know acommentator and if he has the backbone of an amoeba is irrelevant to me. I was less than impressed with the author's response to acommentator's allegations both in terms of content and attitude and therefore asked some straight questions. Is that 'islamaphobic' Does questioning motives automatically mean I am prejudiced in some way?

I want to know the truth and if asking questions brands me in your eyes as islamaphobic well.... frankly I don't care.