Comments on: Defending Moazzam Begg and Amnesty International

By: Pummy

Pummy — Sun, 02 May 2010 08:53:54 +0000

Andy Worthington starts and ands his article with ad-hominum attacks and fills it with other logical fallacies.

When US Army soldiers become wistle blowers they are heros but when an supposed voluterr of a morally bankrupt organization blows wistle she is accused of violating the terms of employment. Sehgal owes her job to people who donate to AI and not to its management and its donors expect its employes people to stand for human rights and righteousness.

By: Left of the Taliban | The Mob and the Multitude

Left of the Taliban | The Mob and the Multitude — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:10:33 +0000

[...] Some have taken the view that Sahgal is an upstanding activist wrongly penalized by Amnesty while others argue that she is leveraging rampant Islamophobia for her [...]

By: Left of the Taliban « Action for a Progressive Pakistan

Left of the Taliban « Action for a Progressive Pakistan — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:03:28 +0000

[...] Some have taken the view that Sahgal is an upstanding activist wrongly penalized by Amnesty while others argue that she is leveraging rampant Islamophobia for her [...]

By: Uditi Sen

Uditi Sen — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:50:31 +0000

Dear Andy,

“I may have my doubts about the wisdom of trying to bring enlightenment to the Taliban, but then I’m not able to look at this from a Muslim perspective.” This is shocking. Are you suggesting that ‘Muslims’ due to their different ‘perspective’ are more suited to repressive regimes? Or does the mere fact of being ‘Muslim’ give you a different perspective? Or a deeper understanding?

Hundreds of Muslims have said many times, that there is nothing ‘Islamic’ about the Taliban. Highly respected Islamic scholar Sarfraz Naeemi was murdered by the Taliban for daring to say so openly. How dare you suggest that a ‘Muslim’ perspective might make the Taliban more appropriate, understandable? If you are indeed involved in an issue, take the trouble to educate yourself, to know the difference between religious faith and an invented tradition, which is the abuse of faith.

Such an argument is a slight on the religion of Islam, a slight on the people of the region who have suffered this abomination. There is no one true ‘Muslim’ perspective- to even suggest that there is one, is to essentialise a rich and diverse religion and give more power to the fundamentalists. And ‘I am not a Muslim’ is the weakest excuse I have ever heard for a refusal of full engagement!

Such liberal ‘tolerance’ in the name of religious plurality smacks of racism to me, which reserves liberal values as a ‘Western’ concept and chooses to ignore those who have globally fought and died for the cause of liberty and equality, and continue to do so, and many amongst them are Muslim!

Why does Amnesty not champion Malalai Joya? Or is her perspective not ‘Muslim’ enough?

Uditi

By: Salman Rushdie Accuses Amnesty International of “Moral Bankruptcy” « Prison Photography

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:22:24 +0000

[...] Worthington looks at every angle, but states at the outset that Sahgal and the Rupert Murdoch owned Times may have been pursuant of an “editorial policy”: That Sahgal also chose to air her complaints in the Sunday Times, a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoc… [...]

By: Freeman

Freeman — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:46:48 +0000

I’ll never give another cent to Amnesty International following this incident. To share a platform with an extremist who’d grossly abuse the rights of women, religious minorities and gays if ever given the chance represents such a low point for AI that one wonders if they even understand what the term “rights abuses” even means. Begg represents a Far Right totalitarian ideology (gussied up as religion) that has more in common with nazis than with progressivism. AI has shot itself in the foot. It is more interested in getting a jab in at America than it is with defending human rights. Shame on them.

By: Richard Crossin

Richard Crossin — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:07:44 +0000

I have read Sahgal’s piece and now, your response. She is right. You and Amnesty are being duped, acting as apologists for a man actively supports armed jihad, sharia and dar islam.

By: Andy Worthington

Andy Worthington — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:29:40 +0000

Hi Rachel,
Of course I understand that criticism of conservative Islam is not the same as being anti-Muslim, and I would not, for a minute, want to pretend that I have any right — or need — to ask Muslims not to criticize various manifestations of their faith. Where I think the confusion arises is in Cageprisoners’ work defending the rights of all Muslims held in the “War on Terror” versus the personal beliefs of those in the organization, and it is here that serious errors are being made. I know for a fact that Moazzam, Asim and other members of Cageprisoners do not represent repressive elements of “conservative Islam” in their personal lives.
What we’ve ended up with here is a situation in which Moazzam and Cageprisoners are being regarded as hard-line Wahhabis — or, even more worryingly, Salafists — when there is simply no evidence that this is the case.

By: Rachel Davenport

Rachel Davenport — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:04:39 +0000

I hope that Gita will distance herself from Rid Liddle, Nick Cohen, etc.

But I need to ask you who is allowed to speak for Muslims – only the groups you associate with, not the individual Muslims and groups who have signed the petition? You do good work, but maybe you need to broaden your experience of Muslims to discover that many do not believe that criticism of conservative Islam is the same as being anti-Muslim.

By: Andy Worthington

Andy Worthington — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:29:00 +0000

Hi Rachel,
My issue is not with Gita Sahgal’s integrity, nor with that of other South Asia experts. Rather, my problem with her criticism is that I know, from my experience of Moazzam, that he is not an extremist, and that, most crucially, his work aims at defusing extremism. He was always the biggest nightmare for the Bush administration, because he has always been calm and eloquent, and has refused to suggest that anger is an adequate response to the “War on Terror.” I sincerely believe that those criticizing him and Cageprisoners need to reflect on that.
Furthermore, the compilers of the petition might also want to reflect on the fact that the support of Nick Cohen, Rod Liddle etc. undermines the credibility of those supporting Gita Sahgal, as these people have a clear anti-Muslim agenda that can only lead objective commentators to conclude that Gita and her supporters do too — and that,as a result, human rights are not for Muslims.
I’m afraid that, when it comes to alliances, criticism cuts both ways, and whatever Gita hoped to achieve will fail if she does not distance herself from being a “poster girl” for these people.