New Statesman rolling blog
Fahad Ansari (guest post)
December 15, 2011.
This week's terrorism conviction has serious implications for freedoms of speech and thought in modern Britain.
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?
Comment: What kind of judicial system inside of a democracy can find plausible reason to ban books or ideas contained in books?
This from a country who would have taken to the battlefield to protect Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses in 1988.
There is no place for censorship in a democracy. In 1988 I was among a small group of Muslims who did not support the banning Rushdie's warmed over nonsense in South Africa or anywhere else.
My argument then was similar to when Zapiro was condemned in 2010 for defaming the Prophet; produce counter narratives, engage ideas and deconstruct that which offends you but don't stick your head in the sand.
In the US the warmongers who are supposedly the gatekeepers of democracy are now waging a war on civil liberties.
The framers of the US constitution must be spinning in their graves like a rotisserie chicken.
The right to a fair trail is soon to be a thing of the past. Tom has declared war without even involving the congress and it won't end in the near future.
What is it about this time that makes the US and Britain so eager to violate civil liberties? Who wants to live in a country where material is everywhere and critical ideas are hard to find even banned?
Reminds me of a time when I started looking through a bookstore in Singapore. What the hell do people read here was my thinking.
Nothing that was even remotely critical of anything was on the shelves. Singapore bans anything even remotely critical of its authoritarian capitalism.
In Thailand you can go to jail for long periods if you 'insult' the king, even in a book published outside the kingdom!
Now in Britain you have to worry about which books are on your shelves just in case the freedom police show up looking to trump up charges and declare you a terrorist.
In the mid 80s I smuggled a copy of The Communist Manifesto into South Africa. I tore off the covers and put it in a jacket that had a hidden compartment.
I thought it an important act for freedom and my politics. If I was caught it may have led to a lengthy prison term under the Suppression of Communism Act.
I would have been a "terrorist" under apartheid and I would be a terrorist sympathizer now in Britain because of the copy of Milestones on my bookshelf here in the dustbin by the hole.
The strange thing about my 'daring' is that I never read the copy I smuggled. I never distributed it to anyone and have no idea what ever happened to it.
For me the act of acting against banning ideas was more important at the time. So important that I did not take the next important step and read it very carefully (I had just read selectively before that) until I started taking classes in the US on political theory a year or more later.
It seems very odd to me that Britain would not see the intellectual value of countering ideas with other ideas: a kind of dialectical thinking that the west is always selling as reason.
And even while these books are banned you can read Mein Kampf on any crappy rainy day (almost year round that is) in Britain.
So much for their so called "matured democracy".