The short media storm over a non-story printed in the Times at the end of last week involving the fact that I am a teacher at the LSE brought back certain memories placed at the back of my mind from April 1, 2002. I remember comforting my wife telling her not to worry, and kissing my 2 small children, before being taken away late that night to the offices of the State Security by Egyptian security services who had forced their way into my home. Four days later, having been tortured with electricity, beaten, stripped naked, threatened sexually, and having threats made towards my wife and family, I along with several others were taken to the office of the public prosecutor to sign the various “confessions” helpfully written by those supervising the torture (you can read about that in an article entitled “Confession signature code reveals Briton’s torture in Cairo prison”, ironically printed on the front page of the Times, November 18, 2002). Sadly, the revival of these memories was not limited to myself, something brought home to me when I heard from my wife that after informing the children about the ensuing media interest last Friday, our daughter asked – “Will Daddy be taken away again?”
Since returning from Egypt in 2006, I decided to make an attempt at entering into academia, believing that in the academic field I would be judged and valued according to merit and intellectual output, rather than the result of whatever tabloid articles a Google search may bring up. When applying to the LSE, I made it clear who I was and the views I was persecuted for in Egypt, and my hope that I could add a different voice and angle within academic circles that is mostly absent in a highly politicised field currently being filled largely by anti-terrorism careerists rather than serious research. As such, I expected my output to be judged according to academic standards, and to be accepted if it reached that level and rejected if not. I have had many open and frank discussions with fair minded academics at the university, as is to be expected with people holding differing political and world viewpoints. In other words, there has never been anything secretive or conspiratorial about my positions. As someone who has been tortured for and yet remained clear upon his ideas, whatever someone’s opinion of those ideas they should respect that I will always represent them openly, transparently and authentically.
The latest media attention basically suggests that I am somehow unsuitable to be a lecturer or teacher at the LSE, due solely to my membership of Hizb ut Tahrir (HT). I don’t believe this is a personal agenda about me. Rather, this is a wider debate in which there seems to be an attempt to demonise anyone holding ideological opinions the British government doesn’t like, in a manner that the dictatorial “hereditary democracy” that is Egypt would be proud – hounding them into either remaining silent or else face being forced out of their profession. This new McCarthyism is apparent, with “reds under your beds” being replaced in this instance with “Islamists under your desks”.
First of all – let me be clear about my professionalism. As a teacher, my role is to run the undergraduate seminar in a manner that encourages the students to think about the subjects at hand in a critical and academic manner, in order to develop their thinking. Anyone who suggests that I have done otherwise, or am incapable of doing so for holding certain religious and political opinions, should verify with the Government department and the School to confirm with them how I am viewed both by the students and staff. To suggest I am unable to talk about any issue academically, whether Islamic or otherwise, is an attempt to discredit both myself and my academia without any justification. The fact is that I have had work on Middle Eastern and Islamic politics accepted for academic publication, and that whatever research I have done so far has been appreciated by scholars both in and outside of the LSE. I would like to point out that no other religious or political grouping is treated in such a manner, whereby because someone is a Muslim who believes in Islamic values and the revival of an Islamic State in Muslim countries means that their professionalism is automatically questioned. This is actually a form of discrimination.
Secondly – let us be clear about HT. I should point out that even documents obtained from the Home Office under the FOI act state that “HT’s activities centre on intellectual reasoning, logic arguments and political lobbying” and that “membership or sympathy with such an organisation does not in any way presuppose a move towards terrorism”. With respect to the case of myself and the other detainees jailed in Egypt, Amnesty International adopted all of us as prisoners of conscience stating “We believe that they have been convicted solely for their peacefully held views.” Since its establishment the only method used by HT in the work to re-establish an Islamic State, or Caliphate, has been intellectual reasoning, public debate and peaceful political struggle. That it has been banned and its members, including myself, have been jailed and tortured in several Middle Eastern and Muslim countries, is due to the fact that those totalitarian regimes have no legitimacy themselves, and the only way for them to maintain their grip over the oppressed people of the region is to combat debate with electricity, jail and even boiling people alive.
Finally, to briefly address the comment raised in the media that in a recent Friday sermon I claimed that the alleged Detroit plane bomber was radicalised as a result of foreign policy. So what? This is the opinion of several independently minded people. As an example, Ron
Paul, the Republican congressman who has run for the US Presidency twice holds the same opinion, stating “They’re terrorists because we’re occupiers” when discussing the same issue on CNN at the end of 2009. Of course, the comment in the Times conveniently omitted that I had spent the first 10 minutes of the sermon explaining how such attempts were completely unjustified according to Islamic teachings and unacceptable whatever the provocation, before going on to explore what were the true causes behind his actions. Many of those who have attended my open sermons and circles with the Islamic society can attest to the fact that I have consistently refuted terrorism and the killing of civilians from a theological basis based upon orthodox Islamic teachings.
Irrespective of my clear stance against terrorism, the Times and other parts of the media are playing to a wider agenda of shutting down ideological debate by labelling certain views “extremist”. What offends them is that not only do I consistently point out that the number of civilians killed by soldiers, tanks and aircraft under government orders – in wars and occupations that many of the people they represent consider illegitimate – is a much bigger cause of instability in the world today, but also that the people of the Middle East have the right, indeed duty, to determine their political destiny in accordance with their own beliefs independent of the hands of despotic monarchs and presidents and those who support them.
I would like to express my appreciation to the LSE, the Government department, my fellow Phd colleagues, my students and the many others who know me personally for their support and understanding over the last few days.
No related posts.
Pingback: The London School of Embarrassment « Automatic Ballpoint
Pingback: The Pankhurst Saga, part III: “A response to allegations” « Road to Academia