August 11, 2004

British Jihadis in Iraq

Read the whole story in the extended entry. I especially love the part where the Muslim Council is confused as to why taking up arms against ones own country could be considered treason. From the Guardian (via Robert Spencer):

British Muslims who take up arms against UK and US forces in Iraq could face treason charges on their return, the Home Office said today.

The warning was prompted by a Guardian report that two Britons had travelled from their homes in London to join the Mahdi army, a militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The men arrived in Najaf, where fierce fighting has been raging for seven days, earlier this week.

The two men who travelled to Najaf from the UK were both born in Iraq - one in Najaf and the other in Baghdad - but had lived in Britain since they were children and held British passports. This was the first time they had returned to Iraq, the Guardian reported.

Asked why they had travelled to Najaf, one - calling himself Abu Haqid, replied: "Our brothers are fighting down here. They are not eating well, they are not sleeping well - we have to be in the same position as them.

"We all have a belief, me and my family, when it comes to jihad. We asked our families and they said yes. It is good to protect your country and be there with your brothers."

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain today said he expected the men would not be the only two Britons to take up arms against US-led forces in Iraq.

A Home Office spokesman said British citizens or residents considering joining the militia should be aware that anyone taking up arms against a British soldier or US-led forces could be prosecuted for treason. The maximum sentence would be life imprisonment.

Depending on their actions, UK citizens fighting for a foreign army could be tried for a range of other offences, including terrorism. It would be for the police and the crown prosecution service to decide what action to bring in individual cases, the Home Office spokesman said. They could also face prosecution in Iraq if the interim government there chose to take action.

"It is wholly unacceptable, even if it is only a few individuals taking such an action," the spokesman said. "It could have an impact on British Muslims in this country, and the majority of British Muslims do not want any part in this type of activity."

The Muslim Council of Britain's spokesman, Inayat Bunglawala, said any future prosecutions for treason would strike many Muslims as "bizarre", given that the two men felt they were defending the country of their birth against an occupying force.

"The way the US has surrounded Najaf with tanks and attack helicopters is very provocative, especially to the Shia, as Najaf is a holy place for them," Mr Bungawala said.

"These men clearly do not believe the position of the US and British governments that this war was fought to liberate Iraq. They believe the US is occupying their country illegally," he said.

Mr Bungawala said he would advise British Muslims to lobby the government here to change its policy, rather than joining a militia in Iraq.

How exactly is this position different than the one taken by Noam Chomsky?

Posted by: Rusty at 09:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 3 kb.

1 "How exactly is this position different than the one taken by Noam Chomsky?" Trick question, right? 'Cause I'm stumped.

Posted by: Gordon at August 11, 2004 10:58 AM (7sq4M)

2 ;-)

Posted by: RS at August 11, 2004 11:33 AM (JQjhA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.7197, elapsed 1.0785 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.9101 seconds, 246 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.