>>Presenter: Good afternoon, everybody.
Thanks very much indeed for coming.
I'm delighted to welcome our guest today,
Maajid Nawaz, who has just published this
book, Radical.
Maajid's story is a fascinating one in that
he got involved, as a young man, in radical
Islam and then ended up in prison in Egypt
for his views, then, subsequently, had a conversion
and rejected political Islam, although he
remains a Muslim, and now campaigns around
the world in favor of democracy and nonviolent
methods.
I'm particularly interested in sharing this
discussion because I've actually met Maajid
in both his incarnations.
When I was at Newsnight a few years ago, we
did an item about Hizb ut-Tahrir, which was
the organization that Maajid was a member
of.
He came into the program and complained long
into the night about the film.
We discussed that until well after midnight,
I think.
Then, when he decided to take a new path,
he phoned us up and said, "I am converting
and I'm going to [man coughs] change my approach
completely."
He asked if he could make a film about that
change on Newsnight, which we very quickly
said, "Absolutely."
The film went out.
So welcome, Maajid.
>>Maajid Nawaz: Thank you.
>>Presenter: It's great to have you here.
I'm really-- Let's go back to South End.
How did you get involved with extremism in
the first place?
>>Nawaz: First of all, thank you for that
introduction.
I mention Peter in the book because of the
story that he's just mentioned.
It was very kind of you to actually give me
the opportunity to come back and set the record
straight.
Thank you for agreeing to chair this event
today.
My journey to an Islamist organization began--
I was born and raised in Essex.
My journey began in my teenage years.
I grew up in a very-- with a very integrated
background.
In fact, all of my friends were white Essex
boys.
We had little problem with racism until I
became a teenager.
But when I hit the age of around 14 years
old, because of a phenomenon that was called
"white flight"-- Now if any of you are not
from England or London, white flight was something
that was used as a term to describe white
people moving from East London to get away
from increasing immigration and moving as
far east as they could go.
Now, of course, the furthest east is South
End, because beyond that, there's the sea.
When they went as far east as they could go
to get away from the immigration, they found
me in South End, which is where I was born.
They didn't expect that.
In those days, I think South End was about
99.5% white.
So I had-- All my friends were English and
white people.
I basically didn't know anything else.
I became-- I experienced a rude awakening.
I became suddenly aware of my skin color.
I describe it in Radical as a way that when
I look at people, when I look at you, when
I look and talk to people, I don't see my
own skin color.
I see people in front of me.
I see them as human beings.
The racist is forever seeing me and defining
me by the color of my skin.
And would view the color of that skin as a
target.
In those days, there was a phenomenon-- Now,
I'm saying all this-- This is the beginning
of the story.
Please don't get me wrong.
Racism is no longer as severe a problem in
the UK as it used to be.
I have to say that point.
Things are much better than they used to be.
But in those days, there were people that
would engage in what they call Paki bashing.
What this is is that they would ride around
in white vans and they would randomly jump
out the back of these vans to attack any one
of a brown complexion that they saw in an
unprovoked and totally without warning attack.
These attacks would usually be with hammers
and with screwdrivers and with kebab knives.
At the age of 14, I began experiencing or
being a target of this sort of Paki bashing
on the streets in Essex.
It would occur on many occasions.
One of my friends called Moe Giddings was
chased down the seafront with a hammer.
Had a hammer attack to his head.
We were targeted on many occasions.
On many occasions, I had to watch my friends
stabbed and slashed at with knives by these
racists.
This was all happening at the same time while
Essex police authorities, before the days
of the Stephen Lawrence murder, before the
days of the Macpherson Report that exposed
a level of institutional racism in the police
forces in this country, we were living that
type of institutional racism.
On many occasions, we were the target of police
discrimination as well as targeted on the
streets of Essex for our skin color.
On time, my brother, who was 16, was playing
with a toy gun in the park.
A lady saw him and decided that he must be
about to rob a bank, and reported him to the
police.
I joined him later on in the evening, as a
15 year old, and we went to play snooker.
We were on the way back home in our friend's
car, who was 17 and therefore old enough to
drive.
The police had blocked the roads, and there
was a police helicopter flying above us.
They shone a spotlight onto our car.
Suddenly, from either side of the car, came
these armed policemen with sub semi automatic
machine guns.
The put guns to our heads and they dragged
us out of the car and said, "You're being
arrested for suspicion of armed robbery."
I was too young to be interrogated without
the presence of an adult, so they called my
poor mother at 3 am in the morning.
They woke her up and said, "Both your sons
have been arrested for suspicion of armed
robbery.
You have to come down to the station because
we can't interview-- interrogate the younger
one without your presence.
>>Presenter: And your response to that was
then to turn to extreme Islam, was it?
>>Nawaz: One more thing happened.
That was Bosnia.
With the genocide in Bosnia, what I had previously
associated as racist violence, I began seeing
as something a bit deeper.
Because of course, in Bosnia, there were white,
blond-haired, blue-eyed Muslims who were being
targeted by the Serbs because of their faith.
What all of this led to isn't me joining Hizb
ut-Tahrir.
It led to me becoming very disenfranchised
and disconnected from society.
What then led me to join Hizb ut-Tahrir, once
I was already primed, is the final ingredient
that you need to join the dots of the grievances
that one experienced.
That's the ideological narrative.
I met a recruiter who joined those dots and
basically gave me an alternative discourse
to explain away all of these grievances.
>>Presenter: Tell us a little bit about Hizb
ut-Tahrir, because they are an organization
who effectively want to overthrow governments
right around the world and impose an Islamic
state.
>>Nawaz: Founded in 1953 in Jerusalem, Hizb
ut-Tahrir has three names.
But first of all, I'll say it's an Islamist
organization.
What is Islamism, and how is it different
to Islam?
Islam is a religion, it's a faith.
Every Muslim has the right to practice their
religion, whether in its conservative form
or in its reformist form.
Islamism, on the other hand, is the desire
to impose an interpretation of that faith
over society as law.
That's the difference.
The desire to impose an interpretation of
Islam over society is the politicization of
religion.
That's why we add the suffix -ism to the end.
So it's called Islamism.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamist organization.
It seeks to overthrow every single Muslim
majority regime so it can impose its interpretation
of Islam.
It also seeks to create, as a result, a pan-Islamist
superstate, an expansionist state that will
rule the world.
The final aim is to destroy the state of Israel.
How they aim to get to power: there's three
different groups of methodologies within Islamist
organizations.
We have the Muslim Brotherhood variety in
Egypt.
They aim to get to power through competing
in elections and participating in the political
system.
Then the second category are those who are
the revolutionary Islamist organizations,
like the group I belonged to.
They aim to recruit army officers, serving
army officers, from the armies of Muslim majority
countries so they can incite military coups.
They've done that and I've participated in
that level of incitement across a couple of
countries in the world.
The third type, the third category are the
terrorist Islamist organizations.
I joined a revolutionary Islamist organization.
>>Presenter: It treaded a fine line, didn't
it, this organization?
This is where we got into heated debate, because
it's not a terrorist organization.
But is it a violent organization?
>>Nawaz: There is a level of violence that
is not defined as terrorism.
For example, a military coup is inherently
a violent act.
When you attempt to overthrow a government
using an army, the fact is, the army is threatening
force if the government doesn't comply.
Now, if that's a democratic regime, then it's
an illegal act to even encourage that.
In that sense, they're encouraging violence.
But they're not encouraging terrorism, meaning
they will condemn, and not condone, attacks
on hotels, nightclubs, and these sorts of
things.
It's a more focused level of violence.
Once they come to power, they then aim to
use the fact that a state has a monopoly over
violence to engage in a very aggressive and
violent foreign policy of war.
They appropriate the term jihad, which is
a Koranic concept which means "struggle",
and they apply it to their foreign policy.
>>Presenter: And it's all based on sales,
isn't it?
And you were actually a sale recruiter, weren't
you?
What does that involve?
>>Nawaz: I went through the ranks.
I started off as a recruiter at Newham College.
I became president of the students' union
and was involved in a heavy recruitment drive
for the group.
My entire student union committee were members
of my organization and were elected on the
same slate as I was.
We ratcheted up and poisoned the atmosphere
to such an extent that sadly, though we didn't
encourage this directly-- but it's a natural
consequence of what I believe is is if you
boil a kettle enough, eventually the water
will boil over.
One of our supporters called Sayid Nour ended
up murdering a non-Muslim student on that
campus by stabbing him through the heart with
a machete.
He was convicted for murder and is serving
a life sentence.
He was not a member of the group.
He was a supporter who-- As I said, when you
ratchet up the atmosphere-- It's like if racism
spreads unchecked in society.
Don't be surprised if Combat 18 and other
racist groups start engaging in violence.
That's the fine line you mentioned.
That was the debate we had when I was still
a member of the group.
They don't directly encourage violence, and
that was the point I was pushing and was bound
to push.
When you were editor of Newsnight.
I was arguing a legal point.
But they don't necessarily encourage violence
directly.
But what I was conceding was the fact that
this point, that just like with racism, if
you spread an extremist idea and if you spread
hatred and bigotry in society, then the natural
consequence-- Don't be surprised if people
then allow that the spin over and take matters
into their own hands.
>>Presenter: Then this led to you going to
Egypt and to getting into trouble there.
>>Nawaz: Before I went to Egypt, I was co-founder
of this group in three other, well, two other
countries apart from Britain.
I went to Denmark and helped establish the
Danish-Pakistani branch.
When Pakistan tested it's nuclear bomb, we
got a message from the global leader saying
that the superstate that they wanted to create
would really benefit from a nuclear bomb.
He sent a message to all British Pakistani
members, and asked us to leave our studies.
At the time I was doing law and Arabic at
University, at Soas.
We could leave our studies and go over as
quickly as possible to Pakistan to recruit
from the Pakistani Army and recruit from the
population, so prime Pakistan as being the
starting point for this so-called caliphate.
Again, another appropriation of an Islamic
term, a historical term that they've now used
to call their superstate.
I left in 1999.
I moved to Pakistan and began recruiting there.
I tried to-- Well, I co-founded the group
there and set up cells in Lahore and Rahim
Yar Khan and other cities, and also helped
recruit Pakistani Army officers to the group,
who were discovered in 2003 by General Musharraf
in a purge, because they were plotting a coup.
Even this year, they've discovered a third
cell of my former group in the Pakistani Army.
Brigadier Ali Khan and four other officers
who are currently facing a military tribunal,
again, for plotting a coup.
Media reports state that, in fact, there was
a recruit from the Air Force who was even
considering bombing the Parliament as a distraction
when they attempt to engage in this coup.
After my activities in Pakistan, I ended up
in Egypt.
In Egypt, I was head of the Alexandria chapter,
and was attempting to resurrect and recreate
this group in Egypt.
I was in Egypt, after 9/11, that the authorities--
or my activities caught up with me and the
authorities arrested me.
On the 1st of April in 2002, I was arrested
in Alexandria.
I was blindfolded.
I was taken to the dungeons of the state security
headquarters in Cairo in a building known
as al-Gihaz.
My hands were tied behind my back with rags.
I was given a number.
My number was 42.
The numbers went into the hundreds.
It was there, in the building of al-Gihaz,
that they began torturing everybody by electrocution,
going up from number 1 to number 2 to number
3, all the way into the hundreds.
We were eventually sentenced to five years
in prison.
I wanted to actually read an extract--
>>Presenter: Sure.
>>Nawaz: --from-- Could I just borrow your
book, please?
>>Presenter: Sure.
[laughs] With pleasure.
>>Nawaz: I thought that what I'd do is just
read from that section of my time in al-Gihaz.
It's not long, just a page.
Because it just gives you a feeling.
It's very difficult to describe walking towards
your torture, to your own torture.
I wasn't electrocuted, thankfully.
I need to make that point clear.
I was instead subjected to having to witness
other people electrocuted.
And then my questions were being played off
them and vice versa.
But at the time that I was walking towards
the torture cell, to the interrogation room,
I didn't know.
Because of course, they had tortured another
British citizen who was with me.
So I didn't know if they were going to electrocute
me or not.
This is-- What I try to do is explain how
that feels, in the book, when you're walking
towards what could be a very difficult situation
to deal with.
This chapter-- It's from chapter 20.
It's called "As-Salamu Alaykum, You've Just
Come Out of Hell" because al-Gihaz was a building
infamous throughout Egypt.
During the Egypt uprising, the revolutionaries
in fact stormed this building.
They ransacked it and they took the files.
There are two buildings that are infamous
in Egypt for torture, and they were, respectively,
the Cairo headquarters, Amn ad-Dawla, or the
State Security, and the Egypt headquarters.
Al-Gihaz was the national Egypt headquarters,
and Lazoghly was the building that was the
Cairo headquarters.
Just merely mentioning the names, if anyone
is Egyptian in the audience, you'd know.
Merely mentioning al-Gihaz and Lazoghly would
be enough to send a shiver down the spine
of any Egyptian.
They were truly dark and despicable places.
If you bear with me, this is a very difficult
passage.
When I wrote this, it was actually-- I had
a bit of a breakdown.
I'm just going to read it for you because
it gives you a sense of what it feels like
to be in that situation.
"To be asked to voluntarily walk towards your
own torture is the cruelest of expectations.
Why can't they just carry me?
Each step is a personal betrayal.
My body is convulsing in revulsion against
my commands.
Every instinct is screaming at me to turn
the other way.
[pause] But I'm expected to walk on.
Try standing in the middle of a highway, watching
an oncoming bus, without flinching.
That's hard.
Now try voluntarily walking towards that bus
instead of stepping out of the way.
Impossible.
That's what it's like walking towards your
own torture.
My legs are buckling under each step, but
I force compliance and walk on.
God, your chaperoning hand that helps me walk
blindly to my own torture feels perversely
merciful.
For how could I avoid stepping on my brothers
in the corridor, were it not for you?
Alas, without sight, I cannot help but feel
so disgustingly dependent on you.
Now it is hard to breathe.
Fighting to stay hidden away deep within me,
even my breath fears coming out to face my
torturer.
My heart is attempting to escape the cage
that is my chest, and my mind is beginning
to shut down.
I'm in shock.
Oh, God, I need you right now.
If any mercy I've ever shown to anyone has
amounted to any value in your esteem, then
send me your angels now to shield me from
these monsters.
I'm trying to be brave for you, my Lord, but
the truth is, I'm scared.
Help me, my Lord, for I am very scared."
As I said, that's from chapter 20.
That's just before my number was called, number
42.
It's just before I was called to the torture
cell.
After four days, we were then put into solitary
confinement in a concrete cell with no sanitation
and no-- and that means no toilet.
And no bed and no light and no sink.
Eventually, we were sentenced to five years
in prison.
>>Presenter: And did you spend five years
in prison?
>>Nawaz: I spent my full sentence, which was
meant to be three years and nine months.
It took them an extra three months to sort
their paperwork out, so I returned after serving
four years.
The prison was Mazra Tora Prison.
Anyone who follows the Egypt uprising will
know that Hosni Mubarak's sons and the former
Minister of Interior, Habib El Adly, and Hosni
Mubarak himself, are currently serving in
that very same prison.
I thank God that they weren't tortured and
that what happened to Gaddafi didn't happen
to them, because of course, as Nietzsche said,
"Beware of becoming the monster you're attempting
to fight."
When I became an Islamist, I did become somewhat
of that monster.
I'm happy that I've managed to pull myself
back from that level of anger.
>>Presenter: So then how did you start to
change your mind?
Was it around this time?
>>Nawaz: You can have your book back.
>>Presenter: Thank you very much.
>>Nawaz: Two things happened to me in Mazra
Tora Prison that had a profound impact on
me.
One of them was that Amnesty International,
to whom I owe a great deal of thanks for their
support, they adopted me as a prisoner of
conscience.
If you keep in mind the way in which we spoke
earlier, that there are three categories of
Islamist organizations, and my one was a non-terrorist
organization, and specifically, in this case,
there were no charges of violence, that the
charges in Arabic were-- They're quite comical,
actually.
[speaks Arabic] which means, "Propagation
by speech and writing for the ideas of a banned
organization."
We were charged for ideas.
The charge in itself was a known goal.
That spurred Amnesty on.
There was a man called John Cornell, who is
a part of the Amnesty's Buckingham branch.
He began writing letters to the headquarters,
asking them to adopt us as prisoners of conscience.
He had an impact, and they did.
As soon as we were charged by these dodgy
charges-- Now I've got to say, again, we were
extreme.
We did believe in unpalatable and reprehensible
ideas.
But that's different to actually doing something
illegal.
It's also different to being a terrorist.
Part of the reason I'm doing the work I'm
doing now is to make amends for the extremism
that I spread.
I just want to make that point clear.
When Amnesty--
>>Presenter: But when did you realize that
what you were doing was reprehensible?
When did that dawn on you?
>>Nawaz: This was a-- There was no sudden
moment.
There was a four year process, and one year
after prison.
As I said, the two things that really helped
change my mind is Amnesty working to campaign
for my release.
That began a rehumanization process.
I began defining the other no longer as my
enemy, because of course, they were defending
me.
There's a lesson there in the importance of
adhering to human rights.
The war on terror decade I think had it the
wrong way around.
They basically started cutting back on human
rights and going in heavy with the military,
whereas what should have happened is a heavy
civic response to extremism and a protection
of civil liberties.
But anyway, that's another subject.
But that had a profound impact on me.
The second thing was that I was in prison,
at the time, with some of the leading jihadists
and Islamists of their day, in Egypt.
Everything from, on the one end of the spectrum,
the assassins of the former president, Anwar
Sadat, through to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership,
Dr. Mohammed Badie, who's their current Masul,
their general leader.
That's the party that's now-- Their candidate
won the presidential elections in Egypt.
They're now in power.
All the way through to liberal political prisoners,
such as Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim and Ayman Nour,
the former presidential candidate.
Essentially, the four years in university,
it was a political university.
Everything I've told you that I did, I did
before the age of 24.
I was imprisoned at 24.
I'm now only 25, believe it or not.
[laughs] No, I'm 34.
At 24, I was imprisoned.
So I was still very young.
It was those four years that basically was
my political maturity, political awakening.
From 24 to 28, the Amnesty's work, and my
political discussions in prison, and my studying
from Islam's original sources-- I became fluent
in Arabic, not only because I did the law
and Arabic degree at Soas, but also because,
by that time, obviously in prison, I had to
speak Arabic every day.
I began studying from the Koran and the original
sources of Islam.
I realized that this distinction between Islam
as a religion and Islamism as a modern political
ideology inspired by European fascism, ironically
enough.
After my release from prison, it took me a
further 10 months, and I could no longer justify--
You met me during that 10 months.
>>Presenter: Yes.
>>Nawaz: And I could no longer justify believing
in those ideas.
>>Presenter: You changed in your mind, but
you hadn't changed publicly.
>>Nawaz: That's right.
>>Presenter: You were still representing Hizb
ut-Tahrir.
>>Nawaz: On their leadership.
Yeah.
>>Presenter: But you knew you were on the
wrong path.
>>Nawaz: Yeah.
I had a BBC HARDtalk interview with Sarah
Montague while I was still a member, during
the time I met you.
I toed the party line as far as I could.
It's still on the internet, if you wanted
to watch it.
You'll see me speaking as a Hizb ut-Tahrir
member.
But I was roundly criticized inside the group
for that interview because they said it was
too soft.
That was me struggling with my own-- For example,
I used the term-- I said, "We're calling for
a representative caliphate."
They basically took issue with my use of the
word representative.
"What do you mean, 'a representative caliphate'?
It's God's law!
God's the one who represents us."
It wasn't-- They weren't happy with that.
That was like-- They could see that my views
were changing a bit.
Like we've met again, I'm actually due onto
HARDtalk again next week, the first time since
leaving.
>>Presenter: Aha.
So then, how did you make the break, and how
did that go down with Hizb ut-Tahrir?
>>Nawaz: They asked me to-- They pretty much
were preparing me to take over the leadership
of the group in the UK.
The man who originally recruited me was, by
this time, the leader.
He needed to go to Bangladesh to [pause] help
found the group in Bangladesh.
Incidentally, there's also been an army purge
in Bangladesh.
They found a cell in the Bangladeshi Army
plotting a coup.
They offered that, and I was forced to make
a decision: either become the leader of the
group in the country, and I no longer believe
in the group, or leave.
I unilaterally resigned.
I guess the only other question is, "Why didn't
I keep quiet after my resignation?"
I think that what drove me to join the group
in the first place was a desire to see justice
and fight the injustices that I saw around
me.
I now came to believe that the ideology of
Islamism is as big an injustice as racism
and all the other grievances, including foreign
policy grievances, that are out there.
I believe that the ideology of Islamism is
one of the biggest obstacles standing before
Muslims and their progress.
That sense that the Islamism is creating more
injustice than it's solving meant that my
original motivation was still there.
I needed, I wanted to fight injustice.
The target had just shifted towards this ideology
now, as well.
>>Presenter: Did that put you at risk, do
you think, when you came out?
You did a, I think it was a 70 minute film
on Newsnight denouncing Hizb ut-Tahrir and
then obviously doing speaking programs and
so on.
Have you had threats or intimidation as a
result?
>>Nawaz: There were threats, there were intimidations.
Yeah.
Just today, someone on Twitter said they wanted
to shoot me.
If they saw me in the audience, they'd come
up and kill me, because I did a talk yesterday.
We get threats all the time.
But I don't know how serious they are.
I have been attacked in Pakistan by a member
of the group.
But keep in mind, this isn't a terrorist organization.
The bigger danger is, it comes from-- Because
I'm not just criticizing Hizb ut-Tahrir.
I'm criticizing the entire Islamist project
that I no longer agree with, and separating
it from Islam.
That's very dangerous for them, because Islamists
believe that they have a monopoly over Islamic
discourse.
The minute you separate their ideology from
the faith, you're removing that monopoly.
You're breaking that monopoly.
It upsets all Islamist organizations.
The bigger danger is from the violent ones.
We do a lot of work in Pakistan now to try
and challenge the Islamist narrative and inoculate
young people against the extremist narratives,
and instead advocate the democratic culture.
I've found in a movement, in Pakistan, mirroring
my founding of Islamist movements.
I've used the same tactics and the same organizational
techniques to set up a social movement that
advocates, instead, democratic culture.
A leading member of that movement is here
with me today.
He's Imran Khan who's on the leadership.
Just stick your hand up, Imran.
If anyone wants to ask him about Pakistan
afterwards, he's on the leadership of the
movement we founded there called Khudi.
He's here for a week, just to see how things
are in the UK.
But we travel around and hold workshops in
universities with students.
We inoculate them against the extremist narratives.
We train them in how to distinguish between
Islam and Islamism.
We're trying to popularize the counter narratives
and rebrand democratic activism in Pakistan.
Of course, it is dangerous, but I think the
bigger danger is facing people like Imran
who are out on the front lines every day.
I'm just providing my consultancy services,
if you like.
>>Presenter: That's the Quilliam Foundation?
>>Nawaz: Yes.
>>Presenter: That's interesting, because there's
a number of people, Ed Husain and some others,
who had conversions round about the same time,
and banded together.
Why was it that these guys all came to the
same conclusion around the same time, to found
Quilliam?
>>Nawaz: There was some-- Ed and I founded
Quilliam together.
We brought, as you said, a number of guys
on board.
There was something of a perfect storm in
those days.
The perfect storm was that the public appetite
to understand the difference between Islam
and Islamism was at its peak.
It was post 7/7.
Policy makers were hungry for this distinction,
and to understand the debate.
There was funds available, in terms of public
funds, to try and address some of these subjects.
Ed had just written his book explaining his
views around these things.
All of that came together.
I had just got released from prison, and of
course, my story, being out of the group,
being the only one who had gone on the be
a bit of an international Islamist and imprisoned
and stuff.
It added the extra spice, if you like, in
the masala, to create that background, backstory.
It was a perfect storm.
I don't think we could replicate it today.
I don't think we could replicate founding
Quilliam.
We could probably replicate founding Khudi
in Pakistan, but founding Quilliam in the
UK as a policy-based institution dealing with,
addressing some of these issues on a policy
and media and public diplomacy level.
I don't know if that same level of opportunities
that we found would present themselves today.
>>Presenter: Are you succeeding?
Do you think the threat of radical Islam is
receding in Britain?
>>Nawaz: That's tough to say.
Jonathan Evans, the head of the Security Services
just gave a speech two weeks ago, if you caught
that, warning that the security vacuum from
the Arab uprisings could be exploited and
is, in his view-- I'm sure he'd know-- is
being exploited by British Muslims going over
to train with al-Qaeda.
Now, the Arab uprisings were great news.
I believe-- Not only because they were personally
cathartic-- Hosni Mubarak was brought to justice--
but I believe that in the long term, this
is a step to the right side of history.
I believe that closed societies breed closed
minds.
And open and democratic societies will, in
the long run, breed open and democratic minds.
But how to make sure they remain open and
not become elected dictatorships?
To have that, we need to have the democratic
trinity I often refer to.
That's the need for a democratic culture,
meaning the ideas and values that underpin
democracies, just human rights and freedoms.
The democratic institutions, such as Parliament
and the Senate.
And the democratic processes.
If this democratic trinity can be rooted within
societies just as Egypt or Pakistan, they
will act as the strongest check against any
one party dominating politics, even an Islamist
party.
That's what we're trying to seed in Pakistan,
this democratic trinity.
It's what we're trying to seed in Pakistan
with our social movement Khudi.
But Egypt doesn't have an equivalent level
of social organizing for democratic values.
It's quite disparate at the moment.
Jonathan Evans gave a speech saying that British
Muslims may exploit the security vacuum from
the Arab uprisings in countries like Yemen,
Somalia, Libya, and Syria.
Especially Syria because of its proximity
to Iraq, and former militants coming from
Iraq into Syria to fight Assad.
He said there's a chance, and they're aware
of, some people coming back and potentially
trying to attack Britain.
Now, it's not a huge leap of the imagination
to remember that 7/7 occurred during the week
we won the Olympics bid, and that now we're
about to come into the Olympics.
It would be hugely symbolic if there was a
terrorist strike in London.
I don't think it's a matter of if, I think
it's a matter of when and where.
I hope and believe that it wouldn't be successful,
but I definitely think that there will be
attempts.
In fact, there have already been arrests.
A couple of cases.
One non-Olympics related terrorism arrest,
a group of six.
And one Olympics related, a Somali who had
14 Somalia with al-Shabaab.
I think it's not about if, but when and where,
sadly.
>>Presenter: Okay, thank you.
Now, should we throw it in to the audience?
Who would like to ask some questions?
[pause]
>>Female #1: Hi.
My name is Eleanor Davis.
I'm Israeli.
I've been shaking most of the time while you
were talking.
I have to collect myself.
I have two questions for you.
The first one is: I've read that you went
to meet Israeli families, bereaved families,
that are victims of terror attacks that Israel,
unfortunately, has a lot of.
I wanted to ask you how you were received,
how it made you feel, and also ask you what
your thoughts are on terror organizations
such as Hamas and Hezbollah, who are very
focused on destroying Israel?
Then, my second question to you was regarding
the Muslim Brotherhood.
As you said, Arab Spring is something that
brought a lot of hope.
But from an Israeli perspective, looking at
the Muslim Brotherhood, who have very difficult
opinions.
There's been a lot of quotations recently
in the Israeli news about whether to keep
the peace with Israel or not, and calls to
destroy Israel and so on, which isn't very
hopeful or Spring-like for us.
I was hoping to get your opinion on that,
as well.
Then, I just want to end by saying thank you,
so much, for being who you are.
I just wish we had more like you.
>>Nawaz: Thank you.
Indeed, you're correct.
You probably read it in the Jewish Chronicle.
>>Female #1: I actually read Israeli News.
>>Nawaz: Oh, was it in the Israeli paper?
Ah, okay, I didn't know that.
I wrote that in the Jewish Chronicle.
I didn't realize the Israeli press covered
it, which is good, I suppose, as well.
I've just returned from both Israel and the
West Bank.
In Israel I met with Mark Regev, the spokesman
for Netanyahu.
I also met with our own ambassador there,
Matthew Gould, and met with Husam Zomlot from
the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank
in Ramallah.
We did a full talk.
I was part of a parliamentary delegation that
went.
As you correctly said, I met with victims
of terror.
The experience was very fulfilling for me.
The whole rehumanization process is what I,
because of Amnesty's work, is what I put a
lot of emphasis on.
I think rehumanization of the other is crucial.
Face to face contact is one of the best ways
to do that.
But not only face to face contact.
What is also needed is to actually start,
respectively, to start challenging some of
the extremisms that exist within one's own
communities.
That's why, to take responsibility for some
of the ideas that I've put out there, I'm
doing the work I'm doing now.
Hamas and Hezbollah.
There is absolutely no excuse and no justification,
no matter how angry somebody is, to deliberately
target civilians and non-combatants in revenge
or to achieve any foreign policy objective
whatsoever.
I spoke in Israel, I say the same here, when
an individual or non-state actor targets civilians
or non-combatants, I define it as terrorism.
Whoever they are, even if it's Hamas and Hezbollah.
When a state does so, I describe it as a war
crime.
Because of the position I'm in, you'll understand,
I have to be very-- I have to try and be perceived
to be very fair.
I regularly write in the newspapers against
Hamas.
I consider Hamas a terrorist organization.
I believe the true chance for peace in the
Israel-Palestine conflict is by strengthening
the successes of the Palestinian Authority.
I saw some of the projects they're involved
in, such as the new development site called
Rawabi, which is the first time in history
that they're building a planned city in the
West bank.
It's a Qatari funded project.
It's a great project.
[unintelligible] It's a hugely successful
thing if they pull it off.
I think that that's the solution, in strengthening
the Palestinian Authority.
So I write against Hamas' and Hezbollah's
terrorism in the papers.
But I also, I won't make any qualms about
it, was critical of Israel's Gaza Operation,
the one where they were bombing Gaza, I think
a year ago, whenever it was.
I believe-- yeah, two years ago.
I think the reaction was disproportionate.
But I do draw a distinction between terrorism
and a disproportionate state reaction, which
in international law is called "disproportionate
reaction."
I hope that answers your question.
But thank you, as well, for your kind comments.
>>Female #1: Just about the Muslim Brotherhood,
as well.
>>Nawaz: Okay.
Because of all the questions, what I'll say
is that the democratic trinity's what's needed
to be rooted in the Egyptian society.
If we can do that, then there will be a check
on any one party taking over or having an
undue influence in Egyptian politics.
Finally, there is some cause for hope.
Don't forget, only 25% of the population voted
for an Islamist party.
That's 75% that did not vote for the Brotherhood.
That's a 50% drop from their parliamentary
results.
If you remember, in Parliament, they got 50%.
In the presidential elections, they only got
25%.
Within the space of a few months, their percentage
dropped.
That's because the majority of Egyptians realized
the difference between Islam and Islamism,
because they have to live it.
>>Presenter: Next question.
>>Male #1: Hi.
First of all, thanks for coming.
It's great to have you here.
>>Nawaz: Pleasure.
Thank you for having me.
>>Male #1: I have three questions.
[laughter]
>>Nawaz: Is that okay with our chair?
>>Presenter: Yeah.
Be quick, though.
>>Male #1: You were a recruiter.
What would you say to one person that you
recruited?
Because I guess you used some arguments, something
to convince these people.
What will you say to those people now?
This is my question number 1.
My question number 2 is: are you afraid--
do you think your life is in danger after
these changes in your life and publishing,
writing this book?
And the third question is: where do you think
the Arabic Spring will come out, will end
up?
And also, one thing is that your book is available
in Playstore, which is great.
[laughter]
>>Nawaz: Okay.
What's Playstore?
Forgive my ignorance.
[laughter]
>>Presenter: A very good online store.
>>Nawaz: Ah!
Fantastic.
Thank you, Playstore.
Thumbs up to that.
I think it's easier to deal with the second
question first, my life being in danger or
not.
I mean, it may be or it may not be.
Everyone's life's in danger in that sense,
because anything can happen.
But the reason I'm sounding slightly flippant,
forgive me, about that question is because
when you are a member of an Islamist organization
in Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, facing potential
torture or death for your Islamist activities,
you're already pretty much desensitized to
that level of danger.
I'm not doing anything more dangerous now
than I was when known systematic torturers
were hunting me down in Egypt.
Anything that terrorists could do to me now
is what the State Security could have done
to me before.
In that sense, I've pretty much reconciled
myself to it already 13 years ago.
Your first question about what I'd say to
somebody.
I don't think we have the time, but I am involved
in that.
I am engaged in that.
Just recently, I managed-- I have some good
news: I managed to convince a member of an
Islamist organization from a leadership position
to resign and step down and also denounce
the Islamist ideology.
Because they're not the same thing.
You can leave the Communist Party and still
be a communist.
The key is to actually convince them to leave
the ideology as well.
I am engaged in that.
As for your third question, I'm optimistic
in the long term about the Arab uprisings.
I think Libya, for example, in the elections
that just happen there.
It's great.
The Islamists didn't win in Libya.
And even in Egypt, as I said, only 25% voted
for the Islamist candidate.
That was because they were actually rejecting
Hosni Mubarak's last PM, because the final
runoff ended up, ironically, being between
the old order and the new order.
And there's no surprise there.
They happened to be the most organized blocks
within a disorganized majority: Mubarak's
cronies and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This election was actually a rejection of
the old, and nothing more.
So I'm optimistic in the long term.
>>Presenter: Next question.
>>Nawaz: Forgive me, I'm trying to rush through
the questions.
I hope you don't mind.
>>Presenter: Just one at a time is preferred.
>>Male #2: I saw you at BBC Interview, I think
it was 2006.
I didn't know it was when you were going through
the transformation.
But I want to just ask a quick question on
that.
>>Nawaz: Which BBC interview do you refer
to?
>>Presenter: The Sarah Montague, is that right?
>>Nawaz: The HARDtalk one?
>>Male #2: HARDtalk, yeah.
>>Nawaz: Okay.
>>Male #2: In that one, you had mentioned--
maybe it was you being "soft"-- but you had
mentioned you were trying to encourage to
Islamic governments to unite.
I didn't see much wrong with that.
You had defended that idea.
I was in agreement with that specific idea.
I just wanted to know if you are against that
idea now, because that seems not--
>>Nawaz: Are you from Pakistan?
>>Male #2: No, I'm not.
I'm from India.
>>Nawaz: From India.
It's a good question.
The reason-- What I did is I remember the
analogy I drew is with the EU.
I said, "If the European Union can come together,
why can't Muslim countries come together and
form a caliphate?"
I'd like to tell you, now, that that analogy
is false.
You'll understand why it's false because you're
in London.
The reason it's false is if you look at me,
I carry a British passport, and I have a Pakistani
identity card as well.
I can go in and out.
That's called citizenship.
Now, as a Muslim of Pakistani origin, born
in Essex, I'm a member of the EU citizens
and I'm a member of-- I'm a citizen of Britain.
Britain didn't say to me, "Because you're
not a Muslim, you can't be a citizen."
Britain said, "You're a British citizen."
In this country, we have a Muslim in the Cabinet,
serving in the Cabinet.
Regardless of one's views about her.
I'm not a Tory and-- But Baroness Warsi's
in the Cabinet.
In the opposition, we have a Muslim in the
Shadow Cabinet.
That's Sadiq Khan, who, incidentally, by the
way, or for the record, was my lawyer campaigning
for my release from prison.
So I need to thank him for that on the record.
And in the Lib Dems as well.
Muslims serve in all three parties as citizens
of this country.
Why am I telling you this?
Because there's a difference between the citizenship
model that doesn't look at ethnicity and that
doesn't look at religion, but rather looks
at your rights, yeah?
You can be American Italian, you can be American
Jewish, you can be American Muslim, you can
be American Christian.
But you're American.
Likewise with Britain.
You can be British Muslim, British Sikh, British
Hindu, British Indian, British Pakistani.
However you define yourself, the fact is,
you're a citizen of this country.
The EU is not a Christian club.
That's the point I'm coming to.
The analogy, to say, "Why can't Muslim countries
unite under a Muslim banner?" is a false analogy
because we have moved out of the medieval
era where nations were basically bonding on
religion.
We have moved into what I called the "citizenship
era".
If there is a regional cooperation between
Pakistan, it should be-- and that's why I
asked you where you're from-- it should be
a South Asian regional economic cooperation
with India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,
and the region.
It should not be based on religion.
That's the point why the analogy is wrong.
Likewise with the Middle East.
There should be a regional cooperation.
There are many, many Christians in the Middle
East.
Egypt is not a Muslim country.
It's not.
It's a Muslim majority country.
That's why I'm very careful with my terminology.
Egypt does not belong to Muslims.
It belongs to Egyptians.
It's a republic.
20% of Egypt are Coptic Christians.
They've been there before Muslims ever got
there.
Likewise with Lebanon.
Lebanon is not a Muslim country.
It's a Lebanese country for Lebanese people.
We have to stop defining nations by their
religious denomination, otherwise, we will
only reinforce the Islamist narrative that
defines people by their faith alone.
When Google people, senior Google people like
Peter, see you, they don't say, "You're a
Muslim" and then only treat you as a Muslim.
They see you as a man, as an Indian, as a
Google employee, as whatever else you are.
If you're a father, you're a father.
If you're a husband, they see you as a husband.
They see all of your identities together.
They don't stereotype you, put you in a box,
and then patronize you just for that one identity
of your faith.
I think it's dangerous if we, as Muslims,
try-- Inadvertently, reinforce the Islamist
narrative by insisting that we are only defined
as Muslims and as nothing else.
Because if you think about it, I will be self
excluding myself from British society if I
do that.
If I insist that I'm only a Muslim, then I'm
not British.
Then I won't be allowed to participate in
the democracy of Britain and make things easier
for other Muslims in this country.
Does that make sense?
I spent a bit of time on that answer just
to make sure that-- because it's important
to make that distinction.
>>Male #2: It does make sense--
>>Nawaz: Yeah.
>>Male #2: --but I don't think you're-- If
I can take more?
>>Presenter: One more.
>>Male #2: European identities: they're not
just European, they are many things, right?
Muslim identity: we can be Muslims as well
as other things.
So what's wrong with having unity between--?
>>Nawaz: Right.
In which case, if it's multiple, it's done
by economy and geography, isn't it?
It's not done by religion alone.
That's my only point, yeah?
If there is regional cooperation, then there
are more Muslims-- you know this-- there are
more Muslims in India then there are in Pakistan.
Numerically.
There are more Muslims in India than there
are in Bangladesh.
Right?
In fact, there are more Muslims in South Asia
than the entire Middle East put together.
If there are more Muslims in India than there
are in Pakistan, but India's not defined as
a Muslim majority country, because it's not,
then where does that leave the Muslims in
India?
We need to be-- We need to stop defining it
just by religion.
India needs to cooperate with Pakistan on
an economic and geographic level, not on just
a religious level.
That's my point.
>>Presenter: Next question.
>>Female #2: Hi.
Thank you so much for coming.
>>Nawaz: Pleasure.
>>Female #2: It's been absolutely fascinating.
What I was really interested in was you talked
about the three different facets, I suppose,
of Islamism, and how each of those builds
towards their goals.
>>Nawaz: The methods, you mean.
Yeah?
>>Female #2: So, for example, the terrorist.
Then you've got--
>>Nawaz: The revolutionary and the political.
Yeah.
>>Female #2: Exactly.
I completely understand that you draw a distinction
between what each of them does activity-wise.
But I would say is that, the way I see it,
is that although you may not have been involved
in terrorism, you're still involved in the
incitement of a huge level of hatred, and
all the things that lead, in the end, to terrorism,
as you described in your time at college when
one of your supporters stabbed another pupil.
I see you draw a distinction between their
activities.
But what I was wondering was: do you, then,
draw a distinction between how we should deal
with each of those three tenets of the building
towards Islam-- or sorry, towards Islamism?
And if you do see a distinction between how
we should be dealing with them, what do you
think is the most effective approach for each?
Or are they all as inherent in creating that
hatred in each way-- I mean, do you believe
that they're all equally inherent in creating
that, or do you see some as less-- I don't
know, I guess more excusable than others?
>>Nawaz: That's a very good question.
Let me begin by saying I disagree with the
ideology per se.
That means regardless of one's methodology,
whether you're political, revolutionary, or
military Islamist.
I disagree with Islamism on a base level.
I believe it's an intellectually flawed, a-history,
and un-Islamic ideology.
Sorry for the hyperbole, but it's important
to make that point because I don't want anyone
thinking that I have any level of sympathy
for the ideology.
It's intellectually flawed, it's ahistory,
and it's un-Islamic.
It's not the same as the religion of Islam.
As for the distinctions within the ideology,
that happens even within communism.
If anyone who knows their communist history,
Stalin killed Trotsky with an ice pick.
Well, he sent his henchmen to kill Trotsky
with an ice pick in the South Americas.
Because every ideology, every dogma-- If anyone
has seen the film Life of Brian, because it's
hilarious.
It's actually a great film.
Monty Python's Life of Brian.
They satirize this.
It's true.
Every dogmatic cause will end up turning in
on itself.
Islamism has the same.
The political Islamists hate the terrorist.
And the terrorists hate the revolutionaries,
and likewise.
They all hate each other because they're competing.
They're competing, essentially, for the same
audience, which is the average Muslim.
To convince the average Muslim that they have
their true salvation in their hands, and that
the methodology that they're adhering to is
the true way to go forward.
Now, if you know that they're competing and
that they hate each other, as a strategist
who is dealing on a government level with
policy responses, or as a civil society activist
like we are with Khudi in Pakistan, who's
working on the grassroots to push back that
ideological narrative, you can exploit those
fault lines as weaknesses.
And you can play their differences off against
each other to weaken them even more, to encourage
that hatred, to encourage the level of disagreement
and sectarianism within Islamism so that the
average Muslim realizes that these guys can't
even get it right themselves.
They're fighting each other.
>>Female #2: Do you think that happens?
>>Nawaz: Oh yeah, definitely, it does.
Definitely.
I've been involved in some of it.
>>Female #2: They do work off of that?
>>Nawaz: Yeah, yeah.
They do.
It's clever.
But you have to do it in a way that doesn't
legitimize the ideology itself, yeah?
That's important.
For example, we've been involved in advising
governments, including the British government,
that ministers should not share platforms
with senior Islamists, even if they're nonviolent.
Just like they would not share platforms with
racists, even if the racist was a nonviolent
person.
Because racism can also be nonviolent.
But Islamism believes in homophobia, anti-Semitism.
It believes in stoning people to death.
It believes in all sorts of human rights abuses,
anti women views.
It's worse than racism in many respects.
Because white people are generally comfortable
with not cooperating with white racists, and
they're uncomfortable with telling brown people
that there are elements of their views which
are bigoted, because they don't want to be
painted as racist, and it's a form of reverse
racism, because of course, our culture is
bigoted anyway.
The more bigoted we are, the more authentic
we are.
That sort of perverse reverse racism colonial
view needs to change and needs to stop.
That's part of what we're involved in, trying
to challenge.
>>Presenter: Hizb ut-Tahrir isn't a prescribed
organization, is it?
It's not illegal?
>>Nawaz: This is the second aspect of the
relevance of your question, that we do need
to draw a distinction between values and where
we stand morally towards these groups and
the law.
I would never endorse the BNP, for example,
but I would defend their right to exist as
a legal entity, as long as they're not violent.
The BNP is legal in Britain, as is Hizb ut-Tahrir,
and they should both remain legal because
they're nonviolent, even though they both
preach hatred.
>>Female #2: This is what I wanted to get
at, actually.
It's kind of like-- I understand that it's
legal, but it seems like the activities that
you carried out when you were part of that
organization were as damaging, well, in my
mind, they're as damaging and they have as
much impact as the terrorist cells, and someone
would have-- It might not be quite so obvious
upfront, but it seems to be just as negative.
I mean, it's the same with the BNP here, like
their activities and what they do and what
they encourage is so negative that you create--
>>Nawaz: Brevicks.
>>Female #2: --an atmosphere of
>>Nawaz: Yeah, you create Anders Brevick,
in Norway.
>>Female #2: Yeah, and you create more violence.
I mean, you may not be the one carrying out
the violence, but you're still creating a
huge potential for it.
It's not that it's legal to have these organizations,
but that's the crux of the matter, is, should
it?
I mean, it's a very complex question.
But should it be, when you are part of an
organization that incites so much hatred and
can cause so much damage, should that be viewed
as legal?
>>Nawaz: The question is: where do you draw
the line?
Currently, it's illegal in Britain to directly
incite violence, to directly incite it.
It's not illegal to incite extremist thought,
which is what the BNP and my former group
do.
I think the line has been drawn correct.
I'm a fan of Orwell.
I've read 1984.
I think it's dangerous territory.
I think Google believes this as well.
It's dangerous territory if you start censoring
ideas.
What you need to do instead is empower alternative
ideas.
I think part of the problem in the Middle
East, and why the Arab uprisings happened,
is because secular dictators were trying for
to long to shut down ideas and justify their
own dictatorships by saying, "If you don't
support us, the extremists will come in power."
We know what that leads to in the end.
It leads to torture, it leads to oppression
and tyranny, and it leads to the Islamists
gaining credibility, because they're the only
credible opposition left, as a result.
I think that the wiser course of action would
be to draw the line where British law currently
stands, and that's to say, "We won't tolerate
inciting, directly inciting violence, but
as for extremism, we would encourage and support
those civil society initiatives through industry,
technology, third sector organizations, that
try and build capacity to challenge extremism
within civil society.
>>Female #2: Thank you so much.
>>Nawaz: Thank you.
>>Presenter: I think we're getting close to
the end.
But time for one final question.
Sir.
>>Male #3: First of all, brilliant conversation.
Appreciate it as a New Yorker that was in
New York at the time that-- This just tremendously
insightful.
I appreciate it.
>>Nawaz: Thank you.
>>Male #3: I wanted to get your feelings on
torture.
Do you feel it actually brings out the truth?
Is it demeaning?
I would just love your insight on that.
>>Nawaz: Okay.
>>Male #3: It's a very hot topic in America.
I'm sure it's worldwide.
>>Nawaz: Yeah.
Can I borrow your book again?
>>Presenter: Sure.
>>Nawaz: In this book, being from New York,
there's a chapter that's called The Polemic.
I encourage you to read it.
But please read it and remember what I'm like
now, so you don't hate me, because The Polemic
is simply my initial gut reaction to 9/11.
As an Islamist, even though we weren't terrorists,
my emotions, of course, were still fully in
line, emotionally, with the cause and the
struggle.
I had defined America as the "enemy".
This chapter, The Polemic, begins-- It's chapter
16.
I just wanted the chapter number.
It begins with three pages of, essentially,
a polemic.
It's a rant.
But it's the rant I would have said when 9/11
happened at the time.
It's how I would have felt.
It's how I did feel.
I remember feeling this, and I remember actually
preparing this type of a speech in my own
mind.
So do read that.
As for your question on torture, I suppose
there are a few things here that make me somewhat
biased.
But hopefully in a good way.
Being an Amnesty adopted prisoner of conscience,
being a victim of torture, and being a law
student who studied these issues from a legal
perspective, I could never endorse torture
in any condition for any justification.
The red herring of a ticking time bomb scenario
is often used as a-- What if you have someone
who definitely knows where a bomb's going
to go off, and unless you torture them, you
won't get the answer?
Is, in the real world-- Essentially, when
it translates into the real world, is only
possible when you're in a courtroom and you've
got an agent who's accused of torturing somebody.
His defense is "It was a ticking time bomb"
defense.
We're expected to believe him.
And there's no guarantee that he's telling
the truth.
He's a torturer.
There's no guarantee that that's the real
reason that he was torturing somebody.
In the real world, you don't know what's in
that person's head, and you don't know what's
in the tortured person's head, which is why
legal checks exist.
It's to stop an abuse of power.
Because of course, any abuse of power is justified.
If I saw somebody about to murder my loved
ones in front of me, I would use serious and
severe and sustained violence to stop them.
But that doesn't mean I can justify that violence
in the courts of law.
There's a difference between what's a personal
defense and a personal justification, and
what must be put up to public scrutiny.
I don't believe torture can ever be-- can
ever pass that public scrutiny test.
In this book, the prologue begins with a conversation
I had with George Bush about this in his house
in Texas.
He was quite funny, actually, because he ended
up suiting that caricature that I am-- that
the people generally have of him.
We were talking, and he said, "Tell me about
your story," and I said everything I've just
said here today.
When I go up to the Egypt dungeon bit, and
I said, "We witnessed torture in Egypt", he
went, "Stop right there."
That's a very bad American accent, but forgive
me, I have to carry on with it, because it
was so funny.
I looked at him, I'm shocked why he stopped
me midway through a sentence when I used the
word "torture."
He looked me right in the eye, and he said,
"How do you define torture?"
Now, of course, this is George Bush who legalized
waterboarding.
So obviously, you know what he's getting at.
I thought, "What do I do here?
Do I insult him in his own house?
How do I respond to that?"
It's in the prologue.
The answer, you'd have to read the book to
find out what I said.
[laughter]
>>Presenter: Which is the perfect cue to say
that there are a few books available.
I don't know if there's enough for everybody,
but it's first come, first serve here at the
front.
We're out of time.
Thank you so much, Maajid.
>>Nawaz: Pleasure.
Thank you for having me.
[applause] [applause fades] [more applause]
