Human rights groups slammed last week's prison sentences against 26 defendants charged with propagating the ideology of a banned Islamic group, writes Jailan Halawi "Will there or will there not be a ruling today?" wondered the families of the 23 Egyptians and three Britons who were standing trial on charges that included promoting ideas that incite the public against the regime. The media and other observers awaiting the final chapter in the two-year saga of the so-called Liberation Party case were wondering the same thing. A verdict had been expected at the last session, in December 2003. Instead, the judge postponed declaring sentence until 25 March without providing a reason for the delay. Defence lawyers had interpreted that as a "negative" sign. Last Thursday, when the judge was a couple of hours late, speculation became rife that another delay may occur. Just like in last December's session, only the press, and the families of the three British defendants, were allowed inside the courtroom. Families of their Egyptian counterparts were denied access. Instead, they stood behind the cordon of policemen guarding the courthouse. As the defendants entered the courtroom, they held up copies of the holy Qur'an. "The Caliphate is the solution, it is God's jurisdiction," chanted the Britons. "We don't fear being blamed, the Caliphate is forever obligatory." It was the first time they had spoken openly of their group's beliefs. All 26 defendants were arrested in April 2003 and charged with attempting to revive the so-called Hizbul-Tahrir Al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party), as well as establishing an outlawed group which aimed at overthrowing governments in various Islamic countries and reviving an Islamic Caliphate. The suspects were also accused of possessing anti- government literature. Twelve of the defendants -- including the three British men, Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett, and Reza Pankhurst -- received five-year prison sentences. Seven were given three-year terms, while the rest received one-year in jail. One of the defendants remains at large. As the sentences were announced, relatives of the British men burst into tears. The men in the dock shouted, "God is great, thanks be to Allah." One of the men, Nisbett, a convert to Islam who now goes by the name Yehya, said, "We are not sad. We hope God is going to reward us on judgment day. We tried to change oppression in Egypt, and now they are admitting that they are oppressors." One of the Egyptian defendants, who preferred to remain anonymous, told Al-Ahram Weekly, "It is inexplicable and unfair that we have to waste years of our lives behind bars simply for our peaceful beliefs." Nawaz, another Briton, said, "I stand here as a prisoner of conscience and my beliefs are stronger than ever. What is five years in the course of seeking God?" Other defendants described the ruling as "unfair" and "politically motivated"; on the other hand, it was also "a moral victory," they said. Nisbett's wife Humayra cried quietly as she held her husband's hand through the bars of the caged dock. In an interview with the Weekly prior to the ruling, she noted that the men had been penalised even before the trial began. After all, they had to wait eight months in detention for a ruling to emerge. Describing the trial as "a nightmare", Humayra said, "When one believes in something with a passion, it strengthens them." She said that rather than being broken by their ordeal, the defendants "shone under pressure". In previous interviews with the Weekly, Nawaz said he and the other defendants "were being accused just for being Muslims who abide by the teachings of Prophet Mohamed, whose call for lighting the world of Islam through applying the state of Caliphate, does not involve violence of compulsion". Nawaz said that like millions of other Muslims, his dream was "to unite under one banner that would replace the hegemony of the Americans and Israelis with the victory and honouring of Islam. We were calling for Islam, without [advocating] violence. Accusing us of working to remove the government with our speeches and writing is an insult to all standards of justice." Composed yet angry, Pankhurst's mother Zara described the ruling as "scandalous. The prosecutors failed to prove the men had done anything," she said. "The three Britons faced different charges, yet they got the same sentence -- what does that say?" Zara asked. As the defendants were taken out of the courtroom, the sound of wailing and weaping echoed everywhere as relatives of the Egyptian defendants learnt of the sentence from lawyers and journalists. "This is unfair -- they are convicting our sons for being Muslims," some repeated. Speaking to the Weekly, families of the Egyptian defendants complained that they and their relatives were being treated as "second class" citizens compared to the Britons and their families. "We don't understand why the Britons are given more rights than the Egyptians. Their families get more visits than us and their prison conditions are by far better than the Egyptians'." Many of the Egyptian defendants had told the Weekly in the past that they were "grateful and lucky" to have the three Britons among them; otherwise "the case would have been reviewed by a military court [as is the case in similar Islamist trials] without any media attention." Describing the verdict as "farcical", the UK branch of Hizbul-Tahrir's statement condemned the treatment of "members of a well-known, non- violent political party". Imran Wahid, a UK-based doctor and representative of the party, said, "This verdict serves to legitimise the corruption and tyranny of the Egyptian regime. Despite clear evidence of confessions being extracted under torture, the judge has sided with the torturers. Egypt, a partner state in the 'war on terror', has warm relations with both the USA and Britain and has been given a green light to torture, and imprison all those who seek an end to tyranny and corruption via the return of the Islamic [Caliphate]," he said. The group's statement described the party as being a politically independent entity that works throughout the Islamic world, including Egypt, to resume the Islamic way of life by re-establishing the Islamic Caliphate. The statement said the party adheres to Shari'a [Islamic law] in all aspects of its work, and considers violence or armed struggle against regimes as an illegitimate way to re- establish the Islamic state. The party also seeks to explain Islamic ideology to Muslims, the statement said, "to create a dialogue with Western thinkers about capitalism, and to present Islam as an ideological alternative". Several human rights organisations also issued statements. Amnesty International said it considered the defendants "prisoners of conscience", and called for "their immediate and unconditional release, believing that they have been convicted solely for their peacefully held views". Most worrying of all, said the statement, were reports that the men were tortured during the initial period of detention last year, when they were held "incommunicado, without access to the outside world... Thorough, impartial and independent investigations must be opened into these allegations. Those responsible must be brought to justice," the statement said. The Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights also issued a statement condemning the trial of civilians before a state security court and calling for the abolition of the emergency laws under which such courts were formed. Verdicts passed by state security courts cannot be appealed and can only be overturned by the president. The three Britons did not deny being members of the party in the UK, where it is not illegal. They insisted, however, that they were not involved in any political activities in Egypt. The Egyptian defendants did not admit to being affiliated with the party. All the men are married and have children. They were arrested along with 80 others in a series of raids that took place across Egypt in April 2002 as part of the Interior Ministry's continuing crackdown on Islamists. Some observers speculated that the trial had backfired. While little was known about the Liberation Party two years ago, they said, if anything, the case has raised the group's profile. The Liberation Party was founded in Egypt in 1974 by two Palestinians, Salem Rahhal and Saleh Serrya, only to be crushed by Egyptian authorities in the same year after being blamed for an attempted coup d'état known as "the incident of the Technical Military Academy", in which armed militants attacked the Cairo-based academy.
