Category Archives: Left Wing

Me – Islamophobic? Tatchell responds to critics

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“We have only once staged a protest against a muslim leader”, Peter Tatchell states. “That was against the rightwing, misogynist, anti-semitic and homophobic cleric, Dr Yusuf Qaradawi.” So that’s alright, then. Tatchell and his friends in Outrage mount a hysterical, lying campaign against one of the world’s leading Muslim scholars, but it doesn’t means they’re Islamophobes.

Weekly Worker, 24 November 2005

Tatchell also informs us that “most of the Muslims that the SWP-Respect ally with are homophobes, but the vast majority of Muslim people in this country seem to be prepared to live and let live”.

Now here’s a thing. On Tatchell’s website you can find this article which warns that “homophobic Muslim voters may be able to influence the outcome of elections in 20 or more marginal constituencies. Their voting strength could potentially be used to block pro-gay candidates or to pressure electorally vulnerable MPs to vote against gay rights legislation (and other liberal measures)”. Has Tatchell changed his mind about this, then? In which case, why is the article still on his website?

It would also be interesting to hear from Tatchell about current relations between Outrage and the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association, given that the two organisations have long enjoyed a close alliance and some overlap in membership.

GALHA secretary George Broadhead’s Islamophobic remark – “What does a moderate Muslim do, other than excuse the real nutters by adhering to this barmy doctrine?” – was quoted in a speech at the Respect conference. Earlier this year, in reponse to reports that Dr al-Qaradawi was about to visit Britain, Broadhead stated (see here and here) that Qaradawi should not be allowed into the UK at any time, “let alone at a time when the country is reeling from the kind of extreme violence that is spawned by his religion”.

Given the historically close association between Outrage and GALHA, one might have thought that, as a staunch opponent of Islamophobia, Tatchell would be the first to condemn such remarks. But, so far, not a peep.

Tatchell and pink-veiled Islamophobia

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Tatchell is disturbingly fixated on men with dark skin. How else can you explain why, when invited to comment on the murder of Jody Dobrowski, he rapidly started telling his radio audience about the homophobia of a well known Muslim cleric? I doubt the two white men charged with the crime place much store by the words of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.”

A reply to Outrage’s press release about the Respect conference resolution on LGBT rights.

Lenin’s Tomb, 23 November 2005

‘Ziauddin Sardar explains the long history of violence behind Hizb ut-Tahrir’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Thus the headline to an article in the New Statesman, 14 November 2005

And what precisely is this “long history of violence” on the part of Hizb ut-Tahrir that Ziauddin Sardar explains to us? Er … actually there isn’t one. He tells us that HT “has not, strictly speaking, advocated violence. But this does not mean that it is not a violent organisation.” Now there’s a reasoned argument for you. An organisation does not advocate (never mind practise) violence … but it’s violent all the same. Needless to say, this rubbish is applauded by the likes of Harry’s Place and Norman Geras.

A Muslim colleague recently told me that Ziauddin Sardar was almost as bad as Irshad Manji, and I thought that was an exaggeration (I quite enjoyed Desperately Seeking Paradise). But now I’m not so sure.

‘Qaradawi calls for gay men to be executed’ … again

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Ex-Marxist enthusiast for imperialist war Norman Geras has posted a message from journalist Andrew Anthony, who tries to justify his Guardian article from a couple of months back attacking Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Normblog, 3 November 2005

Note that Anthony makes no attempt to defend his article’s claim that Qaradawi says it is a duty for Muslims to become suicide bombers in Iraq – a story originating with MEMRI, who produced the “evidence” for it by splicing together various sections of a speech made by Qaradawi … at a conference called to oppose terrorism. Nor does Anthony try to back up his assertion that Dr Q has “argued that it is OK to kill Jewish foetuses because they would grow up to be Israeli soldiers”.

However, he does stand by the following statement from his Guardian article:

“In 2003, Al-Qaradawi dealt with the punishment for the sin of homosexuality on the website Islamonline. ‘Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death?’ he asked with theological dispassion, before concluding: ‘While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements’.”

Andrew Anthony obviously thinks he’s on solid ground with this one. Qaradawi’s statement was an “official religious judgment”, apparently – an “official fatwa”.

Actually, the Islam Online piece that Anthony cites is an anonymously compiled selection of quotations from various Islamic sources on the subect of homosexuality. The quote from Qaradawi – in which he summarises the views of other scholars but does not give his own opinion – is taken from a book called “The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam” which was published … back in 1960!

As we’ve pointed out a number of times before, if Qaradawi does indeed hold that gay men should be put to death, then a statement to that effect can presumably be found among his voluminous writings and statements over the subsequent forty-five years. A journalist with Andrew Anthony’s evident talent for detailed and reliable research should have no problem finding one, surely?

The Islam debate in the Netherlands

Posted on by Bob Pitt

On Tuesday evening, the day before the Van Gogh commemoration, a debate on Islam was held in Amsterdam. Amidst tight security, some of the most prominent participants in the continuing Dutch Islam debate came together to discuss their views.

Perhaps the most remarkable contribution came from left-wing thinker Paul Scheffer, who put forward an argument he elaborated the same day in a commentary in the NRC Handelsblad newspaper. Muslims, he said, rightfully demand freedom of religion in Europe. The enjoyment of this right to freedom of religion, however, necessarily entails the duty to defend this right for others, both fellow Muslims and non-Muslims. Paul Scheffer argues that political Islam in particular is not ready to accept this basic democratic principle and is, therefore, in need of reform.

Paul Scheffer is one of the most reasonable and moderate voices among Dutch critics of Islam. More radical ones, such as Arabist Hans Jansen and Somali-born liberal-conservative MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are less hopeful about the prospects for reform. They both argue that what they call “pure Islam” cannot be reconciled with the principles of democracy. In order to be democratic, Muslims therefore have to “dilute” Islam and strip it of some of its essential teachings.

According to Hans Jansen, Theo van Gogh’s murderer was primarily driven by verses of the Koran. Speaking at the debate in Amsterdam, he said: “Pure Islam has everything to do with terrorism. The Sharia advocated by its adherents always contradicts human rights”. Similar views can be regularly heard and read in the Dutch media.

Radio Netherlands, 3 November 2005

More nonsense from the pro-imperialist ‘Left’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Left anti-Zionism inflates Israel into a symbol for all that is wrong with a world dominated by US imperialism…. It is Manichaeism: the world is a great struggle between heroes and villains, only to be resolved by a great revelation and final undoing…. Some on the left seem to think that the only role that Muslims are able to play in this global showdown is to transform themselves into human bombs. They imagine glorious and tragic deaths as the only option left open to Muslims.”

Jane Ashworth and David Hirsh in Progress magazine, November 2005

Oddly enough, I’ve yet to meet anyone on the Left who supports “suicide bombing” as a tactic in Palestine/Israel or anywhere else, still less anyone who holds that this is “the only role that Muslims are able to play” in the struggle against US imperialism. I didn’t come across any leftists trying to dissuade Muslims from participating in the mass political protests against the Iraq war on the grounds that they would be better occupied turning themselves into human bombs. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life. Alternatively, it could just be that, to adopt their own terminology, Ashworth and Hirsh are intent on attacking “symbolic” leftists rather than real ones.

As is usual in the outpourings of pro-imperialists, “left” and right, who of course have their own list of heroes and villains, the Mayor of London’s welcome to Yusuf al-Qaradawi is held up as an example of leftist capitulation to anti-semitism: “Some recent incidents … are open to other than anti-semitic interpretations. But Ken Livingstone’s warm embrace, on behalf of London, of Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an openly anti-semitic cleric, shows a disregard for the importance of anti-semitism.”

That would be this Yusuf al-Qaradawi, would it? Furthermore, if willingness to engage in dialogue with Qaradawi is a sign of softness on anti-semitism, then the Foreign Office are clearly anti-semites too. See (pdf) here.

Continue reading →

Guardian interviews Qaradawi

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Qaradawi ban“Qaradawi and western governments have a strong mutual interest in the struggle against Islamic extremism; he is as anxious as any western government to ensure young Muslim men don’t blow themselves up on tube trains, or hijack planes. He abhors the traducing and corruption of the faith that such actions expose, and says so to his audience of millions of young Muslims. The fact that the audience is still listening to this ageing scholar, is due to his independence of mind – and it is precisely that which, to western sensibility, can make him an uncomfortable ally.”

Madeleine Bunting meets Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Guardian, 29 October 2005

Ex-Marxist and darling of the US neocons Norman Geras is not happy. He expresses his revulsion at Qaradawi’s support for Palestinian militants who resort suicide bombings that kill innocent people.

Normblog, 29 October 2005

Others of us might prefer to express their revulsion at the hypocrisy of a man who supported the invasion of Iraq and the consequent deaths of perhaps a hundred thousand innocent people. But, then, when have the cheerleaders for US imperialism ever shown the slightest concern for its victims?

Meanwhile, over at Harry’s Place we find the usual ignorant diatribes against Qaradawi. (See here and here.) David T and his friends pour scorn on the notion that Qaradawi is “some kind of moderate seeking tolerance and understanding between Muslims and the outside world” (sic), claiming that he “endorses the punishment of homosexuality by stoning” and is “the leading theoretician and spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood”. Ah, the wonders of “Enlightenment values” – so clearly superior to the irrationality of religious belief!

And Paul Hampton of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty complains that “Bunting is typical of the post-modern left in her softness on Qaradawi”.

AWL website, 29 October 2005

‘Bob Pitt Watch’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Former Workers Revolutionary Party member and now editor of What Next, Bob Pitt, is a very industrious bloke. He single-handedly runs a website called ‘Islamophobia Watch’ in which he pours vituperative criticism, mainly on people of a Muslim background who dare to criticise their religion of birth or its cultural practises. The spectacle of a white, middle-aged, middle-class male denouncing Muslims and ex-Muslims (many of them women) who speak out against homophobia and misogyny inside the Muslim community as ‘racists’ is very bizarre.”

Yours truly is denounced in the Alliance for Workers Liberty’s paper Solidarity, 20 October 2005

I don’t in fact run this website single-handedly – it was set up by Eddie Truman, who does all the technical work on it as well as posting. The accusation that our criticisms are concentrated “mainly on people of a Muslim background” is plainly false, as a cursory examination of the site will reveal. The charge against members of the Worker Communist Party of Iran (some, though not all, of whom come from a Muslim background) and against individuals like Irshad Manji is not that they are racists but that their antics play into the hands of the Islamophobic Right, who clearly recognise them as fellow spirits. Hence the enthusiastic endorsement of Maryam Namazie by Jihad Watch, Homa Arjomand by Front Page Magazine and Irshad Manji by Daniel Pipes and Melanie Phillips.

Continue reading →