Category Archives: Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Scrap the Human Rights Act and ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, says Cameron

Posted on by Bob Pitt

David CameronResponding to Eliza Manningham-Buller’s speech, Tory leader David Cameron makes his recommendations for countering the threat of terrorism: “… we need to change our attitude to human rights. The Human Rights Act was a new Labour flagship but its totemic status has made ministers unwilling to acknowledge how much it is hampering the fight against terrorism.”

Cameron also advocates “a much more rigorous approach to combating Islamic fundamentalism. The government seems confused as to what fundamentalism actually is. On the one hand ministers – perfectly reasonably – express concern about women who wear the veil while teaching. On the other hand they pay for extremist preachers of hate such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who supports suicide bombings, to attend conferences. We need to embrace genuinely moderate Muslims…. Those who distance themselves from terrorism while seeking to radicalise young Muslims into despising the West are part of the problem. Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned.”

Sunday Times, 12 November 2006

As Osama Saeed points out, here Cameron rejects one of Manningham-Buller’s own points – that it is a mistake to “confuse fundamentalism with terrorism”.

Rolled Up Trousers, 12 November 2006

Faith schools – they’re no threat at all … unless they’re Muslim

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Charles Moore 2Charles Moore argues that the history of Christian faith schools shows that they represent no threat at all to social cohesion, and that the government was mistaken in proposing a compulsory quota system. He continues:

“So what is behind all this anxiety? The answer, of course, is Islam…. There are said to be about 115 Muslims schools now seeking state money, on top of the half-dozen that already receive it. Most people do not like the idea of Muslim schools acquiring this status, but few, except Lord Baker, dare say so. In order to euphemise the problem, the Government thought up a general rule to apply to all religions, and so prevent the Muslim expansion that it fears. You could call it the veil wagging the dog.

“People are right to worry. Unlike church schools where, in the great majority of cases, the Government can deal with the clearly recognised command structures of bishops, Muslim schools have no such central authority. Sunni Islam is as fragmented as extreme Protestant sects: it will be very hard for the people paying out the taxpayers’ money to know with whom they are dealing.

“The more fundamental problem lies with the state of the religion itself. Just as, once upon a time, it was the case that being a Catholic in England put great strain upon your loyalty to the nation, so in Islam today. Although most Muslims seem pleased to be British, polls also show significant minorities who support or condone terrorism. Many repudiate the way of life, even the language, of the host nation.

“That is why the Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong to equate the wearing of a cross and of the veil. The first is not intended, in most cases, as an angry statement of difference. The veil is…. Inside Islam is a strong strand, currently growing stronger because of the propaganda of the radicals, which believes in ‘territoriality’. Such Muslims – for example, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, whom Mayor Ken Livingstone greets as a hero – reject the legitimacy of all non-Islamic society. They regard what they call ‘man-made’ laws as non-operative. Only the laws of God apply, and these laws, expressed in the Sharia, should turn our land Muslim by imposition. It would seem mad that people who believe such things should get state money to teach our fellow citizens.”

Daily Telegraph, 28 October 2006

From which you can only conclude that Moore hasn’t hasn’t made the slightest effort to acquaint himself with Qaradawi’s views. But why go to the bother of studying a subject when it’s so much easier just to rely on ignorant bigotry?

Qaradawi urges ‘peaceful’ anger day

Posted on by Bob Pitt

YusufalQaradawiProminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has called on Muslims worldwide to hold a day of “peaceful” anger next Friday to protest the offensive remarks made by Pope Benedict VXI, saying that the pontiff’s expression of sorrow for the crisis still fell far short of an apology.

Qaradawi said the pope’s remarks came to entrench offensive statements made by US President George W. Bush last month that America was at war with “Islamist fascists.” The pope’s remarks “gave an international cover for what Bush is doing,” Qaradawi insisted.

Islam Online, 18 September 2006

Over at Harry’s Place, the eponymous Harry offers his take on Qaradawi’s call for the Pope to withdraw the offensive quotation: “This attempt to silence reflects the totalitarian nature of Islamism”!

Qaradawi is in fact particularly well known for his pluralistic interpretation of Islam. To quote Karen Armstrong:

“He believes in moderation, and is convinced that the bigotry that has recently appeared in the Muslim world will impoverish people by depriving them of the insights and visions of other human beings. The Prophet Muhammad said that he had come to bring a ‘Middle Way’ of religious life that shunned extremes, and Qaradawi thinks the current extremism in some quarters of the Islamic world is alien to the Muslim spirit and will not last…. The West, he insists, must learn to recognize the Muslims’ right to live their religion and, if they choose, to incorporate the Islamic ideal in their polity. They have to appreciate that there is more than one way of life. Variety benefits the whole world. God gave human beings the right and ability to choose, and some may opt for a religious way of life – including an Islamic state – while others prefer the secular ideal.” (Islam: A Short History, pp.157-8)

Some totalitarian!

Of course, Harry in fact knows sweet f.a. about Qaradawi – he just spins fantasies out of his own head based on general presuppositions about Islamism. Odd, you might think, that a self-styled defender of Enlightenment values so readily substitutes ignorant dogmatism for empirical analysis.

Pope’s comment on Islam had ‘an agreeably crusading ring’ to it – Rod Liddle

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Rod Liddle“The Muslim world is in ferment, or even more ferment than usual, as a result of a speech given by Pope Benedict XVI at Regensburg University.

“Ben took a swipe at the notion that Islam is an inherently peaceable, easy-going, happy-go-lucky credo with a core philosophy that proclaims hey, why not live and let live, huh? Rather, he let slip: ‘Everything Muhammad brought was evil and inhuman’, which has an agreeably crusading, unequivocal ring to it, I think you’ll agree….

“The Pope should have been aware that Islam always reacts to western allegations that it is not a peaceful religion by mass outbreaks of vituperation, denunciation and acts of jihadic violence….

“The ‘liberal and moderate’ Islamic scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (pro death penalty for homosexuals, female circumcision, suicide bombings against Jews and other similarly tolerant stuff) has insisted the Pope must apologise. Soon the placards will be out, the effigies, the foam-flecked demonstrators and attacks by adolescent suicidal nutters.”

Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times, 17 September 2006

More lies about Qaradawi

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Qaradawi and MayorJonathan Freedland spares a moment from attacking the Mayor of London over his relations with Hugo Chávez to take a swipe at Yusuf al-Qaradawi:

“It’s only on foreign policy that the Mayor gets the chance to strike some of the old, Leftist poses. I am sure that the folk at City Hall are sincere in their admiration for Chavez’s social reforms – but they also love that el presidente styles himself as George W Bush’s great Latin nemesis. Standing next to him gives the Livingstone circle a rush of ideological blood.

“The less forgivable example is the relationship with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian cleric still hailed by Livingstone as the voice of moderate Islam – yet who recently added to his earlier positions condoning wife-beating and the stoning of homosexuals with a declaration that today’s Jews bear responsibility for the death of Jesus.

“The Mayor likes al-Qaradawi’s tough line on Israel – the sheikh supports suicide bombings against Israeli civilians – so he ends up hugging a man who bends Islamic theology to take on the vilest tropes of Christian anti-Semitism.”

Evening Standard, 14 September 2006

Except that Qaradawi supports neither wife-beating, nor the stoning of homosexuals nor suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. And the story about Jews bearing responsibility for the death of Jesus originates with the Middle East Media Research Institute – an organisation headed by a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence which has a long history of misrepresenting Qaradawi’s views by publishing carefully selected extracts from his speeches and interviews. By these means MEMRI has been able to “prove”, for example, that Qaradawi believed the victims of the tsunami deserved to die and that he argued it was a duty for Muslims to become suicide bombers in Iraq.

You can see why a right-wing rag like the Evening Standard hires a supposedly liberal journalist like Freedland to write for them. His standards of journalistic integrity fit right in with theirs.

All-party parliamentary inquiry distorts Qaradawi’s views

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Qaradawi and MayorSummarising the contents of a report published today by the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, the Telegraph says the report claims “that anti-Semitism is no longer the sole preserve of the political far-Right, but occurs across the political spectrum, including the Left.

The MPs cite concerns about the decision of Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, to host an event attended by the Muslim cleric Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who has reportedly banned Muslims from any dialogue with Jews”.

Daily Telegraph, 7 September 2006

For the report itself, see (pdf) here.

The attack on Dr al-Qaradawi by the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry is just ignorant. He is described as “a controversial Muslim cleric” (there are no clerics in Sunni Islam) who “has reportedly forbidden Muslims from engaging in dialogue of any kind with Jews”.

And where was this accusation “reported”? By the Middle East Media Research Institute, of course. (See here.)

Ironically, MEMRI itself was responsible for publishing a much longer transcript of an interview from Qaradawi’s Al-Jazeera programme (see here) in which he outlined his views on relations between Islam and Judaism in detail. (This was in February 2005, shortly after the Mayor of London had launched a public attack on MEMRI for their distortions of Qaradawi’s views, and presumably they were trying to cover themselves.)

In this interview Qaradawi expressed the same views that he did during his visit to London in July 2004 on the duty of Muslims to respect Jews. “Jews lived among Muslims for centuries, even when Europe persecuted them and expelled them…. They found a safe haven in Muslim territory…. Islam welcomes those who believe in the [Jewish] religion. Moreover, the Jews are probably the closest to Muslims in terms of faith and law, even more than Christians.” Qaradawi added: “There is a difference between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a political movement….”

On the subject of interfaith dialogue, Qaradawi stated that he objected to dialogue with people like Israel’s chief rabbi because “he supports the murder of Palestinians on a daily basis, supports the destruction of homes and the eviction of people, and supports the crimes and the barbaric slaughter that are taking place every day. How can I shake his hand and sit down with him?”

But Qaradawi added that he had no problem engaging in dialogue with representatives of the Jewish community who oppose the repression of the Palestinians: “I welcome Jews who dissociate themselves from what Israel is doing, and I welcome being with them.”

He summarised his views as follows: “I oppose dialogue with Jewish rabbis living in Israel, who support the crimes committed by Israel. With them there is no possibility [of dialogue]…. We will hold a dialogue with those who are reasonable among them, as well as with the Christians, as indeed I have been present at a number of conferences for Islamic-Christian dialogue. But with those ‘who do evil’, as Allah said, we shall neither argue nor shall we have any dialogue.”

Obviously the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism didn’t even bother to check their facts before repeating Qaradawi’s “reported” views on relations with the Jewish community.

Johann Hari – correct on Bat Ye’or, wrong about Islamophobia Watch!

Posted on by Bob Pitt

johann hari 2Johann Hari has a go at Melanie Phillips et al in today’s Independent:

“There are intellectuals on the British right who are propagating a conspiracy theory about Muslims that teeters very close to being a 21st century Protocols of the Elders of Mecca. Meet Bat Ye’or, a ‘scholar’ who argues that Europe is on the brink of being transformed into a conquered continent called ‘Eurabia’.

“In this new land, Christians and Jews will be reduced by the new Muslim majority to the status of ‘dhimmis’ – second-class citizens forced to ‘walk in the gutter’. This will not happen by accident. It is part of a deliberate and ‘occult’ plan, concocted between the Arab League and leading European politicians like Jacques Chirac and Mary Robinson, who secretly love Islam and are deliberately flooding the continent with Muslim immigrants. As Orianna Fallacci – one of the best-selling writers in Italy – has summarised the thesis in her hymns of praise to Ye’or, ‘Muslims have been told to come here and breed like rats.’

“Rather than dismissing her preposterous assertions, high-profile writers such as Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes and Niall Ferguson laud Ye’or as a suppressed hero, silenced by (you guessed it) ‘political correctness’. Her name is brandished as a gold standard in right-wing Tory circles. It’s interesting that writers so alert to anti-Semitism have lent their names to an ideology that is so startlingly similar. In this theory, the Star of David has simply been replaced by the Islamic crescent. If the term has any meaning, this is authentic Islamophobia, treating virtually all Muslims as verminous sharia-carriers. So why are these people still treated as serious and sane by the BBC and its editors?”

Great stuff. And who could disagree? Unfortunately, having made these excellent points, Hari goes on to denounce Islamophobia Watch.

Continue reading →

‘Right showing left the way on radical Islam’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

martin_brightNo doubt a number of people will have noted the irony that Martin Bright’s recent pamphlet When Progressives Treat with Reactionaries, which claims to expose “the British State’s flirtation with radical Islamism”, was published by the right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange. When it comes to treating with reactionaries, Bright can evidently speak from first-hand experience.

In yesterday’s Observer, Bright tried to justify his alliance with the political Right, with whom he finds common ground in Islamophobia. He describes Policy Research as “centre right”, despite the fact that its research director on international issues is the frothing-at-the-mouth reactionary Dean Godson.

But Bright does accept that right-wingers like Peter Dobbie in the Mail on Sunday, Frank Johnson in the Torygraph and Charles Moore in the Spectator have showered him with praise for his stand against the Islamist hordes. Bright writes: “There is no doubt that it has fed into the perception in some circles on the left, encouraged by the MCB, that I am part of some Islamophobic campaign….” Yup, I think that just about summarises it. As one commentator on the Guardian website observes: “Like [Melanie] Phillips who started on the left and is now on the far right, I suspect Bright will end up there as well.”

Continue reading →