More nonsense from Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer takes issue with the Mayor of London’s attitude to Islam: “Red Ken’s friendship with Sheikh Qaradawi suggests that the peaceful subjugation and Islamization of the West, which Qaradawi has predicted, is perfectly fine with him. He just wishes these good people wouldn’t use bombs.”

Jihad Watch, 6 December 2005

Applying this logic to his own preferred religion, there is presumably no principled difference in Spencer’s eyes between a minister engaged in peaceful missionary work (in order to “subjugate” society to Christianity) and a “pro-life” militant who bombs an abortion clinic.

(Oh and by the way Robert, the “Lord Mayor” is not “Red Ken” but the head of the Corporation of London.)

‘A mosque grows in Boston’

Boston MosqueDean Barnett presents “a case study in how the leadership of a large American Islamic group woos and works with politicians, attempts to intimidate its adversaries, and claims to champion moderation – all while keeping company with prominent proponents of hatred and violence” – such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Daily Standard, 13 December 2005

Not exactly hot news. For earlier coverage, see for example Jihad Watch, 9 March 2004

Terrorism and its supporters

MassacreJeff Barak of the Jewish Chronicle resumes the apparently endless campaign against the Mayor of London for welcoming Yusuf al-Qaradawi to City Hall.

Yes, we have the usual reliance on Peter Tatchell and his spurious claim that “2,500 leading Muslim intellectuals from 23 countries who signed a petition to the United Nations naming Qaradawi as one of ‘the theologians of terror’ and accusing him of ‘providing a religious cover for terrorism’.”

Livingstone’s entirely accurate observation that a dossier attacking Qaradawi relied heavily on misinformation from the Middle East Media Research Institute, an organisation headed by a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence, is characterised by Barak as an encouragement to “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories”.

Aren’t people getting a bit tired of this repetitive nonsense by now?

Independent on Sunday, 11 December 2005

While Barak waxes indignant that the Mayor should welcome a supporter of suicide bombing to London, he denies with equal indignation the accusation that Ariel Sharon is a war criminal (“Sharon is strong enough to brush off the shrill comments of a die-hard anti-Zionist like Livingstone”). Given that the Sabra and Shatila massacres of 1982, for which Sharon was responsible as Israeli defence minister, have been characterised as war crimes by Human Rights Watch and other organisations, it would therefore be reasonable to describe Barak as an apologist for terrorism. According to his own criterion, he too should be banned from City Hall.

Mockbul Ali exposé – a damp squib

Martin Bright (1)Rumours have circulated for some time that journalist Martin Bright was researching an exposé of Mockbul Ali, the foreign office’s adviser on Muslim Affairs. Ali’s sin was to have prepared an accurate briefing on Yusuf al-Qaradawi, which underlined the latter’s role as a force of moderation in the Muslim world – see (pdf) here. Clearly, from Bright’s perspective – he was the author of the Observer article boosting Panorama’s witch-hunt of the MCB – Ali was someone who needed to be discredited.

This week’s New Statesman (5 December 2005) contains the results of Bright’s labours – and a pretty damp squib it turns out to be. Ali’s unit at the foreign office apparently co-authored a PowerPoint presentation in which the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami were described (entirely accurately) as “reformist” organisations. We are also informed that “Louise Ellman, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, has told the NS she intends to investigate Ali’s role in drawing up government policy towards British Muslims”.

Yes, well you can see why Ellman might not be too happy about Ali’s role. It was she who headed the witch-hunt of Dr al-Qaradawi during his visit to London in July 2004 and called on the home secretary to ban him. In 2003 she took advantage of parliamentary privilege (see here) to attack MAB:

“It is time that the spotlight fell on the Muslim Association of Britain, particularly the key figures, such as Azzam Tamimi, Kamal el Helbawy, Anas Al-Tikriti and Mohammed Sawalha. All of them are connected to the terrorist organisation Hamas. The Muslim Association of Britain itself is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – an extremist fundamentalist organisation founded in Egypt in 1928, and the spiritual ideologue of all Islamic terror organisations. It is militantly anti-Semitic and always has been.”

Yup, that’s the same Anas Altikriti who’s currently in Iraq on behalf of MAB fighting for the release of hostages held by terrorists.

For Yusuf Smith’s comments on the NS piece, see Indigo Jo Blogs, 5 December 2005

For Osama Saeed’s comments, see Rolled Up Trousers, 6 December 2005

Muslim leaders demand the release of kidnapped peace activists in Iraq

Yusuf_al_Qaradawi“While fully supporting the right of the Iraqi people to resist occupation with all legitimate means, we denounce as illegitimate any act of aggression against innocent civilians irrespective of their religion or nationality. We therefore call for the immediate release of these four hostages and of all other Western civilians kidnapped in Iraq and urge whoever has the ability to play a role in the endeavour to secure their release and their safe return to their countries to spare no effort in this regard. All illegitimate acts of aggression against innocent civilians, including kidnappings, indiscriminate killing or other forms of harm inflicted upon non-combatants, only harm the just cause of the Iraqi people and their legitimate struggle for freedom and independence.”

Yusuf al-Qaradawi and other leading figures in the Muslim world issue an appeal for the release of the peace activists held hostage in Iraq.

MAB news release, 5 December 2005 

Muslim plan for world conquest exposed

And Yusuf al-Qaradawi is behind it!

Daily Ablution, 1 December 2004

Predictably this nonsense receives the backing of Melanie Phillips, who is developing something of a taste for wacko conspiracy theories (cf. her support for Bat Ye’or’s “Eurabia” fantasy).

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 1 December 2005

Odd that, because in the past Phillips has been quick to identify and condemn such theories. A couple of years ago, when novelist John le Carré accused neocons in the Bush administration of pursuing a pro-Israel foreign policy, she denounced this as a “demented Jewish global conspiracy theory” and an “obscene display of racist bigotry and irrationality”.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 2 December 2003

Me – Islamophobic? Tatchell responds to critics

“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.

Liberals and takfir

Qaradawi2“Declaring takfir on the jihadist leaders is the rhetorical equivalent of fighting terror with terror. The practice of takfir is the hallmark of the most radical, totalitarian fringe of Islamism: the assumption of the right to unilaterally declare a Muslim a non-Muslim and thereby condemn him or her to death (literally or figuratively). Any vision of a liberal or moderate Islamism should reject takfir on principle.”

Marc Lynch goes on to criticise MEMRI’s “exposure” of Yusuf al-Qaradawi for his refusal to call for the excommunication of Bin Laden: “His rejection of the act of takfir, even when it might be politically expedient to do otherwise, should be applauded for what it is: an important stand for moderation and against extremism.”

Abu Aardvark blog, 17 November 2005

Qaradawi appeals for calm

YusufalQaradawiDoha-based religious scholar Dr Sheikh Yousuf al-Qaradawi yesterday expressed his sorrow over the riots in Paris suburbs and other French cities having Muslim and African communities.

“We are vehemently sorry for the deterioration of the situation to the point which led to burning of cars, public utilities and harming interests of the people and the French state,” Qaradawi said in a statement to Qatar News Agency.

“While we are passing through such blessed days, we would have wished people exchanging peace, amity, felicitations with Eid al-Fitr,” he added. “We, as Arabs and Muslims, wish France and its friendly people security and safety, especially as France’s stand on Arab and Islamic causes is characterised by fairness, justice and liberation, to a reasonable degree, from the US subordination.”

He called upon the Muslim community in France to resort for calmness and tackle the situation with wisdom and rationality and urged Muslim religious and political leaders to intensify peace efforts.

He also called upon the French government not to deal with the situation from the security point of view but through dialogue with the country’s religious and political leaderships and try to find a common degree of understanding to resolve problems.

Gulf Times, 8 November 2005


And how does David T summarise Qaradawi’s statement? “So, here’s the deal. If Qaradawi approves of your country’s stand on Arab and Islamic causes abroad, he’ll use his influence to call for calm. In parallel, the Government should partner with the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in seeking a solution to France’s social problems at home.”

Harry’s Place, 9 November 2005

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

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?