Category Archives: Analysis & comment

Foreign Office backs engagement with Qaradawi – Nick Cohen goes apoplectic

Posted on by Bob Pitt

YusufalQaradawiNick Cohen retails another series of lies and distortions about Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi “ruled that the an [sic] Arab princeling should be stoned to death” (in fact he didn’t), Aljazeera magazine “hadn’t withdrawn the report” (in reality they had) etc etc. And Cohen concludes this demonstration of ignorant bigotry with the smug announcement that his mission as a journalist is to “tell Truth to readers”! What a plonker.

Observer, 4 August 2005

And what has made Cohen so cross? Well, it’s the fact that the Observer has acquired a leaked Foreign Office briefing which recommends that Dr al-Qaradawi should not be banned from entering the UK. The document is a well-informed piece of work, by Mockbul Ali, which entirely bears out the positive assessment of Qaradawi’s role made on this website and elsewhere. See (pdf) here.

The FCO’s line on Qaradawi, as summarised by Cohen, is to “try to detach him and the millions who listen to him from al-Qaeda”. This amounts to wilful distortion. The FCO document in fact argues for engagement with Qaradawi precisely because he is one of the most authoritative and influential opponents of al-Qaeda. He hardly requires any “detaching”. Cohen’s colleague Martin Bright (author of the Observer‘s witch-hunt against the MCB) also tries to imply a link between Qaradawi and al-Qaeda, reporting that “the memo contains the warning that refusing Qaradawi entry could lead to further terrorist attacks”. See here.

Cohen holds up the FCO briefing as evidence that “the mandarins have been preparing for an accommodation with radical Islam”, and Martin Bright agrees that the leaked document “will further fuel concerns of increasing ‘Islamist’ influence in the Foreign Office”.

It is notable that nowhere does the Observer deal with the arguments in favour of Dr al-Qaradawi that are presented in some detail in the FCO document, and unless you consulted the link in the online edition you’d be none the wiser. So much for “telling Truth to readers”. For that you have to go to Islam Online, 4 September 2005

It’s also worth noting that Cohen’s article is warmly welcomed by the Zionist right. See Israpundit, 4 September 2005

Ayaan Hirsi Ali – a force for Islamic reform?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells the readers of Prospect magazine that she represents a force for progressive reform within Islam. This from the friend of late Dutch racist Theo van Gogh –  a woman who, according to a recent sympathetic profile in the New York Times, has “endorsed the view that Islam is a backward religion, condemned the way women live under it and said that by today’s standards, the prophet Muhammad would be considered a perverse tyrant. She had also announced that she was no longer a believing Muslim” (see here). An effective force for Islamic reform? I think not.

More Islamophobia from Harry’s Place

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Over at Harry’s Place, it’s back to the nonsense about Yusuf al-Qaradawi calling for the execution of gay men. Harry reproduces a report that Qatar’s Crown Prince Tameem Bin Hamad Al-Thani has been outed in a Dubai-based publication after being banned from the G.A.Y. nightclub in London for getting involved in a bar fight.

“Anyway, who cares?” Harry comments. “Well, London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s ‘moderate’ mate Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi does. He gave this quote to Al-jazeera magazine: ‘The scholars of Islam, such as Malik, Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad and Ishaaq said that (the person guilty of this crime) should be stoned, whether he is married or unmarried’.”

Harry’s Place, 2 August 2005

In fact, the quotation isn’t from Qaradawi at all, but from a prominent Saudi Wahhabist, Mohammed Salih Al-Munajjid. “Aljazeera” magazine (which has no connection to the famous TV station of that name) obviously made a mistake and misattributed it.

Harry is apparently a journalist by profession, and it is of course a general principle that journalists should check their sources. However, this principle evidently ceases to apply when it’s a question of attacking Muslims.

‘Terrorism expert’ denounces US fatwa

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Terrorism expert” Steven Emerson (you remember him – the man who insisted that Muslims were responsible for the 1995 Oklahoma bombing) pours scorn on a recent fatwa against terrorism and extremism (see here) issued by Muslim leaders in the US and Canada:

“In fact, the fatwa is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism….. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate…. I spoke with Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl who told me that the fatwa was ‘vacuous because it does not name the perpetrators of Islamic terrorist theologies and leaders of Islamic movements like Yousef Al Qaradawi, Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahari, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.’”

Counterterrorism Blog, 28 July 2005

That would be the same Qaradawi who was the subject of a sympathetic article by Daniel Pearl in the Wall Street Journal, would it? (See here.)

Robert Spencer uncovers British jihadists (not)

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Jihadist groups operate ‘with impunity’ in UK.” Well, it must be true. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch says so, and he has it on the authority of General Musharraf of Pakistan. You couldn’t find more reliable sources than that, could you?

Jihad Watch, 27 July 2005

However, when you read the Times article on which Spencer’s claim is based (see here), you find the only two “jihadist groups” that Musharraf claims “operate with full impunity” in Britain are Al-Muhajiroun, which dissolved itself last year, and Hizb ut-Tahrir, which states:

“Hizb ut-Tahrir is convinced that the change we seek must start in the minds of people and we do not accept for people or societies to be forced to change by violence and terror. Consequently, Hizb ut-Tahrir does not advocate or engage in violence. The party strictly adheres to Islamic law in all aspects of its work. It is an Islamic intellectual and political entity that seeks to change people’s thoughts through intelligent discussion and debate. We consider that Islamic law forbids violence or armed struggle against the regime as a method to re-establish the Islamic State.”

A sect that has a negative impact on Muslim communities in Britain, you could argue. But a “jihadist group”? I don’t think so.

The Sun wakes up

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Sun“Britain’s Muslim leaders are waking up to the threat in our midst. Their plea yesterday for parents to tell police if they fear their sons could be suicide bombers is a vital blow against terrorism. Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council, and Dr Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association, made it clear that they spoke with the authority of the Koran. Their move is wholeheartedly backed by The Sun – and must win support from right-thinking people.”

Thus an editorial in the Sun, 25 July 2005

What a load of ignorant, condescending rubbish. Given that the MCB and MAB have never ceased to condemn terrorist attacks and to call on British Muslims to give information to the police, it is clear that the only people who are “waking up” are the Sun‘s editorial writers.

In another article in the same issue, referring to the shooting of an innocent man by police, the Sun reports approvingly that “an Islamic scholar accused of justifying suicide attacks said people should NOT blame police for the tragedy”. And who might this Islamic scholar be? Well, actually, it’s Tariq Ramadan – the man the Sun demanded should be banned from Britain. And who made the false accusation against Professor Ramadan that he justified suicide bombing? Yeah, that was the Sun as well. See here.

Tribune publishes Islamophobic rant by Maryam Namazie

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Maryam NamazieThis week’s Tribune features an article by Maryam Namazie of the Worker Communist Party of Iran attacking “political Islam” – and indeed Islam of any sort. Namazie pours scorn on what she calls “the futile and ongoing support for a ‘moderate’ Islam”. Now, that’s exactly the sort of responsible message a progressive labour movement publication should be putting out in the present circumstances, isn’t it?

I particularly liked the quote from the WPI’s glorious founder-leader Mansoor Hekmat (now deceased) which concludes Namazie’s article. This urges us to recognise that “Islam and religion do not have a progressive, supportable faction”. According that logic, the left should be demanding the expulsion of Bruce Kent from CND.

The article is in fact based on a speech given by Namazie to a conference in Paris on earlier this month (see here). Predictably, that speech was greeted enthusiastically by Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch – although he found it a tad extreme (“I disagree with the recommendations about driving religion out of society”!).

Norman Geras – apologist for imperialist war

Posted on by Bob Pitt

normblogNorman Geras, the neocons’ favourite “Marxist”, holds forth in the Guardian today, condemning those who have sought to relate the London bombings to the anger aroused in the Muslim world by Western imperialism and the Iraq war in particular.

Beneath the cloud of pseudo-moral indignation, it is not difficult to fathom the motives for Geras’s article. As one of the leading “left” cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, he himself obviously bears a small part of the responsibility for the London atrocities.

Geras writes: “It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do…. There are apologists among us, and they have to be fought intellectually and politically. They do not help to strengthen the democratic culture and institutions whose benefits we all share.”

There could hardly be a better description of Geras himself, an apologist for imperialist warmongering who enthusiastically backed an invasion that caused the death of some 100,000 Iraqis, and who now lashes out in fury at anyone who tries to open a democratic debate about the wider political context of the London bombings.

Still, Norm does have his admirers. Mad Mel joins the US Right in paying tribute to the good professor.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 21 July 2005

For a reply to Geras by Yusuf Smith, see here.

Guardian journalist ‘revealed as hardline Islamist’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The Guardian newspaper is refusing to sack one of its staff reporters despite confirming that he is a member of one of Britain’s most extreme Islamist groups. Dilpazier Aslam, who has been allowed to report on the London bombings from Leeds and was also given space to write a column in last Wednesday’s edition of The Guardian, is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical world organisation which seeks to form a global Islamic state regulated by sharia law.”

Independent on Sunday, 17 July 2005

Shiv Malik takes up the witch-hunt against Dilpazier Aslam initiated by the Daily Ablution and Harry’s Place blogs.

Continue reading →

The ‘sheikh of death’ must be barred

Posted on by Bob Pitt

islamicawakeningThus the title of a long rant by one Mark Dooley in the Sunday Independent, calling for Yusuf al-Qaradawi (aka “the theologian of terror”) to be banned from the Republic of Ireland, where the European Council of Fatwa and Research has its headquarters.

You have to admire Dooley’s diligence. He’s managed to find almost every false allegation ever made against Qaradawi and put them all in his article.

Qaradawi is apparently “a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood”, has stated that “fighting American civilians in Iraq is a duty for all Muslims” and advocates “the use children as suicide bombers”, while a letter naming Qaradawi as a “Sheikh of death” and accusing him of “providing a religious cover for terrorism” was signed by “over 2,500 Muslim scholars”.

None of which is true.