Richard Seymour (of Lenin’s Tomb fame) takes up the case of SOAS student Nasser Amin.
Category Archives: Resisting Islamophobia
Guardian interviews Qaradawi
“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.
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.
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”.
Through the looking glass: nine danger signs of militant Islam
Sheila Musaji, editor of The American Muslim, responds to the list of “danger signs” of Islamic extremism drawn up by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch for an organisation calling itself the United American Committee:
“You can find numerous examples of militants, fundamentalists, extremists, criminals and even mass murderers among every religious group. Although counting numbers is pointless, I am certain that Slobodan Milosevic was responsible for more deaths than Osama bin Laden. I haven’t seen any demands that Christians sign some sort of a statement to prove that they don’t have ‘militant intentions’….
“The voices that have us looking to what it is in Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism to find the answers for why criminals carry out violent acts in the name of those religions are only creating polarization, decreasing any chance for dialogue, and leading us down a path that can only lead to a clash of civilizations that might end all civilization.”
For earlier coverage see here. (Since then, the danger signs have increased from seven to nine!)
Why the West needs dialogue with Qaradawi
“The simple fact is that policymakers in the West – and progressive liberals more generally – are not always going to agree with the opinions of Qaradawi et al. Even very open-minded followers of orthodox scripturalism in Islam will often tend toward social conservatism, meaning that there will continue to be tensions regarding homosexuality and the role of women. It will also be difficult to find complete agreement with the West on more immediate political and security issues. While Qaradawi has strongly and consistently condemned bin Laden and Al-Qaida terrorism, his pronouncements on the insurgency in Iraq and the use of violence by Palestinians have certainly been at odds with Washington.
“That said, however, perhaps the worst thing the West could do is to cast figures such as Qaradawi as part of the problem simply because his views don’t precisely correspond with US goals…. a vote for Qaradawi is a vote against Zarqawi. While increased recruitment into the Qaradawi camp will not by any means produce a generation of Muslims favorably predisposed to US foreign policy, it will represent a consolidated, critical mass of influential and respected Muslims with whom meaningful dialogue with the hope of tangible progress can take place.”
Peter Mandaville at Yale Global Online, 27 October 2005
Marc Lynch comments: “Mandaville’s essay closely tracks arguments I’ve made here and elsewhere about Qaradawi’s significance. Well worth reading.”
British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witch-hunt
“Must Read – ‘British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witch-hunt’, new report by IHRC. Fahad Ansari revisits Britain’s anti-terrorism policies a year after his report, ‘Terror in the Name of Anti-Terrorism’. From Control Orders, proposals to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Muslim organisations, new legislation and police powers, this report covers the gamut of the British government’s latest anti-terrorism proposals.”
And the IHRC’s famous annual Islamophobia Awards are due to be presented on 17 December. Click here to vote now!
Islam’s new revolutionary
“Referring to those who denounce him for condoning suicide bombings – a claim he successfully challenged in a French court – he says such allegations are deliberately spread by the agents of Islamophobia, especially America’s hard-right lobby, who nurture fear through the ‘clash of civilisations’ theory that the Islamic east and the Christian west are incompatible.”
Interview with Tariq Ramadan in The Herald, 26 October 2005
Which Islamists to talk to
Marc Lynch takes up US-Israeli academic Martin Kramer’s analysis of which Islamists are worth talking to and which aren’t.
“I would differ with Kramer’s assertion that dialogue advocates do not discriminate among different Islamist groups – I haven’t seen many calls for a dialogue with al-Qaeda, for example, and I at least have been all about making distinctions. It is conservatives who lump all Islamists together as ‘Islamofascists’, in my experience – and attack people like me for making distinctions between, say, Qaradawi and Bin Laden. But set that aside, because there are some really interesting moves here. First, simply admitting that there are politically meaningful distinctions among Islamist groups is an important step forward for folks on Kramer’s side of the aisle. Not all Islamists are the enemy anymore….”
House of Lords asked to reject amendments to Religious Hatred Bill
The Muslim Council of Britain calls on the House of Lords to reject the amendments proposed today by those opposed to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
“These proposed amendments will allow the current unfair situation whereby we have a hierarchy of rights for members of different faith groups to continue. The amendments – if accepted – will mean that British Muslims will continue to remain second-class citizens and denied the same level of legal protection that is given to some racial and religious groups including Jews and Sikhs under existing racial incitement laws,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
The MCB believes that some opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill have been engaged in a campaign to misrepresent its purpose and have misleadingly claimed that it will prevent criticism or ridicule of religion. This is demonstrably untrue as will be clear to anyone who has read the actual wording of the Bill.
“The opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill have yet to provide a credible answer as to why we can trust our judicial system to be able to make a distinction between criticism of the Jewish and Sikh religions and incitement to hatred against Jews and Sikhs, while not being able to do the same in the case of other faith groups, including Muslims,” added Sir Iqbal.
Without the proposed extension of the existing incitement law, Muslims and other faith groups remain unprotected, since they do not fall into a single racial group. The purpose of the proposed law is to protect people belonging to a particular faith identity and not the faith itself. Existing incitement laws in England and Wales and Northern Ireland have proved that it is possible to give protection to people without infringing on the right to free speech and the right to criticize religious beliefs.
Qaradawi under attack again
Marc Lynch comments on the latest attack on Yusuf al-Qaradawi. No, it doesn’t come from Nick Cohen, Outrage or the Alliance for Workers Liberty, but from supporters of Al-Qaida:
“Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the much maligned and embattled Islamist face of al-Jazeera, is under attack again. Fierce, nasty, personal attack. He gave an interview with Der Spiegel in which he called Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ‘a criminal in our view.’ The jihadi message boards were not amused. The al-Farouq board offers some typical language:
“‘Doesn’t Qaradawi by this divide the Umma? … Osama will establish the legitimate court for passing judgement…’ ‘God’s curse on Qaradawi the American agent, God’s curse on him, he has been inciting against the mujahideen since the attack on New York and Washington and has attacked the Shaykh Osama bin Laden, may God preserve him.’ ‘He is the lowest of the low, and the most despicable of the despicable.’
“It goes on in that vein for a while. As I’ve said many times, I’ve got all kinds of problems with Qaradawi – especially his social views – but, at least in the real world of Islamism, he’s got the right enemies…”
Abu Aardvark blog, 24 October 2005
For the Spiegel interview with Dr al-Qaradawi see here.
Dolly Parton defends Yusuf Islam
Country superstar Dolly Parton was thrilled when Yusuf Islam agreed to collaborate with her on her new covers album because she wanted to show fans he’s a “really sweet man.”
Parton has been a longtime friend and fan of the folk icon, formerly Cat Stevens, and was horrified when she learned he had been refused entry to America last year for his Muslim beliefs.
Islam was turned back when his name appeared on a mysterious list of potential terrorist sympathisers. He has been fighting the humiliating immigration mess ever since. And, by including him on her new album, Those Were The Days, patriotic Parton felt she was doing him a great service because her fans would never expect her to collaborate with anyone who meant to harm Americans.