More nonsense from the pro-imperialist ‘Left’

“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

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

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.”

alt.muslim, 27 October 2005

For earlier coverage see here. (Since then, the danger signs have increased from seven to nine!)

Why the West needs dialogue with Qaradawi

Outrage Protest (2)“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.”

Abu Aardvark blog, 28 October 2005

British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witch-hunt

Islamophobia Awards“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.”

IHRC alert, 27 October 2005

And the IHRC’s famous annual Islamophobia Awards are due to be presented on 17 December. Click here to vote now!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali supports Netherlands ban on veil

Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk has proposed a ban on the wearing of Muslim burkas – full-length veils covering the face – in certain public places, to prevent people avoiding identification. Alarm about Islamist terror has increased in the Netherlands since the Van Gogh murder.

A Dutch MP who campaigned with him against radical Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, defended Mrs Verdonk’s plans in a BBC interview. She told the World Today programme that CCTV cameras, used to help track down terrorists, must continue to reveal suspects’ faces. The CCTV operators “need to see their faces and if you cover your face you cannot be identified”.

She said Muslim women were not obliged to wear the burka, and denied that some burka wearers would be confined to the home.

BBC News, 14 October 2005

See also “Women in burkas face benefit cuts”, Times, 14 October 2005

Continue reading

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

Continue reading

‘The folly of apology’

“The stories about the video of US troops burning the bodies of dead Taliban are disgusting – but not because of anything our troops may have done to the corpses of fanatical murderers. What’s disturbing is the groveling reaction of our government and military officials, who are falling all over themselves to apologize to people who cheer every time an American is killed….

“I know all the rationales for the apologies and investigations and anxious assertions of how much we respect Islam. We need to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of all those alleged ‘moderate’ Muslims who hate us only because they don’t understand us, don’t realize how much we admire their wonderful religion…. The millions of Muslims who support jihadist murder do so not because they’re ignorant of our beneficent intentions and enlightened tolerance, but because of spiritual beliefs that validate jihad, beliefs ratified by 14 centuries of Islamic jurisprudence and theology.”

Bruce Thornton at VDH’s Private Papers, 26 October 2005

Tariq Ramadan and Inayat Bunglawala – Al-Qaida supporters!

“Britain’s submission to Islamic will … did not help stop the July 7 bombings or the later bombing attempts. But even after the attacks, the Prime Minister appointed to the new anti-terror task force, which they call ‘the working group on tackling extremism’, Muslim advisers who are known to support Radical Islam, including Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan’s U.S. visa was revoked last year, and he is believed to have connections to al Qaeda. Furthermore, last August, to enable Ramadan to speak at a gathering of Muslim youth in London, Scotland Yard contributed $15,000 of taxpayers money. Ramadan, who is also believed to have organized a meeting between Ayman al Zawahiri and Sheik Abdel Rahman currently teaches at St. Antony College, in Oxford. Another advisor to the Prime Minister’s task force, Inayat Bunglawala, was appointed despite his public praise of bin Laden as a ‘freedom fighter’.”

Rachel Ehrenfeld in Front Page Magazine, 26 October 2005

This in the course of an article complaining that Britain’s libel laws are too restrictive. You can see why Ehrenfeld might have a problem with those laws, can’t you?

Lords defeat for religious hatred bill

BNP Islam Out of BritainA new clash between the House of Lords and the Commons looks increasingly likely after peers voted overwhelmingly last night to amend the planned law against religious hatred to introduce safeguards protecting freedom of speech.

Although ministers indicated that they were prepared to compromise on aspects of the controversial proposals, the government appeared determined to reverse at least some elements of the Lords vote.

During a committee stage debate yesterday the Lords backed an all-party amendment substantially restricting the grounds on which the law could be applied. The government defeat, by 260 votes to 111, toughens the bill so that prosecutors must prove intent to cause religious hatred.

The amendment, which was sponsored by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers as well as the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, also tightens up the definition of language needed to bring a prosecution. This is now restricted to “threatening” rather than “insulting and abusive” language.

Guardian, 26 October 2005


In other words, if their lordships’ amendment were accepted, material such as the BNP leaflet referred to below would probably still not be liable to prosecution because it restricts itself to inciting hatred against Muslims by means of abuse and insults, rather than through explicit threats of violence. The present disparity between the legal protection provided to Jews and Sikhs against incitement to hatred, and the much weaker protection provided to Muslims and Hindus, would remain.