Should al Qaradawi be allowed into Britain?
Posted on Thursday 7 February, 2008
Filed Under Civil Liberties
I’ve tried listening to those on the left who repeatedly try to tell me that I should see the utterances of Yusuf al Qaradawi ‘in context’. I really, really have.
But the man widely regarded as one of the world’s leading moderate Muslim clerics openly argues that it is permissible for husbands to beat their wives and that gays should be killed, and let’s just say that I remain enough of a wimpish liberal to have one or two difficulties with this.
That al Qaradawi lays down strictly circumscribed conditions for smacking up the missus if she is giving you gyp – remember, guys, you can’t use whips, sticks or boards, and the punishment isn’t suitable if you think the chick will only get off on it – strikes me as of but marginal relevance.
Apparently, he isn’t clear on whether homosexuals should be stoned to death or thrown off the top of tall buildings; but however he slices the Qur’an on this one, it isn’t going to endear him to anybody who thinks that gay rights represent more than a shibboleth.
By the way, in the same interview, he opines that heterosexual ‘fornicators’ should suffer equivalent punishment. Many of us will have to declare an interest here.
But does any of the above amount to sufficient grounds on which to deny him a visa to enter Britain for medical treatment, which the government has done today? Even being the miserable Islamophobe I clearly am, I think not.
Remember, Britain was happy enough to allow the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet – a man who ordered the death of 3,000 people – to come to Harley Street for that exact same reason. Sadly, Jack Straw even let him out again.
More recent guests in this country have included King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, head of the wonderful petro-kleptocracy that presides over the public beheadings in Chop Square. Indeed, he is such a vital customer for BAE Systems that he even merited Her Majesty’s company for a coach ride to Buckingham Palace. Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf also qualified for the state visit treatment.
If David Cameron is going to get so exercised about ‘preachers of hate’ being allowed into this country, he should remember that French fascist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has sometimes crossed the Channel to address rightwing pressure groups that include Conservative Party members.
Al Qaradawi isn’t seeking to come to London to buy billions of pounds worth of jet fighters, or even popping over for a quick spot of rabble-rousing; he wants to see a doctor. If that’s OK for retired caudillos, why shouldn’t it be OK in this instance?
The question of how far society should tolerate the intolerant is one of the oldest saws in political theory. But this time at least, al Qaradawi should be extended his human rights, even if he militates against the extension of human rights to others.
<<Go back
Comments
89 Responses to “Should al Qaradawi be allowed into Britain?”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Is Anon Bob Pitt?
Modernityblog, do you even bother to read the comments you’re replying to? The Islam Online quote you offer us is the one from “The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam” for which I provided a detailed explanation, above.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543886
“As for the Shari`ah stance on female circumcision, it’s a controversial issue among the Muslim scholars and even doctors.
In response to the question, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:
Actually, this is a controversial issue among jurists and even among doctors. It has sparked off fierce debate in Egypt whereby scholars and doctors are split into proponents and opponents.
However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet’s hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: “Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands”. The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman’s health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet’s saying “do not exceed the limit” means do not totally remove the clitoris.
Actually, Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. But whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin for it is mainly meant to dignify women as held by scholars.”
there is little reason for confusion on Qaradawi’s views, simply visit Islam Online, enter Qaradawi in the top left hand search box and a list of his religious rulings (fatwas) will appear
randomly, I picked this one out, on female circumcision:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543886
“In response to the question, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:
Actually, this is a controversial issue among jurists and even among doctors. It has sparked off fierce debate in Egypt whereby scholars and doctors are split into proponents and opponents.
However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet’s hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: “Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands”. The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman’s health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet’s saying “do not exceed the limit” means do not totally remove the clitoris.
Actually, Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. But whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin for it is mainly meant to dignify women as held by scholars.
…”
need I remind people that female circumcision is the same as cutting the shaft of a male penis.
but please, don’t believe me, visit Islam online and make your own minds up
And is Garnet Silk the famous reggae singer who died in 1994? I think he should be asked to explain his musical collaboration with Buju Banton.
to make it easier, follow the link below
http://www.islamonline.net/completesearch/english/CounsellorSearchAck.asp?hSection=0&hKeyword=Qaradawi&hChoice=2&hJoin=1
then go “Record(s) Found in Fatwa bank – 361″
clink on that link and view qaradawi’s opinions
Perhaps some of you men (not sure if anon is ) might want to have a read of this:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/fgmintro.html
as regards FGM .This might focus your minds on the reality of such a horrific procedure .
You might then understand why some women on the left don’t give a fuck about how ‘progressive’ someone is if they can in any way condone this abouse of female children.
“Actually, Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. But whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin for it is mainly”
Or did he now say this either ?
This is about men doing this to control their daughters.
So, the left men on here can’t condemn this ??
modernityblog: “need I remind people that female circumcision is the same as cutting the shaft of a male penis”.
Really? I think you need to read up on the details of female circumcision, modernityblog. What you’re talking about is something called infibulation. The practice that Qaradawi is referring to seems to me to have more in common with the removal of the foreskin in male circumcision.
I look forward to modernityblog’s denuciation of the Chief Rabbi as a barbaric advocate of genital mutilation.
Qaradawis position on FGM is truly bizzare.
Its all, “theologically on the one hand this and the other that” But basically he then boils it down to.
“If a man wants to mutilate his daughter its OK with me as long as he doesn’t chop too much flesh”
his priority is to defend a mans right to mutilate his daughter.
Not to give a religious view.
anon
read the link on FGM.
there are many forms, none of which is anything other than abuse.
are you actually saying that FGM is acceptable in some forms??
that a young girl should have that done to her, something that will affect her for the rest of her life.
Without getting too much into the issue of male circumsion, it seems to me that does not leave lasting damage to a man, does not affect his enjoyment of sex or have the long term health problems FGM has.
With women it does have long term health effects and their ability to enjoy sex.
btw this is not an issue just for muslims, many other groups practice it.
Much of it is about keeping women ‘pure’, proving they are virgins at marriage and if they don’t enjoy sex they are less likely to ‘stray’.
Very different from male circumsicion.
Stroppybird is right.
Its an issue for animist groups christians and falasha jews.And it doesn’t happen in most parts of the Muslim world..
To tangle it up with religion is wrong,and I suspect Anon knows it.
(and for his information the same goes for most male circumcision in the “west”)
If Anon wishes to argue that FGM should be legal then I think he should have the guts to do so.
Yep, its a practice carries out by many groups and is not the preserve of one religion.
But the point is its done on a young girl who cant possible consent to it, it has life long damaging effects both physical and psychological. These have been well documented and there are campaigns by women from groups that practise it highlighting the effects and calling for an end to it.
In no form , however ‘minor’ is it acceptable.It does not have any health benefits and it is used to control women’s sexuality.
And its disgusting that anyone on the left could fail to condemn its practice and those who support it , as I say , however much that person hates Bush !
i didn’t want to post here again, but you are all so bloody stupid about female circumstition I cannot help myself. (a nutjob writes). Female circumstition is an African practice, and it is done in the belief that a woman who possesses a clitoris has ungovernable sexual urges and will run wild in the streets having sex with all and sundry. By removing the clitoris, this danger is averted. The other forms of female gentital mutilation are removing the labia (as well as the clitoris), and stitching the vagina up, that is infibulation. None of these are painfree and none of them make sex or childbirth easy. Male circumstition is not a wound that never heals. I know some men grouse about it because they say that it diminishes their sexual enjoyment but it is not essentially a mutilation in the way that female circumstition is. There is some evidence that it can be healthier and certainly one explanation given for its prevelance in desert dwelling Semitic cultures is that a grain of sand under the foreskin can cause serious pain and inflammation. Glad to see the Prophet (pbuh) was mindful of his future son-in-laws sexual enjoyment. What a nice man!!!
And the fact that it is illegal in the UK means any health risks are massively increased.
Coupled with the risk of girls being trafficked out of the country for the mutilation.
Read Qaradawi carefully.
He doesn’t say its justified in Islam.
But he does say he supports any bloke who wants to do it.
I’m merely asking for a sense of proportion here.
For example, when Qaradawi visited London in 2004 OutRage! issued a press release entitled “Dr al-Qaradawi condones female genital mutilation” which included the following description of its consequences:
“As expected, normal sexual intercourse is not possible without a corrective procedure and childbirth frequently involves severe trauma that can result in life-threatening haemorrhage. Other complications include chronic urinary tract and other infections, infertility, psychological trauma, sexual dysfunction, menstrual problems and several other negative medical and emotional outcomes.”
Brett Lock was quoted as saying: “This practice is a bloody, violent assault on the bodies of children. It’s an extreme form of child abuse.”
I realise Brett probably isn’t the world’s greatest expert on female genitalia (I’m a bit rusty on the subject myself these days, to be honest) but even he must have realised that the practice described here was infibulation, which was nothing to do with what Qaradawi was talking about.
The Islam Online article we’ve been referred to states quite clearly: “Before delving deep into the question of female circumcision, we would like to make it clear that ‘female circumcision’ means removing the prepuce of the clitoris, not the clitoris itself.”
Personally, I think it’s a bit bizarre that various cultures advocate chopping bits off anyone’s genitalia. But I really can’t see that there’s a principled difference between removing the hood of the clitoris and the foreskin of the penis. It’s just that one is a practice commonly found in western culture and the other isn’t.
Anon
So your point is what’s the fuss all about !!
Its more than a bit bizarre and your jokey “realise Brett probably isn’t the world’s greatest expert on female genitalia (I’m a bit rusty on the subject myself these days, to be honest” is pretty crass. Its not something women who have suffered its effects would find funny im sure.
Even in its ‘mild’ form it is abuse. it does have the effects quoted and it is something that socialists should condemn in all its forms, for both the damage it does to the girl and the reasons why it is done.
And to be honest the debate about whether it is worse then circumcision is a distraction. That can be debated, but FGM (and it is mutilation) is damaging and even what you consider less so , the removal of the hood has long term effects. You seem happy to belittle someone campaigning against it and standing up for the women, yet strangely quiet in any condemnation of a man who supports it for women and feels men can decide it for their daughters.
When someone who I am assuming considers themself a socialist can brush aside the suffering of women and young girls in such a way its no wonder the left is so fucked.
I expect you think I am overreacting like Brett. Well we hysterical women and gay men, all a fuss over nothing. FGM, stoning of gays … what’s important is that we excuse anyone who says the right ‘anti imperialist’ line and sod the women and LGBT they also condemn with their recationary crap.
I don’t have a position on this yet.
But rest assured; when I do, anyone who disagrees with it will definitely be a vicious, far right monster.
Why does Modernityblog always include a sentence in heavy type? And why does he always sound so sanctimonious?
The passage that OutRage! quoted in their 2004 press release was from the website of the US Muslim Women’s League:
http://mwlusa.org/topics/violence&harrassment/fgm.html
As you can see, the MWL’s description of the consequences of FGM refers explicitly to “complete infibulation which involves removal of the clitoris, labia minora and labia majora, leaving a small opening for the passage of urine and menstrual blood”.
So it was quite dishonest of OutRage! to use the MWL quote against Qaradawi, as he clearly hasn’t advocated a practice which has “the effects quoted”.
The Muslim Women’s League presented the following reasoned argument against the practice supported by Qaradawi:
“Some proponents of female circumcision argue that removing the clitoral hood (the anatomical equivalent of the foreskin of the penis) can enhance a woman’s sexual experience which would not violate her rights to sexual fulfillment. [Presumably this is what Qaradawi is referring to when he says it "enhances her conjugal relation with her husband".] Yet, it is practically impossible when examining the genitals of a young girl (and especially an infant), to distinguish between the hood and the clitoris itself. Also an exposed clitoris that is stimulated due to friction from clothing would result in discomfort and pain and would not necessarily enhance a woman’s ability to achieve sexual fulfillment through orgasm.”
The MWL is clearly able to discuss the issue in a sensible manner. Perhaps some people involved in this debate might follow their example.
As for the assertion that “the debate about whether it is worse than circumcision is a distraction”, that’s a handy way of avoiding the argument.
Let me put it this way – irrespective of our views on male circumcision, if antisemites launched an attack on a representative figure in the Jewish community and falsely accused him of advocating a barbaric form of child abuse that was equivalent to castration, would the left go along with that hysterical racist crap, or would we take a stand against a lying attempt to whip up hatred against an ethno/religious minority?
Anon
So are you saying some forms of FGM are ok ?
And the point I have made is this is a practice carried out by a number of different groups and cultures, not solely (or indeed) all Muslims, so don’t misrepresent this as an attack on one group. My views on this are the same whoever does it.
I do not feel knowledgeable enough about male circumcision to discuss its effects. Its possible to condemn FGM without reference to it. I have though read about FGM and read many women’s account of it. Any form of FGM is abusive and effects women in a negative way. The girl is unable to consent to something that effects her health, makes childbirth difficult and effects her sex life. Yes there are degrees, but none is acceptable.
So, do you think some forms are ok then ? You dismiss the women from those communities who are campaigning againgst it ?
Anon.
“But I really can’t see that there’s a principled difference between removing the hood of the clitoris and the foreskin of the penis.”
Are you arguing that they should have the same legal status?
So the Muslim Women’s League seem to be saying all forms are wrong ?:
“Yet, it is practically impossible when examining the genitals of a young girl (and especially an infant), to distinguish between the hood and the clitoris itself. Also an exposed clitoris that is stimulated due to friction from clothing would result in discomfort and pain and would not necessarily enhance a woman’s ability to achieve sexual fulfillment through orgasm.”
If so , why can’t you also be critical of a man saying its ok to do this to young girls. Is that acceptable , that this is done to a young girl?
I think Anon’s made some interesting points, actually. But he seems to me to miss the main one.
It’s surely right and proper to make an overall assessment of Qaradawi in comparison to other Islamist thinkers; even to make a judgement about his ‘role’ overall. For sure he is relatively less reactionary than some, or more liberal (if there’s a difference). The Muslim Brotherhood overall is, and has been for many years, relatively less reactionary (for instance, less violently so) than other strands, even within Sunni Islamism.
For a certain type of conversation, these are reasonable things to say, reasonable judgements to make.
But the fact that there are much worse people isn’t the point here, surely. In relation to *my* politics, to me, to what I take to be socialist standards, or even for that matter just to consistent liberalism, Qaradawi is pretty much miles beyond the pale. I don’t see how registering his position on the spectrum should mean we can’t describe him, all the same, as a reactionary.
And it doesn’t follow I should want to ‘keep him out’, not debate with him or people who support him, or whatever.
So a sense of proportion, sure. But keeping a sense of proportion, he’s still our enemy. There are worse enemies. But there usually are.
Well I suppose it depends on what you mean by reactionary. Surely a reactionary is someone who wants to reverse progress and restore the old order? That’s not Qaradawi’s role.
Ken Livingstone once drew a parallel between Qaradawi and Pope John XXIII which I think has some merits.
Pope John held conservative views on a range of issues. He was against abortion and contraception, he opposed women priests, he thought homosexuality was a sin. However, while the left would obviously oppose him on these issues, that didn’t make him a reactionary force within Catholicism. In terms of his own faith he played a progressive, modernising role.
I think the parallel breaks down insofar as Catholics were not then the victims of a campaign of demonisation. There wasn’t a media witch-hunt misrepresenting Pope John’s views and falsely depicting him as a threat to civilisation.
But today there is such a campaign of demonisation and misrepresentation, directed against both Qaradawi and the wider Muslim community, which in the case of the right-wing media is clearly motivated by racism. And the left should take a stand against that, in my opinion, not join the racists in their anti-Qaradawi campaign.
Tying all muslims to a figure like Qaradawi is the real demonisation.
As is tying FGM to Muslim belief.
Anon,
If I told you Qaradawi supported the war in Afghanistan could yo bring yourelf to oppose his a
stance on FGM?
ISLAM NOT IN FAVOUR OF FGM – SAYS IRANIAN CONSUL
Date: Thursday, February 07, 2008
Source: Concord Times (Sierra Leone) – AAGM
Author: Ibrahim Tarawallie
Cultural Consul of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran Wednesday said Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is not a fundamental practice in Islam and that women should not be forced to undergo it.
Speaking at an interactive session organized by Women in the Media Sierra Leone (WIMSAL) on the theme: ‘The law,successes and challenges,’ Mohamed Ghezel Sofla said it is unacceptable for women to go through such adifficulty.
“FGM should not be tolerated in any society,” he urged adding, “I want to see Sierra Leonedevelop.” He said the media must be the tool behind any country’s development.
WIMSAL’s president Mariama Sesay said the essence of the session was to create better understanding on the issueof female genital mutilation which she said is of great concern to women.
She said the idea of forming the organization was born out of a workshop that was held at the Iranian cultural consulate.
Representative from Amnesty International Bockarie Lansana said the practice of FGM is a gross violation of women and children’s right as it causes severe pains and suffering.
He said there is no law that prohibits the practice of FGM adding, “It is a human right abuse.”
Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media. (allafrica.com)
Thats entirley the point Garnet.
So why does Qaradawi argue that fathers who want to mutilate their daughters should do so.
The lobby that wants to link Islam to FGM could gets a real boost from MrQ
There are fatwas against Female Genital Mutilation see http://www.equalitynow.org/english/actions/action_0802_en.html
It is not a muslim practice but a cultural practice – Christians and other religious groups in Africa preform it too. FGM is sexual assault and illegal in Britain and should not be tolerated anywhere in the world. The Scottish Parliament is putting through legislation where not only is it illegal – it’s physical and sexual assault, it would be illegal to take a child or an adult out of Scotland to be mutilated.
I would recommend reading Alice Walker’s “possessing the Secret of Joy” if one thinks it is just a snip. It is a horrific assault on women and continues to be throughout their life, women die of this particularly in child birth or after it causes women to split i.e. from the vagina to the anus. I don’t support male circumcision but the consequences for women is horrific.
This guy is a mad misogynist – that goes without saying, the issue is why is his religion being emphasised and not his misogyny or homophobia.
If one studies the Quran or even just reads about the life of Mohammed – I would recommend Karen Armstrong’s biography – the practice of male circumcission came about when the muslims took refuge in Medina, a jewish town in order to be accepted Mohammed ordered the muslims to follow the “people of the book”‘s ways hence not eating pork and male circumcision.
In the Western Isles of Scotland if you hang up your washing on a sunday – a police man comes to tell you to take it in. On a Saturday night the council tie up the swings in the swing park and civil cermonies are not allowed.
Now I don’t mind having a campaign to keep Qaradawi out of Britain if he is a criminal who is dangerous (and he might be) – I was involved in 1999 against Mike Tyson being allowed to fight in Glasgow, that is a genuine campiagn.
It is estimated that many millions have dies because of the catholic Church’s views on abortion, contraception and condoms – yet world dignitaries meet the Pope, he is seen as a world leader and the previous Pope thousands of people flocked to Belahouston Park to see him in Glasgow.
This guy is a mad misogynist – that goes without saying, the issue is why is his religion being emphasised and not his misogyny or homophobia.
It’s his religious beliefs which inform his social attitudes, whether we like it or not.
Do I think Qaradawi has reactionary views ?
On some things yes but on others I think he has a more progressive position than some of those who post comments here.
Go on… let’s hear who of the commenters in this thread you consider to be “less progressive” than Yusuf “reactionary on some things” Qaradawi.
What a ludicrous thing to say, Eddie. You do realise how daft that looks?
Qaradawi may be curate’s egg or not. It would be interesting to hear what his opinions are on the Copt ‘rubbish people’ – forced in a Cario Ghetto in his own country – rather than all this guff about Islamicist sexual politics being culture bound and open to lots of different interpretations. Or relativising the oppressive stand of such thinkers.
Nor do I care if this wealthy religious toff comes into this country or not, though it does stand out that he is using his wads of cash to get better medical treatment than the vast majority of people in Egypt.
‘Anon’ naturally has some strong reasons to defend Qaradawi: comes out in his reference to Livingstone’s thoughts, eh? And those, once more once more, dear friend, references to dubious MERI translations of the man’s propos.
On the subject of sources’ reliability, Bob, I notice that in your attempt to smear the French satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, you were not above using some dodgy sources yourself. That is basing your case on material published by Reseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network), a group notorious for its support for 9/11 ‘truth’ campaigns.
“It is not a muslim practice but a cultural practice – Christians and other religious groups in Africa preform it too.”
Cat is right and this is something I have also been saying. I, as Im sure Cat, would be critical of anyone who supported this abuse of girls . Just because its said by someone with religious views does not mean we cannot criticise it.
But Volty’s point is also valid.
“It’s his religious beliefs which inform his social attitudes, whether we like it or not.”
And this is a wider point, as I said FGM is practicised by many and is a cultural practice.
But the views held by some Muslims about, for example, LGBT people and ‘fornicators’ is informed by their religion. look at the laws informed by religion in Iran for example. Of course there then is the debate that not all Muslims, or Catholics or whatever religion, agree . But some do hold these views and its part of their faith.
As is the views of some catholics who would deny a woman the right to control her own body and ban abortion. Of course not all anti abortionists are Catholics, but for a Catholic that position is part of their faith. As is the view that sex out of marriage is sinful and gay sex is sinful.
People are entitled to hold religious views. Socialists and feminists are entitled to point out they are reactionary , whether that offends or not. I am offended by homophobic comments for example, wherever they come from, but then I argue against them, not ban them or seek some privilege for protection of my views and beliefs.
I have argued against reactionary views here , many of which are informed by religion.I would argue against them if they were informed by a different religion (which I do on my blog) and if they were held by someone with no religious belief. And as pointed out FGM is practised by a range of cultures and religions. The end result though is abuse of a girl. And no, whatever the arguments about male circumsion, the effects are very differnt for FGM . As cat says, read some stories from women and look at the facts, its abusive .
Voltaire’s P wrote:
“It’s his religious beliefs which inform his social attitudes, whether we like it or not.”
Really? Who’s to say that its not equally his social attitudes that shape his religious beliefs? After all, man who created religion and not the other way around.
Good arguments from anon btw.
Simon: so what?
Either way, he’s a reactionary whose views are epressed through a religion. Whether the chicken or the egg came first is immaterial.
Why is it a ludicrous thing to say that Qaradawi may be reactionary on some issues and yet more progressive than some posters to Dave’s blog comments on others ?
It’s a common thread in all religion that there are progressive and reactionary elements to it.
In Scotland we have the top Catholic, Cardinal O’Brian, who publicly vilifies homosexuals and opposes abortion even for women who have been raped but is at the forefront of the campaign against nuclear weapons and to shut down the Trident submarine base on the Clyde. He is also totally opposed to the continued occupation of Iraq.
I am a member of a socialist party that for years contained some of the leading left wingers in Scotland, including the SWP and CWI, who went on to sign up to the most misogynistic narrative imaginable and excuse the abuse of women in the pursuit of their political vision.
In terms of those who comment here, Qaradawi’s support and encouragement for the resistance in Iraq to imperialist occupation, and yet opposition to the sectarian civil war, is in stark contrast to some of the most appalling left wing apologists for imperialism you will on the internet.
Why ludicrous? Because it’s patently untrue.
There is a gulf of difference between someone who is broadly left wing but who is wrong on Iraq (for instance the AWL, with whose majority position on the troops I disagree) and an out-and-out reactionary like Qaradawi.
If you’re using the Iraq war as a yardstick to judge whether someone is “progressive” or not, you’ll find yourself in some rather odd company. Ron Paul and the BNP being the first two that spring to mind.
This of course is why the moth-eaten old mantras about supporting some right-wing reactionary like Qaradawi because he’s “sound on anti-imperialism” are, and always were, a bunch of bollocks. With all due respect.
Should a person’s “stance” or opinion on FGM, or anything else for that matter, disqualify them from travelling freely from one place (Egypt) to another (UK)?