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?”
Perhaps he’s coming to pay a respectful visit to his co-thinker, the Archbish:
BBC Site: “Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’
Dr Williams says Muslims should have a choice in legal disputes
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”.
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4′s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.”
Just hoping the puir auld fule (and maybe Qaradawi, he cna get it on the Web) will watch Channel Four’s Unreported World on the distress of Eypt’s Copts, ‘the rubbish people’. 7.35, Friday.
More generally I’d like to have enough rhino to have frequent trips to London, not Hospitals or Medics. But what I really want, in context that is, a legal system opt-out for my alternative to Statue, Custom, Qaradawi and Williams.
Called *Coatesey Law* it allows 24 Hour a day fags, anywhere, spitting at Government Ministers, and the sacred right to take without payment from Sainsbury’s any bottle of Vin de Pays.
Yer big softy, Dave. Let the rabid geybeard in. Like hell. Don’t you think it’s impious of him to question the wisdom of his Diety in alloting him some dreadful disease or dodgey ticker. We can’t possibly allow this man to ‘sin’, he’d never forgive us. And just imagine, he needed a transplant. How would he be sure he got a good Islamic organ and not the organ of an apostate? As he has forbidden Muslims (or rather those Muslims who take their orders from him)from donating organs because of the risk they may be given to an apostate or an infidel, there is every danger that he would recieve a non-halal organ. One shudders to have that on one’s collective conscience. As for the other cut-throats and murders and bandits you mentioned…quite frankly, I think they should have been shown the same mercy that they showed their victims and be left to die in horrible agony. But then I am a well-known Islamophobe.
Watch it, woman. You’re asking for a beating.
He should be kept out for his advocacy of FGM alone.
if there is a case for not letting him in, would there not be a case for expelling people who admire and respect him (ie about several hundred thousand orthodox Sunni British citizens, i should imagine)?
So Dave is happy to quote MEMRI and Yedioth Ahronoth as a reliable source on Qaradawi’s views.
I suppose any pretence of journalistic objectivity goes out the window when it comes to material that reinforces his own prejudices.
For the distorted character of MEMRI’s summary of the Al Jazeera interview with Qaradawi, see here.
Rasheed Eldin may have a crap position on homosexuality, but his Arabic translation appears to be significantly more accurate than MEMRI’s.
In the course of the interview Qaradawi said: “we don’t lock the doors before the homosexuals. No! They have committed sins, but it is within their ability to repent to God”.
Which hardly sounds like a call for the execution of gay men does it? In fact it’s indistinguishable from the sort of thing you might hear from the Chief Rabbi or Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
Here is the press release from the Muslim LGBT organisation Imaan, by the way.
indeed, what is all this “should he be allowed in” stuff about? when you people are wearing your “trot” hat, rather than your “left liberal” hat, you are of course for the abolition of all immigration controls and allowing anybody who wants to come here, and denouncing all those who demur as racists and fascists. Can you please make your mind up about which irrelevant posture you are adopting?
Here’s an assessment of Qaradawi from Hugh Miles’ book “Al Jazeera” (2005):
“Although much of what the sheikh says may be hard to stomach by western standards, by regional standards he is a moderate.
“He condemned the London bombings, just as he quickly condemned the September 11 attacks.
“He has consistently said that Muslims need to think for themselves, which means they need be free of government control. This is not a message that goes down well with Arab governments.
“Al-Qaradawi has written at least 50 books attempting to reconcile Islam with democracy and human rights and he is one of the most important proponents of women’s rights in contemporary Islam.
“All this is utterly at odds with the teachings of fundamentalist imams, who see democracy and women’s rights as alien concepts imported from the infidel West. He practises what he preaches: his three daughters are highly educated. Each one holds a doctoral degree in the natural sciences, drives and works.”
Of course, no-one would question Dave’s claim to have “really, really” tried to understand Qaradawi. But Hugh Miles seems to have tried just that little bit harder.
So Anon
Should we all try a bit hard to understand the following :
(via Peter tatchell’s website)
Dr al-Qaradawi supports female genital mutilation (female “circumcision”).
He says that, while 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.”
Dr al-Qaradawi insists that a husband must compel his wife to wear the hijab.
“It is unanimously agreed upon among Muslim scholars that it is not lawful for a Muslim woman to uncover any part of her body other than the face and hands (and the feet according to some schools of jurisprudence). Hence, it is unlawful for a woman to reveal her hair, or arms, or chest or legs before non-mahram men. Wearing clothes that reveal such parts of a woman’s body is completely forbidden. A Muslim husband is to order his wife to wear hijab.”
Dr al-Qaradawi sanctions domestic violence in certain circumstances.
“If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to admonish her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas.”
In his book, The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, republished recently on IslamOnline, al-Qaradawi says on the subject of homosexuality:
“Muslim jurists hold different opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death?”
He then defends that view by adding:
“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.”
http://www.outrage.org.uk/mayorsdossier-thetruth.doc
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2008/02/lets_set_an_example.html
wtf is wrong with socialists if they can accept this . btw im not saying he cant have treatment, though of course his own views on who get organs is perhaps less than generous .
“Al-Qaradawi has written at least 50 books attempting to reconcile Islam with democracy and human rights and he is one of the most important proponents of women’s rights in contemporary Islam.”
Anon
In what way does condoning hitting a ‘disobedient’ wife make a person a ‘important proponent of women’s rights’?? Should women be grateful that he doesnt approve hitting her face or sensitive parts ?? Men who abuse women know that trick, hit where the bruises don’t show , wouldnt call them supporters of women’s rights.
For his owdn peace of mind, I don’t think he should be allowed in for treatment. Whilst he may not need an organ transplant, it is likely that he will require a blood transfusion. How is it possible to guanrantee that good Islamic blood is poured into his veins? Can’t take the risk. As for the bit about women not bearing their forearms in front of non-related men, this came up during the week when some cleric pronouced that femal Islamic doctors were not to ‘scrub-up’ as it was immodest. He then opined that women shouldn’t be going to the ‘labour market like men’. Does Dr Qaradawi agree with this? Would he willingly want to risk putting himself where a woman’s bare fore arms could cause him to have an erection and maybe even ejaculate? I think it’s only kind to refuse him permission.
Instead of repeating bigoted nonsense from OutRage! about Qaradawi it might be better if stroppybird actually studied the issue.
Barbara Stowasser, a liberal western academic specialist on women and Islam would perhaps be a good place to start. Or there are other experts like Karen Armstong (see the section on Qaradawi in “Islam: A Short History”), John Esposito, Noah Feldman and Marc Lynch (see his Abu Aardvark blog).
But, hey, why bother acquiring knowledge of a subject when you can rely on your own prejudices instead?
Anon
I don’t consider Outrage a bigoted group .
Are you saying he has never said these things and its all made up, even though a website he runs is referenced ?
Or are you saying what he says is not that bad?
No wonder the left is fucked when large sections make excuses for such reactionary people.
So basically anon,
Are all or some of those statements untrue or a misrepresentation of things he has said? All, or some of them and which ones are true and untrue?
If true , should socialists and feminists not criticise? Or should we ‘understand’ wife beating, murdering LGBT and all the rest?
Anon – oh yeah its gay rights groups who are the bigots, not the religious zealots!
You prick.
Keep the nasty little medievalist out. If it annoys lots of “human rights are cultural imperialism” relativists, then so much the better.
Yes, lets “keep out” the “nasty medievalists” and assorted other unpleasant reactionaries.
But hang on a minute, I never saw stroppybird or any of the others here demanding Pat Robertson be stopped from entering the UK.
What about the regular tours of Christian fundamentalists doing their “healing” of the sick and people with disabilities.
You have had blogs for several years now but I have never read anything attacking these people and demanding that they are excluded from the UK.
Why is that then ?
Let’s face reality; you have prejudices and they are not pleasant.
Eddie
I did not say he should be banned , re read what I said. Others may have said that but I havent.
I was picking up on the issue of his reactionary views that were part of the debate here.
And you know I do that to other religious figures and groups on my blog. If someone comes out with homophobic and/or sexist statements then I will criticise them .religion does not privilege a person to say things unchallenged.
To me its offensive, but they have the right to say it. I also have the right to criticise . I dont want to silence people even if they are offensive to me, but that also means I can criticise what is offensive to me.
Im not calling for anyone to be banned. What I would argue for is if someone, Pat Robertson or whovever came out with this reactionary stuff, then we should argue our view and do demos or whatever.
Eddie
Don’t you have an issue with these sorts of views about women, LBGT people ? And if so then why criticise me for saying its reactionary ?
And on the issue of prejudices, isnt that stuff about women etc prejudiced ?
If its a misprepresentation and he never said any of it then say that . If he did say that then its not a prejudice to criticise reactionary bigoted views, from any religion. And as I say, look at my blog, I take pops at all religions when they cone out with that stuff.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but those Christian evangelists, do they call for beheading of non-Christians? I’d just like to know. And, if Quaradawi is the best they can do, there’s no way I’m reverting to Islam.
The problem here is that there are comrades like stroppybird making perfectly legitimate points and total headcases like Sue R saying that Quaradawi wants to behead non-believers.
Yes of course he does.
Stroppybird; we have reactionary religious zealots here in the UK.
In the Western Isles of Scotland they are refusing to allow civil partnerships but that doesn’t merit a Daily Mail headline because, in fact, the Daily Mail happens to support such a reactionary position.
The reality is that the Daily Mail would be fully in support of Quaradawi if only his name was John Smith and he was a white man born in Essex.
I may be terribly mistaken but I don’t recall anything on Stroppyblog attacking the white Protestant religious extremists of Scotland (sadly still a part of the British state) in quite the same terms that Quaradawi gets it in the neck here.
Quaradawi is an easy target and for socialists to be applauding his exclusion from the UK when every war criminal and genocidal dictator gets free passage defies belief.
If Quaradawi is to be barred then every member of the Israeli government should also be kept out.
FGM is against the law in this country.
Quradawi urges it.
Why have him here?
Given that the “operation” is performed on females below the age of consent should he be treated any differently than anyone else who advocates illegal assaults on children?
Obviously I have nothing but hatred for Quaradawi (and I’ll happily extend this to all religous leaders) but aren’t us socialists supposed to be in favour of open borders.
For the man himself I couldn’t give a toss, but on principle I don’t support racist immigration laws of any sort, and the tabloid hysteria is only the thin end of the wedge designed to soften us up -as if the mail or the express could care less about reducing the number of homophobes or wife beaters in britain.
Eddie
I am not calling for his exclusion and I don’t think dave’s post was either.
I don’t just criticise the muslim religion on my blog. Off the top of my head, I have done posts on the Cathloic Church (probably more than any other) and evalgelical groups in the US. Im sure I have done others, just cant think at the moment.
Eddie, you are welcome to do a guest post on the situation in Scotland. I didnt know about it. I cant keep track of every religious reactionary everywhere !
oh and are the statements I quoted true or not? if they are true then surely its right for socialists to criticise? Don’t we owe it to the LGBT and women in those communities to do so, when FGM, hitting of wives etc is condoned ?
And what about fornicators ? If that was the case most of us would be stoned and not in a good way:-)
Anyway Eddie, do me a guest post on the western Isles.
martin.
A white Catholic Priest from Boston who advocated assaulting children should have free movement?
oh and please don’t lump me in with Sue R. (I don’t think you were Eddie).
We don’t need to embellish with beheadings if he did not say it. The FGM, controlling of ‘disobedient ‘ wives and punishment of LBGT is enough in itself.
So can we stick to the facts of what was said.
No one yet has answered as to whether the quotes I put up are true or not?
whilst Qaradawi has some really vile views and propagandarises notions that I find wholly unacceptable and are blatantly repugnant, I think he should be allowed into Britain to receive medical treatment, if that is the real reason for the proposed trip.
So, stroppy bird doesn’t like being lumped in with me. fair enough,I might not like being lumped in with her. So, are we getting ready for sharia law then?
“Given that the “operation” is performed on females below the age of consent should he be treated any differently than anyone else who advocates illegal assaults on children?”
Somebody like, oh I can’t think of a name here, who advocates that the age of consent for gay sex should be lowered would formally fall into that category in the eyes of polite society, wouldn’t they?
there are several issues here, but let’s concentrate on one, and focus on that:
is Qaradawi a reactionary??
it’s a simple question, an independent of any other factor, we can all acknowledge that Pat Robertson, Ian Paisley, and any number of the Catholic hierarchy are reactionaries, but it would not answer the point and is a deflection, not a real answer to the original question.
the simplest way to verify if Qaradawi is a reactionary or not, is to study his pronouncements on topics, and let his own words indicate one way or the other
that isn’t difficult to do, as by default everyone here has access to the Internet and so can study the materials for themselves, Qaradawi is a significant figure on http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml
so socialists can read his own words and make up their own minds, without any interference
there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi
which may point to other material
all people have to do is detach themselves and objectively read Qaradawi’s statements on women’s rights, gays, etc
that will tell you all you need to know
also use google with the key words: Qaradawi women husband, or Qaradawi homosexual
there are several issues here, but let’s concentrate on one, and focus on that:
is Qaradawi a reactionary??
it’s a simple question, an independent of any other factor, we can all acknowledge that Pat Robertson, Ian Paisley, and any number of the Catholic hierarchy are reactionaries, but it would not answer the point and is a deflection, not a real answer to the original question.
the simplest way to verify if Qaradawi is a reactionary or not, is to study his pronouncements on topics, and let his own words indicate one way or the other
that isn’t difficult to do, as by default everyone here has access to the Internet and so can study the materials for themselves, Qaradawi is a significant figure on http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml
so socialists can read his own words and make up their own minds, without any interference
there is wikipedia entry Yusuf al-Qaradawi which may point to other material
all people have to do is detach themselves and objectively read Qaradawi’s statements on women’s rights, gays, etc
that will tell you all you need to know
also use google with the key words: Qaradawi women husband, or Qaradawi homosexual
Should al Qaradawi be allowed into Britain?
As far as I know he is coming for medical treatment. He is not seeking refuge, making arms deals etc or engaging in a speaking tour.
He comes, he goes – perhaps healthier.
There is no meaningful campaign attacking his reactionary views, so objecting simply to his geographical location seems pointless.
Eddie;
As someone who favours absolute freedom of movement, I think Qaradawi should be able to move in next door to me if he so wishes.
I have a question however.
Do you think he’s a reactionary or not?
If you could answer without wibbling on about Pat Robertson, “we’ve got bigots in the UK” or any other tangential subject, that would be much appreciated.
incidentally, does tim think that Germaine Greer’s freedom of movement should be hindered? (i should say however that it’s very refreshing to hear tim talk about a subject other than Galloway).
Qaradawi is a major figure who has widespread influence in Arabic-speaking Muslim countries in the Middle East. His Al-Jazeera programme gets an audience of around 40 million. Consequently he has attracted considerable attention from specialists in the field of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies.
The only “experts” who share the views on Qaradawi that are promoted by OutRage, or by most of the people who have contributed comments here, are Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer (though, to be fair to Kramer, he does baulk at OutRage’s technique of pulling a quote off Islam Online made by someone else entirely and then blaming Qaradawi for it).
In short OutRage, and their co-thinkers here, find themselves allied with the most hardline right-wing Zionists. Dave, for example, is quite happy to link to an attack on Qaradawi from MEMRI and Yedioth Ahronoth as though these were reliable sources. Nothing could better illustrate how a section of the left has completely lost the plot under the impact of the current hysteria against Islam and embraced the political agenda of the right.
On the other hand there are a number of specialists of a generally liberal and progressive character who would entirely endorse the summary of Qaradawi’s role by Hugh Miles, quoted above. As already mentioned, they include Karen Armstrong, Barbara Stowasser, John Esposito, Noah Feldman and Marc Lynch. You might have hoped that people on the left would want to check them out in order to reach an accurate and honest assessment of Qaradawi. But apparently not.
Here’s a quote from another liberal and progressive academic specialist – Raymond William Baker (from his book “Islam Without Fear: Egypt and the New Islamists”):
“Yusuf al Qaradawy has often registered his pride in the educational and career achievements of his daughters. When asked about his children in a 1998 interview, for example, Qaradawy prefaced his remarks with the observation that the education of both girls and boys is an Islamic duty.
“He vigorously condemned prevailing extremist thought that seeks to deny education to women, citing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan as only the most horrific example of what the extremists aim for. The treatment of women in Afghanistan, he said, reflects a false understanding of Islam ‘that must be rejected’….
“He then took considerable pride in noting that ‘I have four daughters, of which the first has a Ph.D in nuclear physics and is now studying on a one-year scholarship in the United States, the second has her Ph.D in chemistry, the third is doing a Ph.D in engineering, and the fourth in genetics’.”
As writers like Stowasser have pointed out, it’s views like these, expressed on a weekly basis to a mass audience on Al Jazeera, that have played a significant part in overturning the old conservative view that Muslim women should be restricted to a domestic role and excluded from public life.
But why should stroppyblog et al. bother themselves with minor issues like the improved life chances of millions of women across the Middle East?
Sorry – of course I meant “stroppybird”!
And here’s the press release by the Muslim LGBT organisation Imaan: http://tinyurl.com/34m9u7
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.
Let the bastard in. If he tries to spew his hatred around, I will protest him like I protest against other bigots. The defence by Anon of Al Qaradawi as “not as bad” as other “extremists” is ridiculous and no amount of name calling is going to change the bare crassness of such a view.
This is not a question of liberal postmodern “everyone has a valid right” or some other non-sense – this is a question of how socialists should address scum like Qawadari or scum like the BNP – and that is not by calling on the state to issue bans on this or that individual or organisation – it’s by confronting the right-wing head on whether they wear suits and pretend to be politicians or wear religious dress and pretend to represent the Muslim community – which Qaradawi most certainly does not. (By the way, why do people insist on insulting Muslims in Britain by continuing to tell them who we think “their” leaders and representatives are?)
Don’t rely on the state to hit back against the right-wing – organise and do it yourself!
anon
I have read the press release from imann and agree with it. see below:
“We disagree with his views on homosexuality, but believe it is necessary to engage with those who have different opinions in order to effect change. We also believe the ban is counter-productive and politically motivated, as it runs contrary to advice given by the FCO.”
I am not calling for a ban and have said this at least twice here and yet people keep saying I am.
So one more time I DO NOT THINK HE SHOULD BE BANNED FROM ENTERING THE COUNTRY !!.
Ok.
I agree with imann that the response should be to argue against his reactionary veiws, which is also what I am saying.
Again I will ask you, did he say the things I have quoted ? are they his views or are they lies?
The quotes you give are not necessarily incompatible with the quotes I gave.
If the quotes I gave are true then surely, as Imaan say, we should argue against them?
Is it wrong to argue that FGM, the hitting of ‘disobedient’ wives and the discussion as to the best way to kill LGBT people and fornicatirs is reactionary and hateful ?
So again, I am not saying ban him, I am saying its right for socialists and feminists to argue against these reactionary views.
If he does not hold these views then please clarify .
oh and I would argue, and do so, against reactionary views of all religions when I come across them.
Hmmm – Ok Eddie – care to tell us who on this thread you think is more right-wing than al Qaradawi?
Eddie
He may be progressive on some things, but ffs stoning of fornicators, debating ways to kill gays, enforcing the hijab, hitting ‘disobedfinet’ wives, saying FGM is a good thing !! What more does he have to say ??
Not very progressive for 50% of the world and for LGBT people, oh and how many fornicators ?
Eddie
What views of his are reactionary ?
Im just curious as I find it really worrying that on the left we have to argue that the views I quoted are reactionary and should be argued against. This is basic stuff, its rights of women not to be mutiltated as a child so that they no longer enjoy sex and are in pain. Its about the right of a woman not to be hit if she is not obedient, it is the right of LBGT to live their lives without fear of death . It is about the right of people to sleep with who they choose without the fear of being stoned as fornicators.
Pretty basic for a socialist. I don’t care how much he may hate Bush or be some anti imperialist, those views oppress women, LGBT and anyone who does not conform to rigid moral rules.
Why are we minimalsing such views ?
Well I’ve done a search using Google as suggested and I can’t find any direct quotes from Qaradawi advocating “stoning of fornicators, debating ways to kill gays, enforcing the hijab, hitting ‘disobedfinet’ wives, saying FGM is a good thing”.
We’ve covered Outrage’s fondness for making up quotes or taking them from the Zionist black propaganda machine MEMRI on IW many times in the past, for instance here;
http://tinyurl.com/fmfnp
Having said that, I would absolutely oppose the idea that homosexuality is a “sickness” or a “perversion” or however it is posed.
IW has 211 posts on Qaradawi and they show a sustained campaign of demonisation by the right wing press, the Zionists, the US far right and, strangely enough, the English left acting as cheerleaders for the white chauvinist Tatchell.
Yes, I am totally opposed to homophobia and misogyny, it’s a non negotiable position, but I am acutely aware that there is a section of the English left who are using these issues to fuel the anti Muslim propaganda that there is no such thing as moderate or progressive Muslims, that Islam itself is backward, reactionary and extreme.
Whenever I come to London there is invariably a Christian preacher doing a roadshow that includes the “healing” of sick people and those “afflicted” with homosexuality. They are often Afro-Caribbean in origin.
I have not seen or heard of one single example of those who post here even considering that this is something to be mentioned, let alone made a fuss of.
Why is that ?
stroppybird: “No one yet has answered as to whether the quotes I put up are true or not”
Well, let’s go through one of them, on homosexuality:
“Muslim jurists hold different opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? 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.”
This is from Qaradawi’s book “The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam” which was published back in 1960, and therefore presumably written in the late 1950s. As can be seen, he didn’t express a personal view, but merely summarised the rulings of early Muslim jurists. If Qaradawi does indeed support the execution of gay men, wouldn’t he have said so some time in the half-a-century since then? He never has.
However hostile one might be to religious belief, it’s necessary to try and understand where religious believers are coming from and deal honestly with their arguments, rather than attribute to them positions they do not hold.
The position of sharia law on adultery (of which homosexuality is treated as a subdivision) was developed in the centuries following the Prophet’s death. The Muslim jurists who developed it were evidently trying to put a stop to some of the barbaric practices associated with tribal society which did lead to individuals (predominantly women) being killed in order to defend the “honour” of the family or village.
(These barbaric practices of course continue today. They are the cultural product of backward rural societies and are not associated with any particular religion. There was a much-publicised tragedy in Kurdistan last year where a young woman named Du’a Khalil Aswad was stoned to death by her fellow Yazizdi villagers because she had married a Muslim and converted to Islam.)
The “middle way” that Muslim jurists found was to rule that it wasn’t adultery (or homosexuality) that was a crime but the sexual act itself, and four independent witnesses to the sexual act were required for a conviction. The result was to preserve the draconian punishments as a symbol of extreme social disapproval while raising the evidential requirements so high that in practice it was impossible to sentence anyone to those punishments.
So when Qaradawi was discussing the penalties for gay sex in that 1960 book we have to bear in mind that it was these symbolic punishments he was referring to.
Dave has posted a link to a Yedioth Ahronoth article based on a MEMRI translation of a 2006 interview with Qaradawi on Al Jazeera. Needless to say, MEMRI once again distorted Qaradawi’s views by missing out the bits that didn’t suit their purpose, which was to discredit a leading supporter of the Palestinian resistance.
In that interview, on the subject of Islamic punishments for gay sex, Qaradawi in fact said:
“There is disagreement, so it is possible for us to choose from them in our era what is most appropriate, and what is lightest, recognising how widespread the tribulation is: because tribulations and sins being widespread is something in Islamic legal theory that causes things to be lightened.”
Doesn’t exactly sound like a call for the execution of gay men does it?
Of course, this was omitted by MEMRI, as was the following statement by Qaradawi: “we don’t lock the doors before the homosexuals. No! They have committed sins, but it is within their ability to repent to God.”
Which is much the sort of thing you might hear from the Pope, or Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, or the Chief Rabbi.
So by all means criticise Qaradawi’s opinions on homosexuality, which like those of many leading religious figures are crap. But let’s not fall into the trap of accusing him of views he doesn’t hold and playing into the prevailing hysterical right-wing discourse about the Islamic threat to western civilisation.
Why do discussions on civil liberties such as the ‘veil’ and this dangerous old man excite such intertest on the left? our welfare system is about to be destroyed, the NHS is being privatised before our very eyes, Public Housing is in crisis, surely these are the issues the left should be dwelling on.
Surely, this is one reason why the left is in such decline.
scanning wiki indicates some of Qaradawi’s views:
“On June 5 2006, on the Al Jazeera “Sharia and Life” programme he regularly features on, al-Qaradawi reiterated orthodox views on homosexuality. [43]
When asked about the punishment for people who “practise liwaat (sodomy) or sihaaq (lesbian activity)”, al-Qaradawi replied: “The same punishment as any sexual pervert – the same as the fornicator.” (MEMRI translation) [44]“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi
“The Crown Prince of Qatar should be stoned to death for being gay,
according to Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim fundamentalist scholar
who is based in Qatar.
These allegatons appear in the Middle East news magazine Aljazeera. “
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/320466.html
scanning wiki indicates some of Qaradawi’s views:
“On June 5 2006, on the Al Jazeera “Sharia and Life” programme he regularly features on, al-Qaradawi reiterated orthodox views on homosexuality. [43]
When asked about the punishment for people who “practise liwaat (sodomy) or sihaaq (lesbian activity)”, al-Qaradawi replied: “The same punishment as any sexual pervert – the same as the fornicator.” (MEMRI translation) [44]“
“The Crown Prince of Qatar should be stoned to death for being gay, according to Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim fundamentalist scholar
who is based in Qatar.
These allegatons appear in the Middle East news magazine Aljazeera. “
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/320466.html
Oh come on, modernityblog. The story about Qaradawi calling for the Crown Prince of Qatar to be stoned to death was discredited long ago. Even GALHA removed it from their website because it was so clearly fraudulent.
The “Al Jazeera” magazine that was responsible for the story is a phoney website that has nothing to do with the famous TV station of the same name. The quotation they attributed to Qaradawi was in fact from someone else entirely – a Saudi Wahhabist named Mohammed Salih Al-Munajjid.
As for the quote from a “MEMRI translation”, it’s the same translation that’s used in the Yedioth Ahronoth article that Dave linked to. I’ve already dealt with that.
I am sure that Islam Online represent his view clearly and of course, wouldn’t mistranslate:
“Responding to the question, the eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states the following:
…
“Having said this, I should stress here that Muslim jurists have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice.
Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? 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.”
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543878