Last year, when Qaradawi was invited to London, there were calls from gay activists and Jewish organisations for his exclusion because of his attitude to homosexuality ("A disease that needs a cure") and Jews ("Oh God, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile crusaders and infidels").
The important point about Qaradawi is not merely what he says but what he represents. He is described as a ''moderate'' but such a description exemplifies the problem we face in dealing with the Islamist ideology. It is an oxymoron: a moderate extremist. By no stretch of the imagination would a non-Muslim espousing the views that he does be called a moderate.
Last week, the Government said it intended to introduce a new offence of ''indirect incitement'', aimed at those who are prepared to laud the activities of suicide bombers as a form of martyrdom. Whether or not you agree that such a law is advisable, at the very first hurdle the Government appeared unwilling to make the leap.
If it ducks something as relatively straightforward as refusing entry to an individual who may be considered a hero to radical young Muslims, what are the realistic prospects of anything happening to those who already live in the country and seek to justify bloody carnage, or at least refuse to condemn it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KAQK4WYXSIWMJQFIQMGSM5WAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/07/20/nblame120.xml Western policies are to blame, says Livingstone
Mr Livingstone also defended Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the controversial cleric who visited London at his invitation last year and who had been scheduled to attend a conference in Manchester next month.
He said Mr al-Qaradawi was a "leading progressive Muslim" who was not actually going to the conference and who had condemned the London attacks.
Asked about Mr al-Qaradawi's apparent support for Palestinian suicide bombers, Mr Livingstone said the cleric's views had been misreported.
The CIA were involved in funding some mujahideen, mostly (I understand) through the ISI (Pakistani intelligence). Osama was a mujahid himself, and brought his own funding to certain groups.
So there was a commonality of interest, but it is not true that "the CIA funded Osama". He's mega-rich, why would he need funding?
So you believe old Ken when he suddenly turns civil libertarian exactly when it suits him? That he is a Voltairian "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it" when a beardie-weardie hand chopper shows up? That this is not just another egregious example of of the global cosying-up of the left and the Islamists?
Nick Cohen said it well (Dan has posted this link before, I think):
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1418465,00.html Ken has a lot to be sorry for Nick Cohen February 20, 2005 The Observer
There has always been something of the American city boss about Livingstone. He pays the necessary pieties to ethnic and sexual blocs and collects their votes. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that he's not just a grubby machine politician but is sincere when he declares that he is defending Qaradawi to the hilt because, 'I have a responsibility to support the rights of all of London's diverse communities and to maintain a dialogue with their political and religious leaders.'
He doesn't seem to realise that this bland formulation is cover for a deeply reactionary manoeuvre which is being practised across the Western pseudo-left. First they define 'communities' by their religion. Then they assumed that misogynist and anti-democratic practitioners of that religion are the true leaders of their communities. The inevitable consequence is that liberals, socialists and feminists in the poor world are betrayed.
I take Wembley's point that 'Livingstone has said that he does not support al Qaradawi, but he does support the principle of letting him speak and engaging him in dialogue.' but wondered if Ken would be as keen to engage in a dialogue with the leader of the BNP for example.
On the same issue: Harry (of Harry's Place) with several quotations from Boris Johnson: http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/21/lets_argue.php
Was going to post that Boris Johnson article mentioned at Harry's Place. Here's the bit that attracted my eye anyway:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/21/do2101.xml The best way to cure ourselves of Islamophobia is to have a laugh By Boris Johnson Telegraph 21/07/2005
It should be part of the general long-term programme of winning back disaffected British Muslims that they no longer feel that it is Islam which exclusively defines them, and therefore that any insult to Islam is an insult to their whole being.
That is why we need to begin the re-Britannification I mentioned last week; and part of being British is recognising that this is a free country, in which people can have frank views about religion. Militant Islam has been shielded from proper discussion by cowardice, political correctness and a racist assumption that we should privilege the beliefs of a minority, even when they appear to be mediaeval. It is time the discussion was opened up not just to reason, but to reason's greatest ally, humour. Instead of banning the discussion of the 72 virgins of paradise, the alleged meed of the suicide bomber, would it not be much more efficient to make fun of this ludicrous claim?
When is Little Britain going to do a sketch, starring Matt Lucas as one of the virgins? Islam will only be truly acculturated to our way of life when you could expect a Bradford audience to roll in the aisles at Monty Python's Life of Mohammed; and when an unintentionally offensive newspaper article about Islam is requited not with death threats but with the exasperated but essentially kindly letters one might expect from Christians.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/001357.html Weasel words on terror Daily Mail 22 July 2005
My take - brilliant article. Dan told me he felt it was unfair of the Telegraph to put pictures of Livingstone between Omar Bakri Mohamed and Anjem Choudary. This brilliant article shows why it was *not* unfair.
At risk of cutting and pasting the entire article, here are some particularly noteworthy bits:
[Livingstone] accused Israel, for example, of having 'indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades', and said that 'given that the Palestinians don't have jet fighters, they only have their bodies to use as weapons'.
Now, Israel has done many controversial things which may justifiably be criticised, and sometimes its troops undoubtedly behave badly. But it does not indiscriminately slaughter the innocent; on the contrary, it goes to great lengths to avoid doing so -- for example, by conducting dangerous house-to-house searches for terrorists from which it sustains a high rate of casualties, as opposed to routinely bombing from the air.
Above all, its military actions are only taken to defend itself against systematic attack. Yet Mr Livingstone remarkably portrayed suicide bombings as morally superior to Israel's attempt to prevent its citizens from being murdered.
...
He claimed on the Today programme, for example, that one reason why Palestinians became suicide bombers was that they did not have the vote. The implication was that Israel prevented them from having the vote and was therefore an apartheid state. But the Palestinians in the disputed territories don't have the vote in Israel because those territories are not part of Israel. And in any event, they do have a vote – which they used to elect their Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas.
...
Mr Livingstone also claimed it was wrong to brand a British Muslim boy a 'terrorist' if he got involved in Palestinian violence against Israel, whereas 'if a young Jewish boy in this country goes and joins the Israeli army and ends up killing many Palestinians and comes back, that is wholly legitimate'.
These comments are simply utterly unacceptable. British Jews do not serve in the Israeli army; the only 'Jewish boys' who do so are Israelis. Mr Livingstone thus implies a wholly unwarranted double loyalty among British Jews, whose patriotism is unquestionable.
Furthermore, by making the inflammatory suggestion that these 'Jewish boys' may be mistreating Palestinians, the Mayor has made Jewish boys in Britain fair game for Muslims who will no doubt be further enraged by such incendiary falsehoods, and increased the risks to a Jewish community which is already suffering a record number of anti-Jewish attacks.
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/protected/articles/2005/07/22/opinion/edfried.php Expose the haters Thomas L. Friedman The New York Times JULY 23, 2005
We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
14 comments:
Great, great piece.
Eg:
Last year, when Qaradawi was invited to London, there were calls from gay activists and Jewish organisations for his exclusion because of his attitude to homosexuality ("A disease that needs a cure") and Jews ("Oh God, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile crusaders and infidels").
The important point about Qaradawi is not merely what he says but what he represents. He is described as a ''moderate'' but such a description exemplifies the problem we face in dealing with the Islamist ideology. It is an oxymoron: a moderate extremist. By no stretch of the imagination would a non-Muslim espousing the views that he does be called a moderate.
Last week, the Government said it intended to introduce a new offence of ''indirect incitement'', aimed at those who are prepared to laud the activities of suicide bombers as a form of martyrdom. Whether or not you agree that such a law is advisable, at the very first hurdle the Government appeared unwilling to make the leap.
If it ducks something as relatively straightforward as refusing entry to an individual who may be considered a hero to radical young Muslims, what are the realistic prospects of anything happening to those who already live in the country and seek to justify bloody carnage, or at least refuse to condemn it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KAQK4WYXSIWMJQFIQMGSM5WAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/07/20/nblame120.xml
Western policies are to blame, says Livingstone
Mr Livingstone also defended Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the controversial cleric who visited London at his invitation last year and who had been scheduled to attend a conference in Manchester next month.
He said Mr al-Qaradawi was a "leading progressive Muslim" who was not actually going to the conference and who had condemned the London attacks.
Asked about Mr al-Qaradawi's apparent support for Palestinian suicide bombers, Mr Livingstone said the cleric's views had been misreported.
The CIA didn't fund Osama.
The CIA were involved in funding some mujahideen, mostly (I understand) through the ISI (Pakistani intelligence). Osama was a mujahid himself, and brought his own funding to certain groups.
So there was a commonality of interest, but it is not true that "the CIA funded Osama". He's mega-rich, why would he need funding?
So you believe old Ken when he suddenly turns civil libertarian exactly when it suits him? That he is a Voltairian "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it" when a beardie-weardie hand chopper shows up? That this is not just another egregious example of of the global cosying-up of the left and the Islamists?
Nick Cohen said it well (Dan has posted this link before, I think):
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1418465,00.html
Ken has a lot to be sorry for
Nick Cohen
February 20, 2005
The Observer
There has always been something of the American city boss about Livingstone. He pays the necessary pieties to ethnic and sexual blocs and collects their votes. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that he's not just a grubby machine politician but is sincere when he declares that he is defending Qaradawi to the hilt because, 'I have a responsibility to support the rights of all of London's diverse communities and to maintain a dialogue with their political and religious leaders.'
He doesn't seem to realise that this bland formulation is cover for a deeply reactionary manoeuvre which is being practised across the Western pseudo-left. First they define 'communities' by their religion. Then they assumed that misogynist and anti-democratic practitioners of that religion are the true leaders of their communities. The inevitable consequence is that liberals, socialists and feminists in the poor world are betrayed.
I take Wembley's point that 'Livingstone has said that he does not support al Qaradawi, but he does support the principle of letting him speak and engaging him in dialogue.' but wondered if Ken would be as keen to engage in a dialogue with the leader of the BNP for example.
On the same issue: Harry (of Harry's Place) with several quotations from Boris Johnson: http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/21/lets_argue.php
Was going to post that Boris Johnson article mentioned at Harry's Place. Here's the bit that attracted my eye anyway:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/21/do2101.xml
The best way to cure ourselves of Islamophobia is to have a laugh
By Boris Johnson
Telegraph
21/07/2005
It should be part of the general long-term programme of winning back disaffected British Muslims that they no longer feel that it is Islam which exclusively defines them, and therefore that any insult to Islam is an insult to their whole being.
That is why we need to begin the re-Britannification I mentioned last week; and part of being British is recognising that this is a free country, in which people can have frank views about religion. Militant Islam has been shielded from proper discussion by cowardice, political correctness and a racist assumption that we should privilege the beliefs of a minority, even when they appear to be mediaeval. It is time the discussion was opened up not just to reason, but to reason's greatest ally, humour. Instead of banning the discussion of the 72 virgins of paradise, the alleged meed of the suicide bomber, would it not be much more efficient to make fun of this ludicrous claim?
When is Little Britain going to do a sketch, starring Matt Lucas as one of the virgins? Islam will only be truly acculturated to our way of life when you could expect a Bradford audience to roll in the aisles at Monty Python's Life of Mohammed; and when an unintentionally offensive newspaper article about Islam is requited not with death threats but with the exasperated but essentially kindly letters one might expect from Christians.
An article on Ken by Melanie Phillips
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/001357.html
Would like to get JP's take on it.
Re: the Melanie Phillips article dug up by Andy:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/001357.html
Weasel words on terror
Daily Mail
22 July 2005
My take - brilliant article. Dan told me he felt it was unfair of the Telegraph to put pictures of Livingstone between Omar Bakri Mohamed and Anjem Choudary. This brilliant article shows why it was *not* unfair.
At risk of cutting and pasting the entire article, here are some particularly noteworthy bits:
[Livingstone] accused Israel, for example, of having 'indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades', and said that 'given that the Palestinians don't have jet fighters, they only have their bodies to use as weapons'.
Now, Israel has done many controversial things which may justifiably be criticised, and sometimes its troops undoubtedly behave badly. But it does not indiscriminately slaughter the innocent; on the contrary, it goes to great lengths to avoid doing so -- for example, by conducting dangerous house-to-house searches for terrorists from which it sustains a high rate of casualties, as opposed to routinely bombing from the air.
Above all, its military actions are only taken to defend itself against systematic attack. Yet Mr Livingstone remarkably portrayed suicide bombings as morally superior to Israel's attempt to prevent its citizens from being murdered.
...
He claimed on the Today programme, for example, that one reason why Palestinians became suicide bombers was that they did not have the vote. The implication was that Israel prevented them from having the vote and was therefore an apartheid state. But the Palestinians in the disputed territories don't have the vote in Israel because those territories are not part of Israel. And in any event, they do have a vote – which they used to elect their Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas.
...
Mr Livingstone also claimed it was wrong to brand a British Muslim boy a 'terrorist' if he got involved in Palestinian violence against Israel, whereas 'if a young Jewish boy in this country goes and joins the Israeli army and ends up killing many Palestinians and comes back, that is wholly legitimate'.
These comments are simply utterly unacceptable. British Jews do not serve in the Israeli army; the only 'Jewish boys' who do so are Israelis. Mr Livingstone thus implies a wholly unwarranted double loyalty among British Jews, whose patriotism is unquestionable.
Furthermore, by making the inflammatory suggestion that these 'Jewish boys' may be mistreating Palestinians, the Mayor has made Jewish boys in Britain fair game for Muslims who will no doubt be further enraged by such incendiary falsehoods, and increased the risks to a Jewish community which is already suffering a record number of anti-Jewish attacks.
1. Are you accusing her of distorting the facts in *this* article?
2. Would be interested to see some examples that show Mel's views to have much in common with al-Qaradawi.
Does being right wing automatically mean that criticism of Ken is invalid?
(btw, I voted for Ken, so am not unsympathetic to him - but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with every single one of his statements.)
Anyhoo, check this out from the Times (via Harry's Place) - excellent piece on the connection between Iraq and the terrorist attacks on London.
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/22/risk_and_reward.php
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/protected/articles/2005/07/22/opinion/edfried.php
Expose the haters
Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times
JULY 23, 2005
We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
Post a Comment