Longtime readers will remember that there was quite an active debate a few months ago on the subject of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the fundamentalist imam, and his visit to London. There have been a few developments since then. Ken Livingstone (mayor of London, for our non-UK readers) has produced a dossier justifying his decision to share a platform with Qaradawi, out of the apparent belief that this is in some way a substitute for meeting the crowds of outraged Londonders who thought he shouldn’t have. Harry’s Place has a lot of material on whether or not this dossier cuts the mustard; they think it doesn’t.
On a number of issues; apologism for suicide bombers, advocacy of killing gays, wife-beating, etc, it seems pretty clear that Qaradawi is possessed of some fairly horrible reactionary views. This isn’t much of a surprise; to be honest, it was free information which could simply be read off the fact that he is a fundamentalist imam. But Ken’s dossier does contain one important point.
That is, that the particular offence which caused us at CT to come off the fence and condemn him – a statement that it was OK or even required for jihadis to kidnap Western civilians in Iraq – is a statement which Qaradawi denies ever having made. In general, while I can’t emphasise enough that he is not someone who I would ever like to see gaining influence in the UK, Qaradawi appears to have repeatedly, consistently, and at some personal cost, maintained the view that fundamentalist Islam does not impose any duty of violent jihad against the West, and that killing infidel civilians is wrong. This raises a quite important issue as to what kind of fundamentalist Muslim we need to be talking to (I’m trying to talk in general terms here to avoid issues specifically related to Qaradawi; I am not yet sure whether his view on suicide bombers is just the general apologism common throughout the Arab Middle East or something more virulent).
There’s a lot of debate in the Harry’s Place comment threads that I’m not going to try to summarise here, but below the fold is the text of an email I sent to the editors (I was having a bit of technical trouble so I decided to summarise my views in an email. I think it makes sense as a standalone, but you’ll probably need to read this to see what I mean by “David makes a good case”).
I think that David makes a good case, but retain my own view. There seem to be two issues:
1. Whether the Mayor of London ought to be making friends with people with views that are repugnant to Londoners. Verdict: No he shouldn’t. I think I’ve been pretty consistent on this one. But there is also:
2. Whether, all things considered, it makes all that much sense to demonise Qaradawi and say that he is a) as bad as the rest of them and b) persona non grata everywhere in the UK. I think that (contingent on getting a particular answer on the two questions of exactly how much of an apologist for suicide bombers he is, and whether he did actually say those things about civilians in Iraq, both of which questions I regard as still open) the verdict on this one might be that we shouldn’t.
My reasoning is that first, there are an awful lot of things that we find repugnant about Islam; treatment of women, treatment of gays, hatred of non-Muslims, repression of Muslims, endorsement of terrorist violence against non-Muslims. However, of these three, at present, the endorsement of terrorist violence against non-Muslims ought to be considered far and away the most important for purposes of making UK public policy.
Given this, my instinct is to adopt the usually sound principle of “divide and conquer”. I reject the analysis that “dealing with Qaradawi gives encouragement to extremists and marginalises liberals”. I think that divide and rule tells us that, given that there is a material population of Muslims potentially susceptible to becoming terrorists, we will do best by emphasising the differences between them rather than the similarites. This would be in the second edition of my One-Minute MBA course. Demonisation of Qaradawi makes it much harder to use divide-and-conquer tactics, because it allows the violent imams the point that even people who denounce violence get beasted by the West, and gives the impression that our objection is to Islam rather than to violence (in fact we dislike them both, but I take it as given that violence is the current priority).
Another generally sound principle of negotiation is that you direct your message to people who have influence over the course of events rather than to other interested parties. This is why I reject the attempt to link the issues of our treatment of Qaradawi with the development of liberalism in the Arab world. If the liberal Arabs held any influence at all over the terrorist-susceptible population, things would be different (note that we are talking about the terrorist-susceptible population here, which is a small subset of the total British Muslim population and which is, indeed, concentrated on the two big London mosques). They don’t, but Qaradawi does. So, he is a very important player here; he is someone who has credibility with the people who we want to turn away from violence, and he is (caveats above) against the use of terrorist violence. It is unfortunate, but hardly coincidental, that he has a lot of repugnant views.
Which brings me on to the third generally sound negotiating principle; that progress is made through incremental concessions. For a Wahhabi, to demand that they don’t hate gays and oppress women is not an incremental concession; you’re effectively asking them to give up their religion. Again, there are several tens of millions of Muslims out there who would be considered fundamentalists by any reasonable standard. The whole thesis of the war on terror (and certainly of any more general thesis of “Islamism”) is that these people think that their religion obliges them to kill us. This means we have a choice of either a) talk to them and convince them it doesn’t or b) kill them. I’m up for making a real effort at a), not only because b) is what they call “genocide”, but also because under b) they are quite likely to have a go at killing us back, which carries the risk that I get caught in the crossfire.
There is always of course (I covered this in previous MBA post) option c), of “do neither and wait for more information or a better alternative”. In this particular case, I think that the cost of waiting is unacceptably high. While we’re refusing to talk to the umma, the other side is pumping them up with three sermons a day and a bunch of satellite television channels. If there is a version of Wahhabism under which it is possible to be a good Muslim without killing infidels, then we really need to ensure that this message gets the widest possible publicity in the Wahhabi-susceptible community.
If only Muslims lived in the “Red states”! Then everybody would be falling over themselves to remind us that the only hope of making progress in bringing them toward sane politics is to talk to them in their own terms and not to spend disproportionate amounts of time and effort telling ourselves how horrible they are.
That was perhaps longer than I intended, but I suppose reading it here saves you from having to bother reading it again when it goes on CT.
best,
dd
{ 59 comments }
rosalind 01.16.05 at 12:41 am
I don’t think there’s a version of Wahhabism under which killing infidels is wrong (or could ever be…Wahhabism is just bad news), but there’s certainly a version of Islam that prohibits it. Which is to say that, provided al-Qaradawi does not endorse suicide bombing or the kidnapping of Western civilians in Iraq, sure, maybe it would be a good strategic move not to write him off, because his views presumably have influence in some Muslim communities. But there are certainly other Muslim scholars who are less problematic than al-Qaradawi…there are non-Wahhabis, after all.
I confess I find the project of changing minds daunting, either in the case of poor, angry Muslims throughout the world or of people in the United States who voted for Bush, but I don’t think appealing to people whose views you find reprehensible is entirely necessary.
dsquared 01.16.05 at 1:40 am
But there are certainly other Muslim scholars who are less problematic than al-Qaradawi
Well yeh, millions of them. But do they have an audience on Hardcore Nite at the Finsbury Park Mosque? My point is that there is a very small community of people that we’re trying to talk to here and that there is an even smaller number of people that they listen to.
Jeremy Osner 01.16.05 at 1:57 am
Interesting post — were you meaning to post it on D^2 Digest rather than Crooked Timber? Some of it is not coherent in that regard.
Barry Ross 01.16.05 at 3:48 am
“On a number of issues; apologism for suicide bombers, advocacy of killing gays, wife-beating, etc, it seems pretty clear that Qaradawi is possessed of some fairly horrible reactionary views.”
The tenor of the post, particularly as in the quote above, make me believe that you haven’t read the Mayor’s well documented essay. If you have, do you just choose to disbelieve the evidence that al-Qaradawi has been slandered and misrepresented, particularly in the dossier that objected to the Lord Mayor meeting with him? It is ironic that al-Qaradawi is equally vilified by Islamists as by the virulently anti-Muslim crowd. This whole issue seems to be of a piece with the slander directed at Tariq Rahmadan, by Daniel Pipes and the usual suspects.
dsquared 01.16.05 at 4:17 am
No, I’ve been following this closely on Harry’s Place and am currently pretty sure that the position is thus: Qaradawi believes that under a fully functioning sharia law system homosexuals ought to face the death penalty, but that this does not imply a positive duty for Muslims to kill them. Similarly, he thinks that it is permissible, but not obligatory for husbands to beat their wives if they don’t wear veils. I’d characterise all these views as horrible and reactionary.
I think that the Tatchell dossier goes to far in making the false claim that Qaradawi is inciting hatred, but that doesn’t mean that he’s ever likely to be a mate of mine. I’ve posted a bit in the past on the difference between incitement to hatred (which I think the state has a proper role in supressing) and mere bigotry (which ought to be protected free speech, but should still be disapproved of, vocally, by people).
BigMacAttack 01.16.05 at 5:42 am
Nice. Good stuff.
Barry Ross 01.16.05 at 7:26 am
Fair enough – a good answer. Thanks. My sense is that this is oversimplified. I think one needs to realize that there is a distinction between things al-Qaradawi might say as an individual and what he might say as a religious scholar; on the one hand representing his own sense of some matter and on the other offering an interpretation in law. An instance of this is your example about the permissability of husbands beating their wives. This is stated in the Qur’an, with certain strictures surrounding it, just as Leviticus or Deuteronomy states that a community is permitted to kill unruly youths. Admitting a legal permission does not constitute advocacy. Noting the existence of legal permission is not advocacy. The ambiguity in the direct quotes from al-Qaradawi, for instance concerning homosexuality, in which there is a distinction between what he thinks on the subject as noted in the Mayor’s dossier, and on the other hand what a strict interpretation of one of the Sunni schools of law could or would dictate, which would always be specific to a particular situation and to his particular school of law. I don’t know what school of law he follows but he is certainly not Wahhabi, and I sense that he has taken a number of stands that stretch the literal state of matters to a greater extent than the surrounding Islamic culture does. In this I see him attempting to guide Islam toward a non-confrontational stance toward the West. Given that as a basis, I agree with your position as I understand it, although I don’t think it matters that we (he and I) undoubtedly disagree about even his most of his more moderate social positions. This is where I would take exception to most of the folks at Harry’s Place. I know I have to live with people with whom I emphatically disagree. Where I live (a few miles from Kieran) I have many neighbors actively devoted to the idea that I should live under a similar system of Christain interpretation to that espoused by the Islamists. At least it isn’t a Hassidic neighborhood and I needn’t fear being stoned if I drive on the Sabbath, but if I don’t foster communication with whatever means I have, it could become just that sort of place.
abb1 01.16.05 at 9:23 am
Why would anyone want to befriend a religious fanatic? Why would you want to demonize anyone?
This all seems very trivial, where’s the controversy?
rd 01.16.05 at 1:06 pm
So, he *doesn’t* support the killing of Western civilians in Iraq but *does* support the killing of Israeli civilians via suicide bombing. I don’t see any moral distinction here that makes Qaradawi so eminently worthy of “dialogue.” Unless you believe the entire Israeli state and everyone in it are worthy of death. Perhaps the distinction is more practical, along the lines of, “blowing up Israeli teenagers in pizza parlors is so widely supported in the Arab Middle East that we have to let that slide if there’s to be any ‘dialogue’ at all.”
rd 01.16.05 at 1:18 pm
Along those same lines, the Livingstone response is particularly noxious in its treatment of the pesky “Israel civilians killed with nail bombs” issue. After blithely noting that
Humans Rights Watch stuffily insists on calling such acts “atrocities,” (even after the eminent and learned Qardawi’s praise!) it snaps right back with the fact that the same group condemned Sharon for his involvement in the Lebanon massacres of 1982. So that’s all right then!
abb1 01.16.05 at 1:39 pm
So, rd, are you insisting that both Messrs. Qardawi and Sharon should be excluded from ‘the dialogue’ or what?
rd 01.16.05 at 2:00 pm
I’m saying that dismissing criticism of a man who advocates the killing of Israeli civilians as a *moral good* by saying “well, you know Sharon was complicit in some nasty stuff in 1982” is poor logic and hideous morality. And while we’re on the “moral equivalence” tack, even Sharon, bloody as his hands may be, doesn’t advocate killing Palestinian civilians as a morally legitimate or praiseworthy tactic. Qardawi does for Israelis. The only way I can see to acknowledge him as one the “relatively good guys” worthy of “dialogue” is by some sort of grim realpolitik line like “well if we start making a fuss about dead Israelis we’ll never get anywhere.”
Yusuf Smith 01.16.05 at 2:25 pm
Well yeh, millions of them. But do they have an audience on Hardcore Nite at the Finsbury Park Mosque? My point is that there is a very small community of people that we’re trying to talk to here and that there is an even smaller number of people that they listen to.
Al-Qaradawi wouldn’t get an audience at Finsbury Park, at least not when Abu Hamza was there. They are totally different on both theological and practical grounds.
Incidentally, the views al-Qaradawi expresses on domestic relations are pretty much the same as those you’ll find from any mainstream Muslim scholar (whether they – or indeed Shaikh Yusuf – would recommend the things mentioned is another matter); I have personally read writings by Indian scholars who refuse to condemn suicide bombings in Palestine. The difference is that these statements concern issues which Arab Muslims have actually had to deal with, and Indian Muslims have not.
abb1 01.16.05 at 2:29 pm
Based on the quote in the dossier I don’t see him advocating ‘the killing of Israeli civilians’.
The quote indicates that he defends the tactic of using ‘human bombs’ on the grounds of a lack of tanks, F16s and helicopters. He doesn’t seem to advocate the killing of Israeli civilians any more than Sharon advocates killing of Palestinian civilians.
As far as the ‘moral equivalence’ goes, this guy, I understand, hasn’t been accused of committing any actual crimes, but only of holding some unseemly opinions, while Mr. Sharon, if you believe the Human Rights Watch, is likely to be guilty of actual war crimes and crimes against humanity […] committed on a wide scale.
That doesn’t mean that Mr. Sharon has to be excluded from ‘the dialogue’, of course, just like Mr. Stalin wasn’t excluded in 1941-45. I don’t see why you would want to exclude any influential person if you can reasonably expect to advance your interests by including this person (without compromising your ethics, of course).
David T 01.16.05 at 7:13 pm
Dan
I’m sorry that your post on our website didn’t work. Its in the nature of technical problems to arise just at the point that you press the “post” button, destroying your most brilliant apercus forever. Its happened to me before, too.
I’ve made my argument pretty clear. I’ve no real interest in demonising Qaradawi, per se. Religious people tend to say daft and offensive things. That’s no suprise. Qaradawi is no exception. But so what?
The first point I’d make is that Qaradawi is being promoted as the natural spokesman of London’s muslims. However, as blogistan.co.uk points out:
The real question is why Ken chooses to talk to al-Qaradawi rather than a scholarly representative of the British Muslim community, most of whom are not Arabs and a fair number of whom, as I have mentioned before in fact, are likely never to have heard of this imam. The Arabs happen to control the “central mosque” at Regent’s Park, and he is a famous scholar who makes appearances on al-Jazeera, but he is the reference point for a small minority of London’s – never mind Britain’s – Muslim community.
The second, and related point is that there is a tendency to see minority communities as monolithic entities, represented by “community leaders” who are – as a sikh commentator in a previous thread put it – largely self appointed, conservative, middle aged men.
Ken has fallen into the trap of legitimising people like Qaradawi who represent only the conservative, salafist end of islam and the Qutbist end of islamism.
Thirdly, as Ken pointed out when he expressed his condemnation of Le Pen’s visit to the UK:
“We should also learn the lesson of France, that it is possible for fascists to gain a hearing by seeking to appear as legitimate politicians.
Why is Ken dealing with Qaradawi.
There are two explanations, neither of them attractive.
(A) Ken thinks that muslims are broadly salafists and qutbists, and that we need to talk to people like Qaradawi in order to bring them into the mainstream, and avoid terrorist attacks on London.
In other words, its kind of a parallel with the hand of friendship which Ken stretched out to the IRA.
I’m not going to discuss the rights and wrongs of making that particular advance at that particular time, and in that particular manner.
I’ll also put to one side somewhat dodgy views of the politics of British muslims that Ken’s approach entails.
However, there was always a real prospect of bringing the IRA into the mainstream, because they are ultimately a political movement with realisable goals. The same cannot be said of religious fundamentalism.
Qaradawi, in contrast, can’t modify his views on suicide bombers, or gays, or women, because he thinks – to quote the Blues Brothers – that he is on a mission from god.
(B) The reason that Ken Livingstone plays footsie with radical islamists is that
– either he thinks that Qutbism is a kind of anti-imperialist liberation politics; or
– he knows it for the reactionary, dangerous force that it is but doesn’t care because it shares some aspects of his own political agenda.
I suspect that its the former rather than the latter.
I don’t know if people here know anything about the development in the 20th century of Qutbism. Its certainly a form of anti-imperialism. However, its locus of struggle is not arab lands as much as the muslim heart. Its main battleground is the struggle between modernism and tradition, materialism and “spirituality”, liberalism and orthodoxy. The specific positions which Qutb himself took on all these issues are poisonous ones. I recommend people to read some of his works. You can order some of them here. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/026-1186850-2706864. There’s a short biography of him here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,584478,00.html
Its possible that Ken simply doesn’t know anything about radical islamism. Alternatively, perhaps he thinks that the extreme social positions taken by radical islamists are some sort of desperate, misdirected, cry against western imperialism, and therefore to be ignored.
I don’t regard all muslims as islamist: in fact, I have a friend who regards himself spiritually as “wahabi” but politically as a classical liberal. Neither do I regard all islamists as “islamofascists”, because they clearly aren’t. Its possible to be an islamist whose political programme is not too far removed from that of a christian democrat. However that is not the end of the spectrum at which Qaradawi sits.
So, in summary, who really cares about Qaradawi. Let him believe what he wants and preach to whoever buys this sort of thing.
But if Ken Livingstone meets with him, praises him for speaking “uncomfortable truths”, refuses to convene the GLA’s own LGBT forum, and then dismisses criticism of Qaradawi – based almost exclusively on his own translations of his own fatwa on http://www.islamonline.com as an israeli plot – fronted up by that notorious Zionist, Peter Tatchell(!)- then it really is important for us to point this out.
Incidentally, the most outrageous part of the Livingstone press conference is when a Saudi journalist implies that the attacks on Qaradawi in the british press is the product of jewish ownership of the media. Livingstone responds by reveling in the fall of the former owner of the Telegraph “and his wife”.
That he chose not to state openly “There is no jewish conspiracy”, but instead sought to bolster it by bringing in Conrad Black’s wife, speaks volumes.
David T 01.16.05 at 8:21 pm
Dsquared
My point is that there is a very small community of people that we’re trying to talk to here and that there is an even smaller number of people that they listen to.
Qaradawi isn’t Al Muhajaroun. He hates them.
This is a bit like saying “we should really talk to Sean Matgamna because we’re worried about getting through to the 2000 members of the SWP.
There are indeed a tiny number of extreme jihadist islamists. Qaradawi won’t get through to them, because he’s a relative moderate. He’s not a Gerry Adams figure, in comparative terms.
My view is that jihadists should be dealt with by prosecution, if they commit criminal acts, and by marginalising them politically if they don’t.
Any other policy gives these people a status and authority that they don’t have and don’t deserve.
rd 01.17.05 at 2:08 am
Don’t be silly. The Livingstone response refers to suicide bombings that Human Rights Watch regards as atrocities. This can only refer to killing Israeli civilians. Qardawi recognizes no distinctions between Israeli soldiers and civilians, a common enough opinion in the Middle East, but still a disgusting one.
Luc 01.17.05 at 3:49 am
David T., I find it strange that you, and the others at hurryupharry dismiss the mayor of London that easily, while embracing people who spout the following nonsense:
‘This fake Islamic Hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It
is the symbol of totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than
by Islam…. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed…’
If smearing people who wear a hijab with Nazism is your style then say so. It fits nicely with your humour of associating your opponents with some oldfashioned Hitleresque handwaving.
But unless you agree with that nonsense, you’re able to distinguish between various opinions, their form, and the people behind them. Thinking that the hijab ban in France was a good idea, i hate to be associated with ideas stated above.
Why is Ken dealing with Qaradawi.
There are two explanations, neither of them attractive.
And there is the explanation given in his statement, so duly ignored by you.
A mayor is there for all Londoners. Thus if he has to make a judgement wether to meet or not, it is a perfectly sane decision to do so. Though I do think it is nothing to be proud of, it is neither something to dismiss with the vengeance and fascism shouting style you do at Harry’s Place.
As undoubtedly someone will ask, where does he mentioned fascism?
Here:
Parse that and Qaradawi sits at the end of the spectrum where he calls him islamofascist.
dsquared 01.17.05 at 8:37 am
My view is that jihadists should be dealt with by prosecution, if they commit criminal acts, and by marginalising them politically if they don’t.
Well, this is where we disagree then. It’s my view that we have tried that policy with white racists across Europe and it hasn’t worked, not all that well. I would support a more inclusive policy of talking to anyone who doesn’t advocate violence about how they can improve their own lives by their own values, while maintaining our refusal to compromise our own. And yes, I think that probably would mean someone (not necessarily Ken) sharing a platform with Le Pen.
I also don’t think you’re using sound principles of triage with respect to the UK community. You’re at some points talking about “all Muslims” (for whom you are right to say that Qaradawi makes a poor figurehead) and at some points talking about committed jihadis (who I’ll take your word for it that they hate Qaradawi as well). I think that this is precisely the quality in Qaradawi that I regard as useful, on the basis of the following triage:
1) Normal, nonviolent Muslims
2) Jihadis
3) Muslims who are not currently Jihadis but who might become jihadis.
It’s the third group I would focus on; people like Yasmin’s brother in the film. The message that it is more holy to stay where you are and live as good a Muslim life as possible, than to defend your Muslim brothers by flying aeroplanes into buildings needs maximum publicity. If al-Muhajiroun and Qaradawi’s mob don’t like each other, then surely every recruit into Qaradawi’s brand of wahabism is one less terrorist, isn’t it?
Finally, I’d really like to hear your opinion on what I thought was the most interesting part of the dossier, after the stuff on the Iraq claims; according to Ken, Qaradawi is no longer a “Qutbist” in the sense you appear to be using.
David T 01.17.05 at 10:10 am
Well, blimey.
Ken sort of makes this point in his Dossier: what it boils down to is the thought that the british muslim community is essentially a reservoir of would-be-jihadis, and that therefore we have to form alliances with sensible extremists, so that they don’t kill us.
The flip side of that argument is the jihadwatch thesis: that islam tends to extremism and terrorism and that we should fight them on the beaches rather than appease them etc.
The logical conclusion of the first position is that somebody should also extend the hand of friendship to Le Pen – but only if the french extreme right becomes a direct threat to us.
I’m not buying into that. First, I don’t believe that there are significant numbers of would-be-jihadis. Secondly, I do believe that you legitimise these sorts of people if you extend the hand of friendship to them. That’s what the left has always said about the extreme right: why should it be any different because some of the extreme rightwingers have brown rather than white skin?
The policy of imprisoning white racists when they commit criminal acts and keeping them out of the political mainstream when they don’t has worked rather well, I think.
Qaradawi may or may not have moved away from qutbism. Given that every claim made in the Livingstone dossier about Qaradawi’s position that I’ve investigated turns out to be distorted or false, I’m not inclined to trust him on this one. In addition, the relationship between the egyptian establishment and the muslim brotherhood has been a vexed one: ranging from suppression to alliance and back over time. As he has risen in prominence as a cleric, he has played down his politics. Which is a sensible thing to do.
David T 01.17.05 at 10:31 am
Oh how weird. I thought I’d pressed “post”, but now it has gone.
What I said, in summary, was this:
– the thesis that the british muslim community is a reservoir of potential jihadists is not one to which I subscribe
– the flip side of that argument is effectively the Pim Fortuyn thesis, which I also reject
– If you’re right, of course, it is tantamount to saying that we should start dealing with the far right in the UK when their chums start to commit acts of terrorism.
– I think that dealing with white racists who commit criminal acts, and not engaging politically with those who do not has been a successful strategy.
– Livingstone might be right about the nature of Qaradawi’s political journey. Politically, he might be “less bad” a qutbist than he has been, or alternatively he might be playing realpolitik in a country which has had a vexed relationship with the muslim brotherhood over time. I will need to look into this claim independently: pretty much everything else Livingstone says about Qaradawi’s theology is falsifiable by reference to islamonline, so I’m loth to take anything he says at face value.
Jimmy Doyle 01.17.05 at 10:32 am
Chris on July 20th last year:
“One thought that went through my mind during the recent fuss over the visit of Yussef al-Qaradawi to Britain was this: what did those who, after September 11th, uttered variations on “Islam needs a Reformation†expect the agents of such a Reformation to look like? Martin Luther or Calvin maybe? Because those guys had some pretty nasty views, and yet …”
Ie It’s only natural to expect Islamic “reformers” who have any hope of getting through to the *real* extremists will have some pretty repellent views.
D2 on Sept 4 last year:
“the claque screaming for [al-Qaradawi]to be denounced from the rooftops seemed so bloody appalling (and was so chock full of people who had axes to grind and seemed unconcerned about distorting the truth while grinding them) that I for one was reluctant to join it.”
Ie We should take criticism of al-Qaradawi with a shovelful of salt, because it’s coming from people like Harry and Nick Cohen, who as all right-thinking people know, are simply hysterical on the subject of Islamism.
D2 today:
“On a number of issues; apologism for suicide bombers, advocacy of killing gays, wife-beating, etc, it seems pretty clear that Qaradawi is possessed of some fairly horrible reactionary views. This isn’t much of a surprise; to be honest, it was free information which could simply be read off the fact that he is a fundamentalist imam.”
Ie Maybe those allegations about al-Qaradawi were true after all, but now I come to think of it, they’re so obvious as to be not even worth stating.
The sound of special pleading on CT is becoming deafening. I’d like to see just one other context in which you’re prepared to bend over this far backwards to distance yourselves from people whose (quite understandable) reaction to al-Qaradawi is “this man has abhorrent views, and people like Livingstone should not be pandering to him.” Would you have taken such a nuanced view of the Mayor of London embracing Ernst Rohm, on the ground that he would be our best hope of “reforming” the Nazis’ attitude toward homosexuals?
Jimmy Doyle 01.17.05 at 10:59 am
And another thing…
“[Al-Qaradawi] is a very important player here; he is someone who has credibility with the people who we want to turn away from violence, and he is (caveats above) against the use of terrorist violence. It is unfortunate, but hardly coincidental, that he has a lot of repugnant views.”
D2 to Islamists: Please don’t kill us. Hearken to your moderate colleague, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi: focus on Jews and gays instead.
Don’t we have a duty of solidarity here? It shouldn’t matter whether a repellent ideologue legitimates the murder of Jews and gays and the beating of women, or the annihilation of the West generally. Our opposition to him shouldn’t depend on whether he’s targeting us personally.
David T 01.17.05 at 11:30 am
What makes the reformation important is not that it was a “liberalisation” of christian views, but rather that it prefigured that split the link between church and state.
Ian 01.17.05 at 1:51 pm
Well said Jimmy Doyle, I was wondering when someone was going to point out Crooked Timber’s volte face in relation to Islamism.
Len 01.17.05 at 3:25 pm
Ian,
Crooked Timber’s volte face in relation to Islamism
Volte face? Islamism was never a problem on CT, beyond the usual disclaimers; it’s always “Islamophobia”. (Good thing Jews aren’t flying planes into buildings otherwise anti-semitism might become a real issue. Oh, never mind, they’re just too small a voting bloc.)
dsquared 01.17.05 at 3:30 pm
I don’t see this volte-face. The quotes Jimmy’s excerpted look pretty consistent to me; Qaradawi is not a nice man and not going to be our friend, but by the standards of Islamic fundamentalists, he’s not too bad and he’s not so bad that we can’t talk to him.
Jimmy has quite a good point with:
Don’t we have a duty of solidarity here?
My response would be that I’m not sure what’s meant by “solidarity” here. If what you’re suggesting is that we can just hunker down in the UK and ignore the fundametnalist Islamic world except to occasionally pop up and call them a bunch of savages, then I don’t agree with that; some things did change forever on September 10th. If on the other hand, you’re suggesting that we need to go out and take action to make the Middle East, all of it, safe for Jews and gays, then I don’t think that’s practical. I think that the best we can do at present in terms of solidarity in the world which actually exists out there is probably to offer generous political asylum arrangements.
Because I don’t believe in Godwin’s Law, I’ll take on your Ernst Rohm example head-on. I think it’s misplaced. One of the very many mistakes we made with respect to Germany in the 1930s was that we didn’t do anything to help the non-fascist socialist parties, because we decided that all German populist socialist movements were the same. We didn’t make a distinction between violent and non-violent movements, we didn’t practice divide and conquer, and as a result the German working class rallied round the very nastiest and most extreme popular movement that there was. So I think that this example can be made to fit my argument as much as yours, which means that we’re probably best not pursuing it.
Finally, David:
what it boils down to is the thought that the british muslim community is essentially a reservoir of would-be-jihadis
I think my actual view is that the british Muslim community has within it a reservoir of potential jihadis, which is subtly but importantly different – in particular, I don’t think that there is a problem with respect to the majority of British Muslims, which is why I’m trying to get away from arguments about who represents the mainstream of British Muslim opinion. If you look back at the interviews with the Londoners who ended up in the al-Mahdi army, don’t you wish that they’d been listening to Qaradawi rather than whoever they were listening to (probably Abu Hamza given the timing).
I’m also prepared to swallow your reductio on the subject of white racists; I’ve thought for a very long time that the exclusion of fascists from mainstream politics in the UK has been bad news for domestic politics. Not only has it helped to create dangerous alienation among the white working class in a number of Northern towns, it has also tempted mainstream parties to go for the fascist vote by playing silly-buggers with immigration policy. I’m enough of a classical liberal to believe that democracy in the UK would be strengthened rather than weakened if the 5% of the UK population who are fascists were made to bring their arguments out into the open. (tangentially, I think it’s downright inconsistent for people to make such a noise over Bekhti or JSTO but to stand up for basically the same kind of censorship of the fascists).
David T 01.17.05 at 4:18 pm
Hmmm.
I think we should have this argument explicitly in those terms then. You’re the only person I’ve come across who has put the argument in such a direct form
Its an argument which I would certainly buy if I thought that this country was a hotbed of potential jihadis. It is certainly suggested by the Muhajarounis that it is …
The flip side of the argument is the “legitimising” one. And I think you have to be very careful that when you open dialogues with salafists, you don’t do so on the basis that we’re all good chums together, with a few minor differences, but on the basis that we’re making desperate alliances in a a desperate situation.
The other danger is that, if you start admitting that you’re only talking to the non-violent religious nutters because you’re trying to save the UK from the violent religious nutters, the real votewinners will be the politicians who run Pim Fortyn line.
Jimmy Doyle 01.17.05 at 4:19 pm
“My response would be that I’m not sure what’s meant by “solidarity†here. If what you’re suggesting is that we can just hunker down in the UK and ignore the fundametnalist Islamic world except to occasionally pop up and call them a bunch of savages, then I don’t agree with that; some things did change forever on September 10th. If on the other hand, you’re suggesting that we need to go out and take action to make the Middle East, all of it, safe for Jews and gays, then I don’t think that’s practical.”
What I mean by “solidarity” is quite straightforward. If someone is calling for the murder of Jews and homosexuals and the beating of women, we have a straightforward duty of solidarity with Jews, gays and women to condemn that person unreservedly and oppose what they say. This doesn’t mean that they should be criminalised: I’m as opposed to gagging al-Qaradawi as I am to gagging the BNP. But Livingstone’s hospitality to al-Qaradawi was entirely voluntary and went far beyond any duty not to stifle unpopular views (to say no more than that). D2 seems to envisage liberals saying to Jews, gays and women: “Yes, I know we’re shaking hands with a guy who advocates murdering you/beating you up — but you have to realise that he’s our best hope of dissuading these other people who are even worse. What’s that? What do we mean by ‘even worse’? Well, you see, these other people are all set to go after *us*! I mean to say, that really *is* beyond the pale, no? I’m sure you’ll understand.” Include me out.
David T 01.17.05 at 4:35 pm
a
David T 01.17.05 at 4:38 pm
a
dsquared 01.17.05 at 4:49 pm
Jimmy: What I think I’m saying is “Jews and gays, you are presumably aware that the Islamic world is not a good place to be a Jew or a gay. Come over here to the non-Islamic world and we’ll let you in. We can’t do anything about the Islamic world at present because we have neither the resources nor the stomach to subdue it by violence, but we will maintain the frontier that protects you, and we will not recognise any leadership of our domestic Islamic community which attempts to make you feel unsafe here”.
This is how we dealt (at our best; we didn’t always live up to this standard) with Soviet Jews and Vietnamese boat people, and how we should deal today with Jamaican gays and Irish women who need abortions.
David: maddening isn’t it? I promise that your post did get through and will respond to it shortly.
Jimmy Doyle 01.17.05 at 5:01 pm
“Jews and gays…we will not recognise any leadership of our domestic Islamic community which attempts to make you feel unsafe here.”
That’s not quite the whole story, is it, D2? Shouldn’t you have added:
“…but we do reserve the right to cozy up to *non*-domestic Islamic leaders who advocate your murder, if we deem that this will help minimise the chances of yet *other* Islamic leaders advocating not just your murder, but ours as well.”
Oddly enough, the bit you left out is exactly the bit I object to.
David_T 01.17.05 at 5:07 pm
dsquared
It did suddenly occur to me that the problem might not be your software, but my companys proxy. So I posted this through another proxy and discovered my slightly spastic stutters above. Please delete them!
My point is that if Ken had convened the GLA LGBT committee, and explained to them that
– he was convinced that headbangers from Luton were gearing up to bomb the UK; and
– he was hoping to divert them by getting them on to the methadone of Qaradawi;
… then they wouldn’t suspect that he was only chumming up to Qaradawi because of their common interest in hating that Yanks and Yids.
dsquared 01.17.05 at 5:21 pm
David: I would certainly agree that Ken himself was full of it.
Jimmy: This is exactly the position which we take with respect to, for example, the Chinese government with respect to dissidents, the Russian government with respect to Chechens and indeed anybody else who it would be dangerous to ignore. From my point of view, your form of “solidarity” has real and tangible costs versus vague and emotional benefits.
David T 01.17.05 at 5:24 pm
:)
Jimmy Doyle 01.17.05 at 5:32 pm
It is not clear to me that we shouldn’t be ashamed of ourselves for palling around with Putin and the Chinese powers that be. But even if we shouldn’t, there’s a crucial difference from al-Qaradawi. The Chinese and Russian governments do not advocate the murder of people who happen to be UK citizens. If they did, it would certainly be right to be outraged at Livingstone, or any other UK public official, offering them the hand of friendship. Livingstone claims to represent the interests of, inter alios, gays and Jews. How is that compatible with holding hands with someone who advocates their murder, purely in the hope that he and his kind will eat us last? I’m sorry, but I find your “pragmatic” line on this issue malodorous.
dsquared 01.17.05 at 5:43 pm
I think we’re at cross purposes here, Jimmy. My understanding, from those parts of the dossier that have not yet been falsified, is that Qaradawi is not in favour of killing UK citizens. He believes in sharia law (and some forms of sharia prescribe the death penalty for homosexual acts), and he’s an apologist for Palestianian suicide bombers. But he isn’t trying to extend sharia law to non-sharia states and he thinks that Muslims living in non-sharia states should abide by the local law (which presumably includes not murdering gays or Jews). Am I wrong on this?
David T 01.17.05 at 5:48 pm
In fairness to Dr Q, the only english jews he wants to kill are those who happen to be in israel. And he wouldn’t necessarily kill gayers: he might have them flogged and imprisoned for life instead. And, then, only if they were stupid enough to live in a state ruled by sharia law.
There are certainly ways to go about building strategic contacts with unpleasant totalitarian regimes, and circumstances in which it is unavoidable.
Nixon visiting China is one thing. Ken inviting Qaradawi is a rather different thing.
David T 01.17.05 at 6:05 pm
My arguments, btw, have been based upon Q’s own theology on islamonline.com.
I don’t think that it has been suggested – although my memory may be faulty on this – that Q was preaching that it was the religious duty of british muslims to kill english jews and gays. The point that was being made was that
– he was the most prominent theologians advocating suicide bombings against israelis: in which he specifically did not diferentiate between children, other civilians and soldiers.
– likewise, he stressed the justice and necessity of the harsh punishment of homosexuals under islamic law
– he backed female circumcision
– he regarded the hijab as obligatory for muslim women.
There are other points made by Tachell, some of which are sourced directly or indirectly from Memri, and some of which are not. The only one which springs to mind is his view on who the insurgency were allowed to kill in iraq, and I can’t remember what his line was said to be. Its not the main point.
The form the Livingstone rebuttal takes is
– alleging that MEMRI is partisan (no? really?!!) and inaccurate
– references to Q’s repeated denial in the british media that he thinks that muslims in britain should be stabbing gays and jews.
As to the second point, I don’t think that even Al Muhajaroun tell their members to go out and murder gays and jews.
My impression of the claim about “incitement” is similar in nature to the point that used to be made about Enoch Powell: that when he talked in colourful terms about race war, and then advocated repatriation, that his rhetoric would “whip up racial hatred”, notwithstanding that he sought merely to change the law to reduce the number of “immigrants” in Britain.
David T 01.17.05 at 6:11 pm
Incidentally, D2, are you in favour of reducing or ending muslim immigration? Either generally, or – for example – by restricting the immigration into this country of “extremist” muslim religious teachers
That does seem to be one of the possible policy choices which your “subset of jihadi” thesis might invite.
abb1 01.17.05 at 6:13 pm
…only english jews he wants to kill are those who happen to be in israel…
No, he doesn’t.
What he does advocate is attacking a certain state that has been holding 3 million people under military occupation for 37 years; and Mr. Qaradawi has apparently concluded that these people have run out of all less egregious options to resist the occupation.
If you, morally superior fellas, don’t like this situation, then you should leave Messrs. Qaradawi and Livingstone alone and spend your time demanding that this state ends the occupation.
David T 01.17.05 at 6:17 pm
Or what?
Are you going to search us out and blow yourself up?
David T 01.17.05 at 6:20 pm
PS – this website is your ally.
Please do your best to identify and warn your friends before you autocombust.
abb1 01.17.05 at 6:32 pm
Hey David, where did all you phony thoughtfulness go – is this all it takes?
Or what?
Nothing, just stop begging for solidarity – you sound pathetic.
David T 01.17.05 at 7:30 pm
This isn’t my blog, and it would be rude of me to use it to tell you precisely what I thought of you.
abb1 01.17.05 at 7:42 pm
What have I done or said that you find so objectionable?
abb1 01.17.05 at 7:46 pm
abb1 you’re being tendentious. Even the Livingstone response doesn’t try to make the distinction you do because Qardawi himself doesn’t make it. He supports Palestinian suicide bombings, the overwhelming majority of which over the last three years have been attacks on Israeli civilians, not the Israeli occupying state. Many Muslim theologians in the region, including Qardawi, say this is fine because Israeli civilians either have served or could serve at some point in the army. Qardawi’s point about not being able to attack F-16s or tanks is precisely the grounds on which he supports attacking civilians.
Jimmy Doyle 01.17.05 at 7:47 pm
D2: There are quotes on Islamonline which appear to be from al-Qaradawi which look forward to a global sharia caliphate (http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=64602). If they do report his words, even if he’s not advocating the murder of gays in the UK now, he longs for a regime in the UK (as elsewhere) under which gays would be thrown from high buildings or given 100 lashes or whatever.
Even if these quotes are not from al-Qaradawi, and he doesn’t yearn for a global sharia caliphate, I don’t see how any reasonable person could deny that he thinks that homosexuals everywhere *deserve* severe punishment, and if there’s anywhere it shouldn’t be meted out right now, that’s just for pragmatic reasons:
“The West, however, wishes to turn homosexuality into something acceptable by society. Not only that, but laws and regulations are being construed to legalize this sin and many of the issues surrounding it.”
(from http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-1.shtml)
“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.”
(from http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=100855)
Will anyone seriously maintain that al-Qaradawi thinks that the *moral* status of homosexuality depends on whether it is practiced in a Muslim country or not?
As for Jews, David T is surely right (*pace* abb1) that “the only English Jews he wants to kill are those who happen to be in israel.” He advocates “martyrdom operations,” which notoriously involve the murder of children, against *Jews* in Israel, not (surely) Israelis generally; I assume he would think Jewish visitors from the UK (and their children) fair game.
How much difference should the following make to liberals’ — or, *a fortiori*, gays’ or Jews’ — conception of al-Qaradawi: He doesn’t think that British Muslims should actually go out and kill gays — but he does think they (all of them, including the Londoners Ken purports to represent) deserve to die (or be given 100 lashes). And he doesn’t want to kill British Jews unless they go to Israel — in which case they should be killed because they’re Jews — even if they’re Londoners Ken purports to represent.
Livingstone should be publicly reaching out to this person in order get some leverage with the *really* bad guys? Why are we discussing this again?
rd 01.17.05 at 7:51 pm
abb1’s name somehow got copied instead of mine in the post above. My apologies
Jimmy Doyle 01.17.05 at 7:59 pm
And another thing…
“From my point of view, your form of ‘solidarity’ has real and tangible costs versus vague and emotional benefits.”
My understanding of solidarity is that it is not practiced for the sake of “emotional benefits,” vague or not; its point is precisely that it’s not subject to a “what’s in it for me?” cost-benefit analysis. An expression of “solidarity up to the point where it starts to become costly” is not an expression of solidarity at all.
dsquared 01.17.05 at 8:04 pm
David: I’m happy to operate the same standard for Muslim immigration in general; if you look violent or socially disruptive, eff off, otherwise laissez faire, laissez passer.
Jimmy:
1) I said right at the top of the post that I think the general issue of demonising Qaradawi is separate from the issue of Ken meeting him, so I’m not sure who you’re arguing against there.
2) One might as well say that George Bush is in favour of killing English Jews if they happen to be in Fallujah. I am certainly prepared to drop Qaradawi like a stone if I think his apologism has crossed the line, but it seems to me that his apologism is limited in time and circumstance as well as space; it’s specific to one particular conflict, and only while there is an imbalance of force affecting the Palestinians.
3) If “liberal” is to have its conventional meaning, I don’t see how you can argue that it is “liberal” to impose sanctions on someone simply for believing that X, no matter how vile X might be. Surely the entire essence of being a liberal is that one only starts getting involved when someone actually causes trouble or incites others to do so? Free speech isn’t just there for the nice things in life like satirical operas.
abb1 01.17.05 at 8:17 pm
OK, rd. I give up. Hateful Arabs want to kill Jews and Jews want to kill militants while waiting for a credible partner for peace to emerge. There is no moral equivalency. That’s the story.
Peace brother, hold your fire.
rd 01.17.05 at 8:19 pm
george bush is in favor of killing english jews (fantastically) fighting as insurgents in Fallujah. Qardawi is in favor of targetting and killing any jewish civilan in Israel. The logic being that the Israeli army can’t be confronted directly. but of course that’s exactly Al-Quada’s logic. Since the “near enemy” (Arab governments) and the “far enemy”‘s (America and the West) armed forces are too strong, its legitimate to attack the far enemy’s civilians. Attempts to “bracket” atrocities against Israel civilians ignore the fact that once you give that logic a quasi-legitimacy, it inevitably spreads.
Jimmy Doyle 01.17.05 at 8:33 pm
D2:
1) OK; I actually found it difficult to figure out what you thought about the specific issue of Livingstone’s meeting al-Qaradawi; as the discussion progressed, I assumed you thought it was OK, given your remarks about the Russians and Chinese. In any case, you do say that “it [doesn’t make]…all that much sense to demonise Qaradawi and say that he is a) as bad as the rest of them and b) persona non grata everywhere in the UK.”
2) Sophistry. The point is that al Qaradawi advocates the killing of Jews in Israel *because they’re Jews*. One emphatically might *not* as well say that “George Bush is in favour of killing English Jews if they happen to be in Fallujah,” because his ground for killing them would not be the fact that *they are Jews*. This kind of thing matters a lot; that’s why the law is harder on hate crime. “I am certainly prepared to drop Qaradawi like a stone if I think his apologism has crossed the line.” What — advocacy of deliberate murder of children not repugnant enough for ya? What about his clearly believing that all homosexuals deserve to die/ receive 100 lashes? Doesn’t matter because he stops short of urging UK Muslims to insist upon implementation?
As for 3) “If ‘liberal’ is to have its conventional meaning, I don’t see how you can argue that it is ‘liberal’ to impose sanctions on someone simply for believing that X, no matter how vile X might be. Surely the entire essence of being a liberal is that one only starts getting involved when someone actually causes trouble or incites others to do so? Free speech isn’t just there for the nice things in life like satirical operas.”
I’m afraid you’ve lost me. I never said that any sanctions should be imposed on al-Qaradawi; I merely said that decency and common cause with the Jews and homosexuals he would be happy to see dead should inhibit us from “reaching out” to him, going out of our way to give him a platform, embracing him on stage, asking him if he’ll put in a word on our behalf with the *serious* jihadis, etc etc. I explicitly said, “I’m as opposed to gagging al-Qaradawi as I am to gagging the BNP. But Livingstone’s hospitality to al-Qaradawi was entirely voluntary and went far beyond any duty not to stifle unpopular views (to say no more than that).” I’m not sure how I could have made things clearer.
David T 01.17.05 at 8:48 pm
D2
So to summarise your argument
1. There are a significant number of british would-be jihadis who would be impressed by a religious fundamentalist stressing the need to avoid committing a terrorist atrocity in the UK, and who might be diverted from joining Al Muhajaroun if prominent british politicians are regularly seen greeting that fundamentalist warmly.
2. However at the same time, violent and socially disruptive people should not be allowed into the country.
Is the thinking that Dr Q is not sufficiently violent or socially disruptive to be kept out, because he only wants to kill jews in israel and gays in islamic countries, and that he thinks that the hijab is obligatory for muslim women, and doesn’t urge british muslims to take up arms against the state.
Or would we want to keep out theologians who wanted to emigrate to the UK who held those views, permitting them merely to visit?
This was basically the position of Omar Bakri Mohammed until very very recently. His thesis was that muslims in the UK operated under a covenant, and that it would be improper to breach that covenant by committing acts of terrorism.
However he has now altered his position.
Who’d have thought it?
dsquared 01.17.05 at 9:07 pm
Jimmy: hmmmm I can see how the phrase “Verdict: No he shouldn’t” might be open to a variety of interpretations. As I understand it, however, your interpretation of the Qadarawi-ite position on suicide bombers is wrong. He regards it as permissible because and only because of the specific circumstances of the intifada. If those circumstances changed, then the Jews would still be Jews, but suicide bombing would no longer be permissible.
David:
and who might be diverted from joining Al Muhajaroun if prominent british politicians are regularly seen greeting that fundamentalist warmly
No, it’s not about “prominent British politicians” Any handshake sessions with prominent British politicians would most likely have the same effect on Qadarawi’s credibility that they did for Noel Gallagher or Ben Elton.
I want Qadarawi to be taking part in the conversation in British Islam, of which conversation no prominent British politician is a part, not even George Galloway. The only role I really see for prominent British politicians in this is a negative one; like unprominent British bloggers, they can help by not creating situations where the news media are full of negative headlines about non-terrorist fundamentalists, which serve as persuasive evidence to the third triage group that our objection is to Islam rather than to violence.
The headline post isn’t very well-written or (ex the Harry’s Place debate) particularly coherent, as Jeremy notes, but the message was meant to be that demonising Qadarawi is likely to be about as big a mistake as endorsing him. I’m trying to avoid both mistakes; sorry that’s not clearer.
On the subject of Omar Bakri Mohammed, I’d note that this trajectory (of someone respoding to pressure by taking a harder line) is not exactly uncommon; I would imagine that if you guys, Nick Cohen and Melanie Phillips tried really hard, you could probably push Qadarawi down the same path. Not sure it would be all that much of a victory though.
David T 01.17.05 at 9:11 pm
But I do take your general point.
My main objection is that muslims don’t end up in the arms of jihadis because they’re reverting to a “purer”, more authentic form of islam: although they’ll say they are. British jihadis are not poor simple deeply religious peasants who have come to the UK and flailled around for spiritual guidance until they’re picked up by Al Muj or worse.
Rather, these are people like you and me. I’ve mentioned this before, but one of my university friends ended up pretty high up in Al Muj, and he was basically not a muslim at all prior to his epiphany. His mates were almost all white, he was a beer monster and a stoner, he hung out with people who were vaguely politically involved on the left.
In other words, he joined Al Muj the way that some people joined – oh, I don’t know – the SWP.
Once you’ve joined these sorts organisations, of course, you present it to yourself and others as a discovery of your true consciousness. But the truth is that this guy was radicalised by some cunning political operators who had a convincing and coherent political and religious thesis to peddle.
There’s a danger that when we begin to practice communal politics, we deliver ordinary people into the hands of nutters, simply because they turn up and say “I’m the authentic voice of the muslim people worldwide”.
Anyhow, thank you for a very nice and switched on discussion.
David T 01.17.05 at 9:19 pm
PS. OBM takes his queue from god, not from Melanie Phillips.
And he’s been saying this sort of thing – and worse – for years. All that has changed is that in the past he’s said “be very careful or else Britain will break its covenant with muslims and then they’ll be able to declare jihad on you”.
Reading the Times report more carefully, that’s pretty much all he’s still saying.
This is reminiscent of the sort of thing the Tories used to do: declare some dismal unconscionable reform, and then retreat from it to a very slightly less objectionable position. Everybody breathed an enormous sigh of relief that compromise had prevailed …
Comments on this entry are closed.