A fascinating take on London Mayor Ken Livingstone's recent guest of honour, Sheikh Dr Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, who denied claims that he was an extremist and claimed to be in favour of dialogue and peace. But according to Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, the former editor of the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, this is the opposite of the truth. He says of Quaradhawi:

'Two weeks ago, he announced on his program ["Sharia and Life" on Al-Jazeera] that he is against the Jews and against conducting a dialogue with them, and that they are all iniquitous. The f ollowing are his words: "The iniquity of the Jews, as a community, is obvious and apparent. Let me explain: The West, I can say about some of them [i.e. westerners] who are iniquitous, and others who are not iniquitous. And it is possible. But iniquity on the part of the Jews is great iniquity, grave iniquity, iniquity that is incomparable and overt. Therefore, when it was suggested to me that Jews would be participating in the dialogue in the upcoming interview, I rejected this. I said no, we should not conduct a dialogue with these [people] while their hands are stained with our blood."

'If Al-Qaradhawi had said that he was against the Israelis, then perhaps we would have understood the meaning. But he generalized and he said that it is permissible to have a dialogue with the Christians, and he criticized having a dialogue with the Jews. Al-Qaradhawi is free to have his views, but the question is, why does he relinquish his own statements for the sake of a visa, acting like others whose voices resound from our pulpits attacking the infidels, but who, when they line up in the embassies [to apply for visas], change their words.

'When it comes to political matters, Al-Qaradhawi represents the utmost degree of extremism, to the point that he recently ridiculed the Organization of the Islamic Conference, when he openly expressed his desire and that of his revolutionary friends for political leadership, saying, "We want the ulama to represent the Islamic nation [i.e. the OIC does not represent the Muslims]." He also demanded [that the Islamic nation should obtain] the nuclear bomb, saying, "In order to shed this backwardness, we must produce a nuclear bomb, as did Pakistan, and as perhaps Iran is doing. However, we are besieged so that we will continue to be weak." '

As for the thought that maybe Ken was simply unaware of his guest's real views, another writer, Iraqi emigre Hassan Assad, not only dismisses this but offers a brutally uncharitable interpretation. Islamists, he says, deluded themselves that they had defeated communism in Afghanistan whereas this was actually accomplished by Christians and Jews. When the Islamists then turned against the west, their former Marxist foes joined forces with them. Hence Ken's (literal) embrace of Quaradhawi:

'The mayor of London understands very well who his guest really is… However, he helps Al-Qaradhawi deny the accusations against him because he shares his hostility for that civilization that removed from the world the totalitarian Marxist ideology, represented by the Soviet Union and its satellites.'

Mayor Ken -- the man newly re-embraced by Tony Blair as the Labour lamb returned to the fold.

Posted by melanie at July 28, 2004