Harry's Place

The essence of his argument is that Qaradawi is a wholly mainstream figure in Islam, and that “right person to speak on [the role of Muslims] is a Muslim scholar”. That is, incidentally, a mirror of the position of some commentators – such as Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch – whose criticism of islam frequently strays into islamophobia. Both appear to agree that religious zealots should be regarded as the authentic voice of their faith.

Missing the point. Qaradawi is an authentic voice. But he is just one authority. In Islam there is no central authority on the doctrine, there are simply a range of scholars interpreting the religious texts. Hence people can have a dialogue with Qaradawi (which is necessary on some level because he has a following) but can have dialogue with others too.

Getting into arguments about who is (or who should be) the authority or who exclusively speaks for others is barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, sure.

And Le Pen is an authentic voice of French nationalists.

We don’t embrace him.

We’ve had this discussion.

Who else shouldn’t “we” be talking to? Should the Northern Irish peace process be abandoned because of the religious bigotory of Ian Paisley? Should all contact with the new Iraqi government be severed because their spiritual leader wants to ban chess? Should we stop talking to Jamaicans because they share the homphobic attitudes of their prime minister, PJ Paterson?

What you seem to forget is that culture and religion are deeply intertwined, and that you cannot define a nation, community or individual simply by selecting the worst aspect of their cultural baggage and then declaring them persona non grata. Moreover, it was only a generation ago that Britian (which is a very modern industrial society), went through its own cultural and social revolution. The outcome of which remains a site of struggle to the present day.

It is a form of arrogance bordering on racism that supposes that white Westerners have the right to decide who is, and who is not, a legitimate representative of another culture. In common with religious people of all denominations, Qaradawi may indeed hold some deeply reactionary views on social issues. But if he speaks for a significant section of the Muslim community (which feels itself to be under seige – for a whole range of reasons mostly unconnected with women and gays), then it is important that he is both listened to and critisised where appropriate.

I do think the writers on Harry’s Place should be more honest about their motivations, and more consistent in their approach to social issues. The attacks on Ken Livingstone have everything to do with his opposition to the war, and nothing to do with imagined anti-semitism or being soft on homophobia.

David T

You can do better than that, surely?

You dismiss Yusuf Smith using an irrelevant frame. You don’t demonstrate how you understand the religion at all. Qaradawi is not a like a party leader (since that is your weak analogy), he is one authority in a religion that does not have central authority on doctrine.

You got to start with basic realities. Qaradawi is one authority. No amount of liberal handwringing is going to change that reality.

But the positive side for liberals lies in this decentralised structure. But Qaradawi will have to be engaged at some point. Well, of course, he already is, and not just by Livingstone.

Iraqis have a right to self govern: although as we’ve argued previously, the banning of chess by a coalition which needs non-shi’ites and secularists to govern is extremely unlikely.

We pursued the northern ireland peace process because (a) it was the just thing to do and (b) the paramilitaries were murdering civilians. The DUP has a bit more to offer than the religious pronouncements of its founder: religious figures such as Qaradawi fulfil only that function. Ditto Paterson.

Of course, if Ken were to host a conference on Gay Rights at which Paterson was a keynote speaker, and if he then embraced him as a speaker of “uncomfortable truths”, I think I’d be fussing about that. Wouldn’t you?

Of course, if Ken were to host a conference on Gay Rights at which Paterson was a keynote speaker, and if he then embraced him as a speaker of “uncomfortable truths”, I think I’d be fussing about that. Wouldn’t you?

Simply not an analogous situation.

“Simply not an analogous situation.”

Er…why not, Benjamin?

(Anyone unduly bothered by poor analogies, non-sequiturs, cliches or rhetorical bluster: assume the crash position.)

Well, ok then Benji.

If you won’t have Le Pen, what about Ian Stuart Donaldson, the lead singer with Skrewdriver, and the voice of a generation of disaffected white nationalists. Not a politician. Just a guy with extreme views.

Would you hug him in public Zin? (well, admittedly, he’s dead, but still…)

I mean, you know, its a bit arrogant all these middle class urban people refusing to engage with the real concerns of white people in the north of england and Tower Hamlets whose real gripe isn’t so much black people – although they go on about that all the time – but urban decline and the failure of the manufacturing industry, gentrification, and so on…

My point is that we can and should be restrained in our judgement of reactionaries and bigots from cultures which are under attack. That’s why we don’t spend all our time reciting the objectionable bits of the Koran and Hadiths. However, there should be three rules of thumb in that engagement:

1. We should not be so culturally arrogant as to treat religious conservatives as the authentic voice of true adherents to their faith. There is an increasing tendency to do precisely this.

2. We should always engage with – as oppose simply to listen to – progressives in religious communities as a matter of choice. We should engage with reactionaries only if there is, in fact, no alternative.

3. We should never, ever, embrace and applaud religious reactionaries and bigots.

This is, and always has been about Ken Livingstone’s conduct, not about the nature of Qaradawi’s beliefs.

I can’t let a mention of Skrewdriver pass without pointing this out.
http://www.jewdriver.com

That, of course, does not mean that we should publicly embrace religious conservatives.

I don’t know about “embracing” but a dialogue with some conservatives, as in the shape of Qaradawi for example (and of course there are people more conservative than him) is basically inevitable. It’s been happening for a long time anyway.

All Livingstone was doing, if you get past all the silly rhetoric and politics and dossiers, was facilitating a small part of that dialogue.

Of course I keep an open mind on Ken. We shall see where he ends up. I am reminded of comments of Andrew McIntosh the ex-leader of the Labour group on the GLC who Ken deposed on May 8, 1981 to become leader of the GLC. He believes that Ken will wind up more rightwing than him. Who knows for sure, although I doubt it.

Yeah, I’ve come across that – I’d LOVE to see them!

As to Benji’s question on how I see the religion: I regard religions generally as an amalgam of cultural practices, moral philosophy, political theory, and legal code, which makes a claim to universality (at least among the adherents of that religion) by virtue of an appeal to divine authority. Religions which predate or reject the enlightement may also make further claims – for example, to be the arbiter of scientific truth.

Benji:
I don’t know about “embracing” but a dialogue with some conservatives, as in the shape of Qaradawi for example (and of course there are people more conservative than him) is basically inevitable. It’s been happening for a long time anyway.

… and here is that embrace:

http://www.mabonline.net/news/spaw/images/_40375525_hug_203.jpg

Of course you have to dialogue.

The question is, when and where and on what topic to you have that dialogue.

I’d suggest that appropriate fora for dialogue are – for example – the need to constitute banking facilities which are sharia compliant, balancing ritual slaughter against animal welfare, and so on.

A prime example of what not to do is to host a conference on the banning of the hijab IN FRANCE, when there is no prospect of religious dress being banned in London. Its even worse to invite only those who are positive about hijab wearing, effectively excluding muslim feminists or muslim participants from a non-hijab wearing traditions who have real concerns that women will be coerced into wearing the hijab. Its even worse if you then seek out the most reactionary and bigotted of your invitees and give them a great big hug, while making a speech in which you applaud them as a speaker of uncomfortable truths.

In other words, dialogue should be with moderates first, then reactionaries, where non contentious issues are involved.
But where reactionaries take a position which is irreconcilable with yours, no engagement is possible.

Lets have a look at that hug again.

http://www.mabonline.net/news/spaw/images/_40375525_hug_203.jpg

Jimmy

Because Qaradawi was attending a Muslim conference as a Muslim.

In the unlikely event of Paterson attending a gay rights conference he certainly would not be attending as a homosexual, or even as any sort of rights campaigner, but rather as a very bizarre guest speaker.

You’ve got this wrong, Benjamin:

All Livingstone was doing, if you get past all the silly rhetoric and politics and dossiers, was facilitating a small part of that dialogue.

I agree with you that dialogue with al Qaradawi by some liberals at some time may be necessary. I don’t think he is a community leader it this country, though if he has a lot of religious followers here and they want government authorities to engage with him then perhaps they should.

I think David_T has acknowledged something like this by saying that some objectionable people have significant numbers of followers and so have to be engaged with. It’s a bit like engaging with the chief ayatollah of Iran or the big general of Burma – he does run the place after all.

But Livingstone has not just been facilitating a dialogue with al-Qaradawi, he has been doing his damnedest to present al-Qaradawi as a non-objectionable figure.

However, al-Qaradawi is an objectionable figure – which I hope you will agree with. al-Qaradawi is no better than the chief racist over at the BNP.

I want my mayor to treat al-Qaradawi no better than he treats Nick Griffin.

David T

You really think that hug was such a big deal?

I was fully aware of that picture, but the physical embrace is quite inconsequential.

I have yet to see evidence that Livingstone shares Qaradawis illiberal views on homosexuals, for example. That would mean a more meaningful “embrace”.

But the real issue is what we want our political leaders to do about reaching out to liberals and potential liberals in communities where people like Qaradawi make all the noise and most of the running.

I think it is incumbent upon responsible liberal political leadership to go out of their way to find and support representatives of liberal currents in such communities – and to privilege them above reactionary leaders in those communities.

The comment above that the attacks on Livingstone are because of his opposition to the war is just plain wrong. My dislike of Livingstone goes back to about 1982. I was at the cinema, the old Lumiere I think, and Livingstone was sitting in front of me. Anyway he was wearing some godawful brown blouson jacket and ‘that’ moustache…..surely style and socialism are not mutually incompatible? Oh yes, what he (david t.) says nails it pretty well and no, I can’t remember what the film was.

David T

Reactionary social views are held by all religions. Is the Catholic church not a fundementally reactionary body? Is anyone arguing that if Ken were to host a visit by the Pope, that would make him an anti-abortist, anti-gay bigot?

The point is that Qaradawi is not being invited to co-host a meeting on the benefits of wife beating and downsides of sodomy. He is here as a legitimate representative of his community, like it or not. That he appears to hold such reactionary views on social issues is unfortunate, but hardly surprising given the cultural and religious context. His social views ARE pretty mainstream, sadly.

By the way, you inadvertantly made a good point about the success of far right parties in run down parts of Britain – I recommend you read Phil Piratin’s book, “Our Flag Stay Red”, in which he recalls how the Communist Party dealt with fascism in London’s East End in the 1930’s. I must say that I do find the attempt by some middle class liberals to reduce racism to a matter of a few uncouth working class skinheads, an ahistorical and rather disgusting attempt to avoid looking at the economic factors. Of course, knee jerk political correctness costs nothing. Jobs, good schools and decent housing do.

Zin

I’ve been down this road before, and I’ve compared the Pope’s (and the Church’s) teaching on homosexuality. In short, it does not involve throwing homosexuals from the highest wall.

But yes, I think I would object to Ken Livingstone hosting a meeting on Homosexuality, and then embracing the Pope and praising his courage for saying unpopular things.

Yes, this was not a conference on wife beating. But neither was he invited merely to be a neutral “representative of his community”. He was invited to promulgate his views that it was a religious obligation to wear the Hijab: at a time at which non-hijab wearing women are threatened with extreme social disapproval and sometimes violence by community and family members who share Qaradawi’s view.

We should be supporting both muslims who choose to wear the hijab, alongside those who regard it as an artifice and a symbol of oppression.

Ken, however, chose to hug the bigot.

OK, I’m willing to accept that, gk. The false accusations of anti-semitism against Ken are down to his opposition to the war AND his poor fashion sense.

Zin, I was against the war and agree that his comments were boorish/insensitive rather than anti semitic but still think that Livingstone is the architect of this own misfortune. I just hope that The Standards Board or whatever it’s called gives him the martyrdom he craves. His crimes against fashion still stand though.

From a letter written by a Muslim, Mr. Ibrahim Sargin, to the London Times:

Sir:

The problem with organizations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, the Muslim Parliament and the Muslim Council of Britain is that they portray themselves as one-stop representatives of Muslims on all religious, political and racial matters. This is enhanced by the fact that the Government and other political entities wish to “consult” with ethnic and religious communities.

I choose to define my community as the people with whom I interact and choose to be represented by the political party for which I vote. Why should I, in community terms, have more in common with a Muslim from Bradford than with a Jew from Tonttenham or a Christian from Ramsgate?

One need only walk down a main street in this part of London to see that there are many Muslims who do not necessarily define themselves primarily by their religion. We do not all subscribe to the same way of being a Muslim, neither do we push our religious beliefs into the civic and political sphere.

Sadly the public does not always get our point of view, because the only Muslims who are consulted are those who choose to drag Islam into the political sphere and relate it to issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Our civic duty, like that of any other Briton, consists of abiding by the law of the land and our civic right is to be represented through the ballot box, not by organizations that are vested with an authority they do not deserve.

Benjamin, Zin – can you explain why you believe someone like Qaradawi should represent all Muslims? Because actual Muslims, like Mr. Sargin, would probably disagree.

Do you believe that the average Muslim has more in common with Qaradawi than with a Jew from Tonttenham or a Christian from Ramsgate? If so, why?

Benjamin, Zin – can you explain why you believe someone like Qaradawi should represent all Muslims?

Poor reading comprehension.

I just said Qaradawi was one authority. In Islam there are many competing authorities. That is the structure of Islam.

Its entirely up to Muslims who they identify with or support in Islam or any other sphere. The chap you quote is not a supporter of Qaradawi, fine, or indeed the MAB, because he sees his identity and community differently – but it does not contradict anything I say.

We’re back where we started though.

If Livingstone wanted to have a debate on, say, the proper controls of immigration into the United Kingdom, and invited representatives of the Monday Club, UKIP, Veritas, and the BNP to participate, and somebody wrote to the paper to say:

“I’m interested in immigration policy, but none of these people speak for me”

would you be blandly saying “there are many views about immigration, fine, but all I am saying is that its important to have a debate about these things”?

What is this about supporting people who want to wear religious headgear? Is this in school we are talking about? Because I don’t support a right to wear religious headgear in school or any other special privileges for religion in school or anywhere else.

If headgear and jewelery are allowed then religious headgear and jewelery should be allowed. If headgear and jewelery are not allowed then religious headgear and jewelery should not be allowed.

I know that headgear is generally not allowed in schools in the UK so for that reason I do not support the special privilege of wearing religious headgear in schools

Let’s just be consistent. Statements like that one by David, of all people, are evidence of how far the likes of Ken Livingstone have pushed liberalism into a corner in favour of solidarity with reactionaries who control votes – on the excuse that they “represent” minority communities.

(I realize this is not the French position as they have banned religious headgear and other symbols where non-religious artifacts would be allowed.)

I am an antiperfectionist.

I can’t see the point in hounding genuinely devout religious people for something as trivial as a head dress.

I can. It’s the thin end of the wedge. Theists will have to learn to expect no special treatment because of their superstitions.

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!

Mary said: “Benjamin, Zin – can you explain why you believe someone like Qaradawi should represent all Muslims?”

What Calvin actually said: “…if he speaks for a significant section of the Muslim community”

LOL. I am no longer annonymous!

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE

Ken condemns those who meet with Le Pen – who clearly represents a significant proportion of the voting electorate in France – on the basis that these meetings only serve to legitimate his point of view.
All right thinking people applaud.

Ken cuddles and lauds a man who regards wearing the hijab as a religious obligation … gays … suicide bombings … wife beating …. etc etc etc.
Zin, Benji, et al bend over backwards to explain what a desirable and progresive thing that is to do.

“But Livingstone has not just been facilitating a dialogue with al-Qaradawi, he has been doing his damnedest to present al-Qaradawi as a non-objectionable figure.”

Surely that’s the crucial point, whatever the arguments. I’ve got no beef with dealing the furthering some kind of real political programme – we have to deal with objectionable people sometimes to get what we want.

But Qarawadi *is* objectionable, so why would a man like Livingstone – who has no problem saying who he thinks is objectionable – spend so much time, money and energy on trying to present Qaradawi as a moderate?

Is it politicking? Does he not want to offend Qarawadi and undo whatever it is he thinks he’s achieved? Perhaps. But Qarawadi, if he is a pragmatist worth dealing with, should be able to accept that Ken might meet him but not endorse him. Why does Ken feel the need to defend Qarawadi, a man who is quite clearly capable of trying to do the job himself?

The difference is that the primary purpose for Le Pen’s existence is to push a racist agenda in a Europe in which those ideas have (at least in theory) been defeated through struggle and war. Pre-WW2, an openly colonial and racist mentality ran right through all parts of European society, including the trade union movement and social democratic political parties. Yet not even the most nutty of trots would have tried to prevent someone from talking about, let’s say, a strike, because they also had what we now consider to be reactionary views on women and gays.

Qaradawi’s views have their roots deep within the Muslim religion and present day culture. His views on women and gays are abborent to me, but they are only one aspect of what defines him. Our parents’ generation went through a cultural revolution against social reaction in the 1960’s. The Muslim world will go through the same process, in their own way and at their own pace. You cannot impose that process from a sitting room in Hampstead Garden Suburb, nor can you change traditional culture overnight. Qaradawi is a product of his generation and culture, and it makes no sense to analyse the situation from a Western centric standpoint.

PS: What are your mate Sistani’s views on homosexuals? Can you preach gay liberation whilst playing chess in the mosques of Baghdad?

“”"Yusuf Smith’s case is that there is nothing objectionable in treating conservative religious figures as the representatives of their followers: and indeed there isn’t. What we should be wary of is of taking the claim that such conservative religious figures make – that they speak for all “true” members of their religion – at face value.”"”

Clearly Qaradawi cannot be seen as a representative of all Muslims — millions of Muslims don’t even know he exists. In fact, there is no-one can legitimately call themself the representative of all Muslims, since no-one has been appointed or elected to that role.

Rather than talk about Yosuf’s apologies for Livingston ( what else could he have done?), we should instead discuss his unfortunate loss of the ability to think critically.

If you paruse his website you find that this is a guy who has expropriated his profound self-loathing via conversion. Now instead of hating himself, as a Brit, as a Westerner and as a ‘white’ his new ‘faith’ allows him to distance himself from his former identity all the while permitting him to ratchet up the loathing he feels for his own traditions and culture.

Of course he finds excuses- and aren’t they all so shallow- for the likes of Qaradawi. He has to! And he does so only in order to convince himself that his conversion was the right one.

So no matter how outrageous the transgression, no matter how contradictory the statements, and no matter how obscene the crimes “our” Yosuf will always be there to mount a spirited and enthusiastic defense of his new masters.

Can Yosuf say: “bitter ageing jaded Leftist?”

Not on your life!

Qaradawi’s roots are, of course, deep with islam. They’re also shallowly within Qutbism, which is a 20th century political doctrine with religious inspiration. Think of him as effectively a Bishop who actively supports the Falangists. That’s the sort of parallel that you should think of.

He is part of an arab political landscape which has as its adversaries
- nasserites (with whom they’re sometimes chummy)
- Shi’ites (who they always hate)
- liberals
- other forms of islamist who have a slightly different position to his (including those moderate islamists who are in alliance with liberals and those who are certain types of jihadi)

Don’t go kidding yourself that he isn’t a politician. He wants Egypt to be an islamic state, for a start. He makes explicitly political statements, which push his particular agenda.

Sistani clearly holds absurd and distasteful views. However, all the signs are that he is pursuing the traditional shiite clerical role of dabbling behind the scenes, rather than promoting specific policies. Islamists in Iraq are also constrained by the need to form alliances with non islamists.

But all this is irrelevant to my point. Engaging with religious fundamentalists is precisely what you should do if there is no alternative: nation building in Iraq clearly demands it. I fail to see a corresponding pressing need in the case of the UK.

John

You have no basis for saying this. These are absurd assumptions to make. People convert from one religion to another for a variety of reasons, almost always good and valuable ones.

Benjamin, If Qaradawi with his insane rants is to be considered AN AUTHORITY, albeit one among many, then what does that say about Islam in general? One other thing, if no one in the Islamic world knows what “true Islam” is anymore, then what can anyone say? Everyone’s a prophet and everyone’s an expert!

So Islamic truths, then, are utterly dependant upon immediate goals, or upon the audience that Islamists happen to be addressing. We find ourselves with a whole group of people who just make-it-up as they go along.

We see a religion with no central authority, no pope and no transcendant truth that mostly relies on naked violence and repression to maintain its legitimacy.

You should read more, Benjamin, about the conditions British ex-muslims ( who number around 25,000) are forced to live under. In many cases it’s awful!

Yet Yosuf would be the first to tell you, Benjamin, that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’.

And you, Benjamin, would be the first to believe it!

Of course your deliberate choice of heading says a lot really, doesn’t it?
I guess with my first hand knowledge of how low you would get to score a cheap political point, I am not the least surprised that you tried to berate and make fun of brother Yusuf. His interesting post had lots of educating and interesting points but you not only deliberately ignored all that but shamelessly attempted to ridicule him, attack his person and his integrity.

In your haste to pander to your fellow ignoramuses on HP, one fundamental bit of Islam eluded you, which is this: there is no difference in statue between a convert to the Deen or person born to Muslim parents and as such whether brother Yusuf never sat in a mosque as a child is of no consequence whatsoever.

Your deliberate use of hyperbolic title for the post in order to berate and pour scorn on brother Yusuf is disgusting, but I expect nothing else from you.

I disagree David T. Many people convert to whatever belief systeme in order to escape moral anomie. It’s mostly psychology. Yosuf can be manipulated and cajoled to defend just about any atrocitiy and he will do so only in order to repress that anomie, and not because he’s “embraced” Islam. His life is now regimented, framed by an endless treadmill of ‘purity’ and a never ending set of obsessive compulsive rituals. He is comfortable…..and not much else.

You see, he has put order is his life, but only at the expense of denying that same life.

The best example of this is Cat Stevens. Did his conversion breathe new life into his musical career, or did it just put an end to it?

John – you.ve hit the nail on the head. The “newly converted” often seem to have a pathological hatred of themselves and their culture. You have the likes of white university professor Ward Churchill who claims he is Native American so he can feel suitably “repressed” while calling his fellow citizens “little Eichmans”. No where is this pathology worse than in cases like Jon Walker (The American Taliban) who took his liberal self-loathing (”I’m white, middle class – I hate myself”) to the ultimate degree by going to Afghanistan to try and kill fellow Americans. Islam is, of course, a very easy belief system to convert to – a few words and you’re in. It’s the leaving that gets kind of tricky though…..

David_T, It’s not about hounding people. It’s about privileges. So long as religion is seen as something meriting privilege then complaints that a Sikh play about Sikh religious leaders is bad because it offends the religious leaders are accepted by the likes of Jonathan Freedland and Ian Jack.

For a change I want to try to follow up on a conversation I started yesterday with Arthur Dent:

Arthur, yours is a very interesting analysis of the social and international policies of the pseudo-left. I agree with you that they are “objectively” far-right and not left at all, and that this, combined with their leftist rhetoric, is what makes them “pseudo-left”.

They may still be part of the left wrt economic and labour policies.

But the idea of ignoring the pseudo-left and moving on, as you put it, seems naive because of something that SP said. You actually criticised him because of it but in fact he hits that nail on the head.

Here is how you encapsulate and criticise what he says:
On the one hand you say they are “the largest and most visible section of the left” on the other hand you say “They now stand outside what one might reasonably call the left”.

Both those statements are in fact true, and that is the problem.
The pseudo-left are the largest and most visible part of the left.
The pseudo-left do not present leftist solutions as we recognize them.
They have hijacked, taken over, the left. What does that leave us with? What can we build?
What, if anything, should we do about them first?

I’m not sure about the answers. I know that in the US the largest and most visible section of the left are those arranged around Howard Dean, the new Chair of the Democratic National Committee – effectively head of the party. He was a vociferous opponent of the overthrow of Saddam and as I recall it was for reasons consistent with the pseudo-left – wrong-headed “anti-imperialist” reasons. I consider much of that current as pseudo-left although there are many in the Dean camp whose focus is on economic or labour issues and many whose opposition to the overthrow of Saddam is only ever articulated in terms of what a bad job the US has done and what a mess it has made of its international relationships. These are valid arguments.

But take them at their worst or at their best, I don’t know how we can ignore them. People say that Dean was not “really” against overthrowing Saddam and anyhow he knows we have to stay the course now. But if he’s no more convincing on this than what’s his name who lost the race for president was (and if anything he’s less convincing) he’s useless and clueless on foreign policy. So what are we going to do about them?

In the UK, if anything it’s worse, with people like Livingstone and Blunkett already in positions of power – and note that Blair supports publicly funded creationist academies. At least in the US the creationists say on the rightwing. Canadians have the same sort of problem with sharia law “for the Muslim community” as we have with Blunkett’s legacy on inciting hatred of religion. (btw, Prospect magazine has a good article on Blunkett.)

They might be well advised to ignore us because they seem to be stronger than we are.
But I’m afraid we can’t afford to ignore them.

In that context, you’ve got one comment that I don’t understand:

Neither the supporters nor the opponents of different policies
make much use of the “anti-imperialist” rhetoric thrown around here, except as
an occasional ploy usually from the conservative foreign policy establishment
and sometimes from their allies the stoppers. That side of the debate usually
complains about “unilateralism” rather than “imperialism”.

Conservatives don’t complain about unilateralism. They support unilateralism. The biggest amount of blue sky between me and them is that they support various positions which amount to Anglosphere exceptionalism while I am whole-heartedly in favour of working with continental Europe and other allies. What being a liberal hawk is about, I think, is that we want liberals to take the case for an assertive foreign policy to the likes of Chirac and get something out of them. (Bush today got one lone French officer stationed at Nato in Brussels to support training Iraqi troops.)

Another problem for me comes here:

If we move on to taking up the question of revolutionary democratic change in the middle east and elsewhere, we can rely on the pseudos to continue carping.

But the response should be to “patiently explain” why we support revolutionary democratic change and challenge them, in the same way as any other conservative opponent of such change, as to why they don’t. Their pretense that they oppose it because they so “left” and “anti-imperialist” can either be ridiculed or ignored according to taste. But debating the actual views shared in common by the pseudo-left and other conservatives will develop political ideas whereas an exchange of condemnations for “betrayal” of left principles goes nowhere.

This shows up what appears to me as a contradiction.

“Revolutionary” in my experience inevitably becomes a code word for extremism.

Liberalism is about balance – between so many things: individual and collective rights, majority and minorities, between the different sets of powers that exist in all aspects of society. It is about limited, accountable and representative government. But it is not revolutionary. As Paul Berman said in Terror and Liberalism, liberalism is about the many as opposed to the “one” of totalitariansm.

Democracy may explode on to the scene, and when that happens it is of course to be welcomed. But trying to make explosions is a distraction. Anyhow, gradual change gives everybody a chance to participate – not just the heroes. When I hear talk like Lenin’s of a “small motor” that starts the “big motor” which is “the revolution” it sounds like a shortcut to infamy.

But the general direction of your remarks about pressing patiently ahead with developing a new politics sounds very good to me.

There is no significant difference between a convert to islam and a person who becomes, say, a libertarian. Or somebody who joins a trainspotting club.

Its ok to ridicule both ideas and people who devote themselves to a particular set of ideas.

I am not, however, ridiculing Yusuf Smith.

Ooops, just saw your new post David T . Maybe you weren’t ridiculing him just pointing out his glaring inconsistencies……

Can we not fight with Dave please.

Sorry…

But when I read Yusuf Smith’s site I do find it raises so many questions I’d love to know the answer to.

For example, a female reader of the article discussed above refers to an article which suggests “in Arabic the word which means ‘to beat’ can also be as validly interpreted as ‘to separate’ thus giving rise to the possibility that the separation of husband and wife may have been the correct interpretation all along”

Yusuf Smith’s response is as follows:

“This is the first time I have heard this and it sounds far-fetched to me. If a man first counsels, then separates in bed from, and then beats his wife, and she still does not come round, then arbitrators are called in. This may lead to separation. So I don’t see why beating should mean separation”

I mean, sure, there are loads of men who beat their wives of all ethnicities and beliefs. Some feel ashamed about doing it. Some justify it on the basis that “she was asking for it”.

But what about Yusuf Smith? How do you get from, you know, worrying about the environment and global inequality – other themes of his blog, which I assume he’s always worried about – to solemnly reciting god’s supposed instructions on the precise stage at which you’re supposed to knock your old lady about?

If Livingstone wanted to have a debate on, say, the proper controls of immigration into the United Kingdom, and invited representatives of the Monday Club, UKIP, Veritas, and the BNP to participate

Not an analogous situation.

Livingstone opened the conference the conference, but did not direct the debate or pick who took part. The conference was organised by Muslims and many Muslims took part, of varying views.

So you think that if he were invited to host such a conference he’d agree?

Not analogous because they’re politicians?

OK then, if Christian evangelicals wanted him to host a conference on “The Family”, would he do it? Would he spend £4000 of my money on defending his conduct?

No I don’t think he would host such a conference. He obviously thinks the Muslim conference he hosted is more important.

He obviously thinks the Muslim conference he hosted is more important.
I guess Evangelical Christians need to (re)introduce stoning as a basic principle of their belief system to reach this level of relevance for Mr Livingstone.

Mr Smith appears, from his post, to believe Muslims are exempt from British law. They are not. It is a criminal offence to beat your wife or anyone else. Likewise gay-bashing. Really, you cannot choose to live within the conveniences of a secular open society and simultaneously pretend you are entitled to apply the norms of a mediaeval ghetto.

Mr Smith appears, from his post, to believe Muslims are exempt from British law. They are not. It is a criminal offence to beat your wife or anyone else. Likewise gay-bashing. Really, you cannot choose to live within the conveniences of a secular open society and simultaneously pretend you are entitled to apply the norms of a mediaeval ghetto.

Isn’t regarding Qaradawi as a representative of muslim Britons about as sensible as taking the Bishop of Cracow as a representative of catholic Britons? Irrespective of what they actually believe. If Ken wants to talk to a representative of the former group surely someone elected by them to represent them would be far more appropriate.

I have responded to Juan Golbado’s post in the original topic.