A battle imposed cannot but be fought
by Dr. Azzam Tamimi (The Muslim Association of Britain)

Observers have pursued different lines of analysis in a bid to explain the storm that accompanied Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s recent visit to the United Kingdom. The Zionist lobby in Britain, which is usually spoken for among others by the Jewish Board of Deputies and Louise Ellman MP), mounted a most virulent attack on the Sheikh seeking to hit several birds with one stone. Pro-Israel lobbyists do not particularly like the Muslim Association of Britain, which sought to have former Israeli Chief of Staff (current Defence Minister) incarcerated and prosecuted for war crimes during a visit he made to the UK last year and which came to the fore of British politics as a result of its alliance with the anti-war coalition. Nor do they like the fact that Israel has been exposed more than ever before as the last remaining bastion of racism and fascism on the face of the earth thanks to the efforts of peace and justice loving people in the UK and across the world. My own analysis is that the primary target has the Mayor of London, Mr. Ken Livingston, a man of great integrity and a history of solidarity with and support for just and good causes including the Palestinian one.

Sheikh Yusuf had been to Britain several times in the past. Never was a visit by him met with such a furor before. The difference this time is that he arrived in London upon the joint invitation of the Muslim Association of Britain and the Mayor of London. To prove my theory, I would draw attention to the fact that the Sheikh visit the UK in February 2003 on his way to, and back from, Dublin where he chaired a session of the European Council of Fatwa and Research. The Muslim Association of Britain, who invited him to the UK had arranged for him to meet the press. At a highly successful press conference, the Sheikh answered questions put to him by the media on a variety of issues. Channel Four News aired an exclusive interview with him while the Mirror, for reasons unknown to me, failed to publish its own exclusive and lengthy interview with him. The opinions of the Sheikh on the issues raised by the pro-Israel lobby during the recent visit had been in the public domain for many years and he could have been questioned about them during his last visit. However, that did not happen. Furthermore, during his earlier visit the Sheikh addressed thousands of Muslim men and women, young and old, at the Central Mosque and then at East London Mosque in White Chapel advising them to strike a wise and fair balance between maintaining their identities as Muslim and living in their country, Britain, as law-abiding citizens.

The success of that visit prompted the Muslim Association to approach the Sheikh several months later inviting him for another tour. However, the Sheikh was discouraged by world events, particularly the invasion of Iraq, and decided not to accept the invitation at a time when the US-led war on terrorism had claimed many innocent victims. The concern expressed by the Sheikh was not hypothetical; several incidents had already been reported where prominent figures from the Muslim world were turned back from airports, arrested and harassed or subjected to humiliating blackmail so as to collaborate with the authorities. Although most of these cases had happened in the United States of America, European governments had clearly been succumbing to pressure from their NATO master.

By chance, the Muslim Association of Britain communicated the Sheikh’s concerns to officers from a unit set up by Scotland Yard’s special branch. The officers, whose main task is to improve relations between the police and the Muslim community in the aftermath of the eleventh of September, assured the Muslim Association that not only would the Sheikh be permitted to enter the country but that he would be most welcome as well. They expressed readiness to provide the Sheikh with a VIP reception at the airport and protection throughout his visit should he decide to come back to Britain in the future. The reason, from their own perspective, was attributed to the fact that “he is one of the most authoritative scholars in the Sunni world of Islam today whose moderating influence on the Muslim youth of Britain is highly appreciated.”

It was in light of these assurances that the Muslim Association of Britain, as part of its cooperation with the Mayor of London, brought to the attention of the Mayor’s office the fact that the annual meeting of the European Council of Fatwa and Research was going to be due in July and that it would be a good PR job for the LGA to invite the Council to convene in London. It was explained too that although the Council was founded in London it has not met again in the British capital. Over the years it met in Paris, Dublin, Stockholm and several other European cities but not in London.

Having looked into the matter and assessed the role played by the Council in guiding European Muslims to be pro-active, law-abiding and fully involved citizens, the Mayor extended his invitation for the Council’s members to come to London and hold their meetings in it. Two other ideas immediately sprang as a result: the Muslim Association decided to hold its own one-day conference and benefit from the presence of such a long list of esteemed jurists and thinkers; Jamiiatul Ummah decided to hold their police-sponsored “Our Children, Our Future” during the visit to Sheikh Qaradawi to have the honour of his participation as a guest speaker; and Sheikh Qaradawi himself decided to seize the opportunity by inviting around two hundred Muslim jurists from around the world to form the International Union of Islamic Scholars. And it turned to be quite an eventful week.

It may be the case that the Jewish Board of Deputies and Louise Ellman have regretted stirring this storm in the first place. Their venomous attack turned achieved the exact opposite of what they were seeking. Initially part of the press, especially the Sun, the Mail and the Telegraph, fell into their trap and sank in the mud. The more respectable media, including the BBC (both radio and TV), the Guardian, the Independent, Channel Four News and Sky News, saw the smear campaign as an attempt not to discredit the Sheikh but to erode what has remained of the democratic values of Britain. They decided to move in favor of the right to free speech, which the Zionist lobby would like to see us all lose. Following a BBC2 TV News Night programme a couple of nights into the campaign, the tide shifted and the arrows of malice and contempt turned back at those that threw them in the first place. The image of the Sheikh suddenly changed from the Sun’s “The Evil has Landed” into an array of the best attributes ever given to Al-Qaradawi by a non-Muslim media acknowledging him as a moderate, authoritative, renowned, and learned. Not only that, the charge that Al-Qaradawi supported suicide bombings against Israelis in Palestine turned into a debate about the legitimacy of these operations with many commentators concluding that the Palestinians, after all, have been left with no other option. What is truly amazing is that neither Al-Qaradawi nor the Muslim Association of Britain had intended to raise this issue or turn it into a subject of debate. All the Sheikh had come to Britain to stress on the Muslims was integration and living as good law-abiding citizens of the country of which they’ve chosen to become nationals. The Zionist lobby insisted on imposing a different agenda and they must now be biting their fingers for having done so. TV and radio programmes, including phone-ins and chat shows, for many hours and many days debated the issues of suicide bombings and the right to freedom of speech.

Some Muslims, including individuals involved with the preparations for some of the events Al-Qaradawi came for, had indeed been intimidated and expressed the opinion that the Muslims in Britain, even in Europe, were not a match to the Zionist lobby and could not afford to enter into battles with it. Some thought that certain concessions might throw water on the fire and save the Sheikh and his guests the embarrassment of the vicious campaign. It took only a day and a night to prove them wrong. A battle imposed cannot but be fought. It was the Zionist lobby that started the war and the Muslim Association of Britain had to resist and fight back. The Association, with the support of freedom lovers across the country, won the battle and the Zionist lobby lost in disgrace.

If Qaradawi is an extremist, who is left?
by Sohaib Bhutta

The moderate Islamic jurist’s interpretations of religious texts have been wilfully misrepresented. This is an attack on all Muslims

Sohaib Saeed
Friday July 9, 2004
The Guardian

“Moderate” has become one of a set of labels without which the word “Muslim” looks almost naked in any western newspaper today – and it is being used in an increasingly divisive way that can only cause confusion.

The most important use of “moderate” has become shorthand for “not supporting al-Qaida”. More broadly, the key ideas behind being moderate in Britain would seem to be integration, participation, tolerance and dialogue.

The scholarly figure widely considered to be the world’s chief proponent of moderate Islam is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian-born Islamic jurist who heads the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Mr Qaradawi’s rulings are recognised by Muslims around the world as reflecting the balanced nature of Islamic law and its relevance to modern life. This is the recurrent theme of his programmes on Arab television channels, as well as the popular Islam Online website, for which he acts as patron.

When most Muslims look to Mr Qaradawi, they see a shining example of moderation: in its Islamic meaning. To us, being a moderate Muslim means to practise the religion faithfully, according to its letter and its spirit.

So when he arrived in Britain on Monday in advance of his long-awaited conferences in London, the barrage of attacks against him in the media was distressing for the British Muslim community. All of a sudden, the words “extremist”, “radical” and “hardline” were being used liberally, and the Sun surpassed itself by calling him a “devil”, complete with a menacing-looking photograph under the headline: “The Evil Has Landed”. Now there are demands that he be expelled from the country.

This was bound to cause distress among Muslims, but not because of the personal attacks on Mr Qaradawi. This was also a sharp tug at the rug under the feet of moderate Muslims: because if he is an extremist, who is there left to be moderate?

For as long as we care to remember, Muslims have had to answer accusations about suicide bombing, wife beating, homosexuality and much else besides. One of the reasons for the Muslim Association of Britain to host Mr Qaradawi was to allow the British people, media and policy-makers to put their questions to a real expert on Islam and modernity. Any controversial views he holds can be explored and criticised, while he can clarify or defend his point of view.

However, all of a sudden it is the moderate Mr Qaradawi himself who “encourages suicide bombing”, “permits wife beating”, and “advocates the death penalty for gays”. Statements attributed to him are consistently misquoted or quoted out of context to misrepresent his arguments.

For a person who does not believe in God, the concept of martyrdom may remain incomprehensible. A question such as that over the rights and wrongs of suicide-bombing in Palestine can legitimately be approached from different angles. A jurist like Mr Qaradawi is required to draw conclusions about its status within Islamic law – his comments are made in the context of a debate about the interpretation of Islamic texts.

He, as well as most Islamic scholars and Muslims worldwide, considers the desperate actions of Palestinians as valid acts of resistance. That is not without many difficult aspects, not least because death of innocents is considered in Islam to be horrendous. The scholars do not permit suicide bombing in any place, nor do they advocate that people from Britain go to Palestine to take part in the jihad there.

As for wife beating, there is a verse in the Koran that a few Muslim men misunderstand as permitting domestic violence. Scholars have always cautioned against this. Mr Qaradawi has specified that “the respectable and honest Muslim man does not beat his wife”.

Islam’s negative view on homosexual relations is not unique, it is common to western religions. Muslims have not abandoned the truth to please liberal fundamentalists. That we consider same-sex attraction unnatural by no means entails discrimination against “homosexuals”, nor do we seek to kill them. Again, when Mr Qaradawi has discussed homosexuality it has been about weighing up different interpretations of Muslim tradition. The question of punishment simply does not arise outside the context of a state ruling by Islamic law, and there is scholarly disagreement over the nature of appropriate punishment.

We have to ask whom British Muslims are expected to follow if not Mr Qaradawi. A leaked document reported in the Times in May described the government’s plans to promote certain scholars, including Hamza Yusuf, Suhaib Webb and Amr Khaled. The three greatly respect Mr Qaradawi, as is well known from their speeches and the solidarity between all moderate scholars of Islam. Alongside Mr Qaradawi at Saturday’s conference – entitled “Islam, Mercy to Mankind” – will be the philosopher Professor Tariq Ramadan, another key thinker for Muslims in the west, who also holds Mr Qaradawi in high esteem.

The real moderates are those who tell it like it is, even though aspects of Islam may be hard for western secular mindsets to fathom. We should be proud that Dr al-Qaradawi was not afraid to state firmly that “Palestinian martyr operations are a weapon of the weak”. The fact that Rabbi Weiss publicly stood by him shows that claims of anti-semitism hold no water. For all Muslims, Jews are “people of the book”, and Mr Qaradawi has emphasised the special relations Muslims have had with Jews down the centuries, notably when the west persecuted and expelled them.

The freedom of expression enjoyed in the UK is a source of pride, and should encourage debate between cultures. If people have criticisms of Islam, they should feel free to raise them in appropriate times and places. We Muslims don’t have to apologise for everything in our faith and way of life that doesn’t match the here-and-now of British life. I don’t want to be that sort of “moderate”.

· Sohaib Bhutta is spokesperson for the Muslim Association of Britain

sohaib@mabonline.net

Regarding – Live, Don’t Die for Islam
by Dr. Azzam Tamimi

I read the article below. I appreciate the good intentions of the brother but he is not right on a number of points. The following was a quick reply I wrote to a message I received from Nazri with whose assessment of the article I fully agree:

“If only Sardar is asked whether he lives for Islam? Only those that live for Islam may consider dying for it. ( I would even go as far as saying those that live for Islam wish to die for it.)

I am puzzled by the assumption that the world does sympathise with the Palestinians. This is a myth created by people sitting far away from the action itself. In fact more people than ever before today sympathise with the Palestinians and support their cause. More people are even challenging the Zionists and speaking out in support of the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves through whatever means available to them. I am sure it is out of good intentions that some Muslims are worried; but they are worried for the wrong reasons. No ‘martyrdom operations’ have been taken place for many weeks now. But who is doing the killing on daily basis and who is destroying the lives of the Palestinians? Why does not Sardar and those who admire him live for Islam by concentrating on the crimes of Sharon than on the helpless victims of his?

When the Zionist lobby tried to sabotage Sheikh Qaradawi’s visit recently in Britain I appeared on every single TV and radio channel saying this: “What do you expect the Palestinians to do? You’ve left them with no options. Get Sharon to stop his killing the ‘martyrdom operations’ will stop.” I found that in most cases TV and radio presenters agreed. Many of them said: “Well, isn’t what Qaradawi is saying something we all share but fail to express.”

Muslims who cannot defend ‘martyrdom operations’ should keep quiet and not stab their brothers and sisters in the back. Let those who can defend these operations speak because they are defensible in the most convincing manner and the most explicit language.”

If the brother concerned and others who have doubts wish to have a private session when I am in Malaysia to discuss the issue I am most willing to do so. The clever thing to do is not to criticize what means the Palestinians choose to defend themselves or respon to Israeli brutality but in fact to defend it and market it to public opinion. Public opinion can be convinced of any thing if the approach is right. I do not say this out of opportunism; I think we are right and what we do is correct and legitimate. If the Zionist have been able to convince public opinion of the incorrect and the illegitimate, how come that we retreat and give up so quickly on what is right and true?