jump to navigation

Qaradawi now – who next? February 16, 2008

Posted by Mujahid Mustaqim in Homosexualists, Queer Muslims, StraightWay.

We at the StraightWay Foundation have long taken a keen interest in the controversies built around the person of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, especially as regards his stated opinions about homosexuality in the light of his understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah – opinions which do not differ from those of the vast majority of Islamic scholars and ordinary Muslims in the West and worldwide, except that in certain respects they are better explained and expressed.

The recent refusal from the UK government to grant him a visa has rightly met with criticism from British Muslims, this article by Abdul-Rehman Malik being a good example. From our perspective, the most worrying thing is where mainstream Muslim views are used as the basis for excluding someone from a country: will they then seek to root out “homophobic imams” and deport them? Find me a non-“homophobic” imam, please, then tell me that Qaradawi’s views are extreme…

You can find numerous articles on this blog discussing his views and statements, including a summary of the Zionist- and homosexualist-led storm surrounding his July 2004 visit to London. This time, however, we decided not to weigh in with any public comments – but would like to extend a word of appreciation to Imaan, a group we have serious disagreements with, for a letter they sent to the Guardian:

We agree with Muslim community leaders concerned at the Home Office decision to ban Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Report, February 8), on the grounds that it won’t “tolerate … those who seek to justify … acts of terrorist violence or express views that could foster inter-community violence”. On the contrary, Qaradawi has condemned the London bombings, the 9/11 attacks and other acts of terrorism, stating these are against Islamic beliefs.

In banning Qaradawi, the Home Office is contributing to a climate of Islamophobia, which will impact on all Muslims, including our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members.

We make clear our disagreements with all faiths that are regressive on homosexuality, and demand that Muslim leaders are treated equally with other faith representatives, who are not generally banned.

If the government is to engage hearts and minds of the Muslim community, it would do well to engage in dialogue with Muslim leaders rather than demonise them or succumb to the calls of politicians whose agenda is motivated by a bias regarding the conflict in the Middle East.

Ubaid-ur Rehman
Secretary, Imaan – the LGBT Muslim’s support group

Even the vile and odious Peter Tatchell stated his disagreement with the banning, even if only to repeat his inaccurate and irrational – and in places downright false and slanderous – criticisms of the Sheikh. And of course most of the commenters after him are just as ready to prove their ignorance!


1. Martin Bright - February 19, 2008

In what sense does calling Peter Tachell “vile and odious” contribute to the debate?

2. Rasheed Eldin - February 23, 2008

Martin, not everything contributes to debate, and sometimes name-calling is just gratuitous. I might criticise Mujahid for saying that, except I know I’ve been guilty of it plenty of times before.

If you’re so worried about gratuitous adjectives, you must have had a hard time reading that very article by Tatchell, in which he called Qaradawi and his views:
“extremist”, “antisemitic”, “homophobic”, “sexist”, “reactionary”, “prejudiced”, “dogmatic”, “illiberal”, “inhuman”, “bigoted”, “two-faced”, “hardline”, “authoritarian”, fundamentalist”, “anti-humanitarian”, “intolerant”, “right-wing”, “oppressive”
[some of these repeatedly]

But probably that didn’t cause you any difficulty.

3. Bravvooo! - March 7, 2008

I’ve just noticed that some of these descriptions are true even of some reverred religious texts!

How come we flag up such issues for rational debate but as soon as a rational excuse is demanded for the website’s anti-gay sex views then they queickly retreat behind “we are only concerned with Islam’s views on the matter”?

Is this not dishonesty? The sheikh has a granted right for medical treatment, gay John-doe has a right to cohabitate with any adult… all basic human rights. What is so incovenient about adopting a consistent and rational frame of mind when dealing with each?

What gives the sheikh (or this website) the freedom to recommend gays give up their right for sexual relationships (notice the word “gays”) and recommend that the rights fo their shcolars on medical treatment are upheld?

Double standards.

4. Rasheed Eldin - March 8, 2008

First of all Bravo, our response is not a retreat, but simply a fact that must be so underlined in order to maintain sanity. You talk about “rational debate”, but would the nature of such a debate be the same while taking into account divine revelation, or ignoring it? No, so we make clear that if there are discussions to be had with non-believers, those discussions will not be on basic moral questions such as whether or not homosexuality is acceptable: because this can always be brought back to another question, i.e. “acceptable to whom?”.

I’ve pointed out to you previously the difficulty in trying to look at everything in terms of “basic human rights”. Mujahid didn’t use such a term above, but you’ve considered medical treatment in the UK such a basic right, alongside a man’s right to have sex with another man. In short, I have little interest in this fanciful process, where you drop anything you like into your basic-human-rights shopping cart.

5. Bravvooo! - March 8, 2008

You are trying to paint my views as extravagant or superfluous but look again at the UN declaratio of Human rights article 16. Does it differentiate between marriage with same gender or opposite gender?

Oh but why should I hold you accountable to a declaration that the majority of us simple minded mammals have committed to when you are satisfied you have the monopoly on divine truth?

OF COURSE the right to medication should be instantly and effortlessly recongnised as the same calibre as the right to cohabitation and starting a family (with or without children). What on Earth are you talking about? What worries me is that you come across as fairly intelligent so all I detect from your resistance to engage in rational debate is intentional obscurantism.

I can still remember the Sheikh’s explosive rants on Aljazeera on matters of walaa and baraa…now we have to beg the British Home Office to grant him rights to entry for medical help. How Bizarre!

6. Rasheed Eldin - March 8, 2008

You seem unable to grasp the basic point of principle on which we are disagreeing. I’ve pointed out that citing “basic rights” will not be of much use without some agreement on how such rights would be defined (conceptually – e.g. are these rights given/granted, if so by whom?) and detailed (in a list that would presumably stand for all time, if they are actually basic).

You’ve made a good step by clarifying that you take the UN Declaration as your basis. But then are you expecting we will start debating it as though it were scripture? So what if one of the articles can be interpreted this way or that? The Declaration was not sent from heaven, rather it is an (admirable) human attempt to say what we agree on. But even if everyone agreed on falsehood, that wouldn’t change it to truth.

7. wiki - March 9, 2008

take a look at this

[RASHEED says: Wiki, there’s no problem with pasting links in general, but if you feel there’s some powerful point worth reiterating from that link, you can either put it in your own words or perhaps paste it if not too long. If you just wanted to draw my attention to it, then you can be sure I read it long ago. :-)]

8. wiki - March 9, 2008

as long as u read it O_o

so? … what are ur thought on it?

9. Bravvooo! - March 28, 2008

Your scriptures are very true indeed, just a bit out of touch with the world we live in. But of course everything is false except the out-of-touch scriptures.

We all have our debate deal-breakers. You don’t want to go there.

10. Rasheed Eldin - March 29, 2008

Saying that one thing is completely true does not imply that everything else is completely false.

11. Bravvooo! - March 31, 2008

Up to the point where you come to a crossroads where the two camps are at striking odds and you have to take a pragmatic decision which to accept and which to reject.

With respect to same sex relationships, the reasons for justifying their prohibition are simply incoherent.

12. just me asking - June 20, 2008

there’s no update for a long time.
what happen?
have the struggles stop?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: