Qaradawi and his bloody visa


by Sunny
28th January, 2008 at 10:19 am    

I know right-wingers have no consistent standards when it comes to free speech, but I’m yet to hear a good argument for why Al-Qaradawi, contemptible as his views are, should be denied a visa. After all, if we don’t want to listen to nastiness, we should stop the BNP too right?
Update: Oh, and I agree with Steve too.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Current affairs






147 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Roger — on 28th January, 2008 at 10:30 am  

    Actually, Qaradawi’s views- apart from their religious basis- are rather more “right-wing” than not.
    The BNP already live here and so have the same rights as others. Different restrictions can be imposed on visitors. In this case, Qaradawi is coming for medical treatment, not to make speeches.

  2. Joe Otten — on 28th January, 2008 at 11:01 am  

    Bah these foreign hate-speech merchants coming over here taking our jobs. What happened to the days when we could make all the hate speech we ever needed without having to import it.

  3. Katy Newton — on 28th January, 2008 at 11:15 am  

    I would love the BNP to disappear into thin air tomorrow, but at the same time I am not sure that comparing the BNP to Qaradawi is right. Firstly, we’re stuck with the BNP because they’re British citizens, so they’re never going to have to apply for a visa and they can’t be deported.

    Secondly, whilst Qaradawi and the BNP are equally offensive in terms of their basic racism, there’s a considerable difference between them in terms of what they advocate. It’s really a question of where you think the line is between expressing an opinion and inciting hate crime. Vile though the BNP undoubtedly are, their policies do not include the killing of people on the basis of religious belief or sexuality – nor for that matter race; nor do they condone/advocate suicide bombing, and they disassociate themselves, as a party, from violent attacks, unlike Qaradawi. The law in this country is that it is not illegal to hold a racist opinion, but it is against the law to incite or commit physical violence or harassment upon grounds of race Members of white supremacist associations and non-affiliated racists who are resident in this country who step over the line into incitement of racist violence can expect to be prosecuted under race hate legislation.

    I think a fairer comparison would be to look at the way other foreign supremacists are treated when they seek a visa to come here to speak. I don’t believe they get them. (I just tried to find out if any white supremacists got visas but I can’t seem to Google it sensibly.) If they did, then that would be inconsistent with refusing one to Qaradawi on the basis of his views (although arguably not if he was refused a visa based on his medical treatment) – but the way to remedy that is to revoke the visas to those supremacists who got them, if you ask me. It’s bad enough we have to put up with our home-grown racists without inviting a load more in.

  4. Anon — on 28th January, 2008 at 11:42 am  

    If Qaradawi were a British citizen, he’d have every right to say what he likes over here.

    But he isn’t. That’s the essential difference.

  5. Zippy — on 28th January, 2008 at 3:05 pm  

    Comparing Al-Qaradawi to the BNP proves where Sunny gets his nickname: shine a torch in one ear and the other lights up. The BNP are unspeakably evil, vile and disgusting in that they try to stick up for whites, the most racist and bigoted group on earth. In fact, if it weren’t for whites, or rather white men (aka stale pale males), there would no racism or bigotry at all anywhere. Period. Like Sunny and other vibrant members of the ethnic communities, Al-Qaradawi has been a victim of white racism since birth. Period. Denying him a visa would be an act of imperialist aggression tantamount to continued genocide of native peoples on a global basis. Period.

  6. Ravi Naik — on 28th January, 2008 at 3:23 pm  

    The BNP are unspeakably evil, vile and disgusting in that they try to stick up for whites, the most racist and bigoted group on earth

    It is not. And in fact, it is a mediocre party. The raise of racism – specially against muslims – is a direct result of Islamist extremism. The islamist actions do much more harm than anything that the BNP can ever wish to achieve. The BNP needs radical Islam to act and shout, so that they can continue the narrative against multiculturism and multiracial society.

    It pisses me off that Islamists – like Qaradawi – are not seen as dangerous – let alone more dangerous – for race relations in Britain. Who actually gains with his arrival in Britain? Look at the BNP site news for the answer.

  7. Sunny — on 28th January, 2008 at 3:26 pm  

    I don’t buy the argument that different standards should apply just because a person is a non-citizen. It doesn’t demonstrate any commitment to free speech or the willingness to tolerate views you don’t want to hear. It just says that if there were a way for us to ban people we don’t want to hear – we would.

    My problem is that standard is arbitary and opaque. Any government is free to deny visa to people it doesn’t like and admit people it likes without any consideration for whether those views should be heard or not (unless of course they were illegal etc).

    So, for example, all those young Tories who wanted to ‘hang Nelson Mandela’ during the 80s would no doubt have lobbied the govt then to ban him from coming here. Of course, Qaradawi doesn’t come near Mandela but we’re talking about the principle here.

  8. Ravi Naik — on 28th January, 2008 at 3:42 pm  

    “My problem is that standard is arbitary and opaque.”

    In this case it isn’t. As Katy pointed out, Al-Qaradawi has been on record to support suicide bombers against civilians, and supporting terrorism. Such opinions are not supported by freedom of speech in this country, and are prosecuted as a hate crime and inciting violence. There is no ambiguity here, and freedom of speech is not an argument in this case.

    “So, for example, all those young Tories who wanted to ‘hang Nelson Mandela’ during the 80s would no doubt have lobbied the govt then to ban him from coming here.”

    It is worth mentioning that the ANC – in the 1970s – was indeed a terrorist organization who targeted civilians through bombings, decapitations and other attrocities. Mandela was in prison at that time, and his role was ambiguous, so it is not far-fetched to have seen him as a rogue figure in the 80s – and not the inspiring person he is today.

    I think superficially we can put the BNP and Al-Qaradawi in the same bag, and cry hypocrisy and what not. But it is worth exploring the differences: if the BNP openly said that it supported suicide bombers, attacks against homosexuals and people of a different ethnic group, it would be closed the next day.

  9. Kismet Hardy — on 28th January, 2008 at 3:59 pm  

    Would a speaker from the BNP given a visa to a Muslim country knowing he intends to spout bile against Islam?

    Having said that, no BNP member would be crazy enough to consider it. So the Bigger Balls, Madder Nut award goes to Al-Qaradawi

  10. Natty — on 28th January, 2008 at 4:29 pm  

    What about Daniel Pipes then he is given a visa without complaint. I don’t see people complaining about him.

    If you want to ban then ban on an equal basis. This mans views are disgusting and rarely if ever condemned by Govt as extremist. He has ready access to the highert echelons of Govt.

    Who draws these lines and makes the decision.

    People that Muslims find offensive are let in easily.

    Surely his views are unacceptable and yet he is allowed here as a scholar. Pipes advocates harsher military responses by Israel thus killing.

    Qaradawi is unacceptable but so is Pipes. So where was the discussion when he visits or gets open access to NewsNight to spout his hate?

    Equally the Indian State Minister was given a visa without fuss despite his role in Gujrat.

    So have a level playing field when discussing.

    Also don’t be being selective when condeming ole Yusuf as there is also a cause of frustration that causes people to committ these acts. These acts of sheer desperation stem from an inhumane occupation so ban those that advocate that as well from the country.

  11. marvin — on 28th January, 2008 at 6:16 pm  

    Who actually gains with his arrival in Britain? Look at the BNP site news for the answer.

    Spot on comment Ravi..

    He is an Egyptian national linked with the Muslim Brotherhood

    He supports:

    * The killing of homosexuals to keep society pure
    * The killing of apostates – those who have rejected Islam
    * The killing of all Israelis – including civilians
    * The mutilation of women’s genitals

    http://www.galha.org/briefing/qaradawi.html

    And you want to give the guy a VISA?

    The comparison with the BNP is way off the mark. BNP members are subject to the law of the UK, and the police will not hesitate to try and take them to court for offences, as we have already seen.

    When people incite murder over here, they are taken to court. When they do it abroad, they are welcomed with opened arms by Ken Livingstone.

    Do you think Nick Griffin saying “Islam is a wicked vicious faith” is just as nasty as saying apostates and homosexuals should be murdered?

    He’s also an Egyptian national. He has no god given right to enter the UK anyway, especially considering all the good, decent, and even persecuted people who are denied entry and deported every day!

    IMHO, by the so called progressive left allowing and supporting entry for scum like Yusuf, this simply increases the BNP and home-grown right wing extremists.

    It’s pure fodder for the Daily Mail etc and other right wing isolationists!

  12. marvin — on 28th January, 2008 at 6:20 pm  

    Views being as ‘disgusting’ is completley sbjective. Please try and stick with reality.

    If someone incites murder of people innocent of actual crime defined under international law than they should be banned from travelling/denied entry. Simple.

    And let’s not put arbitrary, airy fairy ‘principles’ above common sense, people.

  13. marvin — on 28th January, 2008 at 6:36 pm  

    Please read the Qaradawi fatwas and tell me this guy should be given entry to the UK

    http://www.meforum.org/article/646

    We all make mistakes in judgement, but let’s not let Qaradawi be one of them

  14. Monty — on 28th January, 2008 at 9:12 pm  

    The UK doesn’t owe this man anything. If his presence is not conducive to the public good, he shouldn’t be allowed in.

    “I don’t buy the argument that different standards should apply just because a person is a non-citizen”.

    Of course different standards apply. The guy is a foreign visitor, with none of the rights and priviledges citizenship confers.

  15. douglas clark — on 28th January, 2008 at 10:00 pm  

    I’d have thought it was entirely reasonable to refuse the very famous ‘platform’ to folk that want to denigrate some of our citizens. We have enough problems with our own, native born, lunatics, without importing others.

    However, if the guy merely wants to come here for medical treatment, let him, subject to a gagging order.

  16. sonia — on 28th January, 2008 at 10:17 pm  

    good points katy and ravi.

    are freedom of speech and freedom of travel connected in people’s minds, seems to be the real question/point of debate here.

    seems like we’re talking about his right to come to the UK, ( for medical reasons, in this case?) which is really about his right to travel isn’t it.

    would it be the same thing if there was talk of not letting any of al-qaradawi’s writings being published, here. clearly not, so there are different factors involved.

    one is, the right of the man to visit like any other foreign citizen, (i.e. one applies for permission and sees whether it is granted, it is certainly not automatic and generally does depend on one being able to show ‘good character’/lack of activity that could be considered ‘subversive’ – i.e. ‘dodgy’ people of any kind will find it much harder to get a visa of any kind

    and the other thing is the right of the man to be heard when he speaks, and while obviously that can include being physically present, it is not restricted to it.

    seems to me right now it might be more of a human rights issue for poor old qaradawi if he wants to go to hospital. a bit of christian charity might be a good way to snub him really..heh.


    but obviously the bottom line is, if you have to ask the State’s permission to come and visit, then if the State doesn’t like you, you’ll have some trouble. that’s kind of the whole point of States controlling who goes in and who doesn’t. If people don’t like that thing and are in favour of free movement generally, that we can talk about!

    perhaps the wider question should be – if countries say they are in favour of speech, should that mean they cannot have immigration controls – because they have to allow everyone the right to come to their country – to speak.

    that would be fun :-)

  17. douglas clark — on 28th January, 2008 at 10:25 pm  

    Sonia,

    I think, correct me if I am wrong, that Qaradawi was still able to broadcast his views via the internet?

    If so, we live in a world of transparent borders, do we not?

    In other words you can influence a nation without setting a foot on it’s shores.

    Interesting stuff.

  18. Sunny — on 28th January, 2008 at 11:17 pm  

    Sonia – as you rightly said this is about free travel than speech.

    But in reply to Ravi:
    In this case it isn’t. As Katy pointed out, Al-Qaradawi has been on record to support suicide bombers against civilians, and supporting terrorism. Such opinions are not supported by freedom of speech in this country, and are prosecuted as a hate crime and inciting violence. There is no ambiguity here, and freedom of speech is not an argument in this case.

    In this case you find his views contemptible, as I do, so it is potentially an open and shut case. But the govt has a good record of randomly refusing people visas, including Snoop Doggy Dogg! Bastards. No reason given there either. The system is completely opaque. They should have to grant visas unless there is a strong enough reason not to.

    I’m afraid the second part of your argument doesn’t stand up either. He is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. Apart from the fact that Israel is a govt and Hamas is deemed an organisation rather than a government, how do you define who is a terrorist? And what if you saw the Israeli govt as terrorists occupying land that legally does not belong to them?

  19. Sunny — on 28th January, 2008 at 11:20 pm  

    And, on the issue of free speech, I’m not really in favour of having one rule for citizens and another rule for non-citizens.

    I think Steve also has good reasons, if not for the same reasons, to let him in:
    http://pubphilosopher.blogs.com/pub_philosopher/2008/01/let-al-qaradawi.html

  20. Ravi Naik — on 28th January, 2008 at 11:56 pm  

    “In this case you find his views contemptible, as I do, so it is potentially an open and shut case.

    That is not what I said. It is irrelevant what you and I find contemptible. It is that his extremist views are not protected by freedom of speech, and can be prosecuted by hate laws. On that basis – and that basis alone – it is an open and shut case. Or are you advocating two set of rules, in that hate laws should not be applied to non-citizens?

    He is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. Apart from the fact that Israel is a govt and Hamas is deemed an organisation rather than a government, how do you define who is a terrorist?

    Easy. I define a terrorist as anyone who believes that killing innocent civilians is an acceptable measure to reach its means. He has said several times that Israeli and American civilians are no different from soldiers, and thus should be targets of abduction and killings.

  21. Katy Newton — on 29th January, 2008 at 12:05 am  

    And, on the issue of free speech, I’m not really in favour of having one rule for citizens and another rule for non-citizens.

    But the rules that apply to citizens and the rules that apply to non-citizens are different, because citizens have rights and duties that non-citizens don’t have.

    Citizens of the UK cannot be deported because they have an absolute right to live here, but they can be prosecuted under race/gender/sexual discrimination legislation if they overstep the mark. Non-citizens of the UK can say what they like abroad without regard to discrimination laws in this country, but they aren’t citizens and that means that this country doesn’t have to let them in to spread their hatred here.

    By way of analogy, if my twelve year old son shouts at me because I told him to tidy his room, I can’t throw him out for that because he has the right to live with me and I have a duty to take care of him; but that doesn’t mean that I have to invite all of his friends to my house to make a mess as well.

  22. Sunny — on 29th January, 2008 at 12:26 am  

    It is that his extremist views are not protected by freedom of speech, and can be prosecuted by hate laws.

    I’m afraid that isn’t so clear. As far as I’m aware, the CPS chucked out the Jewish Board of Deputies argument that he was inciting.

    Easy. I define a terrorist as anyone who believes that killing innocent civilians is an acceptable measure to reach its means.

    Anyone… including armies?

    but that doesn’t mean that I have to invite all of his friends to my house to make a mess as well.

    I agree, but Qaradawi has come here repeatedly and even before Livingstone was Mayor. He says things I find annoying and I think he’s a buffoon. But if he’s come here for trips in the past, I see no reason why he should be denied. Though, it looks like he’s coming here for medical treatment.

  23. fugstar — on 29th January, 2008 at 1:07 am  

    There are a lot of grudges being applied on Shayk Q. Always will be. theres always someone somewhere with an interest in telling people that an orthodox muslim is not a north london liberal.

  24. Ravi Naik — on 29th January, 2008 at 2:06 am  

    “Easy. I define a terrorist as anyone who believes that killing innocent civilians is an acceptable measure to reach its means.

    Anyone… including armies?”

    Anyone, including armies.

  25. Roger — on 29th January, 2008 at 5:19 am  

    Again, Qaradawi does not want to visit the UK to make speeches but to receive medical treatment which he will pay for.

  26. Sid — on 29th January, 2008 at 8:30 am  

    Qaradawi was a sheikh to some but he never meant shit to me, as Chuck D never said. And having said that, he’s also a sick old man who should know he’ll end up in Reading Gaol if he opens his mouth.

    I also question the consistency of letting in people like Daniel Pipes. Only difference is, Pipes’ execrable ideas are couched in Ivy League speak.

  27. Sid — on 29th January, 2008 at 8:35 am  

    Why is the Daily Boris (love that from Dave Hill) shouting for keeping Qaradawi out? Surely having Q in the country during the mayor of London election year will be detrimental to Ken?

  28. Joey — on 29th January, 2008 at 9:51 am  

    How typical of the Left in this country to once again champion the case of a mad mullah even if he doesn’t live in this country. Isn’t it any wonder the BNP are growing in strength?

  29. Sid — on 29th January, 2008 at 11:41 am  

    If the BNP are growing in strength, I’ve never seen the Right in this country beat themselves up over it.

  30. fugstar — on 29th January, 2008 at 12:28 pm  

    28#

    very ed hussain hence thick.

  31. sonia — on 29th January, 2008 at 12:56 pm  

    17. douglas – i have no idea either but i figure he can, as far as i can see.

    “I think, correct me if I am wrong, that Qaradawi was still able to broadcast his views via the internet?

    And yes of course you can influence a nation without setting foot on its shores.

    if qaradawi never came here again it wouldn’t mean jack .

    like i said, this “debate” seems to be about the chances of people getting a visa – who are on the record as having views the State may find “subversive”, and should they have the same chances as other non-citizens as getting a visa. Nation-states have made very clear that getting a visa is like asking to come to a tea-party, if you’ve said nasty things about your host they reserve the right to not let you in. We might not like that – but that’s – again part and parcel of nation-states and the rules they enforce with regards to their borders, and as Katy says, how citizens are distinguished from non-citizens. (which is why Sunny, your use of the word citizens in the past, made people think in very much the legal sense of the word)

    I don’t quite see why people (or some of them anyway) only think of these things when it comes to Mr. Q getting a visa. Its not about freedom of speech, its about freedom of travel. This is clearly very much tied up with the bigger issues about nation-states and free borders, freedom of movement etc. Obviously we don’t have that! Didn’t we know that already? I find it rather simplistic that this only suddenly it comes up with regards to Mr. Q. What about all the other people in the world, they might have something to say – why are we so bothered about Mr. Q? and anyway we KNOW he’s not trying to get in to say something, is he.

    Anyway no one has refused him a visa yet on any grounds so…

    Plus – what the nation-state considers subservive varies and will generally include all sorts of things – of course you have to be famous enough for them to bother. e.g. if you are some kind of anarchist, or say anarcho-communist! and the US govt knows of you, i think you will find some trouble applying for visas to go there for example.

    Why is there all this ‘amnesia’ about what nation-states are and stand for? It’s very strange.

  32. Ravi Naik — on 29th January, 2008 at 4:37 pm  

    I don’t quite see why people (or some of them anyway) only think of these things when it comes to Mr. Q getting a visa. Its not about freedom of speech, its about freedom of travel.

    Sunny’s post was about freedom of speech and Mr.Q, not freedom of travel. I think refusing his visa would signal that his speech inciting violence – against civilians – is not allowed and not acceptable in this country. The BNP got in trouble and went on trial for simply saying that Islam is a “wicked vicious faith”. What would happen if they incited his fellow men to literally kidnap and kill non-whites and liberals for being the enemy?

    I mean, we should be consistent in having one set of rules that apply to both whites and non-whites, not have two standards. And one wonders why Islamic radicals are roaming around freely and inciting violence in this country? It is depressing to see how the Left is so blind.

  33. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:15 am  

    Strange discussion – not many people who are going on about left and right complained much when cluster bombs were being flown via this country to Israel to bomb and maim innocent civilians. In fact the cluster bombs continue to do so. Yet Israeli Govt officials arrive here with impunity.

    Why is maiming and killing of Jewish people unacceptable hence we should refuse Qaradawi a visa. Yet maiming and killing of Arabs has become acceptable and Israelis are granted visa’s without fuss. As are Gujrat Politicians. Please tell me that this country hasn’t gone so low that it is now choosing which civilians can and cannot be maimed. Surely we should be complaining about all civilians being killed.

    Hence there is indeed one rule for one and one rule for another. Despite the comments it is worth noting that Qaradawi has said that suicide bombing is only applicable in certain countries like Israel due to the Palestinians not having weapons similar to Israel. He hasn’t said that it is ok in all cases.

    So much of the venom against him is due to this issue and the bias of the media towards Israel.

    I would state that I don’t support his view but am just stating facts.

    Similarly to Katy and others who have jumped onto this. If one is to speak of terrorism then the term also needs to be generic. The use of slow terror by states such as that faced by normal Palestinians constitutes terrorism as it terrorises a community to a slow lingering death. Either way people die. Simply listing one and ignoring the other lacks human compassion. I am widely disappointed in the overall acceptance of the Jewish community to the suffering of the Palestinians and the disproportionate responses. I don’t understand where the compassion has gone and it is indeed sad when humans get into this state.

    For years when there wasn’t much terror Israel still was able to get away with horrible rules against Palestinains with no one saying anything.

    Hiding behind one is a Govt (Israel) and one is not recognised (Hamas) is disgraceful as either we should say something is wrong no matter if it is a govt or not.

    Lets think of it this way, the Nazi’s were a legally elected Govt and hence if we apply some of the opinions being put forth then no Nazi should be judged as a terrorist because they were from a Govt. I am hopeful that we all agree this shouldn’t be the case.

    I think for Holocaust Memorial Day the Jewish Community should find it in itself to recognise the suffering endured by the Palestinians and the Palestinians should find ti in themselves to recognise the suffering of the Jewish people. In one European country (I forget which) the Palestinian Representative went to visit a concentration camp with the Israeli Ambassador.

    Equally if Qaradawi is to be baned then would you ban all Israeli’s coming here, the neocons who advocate the use of force and to be frank some rather digusting measures against civilian populations. Would you ban people who supported the Iraq War using lies from coming here?

    As Eli Wiesal said at Davos every religion has its extremists and we shouldn’t forget that. In order to forge change requires dialogue and understanding.

    The rules should be set for all. If Qaradawi is to be banned then equally ban those from other religions. You cannot ban one and allow free entry for others. There are numerous examples of this. This is simply picking on Muslims and the twisting of facts to do this.

    I don’t like Qaradawi’s views but equally think he should be allowed in precisely because the govt has failed to ban Jewish, Hindu, Christian extremists. Either ban all or none.

    In 2007 Daniel Pipes was granted a visa without fuss or complaint from the Jewish Community. His views are a disgrace and yet now we want to ban Qaradawi because his views are a disgrace. Yeah for equal rules for all!

  34. Rumbold — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:54 am  

    Perhaps everyone who wants to visit Britain shold have to sign a declaration saying that they believe that everyone, including Jews, gays and apostates, are equal. This would not of course change the views of anyone signing, but it would be quite amusing to brandish the copy of Qadarwi’s declaration.

    If we let Qadarwi in, then what criterea should be applied to refuse visas to those we don’t want in this country?

  35. Ravi Naik — on 30th January, 2008 at 10:27 am  

    “In 2007 Daniel Pipes was granted a visa without fuss or complaint from the Jewish Community. His views are a disgrace and yet now we want to ban Qaradawi because his views are a disgrace. Yeah for equal rules for all!”

    Funny that I have heard the name “Daniel Pipes” so many times in this thread, and not once has been said what is his crime. Did he literally call for the killing and kidnaping of civilians? Did he literally say that suicide bombings are an acceptable form of warfare against civilians? Does anyone here understand the difference between having an opinion and inciting violence?

    Let me repeat for the last time: inciting violence is not protected by freedom of speech. There is a world of difference between being critical of Israel and its policies and promoting the killing of its civillians in the most brutal way. What is next? Are we going to support FARC? Oh right…

    And I also do not understand the logic here: are you saying we should let Qaradawi in, because others are allegedly given a free pass? Shall we let all criminals out because some are not caught? It seems more sensible to pressure the government to keep a standard and let all extremists out of this country. I like Rumbold’s idea in #35.

  36. Ravi Naik — on 30th January, 2008 at 10:28 am  

    let all extremists out of this country

    I mean, keep all extremists out…

  37. Rumbold — on 30th January, 2008 at 10:37 am  

    I think that it all boils down to whether or not we can prove that Qadarwi said what he said. If we can, then we have every right to deny him a visa, because his alleged words justify the killings of British citizens, and thus he is a danger to this country. If we cannot find enough proof, then we probably have to let him in. I think that there is enough proof.

  38. sonia — on 30th January, 2008 at 1:39 pm  

    well let him come for medical attention, its a short-term visit, who is going to look bad then? Qaradawi of course. Says nasty things about people but still has to come to them to get better, that sort of thing.

    If you look at a visa application form Rumbold, you’ll get an ‘idea’ of the sorts of things you have to say you’re not upto – so effectively what the existing criteria are. (they always make me laugh…as if anyone ever says Yes) they go along the lines of “have you ever supported terrorist actitivity or are you planning to” kind of thing. Cant remember the exact phrasing – will drap up a copy off the net.

    So Qaradawi presumably had to say ‘no’ to all that – and then presumably its down to whether the powers that be think that was a lie or not.


    Right – here we are: Visit visa form

    and here are the questions:

    5.10 In times of either peace or war have you ever been involved in, or suspected of involvement in, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide? Refer to the Guidance notes for definitions. Put a cross (x) in the relevant box.
    YES NO If yes, please provide details in box below

    5.11 Have you ever been involved in, supported, or encouraged terrorist activities in any country? Have you, ever been a member of, or given support to an organisation that has been concerned in terrorism? Refer to the Guidance notes for definitions.
    Put a cross (x) in the relevant box

    5.12 Have you ever, by any means or medium, expressed views that justify or glorify terrorist violence or that may encourage others to terrorist acts or other serious criminal acts? Refer to the Guidance notes for definitions. Put a cross (x) in the relevant box

    5.13 Have you engaged in any other activities that might indicate that you may not be considered a person of good character?

    So there we go.. He might find it a bit hard to say no to all that, but presumably he did.

  39. bananabrain — on 30th January, 2008 at 5:15 pm  

    i seem to remember that louis farrakhan didn’t get a visa on the grounds of his presence not being “conducive to the public good”. it’s there if you want to use it – which clearly, in the case of Q, they don’t. personally, i hope that stonewall meets him at the airport and pickets his hospital, at least they can’t be accused of being in the pay of international zionism, whatever the hell thats supposed to be. at any rate it might tarnish that idiot livingstone’s so-called credentials. how the guy thinks he can be pro-gay and pro-mullah at the same time is beyond me.

    you will note a number of israeli military figures (most recently general doron almog, i believe) have been threatened with arrest if they visited by various anti-israeli groups, so i hardly think they can “come and go with impunity”. besides, a lot of this would presumably be covered by diplomatic immunity in any case, which our friend mr cuddly-beard doesn’t have.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  40. marvin — on 30th January, 2008 at 5:32 pm  

    Ravi, excellent comments, #32 & #35 and Rumbold #34 – definitely!!!

    ‘Avi Cohen’, could you enlighten us to the specific crimes of Daniel Pipes. It seems you really disagree, but you have stated nothing of his crimes. Either you take it back or justify it. Had he been inciting people to kill those who disagree?

  41. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 6:32 pm  

    Ravi,

    You are definign a criteria which suits your argument.

    Daniel Pipes has said that Muslims do not follow a germanic standard of hygenie, advocates harsh treatment of Palestinians etc. He believes indeed advocates that they need to be crushed militarily.

    Now as I said terrorism consitutes many forms including those that you mention but also in my opinion others including causing general terror to a community. Is there a moral difference between killing civilians using a suicide bomber of dropping a multi-ton bomb from an F-16? Either way innocent people die.

    You are deciding one way is wrong and one is perefctly acceptable. I say both are wrong and forms of terror.

    Pipes advocated invading Iraq whatever the prce on civilians and advocates the same for Iran.

    Surely we should deplore the ill treatment of all civilians not one side or the other. A concept you cannot grasp.

    You have decided Israel = all Right. Palestinians – all wrong.

    I say along with a few others that we should deplore actions against all civilians and not be selective like you. What is going on in that area on all sides is frankly disgraceful and singling out one or the other as you do is incorrect.

    Is a civilian dying at a roadside because they ahve to get a permit to go to hospital any less of a terror than someone being blown up. In either case people die in a terrorised nasty way. So let’s not forget that.

    in order to help both sides come to peace then we as human beings need to recognise wrong on both sides not define it so narrowly that one is always right and one is always wrong.

    Why is it that Ghandi’s Grandson had to resign because he criticised Israel – where was the concept of freedom of speech then. So when cartoonists denigrate Muslims it is freedom of speech and when Ghandi’s Grandosn criticses Israel it isn’t!

    You see this is how narrow and controlled the discussion has become.

    There is wrong on both sides and Qaradawi is wrong but so are people like Pipes. One can come here freely and one we are told should be banned. Either ban both or ban none. Not the half baked solution.

  42. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 6:39 pm  

    Marvin – Pipes has made comments about Muslims that are quite frankly digusting. He questions their hygene and insinuates they are different to the Western Norm.Qardawi says similar things about Jewish people.

    Qaradawi supports sucide bombing as a way of fighting the Israelis. Pipes supports massive military use by Israel.

    Qaradawi is regarded by some as a schoilar. Pipes is regarded by some as a scholar.

    etc. etc. etc.

    So why ban one and not the other. Surely both have reprehensible views we should detest?

    How are you drawing your lines of what is right and wrong?

    I am saying both are wrong so either ban both or none.

    You are saying ban one and not the other.

    So you are saying that when Pipes denigrates Muslims and calls for crushing the Palestinians including civilians that is perfectly ok.

    But when Qaradawi says it the other way that isn’t.

    Very strange.

  43. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:10 pm  

    Also interestingly for all those complaining that Qaradawi should be banned kindly explain to me why this preacher – Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger – who has advocated ethinic cleansing is not being called for a ban.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/948977.html

    The Rabbi advocates the removal of Gazans to Sinai which is ethnic cleansing.

    The Rabbi also said that Muslims have noi connection to Jerusalem.

    He got his visa without complaint and I wonder how many will now demand that the Jewish Community speak out against this.

    “I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against Iraq,” Rabbi Metzger said.

    “Rabbi Metzger pointed out the chances of Israel permitting a return to the 1967 borders are minimal.”

    Strangely this man is being compared to the Dalai Lama.

    Come on – why the double standard?

  44. Refresh — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:11 pm  

    This has all the hallmarks of yet another dishonest debate.

    Fundamentally, Daniel Pipes is a source of a lot of vicious and deceitful comments and is a considerable source of material used for generating hatred. He is his fathers son, who himself specialised in this game.

    What we can argue is Daniel Pipes is one of the neocon high priests – and they inhabit the Whitehouse. The US is an ally of the UK. It need not go any further than that.

    Qaradawi is not an ally, and he is also nice stick to beat Ken Livingstone.

    That is the politics – right there. Why else is David Cameron getting so worked up about it?

    For me I was all for not letting Ariel Sharon into the country – he did much more than just make hate speeches.

  45. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:13 pm  

    Will David Cameron now have the guts to stand in Parliament and question why he was let in? Will he hell.

    This is why the law is an ass and politicians have no common sense.

    The man a senior religous cleric gets a tame response in The Times.

    Yet when the President of Iran said that Jews had no connection to the Holy land there was up roar. When this man says the same about Muslims then The Times compares this man to the Dalai Lama.

  46. marvin — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:13 pm  

    Avi, saying Muslims are unclean does is not illegal. Also, it is not incitement to murder. Again, please you could you provide direct evidence of Pipes crimes, i.e. quotes from Pipes, and perhaps resulting legal victories against him.

    Disgusting stuff is said about Jews all around the country, in mosques and white nationalist groups. But it’s not illegal to say Jews are smelly. Or Muslims. Just idiotic.

    Do you realise the difference between inciting murder and saying things you find repulsive?

    Perhaps you found the mohammed cartoons repulsive, and think that the cartoonists should be locked up.

    You may think that Israel is a terrorist state and Hamas controlled Gaza as a fluffy utopia. But you are on the fringe politics, veering into complete lunacy.

  47. marvin — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:22 pm  

    Avi, you are very good at derailing a thread. You think Jews have no connection to Israel? Actually don’t bother to answer that one. Your friend has recently said that the days are numbered for ‘filthy’ israel
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23133989-2,00.html

    I am still confused why you think Qaradawi should be given a Visa to enter the UK.

    Am I right in concluding because people who say bad things about Islam or groups of Muslims are allowed in the country, so should Islamic clerics who support the murder of apostates, homosexuals etc?

    Again can you see the difference between inciting murder, and being rude or repulsive about people (hint being rude or repulsive is something largely subjective)?

  48. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:23 pm  

    Katy – Should this Rabbi who promotes the ethnic cleansing of Gaza be allowed a visa? Should the Jewish community distance itself from him?

    He advocates the keepign of the West Bank as well and says nah in fact decrees that Muslims have no connection with Jerusalem. So why so quiet!

    The opinion of banning Qaradawi was forthright but now what about this?

    If Qaradawi came and said that Jews have no connection to Jerusalem then with respect you’d be up in arms. So why so quiet on this lovely preacher?

    If Qaradawi came and said Jews should be resettled in Europe then Sunny would be frothing at the mouth. Yet no articles on this visit. No questions in the House of Commons, No discussion on Pickled Politics.

    Why not???

    Why does this hatred go by without question?

    Why is he more entitled to a visa than old Yusuf?

    Come on lets discuss this in a PP Thread – Rabbi’s of Hate.

  49. Jai — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:25 pm  

    You are deciding one way is wrong and one is perefctly acceptable.

    No he isn’t. Ravi explicitly stated in #24 that he thinks killing innocent civilians is a form of terrorism, even if the attack is undertaken by an army.

  50. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:26 pm  

    Marvin – read what I said. I said either ban all people who preach hate or none. When you get selective as you do then that leads to problems.

    Kindly explain when I said Jews have no connection. I said if Qaradawi said this then people would be up in arms – duh! Try reading first.

    What I am highlighting is that the call to ban some and not all is inconsistent.

    In fact this is highlighted by the visit of the Rabbi at the same time as calls to ban Qaradawi.

    Let me reiterate for you as you have trouble reading – I don’t agree at all with Qaradawi. But I think we need a fair policy to either ban everyone who espouses hate or none.

  51. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:31 pm  

    Marvin – He isn’t my friend. I don’t like him and think he is an idiot who makes stupid statements like he does to be popular.

    Your smearing isn’t going to work.

    I stick to my point that this picking and choosing will never work. The policy is incorrect.

    I say ban all who promote hatred. But it must apply across the board.

    Again you are being selective. The people I referred to are not just rude. They advocate a policy which includes the killing of civilians if it meets their goals.

    >Am I right in concluding because people who say bad >things about Islam or groups of Muslims are allowed >in the country, so should Islamic clerics who support >the murder of apostates, homosexuals etc?
    Read what I said – I said ban them all. How difficult is that to understand.

    BAN THEM ALL.

  52. marvin — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:33 pm  

    Avi, I cannot take what you are saying at face value, kindly provide references and linkage to the ethnic cleansing Rabbis and how they are allowed in – with linkage – with transcripts or direct quotes.

    And you have still failed to account for your comments about the ‘crimes’ commited by Daniel Pipes.

    Anyone preaching genocide should not be allowed in country.

    BTW, the Palestinians are not facing genocide, regardless of what you have read on your fringe sites.

  53. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:34 pm  

    Look as the noted commentator Elie Wiesel said at Davos during the WEF every religion has people who are extremist. Every religion.

    So I am sayign ban them all from coming here. Not just a few.

    Ban all of them. Have a consistent policy by banning them all.

  54. marvin — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:37 pm  

    Haha. You cannot ban people who incite hatred Avi. I am sorry but that is ridiculous.

    You would be banned for inciting hatred towards Israeli leaders, for a start.

    One could be punished for inciting hatred against Tories, or New Labour, for example.

    It’s impossible and completely contrary to free speech (with the caveat of not inciting murder or violence.

    Ban those who incite others to murder, simple!

  55. marvin — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:39 pm  

    Anyone who says kill all the Palestinians, should be denied entry too. But Pipes has never said that, has he? And what about these SS brown shirt rabbis, when did they get entry to the UK? Who are they?!

  56. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:39 pm  

    Marvin – For F Sake read the link. He said make the people leave Gaza and settle them in the Sinai. That is ethnic cleansing by making the indiginous inhabitants leave by force.

    It is quoted in Hareetz the link is above.

    Pipes – read his views and what he advocatyes. I have said what he said and his policy. If you can’t grasp that then I can’t help. As I said he advocates Israel uses all force to defeat the Palestinians utterly, he advocated the war in Iraq and advocates war in Iran. At one time his views were too much even for Bibi.

    Sheesh it isn’t hard to get.

    >BTW, the Palestinians are not facing genocide, >regardless of what you have read on your fringe sites.
    Bloody hell I didn’t use the word Genocide. See this is a typical tactic when the going gets tough start smering what people are saying.

    Try reading what is said.

  57. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:45 pm  

    Marvin – with the utmost respect if you don’t know what he has said then please kindly stop banging on.

    Pipes has said that Israel should use all force including levelling Palestinain Villages if a single person launches an attack on Israel. He refers to Palestinians as the enemy. He beleives that for peace Israel must win a resounding victory over not just the Palestianisn but also over its neigbours.

    He smears Muslims and as I said one such smear is that they are not as hygenic as those of Germanic origin.

    I can go on but surely you get the picture. He isn’t nice. But he gets visa without problem.

    Hence I am highlighting the policy is stupid.

    as I said I’d like to ban all these people including Muslism if what they say is extremist.

  58. Jai — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:49 pm  

    Come on lets discuss this in a PP Thread – Rabbi’s of Hate.

    Why not call it “Preachers of Hate”, and discuss so-called holy men from all religious backgrounds ?

    Why the obsession with Jewish people, “Avi” ? I’m not saying that the current Western fascination with all things Islamic supposedly deemed nefarious is a healthy preoccupation — although 9/11 and ongoing idiocy by radicals/extremests in the name of Islam has played an absolutely huge role in triggering and perpetuating this — but if you think that it is unfair to single out Muslim preachers for criticism, why you are subsequently targetting Jewish religious figures to attack as a counter-response ?

    Again, what do you have against Jewish people specifically, as opposed to discussing corrupt “holy men” in all religions ?

  59. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:57 pm  

    Jai – because there is an obsession here with just one religion. So I focussed on one and you came back quickly and said why not all preachers of hate.

    Why did you not say that when the Qaradawi debate started here?

    Yes discuss all but then the thread focussed on one!

    Why I raised one was to get the reaction which came that we shouldn’t single out one. But the whole thread is singling out one set only. That is my point that I am arguing.

    I don’t have anything against Jewish people so pleaes don’t imply otherwise. I simply went onto the web quickly and these stories cropped up.

    Sheesh how many times do I have to say it all I am saying is lets ban all of these people of hate. A consistent policy that is all I am asking for.

    But my point is proven as soon as you focus on any other religion then people say lets have a generic discussion.

    But when you focus on Muslims then people like you go along happily.

  60. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 7:59 pm  

    So Jai what do you have against Muslims that you go along with the debate until someone focuses on any other religion then you say it should be generic?

    Again, what do you have against Muslim people specifically, as opposed to discussing corrupt “holy men” in all religions ?

  61. Matthew 15 — on 30th January, 2008 at 8:12 pm  

    Avi is either a member of Neutra Karta or he is a neo-Nazi come MPACK man masquerading under a Hebrew Jewish name.

    In other words, he is a psycho.

    Avi, I also think that the Palestinians should be crushed under Israeli tanks. Now what?

  62. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 8:20 pm  

    Again digging around the internet I see that Franklin Grahamn another preacher of hate is due in the UK in 2008. Yet will he be banned?

    Will David Cameron raise questions about his visa in Parliament? Will there be a thread on whether he should come to the UK?

    He says:
    Graham writes that “Islam–unlike Christianity–has among its basic teachings a deep intolerance for those who follow other faiths.”

    he reiterated his opinion, saying, “I believe the Qur’an teaches violence, not peace.”

    Graham also drew widespread criticism in October after he called Islam “a very evil and wicked religion.”

    “I’m not saying that God used this storm as a judgment. [But] New Orleans has been known for years as a party town. It is a city that has strong ties to the gay and lesbian movement, and these types of things. … God is going to use that storm to bring revival.”

    That is what evangelist Franklin Graham, son of Rev. Billy Graham, said about Hurricane Katrina and its effect on New Orleans (Associated Press, Oct. 8).

    Got his visa no problem…so why isn’t he banned as well????

  63. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 8:23 pm  

    “In other words, he is a psycho.”

    Sticks and stones boy. Clearly you fail to grasp the need for a consistent approach to policy in banning preachers of hate, all of them of any faith.

    This is all I say and you come with your petty slurs. It shows your one-sided approach.

  64. Matthew 15 — on 30th January, 2008 at 8:25 pm  

    It shows your one-sided approach.

    Rich.

    Avi, so which is it son? NK? Neo-Nazi? MPACK?

    Come on, you can tell me, I won’t tell the Godfathers at Mossad, promise…

  65. Refresh — on 30th January, 2008 at 8:31 pm  

    Matthew15

    ‘Avi, I also think that the Palestinians should be crushed under Israeli tanks.’

    Do you really believe that is what you would want to do that to the Palestinians? Or are you just trying to be controversial?

  66. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 8:36 pm  

    It is a little boy trying to be controversial.

  67. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 8:40 pm  

    Come on, you can tell me, I won’t tell the Godfathers at Mossad, promise…

    Sonny if you knew anything then you would know that Mossad itself is a secular organisation whose primary purpose is to protect the interest of the State of Israel. Hence they would have little interest in disussions on banning preachers who spew hate.

    At least get your facts straight.

    In fact I am sure they would support my assertion that all preachers who spew such hate should be banned. Thus you offering not to tell them is of no consequence in fact it is better for me if you do them them because they would support me.

  68. Refresh — on 30th January, 2008 at 8:49 pm  

    Avi,

    I am not sure agree with this:

    ‘In fact I am sure they would support my assertion that all preachers who spew such hate should be banned.’

    All intelligence agencies are amoral (despite what ‘Spooks’ might portray) and only interested in forwarding their own agenda.

  69. Matthew 15 — on 30th January, 2008 at 8:51 pm  

    secular organisation whose primary purpose is to protect the interest of the State of Israel

    OK, that clears it up nicely. You are certainly not a Jew – by faith or birth.

    So that leaves neo-Nazi or thick Muslim posing as a Jew.

    Not much between them, but I’m going for Muslim. Is your name Asghar Bukhari by any chance?

  70. Matthew 15 — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:02 pm  

    Do you really believe that is what you would want to do that to the Palestinians?

    Nice way of phrasing the question. Me, personally, I don’t want to do anything. I don’t want to get my hands dirty.

    Why should I when the IDF are more than capable.

    However, these Jews are far too civilised; they let one million of these leeches live within the State of Israel! Can you believe it? I mean, the way the Muzzies and the media go on, you’d think that the Palestinians are dying out due to ‘Israeli atrocities’.

    The Israelis even tolerate their Mosque that the Muzzies built ON TOP of their Temple! I would have thought that they would have bulldozed it, the way people like Avi go on…

  71. Refresh — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:07 pm  

    Matthew15,

    One of the things we’ve diligently tried to avoid is asking questions of people’s ethnicity, as you should be looking to debate the points made.

    Now if he was a muslim – would that be a problem?

  72. Don — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:09 pm  

    ‘Yes discuss all but then the thread focussed on one!’

    That was the news story which started the topic. How would it not focus on this? Sunny’s whole point was consistency, but the central issue is Mr Q’s potential arrival. So that is where most of the discussion is going to be.

    I think most of us would accept that the system is skewed, but taking your logic to the extreme the UK should give equal access to Mr Q and POTUS. There is a certain logic to that, but it’s unrealistic to expect that.

    ‘I don’t have anything against Jewish people so pleaes don’t imply otherwise.’

    Your choice of handle gives cause to doubt that. You have consistently turned every topic you have commented on into an anti-zionist rant under a mockingly jewish pseudonym. I doubt your good faith. I think you’re a troll.

  73. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:14 pm  

    Marvin – Haha. You cannot ban people who incite hatred Avi. I am sorry but that is ridiculous.

    It isn’t ridiculous. Ban them all.

    Also despite your assertion I am also all for banning the clown from Iran. Ban him. What possible good does it do for him to come here?

    Inciting hatred can lead to murder and we do not need any of it. So yes I think we need to ban them.

    You can’t stop people here from hatred but you can ban people coming in. Why can’t they be stopped?

    I don’t want to listen to any of them. So a consistent policy of banning them all.

    >You would be banned for inciting hatred towards >Israeli leaders, for a start.
    Please can I make this clear as I have before. I believe that Israeli’s and Palestinians have both had very poor leaders. Both of them. I highlight Israel more because it is stronger and thus I think it should take more of a lead in pursuing peace, and it has more of a responsibility to push for peace as a stronger partner.

    Frankly Olmert and Abbas are poor leaders. Sharon and Afafat were poor leaders and on we go.

    They were all poor. To me leadership is about taking tough decisions for what is right. They failed and are failing to do that on all sides. I emphasise that both sides have had poor leadership.

    I would go so far as to say that they have both had no true leadership to get out of the mess.

    As regards this issue all I say is that I’d like to see the politicians in this country taking an equal approach. I just don’t see that happening. Cameron spouts on about Qaradawi but no others – why not. Issues like this need leadership for the good of society.

    I am sorry but this is important as an issue as I think the policy needs to be applied across the board.

  74. marvin — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:21 pm  

    Avi

    “Islam–unlike Christianity–has among its basic teachings a deep intolerance for those who follow other faiths.”

    “I believe the Qur’an teaches violence, not peace.”

    This is not even ‘hate’ speech! It’s just he is stating an opinion on a set of beliefs, which is Islam. He’s not being very complimentary, but it’s a an OPINION.

    He did not say “I believe we should murder those who follow the Quran, cos they are well bad”

    …I’m am an atheist. Sometimes, when I hear religious nutters preach hate and intolerance, sometimes I say I hate religion, that it’s for stupid people. Do you get what is meant by freedom of speech?

    If you cannot tell the difference between saying

    “throw homosexuals off tall buildings, kill apostates”

    and saying

    “I think Islam is intolerant, in fact I think it’s a bit violent”

    Then IMHO there’s no point furthering your debate on this thread.

  75. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:23 pm  

    Your choice of handle gives cause to doubt that. You have consistently turned every topic you have commented on into an anti-zionist rant under a mockingly jewish pseudonym. I doubt your good faith. I think you’re a troll.

    Oh don’t talk rubbish. I simply highlighted that there is a Rabbi visiting whose views are also unsavoury and a Christian Minister on the way whose views are unsavoury and you call it an anti-zionist rant. I highlighted that a Jewish scholar is given a visa whose views are unsavoury. So by giving examples I am anti-zionist and if I don’t give examples I am told I cannot backup my view. So I can’t win either way.

    So kindly tell me how I am supposed to make the point without either label?

    Also if you had bothered to read instead of casting dodgy aspertions then you’d know I also highlighted the issue of the Hindu Minister given a visa. So I gave a number of examples from different religions but you just want to apply one label because then it gives credence to your rather dodgy assertions.

  76. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:29 pm  

    Marvin – those were quick examples off the internet and there were a number from different preachers. But to pick a few and the base your argument on that is simply poor.

    The Minister to whom you refer advocated the war in Iraq, advocates the war in Iran and that is with the killing of civilians.

    It is a price he is prepared to accept. So to pick a few other comments and to try and discuise that as I don’t understand free speech is simply poor comment.

    With respect this man to whom you lovingly refer promotes the battle of Islam and Christianity to further the return of Jesus as the Messiah ie. he promotes all out war in the Middle East. That in anyones mind in the promotion of violence to achieve a religous end.

    All I am saying is that all these people need to be banned regardless of faith. I am not against banning Muslim preachers when they do the same.

    But the central premise is lets have a balanced approach.

  77. Refresh — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:39 pm  

    Don, I can’t say I agree with you on the troll comment.

    However much worse is accepting Matthew15′s stance – surely that shouldn’t go without comment?

  78. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:41 pm  

    >Now if he was a muslim – would that be a problem?

    Clearly to young Matthew yes it would be an issue reading by his comments that he added and calling them muzzies.

  79. Sid — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:45 pm  
  80. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:46 pm  

    Don – “That was the news story which started the topic. How would it not focus on this? Sunny’s whole point was consistency, but the central issue is Mr Q’s potential arrival. So that is where most of the discussion is going to be.”

    Mr. Q’s potential arrival but the story can also focus on the fact that we already have another preacher who arrived in the UK whose views are dodgy and there is no focus on that.

    Depends which news story you pick! Which is my point.

    The discussion could equally have been about the lack of media condemnation of the preacher who is already here and his views.

    As for Mr. Q – it is really shouldn’t be an issue. If his views are unsavoury, which many people feel they are, then ban him. It is simply politicians trying to make politican gain out of somethign that can be solved with great ease and the media going on a rant on something that doesn’t need to be an issue.

  81. Refresh — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:47 pm  

    Don,

    I think Avi by presenting to us the cases he does actually strengthens Sunny’s point made in his blog. No consistency. So I would say Avi has no argument with Sunny, but plenty with some of the dubious newcomers as I do.

  82. Avi Cohen — on 30th January, 2008 at 9:49 pm  

    I don’t have any argument with Sunny. I have an argument with the stupid way the law is being used and the way that such issues which are crucial for the well-being of society are being used for political gain and as a political football.

    All I want is some consistency which I think is what Sunny said.

  83. Don — on 30th January, 2008 at 10:55 pm  

    Refresh,

    Matthew15 went under my radar.

  84. Refresh — on 30th January, 2008 at 11:41 pm  

    Don,

    I’ve read some seriously vile stuff right here on PP in the distant past, but had thought we’d got past it.

    Last time, of note, was when Mazumadar (another ethnic cleanser) made his entree, fortunately for us he turned into entertainment. Lets hope Matthew15 another class act.

  85. Walter — on 31st January, 2008 at 8:21 am  

    Of course Don was going to miss what Matthew15 was saying as he was busy himself throwing some pretty nasty allegations.

    If Don bothered to follow the development of the thread he would see that the initial allegations against Yusuf Qaradawi relate to his stance on Israel/Palestine and the use of Suicide Bombing and Homosexuality. The reply clearly illustrated to most people except Don that this is a two way street and that Christian and Jewish preachers have nasty opinions regarding treatment of Palestinians and homosexuals.

    Thus proving the principle of the entire thread that there is no consistent approach.

    But Don then charged in by hurling very nasty accusations so exatcly how is Don different from Matthew15 and indeed maybe one in the same person.

    These quite frankly cheap and nasty accusations are quite uncalled for especially when clear examples are given and Don should issue an apology.

  86. tim — on 31st January, 2008 at 9:10 am  

    Unfortunately, at PMQ’s today Cameron claimed that the Tories had banned Qaradawi.
    A lie.
    In fact they let him in five times.
    Including when Cameron was an advisor to the home office.

    An apology coming from Dave soon about misleading the house.

  87. Jai — on 31st January, 2008 at 10:56 am  

    Avi,

    Jai – because there is an obsession here with just one religion. So I focussed on one and you came back quickly and said why not all preachers of hate.

    Why did you not say that when the Qaradawi debate started here?

    Because the Qaradawi issue is of immediate (and greater) impact and Islamic extremism has had a particularly strong impact in the UK in recent years. You cannot necessarily say the same about corrupt religious figures from other faiths, nefarious as they may be.

    Moreover, it’s not my place to dictate to Sunny what he should and should not write about, although I occasionally make exceptions to this if one of the authors of PP writes something I very strongly disagree with. Also, given the fact that, when Sunny criticises Muslim figures or organisations, bear in mind that he frequently includes caveats such as “this also happens amongst Hindus and Sikhs”, so he hardly has some kind of axe to grind against Muslims specifically.

    Why I raised one was to get the reaction which came that we shouldn’t single out one. But the whole thread is singling out one set only. That is my point that I am arguing…..I don’t have anything against Jewish people so pleaes don’t imply otherwise.

    So why repeatedly single out Jewish people specifically in your counterexamples ? Are you genuinely claiming that your decision to choose Jews was completely random ?

    A consistent policy that is all I am asking for.

    That’s a good policy to have and I support & applaud such a stance.

    But my point is proven as soon as you focus on any other religion then people say lets have a generic discussion…..But when you focus on Muslims then people like you go along happily.

    Not at all. If radical/extremist Hindu and Sikh groups were a major problem in this country then I would have no problem with focusing on them. However, the influence of the former is more of an issue in the US than the UK. And in terms of previous discussions criticising Sikh and Hindu groups per se, I have never held back from criticising them too if I happen to disagree with their actions.

    Moreover, my query wasn’t in relation to focusing on “any other religion”, but it was specifically concerned with your decision to target Jewish people specifically (and Israel, elsewhere in this thread). And yes, I am aware that you also — correctly — mentioned politicians from Gujarat, although this reference was very brief, certainly compared to your lengthy attacks against Jewish figures and the actions of Israel.

    So Jai what do you have against Muslims that you go along with the debate until someone focuses on any other religion then you say it should be generic?

    Again, what do you have against Muslim people specifically, as opposed to discussing corrupt “holy men” in all religions ?

    Nice attempt to turn things back on me, but your tactic is misguided and inappropriate, particularly as I have never objected to critical discussions focusing on non-Muslim religious figures.

    The rationale behind your decision to repeatedly single out Jewish people on this thread does, however, continue to raise questions, especially as — for some reason — you have chosen an obviously Jewish username, which is misleading to say the least.

    However, as I said before, I do think that maintaining consistency is extremely important, although the current media obsession with Muslims is an unfortunate sign of the times and a reflection of global events during the past decade or so. If there was a Jewish, Hindu or Sikh person holed up in some cave overseas and repeatedly promoting allegedly religiously-condoned atrocities against the West and its allies, and there had been repeated attempts by Jewish, Hindu or Sikh people to attack civilian targets here in the UK (possibly successfully), I guarantee that there would currently be a similar preoccupation with Judaism, Hinduism, or Sikhism and all of its adherents (both “moderate” and “liberal”) in both the media and amongst the general public.

  88. Jai — on 31st January, 2008 at 11:01 am  

    Don,

    That was the news story which started the topic. How would it not focus on this? Sunny’s whole point was consistency, but the central issue is Mr Q’s potential arrival. So that is where most of the discussion is going to be.

    My point exactly.

  89. Katy Newton — on 31st January, 2008 at 11:11 am  

    I don’t know a huge amount about what Daniel Pipes says, but what I do know I do not like and if it was up to me I’d refuse him a visa too.

    I don’t think that he goes as far as Qaradawi in the sense that he doesn’t advocate out and out violence – correct me if I am wrong – but I believe he suggests that Muslims should be monitored and interned within their home country simply because their religion renders them incapable of being loyal citizens, and I find that hugely offensive and divisive. It is exactly the sort of thing that some people say about Jews.

    We have to put up with the BNP because they are home-grown and there isn’t anywhere to send them, but I really don’t see why we should play host to everyone else’s racists as well.

  90. Katy Newton — on 31st January, 2008 at 11:22 am  

    I think the reason that Avi focuses on “yes but would you say that if X were Jewish” is not so much antisemitism, as a reaction to the fact that shenanigans in the Middle East have led everyone to conclude that Judaism and Islam are fundamental opposites of each other, and the way you balance the equation (as it were) is to think “Yes, you say that now because X is Muslim, but what would you say if they were Jewish?” or vice versa.

    It’s a shame, because for the most part in everyday life Jews and Muslims get along fine. There’s this brilliant bit in “Them: Adventures with Extremists” by Jon Ronson (Jewish), when he’s with Omar Mohammed Bakri at the Cash and Carry getting leaflets photocopied for some sort of “End the Jewish Tyranny” conference. They find themselves standing next to an orthodox Jew who stares at the leaflets and then stares at them, and what makes it so funny is that Bakri, noted jihadist and outspoken supporter of terrorism, is absolutely mortified.

    Similarly, if we were talking about Louis Farrakhan I am quite sure that people would immediately cast around for a similar white figure and then say: “Yes, but what would you say if it was David Duke?”

    (I don’t know if David Duke has ever been allowed in or not. I don’t know if he’s even tried to get in. I’d quite like to know.)

  91. Ravi Naik — on 31st January, 2008 at 11:35 am  

    “However, as I said before, I do think that maintaining consistency is extremely important… If there was a Jewish, Hindu or Sikh person holed up in some cave overseas and repeatedly promoting allegedly religiously-condoned atrocities against the West and its allies, and there had been repeated attempts by Jewish, Hindu or Sikh people to attack civilian targets here in the UK (possibly successfully), I guarantee that there would currently be a similar preoccupation with Judaism, Hinduism, or Sikhism and all of its adherents (both “moderate” and “liberal”) in both the media and amongst the general public.

    Well said. And Marvin’s comments are also spot-on.

    Pity that people are defending Qaradawi on the basis that he is Muslim, and even comparing inciting murder against civilians as religious duty, to a stupid comment about personal hygiene.

    This allegiance to people – regardless of how radical and extremists they are – just because of religion is absolutely wrong in my view. This attitude, I have to say, does not do any favours in dispelling the perception that some people have that Islam is a religion that promotes violence.

  92. Refresh — on 31st January, 2008 at 11:50 am  

    Ravi,

    ‘Pity that people are defending Qaradawi on the basis that he is Muslim, and even comparing inciting murder against civilians as religious duty, to a stupid comment about personal hygiene. ‘

    The whole debate is a travesty. All for what? To stop Ken Livingstone?

    As for the defence of Qaradawi, not yet seen it. The Sunny opens by pointing out inconsistencies, and that has been elaborated on.

    As for Daniel Pipes – I urge you to look out for this guys work. His scholarly work is INTENDED to generate hatred, it feeds into LGF, Jihadwatch, HP and goodness knows how many thousands of others which rely on his work to generate hatred and division. How else could you justify the long war to outlast the Cold War?

    And if the likes of Matthew15 can say what he does without a comment, then it is appropriate to get to grips as to why he can. Don’t you think?

  93. Sid — on 31st January, 2008 at 11:51 am  

    This allegiance to people – regardless of how radical and extremists they are – just because of religion is absolutely wrong in my view. This attitude, I have to say, does not do any favours in dispelling the perception that some people have that Islam is a religion that promotes violence.

    Agreed, but it would be wrong to conclude that that kind of religious/cultural tribalism is applicable to Islam/muslims only. You can see it on daily basis here on PP. People find it hard to be objective about their own allegiances, particularly if they’re forced to defend them, often against their own better judgements.

  94. Sid — on 31st January, 2008 at 11:56 am  

    I think the reason that Avi focuses on “yes but would you say that if X were Jewish” is not so much antisemitism, as a reaction to the fact that shenanigans in the Middle East have led everyone to conclude that Judaism and Islam are fundamental opposites of each other, and the way you balance the equation (as it were) is to think “Yes, you say that now because X is Muslim, but what would you say if they were Jewish?” or vice versa.

    Spot on. Whenever I do my late night shopping at the 24 hour Asda, I see orthodox Jews and orthodox Muslims happily swish around each other in the aisles. They seem happy to be in each other’s companies, politeley comparing prices on Kosher and non-gelatin products.

  95. Katy Newton — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:03 pm  

    Which Asda is that? I’m thinking it’s not the one in Colindale. I’ve been there a few times because I love Asda’s stuff, but what always strikes me is how many of the kitchen knives are missing from their security-tagged wrappers. Eeek.

  96. bananabrain — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:05 pm  

    Is there a moral difference between killing civilians using a suicide bomber of dropping a multi-ton bomb from an F-16? Either way innocent people die.

    in as non-tendentious a way as possible, i’d suggest that it wasn’t the involvement of civilians that makes the moral difference. it has recently been suggested to me that one of the major ways to distinguish between an act of terrorism and an act of self-defence is that the first aims to cause destruction to one’s opponents and the second aims to remove the means to cause destruction *from* one’s opponents.

    clearly, one can say that both are in the highly morally dubious ways vs means arena, but nonetheless the latter strategy is more likely to a) succeed and b) lead to a sustainable peace. where this falls down with regard to the israelis is that they haven’t managed to succeed in removing the means of destruction, because the palestinians that keep engaging in rocket attacks don’t seem to have any trouble getting the necessary resources. (odd, really, when you consider how hard it is to get food or a job in gaza and yet nobody there seems to find it hard to lay their hands on bullets or explosives) on the other hand, the palestinians have no hope whatsoever of removing the israelis’ capacity to hurt them, so it’s an utterly self-defeating strategy. and so the stupidity continues.

    Why is it that Ghandi’s Grandson had to resign because he criticised Israel – where was the concept of freedom of speech then.

    if you think that criticising israel is a restricted activity with little freedom of speech, i can only imagine that the only media you watch are american. i thought you already read ha-aretz, mate: it’s an israeli paper and a highly critical one. on the other hand, maybe i am mistaking mere criticism of israel for outright vilification and demonisation, which is what passes for criticism in many fora.

    personally, i’d allow all these guys to say what they like, no matter how rude or repulsive, but would certainly encourage freedom of speech in order that evident stupidity or intolerance can be publicly rebutted and ridiculed. i certainly wouldn’t be protecting them from public scrutiny by dignifying their rubbish with a ban. “banning them all” would mean we wouldn’t be able to discuss anything, except perhaps heat magazine.

    as for rabbi metzger, i’d say that if you read the story, his vision for the gazans appears to be that they get some sort of custom-built settlement in the sinai, with all the facilities of the modern state, built at international expense. if that’s what you call “ethnic cleansing”, it’s somewhat different to what, say milosevic or saddam hussein did. obviously, however it ignores the obvious facts that
    a) they wouldn’t want to leave
    b) the israelis have given gaza up already and aren’t about to go back in there – and only the most unreasonable rabbis consider it actually part of biblical israel
    c) the egyptians would hardly welcome a large contingent of angry palestinians
    d) nobody in the arab world would agree either

    in short, it isn’t bloody practical, but what can you expect from such a well-known idiot. yona metzger is a curious blend of religious figure and civil servant, with no real authority arising from either post. in religious terms, he is subservient to the yeshiva world and has nothing like the standing of qaradawi. he isn’t even the only “chief rabbi”.

    as for these quotes:

    I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against Iraq,” Rabbi Metzger said.

    he said this to george bush. i don’t see anything controversial about this; why shouldn’t he thank him for his support of israel? and why shouldn’t he thank him for removing saddam, one of the biggest threats to israel? i don’t think that’s at all unreasonable.

    “Rabbi Metzger pointed out the chances of Israel permitting a return to the 1967 borders are minimal.”

    firstly, he is not in any position to make such a statement. israel has *already* returned to the 1967 borders as far as gaza is concerned. secondly, the eventual settlement of the west bank and jerusalem borders is likely to differ somewhat, even if not very much from the 1967 borders. for a start, before 1967 the old city of jerusalem was in jordanian hands and that’s not going to change any time soon. it certainly doesn’t mean what you suggest.

    Strangely this man is being compared to the Dalai Lama.

    by CBS – and at any rate they’re trying to work together. that doesn’t mean he’s got the same views, or wants the same things, either. and so what if he advocates keeping the west bank? a lot of people do, but it doesn’t mean they’re going to get their way. in many ways jews have a greater connection to the west bank, hebron in particular, than they do to tel aviv, yet i don’t see anyone talking about swapping.

    as for the comment about jerusalem, it’s a tendentious remark, based presumably on the fact that jerusalem was *presumed* to be the “furthest mosque” mentioned in muhammad’s night journey, but never explicitly named as such until after his death, if i remember correctly. by contrast, the jewish attachment to jerusalem is explicit, ancient and highly current. you can see where from his point of view, the muslims have mecca and medina already, they hardly need jerusalem as well, considering. there is also the small matter of islamist attempts to whitewash the jewish connection to jerusalem in particular, but i don’t think we need to go down that particular road at the moment, although most of the work is being done by the palestinian waqf which controls the temple mount.

    this whole report appears to be an exercise in wishful thinking and frankly the only good thing i can say about him is at least he isn’t advocating mass murder, he thinks he’s being humane, which is more than i can say for qaradawi.

    Yet when the President of Iran said that Jews had no connection to the Holy land there was uproar.

    because it’s rubbish. and he’s the president of iran, who, regardless of what you may think, has a greater influence on world affairs than yona feckin’ metzger, for feck’s sake. in the words of stalin, how many divisions does he have?

    and pipes is a feckin’ feathered eejit, too.

    Sharon and Arafat were poor leaders and on we go.

    albeit sharon of all people took on the groups that gave him power and began to turn the tables on them. he carried out the gaza disengagement – what did arafat ever achieve?

    The Israelis even tolerate their Mosque that the Muzzies built ON TOP of their Temple! I would have thought that they would have bulldozed it, the way people like Avi go on…

    there are some who want to, but so far the israeli government has squashed any tendencies to try. the closest it has ever come was in 1967, straight after the war, which was, ironically, probably the only time it was ever possible. personally, i’m quite glad they didn’t, it’s a beautiful building. when the Temple is rebuilt, G!D Willing, a solution will present itself, although i’m buggered if i know what that’s going to be. that’s one for the messiah to sort out i think.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  97. Sid — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:15 pm  

    Good stuff bb. i’m glad you’ve come round to agreeing that the “fuck” word is a great rhetorical device. :)

  98. Jai — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:30 pm  

    Katy & Ravi,

    re: #90 & 91

    I do find it mystifying why some Muslims respond to any criticism of other Muslims (religious figures, countries, or other groups) by retaliating with lengthy diatribes against Israel. This doesn’t mean that their ire isn’t necessarily warranted — although it does vary considerably depending on the specific context — but I’m bemused about why Israel and/or Jews are often specifically singled out much more forcefully and in more detail than other groups, considering that there is plenty of nasty behaviour by other religious/political/national groups around the world. But Israel seems to come up time and time again.

    Combining what Ravi and Sid have both just said — and both are equally correct, in my view — I guess that this is just a factor of human nature; people’s nerves are touched when they identify with any perceived persecuted or aggrieved party (Palestinians, in this case, due to the shared religious affiliation), so it’s common sense that indignation would be aroused (with a potential loss of neutrality, propriety or objectivity) when people have some kind of vested interest in the issue. (I myself have occasionally fallen prey to such behaviour, although I think that the majority of the time I have succeeded in staying as objective and even-handed as possible and have deliberately made an effort to maintain that).

    However, whether the apparent anti-semitism amongst some bigotted Muslims is specifically due to Israel or whether it’s for some other reasons and Israel provides a pretext is of course a matter of opinion depending on the particular person and is an off-topic issue, Avi’s remarks notwithstanding.

    When people from a completely different background altogether appear to consistently demonstrate a stridently pro-Muslim/pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel bias it is of course a little more curious, but I guess it depends on one’s own life-experiences and where one’s primary sympathies may lie, for whatever reason.

    It’s a shame, because for the most part in everyday life Jews and Muslims get along fine.

    I see orthodox Jews and orthodox Muslims happily swish around each other in the aisles. They seem happy to be in each other’s companies, politeley comparing prices on Kosher and non-gelatin products.

    There was actually a really funny sketch in Goodness Gracious Me where Sanjeev Bhaksar plays a son in an Asian Muslim family and he’s decided to “come out” to his parents and tell them he’s converted to Judaism (he basically does an impression of Woody Allen). His parents are shocked, so Sanjeev starts telling them about all the similarities between the two faiths/groups and why it therefore shouldn’t be a big deal, eg. “Shalom/Salaam”, “kosher/halal” etc. He does make a good point, and there are plenty of other examples, eg. both “Abrahamic” faiths, circumcision, skullcaps, lots of beards (not of terror) amongst the more devout men, etc etc.

    Maybe if everyone focused on what they have in common rather than what separates them, life would be so much better. Cliched, I know, but still true.

  99. Random Guy — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:38 pm  

    BB, the furthest mosque is the Temple of the Rock. There is no doubt regarding that from the Islamic perspective (although I can see why you would like to say there is). Lets not get into an argument over respective messages and interpretations in the books of our respective faiths.

  100. bananabrain — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:39 pm  

    sid:

    “feck” is just a bit more cuddly than the alternatives. but i am a bit of a sweary mary in real life.

    jai:

    i always preferred the one where the father explains to his son the salient points of each religion:

    “sikhism – easy; man, pugg – pugg, man! and that thing you do with your hand, very bad!”

    “islam – very easy; no pork! and that thing you do with your hand, very bad!”

    “hinduism – very easy; no beef! and that thing you do with your hand, very bad!”

    hur hur hur

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  101. bananabrain — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:43 pm  

    @random guy:

    i know there isn’t any doubt from the islamic perspective, but i’m just trying to explain how metzger probably thinks, not trying to minimise the islamic connection to jerusalem. however, the whole #3 vs #1 thing should not be ignored, although it is not a reason to try and stiff the muslims out of jerusalem. however, if you read what metzger actually said in the jewish news, he specifically goes on to say explicitly that muslims are welcome to come onto the Temple mount to worship in the mosque, which is in fact a fairly big deal coming from an orthodox rabbi, especially in a jewish paper.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  102. sonia — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:44 pm  

    its a very valid debate to talk about why a nation-state’s use of violence is usually automatically considered justified but no one else’s is – individual or non-State actors – but that’s the point again isn’t it. Not a consistent or simple standard clearly if we’re talking about ethics/morals.

    from a State’s perspective, it is worried about individual’s it might allow to visit its territory – who may have leanings towards terrorism. So they come up with something to address that ‘threat’. If that suspicious person joins their country’s army and that army challenges the country – well they reckon that’s a different kind of threat and they probably think they have that ‘threat’ in hand through their so-called international relations ( or the lack thereof)and foreign policy towards that nation.

    It’s all happening from the State’s point of view, as an entity, with national security being a big premise, which doesn’t tend to be ‘consistent’ ( or particularly fair) and obviously takes preconceived notions of who is more likely to be dangerous into account (which is obviously again, influencing by multiple prejudices)

    it’s the self-interest thing, after all.

  103. Jai — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:46 pm  

    BB,

    Yeah I remember that sketch as well :) It’s a good sideswipe at how many Asian parents have a pretty ritualisitic attitude to their own religions and don’t actually know much about them in any detail beyond the surface observances. And yes they do have a knee-jerk reaction of anything bonking-related automatically being “bad” too !

  104. Avi Cohen — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:55 pm  

    Bananabrain – Surely it isn’t up to a Jewish Rabbi to decide what Islam’s Attachment is to Jerusalem just as much as it isn’t up to Muslim Imam to decide what Jewish attachment is to Jerusalem. It is up to each to say what their attachment is.

    As for your assertion on behalf of the Rabbi I must say it is at best poor and at worst misguided. Ethnic cleansing involves removing the indiginous population and this my friend is what he advocated. Whether they get luxury villas the other side is neither here nor there if the policy is to remove them that is ethnic cleansing and he advocated it.

    Lets call it what it is and not disguise the matter.

    I love reading haaretz. Also sometimes read the JP.

    Incodentally there was an article in the JP a few weeks ago which really caught my attention given what it said it was suprising it was even allowed in JP. The author said that Muslims and Jews basically had developed ammnesia about the fact they had lived together for over 1,400 years in relative peace and both sides were not trying to rewrite history to suit their current agenda which was very sad. Excellent article which was a sound slap to both sides.

    Also if you believe that ole Mahmoud has an effect on world affairs you are mistaken. His comments are simply being bigged up by Memri and taken on board. He doesn’t control the Military as that is the domain clerics most of whom take Mamoud with a pinch of salt. According to many reports they don’t even like him.

    >albeit sharon of all people took on the groups that
    >gave him power and began to turn the tables on them.
    >he carried out the gaza disengagement – what did >arafat ever achieve?
    A very unfair analysis if ever I saw one. The bias in your statements is clear. My friend if you recall Sharon himself admitted that his leaving Gaza was to keep the West Bank so he turned the tables on no-one. Your mythical analysis overlooks Sharon’s own stated intent. He wanted to give up a little bit of land which he didn’t desire to keep anyway in order to keep the grip on the West Bank. So why on earth do you purport he turned the tables.

    As for Araft – first he wasn’t a great leader as I said. But he achieved much for Israel which you overlook with little in return. By signing Oslo he brought implicit recognition of Israel into the Arab world. Prior to this Israel wasn’t even mentioned, Arafat changed this. Between Arafat and Rabin they made peace possible. They didn’t achieve it but they made it possible. If you cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge this stride then that is sad.

    To be honest although I like your commentary I do find it sad that you look at things with the bias you do.

  105. Avi Cohen — on 31st January, 2008 at 12:58 pm  

    BB and others – The Furthest Mosque isn’t the Dome of the Rock it is the entire area of Temple Mount. The Dome of the Rock holds no religous significance to Muslims as it is the area itself taht hold significance. The farthest mosque is actually Al-Aqsa which is the other side of the court yard and has a blue dome.

  106. Avi Cohen — on 31st January, 2008 at 1:09 pm  

    For the people who keep falsely implying that I select just Jewish examples – this is a damn lie.

    I picked Jewish and Christian examples and also highlighted the visit of a Hindu State Minister.

    Kindly stop your distortion of what I am saying.

    I repeat again I think Qaradawi is an idiot for his views. I am simply highlighting that he isn’t alone.

    Sid – Fully agree and it isn’t just orthodox and you’ll find that Reform and Liberal communities are also very close to the Muslim Community. I think the Muslim and Jewish community in the UK have a very close relationship at all levels and from what I see this is growing rapidly with organisations like Three Faiths and Aliph-Aleph.

    I think from grassroots to leadership this is progressing well.

  107. Avi Cohen — on 31st January, 2008 at 1:49 pm  

    Katy – Just to briefly answer your point. Pipes advocates the crushing of Palestinians. In his view if a single Palestinian launches an attack on Israel the entire village should be crushed. He advocates a complete and utter deafeat of all arab countries by Israel.

    How people say this isn’t the same as advocating violence is beyond me when is is calling for the use of maximum force and the crushing of villages for the acts of a single person.

    >It’s a shame, because for the most part in everyday >life Jews and Muslims get along fine.
    So true. Take away the Israel/Palestinian issue and the two communties are fine and close.

    I find it troubling that although I highlighted statements by Christian and Jewish people and mentioned the visit of a Hindu the constant focus is on why I mentioned what the Rabbi said.

    On the whole religous extremists make statements to boost popularity, they say what they think people want to hear with little regard to religion. The Rabbi’s views arte no more part of Judaism than Qaradawi’s views are part of Islam. Tehy are saying what they think people want to hear to make them popular. Bakri was the same and the odd thing is most of his interviews were with Jewish jounalists – figure that one out!

    Oddly enough I remember seeing a program with Bakhri and a Rabbi. When Bakhri was spewing his claim about the Koran the Rabbi stepped in and told him he was wrong as he had read the Koran and the Rabbi further explained the meaning. Bakhri couldn’t reply, thus one must question Bakhri’s own knowledge and understanding.

  108. Ravi Naik — on 31st January, 2008 at 1:53 pm  

    “The whole debate is a travesty. All for what? To stop Ken Livingstone?”

    Oh dear.

    “As for Daniel Pipes – I urge you to look out for this guys work. His scholarly work is INTENDED to generate hatred”

    I have. You know what? You can argue and debate Daniel Pipes, JihadWatch and all those anti-Islamic sites by showing how ridiculous their claims are. However, when you have Qaradawi defending mudering civilians as a religous obligation – and people like you defending him by questioning what is soo wrong with him – is it because they hate Ken Livington? – then it becomes incredibly hard to defend against Pipes/Jihadwatch assertion that the estabilishment and Muslims close their eyes when it comes to radical Islam – even worse when a) there were suicide bombings in London, and b) a plot to kidnap and kill a British man on this soil. Which leads me to the next point.

    He is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. Apart from the fact that Israel is a govt and Hamas is deemed an organisation rather than a government, how do you define who is a terrorist?

    I am all for relative judgement, after all the heroes of one cause are the villains of the other. But we need to draw the line somewhere, and for me is the killing of civillians as the means to advance a cause. Because it really bites our arses if we don’t.

    Because if you are saying that Qaradawi’s assertion that suicide bombers against civillians is an acceptable form of warfare, let alone acceptable speech, then if you are consistent, you need to accept that 7/7 bombings are also justified – they targeted civillians of the “enemy”, something that Qaradawi himself appealed to in the context of the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

  109. bananabrain — on 31st January, 2008 at 2:39 pm  

    Surely it isn’t up to a Jewish Rabbi to decide what Islam’s Attachment is to Jerusalem just as much as it isn’t up to Muslim Imam to decide what Jewish attachment is to Jerusalem. It is up to each to say what their attachment is.

    that’s what *i* think. i’m just trying to explain what metzger probably thinks.

    Ethnic cleansing involves removing the indigenous population and this my friend is what he advocated. Whether they get luxury villas the other side is neither here nor there if the policy is to remove them that is ethnic cleansing and he advocated it.

    i understand your point, but what you sacrifice for polemic consistency is in fact intellectual honesty and clarity about whether action X is morally worse than action Y. if you yourself had the choice about being ethnically cleansed by yona metzger or milosevic, perhaps you’d like to tell me which you’d prefer? i’m not saying either is a *good* thing. i’m saying there is a distinction that you’re failing to make and, considering it involves mass murder, i think you should try and appreciate it. also, i don’t care for your applying the label “indigenous” exclusively to palestinians. that implies that should the status quo obtain for a few centuries, the israelis would then qualify for “indigenous” status. and in any case it reduces the whole situation to a question of who was where first, which is moral idiocy.

    The author said that Muslims and Jews basically had developed ammnesia about the fact they had lived together for over 1,400 years in relative peace and both sides were not trying to rewrite history to suit their current agenda which was very sad.

    well, perhaps this author isn’t a historian, but the fact remains that whenever we have “lived together in peace”, this has been almost entirely with the jews as “dhimmi”, subordinate, second-class citizens who had to pay a tax called jizya for this privilege. ever heard of the “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar”? so, as you say, “let’s call it what it is and not disguise the matter” – if you can find an instance where the two have lived together with peace and equality outside a western secular democracy i’d like to hear about it.

    Also if you believe that ole Mahmoud has an effect on world affairs you are mistaken. His comments are simply being bigged up by Memri and taken on board. He doesn’t control the Military as that is the domain clerics most of whom take Mahmoud with a pinch of salt. According to many reports they don’t even like him.

    well, that’s a big relief. it must be those clerics, then, who are behind all the shi’a militias in iraq and the activities of the revolutionary guard – whoops, what am i saying? perhaps it’s memri.

    My friend if you recall Sharon himself admitted that his leaving Gaza was to keep the West Bank so he turned the tables on no-one. Your mythical analysis overlooks Sharon’s own stated intent. He wanted to give up a little bit of land which he didn’t desire to keep anyway in order to keep the grip on the West Bank. So why on earth do you purport he turned the tables.

    because he went up against the most entrenched power elite in israel, the settlers – and beat them at their own game, called their bluff and forced through his changes. if it hadn’t been for the stroke who knows what might have happened. what politicians say in public is no guarantee of their actual intentions, unless you are particularly naive. look, i have never been a fan of sharon, but i cannot deny him his achievement in this respect even if i regard him for being responsible for a large part of the problem in the first place. he talked continuously about “painful concessions”; certainly a disengagement from the west bank is now part of the israeli political vocabulary, even on the right, which is unprecedented.

    But he achieved much for Israel which you overlook with little in return. By signing Oslo he brought implicit recognition of Israel into the Arab world. Prior to this Israel wasn’t even mentioned, Arafat changed this.

    big deal! so arabs can say the name “israel” in public? many still won’t even do that! implicit recognition my bottom – they already recognised israel as an unpleasant “fact on the ground”, what they call it doesn’t signify in more than PR terms. what exactly is this “much”? where’s the peace? where’s the actual concrete achievement? he betrayed his own people for the enrichment of himself and his cronies? where the hell’s all that money GONE? why don’t we ask his wife? what a bunch of crooks. even giving gaza back doesn’t appear to have achieved anything other than enabling hamas to move their rockets right up to the border and don’t even get me started on how hizbollah have used their own people as human shields, with the so-called excuse of the shebaa farms, conveniently ignoring the return of the buffer zone in south lebanon.

    your whole argument is a flagrant case of what we call here “whataboutery” – it ignores the actual issue in favour of specious comparisons.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  110. Jai — on 31st January, 2008 at 3:08 pm  

    For the people who keep falsely implying that I select just Jewish examples – this is a damn lie.

    I picked Jewish and Christian examples and also highlighted the visit of a Hindu State Minister.

    Avi, you yourself are distorting the criticisms aimed at you. What has been said is that you have been focusing predominantly (not exclusively) on Israel and Jewish people. For the record, you made one very brief blink-and-you’ll-miss-it passing reference to Gujarati politicians (#33), a single post focusing on Christians (#62), but a whole series of long posts throughout this thread targetting Israel and Jewish figures. Count them if you don’t believe me.

    So although your examples have certainly not focused exclusively on Israel and Jews, the vast, vast majority of them in this thread certainly have done. Whatever your personal reasons for making these groups the primary target of your ire, please don’t claim that — out of all the religious groups you could have referred to — there has been not massive weighting in your arguments against Israel and Jews more than any other groups, because all anyone else has to do in order to verify the facts is to read this discussion from start to finish.

    In any case, as stated previously, if your main grievance is the fact that there should be a more consistent and even-handed approach regardless of our own religious affiliation and that of the people we are critical of, I agree completely and support you 100% on that front.

  111. Jai — on 31st January, 2008 at 3:12 pm  

    there has been not massive weighting in your arguments

    Correction: should say “there has not been a massive weighting in your arguments….”

    This is why we need a ‘preview’ function again…..

  112. Sunny — on 31st January, 2008 at 3:22 pm  

    Blooody hell, Avi Cohen’s long rants have derailed this thread once again.

    Ravi, to answer your points:

    ‘Avi Cohen’, could you enlighten us to the specific crimes of Daniel Pipes.

    He’s a loud supporter of the occupation of Palestine and the subjugation of Palestinians. That, to me, is a crime and inciting violence against Palestians. He shouldn’t be allowed into the country if you want to stop Qaradawi too.

    I hold no candle for Qaradawi on the basis he’s Muslim. But he is not directly related to any killings, unlike, say, Narendra Modi, who’s visa and arrival I campaigned against.

    Qaradawi believes, and I don’t agree with this, that people should be allowed to defend themselves if necessary using violence and killing innocent people. But so do people like Daniel Pipes and manty section of the Israeli govt. What’s the difference?

  113. Refresh — on 31st January, 2008 at 3:23 pm  

    Ravi

    Come on!

    ‘Oh dear.’

    You don’t need me to repeat the ken Livingstone link- Just watch how it will play out, as we get closer to May. Politics I am afraid.

    ‘and people like you defending him by questioning what is soo wrong with him – is it because they hate Ken Livington?’

    That is really quite beneath you. I have not and don’t.

    The blog is about consistency. Lets make sure by time we come out of this thread we do actually get some.

  114. bananabrain — on 31st January, 2008 at 3:35 pm  

    since when is the blog about consistency? besides, i loathe livingstone, but even if qaradawi didn’t have him in his corner i’d still object to the beardy old sod. whatever ken’s faults, at least i can’t accuse him of actively encouraging the murder of my auntie.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  115. Refresh — on 31st January, 2008 at 3:41 pm  

    ‘since when is the blog about consistency?’

    Isn’t that what Sunny started with?

    ‘I know right-wingers have no consistent standards when it comes to free speech, but I’m yet to hear a good argument for why Al-Qaradawi, contemptible as his views are, should be denied a visa.’

    I am quite aware of your attitude to Livingstone.

  116. Ravi Naik — on 31st January, 2008 at 4:05 pm  

    “I hold no candle for Qaradawi on the basis he’s Muslim. But he is not directly related to
    any killings”

    I actually think you hold a candle for Qaradawi because right-wingers are on his trail, which is quite evident from the beginning of your post. I also think it is amazing that you are absolving someone who incites kidnappings and murder for not being directly involved in those actions. Directly inciting violence should not be a crime?

    Qaradawi believes, and I don’t agree with this, that people should be allowed to defend themselves if necessary using violence and killing innocent people. But so do people like Daniel Pipes and manty section of the Israeli govt. What’s the difference?”

    I guess we have to disagree that there is a difference between defending the occcupation, and appealing extremists to kill innocent citizens through suicide bombs, or even kidnap and then kill them.

  117. Random Guy — on 31st January, 2008 at 4:11 pm  

    Sunny @112, the difference lies in the context of ‘occupier’ and ‘occupied’. Not that either status gives any side the right to take away innocent human lives, a crime against everything that humanity should hold sacred. But I do believe that it confers different responsibilities on both parties. And thats a whole other (very large) can of worms so lets not go there and derail the thread even further, okay? Its my opinion, leave it at that.

    mathew, stfu. As BB has pointed out, you are also engaging in ‘whataboutery’…

  118. Sunny — on 31st January, 2008 at 4:12 pm  

    I actually think you hold a candle for Qaradawi because right-wingers are on his trail,

    There’s left-wingers on his traill too, doesn’t make me want to support them either. There’s left wingers who supported invading IRaq, I didn;t.

    I guess we have to disagree that there is a difference between defending the occcupation, and appealing extremists to kill innocent citizens through suicide bombs, or even kidnap and then kill them.

    How does defending the occupation, which directly leads to the subjugation of over a million people in an open-air prison, not be an act of violence or inciting violence? You’re off your trolley.

    PS – Matther 15 is Muzumdar. Now deleted.

  119. Random Guy — on 31st January, 2008 at 4:13 pm  

    Ravi, is Qardawi in a position to ‘directly’ incite violence or is he just spouting a lot of bile?

  120. Refresh — on 31st January, 2008 at 4:20 pm  

    ‘PS – Matther 15 is Muzumdar. Now deleted.’

    Thank you Sunny. I guessed earlier, but not early enough.

  121. Avi Cohen — on 31st January, 2008 at 4:28 pm  

    Blooody hell, Avi Cohen’s long rants have derailed this thread once again.

    I gave examples of the inconsistency of the policy which is supposedly the whole point of the thread.

    Even you have said that Daniel Pipes views mean he shouldn’t get a visa.

    But hey sorry for jumping in on your show.

  122. Refresh — on 31st January, 2008 at 4:36 pm  

    Its been quite an interesting debate – most of which has given, I am sure, everyone plenty of food for thought.

    The most obvious one is – the ‘its not me, its him’ syndrome – which is where Sid’s Youtube link to the scouser sketch comes in.

  123. Avi Cohen — on 31st January, 2008 at 4:43 pm  

    BB – Would like to reply in details to your points but won’t for fear of upsetting owner.

    But to clarify your analogy is like saying do you want to be shot in the head or leg. Either way you get shot.

    I include Jewish people in the indiginous population which is mlore than you’ll ever do for Arabs.

    Big deal that Sharon gave up a strip he didn’t want to keep a bigger share of the land in the WB. Big deal that he recognised a 2 state solution he was workign to ensure never happened. Everythign you can say about Arafat also rings true for Sharon. Sharon never stopped building which signals his true intentions.

    I won’t say anymore.

  124. Ravi Naik — on 31st January, 2008 at 5:25 pm  

    I hold no candle for Qaradawi on the basis he’s Muslim. But he is not directly related to any killings”

    “How does defending the occupation, which directly leads to the subjugation of over a million people in an open-air prison, not be an act of violence or inciting violence?”

    That is skewed argument. The aggressor is the Israeli government and its policies – I hardly think that Pipes words makes the government more violent against Palestinian civilians. The same I am afraid cannot be said by Qaradawi and others like him, who give power to the argument that killing enemy civilians is ok, a tactic and an argument used by the 7/7 bombers.

    But the real reason why we disagree is that you don’t believe that inciting the killing, the kidnapping and the suicide bombing of civilians is a crime, and prefer to think that it is protected by freedom of speech – you say it is a matter of opinion.

    I wonder if we had kidnappings and suicide bombings on weekly basis in London, you would be of the same opinion. I guess you would not.

  125. Walter — on 31st January, 2008 at 5:38 pm  

    -That is skewed argument. The aggressor is the Israeli
    -government and its policies – I hardly think that
    -Pipes words makes the government more violent against
    -Palestinian civilians.

    It is your argument which is skewed. Pipes in an influential figure, like Yusuf. He helps prepare policy documents for govts and gives active advice. For crying out loud he was appointed as a Middle East advisor by Bush. So his words help form a policy whuch is then implemented by govt in ongoing violance. His policy calls for harsher and harsher reprisals against civilians.

    So Pipes influences US, Israeli and partly UK policy.

    It is nonsense to say they are just words. In both cases (Qaradawi and Pipes) the words along the line lead to innocent civilians to be killed.

  126. Sunny — on 31st January, 2008 at 5:45 pm  

    But the real reason why we disagree is that you don’t believe that inciting the killing, the kidnapping and the suicide bombing of civilians is a crime

    This is pure rubbish… and I was clearly under the mistaken impression that you weren’t like the Morgoth types who saw anyone who didn’t support the war in Iraq as people willing to bend over for Osama Bin Laden.

    Of course I believe that inciting is a crime. But there is a reason why the CPS chucked out the case against Qaradawi. Know why that is? Or are they Bin Laden’s lackeys too?

    The aggressor is the Israeli government and its policies – I hardly think that Pipes words makes the government more violent against Palestinian civilians

    The point is here about inciting violence – not necessarily about who has more influence. Palestinian politics were, for a long time, quite secular, and yet they were still violent towards Israeli civilians. Where’s your proof that Qaradawi directly encourages more Palestinians to kill themselves? Or them being Muslim association enough?

    Similarly, the view that Daniel Pipes is not influential enough is rubbish. The US govt consults on him for Middle East policy – he is quite vociferous in this support for Israel and against Palestinian rights and gets invited here for debates – clearly a lot of people find him bang on the money. Have you looked at his bio lately?

    This is a really lame argument you’ve come down to – that because Daniel Pipes isn’t influential enough, we should excuse him.

  127. Ravi Naik — on 31st January, 2008 at 5:56 pm  

    “His policy calls for harsher and harsher reprisals against civilians.”

    Can you elaborate on this, perhaps by presenting one of his articles?

    Do you believe that inciting the killing of innocent civilians to be a crime? I wish people responded to this point in an unambiguous way.

  128. Refresh — on 31st January, 2008 at 6:00 pm  

    Ravi,

    ‘Do you believe that inciting the killing of innocent civilians to be a crime? I wish people responded to this point in an unambiguous way.’

    But they have, they really have.

    All everybody is saying, there are others who also fall in the same bracket.

  129. Sunny — on 31st January, 2008 at 6:03 pm  

    Ravi, how about this:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=700807&contrassID=2

    Dr. Pipes goes on to admit “a certain frustration” with the apparent unwillingness of Israelis to go out there and do the right thing: bring the Arabs to heel, by use of overwhelming force.

    The article, entitled “Israel Shuns Victory,” sets out a kind of self-test for us, listing nine different options by which Israelis from far left to far right, and moderates in between, all “manage the conflict without resolving it,” “ignore the need to defeat Palestinian rejectionism.” and “seek to finesse war rather than win it.”

    This is not the first time Dr. Pipes has let Israelis have it for letting him down. In a 2003 speech to college students, cited on his Website http://www.DanielPipes.org, he suggested that Arabs will not truly accept Israel’s existence until Israel “punishes violence so hard that its enemies will eventually feel so deep a sense of futility that they will despair of further conflict.”

    But of course, Daniel Pipes isn’t really advocating violence against Palestinians. He’s a nice boy really.

  130. Refresh — on 31st January, 2008 at 6:07 pm  

    It seems to me Daniel Pipes is far more influential and more directly connected to violent death of civilians than anyone else we’ve managed to name here.

    To think he is going round colleges saying that. That’s the brainwashing of the young.

  131. Ravi Naik — on 31st January, 2008 at 6:08 pm  

    This is pure rubbish… and I was clearly under the mistaken impression that you weren’t like the Morgoth

    “Of course I believe that inciting is a crime.”

    You can classify me as you wish Hundal, but if inciting violence is a crime AND Qaradawi has clearly appealed for suicide bombings, killings and kidnappings of civilians – then he is a criminal according to your own logic and beliefs. It is not a matter of freedom of speech or opinion as you have insinuated from the beginning. And that is a pretty good reason – if you ever need one – to deny his visa.

  132. Steve — on 31st January, 2008 at 6:12 pm  

    Bloody Hell, Sunny, that must be, what, five maybe six times you’ve agreed with me over the last year.

    Any more and you’ll need therapy. ;-)

  133. Sunny — on 31st January, 2008 at 6:23 pm  

    Ravi:

    1) You haven’t answered my point about the CPS and the case the Jewish Board of Deputies brought against him.

    2) What do you think Daniel Pipes is doing? Asking for more chickens to be slaughtered? If you’re going to ask for consistent standards of others, apply them yourself too.

    Steve – heh, I knew you were gonna say that!

  134. bananabrain — on 31st January, 2008 at 6:59 pm  

    @refresh:

    is it? i had no idea. as long as it doesn’t lead to “i’m a lefty so that guy must be all right because he hates righties” etc.

    i’m not about denying qaradawi a visa, unless his presence will not be conducive to the public good. but neither am i going to make his life easier. nor am i happy for my tax money to be spent sucking up to him by my supposed mayor.

    @avi:

    But to clarify your analogy is like saying do you want to be shot in the head or leg. Either way you get shot.

    excellent analogy! indeed, either way you get shot, but one way you die and the other you don’t. i know which i prefer. that was the only point i was making, that there was a distinct and important difference.

    I include Jewish people in the indiginous population which is more than you’ll ever do for Arabs.

    !!! and how, exactly, would you know that? FYI, i support a solution which allows jews to live in hebron, nablus, gaza and anywhere else in palestine they dam’ well choose, as PALESTINIAN CITIZENS with equal rights – AND means arabs do the same in tel aviv, haifa and jerusalem, as ISRAELI CITIZENS. this is the only possible way to implement a two-state solution, unless you are suggesting that palestine is entitled to be judenrein like everywhere else in the middle east.

    Big deal that Sharon gave up a strip he didn’t want to keep a bigger share of the land in the WB.

    that’s called tactics, i think.

    Big deal that he recognised a 2 state solution he was working to ensure never happened.

    ditto arafat!

    Everything you can say about Arafat also rings true for Sharon.

    with the difference that because israel is a democracy and has separation of powers, an independent judiciary, freedom of the press and other such trifles, sharon was charged with corruption – in fact, his son’s just been sent to prison. now, i wonder how all those plo and fatah guys paid for their villas….?

    Sharon never stopped building which signals his true intentions.

    look, here’s some stuff from israeli coalition democracy 101, perhaps you should actually learn some stuff about israeli politics rather than getting it from the “jewish news” and mpac or wherever the hell it is you read this stuff. whoever controls the housing ministry gives out the permits. the right wing parties have *always* asked for that as the price of their participation in coalitions, which enables them to continue building in settlements, even when it *appears* to contradict government policy. the same thing happens with the left-wing parties and the social security ministry and the ultra-orthodox parties and the religious affairs ministry. it’s all about sectarian agendas. i’m not saying sharon was entirely honest about this whole thing but the fact that he stood up to the settlers, his own power base, was a *really* big deal.

    as for pipes, there are people *way* more extreme than him in israeli politics. ever heard of effi eitam?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  135. Avi Cohen — on 31st January, 2008 at 7:56 pm  

    Ravi – To be fair to Sunny the point he made was the the policy is inconsistent and he never said to my knowledge that Qaradawi was a good sort.

    Sunny’s exact words at the start are
    “… Al-Qaradawi, contemptible as his views are …”

    So quite clearly stated that he doesn’t like his views.

    Bananabrain – It is a subtle difference in what amounts to cleansing. Also isn’t what the old Rabbi is advocating is an Arab Free Holy Land? Your jumping up and down about judenrein in the next paragraph but being rather forgiving to a Rabbi advocating the same but for Arabs!

    I don’t support judenrein and personally think Jews should have stayed in Gaza under the Palestinians with Israeli Guards for X Decades to ensure safety. I agree with your point on Jews living in Palestine and Arabs in Israel for the sole reason it leads to the development of better societies.

    >that’s called tactics, i think.
    Dress it up as you will it was a land grab not two state solution.

    If you give them a state they can develop democracy.

    as for your last poor argument about housing – well I have never read such nonsense. You actually are the one who needs a lesson in Israeli politics. Sharon told the settlers to grab the hills which they did. Then they settleed then the state retroactively granted planning permission. Sharon disobeyed the law and circumvented it and you talk nonsense when you say it goes through a process.

    Then what happens is they take down one settlement for another dozen or more they set-up and the government grants legalisation.

    It is a land grab which is terrorising the Arab population. Roads are then build, land exporpriated and off you go. If it is you say then why the fuck do they keep getting asked by the Americans to do something about the ilegal outposts as they call them so nicely?

    That is how they do it by breaking the law and getting the Govt to ratify it later. Sharon did that it was his policy.

    Of course I have heard of Effi – but the point is he doesn’t pretend to be otherwise unlike Sharon.

    There is no difference between Sharon and Arafat. Both had blood on their hands, both were corrupt and both didn’t want an agreement. Nuff said – cause history proves that. You may love Sharon but the reality he wasn’t about to make peace as he had no plans to give up borders, water resources, air space, natural resources or anything of value.

  136. Ravi Naik — on 31st January, 2008 at 8:31 pm  

    I am not sure why CPS dismissed this case. His quotes cannot be taken out of context, and I am sure they would see this case in a different light after July 2005. You should remember that after the bombings, there was a calling to be less tolerant about hate/radical speech in Mosques, etc.

    In any case, I can happily provide you with Qaradawi’s quotes where he supports the killing of homosexuals, apostates, and Israeli civilians – the latter with suicide bombings. If what he said is not hate speech, I really do not know what is. The fact that the best you can do is to call these views contemptible but supported by freedom of speech, is somewhat surprising.

    I haven’t forgotten Pipes. I am not sure why you would insinuate that I am being inconsistent. I don’t see him at the same level of Qaradawi – which doesn’t mean Pipes should be allowed to enter this country or that he is a scumbag or that he is completely wrong about what he defends. Is he defending the killing of Palestinians? Not sure based on what you have presented.

    However, you don’t need to inquire whether Qaradawi wants the kill Israeli civilians, now do you?
    And that is the difference.

  137. chairwoman — on 31st January, 2008 at 8:36 pm  

    Avi Cohen @ 41

    Ghandi’s grandson’s criticisms were directed at Jews generally as well as Israel.

    And that, if you are who you say you are, means you too.

  138. Muhamad — on 31st January, 2008 at 9:52 pm  

    It’s a crock a shite to even believe that the British Nazi Party doesn’t policies against belief or sexuality. People’s historical ignorance and stupidity amazes me.

  139. Avi Cohen — on 31st January, 2008 at 9:52 pm  

    Chairwoman – Sorry my mistake the report I read said differently. I apologise.

    General comments are unacceptable about any race and lead to the same problems we are seeing in society.

    I just don’t like to see any people picked on or singled out because of who they are. We need to learn to live together.

    Ravi – I think you are missing the point. Qaradawi isn’t to be agreed with but equally what people are saying is that the line needs to be fair to all. By picking on one and ignoring another isn’t likely to help matters. If we ignore Pipes and say we let in Qaradawi and ban Farakhan is that good practise? The comments are about the lack of consistency and where politicians harp on about one and hide behind free speech when in fact it is incitement.

    It is the consistency which is missing. In the caes of Qaradawi and Farakhan why can’t both be banned?

    That is all people are saying. It is the vocal right wing who call for banning a select few.

    Even if we just stick to the Muslim world and as people say at the moemnt this is an issue so why ban some and not others?

    Solution = Govt sets a line which = Incitement.

    Anyone crosses doesn’t get a visa.

    Why is the consistency missing?

  140. Refresh — on 31st January, 2008 at 10:02 pm  

    BB

    ‘as for pipes, there are people *way* more extreme than him in israeli politics. ever heard of effi eitam?’

    Its truly frightening what you are telling us. What chances have these people of taking control of the country’s nuclear arsenal?

  141. Desi Italiana — on 1st February, 2008 at 12:50 am  

    “Ghandi’s grandson’s criticisms”

    It’s so remarkable that many people misspell GandHi’s name so often (I’m not picking on you, Chairwoman; even people at my work continue to misspell his name, it’s not only you).

  142. Sunny — on 1st February, 2008 at 3:32 am  

    Is he defending the killing of Palestinians? Not sure based on what you have presented.

    I’m not sure whether your English literacy has deteriorated over the course of this thread. He not only defends their killing, he asks the Israeli govt to crush them with overhwhelming force, and continually until they learn to be subjugated.

    Fine, if you don’t see that as bad as someone who says resistance to occupation may be violent. Just read a bit of the Bhagwad Gita and Guru Gobind Singh’s pronouncements and you’ll find similar undertones. Except they always said never kill civilians – which is where I have a big problem with Qaradawi and Pipes. They don’t distinguish between civilians and army. If you fail to see the similarity then I’m wasting my time. I’ve provided you with all the relevant quotes.

  143. chairwoman — on 1st February, 2008 at 11:31 am  

    Desi @ 141

    I knew I was wrong as soon as I’d posted but hoped nobody would notice :-)

  144. Ravi Naik — on 1st February, 2008 at 11:35 am  

    “I’m not sure whether your English literacy has deteriorated over the course of this thread. He not only defends their killing”

    Rather than reading the interpretation of Pipe’s article which you provided, I decided to read his articles directly: here, and here.

    I will not defend Pipe’s positions because I totally disagree with him, and I am glad he feels frustrated that the Israeli government is ignoring him. But based on my comprehension skills, his worst sin is to defend crushing Palestinian’s moral so that they stop attacking Israel (second link – last paragraph):

    “Ironically, Israeli success in crushing the Palestinian Arab war morale would be the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinian Arabs. It would mean their finally giving up their foul dream of eliminating their neighbor and would offer a chance instead to focus on their own polity, economy, society, and culture. To become a normal people, one whose parents do not encourage their children to become suicide terrorists, Palestinian Arabs need to undergo the crucible of defeat.”

    Is he advocating the killing Palestinians? Well, in the same article, he says:

    An aggressive step like “transferring” Palestinian Arabs out of the West Bank would be counterproductive for Israel, prompting greater outrage, increasing the number of enemies, and perpetuating the conflict.

    So, if he is against expelling Palestinians out of the West Bank because it would create greater outrage, it seems to me that killing for him is not an option as well, as the consequences would be worst.

    But that is my humble interpretation of what he has written, even though I am against his methods.

    There are two points I want to make.

    1) Pipes has written a few articles, and based on what you have presented, it is not clear he is defending killing Palestinian civilians, as he talks about the dire consequences of aggressive steps by Israel – yet you have immediately accused him of inciting violence (#118), yet when Qaradawi advocates killing homosexuals, apostates, and suicide bombings on Israeli civilians you say – well, it is not that clear, look at the CPS ruling (#22) That’s applying double-standards, Hundal, and you know it.

    2) It is strange in my view that you have chosen Qaradawi – and dedicated a whole post – as a poster child for freedom of speech. As if we have to tolerate his extremist views on the killings of homosexuals, apostates and civilians by suicide bombings. And you even say that inciting violence is a crime, yet you do not have enough evidence that he should not be allowed in this country.

  145. Ravi Naik — on 1st February, 2008 at 11:51 am  

    Ravi – I think you are missing the point. Qaradawi isn’t to be agreed with but equally what people are saying is that the line needs to be fair to all. By picking on one and ignoring another isn’t likely to help matters…. The comments are about the lack of consistency and where politicians harp on about one and hide behind free speech when in fact it is incitement.
    It is the consistency which is missing. In the caes of Qaradawi and Farakhan why can’t both be banned?

    I am perfectly happy to ban any person who has advocated killing civilians for belonging to a country, ethnic group, sexual orientation or religious background. But this post – if you read it carefully – is not about keeping all extremists out.

  146. bananabrain — on 1st February, 2008 at 3:21 pm  

    Also isn’t what the old Rabbi is advocating is an Arab Free Holy Land? Your jumping up and down about judenrein in the next paragraph but being rather forgiving to a Rabbi advocating the same but for Arabs!

    avi, this is getting tired now. what metzger is advocating may be not only highly objectionable but impractical – i think i’ve made that abundantly clear, so please stop trying to make out i’m operating a double standard. i’m not being “forgiving”, nor am i whitewashing his unpleasant views.

    I don’t support judenrein and personally think Jews should have stayed in Gaza under the Palestinians with Israeli Guards for X Decades to ensure safety

    well, i’d be all for that myself, were it not for the fact that no palestinian group let alone hamas is prepared to commit even verbally, let alone convincingly, to protecting its jewish citizens against assaults by its muslim ones, so that’s hardly workable either. what is needed is a long-term solution involving co-existence, not fortified ethnic cantons.

    agree with your point on Jews living in Palestine and Arabs in Israel for the sole reason it leads to the development of better societies.

    good. i’ve never met an reasonable arab that couldn’t get behind this vision either, so perhaps we could dispense with the grandstanding and start thinking about the “how” from now on?

    If you give them a state they can develop democracy.

    right, because that’s worked out soooo well in iraq, iran, syria, lebanon, egypt etc… look, democracy has to take root in a society, you can’t just expect it to spontaneously spring into existence, let alone be imposed by force. by analogy, the world has poured in billions of dollars of aid and that hasn’t particularly promoted a culture of transparency and probity, has it? i’m not saying arabs or muslims are incapable of this, of course, but you seem to me to be displaying an unwarranted rose-tinted utopianism.

    as for your last poor argument about housing – well I have never read such nonsense. You actually are the one who needs a lesson in Israeli politics. Sharon told the settlers to grab the hills which they did. Then they settleed then the state retroactively granted planning permission. Sharon disobeyed the law and circumvented it and you talk nonsense when you say it goes through a process.

    no – you’re describing what happened and how sharon, in his previous incarnations implemented his sectarian agenda. i’m telling you why that was possible within the israeli political climate and, indeed within any perennial coalition environment. the same thing happens in italy and germany. i’m hardly approving of it!

    There is no difference between Sharon and Arafat. Both had blood on their hands, both were corrupt and both didn’t want an agreement.

    except that sharon was called to account by his society and arafat was not.

    You may love Sharon but the reality he wasn’t about to make peace as he had no plans to give up borders, water resources, air space, natural resources or anything of value.

    i don’t “love” sharon. i have respect for what he started to do at the end of his career (and, no doubt, life). however, you have no means of knowing the “reality”, because you’re not privy to his plans any more than i am. all i am saying is that it looked to *me* like he’d changed his mind about his aims and was trying to implement his new vision. arafat, by contrast, showed no evidence that he was ever prepared to do the same.

    It is the consistency which is missing. In the caes of Qaradawi and Farakhan why can’t both be banned? That is all people are saying. It is the vocal right wing who call for banning a select few.

    and your position would stifle all debate and lead in turn to more people saying “why won’t you let us talk about this stuff? is it because you’re all controlled by the Secret Freemason Zionist Lizards from Outer Space???!!???” it is always best to let the argument prevail by open public debate.

    @refresh:

    Its truly frightening what you are telling us. What chances have these people of taking control of the country’s nuclear arsenal?

    rather less than they do in iran, russia, pakistan and india. our only hope in israel is that the electorate continue to see these people for what they are, petty, tinpot, mirror-sunglass-wearing banana-republic militarists and not as saviours of the nation from all of those who “rise up in every generation to destroy us”. and for that to happen, israelis will have to remain convinced that not everyone in the world is against them and out to get them.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  147. Avi Cohen — on 7th February, 2008 at 10:52 am  

    Just announced on BBC News Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s Visa request has been refused.

    No more details at this time.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.