Back in its heyday, this blog covered the Left-Islamist Alliance quite closely. Back in the noughties, the most obvious examples were the SWP/Respect Party (led by George Galloway), the “Stop The War Coalition” and the bothersome ‘socialists’ at the bonkers “Islamophobia-Watch” (who denounced any criticism of Islam as playing into the hands of the Reactionary Right). Islamophobia-Watch eventually folded. Its proprietors were the late Eddie Truman and the MIA Bob Pitt, kingpins of, if memory serves, ‘Socialist Action’. The StWC faded into irrelevance and internecine fighting, though – like the SWP – their placard-waving ghosts still haunt every protest march they can leach onto. George Galloway became a feline-friendly joke and reality TV character, until returning to politics as a shill for Vladimir Putin.
Of course none of these fringe groups were necessary as Islamism managed to mainstream itself into the UK Parliament itself.
Tribune magazine, was a little more open-minded, as I recall, and not entirely on-board with the Islamism thing. Its Wikipedia entry, the magazine notes:
Tribune is a democratic socialist political magazine founded in 1937 and published in London, initially as a newspaper, then converting to a magazine in 2001. While it is independent, it has usually supported the Labour Party from the left. Previous editors at the magazine have included Aneurin Bevan, the minister of health who spearheaded the establishment of the National Health Service, former Labour leader Michael Foot, and writer George Orwell, who served as literary editor.
It is also noted that the magazine had “financial difficulties”. No more. Now – according to its website – Tribune has been bought by Mohamed Ali Harrath, Chairman of E Media Group, the parent company of Islam Channel. The Islam Channel has been subject of much controversy, and was fined by Ofcom for allowing Yvonne Ridley to work as a news presenter while also standing as a parliamentary candidate for the Respect Party, to cite just one example.
Ofcom also found the channel guilty of antisemitic hate speech in another ruling.
Anyway, this is a prelude to a personal story. Twenty years ago – before “cancel culture” was consciously “a thing”, the mechanisms were very much in operation. At the time, I was writing regularly in the gay and liberal press on issues of gay rights and secularism. But then – with this article for Tribune – I crossed a line, the commissions dried up. I’d committed the cardinal sin of, firstly, standing against Saint Ken of Livingstone, the darling of the the gay and progressive press at the time, appearing to side with Jews against the Holy Palestinian Cause, and – worst of all – allegedly giving comfort to the far-right by being concerned that gays were being executed in the Middle East. I ended up a media refugee here at Harry’s Place where I wrote for the next dozen or so years before growing weary of politics. Does anything ever really range, or is it all rinse and repeat?
I republish my Tribune article here chiefly for nostalgia (at the time, I still regarded myself as “of the Left”) but also because I see it has already been expunged from the Tribune website. So without further ado, let’s rewind to 2004:
The Odd Couple: Red Ken and the Conservative Cleric
Brett Lock
A FEW weeks ago, London had a visitor; a man who believes that women should have parts of their clitoris removed so that they aren’t tempted by sexual feelings. He believes that it is sometimes “permissible” for a husband to beat his wife. He believes women who are not modest in their behaviour or dress are to blame if they’re raped. He describes homosexuality as a “perverted act, a corruption, a shameless depravity and an aberration” worthy of the death penalty.
London Mayor, Ken Livingstone was outraged – not by his visitor but that Londoners dared to criticise his “guest of honour”. He apologised on behalf of the city and invited Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi (a “moderate” Muslim scholar, according to the Mayor) to return in October.
Denouncing criticism of al-Qaradawi as a smear campaign motivated by Islamophobia, Livingstone insisted that his guest had been “very clear in condemning homophobia”. Where? When? How?
In fact, al-Qaradawi said on Channel 4 News that homosexuality was an “unnatural and evil practice”. He told the Guardian that homosexuality was “forbidden”. While insisting that individual Muslims “have no right to punish homosexuals or mistreat them”, he stressed that punishment was a matter for the state.
In other words, he was not denying that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. All he said was that he opposed vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, which is a standard Sharia law stipulation.
This ruling does not, of course, preclude people turning homosexuals over to the police and courts for punishment. Perhaps the right-wing cleric might encourage them to do so. After all, in his book, The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, he writes: “Muslim jurists hold different opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.”
Apologists have defended this as merely “scholarly opinion”. But the same people also describe Qaradawi as “a respected scholar”. Doesn’t that mean that his scholarly opinions are also respected? Isn’t that why he is a leading writer, teacher and broadcaster on Sharia law? If no one is listening, why are there at least six Islamic countries which implement the death-penalty for homosexuality, and many more that punish the “crime” with lashings and imprisonment?
Even al-Qaradawi himself doesn’t believe his works are merely “scholarly”. In the introduction to the book, he states that its purpose is “to guide us in all our affairs”. Acting on this sort of scholarly guidance, gay people are persecuted throughout the Muslim world.
Ever since Lindsey German of the Respect Coalition declared that gay rights should not be a “shibboleth” in forming alliances with conservative religious groups, many on the Left have followed her cue. Left-wingers who believe in holding fast on issues of secularism, women’s and gay rights have been left out in the cold. The result has been to marginalise liberal and progressive Muslim voices, while giving a platform to reactionary and undemocratic religious views.
It’s ironic that al-Qaradawi was the keynote speaker at the conference on “A Woman’s Right to Choose” to wear the hijab, when he does not believe women should have a choice. He says that the hijab is obligatory and a husband has the right to force his wife to wear it.
Livingstone gave the thumbs-up to this faux human rights debate, even though it included none of the feminist and progressive Muslim groups who genuinely believe the hijab should be a choice.
The London Mayor insisted al-Qaradawi was also “very clear” in condemning wife-beating. To most, “very clear” would mean a statement against beating one’s wife under any circumstances. What the doctor actually told the Guardian was that wife-beating was neither “obligatory nor desirable”, but conceded on Channel 4 that it was justifiable in certain circumstances.
More horrific is al-Qaradawi’s support for female genital mutilation. Although saying it is not “obligatory”, in his book, Modern Fatwas, he adds: “I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. Anyone who thinks that circumcision is the best way to protect his daughters should do it.”
Female genital mutilation (or “circumcision”, as he euphemistically calls it) has nothing, in common with male circumcision. It is performed to remove that part of the clitoris which provides sexual pleasure, usually before puberty, so that a woman will be disinterested in sex before, marriage and “faithful” afterwards.
To the sane and humane, female genital mutilation is a barbaric attack on the integrity of a woman’s body, her autonomy and her right to sexual self-determination. It is a bloody, violent assault on the bodies of children. Indeed, it is an extreme form of child abuse.
Nevertheless, al-Qaradawi says: “The moderate opinion is in favour of practicing circumcision to reduce temptation.”
In his universe, women who are raped can be found guilty themselves, if they dress or behave “immodestly”. A fatwa on the website IslamOnline, which he supervises to ensure “nothing violates the fixed principles of Islamic law”, stipulates: “For a rape victim to be absolved from guilt, she must not be the one that opens her dignity for deflowering.”
Is it any wonder that gay and women’s groups are appalled that the London Mayor invited this misogynist and homophobe to City Hall?
Ken’s Livingstone’s repetitive defence of Qaradawi is, in effect, an alliance with right-wing clericalism. Why isn’t he aligning himself with liberal and progressive Muslim opinion?
While we may object to the Mayor’s “red carpet” welcoming of Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, we should not seek to silence the cleric. His own words damn him more than any alleged “smear campaign” ever could.
Brett Lock is a freelance journalist and campaigner with Outrage. This article was published in Tribune, 30 July 2004
And there you have it. Has the last 20 years made any difference? Has there been progress? I’m not sure. Qaradawi died in 2022, but gay Londoners still have to put up with threats from so-called Islamic scholars. Gays are still told their objections to these threats is “Islamophobic”. And now blasphemy laws have been reintroduced by stealth. It’s really quite depressing, isn’t it?
