Angry in the Great White North

From the Telegraph:

"Of all the Muslim leaders in the world today, Sheikh Qaradawi is the most powerfully progressive force for change and for engaging Islam with western values," Mr Livingstone told the Commons home affairs select committee.

"I think his is very similar to the position of Pope John XXIII."

Recall the statements of al-Qaradawi:

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, speaking at a conference of Islamic scholars in Egypt last Monday, criticised a fellow scholar who said the Koran categorically forbids suicide but an individual has the right to take such action.

Al-Qaradawi said: 'I think that saying it is a legitimate right in Palestine and Iraq is not enough because a right is something that can be relinquished. It is a duty..."

So let's be clear. Not only do Muslims in Israel and Iraq have the right to detonate a car packed with explosives in and around women an children in order to kill as many Israelis and Americans as possible, they must do so?

The Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and there human bombs must continue until liberation.

"Must continue" -- I guess that's pretty clear.

As for Pope John XXIII:

The pontiff, who reigned from 1958 to 1963, was one of the great reforming popes and was credited with advancing co-operation with other religions. He met Protestant leaders, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a Shinto high priest.

No recorded attempts by the Pontiff to blow them up with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

Catholics offended. Check.

Next, Jews:

Mr Livingstone said that many of the comments attributed to the imam were "from translated sources hostile to him." He was also not responsible for everything on the website that operates under his name.

The mayor conceded that he [al-Qaradawi] did not condemn "and may be prepared to endorse" suicide bombings in Israel because the Palestinians "only have their bodies" as weapons. His views were shared by a majority of Muslims, said Mr Livingstone.

He also said it was easy for those in the West to condemn all violence but "I don't know what I would be doing if I was in Uzbekistan, dealing with that government."

It's easy to condemn the violence perpetrated against civilians, Israeli or otherwise, especially women and children, because many of us are Christians and Jews, and that sort of thing is just wrong. Go-straight-to-hell wrong.

Uzbekistan? What's this about Uzbekistan? OK, Catholics, Jews, and Uzbekis.

Now what about homosexuals?

Asked about al-Qaradawi's views on homosexuality - he is said to consider it an "abominable practice" and questioned whether gays should be put to death - Mr Livingstone said that much of his website was "a series of questions of a philosophical nature".

He added: "We are clearly not going to see Dr Qaradawi on a gay rights march - but you wouldn't see the Pope on a gay rights march and I would meet him."

Philosophical?

The jurists of Islam have held differing 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.

That's the end of the text. al-Qaradawi does not argue for a lesser punishment. He leaves it with the unmistakable (to me) tacit approval of the death penalty.

Punishment is to have a stone wall dropped on the persons convicted of homosexuality. Does Ken Livingstone still think this is philosophical? Here's a philosophical conundrum: "If a wall is dropped by al-Qaradawi on top of a homosexual in a forest, and no one is around to hear his final cry, will Ken Livingstone still make excusing noises?"

OK, Catholics, Jews, Uzbekis, and homosexuals.

Plenty of people are calling Ken Livingstone out on his outrageous comments:

David Winnick, the Labour MP for Walsall, said if an extremist rabbi with objectionable views came to Britain, "would Mr Livingstone really welcome him and say all points of view must be heard.?"

Ann Widdecombe, the former Home Office minister who converted to Roman Catholicism after women were ordained priests in the Anglican church, said: "Ken Livingstone obviously has no idea either of the essentially holy nature of Pope John XXIII or the very dangerous nature of al-Qaradawi."

Funny thing is, I think Ms Widdecombe is wrong. I think Ken Livingstone knows exactly what al-Qaradawi is all about, and who will suffer and die if al-Qaradawi and his ilk gain power in the Middle East. I just don't think he cares. As long as they leave Livingstone alone to continue to pursue his dream of creating the People's Democratic Republic of Anglostan, why should he care if a bunch of Jews die should Israel is overrun by al-Qaradawi's crowd.

Problem is, al-Qaradawi is looking beyond that:

We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America!

al-Qaradawi is banned from flying to the United States. When will Ken Livingstone be added to that list?