Actions: Greater than Words

After the tragic events in London yesterday, I was inspired by the words of London's mayor Ken Livingstone:

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail...

Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

Strong, inspiring words.  You would think that they come from a man who realizes that it is wrong to advocate the killing of innocent civilians by Islamic bombs.  You would never expect the leader of this city to welcome anyone who believes that exploding a bomb in the middle of a crowded street full of innocents is an act deserving of praise.  An act worthy of being called "martyrdom in the name of God."

You would be wrong.

Livingstone welcomed Islamic scholar Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi to London last year despite large scale protests from a number of groups.  al-Qaradawi has stated on numerous occasions that he supports the suicide bombings in Israel.  Here are a few comments form the good cleric:
   

SHEIKH YUSEF AL-QARADAWI
(Qatar University)
TRANSLATION:
It's not suicide, it is martyrdom in the name of God, Islamic theologians and jurisprudents have debated this issue. Referring to it as a form of jihad, under the title of jeopardising the life of the mujahideen. It is allowed to jeopardise your soul and cross the path of the enemy and be killed.

MARSHALL:
In the mind of Sheikh Yusuf Al- Qaradawi, that view prevails even though women and children are often the innocent victims.

SHEIKH YUSEF AL-QARADAWI
TRANSLATION:
Israeli women are not like women in our society because Israeli women are militarised. Secondly, I consider this type of martyrdom operation as indication of justice of Allah almighty. Allah is just. Through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak what the strong do not possess and that is the ability to turn their bodies into bombs like the Palestinians do.

Despite al-Qaradawi's views, Livingstone prepared this full-color defense of allowing him a forum in London.  These words are a bit eerie:

The Metropolitan Police Service has made
clear that the support of London’s Muslim
communities is a crucial factor in foiling any
terrorist attack on this city. The Muslim
Council of Britain, which is the main umbrella
group of Muslim organisations in this
country, has called upon Muslim communities
to assist the police in this. They have sent
their representatives to Iraq to argue for the
release of British hostages.

How much more difficult would we make it
for them if, on the basis of a misguided
campaign, London’s government refused to
meet a person – Dr al-Qaradawi – described
by the Muslim Council of Britain as the
most authoritative Muslim scholar in the
world today?

Translation: We have to please the Muslim Council in order to combat terrorism, and if the council wants someone who advocates terror to speak, we need to let them.  In other words, allowing someone who advocates blowing up innocent civilians to speak will help us to prevent the blowing up of innocent civilians.  Or something.

Livingstone seems to understand the good cleric's reasoning, although he does shy away from agreeing with him:

At the same time, like many people in the
Middle East, he is a strong supporter of the
rights of the Palestinians. He takes the view
that in the specific circumstances of that
conflict, where Israel is using modern missiles,
tanks and planes in civilian areas to perpetuate
the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands,
it is justified for Palestinians to turn their
bodies into weapons.

Some supporters of the present policies of
the Israeli government argue that on these
grounds alone Dr al-Qaradawi should be
excluded from Britain and denied a platform.
I disagree. I condemn all violence in Israel
and Palestine but no purpose will be served
by refusing to speak to either the Israeli or
Palestinian sides.

Livingstone seems to understand the logic that when a big bad country has big bad weapons, its opponents are justified in blowing up innocent women and children by placing bombs in well populated areas.  I wonder if he understands that logic a bit differently today then he did a few days ago. 

What Livingstone should have provided from day one is moral clarity.  Killing innocent civilians is wrong in New York, Madrid, London, Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem.  Those who advocate the intentional killing of innocent civilians in any conflict are not welcome.  It doesn't matter if you are world renown.  It doesn't matter if it will make others upset.  You are not welcome.

The UK did not deserve the cowardly attacks on its innocent civilians.  Livingstone is not responsible for the evil acts of those who kill indiscriminately in the name of God.  However, I hope that he has learned that ideas do have consequences.  Lets hope he is more vigilant about those who advocate terror in the future.

HT: Michelle Malkin