Skip to content or view screen version

al-Qaradawi endorses 'stoning' of outed gay Qatari Prince

pirate | 05.08.2005 12:56 | Gender | Repression | Social Struggles | London | World

OutRage! News service release.
Fundamentalist muslim cleric (courted by Ken Livingstone) has told al-Jazeera that a Qatari Prince, outed as gay, should be stoned to death...

Qaradawi endorses execution of Qatar prince, says Aljazeera

Qatari royal heir outed by Aljazeera

London- 5 August 2005

The Crown Prince of Qatar should be stoned to death for being gay,
according to Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim fundamentalist scholar
who is based in Qatar.

These allegatons appear in the Middle East news magazine Aljazeera.

Dr Qaradawi was defended by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, in a
Guardian comment article only yesterday, Thursday 4 August.

Aljazeera quotes Dr Qaradawi as saying:

"The scholars of Islam, such as Malik, Ash-Shafi`i, Ahmad and Ishaaq
said that (the person guilty of this crime) should be stoned, whether
he is married or unmarried."

According to Aljazeera, this is the verdict of Dr Qaradawi in response
to allegations that Qatar's 25 year old Crown Prince Tameem Bin Hamad
Al-Thani was spotted at the popular London gay night club, G.A.Y. The
prince and his male partner, Michael Heard, were allegedly banned from
G.A.Y. for a month following a fight.

"Dr Qaradawi appears to be encouraging the murder of a person in the
UK, which is a serious criminal offence," says OutRage! "We are
astonished that Mayor Livingstone is still supporting him."

Dr Qaradawi's support for the execution of the Crown Prince was
reported by Aljazeera. See:

The Aljazeera story states it was based on a report on the website.

Aljazeera has effectively outed the Crown Prince to a worldwide
audience. It puts his freedom and life in danger.

Aljazeera reports that other scholars from, have also
endorsed the execution of the prince, citing the sayings of the
Prophet Muhammad to justify the death penalty for the heir to the
Qatari throne:

"Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut, kill them,
both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."
(At-Tirmidhi: 1376)

Dr Qaradawi's comment to Aljazeera reiterated his "gays should
executed" opinion delivered in the fatwa "Homosexuality and
Lesbianism: Sexual Perversions" issued last year (17 May 2004),
shortly before he was welcomed to London by Mayor Ken Livingstone.


Qaradawi’s recommendation that the prince be stoned to death far
exceeds the current penalty for homosexuality in Qatar, which is 5 to
10 years in prison.


"This is a clear example of how fundamentalist clerics like Dr
Qaradawi incite the execution of lesbian and gay people," said Aaron
Saeed, Muslim spokesperson for the LGBT human rights group OutRage!

"Dr Qaradawi's apparent endorsement of the death penalty endangers the
freedom and life of the Crown Prince. The actions of Aljazeera in
outing Prince Tameem put him at risk of arrest, imprisonment and
so-called honour killing.

"We are appalled that Dr Qaradawi continues to be supported by
fundamentalist organisations such as the Muslim Association of
Britain, and by far left groups like the Socialist Workers Party and

"These people are betraying lesbian and gay Muslims. They are
appeasing a fundamentalist cleric who believes that queers should be
put to death.

"While we deplore Islamophobia and defend the Muslim communities,
there can be no collusion with those who sanction the murder of
lesbian, gay and bisexual people," said Mr Saeed.

NOTE: OutRage! has been unable to establish whether the Crown Prince
was involved in a fight at G.A.Y. According to the club's management,
they do not keep a record of ejected patron's identities. The police
say they have no record of any charges. We cannot discount the
posibility that the story was put out by the Prince's political
enemies in a bid to discredit him and to destabilise the government of
Qatar. It is suspicious that, which Dr Qaradawi
supervises, has been cited as the source of the story and that the
story seems to have disappeared from that website. Whether or not the
fight at G.A.Y. occurred, Dr Qaradawi's fatwas have endorsed the
execution of gay people. He should be asked to clarify his views on
the death penalty for homosexuality.

Further information: Brett Lock of OutRage! 0770 843 5917




Hide the following 14 comments

The Left are blind...

05.08.2005 19:17

The Left are blind to the true nature of these fascists, and it beyond comprehension that the Mayor and SWP support him.


damp squib

05.08.2005 22:22

What an amateur attempt at trolling...

I hope you are rightfully embarressed!


No, morality

06.08.2005 14:35

well, Morality, youre free to convert, just stay away from those pretty boy camels....

enginer is not TV

06.08.2005 14:51

Just for the record: This  http://www.aljazeera.COM is not related to the Al Jazeera television channel.

Al Jazeera tv websites are:  http://www.aljazeera.NET and  http://english.aljazeera.NET

- Homepage:

re. above comment

06.08.2005 17:46

Aaaaaahhh! !! Just because you have been brainwashed by religious ideology to believe that being gay is a sin DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!!!!
Did you know that the term 'gay' has only been in use since Victorian times- because before then it was just something that people did, simply a sexual preference - it was only the fecking religious freaky deakies that, thinking they were 'spreading gods message', misinterpreted the bible (which has been translated and is very old-probably not the original version) and started calling those with a preference for the same sex 'homosexual'...and started calling it a sin. If it is so 'wrong' and 'perverted', why are there so many that do it? It is NATURAL because people have NATURAL URGES to do it...they are not forcing themselves to do it, they want to!!!! what is more natural then that!!!
And as for your comment on the anus not being designed for what do you think about oral sex then!!!??? Is that a perversion? Are millions of women (and men!) sinning when they give head to their boyfriends? Because the mouth sure as hell isnt designed to have a penis in it!!!

Why dont you develop your own opinon instead of spouting some bullshit dictatorial ideology.


Qaradawi didn't call for anyone to be stoned

07.08.2005 22:54

The quotation – "The scholars of Islam, such as Malik, Ash-Shafi`i, Ahmad and Ishaaq said that (the person guilty of this crime) should be stoned, whether he is married or unmarried" – isn't from Yusuf al-Qaradawi at all. It's from a Saudi Wahhabist named Mohammed Salih Al-Munajjid. Aljazeera magazine made a mistake and attributed it to Qaradawi instead.

This is even clear from the link to the Islam Online fatwa that Outrage provide, where the statement is quoted and Al-Munajjid is given as the author.

The original can be found at

Outrage's denunciation of Qaradawi for calling for gay men to be stoned is thus based on a statement made by someone else and wrongly attibuted to him.

Martin Sullivan
mail e-mail:


08.08.2005 13:07

It is a fact that no Muslim group has ever protested against the jailing or execution of gays in the Middle East, they only care about suspected terrorists being jailed without trials not about suspected gays being executed (like two weeks ago in Iran)


Qaradawi does endorse killing gays

08.08.2005 14:45

Martin Sullivan, I've just read the fatwa on the link provided as well as the original post.

The fatwa was from a year ago, so it makes perfect sense that Qaradawi (who contributed to that fatwa) was simply quoting from it to the Aljazeera journalist. The Aljazeera report seems to suggest that Qaradawi and a few of his colleagues responded to the news about the prince directly - so explaing to them a decision made in to a past ruling would make perfect sense.

Secondly, as is clear from the "about us" section of, Qaradawi is the editor in chief of all the content on the website which he checks to make sure is consistant with their policy.

His own contribution to the fatwa from last year explains that there are two forms of punishment (both effectively death) that scholars debate. He admits that they seem very harsh, but explains why they are necessary. Therefore is own contribution to that fatwa is consistant with the line taken by the other scholars who contributed.

So, there are two possible scenarios here. (1) When approached for comment, Qaradawi might simply have quoted parts of the existing fatwa, which would then have been attributed to him; or (2) may have referred the journalist to the existing fatwa which the journalist mistakenly quoted from, but which in any event is consistant with the views expressed by Qaradawi himself in the same document.

Either way, Qaradawi is not off the hook, because he does defend the death penalty for homosexuality under sharia law.


Qaradawi slandered ... again

08.08.2005 19:36

Wake up, Qwerty! "Aljazeera" (an obscure Dubai-based publication which, as already pointed out, has nothing to do with the famous Qatari TV station) didn't send a journalist to interview Qaradawi. As the article itself states, they took the quotation from

The problem is that they misread it and wrongly attributed it to Qaradawi, and then Outrage seized on this without bothering to check the accuracy of the report.

For the claim that Qaradawi supports the execution of gay men, see

For the argument that Qaradawi is responsible for every fatwa that appears on Islam Online (which has been used by Outrage in the past) see

mail e-mail:


09.08.2005 13:08

Martin, your second link doesn't work.

"The page /islamophobia-watch/2004/7/20/qaradawi-and-rape-victims.html could not be located on this website."

The article for the first link is interesting. It says Qaradawi's book is from 1960. I see that is when it was first published, but it seems a little dishonest not to mention that the book has several new editions and is in fact still in print.

I checked the fatwa that you claimed Aljazeera were quoting, even though their article says they based their story on information from, not from a fatwa as you are trying to claim. I don't know why you think a Qatar-based media outlet would have any trouble getting a quote from a Qatar-based cleric about a Qatar-based prince.. that's a bit like saying you doubt a Britsih paper could get a quote from a Church of England bishop about Prince William.

In any event, clearly states in the "about us" section that Qaradawi heads the groups of scholars that ensure the fatwas on the website conform. It says:

"Our goal is for this site to be worthy of your trust. To reach our goal, a committee of the major scholars throughout the Islamic world, headed by Dr. Yusuf Qardawi, was formed. Its role is to ensure that nothing on this site violates the fixed principles of Islamic law (Shar'ia). "

Furthermore, even if for the sake of argument, if we look at the fatwa concerned, Qaradawi says:

"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?"

Does he offer an alternative? Does he acknowledge that there are opposing views or more moderate views? Does he even moderate the views of the other scholars he cites? Nope. He supports them by saying:

"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."

He does not say that they ARE cruel, he says that they only SEEM cruel, and then JUSTIFIES them on the grounds that society must be kept pure.

You may have some vested interest in painting Qaradawi as a "moderate", but you'd better find a better way than trying to suggest that he isn't an arch-homophobe and an apologist for the death sentence for homosexuality.

If you asked someone what they thought of immigrants and they said:

"There are differing views on how immigrants should be treated. One says they should be rounded up into concentration camps and forced to work away from our cities, and the other is that they are sub-human and should be exterminated. This may seem cruel, but these measures have been suggested to keep our race pure."

Would you, could you, honestly make the argument that they were only citing other people's opinions and clearly had no view on the matter themesleves? What if you then discovered they were the editor of a publication that only presented these two alternatives and no others? Would you suspect you might just possibly be talking to a Nazi?

Or is it, oooh, a tough judgement call to make?


Queen Qaradawi

09.08.2005 14:10

Dr Qaradawi is indeed a moderate...compared to some of the other Islamist fascists out there. However compared to any infadel he is an extremist. Qwerty your analogy is good, the left would be up in arms if someone were to propose these outrageous penalties for immigrants instead of gays. What people get away with in the name of religion! Hopefully these new terror laws will keep scum like Qaradawi out of this country. Islam a religon of peace - compared to what, Nazism, Stalinism?


More on Dr Q

09.08.2005 19:56

Qwerty is right about the link – try this:

It answers the point about Qaradawi being responsible for every fatwa that appears on Islam Online.

Another useful link, which shows the disgusting racism unleashed by Outrage's anti-Qaradawi campaign is here:

Apart from that, the argument is going round in circles. The much publicised statement – "The scholars of Islam, such as Malik, Ash-Shafi`i, Ahmad and Ishaaq said that (the person guilty of this crime) should be stoned, whether he is married or unmarried" – is NOT from Qaradawi. It's a quotation – a VERBATIM quotation, complete with parentheses – from the prominent Wahhabist (Saudi fundamentalist) writer Mohammed Salih Al-Munajjid.

As I've pointed out, the original can be found at

The question is – how did "Aljazeera" magazine make the mistake of attributing to Qaradawi something written by another person entirely?

The answer is that the Islam Online fatwa from May 2004 quoted the statement by Al-Munajjid immediately after a quotation from Qaradawi, and someone at "Aljazeera" got them mixed up.

In a Channel 4 News interview in July 2004, Qaradawi said of homosexuality: "It is sufficient for a Muslim to object to it verbally or at least within his conscience. We are not required by our faith to declare a war against homosexuality and homosexuals."

A member of the Muslim lesbian and gay group Imaan had this to say about Dr al-Qaradawi’s views on gay sex: "Qaradawi is actually quite moderate and considered in his preaching. He counsels that homosexuality is a sin (does anyone expect anything else from a celebrated Imam?) but teaches against detrimental acts toward gays by the Ummah [the world Muslim community]."

Another contributor to the Imaan online discussion of Qaradawi wrote: "Outrage's campaign against Qaradawi is offensive. They are simply jumping on the anti-Muslim bandwagon. They have the full support of the BNP and other assorted racists on this issue.... As a gay Muslim, Outrage doesn't speak for me and a host of other people…. If Qaradawi comes to London again and Outrage and the other racists form a campaign against him, I will be out there standing against them and I will defend him."

mail e-mail:

Islam is a religion - not a race

10.08.2005 14:26

Why are muslims being treated as a race? It's not racist to dislike Islam. Attacks against people based on their colour are racist not attacks on their religion. Everyone walks on eggshells around Islam - it should subjected to the same ridicule that Christianity is. However, what happened to Theo Van Gogh in Holland or Salman Rushdie here might put some people off.


Apologist bollocks

10.08.2005 14:40

Martin, you really are keen on selective quoting.

But before I get into that, the editors of Islamophobia-Watch are really scraping the barrel if they need to be quoting posts off public bulletin boards by anonymous trolls as "proof" that a particular story "incites" some sort of reaction. I mean, just look at all the troll posts on Indymedia - are they "proof" that Indymedia incites all sorts of bizarre things?

Really, get some persepective.

Similarly, referencing a single quote from Imaan's publicly accessible bulletin boards says nothing other than there is a range of opinion. The poster's assertion that gays play into the hands of the BNP is laughable considering the BNP is no supporter of gay rights either.

I took the opportunity to surf around Islamophobia-Watch. It makes a very serious mistake in that it conflates religion and race. The absurdity is highlighted by articles in which Middle-Eastern secularists, like members of the Iranian Communist Party are denounced as "Islamophobic" and "Racist" by white men. It is absurd that an ethnic Iranian, Arabic speaker is denounced as a "racist" by an white Englishman because she opposes Islam - the religion of her own culture! It is especially sad since Iranian socialists suffered extremely under the clerical facist state of Iran. What does the twit running the site know about suffering under religious tyrany?

Now, about your selective quoting. That is a PARTIAL quote you have from Dr Qaradawi's Channel 4 appearance. In the same programme he described homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said society needed to be protected from it. In The Guardian, he clarified his views. The point isn't that he doesn't believe in punishment, but that he doesn't want people to take the law into their own hands. Punishment, he says, if for the authorities to carry out.,3604,1258933,00.html

Now, I find it remarkable that you are willing to excuse his clear homophobia. If calling homsexuality an "unnatural and evil practice" from which society needs to be protected isn't inciting hatred against gays and lesbians, what is? And further, why do you condemn gays who object to being attacked in this way by Qaradawi as "Islamophobic". Is it "Islamophobic" to object to a cleric that incites hatred against one's community? Why not condemn the hate-speech that stared it all? Dr Qaradawi's!!!

I hope you digested the analogy with immigrants in my previous post. If you cannot see that Qaradawi's words in the linked fatwa endorse the death penalty for gays and lesbians, then I'm afraid you have a deliberate blind-spot.

It is absolutely ridiculous that you condemn criticism of an openly and viciously homophobic cleric as "racism" and "Islamophobia". Are you demanding that gay people simply take Dr Qaradawi's denunciations lying down?