Qaradawi, again

A bunch of very smart and reasonable people have concluded that Yusuf al Qaradawi really is "the shaykh of terror," so to speak. They have concluded this on the basis of reports that Qaradawi endorsed the kidnapping and killing of Americans and British in Iraq.

The only problem? Qaradawi denies having said it. From the English version of al Jazeera: "Shaikh al-Qaradawi said his words were taken out of context. "I said that the occupation of any Muslim country should be resisted, I never used the words Americans and civilians. Wherever and whenever there is an occupation, there would be a resistance. That is natural."

So, while I agree with Matthew'sgeneral argument about the radicalizing impact of Bush's foreign policy on Arab and Islamic moderates, there's no reason to jump to conclusions about Qaradawi based on inaccurate reporting.

Moral of the story: don't believe everything you read, especially about someone who is the target of a concerted smear operation.

Side note: Abd al Rahman al Rashed, who has caused a stir by attacking Qaradawi by name as an example of the problem with Islam today, is not a new convert to the anti-Qaradawi team - the director of al Arabiya and former al Sharq al Awsat editor is one of a number of pro-American Arab journalists who have been savaging the Arab media and insufficiently pro-American Arab moderates for the last year or two. Please not that this has not prevented Rashed's Al Arabiya from airing as many hostage videos as can be had, since they have proven good for ratings.)

Meanwhile, why do I continue to defend Qaradawi? Not because I particularly like or support his brand of socially conservative religious activism. But because he continues to make arguments like this: ""Reform has become a religious obligation and a necessity pushed by a deep deterioration gripping the Islamic nation on the ground," Sheikh Qaradawi said during a lecture in Cairo Thursday, August 26 . "All people feel the brunt of our current crisis of weakness and rampant corruption, from intelligentsia to ordinary people.".. Sheikh Qaradawi further dismissed claims that Islam is an obstacle to cherished reforms in Islamic countries, reiterating that democracy is compatible with the spirit and teachings of Islam. He had more than once repudiated largely-propagated allegations that democracy is ruled as act of kufr (disbelief) in Islam. The prominent Muslim scholar had reaffirmed in an earlier fatwa that shura [consultation] has always been good for the Muslim society , saying that autocracy has always been evil since the beginning of mankind history. He criticized the distorted form of democracy applied in some countries where the ruler would get99 .99% in elections, saying: "If democracy is synonymous with the rule of people, it is thus running counter to the rule of one man not the rule of God"." Those are the kinds of really influential voices upon which real reform rests.

Comments

[Steve Carr]

With all due respect, you can't be serious about this. Qaradawi's aide, Essam Talima, explained that the fatwa meant: "All of them are invaders who came from their country to invade our country and fighting them is a duty." "All of them" seems pretty clear. Qaradawi supports suicide-bombing attacks on Israeli civilians. Is it surprising he'd support the murder of American civilians who were aiding the occupying forces (which would mean, of course, all Americans in Iraq)? This is a classic case of Qaradawi saying one thing to the Muslim community and then semi-recanting it in order to preserve his reputation in the West as a representative of moderate Islam.

It's also worth noting that in this fatwa -- http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=114486 -- Qaradawi argues that Muslims should take no POWs until their enemies "have been routed altogether." In other words, if enemy soldiers try to surrender during the course of a battle (before the battle has been won), they should not be taken captive, but rather massacred. ("No Enemy Captives Are to Be Held Before Their Army is Vanquished.") Do you really think this is what "real reform" looks like?

[the aardvark]

The statement was made only by Qaradawi's aide - not by YQ himself. His real position, as I understand it, seems to be this: resistance to occupation is legitimate (hence, his support for armed attacks against Israelis), and thus armed attacks against American and British troops are legitimate. But attacks against innocents - whether French journalists, Shia worshippers, or American/British civilians - is contrary to Islam. Is this the position of an apostle of non-violence? No, of course not: he believes - as do most of us who aren't pacifists - that violence is legitimate only under certain specified conditions. But it's also not an open-ended endorsement of terrorism against American and British civilians, as it's been made out to be. And in the context of the general Arab/Islamic argument about violence and jihad, well, yes - it is a fairly moderate position.

As for whether this represents "real reform", I'm not sure I follow. The point about reform relates to internal questions about democracy, corruption, accountability, freedoms, etc - I don't see the link to the quote there.