Hey, you know where Yusuf al Qaradawi, the so-called "shaykh of terror", is right now (or at least was yesterday)? In the Sudan, trying to find a solution to the crisis in Darfur - which, frankly, is a heck of a lot more than Bush is doing.
According to al Hayat, Qaradawi's mission is calling for a meeting to "achieve national reconciliation", and warned that "the humanitarian conditions in the region demanded an immediate and urgent intervention by Arab and Muslim organizations to deal with the suffering and to assign responsibility for the tragedy." While he did not discuss ethnic cleansing or mass rapes, he did pointedly discuss the burning of villages and the collective humanitarian disaster. Above all, he insisted that Muslims must deal with the issue - both because it was wrong for Muslims to do such things, and to avoid Western intervention. The Qatari paper al Sharq quotes him as calling for all parties to "be governed by the voice of reason." Some Sudanese parties are accusing him of taking the side of the government, pointing to the fact that official state television broadcast his Friday sermon live; but he has also met with Turabi, and has explicitly challenged government claims about the magnitude and cause of the problem.
Didn't know that? Maybe that's because, according to Google News, the only place that it's been mentioned is the Sudan Tribune, which quoted him as follows: "The fanning of this sedition serves the enemies of Islam because they want to check the expansion of Islam, through the Sudan gate, to the African countries," he said. "The conflict should not have occurred among people "of one faith and one language," said Qaradawi, adding that the solution "lies in unification of ranks and in making concessions by all parties -- both rulers and ruled -- for addressing the issue so that foreign hands will not have a chance for interference.".
The Washington Times reported his accusation that NGOs were proselytizing for Christianity, but barely mentioned his peace mission.
Other than that, not a story shows up. Maybe that's because Qaradawi leading an Islamic delegation to the Sudan to mediate the conflict doesn't fit the dominant storylines: Arabs and Muslims are ignoring Darfur, Qaradawi is a radical apologist for terrorism.
To be honest, I frankly am not able to judge whether this is a positive intervention or a negative one, whether it really is pro-government or whether it is really an attempt at honest mediation... but what is undeniable is that Qaradawi is there, treating Darfur as a major issue for Muslims, and trying to find a solution. And given that it seems to have been totally ignored in the West, it can hardly be dismissed as double-talk, as one commenter below suggested.
On that front, for what it's worth, here are some of the most recent headlines on Qaradawi's own home page (in Arabic, not English): "Reform is an Islamic obligation"; "Qaradawi calls for the release of journalists"; "Freedoms before implementing sharia."
In some ways, I'm an unlikely defender of Qaradawi - I actually don't support large parts of his political agenda, nor do I like his socially conservative views. I wish that he were far more forthright and expansive in his condemnations of terrorism. But the reason I find myself defending him repeatedly is that Qaradawi - along with his main platform, al Jazeera - has been the target of a concerted campaign of defamation which has established a conventional wisdom which just isn't true. When Swift Boat liars appear in the US, we all (or at least, most of us) understand the smear for what it is; when a smear happens in Arab politics, a lot of people think that someone like Abd al Rahman al Rashed or Mamoun Fandy is some kind of neutral truth teller rather than an active participant in the political operation. There's a million blogs to fact-check the Swift Boat Liars, but not many to correct the record on al Qaradawi or al Jazeera. So criticize Qaradawi for his views, by all means - lord knows there's plenty to criticize - but just try to recognize the political hatchet jobs for what they are....
UPDATE: I'm moving this bit up from comments into the main post, because Eugene's sharply phrased comment helped to focus my mind a bit:
[Why am I even a reluctant defender of Qaradawi?] Because Rashed has roughly zero credibility with the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims and Qaradawi has an enormous amount. When Rashed says such things, it makes Americans very happy, but has very little impact on Arab or Muslim attitudes. When Qaradawi says something which isn't quite what we'd like to hear, but which is - in the context of Arab and Muslim politics - an important stand against radicalism, it has a very real impact on those attitudes. That's why I think that it's important to encourage voices like Qaradawi's, and don't much care about statements like Rashed's.
Plus, Rashed's piece was blatantly dishonest. He repeated the bit about American civilians - okay, maybe he thought it was true, lots of people got taken in, including al Sharq al Awsat. But he also insinuated that Qaradawi ignored issues like the Sudan... at a time when Qaradawi was actually *in* the Sudan trying to mediate.
OK, Abd al Rahman al Rashed is "an active participant in the political operation". So's Qaradawi. In today's NYT A al-R al-R is quoted as saying it's "shameful and degrading" that the Beslan terrorists were Muslims. He says that it's an "abominable `achievement'" that "The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim". So, Qaradawi is concerned for the lives of his fellow Muslims, or maybe just concerned for propping up a government now guilty of two genocides, while Rashed is humiliated that his faith is being used to justify the murder of anyone. Explain to me again please why you're even an unlikely defender of Qaradawi.
Posted by: Eugene Dean | September 08, 2004 at 06:43 PM
Because Rashed has roughly zero credibility with the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims and Qaradawi has an enormous amount. When Rashed says such things, it makes Americans very happy, but has very little impact on Arab or Muslim attitudes. When Qaradawi says something which isn't quite what we'd like to hear, but which is - in the context of Arab and Muslim politics - an important stand against radicalism, it has a very real impact on those attitudes. That's why I think that it's important to encourage voices like Qaradawi's, and don't much care about statements like Rashed's.
Plus, Rashed's piece was blatantly dishonest. He repeated the bit about American civilians - okay, maybe he thought it was true, lots of people got taken in, including al Sharq al Awsat. But he also insinuated that Qaradawi ignored issues like the Sudan... at a time when Qaradawi was actually *in* the Sudan trying to mediate.
Posted by: the aardvark | September 08, 2004 at 06:51 PM
Abu Aardvark:
"[Rashed] repeated the bit about American civilians - okay, maybe he thought it was true, lots of people got taken in, including al Sharq al Awsat."
You speak as though you'd decisively refuted that story, but all you've given us is "He said, she said". It's not unknown for public figures to shift positions under pressure while pretending to stand still. And in this case, as Steve Carr reminds us, there's the meme that radical Moslems habitually talk out of both sides of their mouth.
Maybe there's supporting evidence for Qaradawi's version, or maybe there's an explanation for how the press got it wrong. But you need to give us a bit more before we can go forth and proclaim, "Abu Aardvark has refuted . . ."
Posted by: Abu Frank | September 09, 2004 at 02:39 AM
Thanks for this useful post.
- Chan'ad
Posted by: Chan'ad | September 09, 2004 at 07:07 AM
Abu Frank,
Yes, you're right - I've been looking when I can for any supporting or refuting evidence, but everything I find comes back to the same original quote by Qaradawi's aide, which Qaradawi then repudiated. Beyond that, I haven't found anything - no official fatwa, no supporting documentation, but a lot of people (including now Jon Kifner of the New York Times) repeating the original claim based on the same source. If anyone else has got anything more (on either side), I'd love to hear about it.
Posted by: the aardvark | September 09, 2004 at 07:16 AM