Yusuf al-Qaradawi

If Juan Cole says it then it must be ok to criticise al-Qaradawi now?

It appears that for Chris everyone else who pointed out al -Qaradawi’s reactionary views on a whole range of issues at the time of the British visit had some other agenda which nullified the value of the information they put forward.

I think Cole is more saddened and worried than disgusted.

There’s a difference.

Well that is simply pathetic Dan.

I have read multiple sources on al-Qaradawi, including the original source material of his fatwas (easily avaliable in English on his own Islamonline website).

It was not at all difficult to make ones mind up about what kind of views he held.

But you have to wait for an endorsment from some American academic before you can make a judgement.

Pathetic but not at all surprising.

The approach of relying on those who have proved trustworthy in the past seems reasonable. But surely you have to update your definitions of who’s trustworthy based on new information, so that going forward, you should be considerably more skeptical of those who initially defended (or were neutral towards) Qaradawi and considerably more respectful of those who, from the beginning, saw him for exactly what he is.

And it’s worth remembering that it was the uproar over Qaradawi’s visit that prompted Marc Mulholland’s absurd musings on how the attacks on Qaradawi were examples of Islamophobia and were “unconscionable.” “Ken Livingstone was quite right to greet diplomatically Yussef al-Qaradawi,” Mulholland wrote, in a post Chris labeled “useful and serious.”

Harry, you really are going way over the top here.

I said:

bq. I was _a little bit skeptical_ about _some_ of the claims made about him by his opponents [emphases added].

Your gloss on what I said is

bq. for Chris everyone else who pointed out al -Qaradawi’s reactionary views on a whole range of issues at the time of the British visit had some other agenda which nullified the value of the information they put forward.

It seemed to me at the time that al-Qaradawi had some unsavoury views. It also seemed as if some of the accounts of his views that were being alleged by the usual suspects were exaggerated. I didn’t do the research into his fatwas that you seem to have done (and all credit to you for chasing down the original sources). And yes, I am wary of sources of information when they are clearly peddling some agenda. (Aren’t you Harry? Surely everyone is.) I don’t have to wait for an “endorsement from an American academic before I can make a judgement”, but when someone whose views I respect and whom I regard as an authority sets things out as Cole has done, I am inclined to let me beliefs be shaped by what he says. Again, Harry, aren’t there sources whom you trust such that when they say “P” you are more inclined to believe that P??

Steve Carr: Of course you are right to say that Marc M endorsed Livingstone’s meeting with al -Qaradawi and you are also right to say that I wrote that his post was “useful and serious”. I still think that he made some very good points in that piece, points that unfortunately got lost because of some other ones he also made and which we’ve actually revisited in one of the Foucault discussions we had recently.

Chris,

As I said, al-Qaradawi’s views are in the public domain, in his own words on his own website and a good number of the press articles and blogposts that risked the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ by criticising the mayor of London and other fools for embracing this homophobic supporter of the killing of civilians, actually pointed people in the direction of Islamonline.

The facts were there and had nothing to do with the opinions of those who choose to report them.

By the way, unless I’m mistaken, the al-Bayyumi that Cole praises for his eloquence is the same person who published an article –in the fall of 2003 — arguing that because of the war in Iraq, any true Muslim scholar must now recognize Bin Laden as a “Muslim Mujahid” — that is, a freedom fighter — while calling Bush a “neo-terrorist” who “must be stopped immediately and by all methods.”

Bayumi also said it was a “fard ain” — a compulsory duty — for Muslims to wage war against the US, because it was an enemy that had invaded Islamic lands and was harming Muslims. So Nicholas, in context he’s not just saying it’s acceptable to murder civilians who help the US military. He’s saying it’s mandatory to murder (or perhaps just kidnap) them.

Remember, this man is among the most important and respected Muslim clerics in the entire world. In other words, this is not extreme. This is mainstream Islam. This is what now passes for reasonable — as evidenced by Cole’s bizarre praise of Bayyumi — in the Muslim world. How Daniel can continue to believe in the face of this that Islamism is “a fictional construct” is utterly beyond me.

But you have to wait for an endorsment from some American academic before you can make a judgement.

Pathetic but not at all surprising.

As I’ve commented on another thread, in as much as there is an official line on anything at CT, our official line on the subject of people who come onto the comments boards and loudly demand that we sign up to statements condemning whatever happens to be the bee in their bonnet today, is, no thanks.

Juan Cole has called Ariel Sharon “nothing more than a mafia don who rubs out other mafia dons,” deemed the killing of Shaikh Yassin “a form of state terrorism,” and said that the killing of Yassin’s seven companions (who were with him when the rocket hit) justified putting Sharon in jail. This is just one article: http://antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=2181. If you take a few minutes, you’ll be able to find a host more in which he subjects Israel to unrelenting criticism for its tactics.

As I said, fine, I’m willing to accept for the sake of argument that the IDF is targeting civilians. But then do not praise Bayoumi for his eloquence in advocating the murder of civilians who “in any way” support fighting troops, which in Iraq could presumably mean everything from maintaining oil lines to training policemen.

As for the “differences in these situations,” certainly one difference is that the IDF is fighting against terrorists who use suicide bombings against civilians as their chief military tactic. Another difference is that Bayyumi is advocating violent resistance to an army that toppled the most brutal dictator in the Middle East and is trying to install an Iraqi democracy.

As for why we’re supposedly working so hard to indict Islam as a whole, our connection of the policies being advocated to Islam might have something to do that all the people we’re talking are Muslim clerics or scholars who are offering their opinion on what Islamic doctrine dictates. It might also have something to do with the fact that the reason Bayyumi is advocating violent resistance is because the Koran counsels it in cases when non-believers are encroaching on Muslims.

Finally, go read Qaradawi’s stuff and then tell me that you honestly believe dialogue with him is possible. Let’s be serious. Would you advocated dialogue with a Nazi party ideologue in 1940? Do you honestly think some benefit would have been reaped from this?

Crooked Timber once again demonstrate their ability to confuse remaining aloof, pompous, and blind to the facts, as being impartial “wise” academics.

Oliver Kamm put it nicely: “Recently the authors of the Crooked Timber blog have excelled not only in the neatness of their uniforms, but also in their eagerness to congratulate themselves on how they look. It is an unendearing rhetorical tick to commend one’s own uniqueness among bloggers in commenting on a particular subject, and Crooked Timber’s authors appear to have caught it from each other. But if it were only their perspicacity, I should still find it tolerable; it’s their monopoly of virtue and omniscience that gets me down.”

None of these muftis speak for all Muslims, as the Muslim religion does not have a universally accepted clergy. Here in Egypt, ask your average Egyptian if he thinks the Mufti is someone he must follow. He will tell you no, unless he thinks what the Mufti is saying about some particular issue makes sense. Qaradawi is an idiot who came out in favor of suicide bombings long ago but for some reason he still gets on Muslm talk shows. If that makes all Muslims a threat (a la Mr. Carr’s arguments) then the fact that Russ Limbaugh is on many US radio stations means that Americans are all raving drug addicted loons. It makes just as much sense.

“if you’re not with us, you’re against us”
That’s not a good enough description.
“If it moves, kill it” is a better one.

The targeting of civilians is a centerpiece of modern war. Germany, Korea, Vietnam.
And one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. That should be old hat by now. In the past six months Israel has killed 436 men women and children. How many dead children in Chechnya?

Charlie Chaplin put it well in Monsieur Verdoux, the state says war is noble, but if I kill someone it’s a crime.

I ask this every few months and no one ever answers: If Germany had stopped after Eastern Poland and were still there today, having moved in families and children, what would you call those who were still fighting for what they would call their land? And of course there would be a dialogue by now, but not everyone would want to join.

I am not a nihilist – and by the way neither are Hamas and Hezbollah (Al Qaeda is a different matter)- nor am I defending nihilism. And I am not defending terrorism. But I am capable of understanding where each comes from.

As far as negotiation is concerned, remember the friendships Sharon has with those on his right, some of whom have argued for genocide. Can we have ‘dialogue’ with such people? Sharon make me want to puke. If we want peace we have no choice but to talk to terrorists and war criminals alike.

A uniform does not cleanse the act of murder. And the lack of one does not add to the filth.
What happened yesterday in Russia was a tragedy and a crime. But the perpetrators will be blamed for their crimes and for Putin’s as well. It shouldn’t be allowed to work, but it will. And for that, among others we will have people like Harry to blame.
Raise the red flag Harry, and be proud.
Unto the pure all things are pure.

I’m just sad.

Harry, in that case, let me put it plainly, in words of few syllables.

You, and your website, have talked such an unbelievable amount of rubbish about everything to do with Iraq, for the last eighteen months, that when you were shouting and screaming about Qaradawi, I at least assumed that it was more of the same crap from Harry’s Place. You had long since fallen off the “always check” list and onto the “don’t bother” list.

Now it turns out that on that occasion, you were right, and Chris happened to found this out because someone who did not have a track record of talking hysterical bollocks happened to say the same thing.

To reiterate: when Juan Cole says that someone is a dangerous and nasty Islamist, one pays attention because Juan Cole is a reasoned and sensible commentator. When you say the same thing, one tends not to pay attention, because you say the same thing about almost everyone, including the Queen Mother and my milkman.

And now you’re calling me “Pathetic”? Look, you got the wrong message from the fairy stories your mother told you when you were growing up. The “little boy who cried wolf” was not the hero of that story.

It should have been clear to all from the outset what kind of a person al-Qaradawi was. D2 wrote “the claque screaming for him to be denounced from the rooftops seemed so bloody appalling (and was so chock full of people who had axes to grind and seemed unconcerned about distorting the truth while grinding them) that I for one was reluctant to join it.” This really won’t wash; perhaps it partly reflects what some of his comments here also indicate: that his attitude to Harry’s Place has been distorted by some kind of trauma-related hysteria. Among the very first people to denounce al-Qaradawi for what he was was Nick Cohen, and others who explosed his demented ravings gave more than adequate direct quotations and links to impeccable sources. I don’t know which “bloody appalling” people D2 is referring to but to call the sources I came across axe-grinders and cryers of “wolf” is simply absurd. Full marks, however, for keeping your cool in your characteristically calm and measured response to Harry.

I’ll see your al-Qaradawi and raise you an Ahmed Chalabi

I must say I haven’t really followed the media/political campaign against Chalabi too closely, although I have read enough to get the impression of a smear campaign.

(I was going to give chapter and verse about how you’ve grossly misrepresented what I said on the previous thread, but to be honest that Chalabi quote is much funnier).

Quite funny, I agree — but nowhere near as funny as it would have been if
Nick Cohen, echoed by other emphatically non-“bloody appalling” people, had conspicuously written,

“Chalabi’s website is available for the world to read. It supports the murder of Israeli civilians and declares that “on the hour of judgement, Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them”. Homosexuals, the website continues, are depraved and abominable and should be put to death to cleanse Islamic society of its “perverted elements”. As for women, they must be kept in their place. Wives are forbidden to rebel against their husbands’ authority. A husband may beat his wife “lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts”. Rape victims must carry a portion of the guilt if they dress “immodestly…”

which is what Cohen did say, perfectly accurately, about al-Qaradawi’s own website. Howevere certain you may be that Chalabi is an equally disgusting character, I rather doubt that you can point to any comparably unequivocal self-condemnation, in a context in which he is explaining to the world at large what he’s really all about. So even when you raise the spectre of the notorious Chalabi to illustrate Harry’s lack of judgement, you do nothing to banish the suspicion that all this cautious “consider the source” bollocks about al-Qaradawi is an expression of a grotesque double standard.

What’s more, as a regular visitor to Harry’s Place, I can assure you, who have long since consigned the site to your “don’t bother” list, that the post on Chalabi is far closer to an aberration than to a representative sample.

As for misrepresenting what you said, since I assume you’re not referring to the part where I actually quote your words, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Chris,

Given that I don’t very often venture into these esteemed environs and rather spend my online time writing “hysterical bollocks” at my own weblog, I think the ‘troll’ accusation is a bit unfair.

We could discuss Dan’s touching faith in the Jordanian legal system but I think we both probably realise there is not much point to this.

This is an object lesson in how sources can lead you astray; if you’d read other sources than Hitchens on the subject of Chalabi (specifically, if you’d read the comments section of your own site where I warned you about this, twice), you’d know that the collapse of the Petra Bank in Jordan was actually precipitated by the collapse of another Chalabi family entity (Mebco), which in turn was precipitated by that entity having its banking license removed after investigation by the Swiss banking authorities.

As I say, it happens to the best of us.

Jimmy, the initial fuss over Qaradawi was at the beginning of July. I posted a brief note of the Cohen piece “a very different matter” on 16th August (6 weeks later) , after receiving an email about it from Chris Brooke, mainly as a courtesy to Chris. I was then away from the 18th to the 24th and again from the 28th to the 31st! Do you really think me culpable for not extracting the relevant info and blogging about it?

Chris:

I didn’t mean to suggest that you’re culpable of anything. My point was more general: that the true nature of al-Qaradawi was not hard to discern by anyone who was interested (no reason why you should be particularly interested — even you can’t blog everything!), and even his most high-profile critics could not be dismissed as a “bloody appalling claque.” And I suppose I meant to express some surprise — nothing more — that you hadn’t cottoned on to Cohen’s report of al-Qaradawi’s website, given that you had mentioned his essay on CT.

D2:

Fair enough.

‘We could discuss Dan’s touching faith in the Jordanian legal system but I think we both probably realise there is not much point to this.’
This is the C. Hitchens line: Chalabi was convicted in absentia of banking fraud by a Jordanian court and hence that verdict is worthless. Now leaving aside the news, which may not have percolated to all quarters, that rather a lot of questions have recently been raised about Chalabi’s honesty that have *nothing* to do with Jordanian banks, can one just add that the Jordanian case was in fact precipitated by the Swiss banking authorities bringing malfeasance charges against executives of Chalabi’s bank, who included his brother? Might one also add that these charges were not contested by the Chalabis? Has Switzerland joined Jordan on the ‘Harry’s Place’ list of banana republics intent on fitting up the Chalabi family?

Obviously my comments before were not about al-Qaradawi as much as about the debate over him. I trust Juan Cole and I don’t trust Harry. Why is that?
As I think I’ve said before, in a similar context (I just spent 10 minutes trying to find the post on CT where D2 wrote “put a fucking sock in it Seth!”) there is an ongoing conflict here and elsewhere between forms of programmatic logic a more flexible kind of intellectualism. D2: I remember that in the Foucault post, you and Olivia Benson passed right by each other in the discussion of stoning.

“You work in my department. We hire a new guy; he’s Pakistani. You spend all morning saying “Don’t you agree that stoning women is bad, Hussain? Stoning women is bad, isn’t it, Hussain? What do you think about stoning women, Hussain? It’s really bad that Muslims stone women, isn’t it, Hussain?”. In the afternoon, I sack you for racially harassing Hussain. My guess is that you’d get a much more sympathetic hearing from Oliver Kamm than from Michel Foucault. Or for that matter, an industrial tribunal.”

“Ah. And when do you stop saying embarrassing things about stoning women?”

“Not sure what your point is here, Ophelia?”

I thought her point was obvious, but that’s not saying I agree with it. You were talking about things in the context of their environment and Ophelia responded by saying that context was irrelevent. It’s similar to the debate over genital cutting. Does the fact that something is a ‘cultural practice’ have any bearing at all on our response? In a discussion of radical Islam, does the history of Islam, in the context of European expansion, later American policies, Israel etc. have any role in our response to terrorism? Why would a figure such as al-Qaradawi be popular in the 21st century, let alone someone such as bin Ladin. And how do we respond to his popularity?

You don’t put it that way. I think you elide the issue by putting it in philosophical terms. Responding to Eve Garrard :

“But you still seem to be operating on a view of the world which has things in it called “meanings”. Quine ended up concluding that there weren’t any such things, and some of the best bits in Foucault and Derrida involve trying to analyse the damage caused by the assumption that there are.”

I think there is a relation between the belief that it is appropriate to stone women, and the act of stoning, and no linguistic gamesmanship will remove it. But there is a difference between potentiality and act, and there is a difference between aberrant and normative behavior in different societies. The question is not whether we should agree on the issue of stoning or genital cutting, but how should we respond. By my logic, Harry, Olivia Benson, and quite a few others- their friends- respond to complex social and political problems with simple, paper solutions. I think you respond to complexity with complexity, but for example in the debate with me (sock fucking etc.) you turned the discussion into one of economics, rendering it complex but abstract, while I thought it more important to understand how the problem itself could have been avoided.

Any criticism of you here is minor. I agree with you, C Bertram, and Scott Martens; but I still think, as in the discussion of Foucault, that there are problems where being able to understand them and to act from that – whatever the actual response to a given situation- is more important than trying to form a logic for that is globally applicable. Harry et al. would rather oversimplify and moralize. The difference I have with you is that I think the complexity is not so much philosophical as human.

peace out.

It may or may not be of interest, but Abu Aardvark maintains that Juan Cole is doing Qaradawi an injustice. (I know exactly as much about Abu Aardvark as I do about Qaradawi so I’m staying on the fence.) Possibly Juan Cole placed too much reliance on a single report?

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2004/09/qaradawi_again.html