Talk:Yusuf al-Qaradawi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars.

It has been rated - on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Can someone please add to the biography of Qaradawi

Nothing found yet, except his his website, http://qaradawi.net; however, Arabic-only, a bit meager for somebody pretending to have something to say to a European public (as chief of the so-called 'European Council for Fatwa and Research'). A set of 160 of his Fatwa's in English can be found on http://www.islam-online.net/ regards, --Rudi Dierick 17:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks

Contents

[edit] Who considers Qaradawi a "dark force"?

"On the other hand, others consider him as a dark force of hard Islamism. " Attribution is needed for these POV assessments otherwise they should be deleted. --Alberuni 01:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like something that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. Unless there is some extenuating context for mentioning it as a quote.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Many observers, including international media as The Economist ranked him as one of the two most prominent islamic persons in the (arch)conservative, 'litteralist' tendency in Euopean islam. Given that the European Court of Human Rights has severely criticised the sharia (and judged it, or more specifically any litteral reading of the sharia ) incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy, judgement of 13 February 2003), given that Mr. Qaradawi is explicitely in favor of female genital mutilation (he prefers partial removal of organs!), that he is against the United Nations, against the Universal Human Rights and that he claims that muslim soldiers, from whatever country, are not allowed to ever figfht against another muslum soldier when not under a muslim command, it appears to me there are sufficient reasons to consider him as beloging to the core of hard Islamism.
In case you want to find out more about him, just check the references given. About terminology, the use of qualifications as 'dark force' is not my personal preference for an encyclopedia, but given the sometimes arch-conservative ideas of the subject of this article, one could justify it. Kind regards, --Rudi Dierick 16:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After having read some more of Qaradawi's fatwa's, it becomes more and more clear to me that he is indeed somebody with very backward, reactionarry and unacceptable positions. --Rudi Dierick 14:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The link you gave to Economist starts the discussion about Qaradawi with, "Yousef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born cleric based in Qatar, with a wide television following and a reputation for moderation" and then the article goes on to whine about his statements about Iraq invasion. It's perfectly right (and morally justified) to speak out against the American invasion of Iraq.
That's just one point of view. Other points of view either weigh more pro's and con's, or plainly defend the removal of such a brutal dictator (who caused, according to the Londonn-based Muslim News at least 250.000 deaths by his terror, and some more 100.000's in the war with Iran. I personally, consider the American way of (mis)behaving quite stupid, naieve and ill-prepared. However, that is just a point of view of me. I don't claim any superior ethical value for that, andf try to always keep out such such personal preferences from contributions here; for my contributions, I try to make a well-documented, balanced point of view .--Rudi Dierick 13:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
... and It's also morally justified to fight/kill American troops in Iraq. That doesn't make him a "dark force."
That label of 'a dark force' is a GENERAL aprpeciation, not just an appreciation for only one of the many domains for which he issued his statements. So, making such a general conclusion after you gave your personal feellings on just one domain, is a gross neglect of all other reasons. Please make a general appreciation, taking into accounts ALL his statements (I've read many of his 160 'fatwa's").--Rudi Dierick 13:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Regarding his statement about Female circumcision, the main thrust of the article on his site [1] is that it's not obligatory, regardless of what he "prefers." That's actually a positive statement from an Egyptian where (and other African countries) FGM is a problem.
Oh, this is very naieve: his personal preferences are just VERY relevant as he pretends to speak with the superior religious authority that all Muslims in Europe (European Council of ...) should respect for both religious as also wordly questions!
Again, you are reading into words. He said nothing about Europe. He is not just a memeber of Eurepean Muslim council. You asumed he meant Europe even though he said nothing about that. Plus, his personal preference and what is obligatory in Islam are two different things OneGuy 08:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In Qaradawi's detailled statements on this, we can basically find wo parts: first a purely descriptive overview of those various schools and points of view on FGM that he considers as respectable, overview that you can consider as an intellectual exercise, and then his personal preferences, which are clearly something for which you can take somebody accountable. When people criticise Qaradawi, that is clearly because of his personal preferences, which are backward, reactionnary, and on total contradicion with universal human rights. So, to call that 'positive' ...? --Rudi Dierick 13:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's positive because other clerics in Egypt claim it's obligatory. That makes it positive statement, not a negative one. The whole thrust of the article on his web site was that it's not obligatory: see: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-02/07/article06.shtml OneGuy 08:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, according to that kind of reasning, it was quite positive in 1938 that Hitler took only just a part of Czechoslovakia, Sudentenland, and not all of it! Please, Egyptian standards are something quite local, compared with universal human rights, and in Wikipedia, I think judging somebody just by loval standards, is far below the required standards!
So Qaradawi can be compared to Hitler because he made a statement that even though he prefers a minor form of FGM, it's not obligatory in Islam? You are realy starting to make sense now! OneGuy 08:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
FGM is an African tradition, not Islamic one.
Wrong, it also occurs quite frequently in Arabic-islamic countries outside Africa, notably Yemen (and, before the current ruler, Oman)! Morever, islam is the only religion that is widely used as a religious justification. --Rudi Dierick 13:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's of course false.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm
"It is widely practiced in countries where the predominant religion is Christianity: Examples are Ethiopia and Kenya."
That still does not confirm your denail of my claim (being that islam is the only large religious community, alongside probably the Copts, that justifies FGM using religious arguments). So where is your evidence for any christain or jewisj religiuous justification? --Rudi Dierick 17:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10098.htm
"Some Coptic Christian priests refuse to baptize girls who have not undergone one of the procedures." OneGuy 08:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Qaradawi, an Egyptian, issuing fatwa that FGM is not obligatory doesn't make him a "dark force." It can be seen as positive step. Some other Egyptian clerics are far radical on FGM.
Having said all that, didn't he make some radical statements about suicide bombings in Israel? That would be "dark force" (if true) but I don't know the full context of what he said. OneGuy 16:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes indeed he did, including as far as I remember, justification of killing innocent civilians.

[edit] Mixed positions of Qaradawi: some favoring integration, others arch-conservative

The person of Yussuf Al-Qartadawi is rather difficult to explain. At some moments, he explicitely supports integration of European muslims in the countries where they chose to live, but on other moments, he appears condening reactionnary, archconservative points of view. As 'Guy' seems unaware of the latter, I've added some detailled references below:

  • http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=31397 'Islamic Ruling on Female Circumcision' confirms Qardawi stating that circumcission is not mandatory, but adding that he prefers it! "Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. "
  • In a more recent statement (http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=114253), Al-Qaradawi abstains from expressing a clear personal preference. (...) He also states: "Both the Hanafi and Maliki schools view female circumcision as a recommended act, but not a confirmed sunnah. The Shafi`i and Hanbali schools are of the opinion that it is mandatory as in the case of male circumcision." And he again refers to the initial statement in which he supports partial removal (s he did not drop that personal preference!).
  • About respect for other religions, just consider how the Spanniards, the Serbs, Croats, Sicialians etc. should feel when reading what Al-Qaradawi says on their countries, once occupied for several decennia oreven centuries by islamic rules: "No Muslim, be he in authority or not, is allowed to abandon any of the lands of Muslims. The land of the Islamic world is not the property of any president, prince, minister or group of people. It is not up to anyone therefore to relinquish it under any circumstances.", http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=18372. I cannot consider this as anything else but in flagrant breach with the equal rights of all men, regardless of their religion.
  • Al-Qaradawi on islam-online.net: On that website, you can find 160 Fatwa's from Al-Qaradawi. Do not hesitate to read them exhaustively. --Rudi Dierick
As I said, you have a very weak case regarding Female Circumcision. Regardless of what he prefers, he, an Egyptian, has issued a fatwa that FGM is not obligatory. That's a positive statement in Africa where religious leaders are more radical on this topic. For example, in Ethiopia some "Coptic Christian priests refuse to baptize girls who have not undergone one of the FGM procedure." [2]
Pardon, did he not say he favors removal of part of genital organs?
Yes, and he also said that it's not obligatory. What's your problem with his freedom of speech to say what he prefers, even though he doesn't think it should be forced nor is obligatory? OneGuy 08:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is that preference not squarely against the universal human rigts?...
Not, it's his freedom of speech to say what he prefers, as long as he doesn't make it obligation and forced upon everyone OneGuy 08:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See below on the effect of this kind of opinions formulated by clerics issuing them under the form of fatwa's!
But the fatwa was that it's not obligatory. How many times do I need to repeat that to you, dude? OneGuy 18:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

personal aand physical integrity? That fact that there are other, non-islamic persons that would als FGM, does not constitute the slightest justificaion! For me, his personal preference if VERY relevant to judge his own positions, 1000x more relevant than what he says on the positions of other people.

Moreover, with that posiion, Qaradawi is still way behind 99% percent of all modern muslima's, including those in Egypt
Since FGM is pretty common in Egypt (despite the government ban), I doubt that 99% of figure is right OneGuy 08:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and in other Arabic countries, who are all massivelyt against ANBY FORM of FGM! So, you compare Qaradawi with an even worse tradition, but why not compare him with universal standards and with other, less backward arabic and muslim people? Why not compare him with Nawal El Saadawi (Dr. in medicine), Fatima Mernissi, and late Mrs. Sadat, all Egyptian and heavily against any form of FGM?.
FGM is not a big problem outside Africa, but in Africa it is. Many Islamic clerics in Egypt or Somalia are far more radical and claim it's a religious obligation, just like Christians in Africa.
Isn't this a gross generalisation? The only known cases of christian clerics in favor of FGM are among the Copts (in Egypt an Ethiopia), where all other christian denominations are against (Anglicans, catohlics, other protestants).
How do you know every single African Anglican, Catholic, other denomination preist is against FGM? OneGuy 08:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contrast that with islamic clerics of ALL islamic schools that can be found in favor (without saying that all muslim clerics are in favor; many like Soheib Bencheick and Bassam Tibi are against), and religiously motivated support among Muslims in many countries, even those where there is no FGM being pratcised (as with European followers of Qaradawi!) In short : looks like Islam is by far the only religion with such widescale support for FGM, even from persons like Qaradawi who have travelled beyond their litte local illage and who should know how much FGM is aganist universal human rights! !--Rudi Dierick 14:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Qaradawi issuing statements that it's not obligatory (regardless of what he "prefers") is positive.

No, it's not gross generalization. The vast majority of Muslims and Islamic clerics outside Africa do not support or practice FGM. FGM is practiced in parts of Africa by every religious group, including Jews and Christians, and justified by religion. "European followers" must have been immigrants from parts of Africa where FGM is common. OneGuy 14:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, just provide evidence that Jewish and Christian people in Africa are in favour of FGM AND that they also justify this on religious grounds. Rudi Dierick


http://www.afrol.com/Categories/Women/index_fgm.htm
Pfff. That reference just confirms what I said earlier, being that except for the Copts (who are the only otrhodox christians of any reasonable number in Africa), there are no other christian, nor protestant, nor Anglican groups who practice FGM and who justify it on religious grounds! Moreover, this reports does not say anything on Jewish groups in Africa practicing FGM! And in addition, this report also confirms on FGM distribition, that "its prevalence is higher in predominatly Muslim countries". I guess I should now thank you for contributing this further conformation of what I wrote. --Rudi Dierick 17:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, the link doesn't say only Copts practice FGM. The links says that ALL religions in parts of Africa practice FGM. Since Muslims are majority in Africa and since Middle East is close to Africa, it's no surprise that these are predominantly Muslim countries. African emigrants in Europe practice FGM secretly, too. If Europe was close to Africa and for thousands of years people were immigrating to Europe like they do between the Middle East and Africa, it would have been prevalent in Europe too. Doesn't change the fact that it's cultural, not religious practice OneGuy 18:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"It is also practiced, to a lesser extent, in parts of Asia. FGM is practiced by Muslims, Christians, Jews and followers of traditional African religions." OneGuy 08:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Come on, try to find out what they mean with 'Jews': Ethopian tribes ('Falashas') living among the Copts, and that BELIEVE to be Jewish, but who have been out of touch with the rest of the Jewish world for longer then written accounts acknowledge for! Many of them migrated to israel, but there FGM is severely forbidden! Why not just accept what your report states on where it occurs most frequently?
And before you might forget it, you still have not given ANY reference at all that there is any contemporary (as oposed to pre-judaic) justifications of FGM on christian or jewish religious grounds (contrary to Islam where several schools prescribe FGM as mandatory because of so-caleld religious reasons)! So, where are your references? --Rudi Dierick 17:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I gave the link from the State Department that says that priests in Ethiopia refuse to baptize girls who are not circumcised.
You rightly assume that it are immigrants from countries as Somalia that went to Europe which are the main groups in Europe where you can find FGM. They condemnations in France were, if my memory is Ok, in this group. nevertheless, I've never read that Mr. Qaradawi was only addressing these specific groups. I've always understood that he distributed his statements (fatwa's and others) for all Muslims all over Europe.
Well, his fatwa was that it's not obligatory in Islam ... How many times that has to be repeated to you????? Personal preferences are not fatwa OneGuy 08:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I never wrote that Mr. Qaradawi said FGM was mandatory! Never! But I do indeed criticise his personal preference, holding it as very dangerous. Those preferences prove that this persons holds several deeply backward opinions (alongside other ideas that are more 'contemporary')! That's why Mr. Qaradawi is an intruing person, a strange and bizar combination of modern, and even daring ideas (for a Muslim lving in the Middle-East; for me in the EU, it is much easier) and at the same time such crude and primitive ideas. --Rudi Dierick 17:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See below. If Qaradawi prefers the kind of FGM (Type I) that is legal even the US, how does that make him a dark force? OneGuy 18:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, did you notice that male and female circumcision are quite different operations and that Mr. Qaradawi s rather confusing on his exact position. In the US, only the typical male form, basically an incission is legal. That intervention does not affect any physiological function. Al-Qaradawi did, as far as I know, not refer to any incision, but to the partial removal of genital organs: “Reduce the size of the clitoris". Pity he only used the literal wordings of the Quran and the Sunna, and not modern, contemporary terminology. That would have resolved all confusions on what he exactly means. --Rudi Dierick 22:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whether you consider that as 'positive' is just your personal appreciation. As soon as you evaluate that personal preference against the universal human rights, you cannot conclude anything else then accept that Qaradawi's position is still very ackward and unacceptable, especially for somebody who's explcitely addressing a European public! Do not frget that Qaradawi did not just defend FGM as a practice for thye backward areas in cuntries where FGM is deeply rooted in local culture, but ALSO for European context ("I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world", [3]!--Rudi Dierick 14:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"current circumstances in the modern world" doesn't mean Europe.

Gosh dude. You really like to put words in other people's mouth! Anyway, he explicitly said that FGM is not obligatory. The article already has section on FGM. Add stuff about FGM in that part of article. Don't repeat it several dozen times in the articleOneGuy 14:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, he had the elementary honesty not to pretend that it was a religious obligation. The only annoying repetition here is cauase dby yoursel when you insist that Mr. Qaradawi should not be judged by his own preferences! Not very convincing anyway! --Rudi Dierick 22:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As for you other quote, "No Muslim, be he in authority or not, is allowed to abandon any of the lands of Muslims. The land of the Islamic world is not the property of any president, prince, minister or group of people. It is not up to anyone therefore to relinquish it under any circumstances."
Did Qaradawi mean the land that has Muslim majority? If yes, then that doesn't apply to Balkans.
It appears to me that you do not fully understand the ideology of Qaradawi! For him, whether it is a majority or not, is less important then the fact that ALWAYS the Quran must be respected (in a litteral interpretation)! This means, that a majority has never the right to decide different from what Quran or sharia or Hadith says. The only majroity that Qaradawi seems willing to really respect is the majority of the islamic clerics, and what they say on matters.
In his statements in various territorial conflicts, he always refers to Muslim rule, and never to the fact whether the Muslims would be a majority or not. So, any Muslium, whether a simplke individual, or a person in authority, a prince, a minister or whatever is never to relinquish any land ever considered (by Muslims) as the land of Muslims. Rudi Dierick
That's your speculation and interpretation. The quotes you posted didn't say that. He only said "Muslim land", and the Muslim land does not have to be Balkans. Post exact quotes. Don't put words in his mouth by interpreting them OneGuy 14:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not talking about specifics, but just about the general case, 'Muslim land'. As Mr. Qaradawi used this term without futrthe specification, we have to read it in the general maning that most Muslims give to it. Obviously, there is some difference of opinion among Muslims on how far it goes. Nevertheless, that doesn't change anything to the fact that this point of view is a gross discrimination of all non-Muslims. --Rudi Dierick 22:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Most Muslims do not mean every land ever held by Muslims as "Muslim" land. That's pure nonsense by you. By Muslim land, people mean the land that has Muslim majority OneGuy 18:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not discrimanition to say that Muslim should protect their land (that has Muslim majority) from armies of non-Muslims OneGuy 08:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh no? You appear (and let's hop it is just the appearance) ignorant, naieve, or partisan, not to know (or not to want to accept) that for Muslims the term 'Muslim land' means any land that was ever ruled by a Muslim ruler, or inhabited by a Muslim majority! That's why even today, you can still find many Muslim who insist it was unjust that he Spanniards drove the Muslim rulers out of Spain in 1492 and who maintain that especially 'Andalus' is rightfully 'theirs'.
No, that's pure nonsense. By Muslim land means the land that has Muslim majority, not every land ever held by Muslims. Yes, Muslims do rightly say that Spanniards drove them by force. Though they don't say that Spain is their land even now OneGuy 18:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another example: altought in 1947 / 1948 the UN partitioned the then Palestinian mandate territory into an Arab and a jewish part, nearly all islamist organisations like Hamas want to destroy the entire Israeli state, and turn the entire former mandate tritory in an islamic state. And guess what Mr. Qaradawi says about that UN resolution that clearly gave bot Arabs and Jews part of that area?
Israel is totally different issue. Unlike Spain, this didn't happen hundreds of years ago. Palestinian refugees and their children are still living in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon in refugees camps and have a legitimate claim on the land and right of return issue OneGuy 18:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That clearly confirms that Mr. Qaradawi considers only the rights and claims, legiimate or not, of Muslims, and that he clearly refuses to accept an UN approved partitioning of the former mandate teritory! So, another example of how he refuses the legitimacy of the UN. --Rudi Dierick 17:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, you have not proven that by Muslim land Qaradawi meant Balkans and Spain 18:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In that case, I don't see a "dark force" there OneGuy 17:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See my other explanations on a GENERAL appreciation versus a specific appreciation for just one out of the very many positions of somebody. See also his respect for the freedom of choice of those Muslims who might chose nbot do have male circumcision (for whateve reasons): "As for male circumcision, it is one of the obligatory practices in Islam. Scholars even hold that whoever finds that some Muslims have stopped practicing male circumcision should force them to revert to this Sunnah". The excuse that it are others who say that ('Scholars even hold ...' cannot hide tha fact the Qaradawi give those so-called scholars enouigh credibility and respect to include their meaning as part of his own fatwa! So, it you still not not call that a dark force'? --Rudi Dierick 14:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

shoot the cunt

Ok, so he said that about male circumcision. What does that have to do with Female circumcision and Muslim land, the topic we are discussing above? OneGuy 17:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1. It is Mr. Qaradawi himself who discussed both in similar terms of obligation and preference. So the link was made mainly by him.
2. besids that, I mentionnned it as one more reason why Mr. Qaradawi cannot be considered as a modern Muslim, but as somebody withy a very dubious and dangerous mix of backward points of view, mixed up with other quite integration-minded and more respectfull

[edit] Revert

By the way, do not revert without discussing it on talk page. That's abuse. You have not told us who considers him a "dark force." Who are these "others"? Be specific. OneGuy 19:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you didn't cite sources for these claims:

(1) "his refusal of fll democracy (because then majority of the coters might vote differently from what Quran & hadiths say), "

That's plain rubbish, in the 160 fatwa's I mentionned and where you cut out ther reference towards them, it is quite clear, but you must be able to 'read between the lines', this is; be able (and willing) to see the inconsistencies in the democratic pretentions and claims from Qaradawi. See also above ('Mixed positions of Qaradawi ...') for a more detailled overview. --Rudi Dierick 13:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, I don't want to "read between lines." I don't want to put words in his mouth. If you want to claim that Qaradawi said this or that, just give the link and post his exact quote. It's unfair (especially in Encyclopedia) to "read between lines" and speculate what exactly he meant. That's dishonestly misrepresenting someone. I am not saying you are wrong, but I want to see proof and exact quotes, not your interpretations posted as facts OneGuy 15:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So you want us to believe Mr. Qaradawi is indeed in favor of real and full democracy, just because you believe he says so? Well, firstly, just show us evidence that confirms that he is inded in favour of full democracy, and secondly, convince us that he is serious about it. I don't believe he is, because at every moment he mentions democracy, he makes reservations, claiming that Muslims should only take some elements of democracy, and in doing so, he effectively empties the democracy of its essential qualities.
Just show us evidence that indeed he accepts democracy, INCLUDING the possibility that under democracy, a majority of voters in a country (musluim or other) might vote for something that is not in line with a litteral interpretation of the Quran, sharia Hadith and Sunna. --Rudi Dierick 23:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(2) "his refusal of equal rights of men and women,"

Pardon? he often and frequently insist on different duties, and on other moments states that the laws of states should reflect the islamic point of view, that maens, including those differences. In short, if you put these two things together: he indeed refuses equality. See also above ('Mixed positions of Qaradawi ...') for a more detailled overview.--Rudi Dierick 13:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Post exact quotes and with links. "Different duties" and equal rights are not even the same thing~ Gosh man! OneGuy 15:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh no? So what about Qaradawi saying about people who challenge the applicability of shariah "Hence, it is not allowed for us Muslims to show any leniency towards those who tend to turn that which is well-established and certain into a mere possibility, who tend to alter that which is clearly-defined into a doubtful matter. The aim of those irreligious people is to bend religion in a way that serves their own whims and according to what their Satan dictates. Those people have gone to extremes to the extent that they blatantly criticize the fixed Islamic rulings such as male and female shares of inheritance. Those misguided people cudgel their brains in finding out lame arguments that tend to give both males and females equal shares of inheritance. " [http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=61551
1]?
Is that not explicitely saying that for him, men and women do NOT have equal rights? And by the way, why not start providing some references for your own ludicrous claims?--Rudi Dierick 23:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(3) "Qaradawi also opposes the legitimate authority of the United Nations"

Yes, indeed, because he insists on the condition that whatever the UN says, it may only say tht as long as what the UN always conditions it to be never in contradiction with (his interpretation of) islam, Quran and sharia.
Well, many Americans also "opposes the legitimate authority" of the United Nations." Anyway, I would like you to post the exact quote and link here on the talk page, please!!! OneGuy 15:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've posted already quite some references, some of which were removed by you! From now on, I will provide references only after you systematically post relevant references and not just sympathetic articles! Your point of view should be clarified just as well as anybody else. --Rudi Dierick 23:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, you did not provide a link to anything other than the main web page of islamonline net. I want you to post exact quotes with links to things you are inserting in the article, not you interpreting his words OneGuy 08:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--Rudi Dierick 12:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean by this? What other, more authoritative source on the sayings and quotes from a person can be foudn when this source is the main and only English-languages channel that Mr. Qaradawi uses to publish his fatwa's? Do you know anything better? if so, do not hesitate to give us links and sources? Otherwise, it looks like this is the best source available.

(4) "approves of killing non-Muslim civilians as soon as Muslims have "reasons to believe he cooperates with forces as 'the Jews' or US military" Please post the source for each of these claims here on the talk page. Also, use a spell checker OneGuy 19:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did add several sources, but you removed them!!!!!!!! --Rudi Dierick 13:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You didn't post a source that says Qaradawi approved killing of civilians. I removed your claims, not any link. Post the link where Qaradawi says killing civilians is ok, then you can add all these claims in the article. You cannot add stuff and claims without posting your references here on the talk page .. OneGuy 15:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are a number of quotes posted here by Qaradawi but the source are not given? What the heck is that? The quote regarding boycott against American product is probably right because he said something similar on his site here:

http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=69990 OneGuy 17:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia requires not just believing at prima facie anything!

I've the impression that 'Guy' thinks one should believe any explicit statement from Qaradawi, and that one should not analyse it. I believe this is heavily against the encyclopedic method that Wikipedia puts forward. I believe we have to check those quotes, but the analyse them, compare them withy what's left out on the quotes, and on intervnal contradictions; ....

Analyze what? You have not even posted a single reference for any of the claim you inserted. Moreover, you want to put words into Qaradawi mouth and speculate. I don't think that's justified. Anyway, at least post your sources from which you are "analyzing" (i.e speculating). I want to see what exactly he said OneGuy
Not a single reference? Keep your lies and pity insults for yourself!
Consider it from the other side: the sovjet constittion pretended to be a pefectly democratic system, in full respect for human rights. So many dictarors pretende the same thing. And do you believe them because they just say so? What I do is not just blindly believing the nice pretentions of Mr. Qaradawi, but having a critical look on it. As a contributor here, you should know that statements like the ones from Mr. Qaradawi should always be confronted with possible inconsistencies, with other statements from the same person, with external references etc. --Rudi Dierick 16:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Qaradawi in favor of subordination of civil law to religious law

The statement "Bearing in mind the religion of Islam has no clergy system, edicts or fatwas are only opinions and not law." appears incorrect. The first part of correct, but the second part appears just to be the other way round.

No, it's not "incorrect." Please read more about islam/Islamic topics before you start editing these articles. Fatwa is just an opinion of an authority. It's not a "law." It's not obligatory for Muslims to follow a fatwa if they think the Fatwa is wrong and incorrect. See Fatwa and also search the web OneGuy 15:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, given the number of people already KILLED as a direct result of just FATWA's (think of Salman Rushdie and his agents and translaters, see the same Wikipedia entry that you so generously mentionned), your suggestion that a fatwa is just a personal opinion does sound utter pretense, and highly irresponsible and arrogant. --Rudi Dierick 16:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's a good example. Khominie issued a fartwa against Rushdie, but Al-Azhar University (and most other Muslims) rejected Khominie's Fatwa. That's proof that it's not obligatory for any Muslim to follow any fatwa if they think the fatwa is wrong. It's just an opinion of a Mufti, not a law. Thanks for proving it with Rushdie example OneGuy 18:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, there is another very objective lesson to be learnt from that case: it is enough that one islamic school issues a fatwa, and you're life ist at riks (as was proven by the attacks and deaths following that fatwa). That confirms my line of reasonning that fatwa's are indedd MUCH mofre then just an opinion. Fatwa's have proven to be LETHAL! --Rudi Dierick 15:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In reality, islamists as Qaradawi insist that civil authorities should always respect what the leading scholars tell them to do! Those scholars then pretend to be just reading the divine truth written down in the Quran, and the slightly lesser, but still very divine triuth in Sunna and Hadith. So, to conclude, islamists feel that their fatwa's should have ALL the power and impact of law!

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, I am afraid OneGuy 15:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After such a show of modesty and accurate self-assessment, one can only invite you to carefully consider all known human tragedy, suffering and death caused directly by fatwa's. After that, just explain is what you think of that. And then, as you clearly feel you know it so much better, it will be a piece of cake for you to explain what I did not understand. --Rudi Dierick 16:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As an example, when the Egyptian academic Nas Hamid Abu Zayd came in conflict with one of the three professors evaluation his final exams to become ordinary professors of litterature specialised in the Quran as a litteray work (the two others having evaluated him positively), this single person, a conservative religious cleric managed to wipe up such a massive protest among fellow-islamists, that the civilian court then indeed dissolved Abu Zayd's marriage referrring explicitely referring to the religious judgement. The civilian court this clearly bowed to the fatwa of clerics, and that's how Qaradawi says things have to be! --Rudi Dierick 14:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Post exact quote what Qaradawi said about Nas Hamid Abu Zayd case. I am getting tired of these claims by you without posting any proof but you only analyzing his "words" and speculating from that OneGuy 15:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
He, why not post some evidence supporting your own claims of the saintly innocence of Mr. Qaradawi! One should start believing that you are a relative, an employee or a follower of that person for you to continue so much insisting that any other people holding a different opinion should provide evidence, while at same time offering preciously few evidence yourself.
I have not added anything in the article. I was only responding to your edits. Why do I need to post sources when I haven't edited the article other than your edits? OneGuy 18:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And no I don't work for Qaradawi. I never edited this article or heard that much about the guy, until I saw you editing this article with bad grammar, spelling errors, and claims without sourcesOneGuy 18:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Types of FGM

By the way, what type of FGM Qaradawi said he prefers? If the following,

Type I, "clitoridotomy" or "hoodectomy" (also sunna circumcision, after Islamic tradition) is the most limited and involves the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood. This type of female circumcision is most comparable to male circumcision. When practiced for non-religious reasons, it is usually an elective surgery intended to enhance the sexual sensitivity of the clitoris, and considered only in cases where the hood is overgrown or cannot be retracted.

Type I circumcisions (for sexual reasons) are openly available in the USA"

If even the US hasn't banned Type I, and if that's the one that Qaradawi prefers, how does that make him a "dark force"? Or is the US also a dark force? OneGuy 09:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Qaradawi never used the 'scientific/medical' terminology (as 'Type I' or 'Type II'). However, he used quotes advocating it and putting a limit (not removing entire organs). Therefore, the most plausible interpretation (which I checked informally with a few academic sources) is that he prefers partial removal. Of course, as there has been sufficient public outrage about such a statement, it's now up to Qaradawi himself to clarify his point of view. --Rudi Dierick 11:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOVing

MathKnight, on cooler reflection I will try to assume the best of you and believe that you somehow accidentally missed Qaradawi's response to the Iraq endorsement claims, despite reading far enough through the MEMRI article to reach both the other clerics' section and the "Elaph" bit near the end. But what phialism) as the introductory sentence you attempted to insert? ThinkPink's reversion was entirely understandable, although even his versiossible excuse can there be for such blatant POV (not to mention parocon was by no means fully NPOVed. - Mustafaa 17:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

I removed, and would like to see a source for, the dubious claim that "the vast majority" of poorly received Qaradawi translations have been disseminated by "Jewish and Zionist groups". Most in this article are from Islamonline, and one is from MEMRI. If you are referring to MEMRI, then be specific. This article also needs some structural changes. I have no problem with some explanatory comments regarding Qaradawi statements that may have been misinterpreted, but the present format, with a lengthy unsourced "explanation" after each comment, looks like a pro-Qaradawi "talking points" pamphlet. Babajobu 16:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with Babajou. I've extensively quoted Qaradawi, and ALL my quotes came from the official website Islamonline. --Rudi Dierick 11:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Why quote MEMRI a isreali source run by "ex-military intellegence" people, when we have extensive writtings on islamonline in english that we can quoted and souced with out fear of "dubious" translations.

[edit] Moving some text

The following section expressed doubt about the text as translated on Qaradawi's own website, and provides support for a liberal view of Islam's position on this matter. This, however, has nothing to do with Qaradawi. I kept Qaradawi's next sentence in the article, as that actually bears on the man himself, and not on the contributor's musings on Islam. Babajobu 18:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

al-Qaradawi is an eloquent speaker and writer of the Arabic language as is well-known across the Arab-Muslim world, and attested to the by the fact that he is known not only as an islamic jurisprudent but also as a poet, with published verse to his name. The author of the above translation of al-Qaradawi's answer is anything but eloquent. With Arabic being as different as it is from English, it is important for those interested in al-Qaradawi's ideas to make sure that he is being translated accurately. Unfortunately, since the original Arabic of al-Qaradawi's answer is not given on the Islam Online website, there is no way of ascertaining the adequacy or otherwise of this translation. It is, however, an incontrovertible fact that Islamic inheritance laws, as derived from a combination of the Qur'an, Hadith and other sources of law, do give equal shares to female relatives in a number of situations, and in a number actually give a greater share to female relatives. In yet other situations, while each female relative who receives a share receives less than any given male, the total number of females who inherit is greater than the number of males. These situations are not 'ideas' rejected by al-Qaradawi but established points of islamic law which no scholar of islam can or does deny. Furthermore, the fact that traditional Islamic inheritance laws grant lesser shares to females than males in certain situations is not left unexplained by al-Qaradawi.

The following sections include two quotes, both of which are contested and neither of which are at the links provided. Leave them here, with their "explanation' rebuttals (which seem more devoted to defending Islam than discussing Qaradawi), and wait to see if they can be sourced. I'd also note that rants about the perfidious Western media (of which Wikipedia is part) apparently include India among "Western" states, as much of the same material can be found in Indian papers as in European or American ones.Babajobu 18:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

* Like most Muslim scholars, he rejects the idea of separation of state and church. "Since Islam is a comprehensive system of `Ibadah (worship) and Shari`ah (legislation), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the Divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. (...) the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is a downright apostasy." [4] Explanation. The link provided leads to a fatwa which does not contain the quotation that has been attributed. However, assuming the quotation is correct albeit missourced, it establishes no more than that al-Qaradawi opposes secularism, in common with innumerable thinkers, eastern and western, muslim and non-muslim. It does not show him to be an opponent of democracy, something he has long supported as can be seen from a large number of his books, including 'al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya' and 'Majmu' al-Fatawa'. And, as stated in the remarks prefatory to the quotation, this is the position of most muslim scholars. Most of al-Qaradawi's legal views are in line with the majority of muslim scholars and those that aren't, though they may be on salient issues, are nonetheless divergent precisely in so far as they are more liberal and progressive. This is scarcely contestible for those directly acquainted with his Arabic works, or even those who watch his regular television programmes, making the fact that he appears to have been singled out by certain lobby groups, and in turn by certain western media outlets, a cause for great concern on the part of muslims, in particular reform-minded and progressive muslims in the West.

  • He says that "the Shari`ah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards, rather, it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must conform ..." [5]; some opponents argue that this rather orthodox Islamic viewpoint rules out the possibility of a secular democracy, insofar as it restricts what believing Muslims may vote for.
Explanation. The link provided leads not to anything written by al-Qaradawi but by the totally unrelated 'Salim al-Hasi'. Moreover, the page that has been linked to contains no such quotation. What it does contain shows a muslim scholar (in common with all other muslim scholars, and indeed muslims who have even a basic understanding of islamic jurisprudence) expressing a point of view in direct contradiction to the one 'quoted'. He says: "Many non-Muslims, however, think that the Shari`ah is mainly a collection of fixed ancient laws that belong to a time other than ours. On the contrary, Muslim scholars agreed on the fact that applying the Shari`ah requires two essential types of understanding. These two types are; understanding the sources from which the rules are derived, the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the traditions of the prophet), and understanding the reality in which these rules are applicable. Hence, the application of the Shari`ah is not in a vacuum; rather it is in a reality that is changeable due to time and space." Examples such as these are sufficient in the minds of those Muslims who have direct access to al-Qaradawi's words and works in their original Arabic, or a good understanding of the methodology and substantive content of islamic legal scholarship, to establish that al-Qaradawi's image in the western media has been tarnished by a concerted disinformation campaign whose essential source and motivation is political.
Babajobu, evaluating your edits in this diff I have some problems. I do agree that as those stand they do ramble and are pietistic the "no one can deny" stuff is horrible. But they do speak to Qaradawi's viewpoints on certain issues and that shouldn't be removed. How do you think some of the stuff about his viewpoints should be re-added -- any preference? gren グレン 02:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
In the latter two citations I removed both the offending quote AND the explanation...so I don't see that any of the material needs to be restored for balance, per se. Babajobu 09:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, you removed some of his viewpoints / atrributes. I will list what I think should be re-added and although it was highly POV in those paragraphs...al-Qaradawi is an eloquent speaker and writer of the Arabic language is amusing and shouldn't be there... however if some of his viewpoints should stay:
  • He is a poet
  • Some have questioned the translations of his work
  • He believes that Islamic inheritance laws give equal to male and female or sometimes the women get more... or if the female receives less the totality of the females receive more (however, this was inwardly contradictory... the article now says that he is against equal inheritance... and the link in htat little section isn't working)
  • He rejects separation of church and state and thinks secularism is atheism + apostasy
Those are things that don't seem to be mentioned in this article (after my search of it) which were removed. I don't want them put back in the same horrible form they were removed in. But if they are his viewpoints they should remain. The democracy thing and the inheritance are very jumbled in the article I believe... gren グレン 10:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modern

Karl... you removed modern... and while I don't think it matters to the article that is incredibly overzealous. He is a modern Muslim theologian because he lives in the modern age... it's not POV at all. There are classical, medieval and modern Muslims theologians... he's modern.... really man. Why did you think that was POV? gren グレン 10:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

English is not my first language, and I might make a mistake here, but my understanding of the English word "modern" is that it is a value-laden word, that means more than just "being alive today", or "living in the modern age". To say that a scholar/preacher is modern, might in my understanding also imply that he is something like "up-to-date" or something opposite to "traditional". His opponents might not necessarily agree, that he and his views and beliefs are very modern. -- Karl Meier 16:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Gren: if the only reason for labelling him as 'modern' is that he lives in the modern age, shouldn't one add this label to ALL still living persons? of course, that does not mmake any sense at all as it does not add any relevant 'specific' information. It would just be adding the most general statement that plies literally to all living persons. So therefor, it's probably highly necessary to remove that utterly redundant label. And if you want to explicitiely differentiate him from the classical theologians that lived centuries ago, maybe better use 'living', or just leave it with his year of birth explicitely saying it already. --Rudi Dierick 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babajobu vs. IP

My opinion... some of that paragraph must be re-worded... he does not advocate "light beating of women"... it's in specific circumstances... so at least cite that about it, (after they don't listen and bed is not shared, etc). Also, better sources would be nice... but, this article isn't the best sourced in the first place... and it definitely should not all be deleted. But clarify, he does put limits on suicide bombings if I have remembered what I read correctly... so, don't generalize Babajobu and both of you, help to fix it. gren グレン 17:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write that paragraph, I just objected to its wholesale deletion and restored it. IP has now redeleted it. I guess the solution is for somebody to improve it and put it back. I don't have time now, but I'll try to get around to it if no one else volunteers for the job. Babajobu 17:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement about the light beating of women has not been corrected, so I deleted it. It is an inaccurate statement that should not be used to mislead people. O masud 10:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph on "Secular opposition" and reinserted it with new links. As I said, I didn't write the original one. Babajobu 09:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sweeping generalizations about the views of the "vast majority" of 300 million people

like the one that I've just cut from the article, really need to be sourced reliably. (Providing a source would also clear up the ambiguity of which views, exactly, this supposed vast majority agrees with.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This man is a horrible human being, a disgrace to true Muslims everywhere, and more criticism of him should be offered on his article

His opinions do not reflect those of all Muslims, as most Muslims today would be loath to attest to the fact that Muslims should:

1. not donate organs to "apostates," ie, Muslims who leave the faith, for the are deserving of death. He also says Muslims should give organs to Muslims over non-Muslims and offers weak and misinterpreted Quranic evidence "By the same token, it is not permissible to donate it to an apostate as he is no more than a traitor to his religion and his people and thus deserves killing. " http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544408

2. circumsize their daughters if they feel it necessary. “whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world.” http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=31397

3. force women to wear the hijab “It is unanimously agreed upon among Muslim scholars that it is not lawful for a Muslim woman to uncover any part of her body other than the face and hands (and the feet according to some schools of jurisprudence). Hence, it is unlawful for a woman to reveal her hair, or arms, or chest or legs before non-mahram men. Wearing clothes that reveal such parts of a woman’s body is completely forbidden. A Muslim husband is to order his wife to wear hijab.” http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=108163

The list continues and sadly gets worse, not better. Someone interested should visit this website, operated by the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (with whom I personally have absolutely no connection), but who offer quotes from al-Qaradawi's own website. http://www.galha.org/briefing/qaradawi.html

The bastards of islamonline have edited "and thus deserves killing"!!Toira 20:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

First of all, I'd like to say that the above comment is false. Just follow the links provided and read the articles. Getting to the point, this article says that Shaykh Faraz Rabbani is an Islamic scholar; however, if you read his biography, he is actually a student and, to my knowledge, not a very well-established authority on Islamic affairs. Shaykh Faraz seems to be popular on Wikipedia articles on Islam, somehow. However, please investigate the matter appropriately and change the article accordingly.

[edit] Reverting partisan censorship

Many paragraphs with actual references and with precise criticism on Qaradawi's undemocratic and reactionary opinions have apparently been removed, including the entire section on . I'm trying to restore those controbutions from al authors who've added thir sources. Mehmet.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/u/s/Talk%7EYusuf_al-Qaradawi_c01d.html"