I won't defend Qaradawi but you do need to read Abu Aardvark's comments to get the full picture.

I did. Didn't really make it any better, just explained that Qaradawi believes everything happens for a divine reason and then AA turns into an complete ass and says "well surely people who use child prostitutes deserve punsihment from G-d".

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the thousands of survivors who lost parents, family members, etc.

Nor does Abu Aardvark explain the rest of Qaradawi's comments, which are all of a piece. Sorry, I'm not even slightly reassured.

Human rights activist Peter Tatchell has this to say about Qaradawi:

From the leftists at Harry's Place:

"[Red] Ken’s suggestion that criticisms of Qaradawi are part of a Mossad or Jewish conspiracy are laughable and insulting. The cleric’s bigoted opinions are openly expressed in his books and speeches.

Qaradawi supports female genital mutilation, wife-beating, the execution of homosexuals, destruction of the Jewish people, suicide bombing of innocent civilians, and the punishment of rape victims who do not dress with sufficient modesty.

These attitudes are clerical fascism. No Mayor of London should be hosting a religious leader with such anti-democratic opinions.

The Mayor praises Qaradawi as a moderate Muslim leader. But he has used selective, partial and misleading quotes to portray Qaradawi in a moderate light.

For example, while Livingstone boasts that Qaradawi says female genital mutilation is not obligatory, he omits the fact that the Muslim cleric says he personally recommends it. This is typical of the Mayor’s distortions...

..Ken’s handling of this issue is alienating the lesbian and gay community, which used to be among his staunchest supporters. Does he care? It seems not."

That MEMRI could get something wrong about Qaradawi I won't deny, and admitted as much to the father of Aardvarks in a comment at his blog (which alas does not turn up on google, but I swear exists).

In this case, however, I don't see it. I read MEMRI's excerpt as showing Qaradawi blames "the area", and AA's patient, careful exegesis of Qaradawi's remarks which explain how he sees the tsunami as providing a torment for the wicked and a trial for the believers is not inconsistent with the MEMRI translation. Nowhere in MEMRI's remarks does he "blame the victim" in the sense of saying, e.g., that the innocent got what they had coming. Sounds like AA's tearing down a strawman to me.

Slightly off topic: I looked around for some congruent quotes from the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al. Big fat hat tip if you can find them. I'm not sayign this because I don't believe they aren't there, but because I'm betting they are - or at perhaps they've learned to keep their mouths shut.

I think the question of Qaradawi is an interesting one because one wonders if he can operate as a kind of backburn, which is a kind of fire that smokejumpers use to fight other forest fires. Similarly, there are apparently lots of ostensibly non-violent salafist preachers who give online advice and act in a similar fashion. As with backburns, however, it's risky to depend on these guys, because they can function as a gateway to more violent Islamism just as easily as they can act as a firebreak.

Does that make sense?

praktike - yes it does.

Abu Aardvark was advocating for at least the consideration of "engaging" with Qaradawi for similar reasons. I told him I'd think about it (dang, wish I had a link to that comment).

Well, I've though about it. You have one good reason not to do business with him. Another good reason is basic moral orientation - how can we do business with a guy who endorses suicide bombings against Israel? Turning it around - how would we feel about the EU "engaging" with Bin Laden? This is pretty much what Qaradawi represents to the Israelis, among others. Sure, there's room for political disagreement about the extent to which Israel ought to compromise on peace - but do we really want to draw the boundaries on discourse so loosely as to admit Qaradawi?

The left (and others) have repeatedly savaged American politicians for getting cozy with "our bastards" - and they had a good point. Do we want to make Qaradawi one of "our bastards"?

Well, seeing as how I'm not a citizen of Israel, it's not something I'd rule out completely.

Nor Jewish, evidently, nor gay... so you don't belong to any groups he wants exterminated. Hopefully, your female relatives and friends all dress modestly, too.

I'm sure he'll make a fascinating conversation partner for you.

Joe, you misquoted me, which I'm sure was an honest mistake. I did NOT say that places that have child prostitution deserve God's punishment. I said that people who use child prostitutes deserve God's punishment. Do you really disagree? If so, fine. I'm sorry that my reading of Qaradawi's remarks doesn't reassure you, but I'm glad that you at least read it. His position seems like a fairly conventional religious one, not dissimilar from remarks made by Christian and Jewish religious leaders.

Lewy, you are right about MEMRI - they don't say that Qaradawi blamed the victim. But a whole bunch of British newspapers interpreted MEMRI's translation to make that accusation, which is what I was responding to. I should have linked those newspapers, my bad.

"I'm sure he'll make a fascinating conversation partner for you."

Er, note that I didn't say that I did advocate a dialogue with Qaradawi. I said that I wouldn't rule it solely on the basis of his repugnant views on Israel. There's a difference there. Do you see it?

AA, I've modified my comment to include your reformulation. I still think it qualifies for Chrenkoff's stupidest tsunami quotes feature.

People who use child prostitutes should be punished by their fellow humans, not by a G-d who washes away thousands and thousands of other people in a flood. The thrust of your comments was clearly exculpatory for Qaradawi, and to characterize such views as in any sense conventional for modern Christian or Jewish denominations adds an untrue slur on top of your foolishness.

All you've done is repeat Livingstone's idiocy, and gone to ridiculous lengths to minimize the quality and character of Qaradawi's remaks. Why that might be so is left as an exercise for the reader.

Praktike, who sees Qaradawi as a firebreak rather than a fire starter, and misses the concept that this dark ages advocate of genocide is the enemy of everything he stands for, wrote:

"Er, note that I didn't say that I did advocate a dialogue with Qaradawi. I said that I wouldn't rule it solely on the basis of his repugnant views on Israel. There's a difference there. Do you see it?"

No, I can't. It's blocked by the looming shadow of your silence on the fact that his views include the extermination of Jews in toto, the same for gays, genital mutilation for women, punsihment for rape victims, etc. By responding that way, you're evading the question of Qaradawi's nature by discussing only his views on a "permissible" target, and then ignoring the rest.

Again, very similar to Livingstone's pattern of conduct. Do YOU see the similarity?

"Whoever examines these areas discovers that they are tourism areas....where the forbidden acts are widespread."

I saw several references to this on Islamic message boards a few days ago. There was a snippet going around that claimed Allah leveled the coast of Thailand in order to destroy gay resort hotels. Those are the "acts of abomination" to which Qaradawi refers, I think, not the exploitation of children.

Speaking of abominations, Lord Mayor Livingstone would be a foot shorter and 50 pounds lighter if Henry VIII were still alive, so Red Ken owes his life to an accident of history and ought to conduct himself with an appropriate amount of humility. And speaking of medieval practices, I'd like to see someone analyze the radical left's love affair with radical Islam.

Joe,
Thanks for the correction.

In your follow up, though, you're being silly and unfair, which is unlike you. For those who believe that things happen in the world as part of God's will - of whatever religion - making sense of how a loving God could allow horrible things to happen to innocents is a standard, and troubling, theological question. That was the context of my comparison to other religions, and I honestly do not understand why you consider this untrue or a slur.

As to why I work to "exculpate" Qaradawi, no need to let your imagination run wild. I've explained it a dozen times on my site. I don't particularly like all his views, but he is an influential and important figure with complex views: he is a social conservative, but has been one of the most important advocates of reconciling Islam and democracy. Reasonable people can disagree about the balance between those complex facets.

But unfortunately most people just don't know what he really says because there's been so much misinformation and mud slung at him. Your catalog of his alleged views, for example, is just factually wrong. Grouping him with bin Laden as a "radical" is wrong, and a bad guide to policy. I just want to clear away the brush and allow people to debate the real issues, not manufactured ones.

Anyway, have a great weekend.

"It's blocked by the looming shadow of your silence on the fact that his views include the extermination of Jews in toto, the same for gays, genital mutilation for women, punsihment for rape victims, etc."

Fair enough. I condemn his views on the extermination of Jews in toto, the same for gays, genital mutilation for women, punsihment for rape victims, etc, if you're correct in saying that that's what he believes. I condemn them without equivocation.

Now, going back to what I actually said:

(a) "I won't defend Qaradawi"

(b) "one wonders if he can operate as a kind of backburn, which is a kind of fire that smokejumpers use to fight other forest fires. Similarly, there are apparently lots of ostensibly non-violent salafist preachers who give online advice and act in a similar fashion. As with backburns, however, it's risky to depend on these guys, because they can function as a gateway to more violent Islamism just as easily as they can act as a firebreak."

Get it?

AA,

"For those who believe that things happen in the world as part of God's will - of whatever religion - making sense of how a loving God could allow horrible things to happen to innocents is a standard, and troubling, theological question. That was the context of my comparison to other religions, and I honestly do not understand why you consider this untrue or a slur."

This isn't about G-d allowing bad things to happen to innocents - this is about the image of a vengeful G-d who deliberately and with malice aforethought chose to kill over 100,000 people because some people weren't comporting themselves to the cleric's standards. Read the damn statement, that IS what he actually said.

There are some Jews and Christians who believe this sort of thing. There are many, many more of us who most emphatically do not. That view is not "normal" for religious people, and you insult us all by saying so. Do you see the Pope taking that view? The head of the Anglican Church? any Jewish leaders you care to name (certainly not my Reform denomination, the largest in North America)?

I'll add that your statement daring people to defend the idea that G-d should punish those who use child prostitutes was, in the context of the tsunami, a sick joke. That was where you went beyond putting Qaradawi's comments in context (badly, I thought), and effectively began to share his point of view. This isn't an abstract discussion, it's connected to an event that killed over 100,000 people. Maybe G-d has bad aim?

Ridiculous is a kind word for this.

You know, a few days after the tsunami we had someone in our comments section say it was G-d punishing the Muslims of Aceh for oppressing and killing Christians en masse - which they have in fact been doing. I told him he was an idiot. And I should tell you different because why...?

As for Qaradawi's other views, it's kind of hard to take that seriously without any backup. Harry's Place has been following this for a while, and your attempt to mitigate this episode ended up saying, essentially, that yeah Qaradawi did say it but it's normal. That doesn't go down in my books as a refutation or proof of mischaracterization - or even anything close.

I respect you as a blogger, but kindly explain to me why I should be taking your word on this subject?

Praktike,

I think the latter part of (b) is the sensible response. The ONLY sensible response.

We have a lot of fires here in Ontario - big place, lots of forest. We've burned down a few towns thanks to backburns gone wrong, and Qaradawi is definitely a fine example of an arsonist.

This issue is about public standards in countries that actually value freedom and human dignity. Even if you're Jewish. Even if you're gay. Even if you're a woman. Even if you're dressed like Britney Spears.

A liberal ought to get that.

Qaradawi certainly should not be made to feel welcome in a country like Britain, whose history represents a long climb away from everything Qaradawi preaches. By offering him this attention and defending him, Livingstone is lending credibility to Qaradawi's views across the board, and sending a clear message that people with these views are acceptable public representatives. They are not.

Ah, but he believes in democracy...

Well, good for him. There are a lot of neo-nazi parties who also think democratic participation is a good idea. Their followers are disaffected, and they hate gays and Jews too. Why not find their spokespeople and defend them, Ken? Maybe some of them will even be moderate neo-nazis, which would make it all OK I guess.

The mindset of the majority left often exceeds satire. But then, Qaradawi isn't saying these kinds of things as a Christian cleric, so perhaps the rules are different.

You don't get it.

praktike: "one wonders if he can operate as a kind of backburn"

So long as Muslims who are friendly to the United States, Israel, or the idea of democracy are condemned as "puppets" - by Ken Livingston, by George Galloway, by Daniel Davies in the Crooked Timber screed that AL links to above, by the overwhelming majority of leftists and a growing number of Democrats and "liberals" - then talking about the usefulness of moderate Muslims is a waste of time, isn't it?

The moderate Muslims are precisely the ones that the left hates. The Iraqis working for democratic reform are precisely the ones that the left hates (review the recent Juan Cole vs. Iraq the Model incident, please). Muslims who call for restraint, peaceful coexistence with Israel, friendship with the United States, etc., are precisely the ones the left hates.

So by all means find some benign and moderate Muslims, so they can have more people to denounce as puppets and Arab Uncle Toms. Get it?

At last we come to it. Praktike, Aardvark, etc have the problem of the left: anti-semitism.

So long as these loony clerics are calling for suicide bombings against Jews, well, it's OK. To be kind I suppose their visceral hatred for America and modernity leads them down the Buchanonite path. EVERYTHING else these loony clerics do or say is excused as long as they advocate violence against Jews (and Americans too I suppose).

They like Red Ken excuse the worst behavior of the loony Muslim clerics with tired excuses "oh he's a backburn. And this Mr. Hitler, we can do business with him." Ignoring the signal lesson of the Twentieth Century ... you cannot compromise with evil. You must oppose it.

I am not Jewish, Gay, or a Woman. However, I fully oppose ANY public space for people who advocate violence against them based on their identity. There used to be a time when Liberals stood up for what was right; but they've gone from marching with Dr. King to marching with Qaradawi and the spiritual brethren of Pat Buchanon.

Shame on them ALL.

Jim Rockford,

I don’t think charges of anti-Semitism against praktike or AA are warranted or helpful. I’d not accuse praktike of engaging in the politics of racial or religious identity, but rather a realpolitik which is overly cold and cynical.

E.g., if there were some cleric who could be construed to be “useful” to engage in “dialog” with, who advocated for suicide bombing in exclusively in Kashmir, for instance, I don’t think praktike’s opinion would be any different. And I’d disagree with him just as strongly, and Joe would too.

To put it cutely (and I hate “cute” but can’t resist here), you seem to be saying Jim that praktike ought to rename his own site “Liberals against Terrorism except against Jews and Israelis”. I disagree quite strongly – but I think he should consider whether “Liberals against Terrorism against Americans” is a better fit.

BTW praktike, I appreciate your disavowal of Qaradawi’s views, but speaking for myself it was somewhat unnecessary, I never would believe that you would view them as anything other than abhorrent – or I wouldn’t be talking to you, either. So what we’re talking about then, the subject of our disagreement, is the circumstances under which one engages with dialogue, and the moral imperatives surrounding this question.

I'm not an anti-semite, by any stretch of the imagination, and I strongly resent the implication.

Please read my comments again. As for lewy, I am absolutely a liberal against terrorism anywhere. But look, there's more than one way to prevent it, including, yes, cynical realpolitik. As for my website, I didn't want to make it about Israel/Palestine because everyone writes about that and frankly, I find it depressing.

I'm open to persuasion on the Qaradawi question and haven't made a decision one way or another, as I hope is clear from my comments.

I get it. I just venemently disagree.

For all the very good reasons David T, Clive, and others at Harry's Place have noted in their series of posts about Qaradawi

I will add that praktike has a long and public record. There are some on the Left who do indeed selectively excuse terrorism against Jews, and noting that truth is not wrong. But calling Praktike one of them is very wrong, and he's written enough that folks ought to know better.

As Lewy noted, I believe Praktike's realpolitik thoughts on Qaradawi to be (ironically) unrealistic - in addition to a questionable fit with many of the important principles liberals have traditionally fought for. But that's a very different argument.

Gotcha -- that's the argument we should be having, and as I said, I haven't made up my mind.

This isn't about G-d allowing bad things to happen to innocents - this is about the image of a vengeful G-d who deliberately and with malice aforethought chose to kill over 100,000 people because some people weren't comporting themselves to the cleric's standards. Read the damn statement, that IS what he actually said.

From Aardvark's translation that is NOT what he said. Read the damn statement, Joe: "What Qaradawi does not say, however, is that the sex tourism caused the tsunami or that its victims deserved their fate."

There are some Jews and Christians who believe this sort of thing. There are many, many more of us who most emphatically do not. That view is not "normal" for religious people, and you insult us all by saying so. Do you see the Pope taking that view? The head of the Anglican Church? any Jewish leaders you care to name (certainly not my Reform denomination, the largest in North America)?

There ARE many Jews and Christians who believe the Tsunami was an act of God, not necessarily a punishment but not unconnected to His will. "Normal" religous people usually do not claim to be able to perfectly decipher "His mysterious ways." Then again, "normal" religous people are not all deiists either. In this sense, Qaradawi fits right in with the rest of us "normals," Aardvark quotes:

"God is very patient (sabour) with the the unjust and the corrupt and the evil ones, who he will take and who will not escape him", which I take to mean as a warning against seeing a direct worldly relationship between sin - which exists everywhere in this world - and divine action.

It seems to me that you have patently misrepresnted the meaning of Aardvark's post.