Talk:Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Cleanup request

The content of the article is mostly OK, but it could use some serious editing. The wording is downright weird from place to place, and maybe a bit POV too. 82.181.54.181 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Major rewrite of entire article done. Can the quotefarm and cleanup tag be removed ? NMKuttiady (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Shia part

I did a minor edit to the part where it said he describes Shi'a as liars and treacherous. The reference was a MEMRI translation [1] of a poem the Sheikh had posted up on his website [2]. However, the translation was inaccurate as the poem mentions the Batiniya (also known Hashshashin by Europeans) as being treacherous and not the Shia sect as a whole. The Hashshashin, according to the Wiki article, are a small part of Shia who had allied with the crusaders during that era against Muslims. Also according to the reference of Sheikh Yusif describing Shia as liars [3], he explicitly uses the word 'mobtadi'oon' which in Arabic means deviating from the correct path rather than lying. Blackise (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article states that the "Iranian News Agency" has labeled Al-Qaradawi as "a spokesman for 'international Freemasonry and rabbis'". However, I cannot find any reference on the internet for an organization called the "Iranian News Agency" and a google search of the phrase “international Freemasonry and rabbis" only returns other articles referring to this same claim. Can anyone find the original article where Al-Qaradawi is called "a spokesman for 'international Freemasonry and rabbis'"?

207.188.69.26 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Pokemon Fatwa

I have removed the Pokemon fatwa as the reference could not be found on the CNN page or any other news page. The only thing I found was a BBC report about Saudi banning Pokemon but nothing to do with Sheikh Yusif.

Also the views held Saudi clerics does not accurately reflect Sheikh Yusif's opinion on the matter. In an email fatwa, -I presume- Sheikh Yusif is quoted to say "As for some words which people claim that the program contains, like a statement 'I'm a Jew' or 'Be a Jew', and so on, this still remains controversial, as some Japanese have denied that, so we cannot make any judgment on something as controversial as this." Blackise (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

British ban- Alcohol fatwa link

I changed

Qaradawi was denied entry to Britain because of a fatwa which he gave stating that small amounts of alcohol were acceptable to Muslims[4].

to:

Qaradawi issued a fatwa in recent months stating that the consumption of small amounts of alcohol (<0.5% concentration) was acceptable for Muslims[5].

and discovered afterwards that a similar edit had already been made and reverted. The cited BBC article states:

Yusuf al-Qaradawi's fatwa says a level of 0.5% is allowed, whereas most Muslims would say alcohol of any quantity is banned.

Sheikh Qaradawi was recently refused entry to Britain as the UK government said his views could spark violence.

The article could be read to imply the two are connected, but unless I'm seriously mistaken that isn't the case. The article on his VISA refusal starts[6]:

The controversial Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been refused a visa to visit Britain.

The Home Office said the UK would not tolerate the presence of those who seek to justify acts of terrorist violence.

Eth (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest i'm not sure if the alcohol controversy is even notable enough to be in here. The British visa denial can fit in the controversy and criticism section, though. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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." [7]

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 ..." [8]; 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here is an archived copy of that call for apostates to be killed: http://web.archive.org/web/20031004013624/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=49276 --Lopakhin (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

- I tried adding it to the article as an external link but someone removed it. Maybe I will try again later.--Lopakhin (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Two cents for you: al Qaradawi has been trying to smuggle in a measure, and note only a measure, of modernity into Islamist discourse. Let me just say that this is an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT thing to do. To that end, he deserves some credit and definitely does not deserve to be called "a horrible human being." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.219.122 (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2006

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.169.45 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2006

It's a shame those paragraphs have been removed. This is aggressive censorship. To be restored. Kind regards.

It's not censorship, it's the removal of original research. The references on his anti-democratic positions were only referenced from his own site, not from any secondhand sources displaying the criticism or reporting on the controversy. That's a violation of WP:OR. Obviously the guy is controversial as hell, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find legit references not constituting OR.

Very strange. The definition Wikipedia gives for 'original research' does speak about 'unpublished opinions', ... but is clearly does not include direct citations from the person being discussed here. Moreover, numerous other direct quotations were NOt removed. The rfemoval is thus a selective operation: only those quotations that reveal undemocratic positions are removed. Therefore, I feel that the removal of direct quotations from Qaradawi is against the Wikipedia rules.

As far as the other sources resinserted about him supposedly supporting democracy on occasion, that was moved down into the criticism section as a contrast. Like I said, it isn't hard to find legit sources for controversy from his opinions and the article could really use them to improve the section, but simply posting clips from his own site and claiming they're anti-democratic is original research. Find a legit source stating as such citing the same opinions of his and you'll be fine. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are so adamantly against direct quotations, why then don't you remove all quotations that might be read as positive?

MEMRI assertions

The article does not provide any citation or backing for the repeated assertions that MEMRI is an offshoot of Israeli intelligence. The closest thing i can find is a Guardian opinion essay that identifies one of the founders of MEMRI as a former Israeli intelligence officer: Guardian piece on MEMRI

However, this Guardian article hardly has a NPOV, though MEMRI may not either. Does this justify the assertion (which evidences and evinces a strong bias, I feel) made throughout the article? Until better support is added, I am deleting those claims as unverifiable and possibly violating NPOV.

Wileycount 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)WileycountWileycount 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The final statement in the section is unnecessary and just reasserts what was previously said and answered only a few lines above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.200.252 (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Before they realized that the description disputed their neutrality and removed it from their website, it was archived on web.archive.org,[9] where they described their IDF intelligence officers team in detail :

• Col. (Res.) Yigal Carmon is MEMRI’s President. He served in the IDF/Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988.
• Yotam Feldner is MEMRI’s Director of Media Analysis. He was born in Kibbutz Gazit, Israel and served in the IDF in Military Intelligence where he acquired fluency in Arabic and familiarity with Arab media.
• Aluma Solnick is a Research Associate with MEMRI. She was born in Jerusalem and served in the IDF in Military Intelligence.

NMKuttiady (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There is little doubt that MEMRI is strongly in favour of Israel. However, this issue here is whether or not its translations are reliable. So far, no evidence has been presented that its translations are inaccurate. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Actually, the MEMRI article in wikipedia has an entire section about MEMRI translation entitled "Translation inaccuracy" and quotes instances where Zionism was replaced by Judaism in translation. USferdinand (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Section cleanup and quotations

The "too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry" template has been here for quite a while and it's probably about time this was fixed. In addition, the articl itself is a big mess of his opinions and such. Decided what quotes to keep and what to remove will be a long discussion. For the time being, it may make things easier if we can get all the quotations and personal views into one section and then decide what to narrow down in that one section.
What I am proposing is to put the article from section five ("His views of Sufism") down to section sixteen ("Fatwa controversy with MEMRI") into just one big section and trim that down. Does anyone take issue with this? MezzoMezzo 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Its been a few months, and the article still looks like a mess. There was no reply here, so I guess i'll try to work on this myself soon. Any help on trimming this bloated article down would be much appreciated. MezzoMezzo 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

re-establish section w. global evaluation of his undemocratic positions

Apparently, the section that covered his undemocratic positions has been removed. This is blatant censorship. I did not find any explanation for this removal in the discussion section. Moreover, this section was intensively sourced with direct uotes from Qaradawi! I will re-insert this section. --Rudi Dierick 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

However, his statements and positions have been criticized as essentially incompatible with democracy, or even contrary to democracy. The reasons for this criticism can be easily understood from following statements, all taken from some of Qaradawi's fatwa's:

The following sections are systematically removed by menzoMenzo. he refuses that these literal statements from Al-Qaradawi are mentionned, and even less that they're criticiszed:

On the 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." [1]. At the same time, he appears to know very well this is a crucial element in democracy.

On equal rights for women (e.g. in areas as family law and inheritance law): "Those misguided people cudgel their brains in finding out lame arguments that tend to give both males and females equal shares of inheritance." [2].

On democracy (where a majority vote might differ from the commands in the Qur'an and Sunnah): "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 ..." [3]. Clearly, for Qaradawi, Muslims are not allowed to vote against the word of Allah.

On the freedom of religion (and more specifically the right for anyone to change religion, in casu, for a Muslim to become a non-Muslim): "All Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. However, they differ regarding the punishment itself. The majority of them go for killing; meaning that an apostate is to be sentenced to death." [4].

He personally prefers removal of part of the genital organs (female genital mutilation, 'FGM', [[5]), though he admits it's not obligatory in Islam. FGM is being considered by the United Nations Organization and many countries as a severe crime, mutilation. In several countries as Canada, just the risk of FGM is already sufficient reason for granting political asylum to the young women and their families. (See also: Female Circumcision Not Obligatory: Qaradawi). See http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548446 for Qaradawi's fatwa that FGM that is harmful to women is not permissible.

What do the other contributors thing about those statements from Qaradawi?--Rudi Dierick (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make an atom's weight of difference what you, I or any other editors personally think. Simply posting up his statements and claiming they are controversial is a blatant violation of the official Wikipedia:No original research policy. It's just your opinion.

Qaradawi is controversial as hell, no doubt. He's said a lot of offensive and shocking things. It won't be hard for you to find actual sources proving the controversy, which simply posting up something he said that offended you doesn't actually do.

You also need to familiarize yourself with the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy, as you keep throwing that word around and showing that you don't seem to understand it. Vandalism is the intention to compromise Wikipedia; simply disagreeing with your edit isn't vandalism and you need to stop hiding behind it and discuss the issue at hand, which is original research. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Being no expert, I feel that these literal statrements are indeed relevant and should beincluded. I don't see why this original material would be irrelevant! Worse, this looks like an attempt to hide these objective facts on the indeed highly undemocratic positions from this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.84.118 (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, if you think that there would be a violation of Wikipêdia policy, could you explain us why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.84.118 (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible link problem

Regarding the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi , I clicked on the link to Islam Online (within the text under "Religious Edicts Fatwas") that has the URL www.Islam-Online.net, and the first time I did I got an attempted drive-by download and a redirect of my browser page to PCclean or something named like that (PC something). The second third and fourth times I've tried I haven't had any problems and the Islam-online.net is resolving to IslamOnline.net. The linked web page itself seem fine right now, I just wanted to mention the weird activity on my first trying of it. So...just to let others know who are working on this page to keep an eye out or maybe check it every once in a while. Possibly just an advertiser problem or something. Otumeal 06:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this removal correct?

Is the removal of (Hebrew language: יוסוף הבן-זונה) correct, ref. [10]? Nsaa 13:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Highly amusing vandalism

"בן-זונה" is actually a highly insulting epithet in Hebrew, and anyway there's no reason at all why his name should be transliterated into Hebrew for the purposes of this article... AnonMoos 11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring suggestion

No one has responded yet in regard to fixing up this article, so I figured i'd take the initiative of suggesting how this article could be trimmed down. My first suggestion involves the creation/consolidation of two new sections: "Views" and "Controversy and Criticism".
For the section on his views, I suggest we move the following sections/subsections in:

• His views on Sufism
  
• His Acceptance of the Ashari school
  
• New initiatives
  
• Opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
  
• Suicide bombings
  
• Opinion on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
  
• Qaradawi on Arab reform
  
• Boycott fatwa
  

Now, I am not suggesting that this be the final version because simply moving the sections would still leave it bloated. I am just making this suggestion to get all of the sections about his views into one place. The same goes for the section on controversy and criticism, for which I suggest we consolidate the following sections:

• Qaradawi criticised by conservative Muslims
  
• Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen and Shaikh Muqbil bin Haadee on Qardawi
  
• Qaradawi seen from a democratic perspective
  
• Qaradawi on the Danish Cartoon Controversy
  
• Qaradawi on democracy in the Muslim World
  
• Qaradawi on Homosexuality
  
• Qaradawi on Terrorism
  
• Response to Muslim criticism
  
• Entry into western countries
  
• Fatwa controversy with MEMRI
  

For the section on his religious edicts, I suggest it actually be deleted as not only does it simply restate information already mentioned in the article, but it is also unreferenced; simply putting up a link to his site doesn't actually support the statements in the section.
In regard to the section on his popularity, I suggest that we leave it as is.
I am brining this here because I am looking for some feedback and, ideally, others who are willing to help me on this task. Once we get past this hump and find an agreed upon version of the article I think the next discussion should be addressing the article's length and the excess of quotes. MezzoMezzo 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as either support or lack of interest, either way i'll go ahead and do that now. Next step will be which parts to trim down, and I would like very much for help from other editors on this part. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some formatting here. Regrouped some of the articles to Criticism and controversy sections. Moved the existing subsections within each of these. Also reformatted some of the titles to give a more easily browseable table of contents. Moved the picture to the profile box.Added an awards and recognitions section. If anyone has objections please let me know. My intention was to get a cleaner and standard wiki article.NMKuttiady (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Banned From UK

Please see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232398.stm Herman238 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol Fatwa

The truth about what he said on the Alcohol percentage in energy drinks was 5/10000. Which is equal to 0.05%, not 0.5%. This misleading is due to the fact that some people can't do the math right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmamy (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

In the Terrorism section, the author has discussed Qaradawi's views on killing Muslim and non-Muslim civilians. As evident from one of the quotes, Qaradawi does not favor such killings in normal, out-of-war circumstances. However, the issue here is: what if some Muslims are taken hostages or used as Human Shields. In this case, Qaradawi thinks: "... killing innocent Muslims, being used as human shields by the enemy, is permissible. He considers the sacrifice of a few Muslims, in order to save the entire Muslim community, as a legitimate tactic."

The author(s) of the article write later in at the end of the Terrorism section: "However, the statements made by al-Qaradhawi are not true to the ethics of Islamic military jurisprudence. The killing of innocents, regardless their beliefs, is prohibited in Islamic law. Therefore, sacrificing the lives of few Muslims is prohibited as well as the killing of non-Muslims civilans. Hence, al-Qaradhawi's ideology is incorrect to the Islamic principles."

I have added a [citation needed] note here twice. Because there isn't any citation to show that the Islamic military jurisprudence is against killing of Muslims who are being used as Human Shields. Remember, we are not talking about Islamic jurisprudence about killing of Muslims in general circumstances. So there needs to be a citation with respect to the special circumstances discussed here, i.e. when being used as Human Shield.

Actually, sometime in history, it happened that a non-Muslim force attacked Muslims (probably their city or country) and used some Muslim hostages as Human Shields. At that time, battles were fought through swords and forces attacked each other using a human wave attack. So the non-Muslims forced the Muslim hostages to walk ahead of their front line, so that Muslim archers will not attack them with arrows, fearing that the arrows would kill the Muslim hostages walking ahead of the enemies.

To tackle this situation, Muslims scholars had to come up with something. Otherwise, there would be many problems: 1)all the archers would become useless, 2) enemies will reach Muslims without being hurt, 3) more enemies would take Muslim hostages and this practice would become a norm.

Hence, the scholars gave this ruling: It is permissible to kill innocent Muslims, if they are used as Human Shields. However, the condition was that when Muslim archers throw arrows at the enemies (who have Muslims in front of them), the archers will make their intentions (in their heart) to kill the non-Muslim forces behind the Muslims hostages. In this situation, if Muslims are hurt or killed, the archers would not be liable or blamed. Otherwise, enemies would infiltrate Muslim forces and would kill (or take hostage) the whole city, leave alone the initial Muslim hostages that were used as Human Shields.

Since I haven't got a citation for it yet, I haven't deleted the paragraph from the original article. But I will try to get the reference, although it would probably be in Arabic books. Affanlaghari (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitler

Earlier this year Q. claimed Hitler was sent by allah to punish the jews. This used to be reported in this article. Why has it been removed? Asgrrr (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question. It seems that the administrators need to keep some better watch on this article, to prevent that sort of vandalism. Nevertheless, I've now added it to the article again. /Slarre (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of his more controversial rulings seem to be omitted or passed over very briefly

Such as his ruling that women can disregard family authority, and go unveiled in public, only if they're about to commit a suicide terrorism attack[11] (so it seems that Qaradawi is only a feminist in the context of suicide terrorism!), and his apparent approval of terrorist attacks which kill Jewish children in Israel, on the grounds that such children might grow up to be soldiers[12]... AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's make the Views & Statements coherent

Why don't we organize it into 5 or 5 major subsections, and then the 24 topics could be fit in as sub-subsections?? In addition, as you can see at a glance, currently there is some redundancy.Haberstr (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Views . . . 'Rape (A View Expressed on a Website Closely Associated with Qaradawi)'

You can't simply call this sub-section and sub-sub-section: 'Views . . .Rape' since we all acknowledge the view expressed is not al-Qaradawi's. If there is a compromise fine. I've already compromised more than enough, since if it were my decision alone this section would be erased (since, of course, it is not al-Qaradawi's expressed view).165.124.85.63 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC) PREVIOUS contributed by haberstr.Haberstr (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Qaradawi isn't even the editor of the website. I don't think any newspaper editor's wiki article has views expressed in his newspaper described as his own views. I don't understand why this is considered differently. Some POV editor pushed it long ago, and a two or three other editors with similar views have been constantly ensuring that it remains in here. NMKuttiady (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem unaware of WP:AGF, assuming good faith of other editors. Or else you too are a POV editor pushing your views such as removing anything you personally object to. As previously I suggest you read WP:RS, which you don't appear to have understood. Wikipedia is not about personal views so suggesting that all opposing editors you encounter, are pushing their own views is unacceptable. Argue your point without assuming things about editors. Fragma08 (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned in the USA?

The article cites that he is banned in both the US and UK, but both links only mention that he is banned in the UK. Was this in error? Please correct article.

MPA 00:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)