Talk:Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Letter from "Muslim academics" - no source

There is no valid source for the following statement: "In 2004, 2,500 Muslim academics from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and from the Palestinian territories condemned Qaradawi, and accused him of giving "Islam a bad name". There are news articles online which mention this letter but I cannot find the actual letter online or the 2,500 signatories. Unless the actual letter with a list of signatories can be found, I think this is an unreliable statement and should be removed.Jamal (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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". In fact, "Iranian News Agency" is not even on wikipedia's List of Iranian news agencies. Furthermore, 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'"? Seems like this is a fabricated quote.

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)

Per WP:REDFLAG, such extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary sources. If he made such a claim it would be all over the media. Instead there is only one source, with questionable reliability. Further, the source claims that this is from Al-Jazeera. Where is the Al-Jazeera link to back this up?VR _talk 20:05, 13 February 2011 (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)

MEMRI sources need to be backed up

Currently this article relies heavily from MEMRI links. These links need to be backed up by reliable sources. MEMRI is a disputed source, where some sources suggest MEMRI is reliable, other sources say it is not. So if something that MEMRI states is backed up by a more reliable source, then we can include it. Otherwise, so long as Qaradawi is alive, we may not.VR _talk 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI is a reliable source

With all due respect, I suggest you take a look at this section MEMRI#Accusations_of_bias more closely.

There are only ta handful of specific cases cited that apparently involve mistranslations (one from a 2007 children's program, another involves several essays written in 2002 by Professor Halim Barakat, and a third from a 2000 translation of an interview given by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to al-Ahram al-Arabi). These three cases, while notable, certainly do not mean that every translation made by MEMRI is inaccurate, doctored, or selectively edited. MEMRI has translated thousands of videos and articles, nearly all of which are not disputed by even their critics.

In fact, most of this section is simply polemics against MEMRI (usually accusing them of being Nazi propagandaists) that have little substance behind them. Also, the critics include such people as Juan Cole, a radical university professor, Brian Whitaker, a columnist for The Guardian who, based on the articles he has written that are posted on his website is hardly an impartial observer, and of course, Norman Finkelstein, who has described Israel as "a lunatic state" and has opined that he believes Israel "...has come out of the boils of the hell, a satanic state."

I'd also point out that almost none of this criticism is taken from mainstream sources. Rather, much of it is taken from blogs, editorials, and far-left news websites.

In conclusion, labelling MEMRI as inaccurate or unreliable based on a handful of mistranslated cases and the opinions of people who clearly despise Israel (e.g. Norman "satanic state" Finkelstein) is difficult to accept. I suggest that unless a specific translation is in question (as in the 3 cited examples), MEMRI can be considered a reliable source as long as it is cited as the source of the translation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Per WP:REDFLAG, I ask for more mainstream sources. We're talking about Qaradawi calling for another Holocaust!!

Also, see WP:ONUS. The burden is on you to provide an unquestionably reliable source. I don't have to provide a source saying MEMRI in this particular case is unreliable.

But honestly speaking, Hyperionsteel, even you know that MEMRI is likely wrong on this issue. MEMRI says Qaradawi made the statements on Al-Jazeera and Qatar TV. Where are the links from Al Jazeera and Qatar TV?VR _talk 03:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but your claim that MEMRI is "likely wrong on this issue" is rather arrogant on your part. As I noted above, a handful of mistranslations (out of several thousand) and the opinions of several people who despise Israel do not mean that MEMRI is unreliable. If, as you claim, that MEMRI is wrong, why don't you cite a source to prove or even suggest it? In fact, if Qaradawi was misquoted, why haven't any of MEMRI's critics suggested this? I'm sorry, but your own opinion about MEMRI is not sufficient to justify the removal of this material. With regard to the boardcasts themselves, please keep in mind that MEMRI provides the original broadcasts as well as translations and these can be viewed by anyone.

Again, MEMRI is cited as the source for this quotes - MEMRI is not depicted as the gospel truth. Please do not remove material unless you have a source that indicates (or at least alleges) that the translation is incorrect.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

You should re-read what I said: "MEMRI is likely wrong on this issue [because] MEMRI says Qaradawi made the statements on Al-Jazeera and Qatar TV. Where are the links from Al Jazeera and Qatar TV?" I repeat, where are the links on Al-Jazeera that MEMRI claims?

Once, again, per WP:ONUS, I'm not required to disprove MEMRI on this issue. If you want, we can take this to Wikipedia:Verifiability for clarification.

Finally, per WP:REDFLAG, we need "high-quality sources" for the assertion. MEMRI, at best has dubious reliability.

Please read my comments carefully before responding. Thanks.VR _talk 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I put this on the BLP noticeboard, and the users there expressed concerns with the sourcing. While we discuss, the material should be kept out.VR _talk 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read my response to your comments on MEMRI. You claim that MEMRI is "at best has dubious reliability" based on what? - only on 3 or 4 possible mistranslations (out of over 1000) and a handful of criticisms from far-left anti-Israel sources. This is hardly sufficient evidence to conclude that MEMRI is of "dubious reliability". If you are going to keep making the claim that all MEMRI translations are unreliable, you should at least come up with something a with a little more substance.

With regard to your claim that you want "high-quality sources," I guess a full-colour real-time video doesn't qualify? MEMRI is a reliable source because it provides just such a video. You have claimed that "even you know that MEMRI is likely wrong on this issue" - well if this is true, why can't you cite a single source that supports this claim (e.g. a news article, video, statement). I could repeat the above question (as you repeated one above) but I don't think it will be necessary. You are the one who is insisting that the translation is incorrect.

In response to your question (which you repeated twice for some reason), Al Jazeera does not keep every video it records online (no news service does this). That is why MEMRI cannot link to it. However, MEMRI does provide the original video (with substitles) which you can view here: #2138 - Sunni Scholar Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi Protests: Obama Drew a Parallel between the Koran and the Bible. If, as you claim, MEMRI mistranslated this, don't you think that somebody (I repeat, somebody) would have pointed it out by now (this video has been posted for about 8 months). I've seen many websites using this quote Qaradawi - yet not a single website argues that it is mistranslated. Again, I would think a full-colour real-time video would be a reliable source, but you are free to disagree with me. However, you are not free to remove material with providing some real evidence (not just biased opinions and insults) that the video has been mistranslated.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

I've posted a reply to your entry on this on the BLP noticeboard. Again, how is a full-colour real-time video not a reliable source?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

Here's my response. But some (not all) of these issues are coming up again and again, so please read carefully.

'MEMRI is "at best has dubious reliability" based on what?'

Based on (lack of) consensus on wikipedia regarding MEMRI. For example, here, no consensus was reached.

'If you are going to keep making the claim that all MEMRI translations are unreliable'

I never said that. In fact, "unreliable sources" are correct most of the time. Also, MEMRI translations that have been quoted by mainstream media, say CNN, are reliable.

'"high-quality sources," I guess a full-colour real-time video doesn't qualify'

Of course not! The color of sources, whether they are 'real-time' (I think you mean live?), and whether they are a video or a transcript, has nothing to do with their "quality". Quality in this context means "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources for high-quality sources. We can discuss WP:REDFLAG elsewhere if you're still unclear.

'Al Jazeera does not keep every video it records online (no news service does this)'

I'm not sure about that? I've always been able to find videos/transcripts of programs. I think you can also request these things from media sources. Did you try finding it on Al-Jazeera, or if you couldn't, did you try asking them about it?

'If, as you claim, MEMRI mistranslated this, don't you think that somebody (I repeat, somebody) would have pointed it out by now (this video has been posted for about 8 months)'

No!! Reliable sources (university professors, reporters from mainstream sources, pundits) have more important things to cover than to hunt down every MEMRI video and check its accuracy. Just because an unreliable source hasn't been shown, doesn't mean its unreliable. Of course, some random blog by an Arabic speaking dude might point this out, but that's not a reliable source.

"However, you are not free to remove material"

Per WP:BLP, unless the quotes can be shown to have clear reliability, they must be aggressively removed. This may not be the case on information that is not about living persons, but in articles about living persons (where the information is defamatory), we always make sure contentious material stays out, until there is consensus.VR _talk 17:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So once again, you admit that you can't cite any source that even suggests that MEMRI mistranslated this video. Also, I never claimed that Al-Jazeera doesn't keep its videos online - rather I stated that Al-Jazeera doesn't keep every video it has ever made online. Also, a video of Qaradawi making these statements is available on both MEMRI and other websites - have you even watched it? Finally, MEMRI's translation has been cited by many websites, not only in 1 this article by the Jerusalem Post but also a number of other websites (e.g. [13], [14] [15] [16]. And again, you claim that MEMRI is not a reliable source but you can't offer any real evidence to even suggest that the video was mistranslated or that all MEMRI work is of "dubious" quality. I could understand you might feel this way if MEMRI only provided a translation but it includes the original video that is freely available on its own website and other websites. I'm sorry, but this quote does have clear reliability by Wikipedia standards.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

Yes, Jerusalem Post can be considered a reliable source even though tis right wing (just as The Guardian - though left-wing - is also a reliable source). Thank you for "backing-up" MEMRI with a reliable.

PS, most of the rest of the sources you quoted are not too reliable.VR _talk 05:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should leave it up, since it is in the form of an accusation. I think the arguments on both sides are pretty clear. I do suspect that there was more content in the clip that MEMRI did not want us to see. Nevertheless it is presented as an accusation not as a well known fact. So I think we should leave it up as an accusation and cite the Jerusalem Post(not any of the other sources Hyperionsteel linked to).

Yster76 [User talk:Yster76| 12:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

More analysis less quotes

What this article needs is more analysis, especially by reliable third party sources, and less quotes from TV shows, MEMRI, etc.

For example, consider the following article by Economist: Try to be nice about each other. It is balanced, as it covers both Qaradawi calling Shi'ites as "heretics", as well as his support for Iran. This gives an accurate picture of what Qaradawi's views really are, with respect to Shi'ites.

We need more of such sources in the article.VR _talk 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The quotes have been included because they are notable due to their explicit and controversial content. For example, he praises Adolf Hitler and Holocaust as " divine punishment" and calls for Allah to "kill them, down to the very last one". These are certainly notable positions which Qaradawi has made on international televised speeches and prayers. It true that they don't cast him in a very positive light (people who pray for genocide against Jews tend to be viewed unfavorably) but that alone is not a reason to surpress this information and whitewash his views.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC))

Please the above section for reliability issues. Has any other reliable source (BBC, CNN) published this? Has any mainstream Israeli source even published this: Jerusalem Post, Ynetnews, Ha'aretz? Some of the views, according to MEMRI, were published on Al-Jazeera. Yet can you provide a link to Al-Jazeera that shows this? Please take a look at WP:REDFLAG. This is certainly a very extra-ordinary claim. Please continue this discussion in the above section, this doesn't have to do with notability, it has to do with reliability.

Please read WP:NPA before you attack me ("suppress", "whitewash") again.VR _talk 10:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my above statements were interpreted as a personal attack. I believe that you are acting in good faith and it was not my intention to make you feel threatened. I take isssues like this very seriously, and I believe that MEMRI in this case is a reliable source, as it is taken from an internationally televised program. You have noted that MEMRI has made a few questionable translations in the past, but each of these was proven with a specific source and criticism. These statements on Jews have never been questioned by anyone (as far as I can tell) for their accuracy or context and there is no reason to believe that they are misrepresented. Again, I'm sorry if I came off as rude earlier, but I take statements that call for genocide against Jews very seriously and I may have overreacted.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Hey no problem. Don't worry about it. :) VR _talk 03:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

“Al-Qaradawi has spoken in favor of democracy in the Muslim world”

What kind of democracy does this man defends if he defends, at the same time, the execution of gays and the female genital mutilation? Certianly what he defends IS NOT what the Western World tradionally defines as electoral democracy, so maybe it should be put on the article somehow.

POV

I added the POV tag.

I think there are a couple of major issues which need to be resolved.

To start with is this quote:

"Qaradawi has advocated for the importance of non-Muslim minorities:"

I don't think that calling for the "protection/oppression" of non-Muslims under the Dhimmi laws, speaks at all to their "importance". And I cannot find a quote which says this in the reference.

Secondly, there are repeated cherry picked quotes from his writing with no RS to back them up. Here's one example.

"Al-Qaradawi has spoken in favor of the religious liberties. Those effectively include the right for anyone to change religion, in case, for a Muslim to become a non-Muslim. In his Fatwa tilted "Apostasy: Major & Minor", he wrote:

In my point of view, as the scholars have differentiated between major and minor innovations in religion and between mere innovators and those who spread and call for their innovations in religion, we can also differentiate between major and minor apostasy, and between apostates who do not wage war against Islam and Muslims and those who proclaim their apostasy and call for it."

Once again, I can't find any RS which says Qaradawi supports religious liberties, including the right for a Muslim to leave their religion.

The fatwa (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1178724001992&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout#ixzz1EpIjNnVj) does indeed distinguish between major and minor apostasy, but the difference is that minor apostates should be punished, but not executed.

"That is why the Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed."

Third, clearly Witness-pioneer.org is not a NPOV site. Their homepage describes their mission as "Spreading the message of Islam". So, we have to be very careful in not using any of their opinions as fact.

Here's one example:

"Al-Qaradawi has strongly pressed for dialogue with Non-Muslims."

I can't imagine that witness-pioneer is NPOV enough for us to use them as a source for such claims.

I'm hesitant to start deleting major parts of this page, but I do think we need a major cleanup of it.

Thoughts?

--Bob drobbs (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Qaradawi never said that dhimmi laws "limit" or "oppress" non-Muslims. Thats OR.

I've restored the content on apostasy. Qaradawi neither proclaims religious freedom for apostates, nor does he condemn all apostates to death. He takes an ambiguous position, avoiding both clear ones.

Witness pioneer, I believe is being used the same way google books often is. The point here is whether what witness-pioneer says is actually in Qaradawi's books. The problem can be superficially corrected by replacing witness-pioneer references, with actual references to Qaradawi's books. But eventually someone would have to go look those books up.VR _talk 09:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately someone needs to find a source and put in the lead, that Qaradawi is one of the most contradictory persons ever. He rarely takes any clear stances, and if he does, he simply makes conflicting statements later on.VR _talk 09:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

ViceRegent. First of all, regarding apostasy. If you can find a RS which says he takes an ambiguous position, that use it. If you can find a reference that says he proclaims religious freedom, then use it. You've done no such thing. What you have done is deleted things backed up by reliable sources and replaced it with the old ureferenced crap. What I put up has a RS says he thinks apostates should be killed, another RS quoting him saying "all major schools of jurisprudence require the killing of apostates". I'm reverting your change. If you find RS which say he supports the right for Muslims to change their religion, then please add it.

Secondly is the issue of "dhimmis". I'm not sure if it's original research if I took a description of dhimmi from the dhimmi article. There is consensus there what a Dhimmi is. And, It's a joke to say that he advocates for "citizenship and rights" something that all people should have. What he's really advocating is oppression, and limited rights. But I'll compromise on that, and leave it with the totally factual statement that he "advocates returning non-Muslims to the status of Dhimmis." -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "crap". Please be WP:CIVIL.

And while we're at it, can you show me what "crap" I've put in the article?

He never said anything about "returning". That's again your OR.VR _talk 00:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'll apologize. I think that the original paragraph up there written by a ip address user was indeed "crap". But, I did not look carefully at the diff, and thought that you'd put the same crap back up. Instead you put up a referenced reasonable replacement for it. Sorry...

As for OR, if Jews were dhimmis, then they weren't dhimmis, then he wants them to be dhimmis again, I think it may be a stretch to call the word "return" original research. But your new NPOV text works fine too.

I'll read through the article a bit more, but I may be on the way toward removing the POV tag I put up yesterday. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And im not going to modify your text yet, but I think it puts an overly heavy emphasis on him saying that sometimes they shouldn't be punished, and ignores that he thinks apostasy is a terrible thing which can only be stopped through severe punishment. How would you feel about me merged some of this into it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Qaradawi says that it is obligatory for Muslims communities to resist all forms of apostasy, no matter what form it presents. And that apostasy can only be prevented by imposing severe punishment for it. He agrees with Islamic tradition in his view that that the appropriate punishment for apostasy is death.

However, he also says that in some cases they should be given a chance to repent before their execution. And advocates lesser punishments for Muslims who apostate from Islam, but do not proclaim their change of religion.

http://www.islamopediaonline.org/fatwa/apostasy-and-its-classification-yusuf-al-qardawis-view

What is Islamopedia? It seems like a secondary source, but there's no author. Who writes it?VR _talk 10:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It also says the following in the conclusion, which I think is a good summary: he considers the penalty of death in principle but he differs from the majority view in that he advocates the option to repent to be given to apostates before execution. Another difference is Al-Qardawi's view that the punishment may take other forms, such as imprisonment, and that hidden apostasy may be left to the mercy of God and judged by him hereafter. The only apostates executed were those who combined other crimes with apostasy.

VR _talk 10:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that his definition of "crime" does not match the definition of "crime" used anywhere in the civilized world. From reading the actual Fatwa, and from reading above in that article, Al-Qaradawi considers telling everyone that you converted is a "crime", and thus you deserve death. So, shouldn't we use other parts of the article to spell out what he considers to be a "crime" requiring death? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that it would be inaccurate to say that Qaradawi is for punishment against all people who say things against the orthodox doctrines of Islam. There is a certain type of apostasy which he calls "intellectual apostasy". I think this quote would sum up his opinion,

"Intellectual apostasy is the kind of apostasy whose owners do not swagger as much as those who declare their explicit disbelief and openly wage war against everything that is religious. Actually intellectual apostates are far smarter than that. They wrap their apostasy in various coverings, sneaking in a very cunning manner into the mind the way that malignant tumors sneak into the body. These people are not noticed when they invade or begin to disseminate their falsehood, but they are mostly felt when they affect the minds. They do not use guns in their attacks, however, their attacks are fierce and cunning. Erudite scholars and well versed jurists well apprehend this type of apostates, but they can not take an action in face of such professional criminals who have firmly established themselves and have not left a chance for law to be enforced on them. They are the hypocrites whose abode will be in the lowest level of the Hell-Fire.

The traces of intellectual apostasy are noticed everyday in circulated newspapers and books, in Radio and TV programs and in laws legislated to govern people’s affairs. This kind of apostasy is – in my point of view – more dangerous than openly announced apostasy, for the former works continuously on a wide scale, at the same time it can not be easily resisted in the same manner as the latter which always makes much fuss, attract the attention of the people and stirs up public opinion... "

A pretty harsh rebuke, nevertheless an explicit declaration that Muslims can not punish them.

Taken from: http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/crimes-and-penalties/apostasy/175287.html

Yster76 User talk: Yster76 00:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that he hasn't called for the execution of Muslims who say negative things about fundamentalism. But in terms of apostates, I think he has been very clear. I don't know why the IslamOnline link containing the actual Fatwa got errors 24 hours after I linked to it, but here's the google cache:

"The duty of the Muslim community - in order to preserve its identity - is to combat apostasy in all its forms and wherefrom it comes, giving it no chance to pervade in the Muslim world.

"That is why the Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.

"Major apostasy, which the apostate proclaims and openly calls for in speech or writing, is to be, with all the more reason, severely punished by the death penalty, according to the majority of scholars and the apparent meaning of the Prophet's hadiths. Otherwise, An-Nakh`i and Ath-Thawri's view which was built on `Umar's attitude may be followed.

In my point of view, as the scholars have differentiated between major and minor innovations in religion and between mere innovators and those who spread and call for their innovations in religion, we can also differentiate between major and minor apostasy, and between apostates who do not wage war against Islam and Muslims and those who proclaim their apostasy and call for it.

Apostates who call for apostasy from Islam have not only become disbelievers in Islam but have also become enemies of Islam and the Muslim nation. They, by doing so, fall under the category of those who wage war against Almighty Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land.

Read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n6vYB-lD6-wJ:www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite%3Fc%3DArticle_C%26cid%3D1178724001992%26pagename%3DZone-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout+apostasy+major+and+minor&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com#ixzz1F27D3O9H

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A simple search of the Library of Congress book catelog reveals a lot of material by Qaradawi. The only problem is that most of it is in Arabic. So we would need a speaker to translate it with full context and the Arabic quote, since we can't just depend on one speaker who may not even be completely qualified

Yster76 User talk: Yster76 20:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've used this secondary source to summarize Qaradawi's complex views on the issue.VR _talk 04:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Qaradawi on rape

The entire section on rape has just been deleted. The section was based upon a claim, that he led a panel which came to certain conclusions. That's hardly proof that these are his views. Especially in a living person biography.

So, I fully support removing it.

The question is if his better documented views on rape (and abortion for that matter) are noteworthy enough to make it into the article. While his views are fucked up on some topics (my opinion only), he's far more liberal than many American Christians when it comes to abortion.

"In the first place, any woman who is raped is not guilty of any sin, for the situation is beyond her control.

"Young Muslim men should hasten to marry women such as these who have been tormented, so as to reduce their suffering and console them, to compensate them for the loss of the most precious thing that they possess, which is their virginity."

"... there are some jurists who think that it is permissible to have an abortion within the first forty days of pregnancy. Some of them even permit it until before the soul is breathed into the embryo.

"Undoubtedly raping a Muslim woman by an evil enemy is a strong reason for the victim and for her family to have an abortion, for she will hate this fetus, the result of this iniquitous attack, and she will want to get rid of it. So this dispensation is to be given because of necessity, especially in the first days of the pregnancy. But this case of necessity should be determined by religious scholars, doctors and people of wide experience and wisdom. Otherwise, the original rule (of prohibition) should be applied."

Read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MZRKIDtzI1UJ:www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite%3Fpagename%3DIslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE%26cid%3D1119503544832+site:islamonline.net+qaradawi+on+rape&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com#ixzz1FtCu2VYE Bob drobbs (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't support the removal thus restored it. The fatwa on rape is notable i.e. covered by secondary sources. Otherwise I would fully support its removal. The fatwa which speaks of how "young men should hasten to marry raped women", however, is not notable or covered by any reliable secondary sources. It is rather the product of WP:SYN by some past editor. It is important not to interpret or let personal views effect editing an article so to keep NPOV. Being a scholar and founding and leading islamonline and being a scholar, his views/work are important, but anything added must be notable as per wikipedia policies. We can not insert every fatwa irrespective of his views. Content must be notable and sourced by secondary sources WP:SECONDARY, not original research WP:OR i.e. direct links to islamonline or any other primary source. Further we must only convey the content to the extent, the secondary source covers it. Not how we think it should be or how we individually interpret things. Just my 2 cents. Green leaves9 (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are, with good reasons, stronger standards that we must use for bios of living people. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but what we had, or have again, in regards to his "views" rape, is _not_ his verified position at all, but instead a journalist claiming that this is what he believes, based on a claim that Qaradawi led a panel which came to these conclusions. Is that much correct?

If so, I don't thinks that meets the stringent standards we should use for bios of living people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think that the text as it is now is getting better. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, what other good BLP standards should we be using? The rape part complies with the BLP standards as The Telegraph is a reliable UK newspaper. It is your personal view that it is not verified. Can you kindly read the complete article. We can't question journalistic integrity without evidence. I am removing the new section added, as it breaches the BLP standard on original research. I don't see how you can find that breach an improvement of the article. Editors must understand the Original Research part rather than adding OR for a "more complete view". Any additions must be backed by a secondary/independent source like the rest. If it is notable, it will be covered by an independent reliable source and easily be added. Darkwaterahead (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point. Personally I prefer reliable secondary sources to primary ones. However, WP:ABOUTSELF seems to grant one exemption: a self-published (primary) source can be used on the author's own article provided it meets certain criteria. This is common place in wikipedia, where a reliable news source will accuse a controversial figure, then the controversial figure will respond on his personal website. Such a thing generally wouldn't be allowed elsewhere.VR _talk 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF but I don't see this exemption and never heard of it before either. Primary sources are fine for basic bio data, but for views, claims, rebuttal, counterview secondary sources would be required as in this case. This holds true especially for controversial figures. Rebuttals/comments are not a novelty and have been covered by secondary sources thus far just fine. At the end of the day anybody can make up a website or claim something. Darkwaterahead (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Darkwater: "We can't question journalistic integrity without evidence."

We can't? We do it every day as we decide whether or not sources are reliable. And for Bios of Living Persons, our standards need to be as high as they can be. So, I'm very comfortable in saying that journalistic claims that person X believes Y because he was in charge of a panel that came to conclusion Y, is _bad journalism_. So, I don't think we should be using those claims in this article.

And, the latest version of the article no longer uses this journalist's claims that the panel represents his views, so I'm happy.

-- 2 cents -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob drobbs , no, actually we can't question journalistic integrity in cases, where the source is otherwise considered reliable, which The Telegraph is and same goes for other recognized newspapers and media, irrespective of your comfort. In this case you had nothing but anonymous edits to back your view that that the news reported was unreliable. What editors claim are POV unless they can back that up. It was removed without proof and original research added. So you are wrong here. The standards for BLP were met, so I still don't know what higher standards you seek. You or I may view what an article says is wrong, but unless we can prove it, it stays. This is basic wikipedia rules for editing. Seeing as you thought an original research source added (breach of BLP standards), improved the article, much indicates you should review the policies especially on sourcing, original research and POV in detail for future editing to fully understand the editing process. In the meantime if the problem is solved, then thats great. I did contact the other editor suggesting they search for reliable sources. Darkwaterahead (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

On the POV dispute

The POV dispute has not been discussed for over a month. So I want to consult with users to see if they think it is still valid. In any case we should try to resolve it.

If everyone agrees with me that there isn't much to dispute than I will remove it(assuming that someone didn't already}.

--Yster talk 02:50, 11 May 2011