His general "platform" rather undermines the clash of civilizations scaremongering that is so prevalent in the US right now.

(And there is some kind of persistent belief that he engages in double-talk when addressing Muslim vs. non-Muslim audiences)

Ah well.

regarding the double-talk, I would like someone to debunk or confirm this. There is one particular scholar (Tine Magaard) here in Denmark who claims Ramadan praises Qaradawi on his tapes - hence the double-talk. While Qaradawi is certainly not the hardest of the hardcore, he is not a nice person. Anyone?

Qaradaoui is a conservative. That does not make him "not a nice person."

While his theology is not to my personal taste, he also represents fairly standard conservative thinking.

Ramadan 'praising' Qaradaoui could come in a number of contexts, I can not think of any of which would make Ramadan a "double talker." Not obvious.

Well, I can't think of any reason why Ramadan would be the target of a smear campaign that suggests he is a terrorist/radical/islamofascist/whatever sympathizer...

Perhaps Pipes the Idiot has something to say about it.

Ramadan is targeted because he's a prominent Muslim, it fits into the Fifth Column right wing conspiracy, sneaking poison and discord into our fair society with a smile.

Anyway, Qaradawi, I have serious problems with any religious conservative...as you may have found out by now. I can't think of anyone that opposes not just homosexuality, but makeup, statues, women-led prayer and April Fool's Day as nice.

Q on Muslims in Europe:

With Muslims being a minority in those non-Muslim countries, they ought to unite together as one man. Referring to this, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: “A believer to his fellow believing brother is like a building whose bricks cement each other.”

Hence, Muslims in those countries have to unite and to reject any form of division that is capable of turning them to an easy prey for others.

Q on organ donation:

However, if there is a Muslim and a non-Muslim and both are in need of organ or blood donation, the Muslim must be given priority for Allah Almighty says in the Qur’an: [The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another.] (At-Tawbah 9: 71)

That, gents, is circling the wagons. 'Reject any form of division'. Bleh.

Qaradaoui is a conservative.

Like it or not, lots of people in this world are socially conservative. You had best get over it.

As for women led prayer in the sense of organised religion, insofar as that has only just barely become acceptable in Western churches, I find it more than slightly special that you cite it as an issue making Qaradaoui "not nice."

Presuming not nice is code for unacceptable.

Same for homosexuality.

Get over your special Left self. Your having a problem with religious conservatives I find profoundly uninteresting and unenlightening.

Now, the organ donation, while understandable conservative theology, is a nasty bit of logic.

I should say the April Fools fatwa is typical modernist bollocks, since playing friends the fool for laughs is most certainly not a "foreign custom"

You don't have anything to say on this?

Hence, Muslims in those countries have to unite and to reject any form of division that is capable of turning them to an easy prey for others.

To me, that's condoning siege mentality.

Klaus: Meh. We're banning people for "condoning siege mentality"? So why isn't Ann "Conquer their countries (incitement to violence), kill their leaders (assassination of individuals is a war crime) and convert them to Christianity (advocacy of something indistinguishable from a Caliphate)" Coulter in jail?

All: The "double talk" thing appears to me to be just a metastatis of an old talking point about Yassir Arafat, who was regularly accused of not recognising Israel after he'd done so "because that's not what he says in Arabic". Of course, it's impossible to translate Arabic into English, which is why nobody has ever seen said remarks and the point is irrefutable.

Another thing: Nietzsche said that if thou goest to woman, forget not thy whip. Yet no-one would suggest banning a philosopher who quoted him approvingly from the United States. And before you say "well, which Nietzschean terrorist threat do we face", I'd remind you that he was, ahem, German and some of his biggest fans were fascists.

I suspect the reason is simple: he's a Muslim activist and (by defensive standards) anti-American. The terrorism thing just makes a better pretext.

Social conservatism is the average value for humanity, at least in public. Homosexuality, further, doesnt always grab instant popularity among secular types. It was not a fundamentalist TV show in America that popularized a satirization of the "I'm not gay, not that there's anything wrong with that" hypocrisy, as non-religious characters frantically try to reverse the impression that they are gay (Seinfeld).

The organ donor quote doesnt bother me as much. Natural tendency to favor one's own. Although all the Big Religions do have sincere injunctions to be kind and generous to everyone, most, if examined closely, have specific texts, teaching, tradtions, and practices that emphasize that charity begins at home. (Many of the generous gospel passages refer to being kind to "a brother", and are not Good Samaritan stories.)

Alex, I'm not talking about Ramadan being banned, I'm talking about Qaradawi, and if he's a nice person, or, to put it more precisely, if he's a good influence on young Europeans. Telling people to close ranks against The Enemy and quell internal dissent is not what is needed at the moment. For those reasons, I have a hard time liking Ramadan if he's promoting Qaradawi.

That does not mean Ann Coulter is a-ok. She's a fucking nazi demon. Closing ranks and quelling dissent to face the enemy was Rumsfeld's recent message. Doesn't make it better. The organ donorship issue is more in that vein.

There's a fucked up logic going on here. Because I criticise Qaradawi does not mean I condone Coulter, Nietzsche or the Bible. For fucks sake.

Well, this is all over the place:

Alex, I'm not talking about Ramadan being banned, I'm talking about Qaradawi, and if he's a nice person, or, to put it more precisely, if he's a good influence on young Europeans.

Alex's comment got rather far afield, but well, now you have added yet another element.

Nice person and 'good influence on young Europeans' of course have fuck all to do with each other, a nice person may be a poor influence on people in another culture.

Telling people to close ranks against The Enemy and quell internal dissent is not what is needed at the moment.

Needed or not, I am not sure this phrase: "Hence, Muslims in those countries have to unite and to reject any form of division that is capable of turning them to an easy prey for others." has all the meaning you're giving it. It can, but not necessarily.

He's saying as weak folks, don't fall for divide and conquer. The same fellow has generally condemned violent action (ex re "resistance groups " in Iraq and in the Territories) and called on Muslims to respect the laws of the land where they reside.

Taking the whole package, Qaradaoui is your typical law and order social conservative. You may not care for social conservatives, but they are humanity. Stepping away from personal dislike, I don't find Qaradaoui something to get worked up over, he's possible to engage and he's not irrational nor pimping violence.

For those reasons, I have a hard time liking Ramadan if he's promoting Qaradawi.

Qaradaoui hardly needs 'promoting' by Ramadan. You're living in a dream world if you think that.

Without the specific context, Ramadan merely commenting favourably on Qaradaoui does not strike me as a sin. It might have been re a specific fatwa, or Qaradaoui generally. Until I know more, I don't see any aspect of "double talk."

That does not mean Ann Coulter is a-ok. She's a fucking nazi demon.

Shrug. She's an American problem.

Closing ranks and quelling dissent to face the enemy was Rumsfeld's recent message. Doesn't make it better.

I would suggest a bit of perspective. Qaradaoui is a preacher with no rank or governmental duties.

Rumsfeld is one of the highest ranking governmental officials in the American administration, and responsible for defence matters.

I believe if you pause for a moment, you may dimly perceive that a TV preacher calling for his 'flock' not to become 'easy prey' is not the same thing as a Sr. governmental official with security apparatus and the like under his influence saying something vaguely similar.

I certainly don't care for Qaradaoui's line of thinking, but get a bit of bloody perspective.

The organ donorship issue is more in that vein.

In group particularism of a social conservative. He doesn't call for forced conversation (a la Coulter) and generally is anti-violence and pro law and order (indeed Qaradaoui gave his support for the American attack on the Taleban/al-Qaeda).

Not perhaps my cup of tea as a classic liberal, but hardly in the league of Anne Coulter. More in the same league as conservative TV preachers.

There's a fucked up logic going on here. Because I criticise Qaradawi does not mean I condone Coulter, Nietzsche or the Bible. For fucks sake.

The Bible 'condoned'?

Whatever, mate.

Alex's criticism was queer logic, but I don't see your issue with Qaradaoui as being particularly well-founded in the context of the discussion (re justification of banning Ramadan). Perhaps that has misframed your comments, but your being all over the place with nice person sliding into 'good influence on young Europeans' hardly brings clarity.

ok, let's drop this whole thing.

I can't think of any reason why Ramadan would be the target of a smear campaign that suggests he is a terrorist/radical/islamofascist/whatever sympathizer...

Perhaps Pipes the Idiot has something to say about it.

Not sure whether Eerie meant this comment ironically or not. Pipes of course is all over Ramadan w. loads of fraudulent claims of the former's perfidy, two-facedness, support for terrorism, etc. In fact, when the entire incident of his banning first surfaced, many believed that the Bush Administration was using Pipes' alleged arguments as the starting point for their campaign against him.

See my blog post for more on Pipes' vendetta against Ramadan.

BTW, on a diff. subject has anyone seen a principled rebuttal of Robert Redeker's anti-Muslim drivel? I've written something about this at my blog, but I feel very lonely not being able to find anyone who took the guy to task for his arguments while attacking the Muslim threats against him as well.

I find it ironic that the current administration has managed to ban someone who has broken no laws that I'm aware of, while welcoming with open arms someone who has openly admitted committing immigration fraud. Hypocritical idiots, the lot of them.

Richard: In case I haven't mentioned this before, I really enjoy reading your blog.

I'll probably put a few of your Ramadan and Pipes entries in the sidebar, perhaps we should get a discussion going on Aqoul proper (instead of the Lounsbury sub-basement)