Peter Mandaville unfortunately mucks up the waters with this vague, erroneous piece ("Toward a Virtual Caliphate) on how "moderate" Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is really the horse to put your money on, for a better Islamic future and peace with Muslims.Mandaville casts al-Qaradawi as a figure at the forefront of a "countervailing effort by mainstream Islamic scholars to challenge al-Qaida's global rhetoric."
While some of A-Q's words have "been at odds with Washington" he says, "perhaps the worst thing the West could do is to cast figures such as Qaradawi as part of the problem..."
First, A-Q is known by individuals with more nuanced analytical abilities to speak with forked tongue. His sometimes praised denunciations of terrorism are followed by other words supporting suicide bombings. He's practically a pioneer of suicide bombing, since his 'theological justification' for it was adopted by HAMAS as a rationale for their attacks, and posted on their website.
Secondly, He writes: "After all, a vote for Qaradawi is a vote against Zarqawi. " Wrong.
I refer P.M. -for-starters- to Jean-Charles Brisard's book on Zarqawi, page 144:
"This fundamentally depraved conception of Islam is the fruit of a mind indcotrinated by the opinions it formulates, opinions that stem directly from those of the great theoriticians of modern jihad, notably, Abu Mohammed Al-Maqdisi, Abu Qatada, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi, all of whom Zarqawi has read, heard, and sometimes met, and to whom he constantly refers."
For more see earlier post: http://digital-dope.blogspot.com/2005/08/from-islamonline.htmlPerhaps Mandaville should check out the writings of progressive Arabs who rail against A-Q's hypocrisy -including for inspiring other people's children to turn themselves into "kerosene" while his own kids attended comfy Western universities.
