The British press erupted at the decision to allow Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to enter the United Kingdom. They described him as the “mufti of terrorism” and a preacher of extremism. They demanded that the government refuse to grant him entry as had the United States, which banned him from entering it in 1999.
What is the reality? Is Qaradawi an extremist sheikh?
The fact is that in social matters he is considered among the most moderate but in relation to public political affairs he becomes a different mufti and has a well-known track record. Perhaps his links with the Muslim Brotherhood organization made him view the world from that narrow window rather than the reality, ability and needs of the Ummah.
What the Saudi minister for Islamic affairs said regarding some of the mosques’ preachers applies also to Qaradawi — that they incite young men to go and fight while they remain in their countries and don’t allow their own children to fight. Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, may God forgive him, was one of the most fervent preachers for war and confrontation, yet he continues to live in his air-conditioned house in Qatar.
I heard Qaradawi’s words in defense of himself in the face of the attack from the London press, denying that he incites people and saying that he holds dialogues and that he is against violence and for peace.
These words spoken in London don’t match those in Doha, which can be read on his own website.
Two weeks ago on his program his announced that he was against Jews and against any dialogue with them and that they are all tyrants. He said: “The tyranny of the Jews as a sect is clear and evident, which means that while there may be some in the West who are tyrants and others who aren’t, the tyranny of the Jews is overt, great and unmatched ... and I therefore totally rejected the suggestion that the next meeting be a dialogue with Jews. I said no, we will not hold dialogues with them while their hands are tainted with our blood.”
If Qaradawi had said that he was against Israelis we may have understood the meaning, but he made a general statement that we could hold dialogues with Christians but criticized any such dialogue with the Jews.
Qaradawi is free to hold whatever opinion he wants, but the question is: Why does he abandon his statements for the sake of a visa and do what others have done — rant loudly attacking infidels from our podiums then change their tone once they stand in the queues at embassies?
Qaradawi in political matters regretfully represents acute extremism to the extent that at the Islamic Organization Conference he voiced his desire along with his fellow revolutionaries for political leadership saying “we want the scholars to represent the Ummah” and demanded a nuclear bomb saying “In order to shed this backwardness, we should create a nuclear bomb as Pakistan did and perhaps Iran is, but the boycott remains in place so that we remain weak.”
I don’t know which statement to believe, the one he made in London or the one he broadcast from Qatar.
