Qaradawi on cartoon protests

From Islam Online:

"The sabotage done by some Muslims in some [Arab] capitals in response to the offensive cartoons is unacceptable and should be denounced," Qaradawi, who heads the Dublin-based International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) told Al-Jazeera’s Shari`ah and Life program. 

"We never call on people to set fire to cars, but to express their anger in a prudent manner to head off serious consequences," said the prominent scholar. 

"True that Islam has been the subject of attacks recently, but Muslims should not reciprocate."

Wish he’d framed it a bit more universally, as simply a question of ethics.

One could read this as him saying that what’s wrong with these attacks is the fact that they caused "serious consequences" for Muslims, as opposed to their lawlessness, violence and immorality.  Such an instrumentalistic and relativistic approach to ethics is a widespread malaise among Islamists, especially concerning non-Muslims.

But perhaps this is a misleading translation or out-of-context reading.  Anyone know?

  • http://jquadri.blogspot.com Junaid

    Svend, I think that we’re in agreement that the issue should draw on a more “principled” ethic, but I wonder what you think that might be. Not because I don’t think there are alternatives, but because I was curious that the alternative criteria you offered seemed just as utilitarian (if a bit more in line with modern liberal sensitivities) as Qaradawi’s (i.e. “lawlessness” and “violence”).
    Using “immorality” seems a bit more promising, but then I go back to my original question of what that “universal ethic” might be?
    Just some thoughts…


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X