View original postView original postIn my experience your average middle-eastern isn't radical, just generally ignorant of virtually everything more than a mile from their home. A lot of these alleged 'voices for moderation' aren't playing to their audience's prejudices, they actively try to instill them. Which isn't very hard, sadly, you really have to spend some time there, out in the sticks, to appreciate what a bizarre blend of modern and medieval there is.
View original postI was talking about Muslims in Europe more than those in the Middle-East, can't claim any personal experience with that latter group unlike you. Although having studied Arabic, Islam and Islamic history, I think I have a reasonably good idea, albeit on a more academic than personal level, of the bizarre blend you describe. For sure, the most notable thing about opinion polls among Muslims like the Pew one published a couple of weeks ago, is how many times the results seem to contradict each other, at least at first glance and in the eyes of westerners, and the massive confusion about what precisely shariah means is only one small part of that.
Well let me add in a disclaimer, I am by no means claiming expertise in this area, quite the opposite, my time there and the circumstances around it result a fairly high degree of ambivalence, which doesn't make for fertile ground to cultivate objective thought in, to put it mildly.
You're right that the contradiction is mostly at surface detail, the most obvious analogy I think would be the police, possibly a very apt one in other respects too. It is very easy for people to simultaneously positive and negative views on law enforcement, akin to the ambivalence I remarked on feeling, and for the police to feel the same way about their own beats. It is not at all uncommon for inner city leaders to praise law enforcement one moment then turn around and blame them for every problem and accuse them of exaggerated or even imaginary abuses. Depending on the individual this may be entirely logical and reasonable or outright cynical power games.
View original postCertainly you are right about how we shouldn't mistake ignorance for radicalism. But plenty of Middle Easterners, whether in Europe or there, are far from ignorant - their seemingly radical stances are born of the narrow intertwining of religion and politics that has characterized mainstream Sunni Islam almost since its beginning (and Twelver Shi'a as well, really), the way their leaders abuse both for propaganda to make people overlook their constant failures - and simply their perspective. I think it's important to understand how a Muslim can e.g. support Hamas or Hizbullah, without being either ignorant or particularly radical. Hell, even some non-Muslims do that, the more extreme elements of the pro-Palestinians on the European left (though one could justifiably ask why I call them extreme if they aren't Muslim, and not if they hold the exact same view but are Muslim...).
The tendency to use nationalism or traditionalism along with foreign or minority scapegoats to cover over rampant incompetence or corruption is, of course, hardly uncommon. Ditto the habit of glossing over the faults of enemy-of-my-enemy allies. Don't know if there's a Europe-wide generally-right pro-Israeli Hawk faction that might inspire that though.
View original postView original postLike I said, I don't object over the sponsorship so much as the glowing praise in it sans so much as a hat-tip to 'Not someone we always agree with'. There's also limits of how far you can use the free speech umbrella before you're legitimately tainted by association. Big difference between the ACLU backing the KKK's right to march and if they came out praising them. You don't have to criticize them, but you can't praise someone then raise the 'free speech shield', that's not how it works. You can bring Bashir al-Assad on TV for an interview and criticize him, you can bring him on and remain staunchly neutral, you can't bring him on, call him an exceptional leader and be immune to being called a sympathizer for a mass murderer. We can talk abut respecting their beliefs and their own moderate voice's need to walk a fine line but we do need to keep in mind that a lot of those beliefs can be described without a hint of hyperbole and still violate Godwin's Law.
View original postDon't misunderstand me - I am not saying the MCB made the right decision or the only possible decision there, necessarily, just that it's an understandable decision.
It's understandable, but it still opens the door for justified cynicism toward them.
View original postAnd I hope it's clear by now how I'm not a fan of Yusuf Al Qaradawi. But I will admit, my reasons for that have very little to do with his support for Hamas or Hizbullah. More with his arrogance and the way he's constantly referred to as such a big authority without ever having shown anything in the way of vision or leadership that I've seen - stop the presses, Qaradawi says the Taliban shouldn't blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas, then surely they won't! And being Egyptian, he gave some revoltingly weaselly comment on female genital mutilation in the article Hyoga linked to, which is actually a good illustration of how politics and culture and religion are inextricably linked, since e.g. an Iraqi or Iranian counterpart would have strongly discouraged or outright forbidden the practice.
I'm sure he has a vision, I'd just guess it is decidedly narcissistic in nature. People who try to straddle that many fences publicly either are in it for personal glorification or have one very specific and public goal they make no secret of.
View original postAnyway - it's been a long day, and I'm not really sure how much sense I'm making here - at the end of the day Qaradawi IS one of the single most influential Muslim clerics in the world, and while the MCB could of course have included some obligatory criticism of him in their published statement, it makes plenty of sense to me that they didn't, and I don't think that makes them radical. It just makes them tightrope walkers, who choose to conserve political capital for battles that matter more. Radicalizing young Muslims already find them weaklings who kowtow to the political establishment, I've no doubt, and would think that even more if they criticized even someone as mainstream as Qaradawi.
You're making sense, and I forgot the time zone difference. I'm open to the possibility of what you're suggesting, tight-rope-wise, and indeed I do believe that is often the case, nor do I take as a given that the Sec-general of a group automatically is a good and/or representative spokesman. However, I do think the more cynical interpretation applies to some and I don't think we want to be cutting too much slack either. But I'm tired myself, and we're far outside my zone of expertise for me to be able to get any more solid or specific.
View original postIn (Arab) Islam and in Arab politics both, there is a great deal of "political correctness" as I said - so many things one has to pay lipservice to, so many things one can't publicly say without being attacked from all sides. But one has to realize that, and realize that due to that, people may not always be as radical as they seem. Some of the things they say may just be formulaic and near-obligatory without them really meaning them. Arab politicians in the West, in which group I include the leaders of organizations like MCB or CAIR, have real and concrete goals and causes that they need their influence and their political capital for, such as trying to keep radicalizing youth under control, and so taking on those taboos is really just a stupid distraction from that.
Well, in the US anyway, with the endless cycles of immigrants, we've always cut a certain extra slack for those community leaders juggling total integration with 'the old country' views, trying to find either an optimal integration or at least an acceptable one. I'd imagine much the same applies elsewhere. Nevertheless, I don't think there's anything like the degree of anti-immigrant hostility that justifies either the radicalism or the extra slack to those immigrant community leaders in dealing with it, in terms of two-faced rhetoric. I'm not blind to the fact that there is still a lot of hostility, and some fairly intense pockets of it, Burqa bans and all, but its definitely not the 'bad old days', so to speak. The problem is that most of the reasonable goals I've heard - and many are reasonable, we can not deny some, at best, troubling double-standards seem in play, varying in type and degree from nation to nation in the West - do not seem to justify, or even benefit from, warm ties with radical elements. Quite the opposite, I'd say.
View original postNote: Yes, I'm aware that there are more Pakistani and Indian British Muslims than Arab ones, and so the matter gets more complicated, but let's not go into that.
Agreed, the matter is confusing enough as is.