Why is al-Qaradawi revered?

An interview with Yusuf al-Qaradawi by Madeleine Bunting in today’s Guardian should leave no-one in any doubt of his reactionary politics.

1) His justification for suicide bombers:
Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel, he insists, are a form of jihad. He says: "The actor who commits this is a martyr because he gave his life for the noble cause of fighting oppression and defending his community.”
He maintains that Palestinian suicide bombing is targeted at combatants (something his critics would strongly dispute). "Sometimes they kill a child or a woman. Provided they don't mean to, that's OK, but they shouldn't aim to kill them. In every war, mistakes are made and non-combatants get killed and usually military commanders come forward (as in the case of the US) and apologise - why can't they accept others do the same?"

2) On violence against women:
But of the notorious verse in the Qur'an which allows for the "beating" of wives by their husband, Qaradawi says he accepts it as a method of last resort - though only "lightly".

3) On sexuality:
The issue on which Qaradawi becomes visibly irritated is one of those on which there is never going to be any narrowing of the gap with his critics: gay rights. The sheikh is completely bewildered that the west professes tolerance of homosexuality. "One wonders if the west has given up on Christianity," he says. "We supposed that the west's history and roots were in Christianity and the latter objects to homosexuality. The Torah also says sodomy is punished by God. We shouldn't give the impression that Muslims are alone on this."

4) On Qatar:
“The protection of the Qatari royal family has been crucial to his independence.”
Bunting doesn’t mention that Qatar has banned trade unions completely until this year, and still bans migrant workers (three-quarters of the workforce) and public sector workers from organising, never mind taking strike action.

Bunting is typical of the post-modern left in her softness on Qaradawi. But what capped it all was her reverence for his “scholarship”.
“Consistency is a point of honour to most religious leaders and he is no exception; if you have spent years studying religious texts to deliver fatwas, you don't often change your mind. And his answers will bring little relief to his critics.”

I’m a bit of trainspotter when it comes to (Marxist) texts myself, but what’s the point of knowledge if it’s used to rationalise oppression and exploitation? Study, theory, ideology and science to explain the world. Debate, discussion argument over interpretation and meaning. All this is welcome and necessary. But it also matters to what political ends this knowledge is put.

Read the article here