فائز Posted 2009-03-13

Tunisia Al Kairouane welcomes its guests. It is odd that political movements which are tasteless and colourless in the Tunisian association express attitudes which reflect only narrow ideas. It is odd that they have attitudes towards figures and scholars whose honourable history has proved their credibility, steadfastness and particularly popularity- not only in the hearts of Tunisians but in the hearts of all Arab nations. Welcome our prominent sheikh. By God, Tunisia was not happier to receive a host in this rank as much as it was happy with your blessed visit. We all know that names such as “Mr Mondher” the name of his movement or the movement of “democratic women” are names whose popularity do not even rise to the popularity of teams of the fourth league. Tunisia welcomes and stretches its hands to all its guests notwithstanding their ideas or trends. Welcome our honourable scholar. We love you. We are proud of you. We are honoured by your courageous positions.

Harry Ford Posted 2009-03-14

Tunisia is a very special place that does not deserve criticism from zealots. The majority of Tunisians that I have met are very tolerant to me as a tourist. Sometimes I say the wrong thing but I get corrected without anger being shown. For example, Enfidah has a British War Grave Site and every courtesy was shown to me and my wife by the Police, the Taxi drivers and the Cemetery Attendants when we visited the Town. Yet in the eyes of a zealot,these dead soldiers were Infidels. Never has a Tunisian blamed me for being an Infidel. Other Countries could learn a lot from this tiny part of North Africa.

الهادي العابدي Posted 2009-03-14

Tunisian secularists and atheists are clamouring the visit of El Qardaoui to Tunisia. Some of them have dared speak out against the man, some even exceeded their limits with the man and reproached the state for addressing him an invitation to assist to the celebrations of Al Kairaouane as capital of the Islamic culture. The issue did not disturb Tunisian authorities or Tunisians who welcomed El Qaradoui. But it has disturbed Al Jazeera channel which has presented the issue on many occasions not to defame the secularists and atheists of Tunisia because it is a channel open to the opinion and opposing opinion as it aims to be impartial and publish the news without interpretation or hiding. Its intention was to defend the prominent scholar, preacher and erudite Mufti sheikh El Qaradaoui who is one of its contractors and one of the defenders of the images of free, fair and impartial media. This has not disturbed me in any way since the battle does not concern me. I remember however the dignity of the Sheikh once interviewed by one of the hosts of Al Jazeera in a live programme which receives phones calls from viewers who seek guidance in the matters of their religion and life - is there a better man than the sheikh to issue them Fatwas? One of the callers was a woman from Tunisia. However, this is a matter I was unable to confirm from an impartial side though I was surprised about it but I don’t doubt it as I know the impartiality of the channel and its abidance by the media mission. The woman asked a life question to the erudite sheikh asking for his fatwa, and as he is its owner, he replied daring and resentfully immediately “An obscene question from an obscene woman from an obscene country; I do not want phone calls coming from Tunisia”. The eminent sheikh, though he is known for his tolerance, moderation and open-heartedness was paralysed by the question given its high obscenity. So he rejected it, rejected its author and the country from where it came. I wondered that day if erudite Muftis and scholars are entitled to reject questions. I understood after that questioning that the sheikh has exceeded the rank of scholars and Muftis. Maybe he has risen to the level of saints and pious. This is what drove the eminent Al Jazeera channel to defend him against the corruptor of the Tunisian society including secularists and atheists. When some secularists rebelled against the invitation of the sheikh by the state, especially those who were supportive of the state, I prayed for their guidance and mine. Officials may have wisdom and discernment. They have undoubtedly grasped the blessings of the sheikh so they invited him.

Hichem Posted 2009-03-15

Middle East poison; not needed in Tunisia that cannot afford the fascism of these fanatics. The armies in the barracks and the religious in their mosques, and not to tell us how countries should be run.

عيسى Posted 2009-03-15

Allow me at the beginning to express my reservations at the title because not all Tunisians reject the visit of Al Qardaoui. They are just a minority with a totally secularist trend who felt utter failure of their secularist project. Therefore, they opened fire on the eminent scholar El Qardaoui. As a Tunisian young man who belongs to the people not concerned about these political conflicts, I confirm to you that this visit was hailed by the authentic Tunisian people deeply enshrined in their identity and authenticity.

Anis TOUNSI Posted 2009-03-16

Please tell this scumbag to not visit Tunisia (my country) anymore... No room for him nor his supporters.... Preacher of hate GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY and please take ALJAZEERA with you.... It is about time to wake up and not let hate and ignorance control the simple minds of most of the muslim world... People please get educated and learn what is going on around you, stop believing these scholars and fakes from the muslim world... Find your own truth and don't listen to anybody, this ALQARDAOUI is not smarter than you, might be even way dumber and ignorant than you might think.

Muslim4Life Posted 2009-03-17

With all respect, but guys like Alqardaoui haven't got any good new things to teach us, only to become a moslim extremist.If this is his goal, may he burn in hell. His ideology is just too extreme to fit in a modern sociaty. Guys like him are creating a negative view over the islam, they're destroying the islam and not the tunisian population!! He should be banned from all muslim countries. This doesn't mean that tunisians aren't open to the islam, but send us the right persons. I agree to Oussa to invite next time Taruq Ramadan!

سليم التونسي Posted 2009-03-18

A lesson from Tunisians to El Qaradaoui. Maybe most of us know the attitude of the sheikh towards the west which he describes as the land of infidels. Everyone knows how angry the sheikh was when Britain refused to grant him a visa in order to get medical care. The attitude of Britain was categorical: If you refuse my morals and culture, it is better that you stick to your principle and don’t think of my medical and technical services. Life is principles. If you know your principles, you will know your life. At that time, Al Jazeera supported the application of El Qaradaoui to enter British territory to get medical care on the grounds that the application is human. As regards Tunisia, everyone knows the attitude of El Qaradaoui towards the Tunisian nation and civilisation, how he offended its women and men on the mostly viewed satellite channels in the Arab World. This has deeply harmed their image for Arab people some of whom think that as soon as you arrive in the Tunisian airport, you will find Tunisian women naked… But today he is watching the civilisation and morals of this nation in the capital chosen by Muslims as symbol of the culture and civilisation. His participation in these events is a tacit recognition of that. Once more, we witness a contradiction in the principles of the sheikh, the country of debauchery and the country of Islamic culture! The country of debaucherous women, the country of women nurses, doctors, veiled and unveiled women. Should Tunisia have refused to grant an entry visa to the sheikh as did Britain considering it as a legitimate measure given the previous immoral attacks and distortion of the reputation of its sons and daughters? Tunisia chose the opposite maybe in the hope of rectifying the vision of the sheikh to the Islamic nation, other peoples of the world and to humanity in general. But do medicines reform what age corrupted?

سليم Posted 2009-03-22

Last summer, I spent the holiday in Tunisia in the hotel Nehrous. By God, I thought myself in a non Muslim country. At dinner, and for the first time, I was surprised by a strange meat, I came nearer even if I didn't want to take a part from it. But a young man working in the restaurant was shaking his head slowly left and right, without attracting the attention of others. So I understood immediately that it was pork. Then he moved his lips and I understood that he was saying "Haram". Anyway, I went to the swimming pool and found women dressed in one part which means that the upper part did not exist. You know what I mean. I went to the second swimming pool and I found a bar in the open air...Do not worry, we haven't reached the most important part. I went to the beach but ran away and thanked God because I was alone without the family. Imagine if I were with a member of the family and you meet debauches practicing everything they want in front of people and Muslims. Imagine that no one says anything to them. On the contrary, everyone who meets them smiles. The worst thing is that on Friday, when you ask someone about the mosque, they show you a different way. In fact, there is no mosque. So I went through popular poor streets until I found a small mosque in a big city. I performed Friday prayer and thanked God because I found at last a mosque. By God I spent the holiday not in swimming pools or on beaches, but in popular streets far from Europeans who control all the place. So how can these NGOs express their anger to Al Qaradawi? Anyway, I saw how women control men as if things are mixed up- men are in the houses while women go to shop, pretending these are human rights. This is just a small example.

سامي Posted 2009-03-24

I say to these hypocrites and charlatans that Tunisia is bigger and greater than your psychological complexes and diseases. We do not need hypocrite sheikhs and anyone who attacks Tunisia, this country which is the builder of glory and civilisations. In Tunisia, we don’t need all these sick people. Tunisian society is a sound and mature society. It teaches lessons to everyone. Our women are more honourable than the wives of those who are looking for adultery in new quackery ways, such as Messiar marriage, Motaa marriage and so on. By God, they are evil people. We do not need these extremists. We won’t allow any non-Muslim to preserve Islam in this country. We are quite satisfied, praise be to God. It is better that you clean in front of your houses which are full of filth.

safsaftunisie Posted 2009-03-25

This person is old-fashioned and hypocrite. He does not honour us in Tunisia, the country of openness and where Islam exists. I am Muslim. What is his problem to bother with Tunisia? He says how in Tunisia they respect Christians and Jews?

العين الناقدة Posted 2009-03-27

(Veiled women and others unveiled going in the city without any complications or committing any sins) Is it a slip of the tongue committed by the writer when he attributed the act to the plural masculine as he should have used the verb in the plural feminine (يسرن) instead of (يسيرون) ? Or is it an expression which slipped from the writer emanating from a deep belief in the subconscious that they are no longer women except in the shape or image but their nature was distorted into men? An example of this was stated in the Qur’an “And women in the city said: The chiefs wife seeks her slave to yield himself to her, surely he has affected her deeply with his love; most surely we see her in manifest error. So when she heard of their sly talk she sent for them and prepared for them a repast, and gave each of them a knife, and said to Yusuf: Come forth to them. So when they saw him, they deemed him great, and cut their hands in amazement, and said: Remote is Allah from imperfection; this is not a mortal; this is but a noble angel” (Yusuf: 30) It is noticed that God used the expression women said (قال نسوة) instead of she said (قالت..). This is the situation which preceded our era hundreds of centuries ago. We are informed that some women of that period changed the creature of God to men responding to Satan who committed himself to “…and most certainly I will bid them so that they shall alter Allah's creation” (Al Israe). She no longer consider sexual intercourse except as an act of pleasure and excitement ignoring the main goal: procreating and populating the earth. So she went on charming him. We can find an excuse for her as she was sterile. However, her associates turned into women of salons and clubs, their only concern is soirées to the detriment of their family and domestic duties. But they criticized the wife of Al Aziz for falling in love with a servant as this affected her reputation and mind as she should have fallen in love with a prince, a military leader, a sport champion or any other senior figure which will honour her…This scene depicts a condition of luxury in this category of people which causes stupidity and draw the attention to idleness on the detriment of decisive things. Hasn’t the west had a style of life similar to that period which is repeated throughout history and which emerged when the followers of the religion of God lose means to counter the oppressor and present in fact “human rights”? No matter how developped the west is, he is the enemy of the weakest and leads war against it so that it wouldn’t seek revenge from it. This is different from the values of the Muslims who attack only the attacker who aggresses it and spares the peaceful. (See the verses 8-9 of Al Moumtahina).

العين الناقدة Posted 2009-03-28

When you read the verses 8 and 9 of Sourat Al Momtahina you will understand quickly the difference between Muslims who abide by the book of God and the west which categorizes the people in two classes: one for and one against. There is not a third impartial class. It noticed in the world discourse an opposition between Islam and the west which is the alliance of two philosophies in life. The first mixes heaven instructions and the misguidance of the people. The second is relying on the human thought. The success of this alliance is based on the existence of an agreement between them: separating authority into civil and “religious”. What belongs to Caesar is Caesar's and what belongs to God is to God. Civil authority extends its influence over a wide era of life while religious authority is limited to its narrowest: church and monastery. This creates a religion in which man is the Worshiper and worshiped. “Can a child take care of a child?” “What can a poor man offer the poor?”In this religion, belief ends with the day of judgment and the restraint is hidden until it is transferred to retirement and is replaced with conscience which is a mercury concept incapable of invading the hearts of the majority. So the majority who doesn't have it prevails. It resorts to different tricks in order to violate the effort of the weakest, direct colonization previously and indirect today is a facade of this. This alliance is not the product of our era. It is the continuation of old ages, the ages of slavery. The messenger of God, peace be upon him, concluded at the beginning of his call to that agreement but God inspired the Surat Al Kafiroune which rejected this categorically “You have your religion and I have my religion”. If money is the basis of business, with what was the west and its current civilization built? If we find two successors who should supposedly have the same fate, one living in a palace and the other living in a slum; the logical thinking directly says that the first was manipulative in turning most of the succession in his favour when he was the tutor of his underage brother. So should he be proud of that? Wouldn't he be concerned of awakening the thought of the careless who will open old books and look for lost papers but if doesn't find them he will ask ”when did you get this from?”. Is it not better that the violator be wise and try gradually to grant the weakened his rights and avoid the aspects of boasting, arrogant accusing of backwardness instead of moving forward by analysis in concluding total destruction?

العين الناقدة Posted 2009-03-30

“Most of us know the attitude of the sheikh from the west which it describes as the country of infidels”. It seems that the author of this statement is criminalising the sheikh as he considers him attacking the west unknowingly, ignoring a judiciary principle that every judge issues orders according to evidence he has and the testimony of witnesses. The sheikh has developed an attitude on the basis of what he hears, sees, the news and reports he receives which don’t agree with the principles in which he believes including justice, fairness and freedom, summed up in a principle in which the West partially believes as it implements it only for its members. This principle is “You will not be a true believer unless you love for your brother what you love for yourself”. However, this principle is a comprehensive unalterable belief for the sheikh and his supporters. This principle is supported by texts. If the supporters of the west read them, they would have a different attitude: “let not hatred of a people-- because they hindered you from the Sacred Masjid-- incite you to exceed the limits, and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression; and be careful of your duty to Allah; surely Allah is severe in requiting” (Al Maida: 2). “let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and he careful of your duty to Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do” (Al Maida: 8). “be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow your low desires, lest you deviate”. (Annissa: 135). Moreover; “Surely Allah enjoins the doing of justice and the doing of good to others and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids indecency and evil and rebellion”. (Annahl: 90). So is the civilized person the one who has the latest developments and tools which enable him to execute the opponent? Two teams are preparing on the field of life. One plays according to the rules of the game, wearing a moderate dress respecting rules and thus respects the rival. The other violates rules and laws, underestimates and humiliates the rival as he is of a lower degree; he is arrogant as he wears a silk dress, the best shoes, has state-of-the art equipments, bribes the referees to steal titles: so who is the civilized? The West which is seen by some at the top of civilization, is not seen as such by us as it criminalizes a person who says, in his opinion, a word of right against it. Therefore, it deprived him of the entry visa to its territory to get medical care, shunned shaking hand with him, charged him with imaginary accusations. However, from the principle of civilization which he pretends to be pioneering, it should have opened a debate or discussion with him. But since it lacks the power of argument it used the argument of power.

سامي Posted 2009-03-31

Referring to me by using the expression « someone » while my name is mentioned at the beginning is the core of denial and arrogance which is a serious offence, you malevolent eye. When I said that we in Tunisia don’t imitate anyone and don’t take any other idols except God, I meant what exceeds our borders. So we don’t need anyone but a Tunisian to give us lessons. Otherwise, four different doctrines would not have existed; everyone is the product of a specific environment and thought. Saying that we have our men and sheikhs is not contradictory with I said previously. On the opposite, it confirms more that our relationship with God is governed by “And those in authority from among you”, which means from us not those in authority among them. When you said that God appointed His messengers as mediators between Him and man, this is a very narrow scholastic interpretation and a serious sin you committed against believers. God is clear of the mediation you meant. The mediation meant by God is that He chose his messengers and honoured them to transmit his instructions to His subjects. In His verses are examples of this as He said “Call upon Me, I will answer you”. He did not say for example call upon me through my messengers, I will answer you. The role of messengers is not mediation (in its common meaning) between God and His subjects. They came to fill a specific mission which is transmitting. Transmitting doesn’t mean mediation. Mediation requires steadiness and continuity as it is the case for Christianity which considers the Pope a mediator between them and God. But the mission of messengers, peace be upon them, is to transmit the message of God by distinguishing the right from the wrong, and the good from the evil…so that those who want to believe, believe and those who don’t want abstain. So that the relationship between man and His Lord remains direct not subject to any mediator. On the other hand, you put me in the category of disbelievers, this is shown by the fact that you made me choose between five different groups and you judged by yourself that they are disbelieving. So you have accused me of disbelief while God alone knows the hidden things. Your defect is that you accuse of disbelief and authorize as you like. This makes me hold on to my opinion which says we don’t need your sheikh and we don’t need you.

العين الناقدة Posted 2009-04-04

“O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end” (Annissa: 59). If you contemplate this verse, you will notice the repetition of the verb (obey) twice even if the subjects are three: God, the Apostle and those in authority among you. Here a question that rises to the mind; why wasn't repeated three times? Why was it repeated at all while one time was enough? The answer, God knows better, if it was repeated three times, obedience of those in authority would have been equal to the obedience of God and the Apostle. However, God made His obedience equal to the obedience of His Apostle “Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them” (Annissa: 80). Then He added those in authority on the condition that they should be believers. Since difference in opinions is possible between members of any group, so he ordered them to refer to God and the messenger otherwise they will fall in the limited party trend or oppression as did their predecessors of the people of the Book. Obedience to those in authority is fulfilled only if it is identical with the orders of God explained by the His Apostle. Saying that “Our relationship with God is governed by “Those in authority among you” meaning among us not those in authority among them” constitutes a segregation of Muslims and bears a limited discrimination under the cover of nationalism. The verse is opened with the call “ O you who believe” which is a call open to all times and places. The verse did not state O Arabs, Maghreb people, Machreq people...Tunisians...I haven't accused anyone of infidelity, how can I do that? If you see the opposite, go back to what I said. I used the expression “considered”. So when we read “a boat wrecked, some of its passengers survived, some died and some were considered lost” are the lost considered dead? I also used the present (belongs) which refers to the present and future. I haven't used the past which means the judgment is complete. Here I warn the reader against falling in one of the categories. Finally, I say to the brother Sami. If you don't need me, this is not the same with me. My opinion can be correct or wrong. Your opinion can be correct or wrong. Difference encourages us to deepen research and learning. I am sure that both of us want the best for everyone.

العين الناقدة Posted 2009-04-07

Sometimes we hear things which make us believe that the world is free of disbelief, polytheism, immorality and hypocrisy; that it has reached a high level of belief, piety and integrity. So Nobel prizes are attributed to the people whose behaviour confused the mind as if the balances and standards were reversed. Here I remember the reply of the messenger of God, peace be upon him, to the question of Gabriel, peace be upon him, about the signs of doomsday (the woman gives birth to her mistress, you see the barefooted, naked unqualified shepherds building high buildings…From Sahih of Mouslem). This shows how logic collapses and loses its right track otherwise how can the unqualified naked (who have no qualifications and competencies entitling them to occupy a function or even clothes to cover themselves) and shepherds (who haven’t studied) compete and boast in building skyscrapers? Where will they get funding from? While we see that those who work hard from dawn to sunset, those who have high degrees after their families were deprived of the simplest things, don’t obtain resources to secure a dignified life. Those who recite the Qur’an see how previous peoples perished such as the people of Aad, Houd, Saleh or Nouh. This happened when disbelief became widely-spread and reform was impossible by an incapable minority but spared to resume life after the majority disbelieving perished in an earthquake/sweeping wind/flood…This event is general for this majority but limited to its area and doesn’t extend to other places. But now that the world has become a small village, plights are spread. Destination has become common. So destruction will be global. It is no longer hidden from anyone the volume and power of mass destruction which can emerge from its minds as a result of a negligence or carelessness. Is doomsday close by as suspects are building high buildings, pious people have become hypocrites and charlatans while those who hold on to their religion have become extremists; those who defend their nations have become terrorists; dancers on the bodies of victims whose parts are covered with blood receive Nobel prizes for peace and a visit of a Muslim scholar disturbs a Muslim? So whom shall we welcome? An infidel world? Is there still a hope to reform the track or we shall we leave for coming generations a heritage which will make them curse us? Or shall we boas of the driving force thinking that we are really making progress and the recent economic crisis is a confusing index?

العين الناقدة Posted 2009-04-09

The sophisticated or gentle extremism which is tolerated silently, enjoys life among Muslims. No one resists it or even points to it. It is the excess in praising the prophet to the point of deification. This makes it impossible to follow his example and supports the saying “religion is the opium of the people”. This praising also includes the pan-Arabism trend. This hardens the position of the opponents of the religion of God. Thus they build a hostility front against it defending their faiths and messengers from those who were covered by this excessive praise, and they are no longer heard of. If you listen to these praises and invocations recited by the “Salamia” and other similar groups or what is transmitted by radios and TV channels, you will find no difficulty in counting thousands of examples “such as Ahmed in the two universes/ Minds are perplex in his description/Oh protectors of religion, let's support the best of all the people). We also find in the heritage and writings of Muslims (Commander of messengers/master/ best/ best creature of God/ the Arab prophet /Al Hachemi...). However, in the Qur'an he was described merely as a messenger, apostle and explainer. He is man who interacts with events and is affected by the pressure of the talk of people. “And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favour and to whom you had shown a favour: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of your duty to Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him”. He is prone to what all humans are prone to. He is prevented from falling in pitfalls by following the inspiration without which he was lost. “And find you lost and guided you?” This inspiration, he did not monopolize it for himself. “Say: I am only a mortal like you; it is revealed to me that your god is one God, therefore whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and not join any one in the service of his Lord”. Righteous work is the act which respects the inspiration. He is the last apostle because the world is on its way to become a small village. “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things”. Gentle extremism gives birth to the active extremism which fills his mind with beliefs constituted from the invocations for which he fights believing that he is supporting the messenger. Some might have understood this fact and rejected everything both the legal and heresy. So he went on to fight everyone whether they are scholars, ignorants or misguided. So he created an environment of tension between Muslims not knowing that he is also an extremist in the opposite direction. So let's put hand in hand and reform gently.

Dziri58 Posted 2009-04-15

My dear brothers and sisters, refrain from insulting and lacking respect for our Ulemas as they are the heirs to the Prophet(PBUH). Every generation has a Alim. A Scholar of the calibre of the Sheikh El Qaradawi carries a big burden on his shoulders as he can not turn a blind eye on Munkir, Fitna or Fassad. He speaks from conviction emenating from the Qur'an and the Sunnah of our Prophet(PBUH) and does not get involved in making slandering comments about individiuals for the sake of doing so. He is above these things. People who are showing contempt for our Sheikh and throwing insults at him, have to look themselves in the mirror before resulting to this despicable behaviour. Allah is fully aware with all that you do or conceal.

MOKADDEM Posted 2009-10-08

Mr. al-Qaradawi is not only an ignoramus, but also an obscurantist and mental retard. He has allowed himself to come give us lessons on life and behaviour here in Tunisia, where we say that women are our sisters and our mothers and thus our equals in all respects, no matter if it offends some fundamentalists. May these gentlemen stay at home. In our beautiful Tunisia, we do not need this so called “savants”, who read the Qur’an the way they want to. Wake up, gentlemen! It is not longer year 1 or 1000, but 2009! No, Mr. Abdullah, our existence is not miserable, but yours is dark and without joy!!! Long live women!

mokaddem Posted 21 days ago

Mr Fundamentalists, Mr Lesson-Givers and Mr Destroyers of the West- You make me vomit. Though the West is not a model, you are just a waste! Long live Tunisia just as it is today, with Jews, Christians and everyone else! The word “Tunisian”, means “free” and “tolerant”.