Our anti-Wahhabi hero
Australia's Sheikh Al-Hilali, he of the terminal foot-in-mouth disease, is at it again. Now he says, according to AP, that "he's the target of a campaign by 'extremists' and other rival Muslims to discredit and unseat him." (Thanks to Twostellas.) He specifically mentioned Wahhabis, who make up a tiny portion of Australian Muslims.
What does he expect us to believe that the wicked Wahhabis did? Kidnap and brainwash him to spout radical Islamic jihadist sentiments, which is why he's in hot water in the first place? Does he think that if he says he's opposed to the Wahhabis, non-Muslims in Australia and the West will go back to assuming he's a moderate? The problem is that many of them no doubt will.
"Moderates" and "extremists" will remind those of a certain age of the shadow-drama of "moderates" and "extremists" in the Politburo some decades ago, with the dour party theoretician Suslov always presented as the bad guy, compared to all the putative "moderates"(round-faced, and therefore jolly Malenkov, the rustic Khrushchev, etc.) on that same Politburo.
And in Communist China, many in the West fell all over themselves constructing a mental myth about Chou En-lai as a "moderate" based on nothing more than his Frenchified ways, his cigarette holder, his long tapered fingers, his sympathetic and world-weary air -- why, he simply must be in our camp, or at least be a "moderate" given that he was thin and Mao was unpleasingly plump and humorless (though a dab hand at calligraphy and swimming). Spare us, in all discussions of Islam, the shadow-play of "moderates" and "extremists." In Islam, such distinctions only have to do with such matters as what degree of suppression of women may be advisable, or just how harsh punishments for theft, etc. should be. But the difference has NOTHING to do with the inculcated hostility toward Infidels -- which, in the end, is all we Infidels need care about. We can be indifferent to what Muslims do to each other (why should we care, or expend energy, if they suppress one another -- is it really in our interest to "free the energies of Muslim women" in order to become like Dr. Germ of Baghdad? Isn't this a secondary matter, and what really counts is the threat they pose to us, as Infidels? Why should we allow Sunni-Shi'a rivalries, or the problems faced by sects deemed insufficiently Muslim, such as Syria's Alawites, be allowed to distract Infidels from the war, not of "civilizations," but of one ideology, Islam, that teaches its Believers to exhibit hostility and aggression toward those who are adherents of all other beliefs, or of non-belief, and that prevents free and skeptical inquiry, not only to Muslims, but to all non-Muslims.
To adapt their preposterous names, one longs for a Popular Front for the Liberation of the World from Jihad, uniting all non-Muslims who are aware of their common enemy -- Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others who, whatever their own disagreements, share far more, because none has the desire to subjugate the lands of the others, and to cause all other beliefs to disappear throw slow, or rapid, asphyxiastion, nor to create a world in which Islam, and only Islam, exists, than each of them does (despite all those transparent staples of Muslim apologetics about the "three monotheisms" and the "Abrahamic faiths") with Islam.
[ round of applause]
This guy is hilarious -- he assumes the rest of us are as witless as he is. All of the words used to "unseat" him are from his own mouth! And they all have sufficient context to stand on their own, without danger of being misinterpreted! Just what does it take to ascend to a position of power in Islam, the IQ of a rotten tomato? This guy fulminates with all the embarassed anger at being caught like many liberal American politicians.
If anyone is foolish enough to belief this, then s/he must be a muslim.
jihan