When it comes to choosing sides, the hard left’s anti-Western mindset inevitably trumps respect for the values it otherwise professes to endorse: gender equality, gay rights and opposition to theocratic absolutism, to name but a few. Shame, however, remains an alien concept
Judged even by its own inane standards, Guardian Australia has published a splendidly stupid essay by Irfan Yusuf, in which he likens radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to Andrew Bolt and modern conservatism. This comparison is apt, apparently, because of a common sense of yearning: Hizb ut-Tahrir longs for the return of the Caliphate, and Bolt for the return of Abbott.
No doubt Yusuf and the Guardian heartily congratulated themselves for their daring, but I think the essay is interesting for reasons that Yusuf certainly didn’t intend. He writes
Perhaps another reason groups like HT have some traction is because, for all their silly rhetoric, they are actually doing something.
Doing what, exactly? He has warm words for the group’s efforts to educate everybody on counterterrorism, surveillance and radicalisation. He admonishes what he evidently regards as lazy Muslim moderates and concludes
You don’t have to believe in Hizb ut-Tahrir’s caliphate to appreciate their effort.
There you have it. The intellectual clumsiness is staggering. You watch transfixed as some mild criticism of Hizb ut-Tahrir wobbles into an endorsement. I mention, only in passing, that Hizb ut-Tahrir has also made an effort to justify the actions of jihadists going to fight in Syria, as well as the murder of Australian troops and the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. None of this invalidates Hizb ut-Tahrir’s credibility. For all his loose talk about the group’s undeserved media attention, the worst Yusuf can offer is modest applause.