Waleed Aly is Australia’s favourite Muslim, an academic and a proud Islam apologist. He is the darling of the left-wing media and hosts a program, The Project on Channel 10. Apart from him getting hitch-slapped on Q&A years ago, there are not many embarrassing moments of him, it’s not because his arguments are rock solid, it’s because he is very clever and chooses his opponents very carefully.
After the Christchurch terrorist attack, he made a very emotional statement on his show and showed his ‘brilliance’ by claiming he was not surprised at the terrorist attack on Muslims as the anti-Muslim bigotry was on the rise. The leftists of Australia fell in love with him all over again and apart from some hypocritical comments here and there, there wasn’t much wrong in what he said. He basically said that anti-Muslim bigotry is on the rise, therefore, this was going to happen. Fair enough. He didn’t go into the reasons why anti-Muslim bigotry is on the rise. I won’t justify it as the bigotry of any sort should never be encouraged but for academic reasons and in the interest of fairness, we should look at both right-wing terrorism and Islamic terrorism equally. Anti-Muslim bigotry is a problem and is on the rise but I won’t use the same logic Waleed Aly uses. In the wake of every Islamic terrorist act, Waleed always mentions Muslims being victimised by non-Muslims albeit cleverly never endorses it but doesn’t do the same when terrorists are non-Muslims, especially when the victims are Muslims. Let me explain how.
In contrast to his speech in the aftermath of the Christchurch attack, he adopted a different logic. In his recent article on Sydney Morning Herald, he said the Sri Lankan terrorist attacks didn’t make any sense as the Sri Lankan Muslims have been victimised by the Sinhalese Buddhists, not by the Sri Lankan Christians. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense. No Waleed, it makes perfect sense. You have basically proven our point that Islamic terrorism is not just retaliation of political injustice. In most cases, it is motivated by the expansionist and the ‘infidelophobic’ ideology of Islam. Now imagine the Sri Lankan Islamist terrorist attacks were carried out on Sinhalese Buddhists. Would that have made perfect sense in Waleed’s world view, which is, if you ‘victimise’ a minority, they could retaliate violently? This Waleed is what we call rationalising terrorism.
Now imagine, after the Christchurch terrorist attack, a prominent right-winger had said: “Well, it makes perfect sense because Islamists are responsible for victimising many non-Muslims.” In fact, this is kind of what Senator Fraser Anning said but not as explicitly as you did. Senator Fraser Anning paid the price, I equally condemned him and co-started a petition asking Senator Anning to resign. He didn’t, but he was censured by the Senate. You have basically said the same thing and you again, get away with your brown privilege.
The terrorist, Abdul Latheif Jameel Mohamed, 36 was radicalised in our very own Australia. He didn’t develop the hatred for infidels in his university where he studied aerospace engineering, he developed that hatred for infidels in the company of his fellow Islamists. I am sure Waleed himself doesn’t hold any violent ideas about infidels but what baffles me is this inability to see this direct correlation between violence and Islamic ideology. How many more radical Islamists need to blow themselves up to see this marriage of violence and Islam? Maybe Allah didn’t mean any violence in his hundred plus violent verses but why is it that even the educated Muslims can’t seem to understand this? By Waleed’s own admission, this attack doesn’t seem politically motivated because if it was politically motivated, the victims would have been Sinhalese Buddhists, not harmless Christians.
I think it is about time people start seeing it’s not the people, it’s not the politics that motivates people to commit these acts of terrorism, it’s the doctrines; whether it is the right-wing ideology or the ideology of Islam. It is about time Waleed stops displaying his unashamed display of hypocrisy. We see teary Waleed when victims are Muslims but we see ‘academic’ article when victims are non-Muslims. We see justifications and how Muslims have been victimised therefore it would have made more sense. I was briefly touched by Waleed’s speech in the aftermath of the Christchurch terrorist attack but I was waiting for his next comments in the wake of a terrorist activity carried out by Islamists. Waleed, you didn’t disappoint me, your hypocrisy made perfect sense and was well expected. I have included the link of his speech and his recent article and then ask yourself if it is coming from the same person.
