Andy Bostom is right, Andy McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh got it wrong this time.
We can’t allow the supporters of sharia to be awarded the the title of ”liberal” or ”moderate Muslim”, as long as they stick to the fundamentalist glue that binds the ideology of Mohamed together, that being the sharia.
McCarthy’s characterization of Al-Muqaryaf as “a liberal in the classic sense,” was subsequently repeated by Rush Limbaugh, verbatim—sans the weak qualifier “reputed.”
Stated bluntly, these romantic characterizations do not withstand scrutiny. Al-Muqaryaf is not a “classical liberal.” Rather, he is a Sharia supremacist, in both his words, and conduct of Libyan state affairs.
Libya’s “Classical Liberal” Sharia Supremacist Leader
May 11th, 2013 by Andrew Bostom |
Cross-posted at The American Thinker
This past week’s Benghazi hearings re-focused attention on statements made by Libyan leader Muhammad al-Muqaryaf [Magariaf] in the immediate aftermath of the murderous 9/11/2012 attacks on the vulnerable US Benghazi diplomatic mission compound. Al-Muqaryaf, head of Libya’s National Congress, reiterated (and elaborated upon) his contentions to Al-Hayat’s Raghdah Durgham during an interview published October 1, 2012.
[Durgham] Were you the first to make the mistake of considering what happened to be among the reactions to the anti-Islam film, instead of considering it a terrorist operation?
[Al-Muqaryaf] Since the first seconds after this incident happened on 9/11 I was completely convinced that this act was a premeditated and intentional terrorist act. This video (film) was not disseminated before [could be typographical error for “was disseminated before” as stated in an answer to the question following next], but it is possible that it was taken as justification and pretext. Still, the truth of the matter is that what happened was premeditated and planned according to previous arrangements.
[Durgham] When did you say this to the Americans?
[Al-Muqaryaf] From the first seconds, in my first reaction to what happened.
[Durgham] Then they chose not to believe you?
[Al-Muqaryaf] They certainly have their own way of calculating, assessing, and viewing matters. One can only respect this. But for me, as soon as I learned that this video was disseminated six months ago, it became clear to me that the issue was contrived and that the timing was chosen.
[Durgham] But you told the Americans from the beginning that this was a terrorist act. Why then did they not believe the official word from Libya instead of…
[Al-Muqaryaf] They have their reasons. I do not know these reasons and I have no knowledge about them. But I completely rule out the possibility that this might have been due to a specific intention. I have knowledge and information of course about the presence of these elements in Libya, elements linked to Al-Qa’idah since an early stage, since the days of the revolution itself and the days of the war. I also have information about the presence or infiltration by non-Libyan elements with certain ideological affiliations during a phase months prior to it [revolution].
Al-Muqaryaf’s candor has proven to be a useful adjunct to the concrete e-mail evidence which emerged from the Benghazi hearings (and beyond, see here,here) exposing the Obama Administration’s deliberately mendacious narrative. But notwithstanding Al-Muqaryaf’s steadfast refusal to abide the Obama Administration’s deceitfully redacted, false scenario—constructed to uphold its politically-contrived Big Lie about “the demise of Al Qaeda”—unwarranted hagiographic assessments of the Libyan leader have been put forth by typically informed conservatives. For example, although nested within a harsh overall critique of the Libyan intervention, this romanticized assessment of Al-Muqaryaf himself was provided by National Review’s Andrew McCarthy:
