Hawzah News Agency- In a note, Hojatoleslam Rasoul Bagheri, Secretary-General of the Al-Qademoun International Council, addressed the stark contradictions within the Muslim World League. He pointed to the issuance of two entirely conflicting statements by the League's president and secretary-general shortly after a meeting between them. He asserted that such conduct is a clear instance of duplicity in discourse and a game with the truth, fundamentally contradicting the organization's unifying mission.
A Platform for Hypocrisy
Bagheri stated that the Muslim World League, which in its charter prioritizes unity and the defense of the Islamic Ummah, has now become an arena for the open display of hypocritical behavior.
He noted that one day after a meeting between the League's president, Sheikh Ali Qaradaghi, and its secretary-general, Sheikh Ali Al-Salabi—held just days after an open letter from the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought—the two issued statements that not only fail to complement one another but are entirely contradictory in text, content, and orientation.
According to Bagheri, the statement by President Dr. Ali Qaradaghi characterizes the war as a Zionist-American project aimed at dominating the world and destroying resistance forces. It criticizes the hostility of certain Arab governments toward Islamists and warns that such enmity fuels division within the Ummah.
In contrast, the statement by Secretary-General Dr. Ali Al-Salabi portrays the war as a result of Iran's strategic miscalculation, accusing Iran of overreach, interference, deepening divisions, and weakening Arab governments. Al-Salabi's statement defends the very governments that the League's president had criticized for their hostility toward Islamists, Bagheri pointed out.
Fundamental Questions
Bagheri argued that the issue is not the existence of differing opinions but rather:
- Was the meeting intended for analyzing the Zionist-American war, or was it a platform to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran?
- Does the official position of the League lie with the president's statement or the secretaries-general?
- Most importantly, how can two officials from the same institution present two entirely contradictory narratives about the same event, each moving in a completely different direction?
He described this conduct as a clear instance of duplicity in discourse and manipulation of truth. For this institution, he said, truth appears to be a variable that changes shape depending on the audience. This approach, he added, is what in Islamic culture is termed "hypocrisy."
Demanding Accountability
Bagheri stated that if the Muslim World League remains committed to its mission of unifying the Ummah, it is obligated to answer fundamental questions:
- Which of the two statements represents the League's official position?
- How can an institution that claims to unify voices produce two completely contradictory statements from within its own ranks?
- Is this contradiction merely a difference of opinion, or is it a manipulation of rhetoric to appease different parties?
He emphasized that what has transpired with these two statements is not a difference of opinion within a single intellectual framework, but rather two contradictory versions of the truth. He described this as a red line that no ethically principled institution should cross.
No Neutrality in This Conflict
Bagheri suggested that the two officials appear to be attempting to play both sides in an effort to satisfy all parties. However, he stressed that this war has no middle ground, as it is a battle between truth and falsehood. He cited the Libyan Mufti, Sheikh Sadiq Al-Ghariani, who rightly stated that there is no concept of neutrality in the Qur'an. When war is between Muslims and disbelievers, the duty is to support the Muslims.
Bagheri concluded that neutrality in this war has only one meaning: support for the side of falsehood.
Rasoul Bagheri
Secretary-General, Al-Qademoun International Council
Your Comment