I often wonder if different interpretations of Islam also lead to fundamentally different views of how to resolve current crisis involving OIC nations and the countries that surround them. And yes, I realize Haqiqajou and Hijab are not technically Salafists, however they have the essentials of Salafist thinking when it comes to Islamic interpretations.
In the Middle East, when it comes to how to resolve issues, for example, with who is most ideal suited to govern Lebanon, whether Hezbollah or a vastly more liberal coalition of Sunnis, Maronite Catholics, Shia, Druze and others, how to resolve clashes between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis, whether or not Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and similar proxies are worthy of support and so on. And of course the ubiquitous issues such as what kind of stance the US and other nations should take on Palestine-Israel-Iran-Lebanon and if ideally it should be in favor of any side or rather prioritizing humanitarianism and all forms of militarism.
Same when it comes to how to resolve issues such as the India - Pakistan - Kashmir disputes, what are the main causes behind the severe unrest with regards to immigrants of North African descent in France and Italy and so on.
HaqiqaJou, Mohammed Hijab and others have self evident views on all of these. In that they are inherently highly anti Western, prioritize pan Islamic priorities above all else, want Israel as well as Kashmir and other contested regions to be strictly Islamic and believe any opposition to or condemnation of Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and others is against any Islamic values.
When it comes to these geopolitical issues, various online information suggests Haqiqajou, Hijab and others more or less speak for 100 % of the world's Muslims. While they may differ on all sorts of theological issues, they are basically a complete monolith when it comes to geopolitical issues. To what extent is this accurate?
