AMIDST ALL THE WRANGLING over our troubles in Iraq, on one point there is surprising consensus: Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the pro-democracy Shiite leader, has been an indispensable anchor for Iraq's fissiparous political system. In March of 2005, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman went so far as to endorse Sistani for the Nobel Peace Prize. "The process of democratizing the Arab world is going to be long and bumpy," wrote Friedman. "But the chances for success are immeasurably improved when we have partners from within the region who are legitimate, but have progressive instincts. That is Mr. Sistani."

Along with "moderate" and "democratic," "progressive" is the label most frequently affixed to Sistani by his Western boosters, many of whom gushed over the Iraqi cleric last February when he roundly condemned the rioting and mayhem that broke out in response to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. Sistani is the Great Shiite Hope--which means he's also the Great Iraqi Hope. And, as such, it is only fitting that he embodies the awkward reality of Middle Eastern "moderates."

Without putting too fine a point on it, Sistani's thoughts on such social issues as, say, homosexuality, make Pat Robertson look like Barney Frank. Ditto his unusual brand of religious "tolerance." To be sure, none of this detracts from Sistani's staunch--and courageous--support for representative government, or his benign influence over Iraq's Shiite majority. But it does suggest that Americans, especially those of us gung-ho on spreading liberalism in the Muslim world, perhaps need to recalibrate our expectations

Take the recent news that a Baghdad teenager was brutally murdered by Iraqi police for the "offense" of being gay. How did Sistani, Iraq's much ballyhooed "progressive," respond? Well, it turned out that some two months earlier Sistani had posted a fatwa on his website, sistani.org, demanding that homosexuals "should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing." According to the London Independent, "Ali Hili, the co-ordinator of a group of exiled Iraqi gay men who monitor homophobic attacks inside Iraq, said the fatwa had instigated a 'witch-hunt of lesbian and gay Iraqis, including violent beatings, kidnappings and assassinations.'"

Such stories belie the (always fatuous) notion that the "soft" Islamists are somehow ideological brethren of America's Christian Right. Opposing legal recognition of homosexual relationships, or defending the linkage between marriage and procreation, can hardly be conflated with a solicitation for murder. In other words, if you consider the "Christianists" and "theocons" a rabble of inveterate bigots, don't look too closely at what Ayatollah Sistani has to say.

Definitely don't look at his web page. A quick troll through Sistani Online reveals that all those who do not believe in "Allah and His Oneness" are infidels, and as such are deemed "najis" (or "unclean"). Jews and Christians may or may not be najis, but either way "it is better to avoid them."

Then there's Sistani's official representative in the United States, a charming bloke named Sheikh Fadhel al-Sahlani. This past January, Sahlani told the New York Sun that the Holocaust "has been exaggerated," which is why he endorsed Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's proposed Holocaust "conference" in Tehran. As for Ahmadinejad's call that Israel be "wiped off the map"? Right idea, just too impractical, said the Queens-based imam. "It is a kind of dream, but we have to be realistic. Even we have to accept a fact that we don't like."