Harry's Place

I predict a riot.

Interesting that being aware of the wonders of the world entails a total undeviating obedience to the next world.

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

oh the New Statesman, what a mess

Was this public knowledge before now? The Youtube suggests so, but if so how could the NS have picked this horrific reactionary as such a senior member of staff? I am genuinely very surprised. Despite it going downhill in recent years, the NS is supposed to stand against everything this vile man seemingly stands for.

This *should* be explosive, surely?

Oh dear

But it won’t be explosive becasue only 2.5 people care about the NS

I must admit to having not (yet) read it all, but didn’t GK Chesterton foresee all this in “The Flying Inn”?

“In reply to this you will object–” proceeded her preceptor, “that some inns are actually named after the symbols of your national superstitions. You will hasten to point out to me that the Golden Cross is situated opposite Charing Cross, and you will expatiate at length on King’s Cross, Gerrard’s Cross and the many crosses that are to be found in or near London. But you must not forget,” and here he wagged his green umbrella roguishly at the girl, as if he was going to poke her with it, “none of you, my friends, must forget what a large number of Crescents there are in London! Denmark Crescent; Mornington Crescent! St. Mark’s Crescent! St. George’s Crescent! Grosvenor Crescent! Regent’s Park Crescent! Nay, Royal Crescent! And why should we forget Pelham Crescent? Why, indeed? Everywhere, I say, homage paid to the holy symbol of the religion of the Prophet! Compare with this network and pattern of crescents, this city almost consisting of crescents, the meagre array of crosses, which remain to attest the ephemeral superstition to which you were, for one weak moment, inclined.”

And yet they let me do a Q&A for the website.

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/07/women-rights-religion-god

But they have a ‘faith’ column. What’s the NS doing with a ‘faith’ column?

He’s a kuffarphobic bigot!

It’s an outrage – don’t the NS have an anti-discrimination policy to deal with such stereotype peddlers?

Why does he bother writing in a mag aimed primarily at idiots & cattle? Shouldn’t he just resign? Or will his articles in future be addressed to “kuffars, cattle & idiots”?

It says nothing good about the state of British, and European, society that this kind of speech doesn’t automatically put Hasan beyond the limits of public discourse and doesn’t automatically disqualify him for a position as one of the voices of mainstream popular opinion. Why does he get a polite welcome and a prestigious platform, instead of contemptuous dismissal and the cold shoulder? It’s as if it were to be unremarkable to appoint a flat-earther as an editor of New Scientist, or a declared misogynist to the board of a women’s college. The old line about not opening your mind so wide your brain falls out has more than a little truth to it. It’s less the Hasan’s I worry about, than the “intelligentsia” that think we must give him a respectful hearing.

I refuse to enter into an arguement with pig shit.

I suspect the “faith” column is to get in well needed funding for the NS, I wonder when the Tories will get their own column too?

It gets worse and worse.

Just had a look at the New Statesman website. An article by Mehdi is headlined, and guess what the title is? ‘Brown’s lost herd’. The synopsis accompanying the headline talks about the ‘goats’ in Brown’s cabinet deserting. Looks like he can’t restrain his contempt for us.

The first quotation is from Betrand Russell (not G.B. Shaw – who was more of an agnostic, a philosophical position equally deserving of death in islam.)

Very few Muslims in the UK will disagree with anything that Mehdi Hasan has to say about the kufr -the usual word for infidels – that my many ex-muslim acquaintances tell me is loaded with more hate and opprobirium (because given by allah) than the detestable n-word could ever be.

When will the people here who express surprise about this, start to read the koran, the hadiths and the sirat rasul allah – the islamic canon and primary sources – and see for themselves that what e.g. Andy Choudary and the delightful M. Hasan say is the true islam.

Presumably this man will now be sacked by the N.S.?

Islamic theology says that the following ten things are filthy and all to be avoided :
Urine/Faeces/Semen/Corpse/Blood/Dog/Pig/*Kafir*/Alcohol/Animal Sweat .
>http://www.al-islam.org/laws/najisthings.html<

Indeed, he does not seek to persuade his Muslim audience that atheists, kuffar and disbelievers are “cattle” and “people of no intelligence” – instead he simply tells them this is an unquestionable fact merely because the Quran says so

“Merely”…no that’s exactly the point…..those attitudes follow if you start with the premise that the Koran is the perfectly transcribed dictation of the creator of the universe.

And that premise is right at the core of Islam, it’s entirely mainstream. It’s what makes Islam so appallingly dangerous and nasty.

History shows Islam is repeatedly re blueprinted against the Koranic standard.

Nice to know!

Let’s be precise, however…

“Why then does he think that he has right to stand up in a mosque and defame and insult others on account of their beliefs?”

He does have the right to insult people in a mosque or elsewhere. And there is no legal protection against defamatory generalisations, unless they be racial.

This video should disqualify him from being any kind of editor for any respectable magazine, however, because it exposes him as a fool and a bigot.

In the light of this, can those of us who contribute to this site from the Islamosceptic wing please have an apology for being described as paranoid, racist, petty-minded, hateful, obsessed and all the rest when we have pointed out the nature of mainstream Islam and the taqqiya that goes with it.

Presumably Mehdi Hasan doesn’t call Kaffirs unintelligent cattle in his New Statesman columns. If he does, I withdraw the charge of taqqiya.

Interesting. In the context of Mehdi’s speech – in that he refers to those who “remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam” – he is not only taking about “atheists”, but all non-Muslims.

Field: He does use such ‘unparliamentary’ language in ‘The New Statesman’, see my contribution above. Poor old GBS must be spinning in his grave. Twirling and pirouetting.

Unfortunately I can’t make a stand by cancelling my subscription to the NS over this more recent spiralling decline in standards: I stopped that when it published the front page with the Star of David piercing the Union Jack. I also was responsible for ordering it for the Institution I worked for; and they cancelled too.

Pity; it used to be an interesting read.

The idea that the bovine hordes of harrys place would take an excerpt from a speech at face value,without bothering to listen to it in its entirety is simply to ridiculous to be entertained.Right???

Where the Guardian leads, the New Statesman follows. Can the BBC be far behind? As for the veracity of the absurd Koran, findings such as this will shake Islam to its sandy foundations, taking the vile Hassan and his ilk to well deserved oblivion.

The implication of these and other findings here presented is that the early Arab rulers adhered to a sect of Christianity. Indeed, evidence from the Koran, finalized at a much later time, shows that its central theological tenets were influenced by a pre-Nicean, Syrian Christianity. Linguistic analysis also indicates that Aramaic, the common language throughout the Near East for many centuries and the language of Syrian Christianity, significantly influenced the Arabic script and vocabulary used in the Koran. Finally, it was not until the end of the eighth and ninth centuries that Islam formed as a separate religion, and the Koran underwent a period of historical development of at least 200 years.

Sue R, I think you’ll find “goats” is an acronym for “Government of All the Talents”.

Sue R –

What Phomesy says and in any case that is just the usual political knockabout. Lytton Strachey wanted to have Lloyd George publicly castrated on the steps of St Paul’s for his involvement in prosecuting the Great War. GBS was equally acerbic.

The issue here is whether a large number of people engaged in mainstream Islam are being taught to view the majority of their fellow citizens with contempt and whether as a result many – like it would seem Hasan – do harbour such feelings although they take care not to make them known in most settings…especially when dealing with non-Muslims.

I think I could turn and live with the animals…They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins; They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God…Not one kneels to another, nor his kind that lived thousands of years ago…

Christopher Lee recites it best, while Britt Ekland despoils a young virgin.

Psalm 14: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good.”

He will have an explanation for this.

He will stay in his job.

I think you’ll find he is simply relating what the Quran has to say about non-believers, not saying he agrees with it.

HP seems to have scored a spectacular own goal with this post, confirming Hasan’s point that mickey mouse bloggers are not fit to judge proper, professionally-accredited journalists like himself.

Doh!

He sounds almost as bad as M O RE G U F F! But a little less Dungeons and Dragon-y.

Alcuin –

The BBC is fully signed up. It took several days to report on the recent appalling acid honour attack in Leytonstone and only got round to it several hours after the Evening Standard. The Standard had a fair report which put it in context and had some balancing PC material. From the BBC’s version you had no idea that any of the people involved were Muslim. The victim was simply “Danish”. In fact I am not even sure the word “honour” was used at all.

It’s rather sinister I would say.

Incidentally I put this forward as an example of deceptive reporting motivated by a desire to protect Islam. I don’t myself make much of honour killings as a uniquely evil aspect of Islam as some do. In fact “honour” killings are known in other cultures and the Western equivalent of “jealous rage” incidents where a partner seeks to leave a relationship results I would say in probably more gruesome murders than do honour killings, even on a per capita basis.

Larkers: Field and Phomesy have already provided the explanation.

Field, except that ‘honour’ is not always sexual infidelity. i agree it is not solely a Muslim phenomenon, it is generally Eastern. However, at this moment in the West, it is being practiced by immigrants of a certain religion. I don’t knowd about your more gruesome murders on a per capita basis, I would like to see some stats on that.

In the light of this, can those of us who contribute to this site from the Islamosceptic wing please have an apology for being described as paranoid, racist, petty-minded, hateful, obsessed and all the rest when we have pointed out the nature of mainstream Islam and the taqqiya that goes with it.

Reuqest denied. Once again you are attributing the speeches of a few loudmouths to an entire population

Here in Canada, we’ve just had a huge possible “honor” killing uncovered. Bodies of 3 sisters and an “aunt” were discovered submerged in a lock of the Rideau Canal near Kingston, Ont. The Afghani-origin Muslim family wept and mourned and said the eldest sister liked to go “joyriding” without a license and had asked for the keys. Turns out the “aunt” was the father’s first wife, and now the father, mother and son are in custody for suspected honor killing of three sisters and the “aunt,” who turns out to have been father’s first wife.

That being said, Sue R is dead wrong about honor killing being practiced by “immigrants of a certain religion.” In Canada, Sikhs and Hindus account for at least 50% of the honor killings. I think it’s more regional/cultural/historical than religion-based. Most honor killings seem to occur among families with roots somewhere in or near the Indian subcontinent.

He could be recounting the position of other people rather than putting forward his own opinions.
For example, were I to make a speech in which I said “Al Quaeda resist the degenerate culture of the west” it wouldn’t mean I thought the west was degenerate, even though it might sound like it were that line to be extracted and looked at in isolation.

Just sayin.

Having just forced myself to listen to the rather tedious speech I must say it’s not exactly as described, is it? 90% of it is an attack on the anti-intellectual bias of modern Islam. It is still rubbish because it starts from the premise that all truth and wisdom is already there in the Koran but it is not quite the rabid rant that has been suggested. The section that has been nealy extracted says that the atheist is a fool because he cannot see the bigger Truth (ie God) – sounds exactly like the Catholic priests of my childhood.

Hmmm, Walter – stretching it a bit, I feel. He doesn’t say “Some people think…” he says “The Koran says…” I suppose it is just possible, given that he’s speaking in an Islamic centre, that he goes on to say “The Koran is, of course, plain wrong on this point” but somehow I doubt it.

Walter, there is no need to be “just sayin’” since the entire speech is made available above for anyone who wishes to hear it. There is no need for you, or anyone else, to speculate.

Many Hizb-u-tahrir activists have mastered the use of anti-caplitalist style speech and try to present their message in a leftist tone. Mehdi Hasan could perhaps be from that background. You had the Guardian with their Dilpazier “sassy suicide bombers” Aslam. But he was only a trainee. Here you have a raving Islamist bigot becoming the Editor.

Craziness.

I wonder when the Tories will get their own column too?

Well the magazine does appear to be staffed by partisan oiks and unprincipled cockwafflers…so you’d fit right in it seems!

Moritz – It’s not just the atheist that is demeaned – it is “kaffars” and “disbelievers” as well. Disbelievers are anyone who does not accept Mohammed’s message, that’s the long and the short of it.

Relating the teachings of the Quran – or what he thinks are its teachings – does not oblige Hasan or anyone else to use the term “kuffar”, which is a racist term. So it is no excuse.

Having just forced myself to listen to the rather tedious speech I must say it’s not exactly as described, is it?

Don’t bother. Four people have pointed this out so far but it’s made sod all difference to the rabid Islamophobes here. The longer this thread goes on, the more ridiculous HP appears. I can assure you that some New Statesman staff have noticed this thread and are having a very hearty chuckle over it :)

I just wanted to idly speculate before getting to a computer with speakers.

To those who have listened to the speech – are you saying that the gist of it is that he is recounting what the Quran says about the ‘kafir’ in order to refute it?

Does he then go on to explain that the Quran is wrong to say what he reports it as saying?

If so, what is his argument against?

Isn’t the point that the Quran can be interpreted in many ways, but Hasan has chosen a particularly offensive passage to sermonise on, and has given it a hateful interpretation.

Or don’t his words mean what they appear to mean?

“Crazy christian fundies believe the Bible to be a book containing rational arguments. This makes the position of their opponents abundantly clear: the unbelievers and infidels are, in the rational words of the bible ‘a bunch of numpties’.”
etc

Quote:
“The unbelievers and infidels are, in the rational words of the bible ‘a bunch of numpties’.”

Mehdi Hassan is another Islamist that has played the liberal establishment’s most dearly held beliefs and been granted a privileged entry in so doing so that he may begin his duty of ‘offensive Jihad’.

The speech he gave at a conference called ‘from Jahiliyyah to Jahiliyyah is the dead give away.

Original, pre Qutb’s revolutionary Islamism, jahiliyyah is the state of ignorance that predates the birth of Islam.

This world of ignorance was defeated by the original Jihad of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH).

The radical revolutionary concept in Qutb was to declare the world to have sunk again into a state of pre-Islamic depravity and ignorance, this includes almost all Muslims except Islamists who are the only true Muslims in Islamist ideology.

Central to Qutb’s radical theo-politics is the concept of ‘offensive Jihad’ to wipe out the current condition of jahiliyyah if necessary by takfir-ing (’excommunicating’) any existing Muslim who opposes such aims and to return the world of Islam 9as well as extending its reach) to an Umma subordinated to the devine law of Sharia.

This is all very easy to spot if one reads the awfully depressing ‘Milestones’ by Qutb.

In political terms it most closely resembles ; the Communist manifesto; mein Kampf, and Lennins ‘What needs to be done’.

Anyone reading Qutb will be able to spot an Islamist a Mile away.

Their strategic deployment of certain terms that have a deep meaning in traditional Islam in the Sunna and in fiqh or islamic Jurisprudence of the Sharia, yet are given a new and radical Qutbist theo-political meaning is a dead give away.

Another strategic manoeuvre when they fear they have been rumbled (this is just like the behaviour of Marxist sects) is to claim that they were just referring to the Koran or Hadith.

Typically this argument is run with mainstream Muslims, with non_muslim liberals a racial/islamophobia, social justice, liberal-left global politics type arguments will also be added with a little dry ice to the swirl of the cloak mystifying deflection.

If I were in any doubt that Mehdi Hassan were an entryist Islamist, then that has been immediately dispelled by the appearance on this thread of two Islamist stooges Shatner’s Basson and Oh No You Don’t

These are Wiki references the core beliefs of Qutb are correct.

I stress Milestones must be on the shelf of anyone who wishes to combat this totalitarian ideology.

Jahiliyyah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyyah

Qutibism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

Qutbs Milestones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma‘alim_fi-l-Tariq

How far has the NS fallen to employ such a reactionary bigot??

Very bloody far indeed!!!!

Oh and another Islamist drone Walter Sobchak seems to have appeared

Meta,

Maybe you could send a copy of “Milestones” to The New Statesmen?

Sue R –

“On average, each year in the UK, around 100 women (or two/three per week) are murdered by their partners or ex-partners, ” from a domestic violence memorial site.

Most of the memorial pictures did not seem to be from Asian families, so I think we can assume the vast bulk of murders is from non-Muslim families.

I can see that people are starting to argue that this passage is quoted out of context.

If you are going to argue that, please explain the context in which a religious person, quoting from a religious text, in a religious context might speak those words – but might mean something other than their apparent meaning.

“The kaffar”

He says “kaffar”. Is there a context in which that phrase is not at least derogatory and at worst, racist?

“the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as”

Here Hasan appears to be presenting the view of the Quran and of God on ‘kafars’.

Is there any context in which he might be saying that God is wrong? Or that this is a misinterpretation of the Quran? Does he ever say, at a later point in the speech, that this is a mistaken view or interpretation?

If not, how could this ever be anything but a hateful passage?

“because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world”

Again, is there a context in which describing non Muslims and athiests as like cattle is not an insulting thing to say?

The only context I can think of, is if Hasan is presenting this as a mistaken interpretation of the Quran, which he cites in order to condemn it.

Does he do that?

WHY does he do this? I think the answer to that is as follows.

Firstly, Islam is based on a set of tenets and beliefs that have never been proven and never will be; that all like religion it rests on blind, stupid, belief – and I use the term stupid as a summary of a substantial philosophical position, ie I could expand on that at length if it served a purpose. With Muslims, it does not – it just inflammes them like children when you remove their toy.

Secondly, there are facts about Mohammeds life no Muslim will consider in proper, honest and adult terms in regard to who he was and how unacceptable he was. Islam, like no other religion, is wrapped up in a black impenetrable cape as ugly and defensive and questionable as a burka: no one is allowed to lift it and consider what is underneath.

Thirdly, whenever Islam gets criticised and scrutinised Muslim response is ALWAYS in terms of emotion, indignation, and ‘how dare you’ tit for tat nonsense.

For Muslims, criticism is framed in terms of how much it “offends” them – never in terms of intelligent appraisal, accepting that other people look at Islam very differently than they do – and that is a fact of our human civilisation, and one that Islam cannot override and has no right to disrespect.

People of low esteem abuse others to thereby elevate themselves. Thugs do this violently with knives, supposedly over issues of “respect”. Muslim thugs do it rhetorically, in both the rhetoric and attitude of this creature which is actually very common in Muslim society. They do this, because of the repellent facts about Mohammed’s life and the stupidity of their flawed and juvenile metaphysics. They cannot defend or legitimise those matters; all they can resort to is getting “offended” and reacting to criticism in terms of tit for tat abuse, undermining others as they feel undermined – because they are too stupid to even acknowledge the questionable issues about Islam.

Salman Rushdie says it succinctly over here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Eb6OigpVM

And why has this speech been taken down from the website of the religious institute that hosted them?

I do not accept, by the way, that the Quran – or any text – can only be interpreted in a single way. There are many horrid bits in the Bible.

HOWEVER…

A truly progressive Muslim or Jew or Christian does not emphasise these passages, or makes it crystal clear that they are not talking about people today, or otherwise does there absolute best to lessen their harmful impact.

“Does he then go on to explain that the Quran is wrong to say what he reports it as saying?”

No, on the contrary, by the 54 minute mark, he has worked himself up to such a lather recounting the historic crimes of the kufaar that it’s painful to listen to.

I read this in the NS last week (via here):

If a man is judged by his friends, a political party can surely be judged by its supporters. The New Statesman’s senior editor Mehdi Hasan had a troubling encounter on the Tube last week. “Are you Indian?” demanded a leering, apparently well-oiled skinhead. When Hasan confirmed he was of Indian origin, there followed a sinister tirade: “Your time has come. You’ll be out when my boys get into power.” Whom did he mean, Hasan wondered, the BNP? Then came the answer: “The Tories.”

Am I going out on a limb in suggesting that this doesn’t sound very convincing and frankly made up?

Oh dear, David T seems to realise what a laughing stock his blog has become with this post, and is attempting some rather feeble damage limitation.

Not good enough. Your blogger “Channel 4 Insider” posted anonymously a short section of a speech by Hasan, maliciously taken out of context, to smear him as an Islamic fundamentalist.

If I was you, I’d take this post down immediately, and hope your public contrition stops you from being on the receiving end of a libel writ before it’s too late. And next time leave journalism to the grown ups.

“No, on the contrary, by the 54 minute mark, he has worked himself up to such a lather recounting the historic crimes of the kufaar that it’s painful to listen to.”

Yes I have just listened to the 54 minute mark. It is a remarkable performance, certainly. However, I think he is talking about the martyrdom of Ali, killed by Sunnis – this is not an attack on non Muslims, but rather a recounting of the death of an important Shiite at the hands of those who I suppose later became Sunni.

But, yes, the material at 54″ is very very odd.

“If I was you, I’d take this post down immediately, and hope your public contrition stops you from being on the receiving end of a libel writ before it’s too late. And next time leave journalism to the grown ups.”

I cannot think of any context in which these words are acceptable. Feel free to suggest one.

Jeepers, this “Oh No You Don’t” nitwit is an annoying poser, isn’t he?

Oh dear, this blog is being attacked by a Muslim doing exactly as I described in my previous post: unable to consider the issues (s) in question – in this case, hate speech denunciations of all non Muslims – they resort to accusations, sneering, and tit for tat nonsense – mixed in with holier-than-thou threats. How very halal.

Its really very simple – if you can explain and account for this creature’s words and thereby impress upon us he’s a jolly decent chap, why don’t you do so?

Sneering and point scoring testifies to YOUR lack of integrity, not the paucity of intellect at this blog.

You have absolutely no idea whether that poster is a Muslim or not.

For all you know, the author of this piece could be a Muslim.

I will not tolerate essentialising of Muslims, on the basis of one statement by one person. Particularly to suggest that Muslims do not object to the notion that non-Muslims are people of no intelligence is a slur and one which I will not permit any commenter here to make.

Great post by Meta’.

I cannot think of any context in which these words are acceptable.

Hasan is very clearly relating, not his personal views of non-Muslims, the Quranic view of non-believers and the language it uses. That is the context.

If I was you, I’d stop worrying whether his speech is “acceptable” or not and start worrying about the implication of your comment at 7:59pm that Hasan is racist. The sensible thing for you to do is to apologise for that implication, make it clear that you do not believe Hasan is an Islamic fundamentalist, and take down this post.

Field
Thanks.I take your point – I don’t think I quite understood the significance of “kaffars” in this context.

David T

I suggested that the poster was an Islamist stooge because I am interested in ideology not ethnic or confessional status, but there is a problems here is there not?

All Islamists (though not all of their stooges cf Bob Pitt) are Muslims but not all Muslims are Islamists true, but the line is tricky as one doesn’t talk of essentialising Marxists or Trotskyites, though we do of course all the time, as Marxism does not have an ethno-religious association.

The more I think of it the more i see how firmly islamists have grabbed us by the short and curlies.

Indeed I do not, though I strongly suspect it notably in regard to the use of the term “smearing” which frequently gets used by Muslims to undermine legitimate criticism – like it is a “smear” to disprove a scientific thesis.

This coincides precisely with my observations here and substantial experience elsewhere: when Muslims get criticised, they resort to a position (amongst others) basically thus: you don’t understand, out of context, smearing, study the Koran etc etc. all serving the task of obfuscation and deflection.

If Don’t posts here in such duplicitious/combative terms, I see no purpose in engaging him/her at a rational intellectual level any more than you can discuss Plato’s views with a mugger intent on your wallet. So again: if Don’t can explain why Hasan’s words were acceptable and he is in fact a jolly decent chap, he is free to do so. If on the other hand he wants tit for tat hand to hand combat, I’m a veteran at it having seen great swathes of this Muslim behaviour on the internet – if indeed s/he is Muslim and I repeat again I strongly suspect it etc.

Mettaculture – I love you too, you personification of verbal diarrhoea you.

Anyway, I can’t find the full speech, just the snippet above, so I guess we can’t be sure. If I had to guess I’d… well I’d rather not guess. The fact that it’s been taken down by the original site is suspicious, I will grant.

Maybe whoever snipped the juicy bit could upload the whole thing?

Clearly “Oh no You Don’t” hasn’t bothered to listen to the entire speech.

(PS, I’m just Walter Sobchak on a different computer).

I have no comment to make on whether or not Hasan is racist, or the nature of his religious faith.

He does appear to use the word “kufar”. I think that it is not unreasonable to regard the word “kufar” as an offensive term, as many would regard – for example – the term ’shiksa’. If you believe that kufar is best understood as a technical term for a non-Muslim, devoid of any offensive content, then say so. But I think that most Muslims would avoid using this term.

Do you seriously think that a journalist for a liberal paper would attempt to sue Harry’s Place by arguing that it is improper to disapprove of the use of the term ‘kuffar’? That it is defamatory to do so?

I see that your other argument is that this is not Hasan’s own view, but rather merely a report of God’s view.

If this is your argument, then I don’t think it is a very good one. If an athiest were to recount a piece of religious doctrine, then they could fairly say that they are not endorsing its contents. But I think that when a religious man, at a religious event recount ‘the word of God’ to his audience, he does so in order to communicate divine truth. This is not a man saying that some believers think X and others think Y. This is a man quoting from God and from the Quran.

When a religious person informs his audience of God’s word, does he do so in order to encourage them to reject the divine knowledge?

Come on. If you have a case, make it.

(and now I see the link above isn’t the video snippet). It’s bloody long isnt it. However having listened to the first minute, clearly the theoretical explanation I put forward doesn’t hold.

Damn… apparently I’m a really rubbish Islamist Drone!

Maybe whoever snipped the juicy bit could upload the whole thing?

It IS uploaded. Look in the original post. Sheesh…

I cannot think of any context in which these words are acceptable.

Hasan is very clearly relating, not his personal views of non-Muslims, the Quranic view of non-believers and the language it uses. That is the context.

You are not being clear. You appear to be saying, it was not Hasans personal views but views expressed in the Koran.

Which, then, should we condemn?

That will do for starters – though whether or not Hasan was thinking this himself is not changed by YOU simply saying he didn’t really mean it. Sorry, I’m onto you – you just don’t like seeing Hasan/a Muslim being criticised like this and YOU smear this in terms of a “smear”.

I’m sorry, that doesn’t wash. If I started raving that “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves…” and were accused of homophobia as a result, it would be an odd defense to claim that I was merely quoting Christian Scripture in the book of Romans, unless the rest of what I said provided [a] some context for this – like a discussion of different biblical views on sexuality and [b] disavowed personal support for this view.

Otherwise, why would I be quoting from it – unless I believed it and thought it justified my own view?

Is there anything else in Hasan’s speech that indicates he questions or disagrees with the Quranic view of anything?

Is the term “atheist” in the Quran, or is Hasan in fact bringing historical Quaranic views up-to-date, giving them contemporary relevance?

Uh oh… I kept listening and am turning back into an Islamist Drone.

Summary of the speech so far: In the beginning Islam was great! We invented everything. Learning and all that stuff was to the fore. But what about now? We’re backward! We’re behind everyone. The Muslim world is scientifically puny! Closed off! That’s modern Islam. etc etc

Basically I’d say so far it is a robust liberal Muslim call to action in the field of science and development. A call to open up to foreign cultures.

So Oh No You Don’t has started on the threats now. A familiar pattern.

Ross – You’re out on a limb as you have no evidence. But let’s put it this way: I have never seen a Tory skinhead and I have never heard of any racial incident involving someone citing his Tory Party membership as being associated with an attack. I live in London and have seen a fair amount of London life – including a fair amount of unpleasant racism.

Earlgrey – Very good analysis. I would confirm that Muslims are in my experience very unwilling to debate their beliefs. Or rather they will debate them up to the point where you catch them in some clear contradiction . At that point they either stop dead or resort to clerical authority (”a scholar could answer that better than I can”) or make some generalisation about Allah knowing the answer.

“Uh oh… I kept listening and am turning back into an Islamist Drone….”

Well, keep listening…

It is possible Hasan was speaking in that manner to denounce foul and unacceptable parts of the Koran – no worse than the same in regard to the Bible, but with massive and serious ramifications that do not apply to Christians.

So, again, which is it: are we condemning the Koran here, or Hasan? I’m quite happy to accept that Hasan is a jolly decent chap who recognises the evil impact the Koran has and the problematic verses in question.

So, again, which is it: are we condemning the Koran here, or Hasan? Over to you, Don’t. Or not, as the case may be, because you’ve been rumbled.

I listened to the whole speech (well most of it anyway) and I hate to break it to you but the ENTIRE point of his speech is that the modern Muslim world is “intelectually stagnant” as opposed to the “golden age” of the past, and how Islam actually obliges the Muslim to acquire knowledge “even if you have to go to China”. He was embarrassed when a Muslim girl said Sky News was owned by the Jews (that’s about where I got). While this specific part of his speech is a bit disturbing, the overall message was that Muslims need to acquire knowledge and challenge themselves on a daily basis and have a full understanding of their prayers instead of accepting them at face value. It seems like when he said that specific part he wasn’t trying to insult the “non-believers” and wasn’t giving the extremist message of how “infidels” are stupid or evil like many Islamists (he talked about how Muslims need to translate foreign literature in order to understand the rest of the world and talks about how in the past Muslims learnt Hebrew in order to exchange knowledge), but his main point was that Islam brings knowledge with it. I for one think you guys are overreacting and should give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he might have simply made a judgement error in conveying his point in that small part or that he didn’t mean what he implied in that specific part, and maybe give him a chance to explain what he said.
DavidT, I’m kind of surprised at you, did you hear the ENTIRE speach that was linked to (go to this sentence in the post: “the speech has now been removed from the IUS website, but we have archived a copy”)? When a man talks for an hour about the importance of knowledge and truth seeking and understanding other cultures and exchanging knowledge with them, and dedicates less than a minute to a small problematic and questionable sentence that might just have a different meaning to it, don’t you think he should at least have the benefit of the doubt before labeling him an extremist Islamofasist?

Ctd…

[furious koran thumping] Koran says lots of positive stuff relating to thought, reading, wisdom, thinking, again and again! [more furious koran thumping] in the Koran, it’s the unbelievers that are the ignorant ones!!! [thump thump, points at sky (I'm guessing)] in the Koran the atheists are dumb asses! They are Cattle…

(here he is definitely putting forward the Koran as the truth)

I hereby tender my resignation as Islamist Drone.

This post claims to “expose” Mehdi Hasan.

As what, exactly? Have the guts to state it plainly.

The only thing “exposed” by this post is the arrogant stupidity of Harry’s Place bloggers and the Muslim-haters they attract to their threads.

I am struggling to think of an interpretation of this passage that does not mean what it appears to say:

- that the Quran and Allah teach that those who reject Islam are ‘a people of no intelligence’

- that to reject Islam is to make you akin to cattle, without the capacity to wonder about the world.

Now, what is the context in which that is not a remarkable thing for a senior editor of a left wing newspaper to say?

Now, look. There are certainly contexts in which some religious people have a sort of divided consciousness. In their every day life, they regard members of other religions as their equals in every way. However, they also cling to a religious faith which teaches that they are much better than those of other and no religion.

How do they reconcile those two beliefs. Well, they might develop the attitude that ‘God’s mansion has many rooms” and ‘there are many paths to God’ and ‘even athiests are serving God, whether they know it or not”, when pressed on the point. Or they might say that it isn’t for them to make such judgements, and that God works in a mysterious way. They might say certain prayers and so on, that contain the ‘difficult’ passages, but don’t dwell on them.

For example, Brett gave the example of the Bible’s apparent condemnation of homosexuality. That comes from St Paul. What do most progressive Christians say? Simple. That St Paul was wrong. Or that he was talking about the institution of temple prostitution among the heathers. Or that he was talking about promiscuity, but not a loving and monogamous relationship. Clearly, they find this passage very difficult, and only ever mention it to confound prejudice, not perpetuate it.

What does Hasan do? Any of this?

No. The passage comes from a peroration on intelligence in which Hasan explains that the epitome of ‘no intelligence’ is failure to accept the ‘rational message of the Quran’. He does so in public, in front of an audience which cheer his words. He ends with an incredibly emotional finale, in which he and the audience weep together. It is a remarkable and very powerful performance.

The one thing it isn’t, is a refutation of the particular religious truth that he puts forward.

It seems like when he said that specific part he wasn’t trying to insult the “non-believers”

I’m not “insulted”, and do not accept the inflammed and petulant rhetoric of “offence” to which Muslims/Arabs are so predisposed, and so violently.

his main point was that Islam brings knowledge with it

I don’t agree – on every level, from the obscurantist/childish (non) metaphysics, down to how Islam regards women, fee speech, animal welfare, intact genitals, Hindus, Jews, homosexuals, sex itself, free speech, and a whole lot more.

If Hasan was condeming hate and stupidity in the Koran, good on him – it needs doing. We’ve had hundreds of years that in regard to the Bible and now its the turn of Islam.

Where is the evidence he was doing that, contrary to the emotional inflection in his voice?

I don’t mind, really, either way: lets discuss vile parts of the Koran and how they inspire violence, hatred, racism and murder, or lets discuss Hasan and how he subscribes to those parts.

“I listened to the whole speech (well most of it anyway) and I hate to break it to you but the ENTIRE point of his speech is that the modern Muslim world is “intelectually stagnant” as opposed to the “golden age” of the past, and how Islam actually obliges the Muslim to acquire knowledge “even if you have to go to China””

And to illustrate that point, he explains that the Quran teaches that to reject Islam is to be like cattle, and of ‘no intelligence’.

Does this mean that he is a fascist? No, I do not think it does.

It does, however, mean what it says. That to reject the message of the Quran means that you are a person of no intelligence.

That is an unpleasant thing to say. It is unpleasant to say anything derogatory about members of other cultural groups. That is why I will not accept essentialising about ‘Muslims’. It is manifestly false, and it is both insulting and sectarian.

This is the thing. If Alan Rusbridger gave a sermon in a church in which he said

“The non-Christians, the athiests, the infidels who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Christianity, the rational message of the Bibile; they are described in the Bible as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Jesus describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Bible describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

… what would your reaction be?

That it was most unfair to criticise the incongruity of a man who lectures others on the importance of tolerance and of not stereotyping cultural groups in print, but who declaims that God regards non-Christians ‘people of no intelligence’ from the pulpit?

The anti-Muslim trolls on this website should really shut the fuck up. There is nothing stupider that Mehdi Hasan’s idiotic bigotry…except for you to object to it by being just as idioticall bigoted! By interpreting the Quran literally you are being just as stupid as the fundamentalist Islamists or Christians or Jews or Hindus who interpret milennia old texts literally! As a Jew who has lived for many years in Italy, Germany, Turkey and Israel, I can assure you that no one — NO ONE — has a monopoly on bigoted foolishness. The whole point is to separate Islamist bigots like Mehdi Hasan from the vast majority of Muslims around the world who practice a benign, tolerant and enlightened version of their faith. And such a thing exists — in fact it is prevalent in most Muslims countries. Which is why the Establishment’s embrace of Islamism is so confounding — when you have a Shiraz Maher what the hell are you doing consorting with the Inayat Bunglawals or the Mehdi Hasans of this world?!

DT I think he was emphasising the corollary (right word?) that if his audience wished to be considered as Muslims, they must prize and value knowledge and learning.

The speech was very much a sermon, and took the opposite position to pro-jihad islamists.

Quite strange that such a full-on religionist would be editor of the New Statesman, but there you go. I think this article is slightly unfair cherry-picking.

Just highlights the fact that The New Statesman is no longer a leftwing paper. I really, really wish that someone would set up a new discussion paper but I suppose this is not the time. I often go into the newsagents and wish I could buy something to read, and apart from the TLS there is nothing. Makes me wish I had a subscription just so that I could cancel it. (By the way Field, I am aware that non-Muslim men are violent towards women, there is a horrible case going on at the moment and the perpentrator was not a Muslim, but I don’t think adding to the violence in society is a good thing.).

Hasan explains that the epitome of ‘no intelligence’ is failure to accept the ‘rational message of the Quran’. He does so in public, in front of an audience which cheer his words. He ends with an incredibly emotional finale, in which he and the audience weep together. It is a remarkable and very powerful performance. The one thing it isn’t, is a refutation of the particular religious truth that he puts forward.

Fine. So we know where we stand – we are discussing Hasan here, not the Koran.

We agree there is evil stupidity in the Koran, that needs challenging and condemning like every other book in existence where appropriate.

And in this case, we are considering a misguided, arrogant, dangerous Muslim shit-head for a form of hate speech in the same genre as a Hitler rally, based on the Koran.

Not acceptable, Muslims. Deal with it.

What Leon said.

Precisely, Leon.

You will certainly find some Jews who do use the word ‘goy’ – which literally means ‘nation’ – as an insult. Some do so colloquially, and some do so in a religious context.

Now, ‘goy’ can also be used in a religious context in which it is not offensive at all. For example, the Bible has God telling Abraham that the Jews will become a nation. Goyim might also be used neutrally – for example to say that Jews have to keep kosher, but God doesn’t require the ‘goyim’ (i.e. any people who are not Jewish) to do so. That would be wholly neutral.

But that isn’t what is being said here, by Hasan. He is saying that the Quran teaches that non-Muslims are ‘people of no intelligence’. That is a derogatory thing to say. This isn’t simply ‘Muslims must strive to be intelligent’. This is ‘Muslims must strive to be unlike non-Muslims, who the Quran teaches are people of no intelligence’.

In a colloquial context, a mother might use the word ‘goy’ disparagingly to mean, essentially, ‘people who are not like us’. You will accordingly find very few Jews comfortable about using the word ‘goy’ at all – because it is essentially the counterpart of ‘yid’. If you object to ‘yid’ you shouldn’t use ‘goy’. Even though ‘yid’ is a yiddish word, it is more commonly deployed against Jews by racists. Similarly, ‘kafir’ is the term of abuse by Muslim bigots for non Muslims.

By interpreting the Quran literally you are being just as stupid as the fundamentalist Islamists or Christians or Jews or Hindus who interpret milennia old texts literally

I am doing no such thing. I couldn’t give a shit about the Koran and how to interpret it; what does concern me is how Muslims interpret it and, specifically, how they sanctify and revere it and deny all criticism with, often, quite literally, murderous vehemence.

The issue here is the Koran and its relationship to Muslims, not critics like myself who don’t subscribe to it and in fact condmen it.

LOL at the end. Not a dry eye in the house.
Did they stick some reverb on at the end to make it more emotional? What a wacko.

The orgy of sobbing – is that a Shia thing I wonder?

“And in this case, we are considering a misguided, arrogant, dangerous Muslim shit-head for a form of hate speech in the same genre as a Hitler rally, based on the Koran.”

No it is not in the same genre as a Hitler rally.

It is a sermon in which Hasan urges his audience to differentiate themselves from non-Muslims, who are people of no intelligence, by educating themselves. It then moves on to a final section, which is highly emotional, because it deals with the martyrdom of important religious figures.

This is a heterogenous speech which covers a number of topics, one of which is the lack of intelligence and cattle like nature of athiests. He does not urge people to attack athiests, or to despise them, or anything at all. He simply says something deeply unpleasant about athiests.

This does not make him a jihadist, as Homercles points out above.

It is, however, a very unpleasant thing to say, and the sort of thing which I would hope never to hear from a senior religious figure, let alone an editor of a Left wing newspaper.

What Leon said. Spot on.

I dont want to give out any spoilers, but presumably part two is this wig-out at the end of the recording. You MUST listen to the whole thing.

“The orgy of sobbing – is that a Shia thing I wonder?”

I think it may be, with some Shia.

Yeah, it is a bit odd.

I mean, is it any odder than those people who drag crosses along the Via Dolorosa? Or Jews reciting the poem about the Ten Martyrs while beating their chests and singing on Yom Kippur?

It’s very disconcerting, because the noises sound like me when I’m crying with laughter. Anyway. Religious people, eh?

Yeah. I don’t have any problem with religious people being odd. I mean, religion is only a form of ritualised social behaviour. If you’re an athiest, why condemn odd religious behaviour when you wouldn’t similarly condemn – oh I dunno – unicycling or some other pointless and eccentric form of behaviour.

But there is a difference, I think, between engaging in a group crying session – which is a cultural pursuit – and expressing the view that God thinks that everybody who doesn’t join His religion are of no intelligence.

It is a sermon in which Hasan urges his audience to differentiate themselves from non-Muslims, who are people of no intelligence, by educating themselves

Which is, thematically, precisely what Hitler did:

1) raise the Germans esteem by saying they were superior Aryans (arise, awake! etc)

2) demonise others by saying they were the scourge, plague, evil etc

is it any odder than those people who drag crosses along the Via Dolorosa? Or Jews reciting the poem about the Ten Martyrs while beating their chests and singing on Yom Kippur?

The ‘oddness’ of it doesn’t bother me; it is uniform bullshit.

What bothers me is how millions of worldwide Muslims hate me and thousands are putting this into violent action, some of them in the UK.

Coming across the New statesman in my teens, I feel sure that it did a lot to help develop my infidel outlook on life. How strange to think that its editors might be doing the opposite for malleable young minds these days, even if the founders of the magazine would probably have burst a blood vessel at the thought.

Not strange at all – the supposed Left has been poisoned by a collusion with a theological extreme Right, and so called multiculturalism has decayed into something different: cultural relativism, on which intellectual stance it becomes tricky to recognise, condemn and reject the culturally inferior like unequal and barbaric treatment of women, and denouncing non believers as thick.

So here’s another point: were there any women at Hasans Muhammedan rally?

precisely what Hitler did

Yes, I am sure Mehdi Hasan is plotting the invasion of Poland, by way of tears, right now.

Perhaps some people who abuse history in despicable ways in their petty and fruitless online battles with Islam (all of it, in this case on the back of a few words from one man) might benefit from reading this report:

http://www.eisca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/nazicard.pdf

That’s the camp you’re in.

As cattle – did you notice how he spits it out the second time? CATTLE. You really have to hear it. This was no sober dissertation, this was plainly heartfelt. I really wouldn’t want to work in the same office as someone who viewed me as bovine.

Well done David – like you said, imagine Russbridger labeling atheists with such contempt and argument is over.

As, I said, Colin, go read “The Flying Inn” by GK Chesterton. Written the best part of a century ago, it tells a tale in which England has become an Islamic country, and one in which the pushy and bossy and self-righteous bien pensant metropolitan bourgeoisie are at the forefront of promoting Islam – - using spurious claims of a nature almost identical to those that one encounters not infrequently in various media these days.

I mean, it really is in the execution. I challenge anyone not to HEAR the speech and not be reminded of the very worst hate-mongers.

those attitudes follow if you start with the premise that the Koran is the perfectly transcribed dictation of the creator of the universe.

So how come its got so many mistakes in it? How do Muslims deal with the errors. http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

Yes, I am sure Mehdi Hasan is plotting the invasion of Poland, by way of tears, right now.

Perhaps some people who abuse history in despicable ways in their petty and fruitless online battles with Islam

Excuse me? Here comes the Muslim brigade to do Allah’s work, I see.

Entirely consistent with my first post at this blog, noting how Muslims cannot deal with any criticism and drag it down into a tit for tat gutter like a bloody sub continent conflict, or indeed a Gazan one.

Try this.

I SAID, the same “genre”. Making specific reference to encouraging racial division, and denouncing others as inferior – not with reference to specific values (as I did), but as mere mudlfinging.

Since I made no reference whatsoever to Poland, Aushwitz or any other Nazi act I put it to you that YOU are expressing a “despicable abuse” of what I said, and you do so for the sake of “Allah” and “Islam” which you can’t stand being criticised and exposed.

Over to you, Habibi: are you now going to condemn

a) Hasan’s words or
b) the Koran where it says such things?

Your taqiyaa ranting doesn’t deflect for one moment what the issue here is, I’m afraid.

I can see that people are starting to argue that this passage is quoted out of context.

Does he do that?

If someone from the BNP wrote a pamphlet describing non-whites as ‘animals’ and people of ‘low intelligence. We would ban the pamphlet and arrest those distributing its message for hate crimes.

So, if someone puts forward that their book says that non-Muslims are “animals” and of lower intelligence then why don’t we arrest the speaker and ban the literature – ie the Koran?

Why this double-standard?

Homercles

Terribly sorry its all in the timing but glad you got to a PC and resumed your usual identity (and listened to the speech and its tone)

I will do penance, before getting back to my drone filled Ian m Banks novel.

Hmmm, I’ve finished listening to the whole speech, and, aside from the notorious reference to the Kuffaar early on, it was a pretty inoffensive speech. The oddest part, for some, would’ve been where he’s recounting th various madhloumiyyat (acts of injustice/iniquities) wrought on the Family of the Prophet and this induces mass screaming abdabs on the part of the audience – this is all part of the various passion plays and story-telling that commemoratesthe martyrdom of Husayn, but it does seem rather incongruous tacked onto a speech about knowledge or lack of it.

I have mixed feelings about the term kuffaar (sing. kaafir). You never hear people use it Arabic these days outside of a religious context. Indeed, most always, it’s some clever dick interspersing his English with Qur’anic terms for added gravitas. When it’s used as such, I find it offensive, because it dehumanises and essentialises non-Muslims in equal measure.

That said, I think his analogy with the cattle, taken as it was from the Qur’an, was an abstract thing and not meant to be offensive to all non-Muslims directly.

NB When Brett said that there was something dodgy at 54″, I think he must’ve have misheard (sound is pretty dire at that point). I’m positive Hasan mentioned Kufa (the place) and not Kuffaar.

Why this double-standard?

Well, that’s an interesting question.

I think that you can draw a distinction between three sorts of religious people. First, there are those for whom their belief is essentially a cultural and spiritual identity. Secondly, there are those who are literalists, or who adhere to one particular literalist and ‘conservative’ tradition. Finally, there are those who are active interpreters of religious tradition.

Now, in each of these groups, you will find those for whom religion challenges retrograde social attitudes, and those for whom religion bolsters those attitudes.

For example, a culturally religious person may give little thought to the meaning of religious texts, but simply engages in the ritual. Religion might lead him to regard non-believers as inferior, or it might encourage him to see other men as fellows.

Similarly a conservative literalist or a creative interpreter might equally regard religion as the source of his obligation to act charitably, or alternatively to firebomb abortion clinics.

So I don’t think that it is ever fair to say that simply because a person identifies as Christian (for example) they are homophobes, because the Bible contains certain unpleasant sentiments voiced by Paul.

Take this passage:

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Now, let us say that a left wing journalist is called upon in church to give this reading. What should he do? I think that he should ask the vicar to let him read another passage. Although there is, as I have mentioned, a ‘neutral’ interpretation of this passage – it is about orgies, or temple prostitution – it is also the verse that has occasioned the persecution and murder of gays.

Alternatively, imagine that a left wing journalist is called upon to give the reading at a wedding. He chooses this passage. What would you say of him?

Finally, imagine that the left wing journalist is invited to give a speech on the importance of marriage at a religious institute. He starts off well, by discussing the value of fidelity, and of the centrality of love to Christianity. He condemns promiscuity. Then he starts to discuss the sexual practices of homosexuals, and quotes from this passage. The lesson he draws is: Christians should not be like homosexuals, who are condemned by God.

Now, I don’t think that it is a defence to say that the left wing journalist was only quoting scripture.

“NB When Brett said that there was something dodgy at 54″, I think he must’ve have misheard (sound is pretty dire at that point). I’m positive Hasan mentioned Kufa (the place) and not Kuffaar.”

Yes, that would make sense.

It is a sermon in which Hasan urges his audience to differentiate themselves from non-Muslims, who are people of no intelligence, by educating themselves

Actually I’d say he’s trying to get them to differentiate themselves from the prevalent lumpen anti-knowledge conspiracy nonsense of many modern-day Muslims through quotes from the Koran that paint Islam as pro-knowledge in contrast to the unbelief in which it found itself during the Golden Age of Amazingness.

So he is making his argument in a derogatory fashion, and of course [eyes Morgoth nervously] it’s all loopy sky-fairy nonsense.

The best you can do by way of a sort-of defence, is to say that religious people really oughtn’t to be taken at their word, when they say things such as gays are sinful, or athiests are people of no intelligence, or what have you. In other words, religious people are sort of holy fools, who can say anything they want, and people really ought not take offence.

That is kind of my attitude to be honest … here’s an example. I know a guy who runs a brewery, and who is very vocal about his devout Christianity. I imagine that he has some pretty odd views, informed by his Bible study, but I’m not sure. He doesn’t tell me that I am going to hell, or that I am stupid, and I like his beer, and I think he is a nice fellow. He doesn’t make his religious views my business, and in fact, they ARE none of my business.

I like Michael Rosen and Craig Murray, even though I think their heads are filled with nonsense – some of it pretty dangerous!

But if you are a politician, or a journalist, or somebody who professionally put their views into the public arena… well, I think you have some difficulties if you want to separate their ‘religious’ views from their other views. I’m not saying that it can’t be done. People DO have a divided consciousness.

However, how do you do it here? Does Hasan really mean what he says, or is this just some sort of act he is going through for religious reasons?

This is what is really odd about the double-standard. What you are essentially doing, when you ‘make allowances’ for the religious, is assuming that it is they who are “people of little intelligence”.

I have some Christian relatives – genuinely nice folk – who attend a quite… strict… church. Every time I go to a wedding or whatever, I have to sit through a dumb sermon with the idiot minister going off on a tangent telling me (not directly) that as an atheist, I am less capable of love, am going to hell etc… Water off a duck’s back.

I wouldn’t see the minister as the obvious choice to be political editor of a left-wing magazine, though. That would be unusual, I grant you.

David T:

Yeah. I don’t have any problem with religious people being odd. I mean, religion is only a form of ritualised social behaviour. If you’re an athiest, why condemn odd religious behaviour when you wouldn’t similarly condemn – oh I dunno – unicycling or some other pointless and eccentric form of behaviour.

Because unicyclist don’t get state subsidy for unicycling schools, use the manual of unicycling to be a fetter on social developments and scientific progress. The unicycling manual is not used as the basis to inform genocidal hate directed users of multi wheeled velocipedes, especially Tandemists as well as non cyclists. There is no cabal of unelected ‘Bishops unicyclists’ sitting in the House of Lords. Unicyclists don’t chop bits of young boy’s and girl’s genitals. They don’t bang on to my son in school about unicycling and and offer daily incantations about unicycling. They generally don’t look askance at non unicylists. They don’t sit there in my house and insist upon banging on arbitrarily about unicycling before we simply break bread and have a dop. They don’t fly wide bodied aircraft into buildings to please the ubber unicyclist. They don’t insist on raising issues relating to unicycling in matters completely unrelated, be it flying aircraft, driving a 4×4 through Africa, or 101 other things….In short unicyclists do not generally get in my face and try to tell me, and others, how to live our lives.

I feel very reassured from the posters here who have explained that Mr Hasan didn’t mean what he appeared to say. That’s alright then.

haha!

But I mean, in politics, there have been some odd associations between progressive politics and a conservative religious tradition. There is Tony Blair, of course, converting to Catholicism. And of course, Ruth Kelly, who is a member of a sinister secret society that hides the truth about the Holy Grail. And let us not even get started with Milliband, who is secretly controlling the world’s finances and press, while sitting like a fat spider on top of a large bag marked with a dollar sign.

In short unicyclists do not generally get in my face and try to tell me, and others, how to live our lives.

Unicyclists, no, I grant you.

But jugglers? That’s a different story.

and what about clowns?

Eh?

EH?

And TV chefs.

For what it is worth, here is Wikipedia on Kafir:

Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word meaning “rejecter” or “ingrate,” also the term “Kuffar” the plural of the word “Kafir” is used to refer to peasants (أَعْجَبَ الْكُفَّارَ نَبَاتُهُ) Surah 57 Al-Hadid (Iron) Ayah 20;[2] as they till earth and “cover up” seeds. The term “Kufr” means “to cover up” this is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” In the Islamic doctrinal sense, the term refers to a person who does not recognize God (Allah) or the prophethood of Muhammad (i.e., any non-Muslim) or who hides, denies, or covers the “truth”. Please keep in mind that the spirit of Quran uses the word equaly for Moslims, in Sura 2 Verse 256, Quran is asking Moslims to take upon themselves the action of “Kofr” of all unjust idols, persons or powers. It is usually translated into English as “unbeliever” “ungrateful” or “obliterator.” In recent times, the term is seen as derogatory, which is why some Muslim scholars discourage its use and suggest the term “non-Muslim” instead.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

The founders of The New Statesman & its readership (until very recently)
knew that islam is of no interest or relevance to the West.
In particular, they knew that as a reactionary force it left nazism asleep at the starting gate.

Reliance on oil & reckless uncontrolled immigration has resulted in far too many of these third world ultra reactionaries settling in Europe.

We should not care what these people think of us. If the left are looking for a
sub class to promote how about supporting the indigenous working class, including black & brown Christians ?

Sikhs & Hindus do not threaten us, but their interests are under represented in public life. Why does the alleged “Left” never speak of their interests, including physical attacks from muslims ?

And TV chefs.

Well I must admit, Nigela Lawson is extraordinarily attractive for a fat chick….nay…dare I say it… shaggable even. Can’t say the same for Rick Stein, though his Vietnam thing last night was totally the dog’s bollocks!

Homercles

The departure point for Qutbist Islamism (ie the Muslim Brotherhood but also later iterations of Maududism fusing with Qutbism) is that it is the Muslim world that is in a state of intellectual depravity and decay unlike the Golden Age of Islam.

Islamism speaks first and foremost to Islam and to Muslims it is only incidentally interested in non-Muslims.

Qutbism seeks an offensive Jihad to destroy the ignorant of the Muslim world especially its leaders who are seen as no longer being real muslims.

But if the goal is a return to the spirit of a pure expansionary, vigorous and ultimately tirumphant Golden Age, then the method is modernism.

Qutbism should not be confused with Salafi neo-traditionalist iterations of Islam.

It is highly modernist in its political theory but also its desire to emulate and learn from the West, ultimately in order to superceed it.

The Koranic references to the demand for the pursuit of knowledge ‘even unto China’ are formulaic and have a ritualistic use, typically these are invoked when a difficult or taboo or uncomfortable subject is being broached.

Such phrases would be used in, say, justifying ‘family planning’ (a good euphemism) campaigns and are commonplace ways in islamic countries, a form of etiqette as well as religious justification for supporting novel thinking or practice.

However in Qutbist/ Muslim brotherhood theo-ideology, this religiously ‘cliched’ terminology has a specific meaning.

In Milestones Qutb spends some time on the pragmatics of acquiring Western knowledge to be harnessed for the goal of a radical re-birth of Islamic civilisation.

He even stipulates the subterfuge and its characteristics by which this may be carried out without being contaminated by western decadence.

Much of this revolves around retaining the greatest adherence to Sharia while sojourning in the West for the purpose of acquiring its knowledge.

For liberal reforming Muslim thinkers of the 19th and early 20th C the problem was the same how to push Muslims out of a culture of inertia and aversion to the West and western science and rationality.

For the liberals (since displaced though there are signs of a renewal of this trend) of course the purpose was to usher in a society based on reason and scientific knowledge.

For the Islamist totalitarians there is the same problem of how to encourage the acquisiton of learning even from the West the end envisaged is a technologically even politically and institutionally modernist society utterly conforming to the demands of the Sharia.

I think you have to bear this in mind, and read it (or rather hear it) in relation to its tone to discern whether this is a call for a liberal reform or a Qutbist/Muslim Brotherhood Islamist species of reform.

My money is on the latter. Read jahiliyyah as akin to Oriental Despotism/Bourgeois Imperialism and imagine a conference called by the ‘Institute of Political Economy ‘called;

‘From Oriental Despotism to Bourgeois Imperialism’

What kind of political flavour would you expect this to have?

All ideologies are identifiable by their buzz words, their jargon. the trouble with, or the genius of depending on your point of view, is that Islamism’s ideology is contained entirely within the vocabulary and idiom of the Sunna and the Sharia.

You are a sentient and very smart drone BTW:)

Yes but this guy is not a Qutbist.

This is absolutely ridiculous, I can’t believe the depths one has to go to to try and attack a person’s character.

This is has been totally taken out of context. Hasan is talking to a group of Muslims about Islamic theology and refers to the Quran and its meanings. Yet again it’s convenient how the rest of the speech is ignored, where he attacks muslims for being backwards, really sounds like the words of an extremist.

When the author says “he simply tells them this is an unquestionable fact merely because the Quran says so,” why ‘merely’, of course Muslims believe the Quran to be the word of truth, why is that a surprise?

Can anyone be bothered to transcribe the whole speech? If you can it would help those of us who couldn’t access it and have only the extract to go on.

I was part of the audience at this talk. If the writer here has any sense of fairness the full speech would be posted, and not snippets, to see the context of the above mentioned half-quotes. This article is like the BS that Laura Ingraham comes out on fox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzcYR2WJoRI

Harry’s Place – I have just seen this unspeakable smear campaign – “part 1″ – against my colleague Mehdi Hasan at the New Statesman. You have just lowered yourself to the rankest form of fact-free, context-free, bent hatchet-job “blogging”. I am one of many outsiders who is repulsed. You pose as a quasi-intellectual blog-site, and yet you operate with no rules of journalism. Let me, therefore, offer you some facts.

I have known Mehdi Hasan for seven years. In that time I have been honoured to know an actively moderate Muslim; easily the most moderate Muslim I have met and among the most religious people I know, and that catagory includes senior members of the Anglican communion to which I belong.

Mehdi Hasan does indeed have a double life: and it is the exact opposite to what your libelous bile presents. At the same time as being dismissed on neo-con sites like this as an “extremist” or fan of bin Laden, he in fact lectures his own community of London Shias of the need to integrate and be fully British. He does this on a weekly or monthly basis.

Only a few months ago Tony McNulty MP – not known for his pro-extremist stances – praised Mehdi Hasan at a public meeting in the House of Commons. He said he was previously unaware that this kind of speaking – in which Muslims were told by a Muslim to inegrate and be British – took place within the community.

This clip which you have seedily honed in on merely shows him sticking up for religion in the way that your heroes Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins denounce it and passionately defend atheism. As a Christian believer myself, I agree with Mehdi Hasan in his comments you seek to sensationalize – tell me then Harry’s Place, does that make me one of your targets, or are your dangerous smears purely based on race?

You have disgraced yourself, and it would be amusing were it not a calculated attempt to damage a man’s reputation. I have never known a more open-minded person who speaks publicly on religion. Many a time have I heard Mehdi Hasan angrily denounce anti-semitism, racism, prejudice of any kind.

If you seriously intend to run this series, by a doubtless fake “Channel 4 insider” – what have you got to hide, C4 Insider? Surely this is a great story if you are on safe ground? – then you had better be prepared for the consequences. Legalities aside, you threaten to shame your web site once and for all.

I feel like I am posting on the BNP site, and it is on that level that you will place yourselves with this pathetic smear, based purely on the fact that Mehdi got the better of your contributors last week. If you are going to go after him, go after me too – as I agree with almost everything he says about the world’s religions.

Mehdi Hasan is a friend, a colleague, and someone who deserves the utmost praise for his amazing role as an educator and moderator of those in his own faith.

It’s time for you to decide: are you going to be a serious blogsite, or are you going to place yourselves in the same catagory as bnp.org.uk?

Think about it.

I’m interested in habibi’s take on this. Do you think that Hasan gets into a religious mode of thinking, where he muses on the more abstract theological levels of what it means to ignore God, getting more and more wound up about it, forgetting that (in context) he is, in citing the Quran in its literal sense, being deeply offensive to non-Muslims, many of whom may be decent moral people?

In other words, does he have the split consciousness David T refers to? Starts off on one cant (secular liberal democracy), tranfers to another diametrically opposite (theological fascism)? Without even noticing?

Isn’t that a bit of a problem if he has? And it is SO split? Oughtn’t he to try to move the two opposing blocks more together?

What I struggle to understand, habibi, is why, if Muslims’ faith is so strong, do they get so wound up about disbelief? Just what is the threat??? Is God sitting weeping up in heaven, getting destroyed, if some ass-hole down on earth disbelieves? Is his power and majesty diminished if some people can’t see him? Surely that’s their loss, not God’s? Why should disbelief negatively affect God or his believers’ belief in him? Surely the truth (if it IS true) survives falsity? Why get defensive?

In many religious traditions there is a belief in ‘truth’ as having some radical transformative power. Hindus believe this – it was the basis of Gandhi’s ’satyagraha’ (the power of the truth). Ancient Ireland’s druidism believed this – uttering untruth caused buildings to collapse, whilst a corrective word of truth caused restoration of order (collapsed buildings miraculously re-constituted themselves). In John’s gospel the evagelist says: ‘And the truth shall set you free’.

Many left wingers have been profoundly influenced by this Christian -Indo-European doctrine – the idea of ’speaking truth to power’. I.e., spiritual / moral truth (spiritual power) confronting worldly power. And winning.

Why don’t Muslims share this outlook? Do they experience the human condition differently? Or did Islam go astray at some point, lose its ability to reflect, take knocks, emerge invigorated? Did it just become lazy and fall back on arrogance and assertion, not living, vibrant faith in the experience and knowledge of God?

Mosheh (above), I really don’t need the whole body of text to tell where this mutt is coming from. So you’re trying to contextualise a damning snippet to make him seem all fluffy and stuff?

You’re deliberately use the smug art of fundamentalist misdirection to keep our left wing ‘elites’ in government and the BBC happy. You’re allowed to apparently – co’s it said you can somewhere.

As far as Mehdi Hasan goes, he’s the new senior political editor of the New Statesman. Says everything about the Left these days.

Thank you Mosheh.. yer a star. Total star

I agree about context. But we have a right to ask tough questions. These are tough times. And his was a tough speech.

What was the acceptable context that Hasan mentions the Quran’s view of non-believers being like cattle? Why is it OK to say that with such passion? What was his point, those of you who were there? Why the contempt? Why is this justifiable?

Oh Harry’s Place. You are so bloody brilliant.

Whatever happened to Faisal Bodi, by the way?

‘Kuffar’ is a vile word, by the way. Make no mistake about it, in Islamic discourse, it has connotations beyond just being a technical term, it is deliberate and cruel, it is to be spat in the face, with hatred and contempt, and supremacist chauvinism and hate. It is a horrible vessel of a word, and all those who banter it are to be stared at for a very, very long time and considered. That someone who bandies it around is working for the New Statesman in such a senior position beggars belief, but shows how rotten that magazine has become.

Why are you trying to portray the use of the word “cattle” as some kind of smoking gun? Do those of you who are atheists not see believers as sheep, say? Do those of you who are Jewish not see Christians as a misguided hurd? Do any Christians out there not see those who deny Christ as blind to His virtues? Does your hero C Hitchens not see religious believers of all kinds as “cattle”? I bet he does. This is so cheap; it really stinks. Can one of the organisers of this compromised blogsite – “DavidT” perhaps, or the humiliated “Brett” – not put a stop to this thread and link, which so shamefully compares Mehdi Hasan to “Hitler” and contains such glib references to “Islamic extremism”? I reckon it’s in your interests to do so. Save your own site. Or would you rather let it run?

JM – I certainly take your point there, about the militant godless like Dawkins and their contempt for believers. But the worry here is Qutb. Speaking angry words has theological credentials, Jesus said: ‘Get thee behind me Satan’ but whatever this Quranic view of the ‘cattle’ was, and however Hasan means it, the worry being expressed here is that Qutb developed it into theo-politics. As has been noted above by others, the worry is that Hasan’s speech seems to change gear from theological abstraction into political contempt for all non-Muslims, even if they are moral persons. That would include Christians such as yourself who persist in belief in Christ.

Wow! All these different names but still the same threat!! Amazing.

Now it’s James Macintyre – misspelling “heard” as hurd – who is issuing dark threats.

Weird eh?

Or is it a case of “war is deception”?

“devorgilla” – and this is my last contribution to this shameful thread – let me thank you for your attempt at reason, despite your disdain for my choosing to “persist” in religion. However, I ask you to scroll upwards and look at this post and co-ordinated smear campaign: it is like a drunkard at closing time, swaying around desperately looking for a fight where the need for one does not exist. One last chance Harry’s Place: be factual; be moderate – or shame yourself among everyone other than your narrow band of commited neo-con supporters. Mehdi Hasan is a moderate who has been baracked and shouted down by Muslims as he demands they integrate to the British way of life. Are you on his side, then, or that of his Muslim opponents?

Mosheh –

Go on then – what’s stopping you giving us the whole speech…?

“field” – by making such a substantial, detailed, important point, you show that you are so clever-clever. Or is it clever-stupid? Good night.

“Bill hardy” – I keep trying to go to bed but keep being alerted to scum-bags like you. You want to say I “hate Jews”? I am part-Jewish; my family is mainly Jewish; I spend quite a bit of my spare time in Israel among Israeli-Jews. So, is it really a “very reasonable assumption” that I “hate Jews”? Or is it mrely a very reasonable assumption that you are yourself a freakish racialist and fool who is heading into libel hot water along with your neo-con allies? We’ll see.

Fascinating that the fearlessly neo-con “Harry’s Place” blogsite has just started to take down posts, such as the one accusing me of “hating Jews”. This is the right direction; I trust you’ll apply such rigour to the unspeakable accusations against my colleague Mehdi Hasan.

“A very reasonable assumption is that you..” was the preface to my ‘hate crime’ for your selective contextualistion. See Moshed above above. What buddies.

Threatening libel.. how sad.

James, if someone made a speech proclaiming all Muslims as people of no intelligence, would you consider that person to be:

(a) Bigoted

(b) Guilty of generalising to a pernicious degree

(c) Neither of the above

Does the political editor of the New Statesman believe that all kuffar are people of no intelligence?

Respond properly, “Bill hardy”: do you think I “hate Jews”?

“Joolz” – as a mini-demonstration of how you are all quite cozy with inaccuracy, I should point out that Mehdi Hasan is not “political editor”. But more importantly, someone needs to explain to me why a religious critique of non-believers as, um, non-believers is so controversial. Let me ask you, “Joolz”, as I have asked others on this deranged thread: would you advocate a hatchet-job against a non-believer on the grounds that they thought all believers are “cattle”? Do you hate Jews for thinking Christians and Muslims have got it wrong? Do you hate Christians for thinking Muslims and Jews have got it wrong? Do you hate…and so on?

Sorry. Medhi Hasan is “Senior Editor (politics)”. My apologies for that error.

But you didn’t answer my question James. I’ll repeat them:

If someone made a speech proclaiming all Muslims as people of no intelligence, would you consider that person to be:

(a) Bigoted

(b) Guilty of generalising to a pernicious degree

(c) Neither of the above

Does the political editor of the New Statesman believe that all “kuffar” are people of no intelligence?

I would like know for my own sake, as a ‘kuffar’, whether the Senior Editor (politics) of The New Statesman thinks I am of no intelligence, simply because I am not a Muslim.

And if so, why does the New Statesman employs and editor who holds me in such utter contempt.

Sorry for the typos above.

James Macintyre

Well I for one can honestly answer no. In my opinion, all people contribute to the sum of human knowledge (whether it be positively or negatively). So I would never think of any human being as “cattle”. Anyone with a working brain is a walking miracle.

The idea that a Muslim could be superior in intellect to an atheist or a Hindu is laughable in my view.

Of course I meant “by virtue of his/her religion”. Naturally an individual Muslim could have a very superior intellect but if so we will find it owes very little to Islam.

JM: Any sensible person would know where you are coming from. And in complete support of his buddy who really does sound like a funda-mentalist. That’s ’sound like’.. not libelous.

If you’ve read this blog and understood it’s import, then surely you’ll understand how weird and bizarre the ‘love in’ with Marxism and Political Islam is? You must understood how so totally other dimensional it is that the far right and the far left huddle up for succour?

I’m interested to know? E-Spleen filter engaged btw. Make a good point

@James Macintyre

I appreciate that you are a friend and colleague of Mr Hasan, and am well aware that some of the comments on this thread have perhaps crossed the boundary between objective criticism and ill-disguised bigotry, but you must understand that Harry’s Place has probably the most open comments policy of any web forum in the UK. I know that it rankles with you to read some of the comments here, but I can sure you that it also sits uneasily with webmasters, who, in the spirit of open dialogue allow for a diversity of views.

I can assure you, furthermore, that Messrs Mr T, Brett, Gene and co. are some of the staunchest defenders of equality, human rights and freedom of speech anywhere on the net. They certainly don’t countenance bigotry of any shape or form.

This post, directly concerning a portion of Mr Hasan’s speech at the al-Khoei Foundation, is open for interpretation. I happen to believe that Mr Hasan’s use of the Arabic term Kuffaar in this context was an abstraction, serving to illustrate the contrast between the light of truth and erudition to be found in the pages of the Qur’an and the antithesis; rejection of Muhammad’s message and the affirmation of tawheed. I don’t think any particular malice was intended.

However, if we examine Islamist discourse closely, and over a number of years as I have, we notice patterns; themes that crop up again and again, and reappropriated by numerous speakers. One infamous theme, as correctly noted by the always good value for money Mettaculture, is Jaahiliyyah, Qutb’s dystopian anti-world. Now, I’m not suggesting for one moment that Mr Hasan holds similar views to Qutb, but, as I mentioned before, we’re forever seeing patterns and themes in Islamist discourse. Take Azzam Tamimi’s forthcoming symposium at the al-Fauz Centre in Toronto, documented on this blog the other day: now, you might disregard the fact that Tamimi is involved and even the subject matter which highlights the names of some of history’s most potent Islamist ideologues. However, there’s no escaping the title: From Caliphs to Kings. Not coincidentally, this is also the title of a revolutionary treatise by Abul Ala Mawdudi, he of the Jamaat-e-Islaami.

As far as Mehdi Hasan goes, I’m sure he’s a pleasant fellow as you say, and a devout Muslim. Judging by his Arabic pronunciation and well-grounded knowledge of Shiite mythology and hagiography, he’s a credit to his local Jamaat, never missing his namaz. That said, it didn’t escape my notice that he picked up on a story that’s been doing the rounds in all the right Islamist circles over the last fortnight or so: the death of Marwa el-Sherbini.

Poor Marwa, as I’m sure you’re aware, was savagely murdered by someone who had slandered her, no doubt based on her appearance. Alas, no sooner than you could say ‘Hijab Martyr’, various Islamist worthies were making it there business to exploit her death for the purposes of ringfencing debate around Islam’s sartorial requirements for Muslimahs: we had the Brotherhood ready and eager with their placards and khutbahs in Alexandria to whip up feeling at her funeral; we had various MB stooges inciting people to denounce all Europeans and ‘Westerners’ as racist on the streets of Cairo; and we had the usual dependable Islamist mouthpieces, and some less regular ones, spouting forth their venom from such impartial platforms as IslamOnline and the an-Nas satellite channel. And then along came Mehdi, yet another journalist choosing to engage in the deplorable politics of victimisation and Islamophobia.

I think the jury’s still out on Mr Hasan as far as I’m concerned and public statements made by high profile public figures should be subject to scrutiny and debate no matter how wrong you might consider the premises supposedly behind aforesaid debate might be.

James MacIntyre wrote:

But more importantly, someone needs to explain to me why a religious critique of non-believers as, um, non-believers is so controversial.

He doesn’t refer to them as non-believers, but as cattle and of no intelligence. That’s a bit different then saying one’s lack of belief is misguided. Do you find it acceptable to use such language to refer to non-believers? Do the religious get an exemption if their bigotry can be defined within a religious context?

By the way, I’m not sure your helping Mr. Hasan by pointing out that other faiths show an equal (and repugnant) disdain for non-believers. I’d prefer to hear what Mr. Hasan has to say on this matter, maybe you can ask him to respond?

Let me ask you, “Joolz”, as I have asked others on this deranged thread: would you advocate a hatchet-job against a non-believer on the grounds that they thought all believers are “cattle”?

James, if any public figure held beliefs that individuals from any group of people are by the simple definition of their existence and nominal difference from that person intrinsically, innately and inextricably of no intelligence, and were termed collectively with a word equivalent to the pejorative aspects of ‘kuffar’, I would want that person held up to scrutiny.

If he was a journalist and Senior Editor (politics) I would want it known that this individual believed such a thing. So absolutely, yes, whether that person was a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, or whatever definitions arose from their ideological affiliation to the dogma or ‘community’ they held to, I think that person as a public figure should have his publically proclaimed beliefs scrutinised.

Especially such a crude, vulgar and prejudicial one that asserts that individual people, men and women, are intrinsically inferior and of no intelligence, simply because they do not ‘belong’ to whatever group the public figure ‘belongs’ to.

I am so off to bed. And I retire utterly disgusted by this sad, discredited blog-site. You got Iraq wrong, you got Islam wrong, and now you seek desperately to discredit one of the finest journalists of his generation with your crude, race-based prejudices. You will not succeed in getting your target without a fight. There is one advantage of this racist, bigoted, libellous thread: it will finally expose this stale line of thought for the pointlessness and patheticisim that “Harry’s Place” epitomises. See you soon.

James, why don’t you answer the questions I put to you, and consider the point I made in reply to your own question?

race-based prejudices…racist, bigoted, libellous

Oh, dear. Playing the race card is just plain wrong. I think it was this

You got Iraq wrong…

which finally alerted me to your true agenda. Partisan feelings and bigoted comments here aside, I suggest you come back tomorrow and we’ll debate it again rather than accusing Harry’s Place bloggers of racism.

Is it is odd that James would threaten libel and then indulge in a bit of libelous name calling. He’s not doing his side any justice. Maybe the defense should be left to Medhi Hasan, because Mr. MacIntyre is making a mess of it.

James McIntyre:
That atheism can undoubtedly decay into a form of anti-religious bigotry, and that pointing to the existence of christian or jewish bigotry is a non sequiter, all seems a very strange way to defend your friend Mehdi Hasan. It sounds suspiciously like so much what-aboutery – that most posters here have become fairly well innured to. But some of your objections go beyond this to sound more like projection on your part -

“Do those of you who are Jewish not see Christians as a misguided hurd? Do any Christians out there not see those who deny Christ as blind to His virtues? Does your hero C Hitchens not see religious believers of all kinds as “cattle”? I bet he does. This is so cheap; it really stinks. Can one of the organisers of this compromised blogsite – “DavidT” perhaps, or the humiliated “Brett” – not put a stop to this thread and link, which so shamefully compares Mehdi Hasan to “Hitler” and contains such glib references to “Islamic extremism”?

I think that whilst you could make a case that Richard Dawkins does on occasion come across as not merely anti religious but an anti religious bigot, anyone who has spent any time listening to Hitchens on the subject should know that, as much as he is anti-theist, calling him an anti religious bigot who views others not sharing his opinion as bovine cattle is a gross mis-characterisation.

Likewise I am trying really hard to think of one of the many fairly devout Christians, or even the merely observant, I have known to think of an instance where they betrayed any sign that they thought that those not sharing their belief were in some way bovine or of little intelligence. Likewise I am hard put to think of any betrayal of such an attitude amongst many Jewish friends.

On the contrary – in so far as Christian and Jewish friends explained their beliefs to me they were a matter of individual conscience. Very few believers that I have known as friends of either faith actually spend much time obsessing about disbelief – some have certainly been somewhat shocked at my atheism – but in so far as they thought about other forms of belief most seemed to subscribe to the “there are many paths to God” view.

This is merely to say that my religious friends tend to be drawn from the liberal and I think fairly mainsteam currents of their faith.
Jewish and Christian bigotry certainly exists – but the hall mark of that bigotry is that it scarcely ever stays hidden for very long does it? Rightwing evangelicals or Jewish Bigots may make pious declarations of their ecuemenicism but they generally can’t last long before giving the game away. Obviously there is variation even here – Pat Robertson is still some distance from Fred Phelps – and the distinctions are as important as the similarities.

But you are certainly undercutting your own defence of Mehdi Hasan simply by the fact that you appear to think that a degraded view of anyone not sharing ones faith or opinion about faith (in the case of Atheists or Agnostics) is an inseparable part of thinking about such things at all. A defence further undercut by highly personalised and emotional, even hysterical, criticism of the editors, as well as entirely careless conflation of blog commentary with the position of the Blog editors.

But then when the best defense you have of the particular statement being discussed here is that other people might be guilty of something similar the prosecution could probably rest right here.

As to the back and fro between Metta and David T on the subject of Hasan’s Qutibism isn’t it deeply antithetical to Shia? The discussion does highlight the difficulties posed in dileneating the devout, the quietist, the moderate from the Islamist. Islam really is unique amongst major traditional religions in the degree to which it obsesses about and denigrates those who don’t subscribe to it’s faith. Given that the religious influences felt in Mohamed’s milieu at the time – a tribal from of Judaism, a Christian Eastern Orthodoxy that fused Church and State and was obsessed with heresy and obscurantist to boot, as well as the Parthian example of a Zorosaterian state where secular and temporal authority were not merely fused but indistinguishable from each other Islam is a product of it’s time just as The early Christians are discernibly a product of the impact of the Hellenistic and Roman worlds on Judaism. But whatever the history the fact is that it has saddled Islam with an inheritance embedded in it’s foundational texts as well as in the character of it’s founder that makes devotion – in so far it is orthodox – very difficult to reconcile with the values that, say, The New Statesmen would regard itself as traditionally espousing. It can be done – but requires a fairly thorough compartmentalisation.

6 QUESTIONS FOR JAMES MACINTYRE:

1. “As a Christian believer myself, I agree with Mehdi Hasan in his comments you seek to sensationalize.”
If it dawned on you that Hasan really expressed contempt towards people such as yourself, who are deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, would still maintain that Hasan’s comments have been sensationalised by this website?

2. Would you still agree with Hasan’s “comments”?

3. What is your basis for believing that his “comments” target only atheists and not also Christians, agnostics, Hindus, Satanists, animists, Scientologists, and Mystic Meg?

4. Why do you maintain that people who do not believe in God have not stopped to wonder about the world?

5. You claim that Hasan is “easily the most moderate Muslim I have met” and that he is “a moderate who has been baracked [sic] and shouted down by Muslims as he demands they integrate to the British way of life.”
In the cold light of day, do your statements reveal anything problematic to you, about your own prejudices towards an extraordinarily diverse group of individuals?

6. Why do you object to those Muslims who “barack” and shout down someone who demands that they perceive people who are “stubborn to the teachings of Islam” as cattle?

Leon – “The whole point is to separate Islamist bigots like Mehdi Hasan from the vast majority of Muslims around the world who practice a benign, tolerant and enlightened version of their faith.”

I have no problem with the vast majority of this post, but I do with this. Benign is an interesting concept. Until recently Osama Bin Laden was very popular in the majority of Muslim countries. Is that benign? Tolerant? A bigger problem with that. Which Muslim countries can someone convert to Christianity without any legal or social problems? But none of that is much more than a quibble. Enlightened? Where is this Enlightened Islam practiced? Traditional Islam perhaps, but that is hardly enlightened.

Christians and Jews have largely given up being Christians and Jews. Those that are left know they need to appeal to the wavering because they can no longer empower the bigoted to keep the weak in the flock. Hence those terms apply to them these days. But I don’t know of any Muslim country where that is true yet and I have lived in a few. So which ones?

Everyone see Inayat defend the right of Muslims to convert to some other religion the other day? He is coming along.

“I feel like I am posting on the BNP site” I feel like I am reading the words of an Ideologue

“and someone who deserves the utmost praise for his amazing role as an educator and moderator of those in his own faith.” According to you.

“if you are going to go after him, go after me too” You are the political editor of the New Statesmen not Pravda, aren’t you?

“I reckon it’s in your interests to do so. Save your own site.” Maybe I am wrong maybe you do think you are the political editor of Pravda.

” One last chance Harry’s Place: be factual; be moderate” or what?

“heading into libel hot water along with your neo-con allies? We’ll see.” yes we will, won’t we.

“Fascinating that the fearlessly neo-con “Harry’s Place” blogsite” Is that your OPINION or is it fact.

“I am so off to bed.” In my OPINION that’s how 14 year olds talk or type, if you prefer.

“You got Iraq wrong” Ideologically biased OPINION, in my OPINION, and in case you haven’t noticed it hasn’t finished yet, all the facts are not yet in.

“you got Islam wrong” I beg your pardon? which one? The Islam of Osama Bin Laden or the Islam of Mohammed?

“now you seek desperately to discredit one of the finest journalists of his generation” sorry who?

“There is one advantage of this racist, bigoted, libellous thread: it will finally expose this stale line of thought for the pointlessness and patheticisim that “Harry’s Place” epitomises. See you soon.” In court?

Council for the Prosecution: Ma laud the neo-con harrys place has besmirched the reputation of one of the finest young journalists of his generation.

Her Honor: who?

Council for the Prosecution: Mehdi Hasan

Her Honor: One of the finest young journalists of his generation? says who?

Council for the Prosecution: James Macintye ma laud.

Her Honor: Who’s he? Never mind council for the Defense do you have anything you would like to say?

Council for the Defense: Just this ma laud, in this ⬆youtube video Mr Mehdi Hasan said this ” “The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.” I rest my case.

Her Honor: Council for the prosecution, well?

Court usher: I think he has gone for a Lay down, ma laud.

You see, this is the new form of racism practiced by NS and their lefty comrades.

Mehdi Hasan can attack, insult, and spew hatred on the class of atheists and seculars because he is a Muslim and comes from a different (and supposedly colonially victimized) culture. Rules against bigotry and hatred never applied within Hasan’s culture, and should never apply. If his culture wishes to discriminate against others – such as against women, well that is acceptable in that culture and its simply so colonial to advise him otherwise.

Persecuting atheists, converts, seculars and democrats in his country? Of course that is allowed, as the concept of universal individual rights is so western and colonial.

Such relativistic rationalization is endemic to the left. When visiting one of the “other” countries – they will turn a blind eye to the injustices they see and happily tag along with rightwing demagogues and racists in the name of anti-imperisalism.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dissident-voice/2009/07/anti-semitism-israel-rise

“As a Christian believer myself, I agree with Mehdi Hasan in his comments you seek to sensationalize – tell me then Harry’s Place, does that make me one of your targets, or are your dangerous smears purely based on race?”

On the contrary if you, James Mcintyre, were to go on-the-record and provide us with a recording in which you declared with some venom that those who were non-Christian and atheists, and all those who were deaf to the teachings of Christ, were animal-like and lacking in intelligence, we would happily post it here for your New Statesman readers to watch and debate.

I am amazed that you think your ‘race’ would exempt you from critical scrutiny.

Or did Islam go astray at some point

No it was a thoroughly nasty violent hate cult from the get-up, being founded by a psychotic, delusional, psychopathic nutter.

I wonder is there anyone at the NS who isn’t a practicing “believer”? Perhaps this is why James M seems to think it perfectly natural that the cattle reference should be employed with such bile – certainly the way gays were talked about at the last CoE church I attended made me walk out mid-way through the service.

All this is fine in a free society I suppose. Yet what on earth qualifies these kinds of people to write for a publication supposedly of the left? Has no one heard opium these days?

Do those of you who are atheists not see believers as sheep,

Errrr no ……that would be a Christian metaphor. Possibly why senior clergy often carry a shepherd’s crook and refer to their congregants as a ‘flock’.

Most thinking atheists – certainly this one, see ‘believers’ as very badly wrong, victims of a combination of peer pressure, early conditioning, wishful thinking, and a glaring critical thinking failure.

“Such relativistic rationalization is endemic to the left.”

Well said. The trouble is they have no anchoring belief – or at least they’re not socialists, or they confuse that with, say, Green issues or Christianity – and so get in a muddle.

They think they’re of the left, but actually the right – having jettisoned socialism, which is culture-blind and stands for equality for all – they actually support inequality. The bourgeois has always been thus – Marx would have been quick to point this out. However with the end of the Cold War and the (premature) declaration of the death of socialism (as if it couldn’t evolve!), the bourgeois has taken over ownership of “the left” and advanced its class interests, not least embodied in its fig leaf religion.

Although of course they’re convinced they’re doing “good”!

Roo.

“Why does he bother writing in a mag aimed primarily at idiots & cattle?”

Because we need to be herded in a certain direction?

James Macintyre:

Why are you trying to portray the use of the word “cattle” as some kind of smoking gun?

Do the terms 9/11, 7/7, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Ummah mean anything to to you? If you are blinded to the issues around Muslims and Islam and the fact that 4,000 of the former are under terrorist survillance, others are not.

Do those of you who are atheists not see believers as sheep, say? Do those of you who are Jewish not see Christians as a misguided hurd? Do any Christians out there not see those who deny Christ as blind to His virtues?

I don’t care. Those people do not plot to murder anyone. If nutters want to say I’m thick because I don’t believe in Jesus and will go to hell for having naughty impure thoughts, thats their stupid problem not mine. Christians used to impose their crap onto people violently, and were eventually put in their place. Now its the turn of Islam, hundreds of years overdue.

I am so off to bed. And I retire utterly disgusted by this sad, discredited blog-site. You got Iraq wrong, you got Islam wrong, and now you seek desperately to discredit one of the finest journalists of his generation with your crude, race-based prejudices

Good, nighty night, and don’t forget to pray to Jesus. Iraq is irrelevant, getting “Islam wrong” is a very silly remark indeed and I suggest those who believe in all that nonsense have it “wrong” – where is Allah? what does he look like? how do you KNOW Mohammed was his best buddy and not just a murdering psychopath? – and denouncing Islam and every expression of intolerance, bigotry and hostile tribalism we see within it is probably the main issue of todays world.

Being a “Christian believer” puts you in sympathy with others who have thematically similar pretend-its-true games. A belief is not a fact. Your lunacy is little more than grandiose hope, unproven after 2000 years, with all the logic of a superstition.

I don’t mind if nutters want to do all that nonsense privately; I do mind if they breed hatred, misogyny, intolerance and terrorism and in our post 9/11 world we are entitled to react very sharply towards any Muslim who is in any way aligned with that crap.

So the rest of us are all “cattle” in all our diverse thinking, feeling, behaviour, lifestyles, reading habits etc etc but if I read a certain book and think the same as everyone who reads that book and go to a mosque every week like everyone else who reads that book and worships the same warlord leader and believes the same fairy tales etc etc, that makes me NOT lke cattle?

You couldn’t make this crap up.

No wait, yes you could: and then you could call it Religion, in this case Islam.

Do those of you who are Jewish not see Christians as a misguided hurd?

Douglas?

No! Absolutely NOT! Jews (the vast majority) do not have any attitude that people of another religion are inferior. In fact, history has shown that it has been the other way around, that Jews were the inferior and conniving people of lower moral integrity. That was partly to recruit for the other religions and mostly because unless you were born a Jew then you couldn’t become one (easily). That led to the idea that Judaism was exclusive and hence the projection Jews believed that everyone else wasn’t worthy, hence lesser beings.

In fact, that is the most common theme of antisemitism.

All religions think that they are the best, and since Judaism is the mother of Christianity and Islam, then perhaps followers of Judaism in its orthodox sense may feel that the other religion have missed the point and diluted what God intended.

But I think you will find that most Jews don’t give a toss about people from other religions in the sense that they are just fellow travellers who form alliances as frineds and colleagues without a constantly calculating as to which religions they are. Jews, as a minority will often get “I didn’t know you were Jewish!”. Usually when they make a casual remark about Jews and money and I get in their face about it!

…..and as I said before, I’m equally happy to condemn the vile stuff in the Koran that underlies Muslim tribalism, hatred, terrorism and violence.

If Hasan is a jolly decent chap who’s being misrepresented etc etc then the Koran is what’s under scrutiny here.

I think its pretty obvious, however, that Hasan meant that crap: he was not denouncing it, as no Muslim ever does over any part of that backward old book or indeed the murdering supremacist campaign of their leader.

Having written my last comment I suddenly thought about prosletyzing. The act of advertising your religion in order to get converts.

Jews don’t prosletyze.

Christians do, and some sects of Christianity do it dorr-to-door.

Islam also does it.

Then you have sermonising. “You are in the right place and right religion because…..” or “This is why we are Christian/Muslim”

Now, is it because we are selective in what we find that I get the impression that recruiting for Islam and keeping its followers seems to sometime involve reasons why Islam is superior and others inferior.

There used to be a sermon from Leeds Grand Mosque that Melanie Phillips exposed and which I found published on their website that was about “we cannot forget the emnity of the Jews” and then went on about a Jewess who tried to poison Mohammed (and others). It was clearly antisemitic (and I believe its been taken down).

I just wonder how often sermons of this type get preached.

I remember attending a barmitzvah during the Lebanon War. The speech by the Rabbi was about the need to think of the innocent civilians in The Lebanon and the terrible plight they have been put under due to the attacks on Israel. It was compassion for the so-called enemy that I almost felt he went too far. But, there was no pro-Israel war rhetoric. There was “Muslims are not our enemies”.

All rhetoric I have ever heard in a religious context has been towards brotherhood with other religions.

Religious speakers should be praised when they combat hateful attitudes about other cultural and religious groups.

This post and thread are a disgrace. And before anyone else points it out, yes, my name does still appear on the blogroll on this website. That’s because I was once impressed by its founder’s commitment to the values of secularism and religious freedom. But that commitment is a distant memory – it has long since curdled into something much more unpleasant and illiberal.

Bloo wonders if there ‘anyone at the NS who isn’t a practicing “believer”? …’
The short answer is yes. I’m an atheist as are several of my colleagues. Other of my colleagues, like Mehdi and James, are religious believers. But we are all secularists. And unlike most of the denizens of Harry’s Place, we understand that secularism doesn’t require the vilification of those with religious faith. It’s worth pointing out that the first article Mehdi wrote for the New Statesman endorsed the thesis of a book entitled Islam and the Secular State, which argues that “the Islamic state is a historical misconception, a logical fallacy and a practical impossibility”.
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/islamic-state-muslims-prophet

Doesn’t quite fit the grotesque caricature does it? Nor does the first leading article in the magazine that I collaborated on with Mehdi, shortly after he joined. It was written as millions of Iranians protested the stolen election on the streets of Tehran. We wrote: “This magazine has a long and proud tradition of supporting democracy, and opposing theocracy, across the world.
The millions clad in signature green wristbands and ribbons, who have poured on to the streets in support of the opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, risking their lives in the process, are fighting for their voices to be heard and their votes to be counted in a part of the world where free elections are rare.
For democrats, there are no sides to this. There is only the side of freedom and the open society, the side that favours the people over the politicians, the masses over the mullahs, the democrats over the theocrats.”

I retire utterly disgusted by this sad, discredited blog-site. You got Iraq wrong, you got Islam wrong, and now you seek desperately to discredit one of the finest journalists of his generation with your crude, race-based prejudices.

For a magazine that published a classic anti-Semitic troupe on its cover, with the headline “A Kosher Conspiracy?”, and apologised in the weaselest way possible…

…The cover was not intended to be anti-Semitic; the New Statesman is vigorously opposed to racism in all its forms. But it used images and words in such a way as to create unwittingly the impression that the New Statesman was following an anti-Semitic tradition that sees the Jews as a conspiracy piercing the heart of the nation. I doubt very much that one single person was provoked into hatred of Jews by our cover…

…you’d have thought an employee of the magazine would be more prudent about accusing people of getting it wrong and being racist (or, indeed, discredited).

No it was a thoroughly nasty violent hate cult from the get-up, being founded by a psychotic, delusional, psychopathic nutter.

Its great that one can hold that opinion and express it. Its easy to strip away the veneer that being called a “prophet” brings and record historical facts that indeed show Mohammed to be a brutal warlord.

I once had an argument at MPAC UK when they published a bio of Mohammed by a non Muslim in the context of World’s Greatest Influences (or somesuch). It glorified and detailed some of his conquests and slaughters of people by Mohammed (ie Great Battles)

However, MPAC UK’s defence was that Mohammed was only re-conquering places that he had first been thrown out of. In fact he killed people for refusing to become Muslims (mainly Jews).

OK, so people then throw back at you The Crusades, but the Crusades were a response to Arab slaughter of Christians on the pilgrim routes to Jerusalem. “They started it!”

My point is that we could easily discuss whether Jesus was gay, or a magic mushroom and our western liberal society is advanced by exploration of all things. I don’t see why we should be inhibited from discussing this bloke called Mohammed. Its called freedom.

” But we are all secularists. And unlike most of the denizens of Harry’s Place, we understand that secularism doesn’t require the vilification of those with religious faith. “

Astonishing! This in reply to a criticism of your colleague saying non-Muslims and atheists are animal-like and lacking intelligence, and literally spitting out the word “cattle”…. and he’s the one being “vilified”?

Astonishing! This in reply to a criticism of your colleague saying non-Muslims and atheists are animal-like and lacking intelligence, and literally spitting out the word “cattle”…. and he’s the one being “vilified”?

Brett, As you know, Orwellian inversion has become rather de rigueur in large parts of the Left. But it should still be flagged for what it is, even though it’s a tedious chore.

All this hatred for one person, who said athiest are not intelligent, so much time has been wasted about writing negative post about one person.

What about the thousands dying in Africa, our policies that have been ineffective to reduce poverty?

And the prize for the greatest quantum leap in ‘whataboutery’ goes to… Fieldy!

it has long since curdled into something much more unpleasant and illiberal

Does that mean the bit about a Muslim congregation denouncing non Muslims as unintelligent cattle? Excuse me for being illiberal about illiberality, as I am also intolerant about intolerance.

we understand that secularism doesn’t require the vilification of those with religious faith

See above. Religions started it, have a long history of doing it, and the secular world has only relatively recently started putting such people in their place. We did it with Christianity, and now its the turn of Islam – with actually, far more of an imperative in our post 9/11 world.

It’s worth pointing out that the first article Mehdi wrote for the New Statesman endorsed the thesis of a book entitled Islam and the Secular State, which argues that “the Islamic state is a historical misconception, a logical fallacy and a practical impossibility

So does that mean he will now retract his nonsense, and stop running Mohammedan rallies denouncing non Muslims as cattle etc?

Or even better, will he run a conference denouncing the stuff in the Koran inspiring hatred, tribalism, misogyny and terrorism?

Doesn’t quite fit the grotesque caricature does it?

Ah, that wonderful leftist tradition of turning a blind-eye to religious intolerance as long as you’re “one of us” and on message with one or two key themes (usually involving Israel or the States).

Jonathan Derbyshire, I for one don’t believe anything that people such as yourself say anymore.

Why? because I can read, because I have eyes, I can see, because I have ears, I can hear, so I for one am not taking the ideological bullshit I read, I see, I hear, on an almost daily basis from people such as yourself.

Do people such as yourself really believe that people will just accept your self righteous “power to the people” bullshit after all that has happened in the last decade or so, after the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Afghanistan under the Taliban, the Pakistan taliban, 911, 7/7, madrid, Bali, Yemen, Iran, the Philippines, Thailand, Iraq, and lets not forget “we are all Hezbollah now”

Do you really think the “People” are stupid, do you? Really?

Mehdi Hasan is not a hasbara-nik when he talks about Israel and is critical of the likes of Aaro’s simplistic reading of the present situation in Afghanistan – ergo he is ripe to be smeared by HP. Throw enough mud and hope that it sticks. It is the modus operandi of a few of the writers at this blog and, pace Jonathan Darbyshire, it has been ever since Simon brought in people like David Toube to write here.

Earlier. I mentioned the part played by the NS during my teens in making me the infidel I became. I haven’t seen the publication now for many years, but I do recall with pleasure a little column in it called ‘This England’, in which obscurantist loonies of various kinds were allowed to condemn themselves out of their own mouths with verbatim quotes. It seems that the little column has grown somewhat, in fact is doing a quatermass on the publication. That Mehdi quote is classical ‘This England’: and you say he is high up in organisation?

It’s heartening to see NS writers stand by their colleague, however don’t their “proofs” rather emphasise the HP scoop? While their fautlessly secular mate Mehdi was “endorsing the thesis of a book entitled Islam and the Secular State” in his day job, to his co-religionists he was using the most disparaging terms – from kuffar to cattle – to describe non-Muslims.

One only has to actually HEAR the venom with which he spits these words out to appreciate where his true feelings lay. This is why far from being a hatchet job it is a good piece of journalism given that Mehdi has written on the apparent anti-Muslim bias in the media, for example, when there is evidence suggesting he is biased himself.

James Macintyre,

Your impassioned defence of Medhi is as impressive as it is misguided. I think you misunderstand precisely what is wrong with Mehdi’s words. First and foremost, his speech is called ‘from Jahilliyah to Jahilliyah’, and as metticulture explains above, is a clear reference to the works of Qutb, a man widely recognised as one of the godfathers of modern jihad.

There is no reason to hate mehdi, as Fieldy accuses HP of above, however there is a very good reason for exposing the ideology of mehdi, in which he not only chastises non-Muslims, he also dehumanises them by referring to them as ‘cattle’. Now James, as you may or may not be aware, this dehumanisation is precisely what makes it possible for someone to justify to themselves why it is ok for them to carry out mass casualty attacks on civilian targets.

James, for goodness sake, surely you are not serious when you say that mehdi is merely ’sticking up’ for religion?! He is sticking up for an ideology based on a religion, and if he was so keen to defend Islam then why does he spend most of the time attacking non-Muslims which, by the way, includes you?! The language he uses to when speaking about the ‘kuffar’ is precisely that of the most hate-filled and murderous jihadists, and you should really learn a bit more about Islamists before you waste the rest of your life defending them.

You will accordingly find very few Jews comfortable about using the word ‘goy’ at all – because it is essentially the counterpart of ‘yid’

No it isn’t; ‘yok’ is.

If the charming Jonathan is so upset that his blog is listed at HP can I suggest that David or someone removes it?

Jonathan’s performance has been quite jaw dropping: turning up to defend a disgusting man and a disgusting speech simply because he is on the same payroll and therefore ‘one of us’. I for one would like to know what MH proposes to do with the atheist cattle once he and the true believers have herded them.

I’m an atheist as are several of my colleagues. Other of my colleagues, like Mehdi and James, are religious believers. But we are all secularists. And unlike most of the denizens of Harry’s Place, we understand that secularism doesn’t require the vilification of those with religious faith.

Maybe it would be worth pointing out to your esteemed colleague that being a believer shouldn’t require the vilification of those without religious faith.

(Of course, orthodox religious beliefs do indeed require vilification of non-believers and adherents of other religions, but you would have hoped that a senior journo at the NS would be intelligent enough to perform the intellectual somersaults necessary to come up with a compromise position as many tolerant religious people are seemingly able to do!)

I’ve just listened to the clip. I don’t know how any self-respecting atheist can hear this man talking such shit and still want to defend him, a la Jonathan.

his speech is called ‘from Jahilliyah to Jahilliyah’, and as metticulture explains above, is a clear reference to the works of Qutb

And if a German were to give a speech with the word Kampf in it would that make him a Hitlerist, Alec? Ya balloon.

Does arguing for building a system of motorways also make you a Nazi?

A friend of mine recently pointed me in the direction of Hasan at the New Statesman, as a new writer who seemed to have good opinions on a broad range of topics and I have been following his articles since he joined the magazine.

I have been impressed by his articles and felt them to be factually accurate and backed up with reasonable debate and arguements. Following his first major piece in the magazine about the lack of coverage of white terrorist vs. muslim terrorists I was concerned by the posts on this blog about the article and how it was seemingly inaccurate (and I made my views known at the time).
The methods used to try and disprove his arguements were weak at best and simply wrong at worst. More disturbing were the amount of comments attacking Hasan’s character based on one article (and not only on this blog).

Following lasts weeks comments on this blog, and then this subsequently shocking entry and outrageous comments, I thought it best to do some research on Hasan to find out whether he really is someone as disturbing as being claimed above.

In July 2007, Hasan changed jobs from Editor at Sky News to Commissioning Editor at Channel 4. The Independent covered the transfer (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/mehdi-hasan-the-big-transfer-of-the-season-in-tv-news-458299.html). Although it was written by his current colleague and friend James Macintyre, he spoke to various senior figures at Hasan’s previous employers in BSkyB and ITN.
Jonathan Dimbleby describes him as “a devout Muslim but is at all times entirely within the framework of liberal democratic society,” and “He typifies the best of British.”
John Ryley (head of Sky News) says “”Sky needs [such] people with panache, journalists with original ideas, who have a vision for the way news and current affairs are reported in the 21st century.”
His last boss, Dorothy Byrne (Head of Commissioning at Channel 4) describes him as “one of the cleverest young men in television. Mehdi is proof there is still a role for intellectual big thinkers in television”.

Regardless what the anonymous blogging world says, it was impressive to see what senior figures in big media companies say about Hasan and anything said here or elsewhere pales in comparison. If he is a so-called extermist/islamist/etc, why do such figures have only good things to say about him?

The attempt by this article to try and defame Hasan on the back of one quote taken out of context is very disturbing indeed.
All practising Muslims take the Quran to be the word of God without any doubt. In Islam, denying the existence of God is the biggest sin one can make. The Quran explains atheists or “kaffars” (i.e. those who deny the existence of God) as having no intelligence. Why is that such a shock to everyone? Any religion which believes in God is always going to be critical of those who don’t.

All Muslims/Christian/Jews will criticise does who reject God. In this speech to an exclusively Muslim audience, Hasan clearly explains the difference between those who believe and those who don’t. If Muslims, including Hasan, feel that to deny God means to have “no intelligence” so what? How does that affect his work? Reading his articles I see no evidence of attacks on those with “no intelligence.” Even his colleague Jonathan Derbyshire – an atheist – writes in to criticise this article.

In conclusion, whilst some people may disagree with the Islamic view on atheists, to single out one figure and try to defame him, criticise and name call to such a shocking extent is frankly disgraceful and totally out of proportion. I ask the moderators of this blog to seriously re-consider their plan of a further 2 parts next week and to hopefully deem it to be inappropriate.

I see in the comments policy on this blog that comments may be removed that are considered “Libel – the deliberate telling of falsehoods about another person.” The comments on this blog labelling Hasan as an extremist, an Islamist and even someone comparable to Hitler are all false and should be removed immediately.

For all disillusioned ‘New Statesman’ readers here, surely the time has come to switch to ‘Jihadwatch’ on a daily basis: http://www.jihadwatch.org

Also recommended:

“Strategies of Denial” by Hugh Fitzgerald

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/42544/sec_id/42544

“And if a German were to give a speech with the word Kampf in it would that make him a Hitlerist”

Well if the speech went like this:

“The Jews and the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of the Furer, the rational message of Mien Kampf; they are described in Mien Kampf as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, The Furer describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the truth of national socialism. In this respect, Mien Kampf describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

If A German gave a speech such as that, then yes, I would say that would make him a Hitlerist.

PS: Just in case there is any confusion I am simply replying to Homercles question, I am Not, I repeat Not accusing any one of ever making a speech such as that. Hope that is clear.

But just to make sure, The Fictional speech above is A Fictional Speech. OK.

I see MH’s pubicist (2yyiam) has joined the fray. Could you ask MH to apologise to me for the vile comments he made about atheists like myself? Cheers.

By the way, do you agree with those comments? And what are his views on gay people?

Having listened to the speech, it is obvious that Mehdi’s main intention was to call for education and intellectual reinvigoration of the Muslim world. He argues that Islam is itself an intellectual endeavour, in contrast to the world of ignorance that preceded it. He illustrates this further by looking at the Koran’s description of non-believers, who are criticised not for their immorality but for thier intellectual failings. It is not, to me, a very persuasive argument.

Nevertheless, this is the missing context for this quote where he likens non-believers to “cattle”. In what sense does he mean it?

What is impled in this post (and made explicit in plenty of the subsequent comments) in this post is that he “rages” in his “vitriolic”, “spittle-flecked” speech about non-believers being cattle in that they are lower forms of life, base creatures, subhuman.

But elsewhere in the speech he calls for Muslims to embrace other cultures, learn other languages, and learn from non-Muslims. Any fair analysis should take this into account. Is this really someone with such contempt for non-Muslims?

All the evidence, from the rest of the speech, and the rest of Mehdi’s output is that it is not.

He explains that atheists are like cattle in that they “do not stop and wonder about this world”: a false statement, and a mildly insulting one, worth rebutting, certainly. But it is nothing more inflammatory than describing the faithful as “sheep”, or religion as “stupid”, and certainly not deserving of the irresponsible, distorted presentation it’s been given here.

“Mehdi’s main intention”

His “main intention” is not really relevant.

“He argues that Islam is itself an intellectual endeavour, in contrast to the world of ignorance that preceded it. “

You mean like the world of Socrates and Plato, or Pliny and Cicero? Or the library at Alexandria that held mainly ‘Archie’ comics and copies of Beano?

“He explains that atheists are like cattle in that they “do not stop and wonder about this world”: a false statement, and a mildly insulting one”

I am an Atheist and I find it not just “a mildly insulting one” You see Richard if certain people can get murderously upset about cartoons and teddy bears than I am allowed to get a little upset about being called stupid and “like a cow” is that OK.

PS: I am upset but I am not going to go out and kill anyone over it, is that clear.

I try to make a balanced argument and immediately get labelled as his publicist!

After reading all the comments from relative nobodies on this blog attacking Hasan, it was interesting to read the views of various senior figures in the media – a complete contrast wouldn’t you say?

I’ve already explained how Hasan’s views are similar to most Muslims and you’ll have to ask him yourself for an apology. However, Django, as an atheist, are you saying you have no negative views about those who believe in God – if you do, do you feel the need to apologise for them??

I ask the moderators of this blog to seriously re-consider their plan of a further 2 parts next week and to hopefully deem it to be inappropriate.

Tacit and explicit threats aside, I suspect a few of us are looking forward it tremendously!

So a frothing Koranic literalist has worked as a journalist at a number of major UK mainstream media outlooks; gosh who’d have thunk! You’d never get that impression from the Beeb’s or Channel 4’s output.

You guys are really giving him a hard time. His main intention IS relevant because it was to call for knowledge and exchange of ideas and yes even tolerance in the Islamic world, which is at odds with that small less than a minute sentence that seems to be contradictory to it. I can’t really think of a good explanation for that sentence that doesn’t offend atheists. The thing is he didn’t devote his entire speech to bigoted and extremist ideas, he devoted it to the exact opposite. So shouldn’t he at least be given the benefit of the doubt? Shouldn’t he be asked for the meaning of his remark BEFORE labeling him a bigot/extremist?

“it was interesting to read the views of various senior figures in the media”

Really, have these senior figures in the media watched this clip? Tell you what why don’t you send it to all these senior figures in the media and ask them what they think of it.

Fieldy

What about using various means – legal intimidation and the adoption of monikers that are difficult to distinguish from existing posters – in an effort to disrupt a free speech debate here. Is that indicative of good will, transparency and honest engagement? No, it ain’t.

“Shouldn’t he be asked for the meaning of his remark BEFORE labeling him a bigot/extremist?”

Fair enough, that’s a good idea, yes indeed, Maybe you 2yyiam could ask Mr Hasan what he meant by that remark.

Brett, that’s an extraordinary comment. When trying interpret the meaning of someone’s words, the intent behind them is obviously “really relevant”.

After reading all the comments from relative nobodies on this blog attacking Hasan, it was interesting to read the views of various senior figures in the media – a complete contrast wouldn’t you say?

Not in the least. Arguments from authority do not trump the most basic critical thinking. They’re especially thin on the persuasion front when we can hear Hasan’s words, and especially his tone. Even to the ears of ‘relative nobodies’!

Also, clearly he’s wrong on a matters of fact. In addition to his distinctly dodgy taxonomy, there have been and there are, plenty of highly intelligent folks who hold to no theistic belief. Indeed, if anything, atheism positively correlates with cognitive capacity.

Richard, “the main intention of his speech” is a different issue from “the main intention of his remark under discussion”.

If I delivered a speech about safe-sex and made a remark that gay people lacked the morality and intelligence to practice sex responsibly, and then gay rights campaigners were outraged, would it be a good defense to say that my remark was merely a passing comment and not “the main intention” of my speech, which was to stress the value of safe sex practices? Or would that one insulting and bigotted comment be of some relevance on its own?

Brett, I agree, but the two are related: one provides context for the other. My first comment specifically addressed “the main intention of his remark under discussion”, and I believe it has been misrepresented here.

I’ve listened to this speech up to the point where the quote comes from. I’m no lover of religion, but I don’t think the speaker is being as narrow minded as the quote, when taken out of context, suggests. If anything, the speaker pleads for greater Muslim engagement and wider access to secular education in the Muslim world. I think he’s employing a rhetorical device that will appeal to his audience. He’s saying that the opposite of Islam is ignorance and that it is the duty of good Muslims to seek education wherever they can. I don’t think it’s a very good rhetorical device, but it is presumably one that his audience understands. My interpretation, and I appreciate that’s all it is, is that he’s saying to them, “Would you rather be educated, or would you rather be like cattle?” As for the tone in which it’s said, he is very impassioned throughout. When I heard it in the context of the rest of his speech, it sounded like a contempt for ignorance rather than a contempt for disbelief.

I have to go out now, this “relative nobody” is on call this weekend, there has been an accident and I have to join a team of highly trained “relative nobodies” and try to save some lives. I am very pissed off but that will not effect my judgement in the next few hours because you see this “relative nobody” is a professional.

Isy:

So shouldn’t he at least be given the benefit of the doubt? Shouldn’t he be asked for the meaning of his remark BEFORE labeling him a bigot/extremist?

Peter Hearty:

I think he’s employing a rhetorical device that will appeal to his audience

So if say Jeremy Paxman was recorded doing a long speech in his personal capacity about black upliftment in South Africa to white Afrikaners and happened to drop in a spittle flecked section about ‘Kaffirs being as thick as oxes’. He should be ‘given the benefit of the doubt’?

Pull the other one!

Really looking forward to the subsequent 2 parts, overt, cover threats and behind the scenes machinations permitting.

“If anything, the speaker pleads for greater Muslim engagement and wider access to secular education in the Muslim world. I think he’s employing a rhetorical device that will appeal to his audience. He’s saying that the opposite of Islam is ignorance and that it is the duty of good Muslims to seek education wherever they can.”

Well then he should have said that. Instead what he said was: “The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran…”

He is not, as you seem to think, talking about Muslims needing to access secular education, he is talking about secular people who stubbornly refuse to accept Isalm.

Brett

Have you actually listened to the whole speech, or at least up to the point where this quote appears? He very clearly mentions the need for greater secular education in the Muslim world, for more resources to be put into schools, into translating books. His whole talk is about Muslim ignorance.

“Have you actually listened to the whole speech..”

I have indeed. But we are not talking about what he said or meant in other parts of the speech, we are talking about what he said and meant in the section under discussion.

In the section under discussion, does he or does he not say that disbelivers and atheists – the ‘kuffar’, if you will – stubbornly refuse to accept Islam and the ‘rational’ message of the Quran?

Does he or does he not go on to say that these people – the non-Muslims – are like cattle and are of low intelligence? Yes or no?

I’m so sorry 2yyiam, he’s actually a wonderful and enlightened man.

As long as no one mentions kaffars or queers to him.

Beat me to it Peter, have all the accusers actually listened to the speech?
Upto to the actual quote, Hasan spends approx 55 minutes talking about how Muslims should learn from foreign culture, translate books, get educated etc.
Why is a supposedly Islamic bigot talking about secular education in the Muslim world? How are you able to reconcile the apparently two contrasting views from this speech?

‘Anaximanders other sandal’ hope the weekend isn’t too busy for you, I remember the busy days on-call in A&E (if that is where you work)!

Whilst not one to give Islam an even break, here I think Hassan is being criticised wrongly. Listen to his speech, it’s powerful, his way of speaking is aggressive, seemingly a rant, but his message is in fact for Muslims to improve themselves, it is not about denouncing the ‘kufar’….though I have only listened to the first 30 minutes so far.
As for cattle, he also calls Muslims cattle for not seeking knowledge, for following the crowd…the crowd led by Islamists. Muslims who have no knowledge of Islam nor of the outside world embarrass themselves and only listening to the messages passed within the Muslim community without reference to the outside world leads to conspiracy theories.

Muslims have an obligation to chase knowledge, worship should not be blind, there must be intellectual engagement. There must be dialogue and exchange of ideas with the secular, non-Muslim world even if that means sending their children to secular schools.

One hour of thought is worth 70 years of worship.

It is a shame there is no transcript of this, more Muslims should be able to see the full text.

Django why are you now referring to queers? Surely that’s an offensive term to use for the description of homosexuals. Does that make you a homophobe?

As far as I’m aware Hasan hasn’t expressed a view on ‘queers’ in this speech.

Does he or does he not go on to say that these people – the non-Muslims – are like cattle and are of low intelligence? Yes or no?

Yes, Brett, he does. It is a disagreeable quote, no doubt.

But that is not the end of the story: there are many types of diagreeable expression, of varying degrees of seriousness, and they can still be misrepresented.

When angry atheists rail against sheep-like believers in stupid religions, I find it disagreeable, but it is hardly a rare or especially serious occurence.

On the other hand, when murderous jihadis scream about pigs and infidels, it is more than just disagreeable.

Which of these two do you think Mehdi’s quote more closely resembles? Having listened to the speech, I think the context clearly implies the former. Whereas the deliberate context-stripping, and tone adopted by the author of this post is pushing for something closer to the latter.

Fellow nobodies,

Throw away the trinkets of your worthless lives and listen to 2yyiam and his journalist and executive acolytes. Give up the friends, partners and lovers who share your pitiful existence and bow down to a new leader:

The Mehdi!!

Brett

“In the section under discussion, does he or does he not say that disbelivers and atheists – the ‘kuffar’, if you will – stubbornly refuse to accept Islam and the ‘rational’ message of the Quran?”

Context is everything. If he had said this as part of one long rant against the ‘kuffar’ then I would unhesitatingly think that he literally meant what he said. However, given that it’s in the middle of a speech where he’s done nothing but praise non-Muslim learning and makes an impassioned plea for fellow Muslims to learn from others, I think it’s reasonable to assume that this is simply playing to the gallery.

I ought to add, that I rarely (well never actually) read things like the New Statesman. I have no idea if this guy has some sort of past history that I’m not aware of. I’m just saying that, listening to the quote in context, it didn’t sound like the kind of rabid islamist rant that it’s being made out to be.

“I think it’s reasonable to assume that this is simply playing to the gallery.”

Well, let’s hope Mehdi Hasan holds his audience in slightly higher esteem than you do!

Do you really think that in order to ingratiate oneself with a Muslim audience, one needs to tell them that the “kuffar” are like “cattle”?

I for one would like to know what MH proposes to do with the atheist cattle once he and the true believers have herded them

Well in order that they become halal, “Smite them at the neck?”

Would a Jewish Editor of a magazine bother to write about Judaism (or its so-called political angle, Zionism) and quote from The Talmud to disparage non-Jews?

“Do you really think that in order to ingratiate oneself with a Muslim audience, one needs to tell them that the “kuffar” are like “cattle”?”

No I don’t, but arguments to religious audiences often cloak themselves in appeals to religious authority, which is what I presume was happening here.

I also don’t know for certain what Mehdi Hasan had in mind in using that bit of the koran, but I do know that quoting selectively is a well known technique for misrepresenting someone’s views. Given everything else he said, I think his views have been misrepresented.

Like I said, if he has a track record on this sort of thing that I don’t know about then I might think differently.

David T

Mehdi Hassan may not be a Qtubist bbut he is pandering to an islamist inflected conference and audience.

He may well be a person of no deep principles other than having a commitment to his own self promotion so that he appears to be ‘Islamist light’ or liberal-left anti-racist, depending on the context.

The end result though is the pushing forward of a ‘moderate reformist’ modernist Muslim Brotherhood style Islamism and its slow but steady growth and legitimation.

Islamists will obviously attempt to seduce prominent Muslims in the media, arts and politics just as such people may seek to be accepted by the new Islamist intelligencia.

This is analagous to the relationship between the revolutionary and the democratic and liberal left.

The end result of course is a consolidation of Islamist gains.

“Context is everything.” Anyone else recall the “context” of Rivers of Blood?

It is easy to look at flaws of people rather than giving the benefit of the doubt first. Look at your flaws before looking at others.

I think this issue is a little mixed.

When I listened to the speech I was very pleased to hear Mehdi speak out in support of education and challenge old beliefs about women. I was pleased to hear him call for people to research before opening their mouths and his embarrassment when they did not (i.e. in reference to the woman who blithely – and wrongly – said that a certain institution was Zionist-owned). On the whole, it did appear to be a modern and encouraging speech.

Now to the contentious excerpt! I am still unclear as to its meaning in the context of this lecture, but for the purposes of my point on this blog, my understanding isn’t relevant. I’m afraid that it is very much the case that if you are a public figure, the moment you stand up in front of a group of people to give a speech/lecture, you are a little exposed and open to challenge. It is simply the way of things in a free-speech society. Any lecture coming from a journalist, who makes a living from reporting and airing their views to the public must, therefore, be extremely well thought out and care needs to be taken about the words used – unless, of course, you are setting out to be controversial, which I actually don’t think is the case here.

I think it is fair to say that had Mehdi’s speech been broadcast to a wider, secular audience, the phone lines would have been jammed because of the manner in which the public have come to understand the term ‘kuffar’ along with the general ignorance attributed to them in this snippet of Mehdi’s lecture. Thus, I think it a little unfair to state that the reaction of those on HP is necessarily symptomatic of a bigoted blog and that such a reaction would not occur in the wider world. I think it would, James.

You have defended your colleague which is fine, but you must allow for the fact that the wider public do not know Mehdi on a personal level and have no basis to judge him except for the words he speaks or writes. Attack is not always the best defence, James. Mehdi has made a very encouraging speech with many worthy aspects, but he has also made a comment which is open to interpretation and would be so beyond the confines of this blog. You may know that he’s a moderate, well-meaning man, but you cannot expect everyone to have had in-depth, personal dealings with him and understand exactly what he meant. It may not be fair but this is the harsh reality of speaking in public, unfortunately!

Brett – I can’t open the full speech. I want to be able to ascertian whether there is any relevant “context” that changes the meaning of the passage. The file that launches when I try andclick on the word “copy” about is a 29 second MP3. Any way you can repost the file or mail a copy of the mp3?

Grace

The whole point is to separate Islamist bigots like Mehdi Hasan from the vast majority of Muslims around the world who practice a benign, tolerant and enlightened version of their faith. And such a thing exists — in fact it is prevalent in most Muslims countries.

You know, people make that assertion all the time, but never provide any proof to back it up.

Were there any truth to that statement, then why do nearly all Muslim-majority countries place restrictions on other faiths and enact legislation that is both repressive and discriminatory towards minority religions?

This is the case even in ‘modern’, ‘moderate’ and ’secular’ countries such as Malaysia and Turkey.

So if you’re going to assert that tolerance and enlightenment are the norm in the muslim world, then could you please provide some evidence of it?

Have you never read any of the countless reports published by independant and objective human rights organisations on the lack of religious liberty in the muslim world?

We are constantly warned not to essentialise Islam and Muslims, but Islam and Muslims tend to ‘essentialise’ themselves, and they do so in a myriad of ways, not least amongst them the near uniform repression of, and discrimination against, religious minorities in just about every islamic nation.

Nor does it help when you faith is headquartered in a religious-apartheid state that stridently forbids the practice of any other religion but Islam.

Religious minorities in nearly every majority-Muslim country lead a very precarious existence and are constantly subjected to the dictatorial whims and obscurantist rulings of various clerics and imams.

They are treated like cattle.

In other words, the situation is anything but enlightened, tolerant and benign.

Am I a bigot merely for pointing that out?

Grace, right-click on the link and save the file to your computer (it’s about 15mb) and then open it – once it has saved – in whatevr program you use to listen to MP3.

I am fascinated to discover, courtesy of Jonathan Derbyshire, that Harry’s Place “pose[s] as a quasi-intellectual blog-site”. I am now wondering how one goes about pretending to be quasi-intellectual…

He argues that Islam is itself an intellectual endeavour, in contrast to the world of ignorance that preceded it

In what way was the world a world of ignorance before Islam appeared? The great intellectual and cultural achievments of the Greeks, the Romans, the Hindus and Buddhists and other civilisations of India, China and elsewhere in Asia?

How can anyone come out with such absolute cretinous rubbish and keep a straight face? And does it not follow that the entire world that does not submit to Islam today (in other words, the overwhelming majority of humanity) also exists in ‘ignorance’?

This is plainly cretinous, not to say invidious, bigoted and supremacist, and yet it is trotted out with the casualness of a truism — except to every sane person it is the truism of a moron. And yet to point out this fact, and to call out idiocy and prejudice, results in hysteria. It’s quite a dramatic scene, and in one sense, it is funny, but in other ways, it is amazing that it even needs to be stated.

I am now wondering how one goes about pretending to be quasi-intellectual…

I was thinking about posing as a quasi-sodomite.

Perhaps Mehdi Hasan could explain to his audience why his all-powerful, all-knowing God allows the average western atheist to live in such relative wealth and prosperity and imposes so much poverty and suffering on his own believers (Quiz clue: ‘non-existence).

Johann W, David T

On the complexities of distinguishing Islamist from quietist iterations of Islam.

I have recently been reading the Iranian revolutionary constitution among other writings and have been struck by just how Qutbist it is and by extension how Qutbist Shia modernist Islamism is.

In fact in a real sense Iran is the real world manifestation of Qtubist thought.

If Qutb is Islamism’s Marx then Khomeini is its Lennin and Ahmadinejad its Stalin.

In some ways though it seems ironic that Shiism should embody Qutbs sunni foundation it is less surprising when one considers that Qutb’s revolutionary politics is so thoroughly modernist that it requires a strong State that is institutionally modern and modernist to implement its state centralised theo-politics.

Sunni dominant Muslim majority states indeed all the Arab ones are less fertile state structures for vanguardist takeovers and state centralised control (except possibly Syria hence its brutal suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood)

Brett – sorry one more question. Do you have a time in the recording approximately where the “offending” statement is made? I just want to be able to hear the build up to it and how he concludes the point to check whether or not he qualifies it in any way or makes clear he was reporting a view rather than expressing it?

Grace, shortly after the 18 minute mark.

I have just listened to the relevant section in context and did so with an open mind. After all, it would be quite wrong to believe this allegation just on the basis of not liking Mr. Hasan’s other views. So, this is my honest assessment of it.

The context is this: Mr Hasan is making an argument that for Muslims it is not enough to worship, it is also imperative that they apply their intellect and reflect, consider and examine their religion and lives. In the course of the speech – before this point and thereafter – Mr Hasan quotes the Quran in support of the case that he is making at a particular moment. He does not quote the Quran simply in order to discuss or critique a particular passage but exclusively to support his case.

In that context, he turns to the non-believers who he refers to in his own voice (i.e not in quotation marks) as the kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists. He then uses quotes from the Quran to characterise these people as “people of no intelligence” and “cattle”. It is crystal clear that he is using these words from the Quran to pursue his argument that intelligence and intellectual activity are vital for the Muslim community, by contrasting such an approach with the attitudes of the kaffar who are unintelligent cattle by the testimony of the Quran itself.

So he is not merely describing this view but endorsing it and stating it with emphasis (listen to the tone). He DOES NOT qualify it therefater, he simply returns to the thrust of his argument.

The overall message may be inoffensive, it may even be admirable – he is right, after all, to call for intelletcual engagement – but his attack on “the kaffar” is clear and very offensive.

It is like, for example, an anti-semite making a speech calling for a return to simpler, less materialistic values and a then saying almost as an aside “we are all aware of what happens when your focus is on money and greed, you become like the Jews” before moving on. The aside may not be the focus of the speech but it speaks volumes about the racist attitude of the speaker.

So, the Senior Editor (Politics) of the New Statesman regards non-Muslims as “kaffar” who are unintelligent cattle. I genuinely cannot see any other reading of this speech.

I think the ball is in Jason Cowley’s court.

This kufarphobic bigot (thanks, Roo!) has very little insight and, more disturbingly, feels secure in spouting this rubbish.

He believes himself to be the centre of the universe, that what he speaks magically becomes “the truth” simply because he speaks it. He holds this attitude and lack of insight into how he is received in common with the likes of Motormouth Choudary and it is an example of what Tarek Heggy calls the “big talk” invariably resorted to by Arabs/Muslims where the objective truth is obscured by wishful thinking as a psychological defence against fear of failure.

Lupin, I have learned and am learning more than I am comfortable with about how Islam views kufar. It is possessed of a seething discontent because, although its prophet insisted that Muslims are the chosen of Allah, its more vociferous and hate-filled followers are not treated by the West with sufficient respect to satisfy them. That is to say that they are often perceived to be merely ordinary among the many cultures in Britain. However, their overwhelming need to be thought of as special drives them towards behaviours such as those exhibited by Hassan, Motormouth Choudary, Bungler and their ilk in their attitude to kufar. And average Muslims who want little more than a quiet life are dragged along in their wake because they dare not make a stand against such dangerous stupidity.

My analogy for that deep-rooted need for respect and supremacy would be that of a baby who was screaming with hunger and yet could never be satisfied. That need for respect by rubbishing others, displayed by Mehdi and his ilk, is a pathological attempt to alleviate that discomfort and is the main driver for Mehdi’s behaviour in print and elsewhere.

What to do? We are all narcissistic to a certain degree, but most of us leave the extremes behind by the time we are adults. Some, however do not develop a fully cohesive sense of self because the development of that in childhood is interrupted, perhaps by abuse. Hans Kohut describes the results of this as a fragmentation of self.

The cohesive self develops as a result of the setting of limits on the unrestrained grandiose self which people like Mehdi exhibit. These controls can be social or by rule of law. They are necessary because of the destructiveness of the grandiose narcissistic self, as we have seen in the anti-Israel riots during Cast Lead, and Hamas’ persistence in waging war against a vastly superior enemy.

Mehdi seems to feel that he can exhibit his grandiose narcissistic self in print either because the it was never restrained, or because he doesn’t care or realise that it is in play, ie he lacks the insight or doesn’t care how it is perceived.

That he has any responsibilities at all at the NS should therefore be of grave concern.

It seems as if “Oh No You Don’t” is possessed of the same grandiose narcissism as Mehdi Hassan.

Oh No You Don’t – take note: Just because you believe something and put it into print does NOT make it true.

And your explanation of what you thought Hassan was “merely” doing absolutely supports my point above. If Hassan had any insight at all into how he might be received, or cared at all about the sensibilities of others, he would have kept his obnoxious views to himself, regardless of what was written in his Koran. That he did not means that he really does not believe that kufar are worthy of such respect.

This is not the first time Harry’s Place has encouraged its readers to hound a New Statesman journalist. As HP is so keen on pointing out the failures of other media outlets, perhaps next time it could try a bit of basic journalistic practice (or what some might call basic courtesy) and contact the subject of an attack for comment before publication. David T and the other moderators try to distance themselves from the sewer that passes for a comments thread here, but they allow such a context-free, distorted assault to be published in full knowledge of the outpouring of hate and abuse that will follow. Shame on them.

Despite what “Channel 4 Insider” writes, the New Statesman has had editorial input from religious Christians – who presumably also believed that non-believers were misguided “cattle”, or similar – since its inception, yet has remained a secular magazine. Indeed, a recent issue of the New Statesman published a review of Karen Armstrong’s “The Case for God”, which was largely sympathetic to Armstrong’s contention that atheists lived “a life so impoverished that it contained no inkling of … wonder and transcendence.” The reviewer was white, the book’s author a Christian. Strangely, Harry’s Place hasn’t seen fit to “expose” this statement. I wonder why.

Channel 4 Insider

Great expose and very worthy of Harrys Place.

I look forward to the next installment.

(How ‘Googling’ a persons name has changed the world – for the better)

So has anyone bothered to e-mail the guy yet or is this discussion going to last an eternity?

Davies.

One wonders what he would have made therefore of the foam-flecked denunciation of atheists and “disbelievers” given by Mehdi Hasan, the New Statesman’s recently appointed politics editor, in a vitriolic speech,’ From Jahiliya to Jahiliya’, given at the Al Khoei Islamic Centre in February 2009 (the speech has now been removed from the IUS website, but we have archived a copy)

Then you say Despite what “Channel 4 Insider” writes, the New Statesman has had editorial input from religious Christians – who presumably also believed that non-believers were misguided “cattle”, or similar – since its inception, yet has remained a secular magazine.

I say that ‘input’ is fine.

However, appointing as a political editor a person who believes that “The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

Doesn’t seem to be The Statesman that I once knew.

Mind you, a lot of the present left are persons that I would not want to know as well.

Davies – I don’t understand why this is houding. Genuinelly. I have listened to the speech in which this man states that non-believers – he calls them kaffars – are “unintelligent” and “cattle”. he doesn’t qualify it and he was merely reporting the view – it is his view clearly.

Can you not see why that is not a problem?

Davies – I don’t understand why this is houding. Genuinelly. I have listened to the speech in which this man states that non-believers – he calls them kaffars – are “unintelligent” and “cattle”. he doesn’t qualify it and he was merely reporting the view – it is his view clearly.

Can you not see why that is not a problem?

Davies:

Perhaps you could try applying some of these journalistic standards to yourself, for example

“from religious Christians – who presumably also believed that non-believers were misguided “cattle”, or similar”

They key word is presumably.

Can you show me where in the source document, in the case of Christians, the New Testament it says non Christians are cattle and unintelligent.

Secondly, the full quote from the article displays a wonderful capacity to quote out of context. Are you a journalist?

“This “stunned appreciation of an ‘otherness’ beyond the reach of language”, for Armstrong, constitutes the heart of every religion. Their liturgies and rituals, their myths and legends that explained creation and helped mankind deal with quotidian misfortune and misery, were all constructed to aid adherents in the path towards this goal. And containing as these faiths all do some variant of the “Golden Rule” – do to others as you would have done to yourself – the steps on this path involved charity and compassion, not the intolerance of fundamentalists and their mirror image, the new God-destroyers.

All else, and yes that includes the many terrible things that have been done in the name of religion over the centuries, is distortion, idolatry and misinterpretation.

If you accept this, and Armstrong makes a good historic and theological argument that it is so, then who among us would wish to admit this: that they had lived a life so impoverished that it contained no inkling of that wonder and transcendence she wishes us to acknowledge?”

That is to say that they are often perceived to be merely ordinary among the many cultures in Britain.

Merely ordinary……No, it’s far worse than that. Some of us think Islam is the most retrograde, destructive, intolerant unwholesome ‘culture’ on the entire planet and that the World would have been spared immeasurable strife in the past and yet to come, if its founder Mohamed the violent, misogynist, homophobic hate mongering, delusional warlord, had never founded this awful malign cult of Islam.

Nick (ex South Africa)

Some of us think Islam is the most retrograde, destructive, intolerant unwholesome ‘culture’ on the entire planet and that the World would have been spared immeasurable strife in the past and yet to come, if its founder Mohamed the violent, misogynist, homophobic hate mongering, delusional warlord, had never founded this awful malign cult of Islam.

Indeed.

Davies:

I have just read the Armstrong review in full and your representation of it here is a lie.

You are a charlatan.

Nick(ex-South African) – “…Some of us think Islam is the most retrograde, destructive, intolerant unwholesome ‘culture’ on the entire planet ..”

Yes, Nick, I am aware of that but you miss my point: Certain Muslim spokesmen here tend to get more than a little tetchy and unsettled when they and their “culture” are not as revered as they think they deserve. Likewise, the kufar’s failure to accept Islam to the be only true faith is akin to our saying that Islam like the naked king in the children’s fairytale.

For such people, narcissists that they are, to be ignored or merely treated as others are treated is barely endurable and the cognitive dissonance which results from our equivalent of saying that “the King is naked!” (in other words, that the claims they make for Islam are complete tosh) causes equal psychological discomfort.

Indeed, a recent issue of the New Statesman published a review of Karen Armstrong’s “The Case for God”, which was largely sympathetic to Armstrong’s contention that atheists lived “a life so impoverished that it contained no inkling of … wonder and transcendence.”

But ms Armstrong limits her ‘criticisms’ to athiests and acuses them of lacking a sense of transcendance. That’s a bit like acusing atheists of not beliving in god…of course they don’t, they’re atheists.

Mr Hasan, OTOH, laces into an exicted tirade accusing ALL non-Muslims, and not just atheists, of lacking intelligence and of being like cattle.

It is one thing to make the observation that atheists lack transcendance and quite another to maliciously portray the 85% of humanity…some five billion people… that does not adhere to Islam as dumb cows

The division of mankind into two irreconcilable, manichean camps, and the demonisation that inevitably flows from such perverse distinctions, are alwaysthe prerequisite conditions for all forms of intolerance and injustice.

That is not what Karen Armstrong does, however, and so any percieved equivalence between her pro-pos and the hateful ones as expressed by Mr Hasan is false.

It might not have been a bad idea to have given Mehdi Hasan a right to reply prior to the posting of the article. That said, he has the opportunity to put the record straight now if he so wishes, but ideally he should have been approached before publication

….but nowhere ever in my numerous tirades against Islam have I questioned the humanity of self identifying Muslims or argued that they are necessarily unintelligent.

Now that would be both untrue and bigoted. Hasan is wrong about intelligence and the Kuffar, he is wrong to use such an offensive term and he is wrong to question our humanity. The man’s a bigot at best. I look forward to the next 2 installments to see what other form he has.

Merely ordinary……No, it’s far worse than that. Some of us think Islam is the most retrograde, destructive, intolerant unwholesome ‘culture’ on the entire planet and that the World would have been spared immeasurable strife in the past and yet to come, if its founder Mohamed the violent, misogynist, homophobic hate mongering, delusional warlord, had never founded this awful malign cult of Islam.

can you imagine the fun HP would have had with any Muslim who had referred to another religion in this manner?

@ C4 insider

This is pretty clearly Muslim-baiting. Religious people say exceptionally offensive things about each other (and the non-religious) all the time. Jews have to put up with Christians (and, especially, we Catholics) ritually praying for their conversion — the point having been put significantly less politely in the past. I’ve had to put up with Protestants explaining — very politely — that I’m damned, and that the Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon. And the Psalm about the folly of unbelievers is quite often thrown around.

The rest of the guy’s speech is full of good sense, so he must deserve a pass.

@Researcher,

Can you show me where in the source document, in the case of Christians, the New Testament it says non Christians are cattle and unintelligent.

Unless you’re some sort of Marcionite, the Old Testament is kosher Scripture. You do know, I hope, the New Testament says eye-wateringly nasty things about Jews and non-believers, don’t you? Go away, you embarrassing incompetent.

Nick(SA)

So if say Jeremy Paxman was recorded doing a long speech in his personal capacity about black upliftment in South Africa to white Afrikaners and happened to drop in a spittle flecked section about ‘Kaffirs being as thick as oxes’. He should be ‘given the benefit of the doubt’?

Bobby Kennedy’s ‘66 speech in SA is a much better example. He was happy to say Boer-friendly things about the natives being ’subdued’ but everyone knew exactly what he meant.

Hmm – when you consider some of the things atheists say about those with a belief in God, is this really so awful? Atheists attack believers as “superstitious”, “deluded”, talk about “sky pixies” and hint at believers being at best insecure and anti-intellectual and at worst, mentally ill. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it in return.

@NickSA,

Now that would be both untrue and bigoted. Hasan is wrong about intelligence and the Kuffar, he is wrong to use such an offensive term and he is wrong to question our humanity. The man’s a bigot at best. I look forward to the next 2 installments to see what other form he has.

Moaning about other folks’ use of language sits ill with your style of comment where Muslims are concerned: there’s a particularly nasty couple of run-ins with Bikhair from the past that you’d do well to remember.

@C4 insider,

Since its foundation in 1913, the New Statesman’s journalism been marked by its rationalism, a consistent concern for the underdog and a healthy scepticism for all forms of authority – not least towards organised religion. This is not surprising. Many of the magazine’s founders were among the most prominent atheists and socialists of their era

While I’m at it, this passage sucks. Rationalism means pretty much accepting the authority of reason, so there’s a straightforward inconsistency. And it’s sort of crude to assume that rationalism involves hostility to organised religion; which is what the passage suggests.

While I’m at it, this passage sucks. Rationalism means pretty much accepting the authority of reason, so there’s a straightforward inconsistency. And it’s sort of crude to assume that rationalism involves hostility to organised religion; which is what the passage suggests.

I for one had a problem with the “consistent concern for the underdog” bit, but I didn’t want to mension anything. Then again maybe I should criticize the New Statesman (or Channle4Insider) for being an extreme left middle-class hypocrite because I can’t see how this statement can be anything but expression of rich middle-class support of the “poor” regardless if it is right.

Atheists attack believers as “superstitious”, “deluded”, talk about “sky pixies” and hint at believers being at best insecure and anti-intellectual and at worst, mentally ill.

We don’t, however, attempt to make our point more forcefully with the help of a car full of gas cylinders. Which is the difference. There’s that old joke that a nation is a dialect with a navy. There’s probably something similar to be said about what happens in liberal democracies when religions acquire an armed wing and start muttering that although they are able to restrain the regrettable tendencies of their younger adherents, they can’t promise to be able to do so forever without some concessions.

When atheists in the UK are found to have conducted several successful terrorist outrages inspired by their atheism, and major humanist organisations start saying that these regrettable events are however an understandable cry of pain at the way atheists are treated, and the government start spending large sums of money on preventing young atheists from taking up arms against their country, we scan start arguing some sort of moral equivalence.

If I heard that Jewish or Christian organisations regarded me as cattle, I wouldn’t worry that they had a stun gun and a charnel house ready. When Muslim figures call me a kaffir and refer to me as cattle, is it unreasonable to start checking for the emergency exits when I’m on a bus?

emmanuelgoldstein

there’s a particularly nasty couple of run-ins with Bikhair from the past that you’d do well to remember.

I seem to remember it was Bikhair who specifically and quite explicitly, endorsed killing Muslims for apostasy – for leaving Islam. I seem to remember calling her a nasty Islamofascist.. or something close, but feel free to dig up the precise quote; I have little doubt I’ll stand by my comments.

NickSA,

Er yes, I think this was the thread. She made it clear she found breeding offensive, as I remember.

I seem to remember it was Bikhair who specifically and quite explicitly, endorsed killing Muslims for apostasy – for leaving Islam. I seem to remember calling her a nasty Islamofascist.. or something close, but feel free to dig up the precise quote; I have little doubt I’ll stand by my comments.

Doubtless you’ll stand by them; whether you’d be right to do so, or right to moan about other people’s use of apparently bigoted language is another matter.

We don’t, however, attempt to make our point more forcefully with the help of a car full of gas cylinders.

There’s systematic persecution of Christians in China, and has been for the last half century; as there was in the Soviet Union, and in almost every other officially atheist regime in the twentieth century.

Despite what “Channel 4 Insider” writes, the New Statesman has had editorial input from religious Christians – who presumably also believed that non-believers were misguided “cattle”, or similar – since its inception, yet has remained a secular magazine.

“Presumably”?

Did they or didn’t they?

That’s not a particularly convincing argument – but I’m sure you know that already.

Rationalism means pretty much accepting the authority of reason

Says who?

Does it not mean simply using the methods of reason?

Davies and now Emmanuel Goldstein have again gone for the what about defence. So what is it – is MH excused because Pat Robertson is a bigot? does this work the other way around ? Do they cancel each other out? What is worse is that in the effort to squirt ink to obscure MH’s bigotry the argument is advanced that everyone – religious and non religious alike is at least as bigoted. As pointed out earlier the Majority of Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Bahai, Sikhs, Hindus as well as atheists largely hold to their faith or convictions without having to view others in frankly contemptuous terms. There undoubtedly are religious and even anti-religious bigots of all faiths and non faiths, but their existence is hardly an excuse – in either direction. The homophobia of Islamists is hardly made excusable by the Homophobia of right wing evangelical Christians, any more than the homophobia of Islamists excuses that of Christian fundamentalists.

Muslims do face difficulties in that the founder of their religion as well as the texts attributed to him or about him is unusually obsessed with shortcomings of anyone not prepared to accept that he speaks for God, and has priviliged access to God’s mind – which appears filled with contempt for humanity as it then existed.

Metta – point taken about the degree that Iran – despite what would strike a Sunni as heresy – still best embodies the idea of an Islamic state.

There’s systematic persecution of Christians in China, and has been for the last half century; as there was in the Soviet Union, and in almost every other officially atheist regime in the twentieth century.

And your point is?

And as a credit to these oppressed Christians, they’ve never reacted to their very real oppression by engaging in suicide bombings or by attacking a politburo or two, now have they?

China may be a dictatorship, and it represses many basics rights and freedoms, but even at that most Chinese Christians have it far easier than many Christian minorities in majority-Muslim states.

The mere fact China counts some 70 million Christians…most converts obviously… places the country’s official atheism on a higher moral plane than the religious tolerance displayed by many ‘officially’ Muslim countries.

Unsure what the fuss is about unbelievers being called ignorant…Islam has always called the time before Islam as the time of ignorance, so no surprises there, and as Hasan is a Muslim he would naturally follow his revealed text…is that being an Islamist or just a Muslim DavidT?

In this case Hasan also calls Muslims cattle if you continue to listen.

The real question is whether the knowledge he expects Muslims to accumulate includes self knowledge, knowledge of Islam itself, knowledge of the Koran, its history and creation, will they accept critical analysis of the Koran?

‘Orwell, apparently, was wrong about all sorts of things, not least the inner logic of totalitarianism: he thought a mature totalitarian system would so deform its citizenry that they would not be able to overthrow it’ ….Islam would seem to prove the point…a ‘social tyranny’ worse than any political oppression. A tyranny in which the rules and norms of life can penetrate more deeply into the details of life than Laws, enslaving the soul itself ? Does Hasan want to continue the ‘despotism of custom’ or will the development of knowledge lead to ‘free development of individuality’?

for what it is worth, I have received an email which says that the Quran does not, in fact, say that non muslims are people of no intelligence.

James McIntyre – 25 July 2009, 2:59 am

“I am part-Jewish”

Oh jesus, another “as-a-jew”!

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/category/as-a-jew/

Atheists and disbelievers are “cattle” and “of no intelligence”

Ha!

That is just a fickle cover for the fact that Islam requires its adherents to abolish the use of logic and reason. Thus deprived of the best part of human potential, Islamic countries tend to do poorly in realms of human rights, science and standard of living. To which Islamists react with conspiracy theories against the West, incitement to hatred, racism and violence, and in the very worst of cases, terrorism.

Religions that deprive man of his best potential ought to be abolished.

Yup, I’ve followed through the source material now. Obviously, I’m no Quranic scholar, but my correspondent makes a convincing case that the Quran does NOT say that non-Muslims are people of “no intelligence” but rather people of “no knowledge”.

There is one somewhat dodgy translation, and an even more dodgy commentary of the Quran that does use the ‘no intelligence’ line – but it really doesn’t seem to be borne out by the text itself.

It is very different to say that people don’t have a particular sort of religious knowledge that ‘matters’. Of course a a religion would say that. It is not a particularly offensive thing to say.

Now, I know a lot of people scoff when they hear people say that you should read the Quran in the Arabic – but this looks like a case in point as to why one should do so.

“That is just a fickle cover for the fact that Islam requires its adherents to abolish the use of logic and reason.”

See above.

Xyzzy:”We don’t, however, attempt to make our point more forcefully with the help of a car full of gas cylinders. Which is the difference.”

So far in this post Hasan has been called an extremist, an Islamist, a narcissist, a bigot, a racist and someone comparable to Hitler. To that add the insinuation of terrorist as well.
All based on one quote. Can anyone spell L-Il-B-E-L-L-O-U-S?

I guess it’s the shame of annonymity that people can say what they want without any consequence simply by ensuring they remain a nobody. Trying to become a somebody like Hasan, and you just get attacked!

What’s more ironic is when Brett blogged about Hasan’s article on white terrorist suspects alot of the comments where all expressing how the NS has fallen from grace and is no longer worth reading. So why then generate all this furore a week later about a person who works for a magazine not worth reading??

I guess it’s the shame of annonymity that people can say what they want without any consequence simply by ensuring they remain a nobody.

I take it that ‘2yyiam’ is the name on your birth certificate then?

I can hardly believe that Jonathan Dimbleby [Hassan “typifies the best of British”], John Ryley [Hassan has “a vision for the way news and current affairs are reported”] and Dorothy Byrne [Hassan is among the “intellectual big thinkers”] could now sit through that excerpt of Hassan’s speech and repeat their above endorsements of him. On the other hand, given “This (moral relativist, PC, multicultural) England” we have, it is in fact quite believable.

I said it’s the shame, not the beneift. And besides I’m not the one hurling unmitigated abuse his way.

Colin I’m sure they could as they would listen to the entirety of the speech, not just 45 seconds.

2yyiam, this is a strange variation of tu quoque. Why have you yourself posted under a ghost name???

This delightful chap, 2yyiam, insults anyone who is not a Muslim. I heard him. What has been written about him here is therefore, in my opinion, fair comment rather than libellous.

And I looked up the definition of narcissist, having read Mitnaged’s post: I found a link to something about superiority complexes. I gather that an unshakeable belief in one’s superiority is a first order symptom of narcissism. According to Wikipedia, in psychology it refers to “… the unrealistic and exaggerated belief that one is better than others.”