Return to: Home | Blogs | Dissident Voice

Who are you calling an Islamist?

"My life and career", by Mehdi Hasan, "part 2"

It was Andy Warhol who remarked that one day we'd all have our fifteen minutes of fame. I'm now into my fifth day of online infamy - thanks to the blog, Harry's Place (as well as a blog on the Spectator). The former has devoted much time and energy, over five separate posts, to quoting selectively, and out of context, from various informal talks that I have given in recent years, in front of numerous British Muslim (and non-Muslim) audiences.

The end result? Commenters at Harry's Place have decided that I am an ally of "Andy Choudary" (I assume they mean Anjem Choudary, from the radical Muslim group, al Muhajiroun), that I come from a Hizb ut Tahrir "background" and that I'm a "raving Islamist bigot". One commenter says, "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."

But consider this:

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who have written a piece entitled "There's nothing Islamic about a state" , as I did for the New Statesman in April, in which I concluded, with the words of secular Muslim professor Abdullahi An-Na'im, that "the Islamic state is a historical misconception, a logical fallacy and a practical impossibility"?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who challenge senior members of Hizb ut Tahrir in public debates, as I did with HT's Dr Imran Wahid in a debate on the future of European Islam in June 2006?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who believe not simply in parliamentary democracy but who passionately and publicly immerse themselves in the current campaign for the introduction of proportional representation via "AV plus", as I did earlier this month in the Vote for a Change campaign rally at Methodist Hall, where I shared a platform with Peter Tatchell and Polly Toynbee?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who chair and shape public debates on the future of the social-democratic centre-left, as I did at the annual Compass conference last month?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who tell an audience of Muslims that Islam is a "humanitarian" faith and insist that Muslim nations in the Middle East would be under an Islamic obligation to come to Israel's help were the Jewish state to suffer, God forbid, from a horrible natural disaster like an earthquake, as I did in a speech in February this year (a speech, incidentally, singled out for praise by former counter-terrorism minister Tony McNulty who was present in the audience that afternoon)?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who publicly denounce "those in our community who decry any collaboration any cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims, who describe all non-Muslims as kafirs whom we owe nothing to, whom we need not offer any help or charity to" as I did in a speech in February this year ("I want to disassociate myself and all of us here from such extremist Muslims," I said at the time)?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who chastise Muslim audiences for daring "to criticize the way this country is run.... complaining and whining and moaning about how we're treated" when "we don't bother to exercise our basic right to vote", and who urge British Muslims to be "an engaged and outward-looking community....politically and socially proactive", as I did in a speech in a north London mosque in October 2007?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who tell a Muslim audience that "nowhere in the Quran, when we read it properly, can we find any justification for violence against civilians, for indiscriminate attacks of terror against noncombatants, against women, against children. Nowhere!", as I did in a speech in Manchester in September 2007, called "Disconnecting Islam from Violence" (and, again, quoted out of context by my anonymous critics at Harry's Place)?

I have spent my entire life, from secondary school to university to my professional life as a journalist, encouraging Muslims to be moderate, and to integrate, rather than remain outside the mainstream of British society. And I have had innumerable stand-up rows with extremist Muslims who think I am not Muslim enough; as well as with aggressive atheists who think I am not liberal or secular enough. It is par for the course.

So, what did I say, back in February, prior to joining the New Statesman, that has sent one corner of the blogosphere into such an angry frenzy? In the section from the speech quoted prominently (and, once again, out of context) at Harry's Place, I seem to refer to atheists as "kafirs", as "people of no intelligence" and as "cattle". In fact, I am quoting from the Quran - where the word "kafir" simply means "non-Muslim" or "non-believer" and it is in this sense (in fact, in its atheistic sense), and no other, that I used it. I do, however, acknowledge that in the hands of a few Muslim extremists, the word has taken on more sinister connotations. Perhaps it is a time for a debate on the future of this term - or, alternatively, to reclaim it from the bigots and radical Islamists. The Quranic phrase "people of no intelligence" simply and narrowly refers to the fact that Muslims regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position, just as atheists (like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris) regard believers as fundamentally irrational and, even, mentally deficient. As for the metaphorical use of the word "cattle", that has no more pejorative charge than does the word "sheep" when applied by atheists to religious believers - plus, you will note that I also refer to unthinking Muslims as "cattle" in the same speech, which was addressed primarily as a critique of my co-religionists (as you can see here and here).

Thankfully, many of my closest non-Muslim colleague and friends over the years have recognized that I am neither an Islamist, nor an extremist of any kind - Jonathan Dimbleby, for example, has said: "Mehdi is a devout Muslim but is at all times entirely within the framework of liberal democratic society. He typifies the best of British."



Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

54 comments from readers

Randolf Jeffrey
28 July 2009 at 20:09

Good fight back Mehdi.

I agree that you were simply refering to the Quranic phrase of "people of no intelligence". Obviously the people at HP have it in for you!

I trust New Statesman will not take any notice of the post at HP, and that you'll be able to continue with your excellent work on this site. Your recent pieces and especially the one on Barack Obama have all been

excellent.

Keep up the good work.

The Common Humanist
28 July 2009 at 20:10

Hi Mr Mehdi,

I don't doubt your sterling efforts in the community but how is this supposed to be interpreted:

"We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest, of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire."

Nasty? Poorly worded? Badly explained?

In the name of common civility and decency I should think that Kafir should be not used - it has become a gross insult - on a par with the N word or the P word. No sane person would use those two nasty words and I think the same common decency should be extended to Kafir.

Grace Allen
28 July 2009 at 20:29

Dear Mr Hasan,

Anyone who says you are an "Islamist" is wrong, as are the insulting posts. It is obvious you are not an adherent to that twisted philosophy. Nevertheless, there are real problems with the language you use, notably refering to non-believers as "animals" and "people of no intelligence". I have listened to the speeches and you only quote the Quran approvingly (and by definition you approve of the Quran), they are views you endorse as people will hear if they listen to the speeches ("talks" really doesn't do them justice).

I am pleased you have engaged and would like to repeat a question I have posted on your blog previously: where do you stand on equal rights for gay people? Do you regard gay sexual acts as immoral and where do you stand on reproductive rights? These questions are very important given your position.

seriously?
28 July 2009 at 20:43

Great response Mehdi. I think the people at HP have nothing better to do than to "expose" something that doesn't need to be exposed. There is nothing wrong with speaking your mind and you have a great one. I hope to continue reading your articles at the Statesman. Keep it up!

Ali J
28 July 2009 at 20:47

Great response Mehdi - 'exposing' the lack of professional journalism and inaccurate reporting at HP.

Parts 2 and 3 of their 'exposé' are truly pathetic and not even worthy of a response.

Shuggy
28 July 2009 at 20:48

"I seem to refer to atheists as "kafirs", as "people of no intelligence" and as "cattle"."

You seem, indeed. This would be because you actually *did*, is it not? In your defence, Hundal has pre-empted your self-defence by suggesting you have been taken out of context because you were quoting the Koran. This observation only changes the context if there is some disagreement between you and the passages you quote. But there isn't, is there?

Ali J
28 July 2009 at 20:58

Shuggy - perhaps you need to read Mehdi's response again and stop taking things literally.

"Kafir" - Arabic term for non-Muslims who are not Christian or Jewish. Nothing more, nothing less.

"People of no intelligence" - simply and narrowly refers to the fact that Muslims regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position.

"Cattle" - metaphorical use to denounce the herd mentality and to urge people to use our unique God-given gift of intellect.

MatBol
28 July 2009 at 21:09

Exactly what I needed to hear! Great stuff Mr. Hasan. I agree with Ali J, the 2 and 3 parts of HP aren't worth responding to. They were clearly clutching at straws there.

I agree with you on the stuff regarding the term kafir. Maybe we should have a debate on what it means and how it is used, and whether it is now a derogatory term and has negative connotations (which it probably is).

getalife
28 July 2009 at 21:14

Grace - are you the self-proclaimed thought police?

lazymoss
28 July 2009 at 21:15

In the Quran various words are used to describe both the "believers" and "non-believers", eg, the believer is referred to as Muslim, Mo'min, Muttaqi, Salih, etc etc. BUT there is a huge difference between a person who claims to be a Muslim and a Momin - everything is seen as relative. Conversely, non-believers are described as Mushrik, Kuffar, Fasiq, Fajir, Nafiq, Munafiq, etc etc. Either because they do not believe in a God altogether, or believe in many, or even that they believe in a God but their actions contradict their supposed belief.

The word "kuffar" (plural of Kafir) is spot on when describing atheists because even the pagans of the time believed in "a god", albeit idols.

The problem is that "the atheist" (which btw was a rarity in Arabia) often cited logic as defence of his/her belief but when they were defeated using that very same logic they refused to accept defeat which in itself was seen as illogical. That statement from the Quran simply comments on this condition of theirs. (Just read the second chapter of the Quran, say the first 30 verses, without malice.)

The Quran's problem is not the rejection in itself, but the problem is with what and WHO is being rejected and with what evidence. At a philosophical level the 'ex nihilio' position taken by the atheists is seen as absurd by the theists.

The Quranic statement does not mean that people who do not believe in a God cannot think about things or are devoid of thought, but only that they simply lack belief in something which is seen as so obvious and fundamentally true by the Quran.

This applies even when the Quran compares the different types of "believers". Some are seen to have a greater insight and penetration into the nature of God; others do not, as judged by their actions.

But, having said that, some pluralists with Islam embrace the human being and argue that at the very least a person (a believer or not) "is your brother in humanity". Ironically the first step in accepting God is to deny another.

davidt.harryblog
28 July 2009 at 21:26

There is one odd omission from Mehdi Hasan's piece. He has nothing to say about the video clip in which he appears to be praising Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa on nuclear weapons while condemning the conduct of Pakistan.

I asked in the comments whether Mehdi Hasan regarded the Supreme Leader of Iran as a religious authority, and whether he believed that Iran was following the fatwa of their Supreme Leader.

Mehdi hasn't answered that question, but I would very much like to know his position. If he doesn't think that the fatwa is credible, rather than a tactical move in Iran's programme to disguise their nuclear weapons programme, then why raise it? If he thinks that Iran is in fact acting on the fatwa, and is not trying to develop weapons, then that is a rather odd position to take. Alternatively, he might think that Iran is developing weapons, but is ignoring the ruling of its Supreme Leader.

I would like to know which one it is.

davidt.harryblog
28 July 2009 at 21:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hpfqFt-0Q&feature=player_em...

Ali J
28 July 2009 at 21:33

David - so your only remaining gripe is about Mehdi's comment relating to Iran and nuclear weapons then. Good to know that everything else is out of the way then.

What exactly is the problem with Mehdi's comment? He supported a fatwa that condems the development of nuclear wapons. Wouldn't it be nice if all countries would have that same stance?

Grace Allen
28 July 2009 at 21:47

getalife - Are you saying that Hasan's views on gay rights and reproductive rights are irrelevant to his position as a Senior Editor on magazine of the left? I think they are pretty pertinent. The thought police would ban him from holding those views or persecute him for them. I am simply trying to establish whether he holds views that are compatible with his job.

douglas clark
28 July 2009 at 21:48

There is an odd omission in David T's comments. It is an apology.

Ali J
28 July 2009 at 21:58

Grace - I'm sure his boss(es) are in a much better position to judge if Mehdi is the right person for his job; which they clearly think he is.

Douglas - hear, hear!

mhasanfan
28 July 2009 at 22:02

The posted videos in Harry's Place are clearly out of context. Plus, why isn't anyone giving attention to his words "Jewish BRETHREN" meaning that he has ALLIED himself and other Muslims with Jews, as opposed to the usual anti-Jewish attitude that can exist in Muslim societies that are fed up with the whole Gaza issue. If looked at in context, he is speaking to his fellow Muslims - and boosting them to become more educated, and to portray their views with words rather than violence. Is this not what we need in this era of terrorism in the name of "Islam"? As for the word KUFFAR, every religion, including Christianity and Judaism, denounces any opposing theological view as "heresy". However, am I to be insulted if Mr Hasan is speaking to his fellow Muslims, and referring to non-Muslims as kuffar? I'm not, and do not see the reason for any indignation or offence.

Grace Allen
28 July 2009 at 22:26

Ali J - 1) I think the fact his bosses employed him says a great deal about their lack of judgment and the crisis of some on the left (this is a man who defends Press TV and hates the Quilliam Foundation). 2) Do you really imagine they did their research and saw and heard these "talks"? If they had they might have thought twice. I can't believe that they are entirely comfortable with the fact that he calls non-believers "animals". But you are clearly more willing to trust your "betters" than I am.

Ali J
28 July 2009 at 22:55

Correction - he defends *appearing* on Press TV, which I don't see a problem with.

And of course any self-respecting Muslim would not trust the Quilliam Foundation with their millions of pounds from the government.

As for your 'animals' comment; you have clearly misunderstood the main thrust of Mehdi's arguments. It is used metaphorically in relation to people, Muslim and non-Muslim, who fail to engage their intellect, reason and logic to recognise the existence of God and overcome our base animalistic tendencies and desires.

GQ
28 July 2009 at 23:01

Grace, it is very easy to take things out of context. It is also easy to quote something without fully understanding it.

The referring to non-believers as animals; well, he refers to Muslims in one of the speeches quoted as cattle for simply following what is going on without using their own minds. The same can be applied to non-Muslims.

douglas clark
28 July 2009 at 23:17

Phew!

So no one noticed the spelling error!

Seriously, it is not useful to describe people you disagree with as sheep or cattle. It is quite likely to get folk quite upset.

I am an atheist. I do not want anyone describing me as kafir or djinn, or worse.

I am the victim here, and according to the 'new rules' victims have the right to object to what they see as prejudicial language. That cuts all ways, doesn't it? So you must take my point on board, else you are being hypocritical, or summat?

Anyway

Moo!

Grace Allen
28 July 2009 at 23:19

Ali J - I have understood perfectly. Of course it's metaphorical! I don't imagine he actually thinks non-believers are literally animals. His contention that those who don't recognise the existence of God are animals is precisely my objection - we are not people of no intelligence or as unthinking as animals. We are not cattle. I object to him saying we are.

GQ - same point. You seem to be arguing it's OK to say non-believers are "simply following what is going on without using their minds". It's a contemptible position. So, for the avoidance of doubt, I UNDERSTAND what he is saying and have listened to all the material.

GQ
28 July 2009 at 23:31

douglas - 'kafir' effectively just means unbeliever. It isn't in itself an offensive term. As for jinn - they are creatures made from fire according to Islamic tradition, so don't see how a human being would be referred to as one. It would be odd rather than offensive.

Grace - Aren't you offended that he referred to Muslims as 'cattle'?

2yyiam
28 July 2009 at 23:31

Grace, we meet again. Out of interest, what is your view on religious people? Have you ever felt they lack intelligence or were simply 'sheep' following the crowd blindly? I know many atheists who think that. Should they be condemned along similar lines?

As for Hasan's response, thanks for the clarifications. Hopefully the Islamist accusations will end here. As for the future, no doubt you will be observed closely by the readers of HP, Spectator, etc. Might as well make the most of it.

Rachel S
28 July 2009 at 23:56

Wow. Great repsonse to the pathetic blogs put forward by HP. Everything you have written has clearly proved to us that you are a moderate individual who is interested in integration and social cohesion. I am more than confident in your abilities as a responsible Editor and look forward with much anticipation to your future articles and blogs. The word 'kafir' seems to have taken on a much more negative meaning (as have so many other words) than it actually is and maybe people need to stop being so sensitive and discuss the real issues...

brownie
29 July 2009 at 00:14

'kafir' effectively just means unbeliever. It isn't in itself an offensive term.

So does 'infidel'. So presumably if Mehdi had referred to non-believers as "infidels" in that speech, we'd all have been sweet with that, yes?

getalife
29 July 2009 at 00:14

Ali J - great job on answering Grace's never-ending questions

brownie
29 July 2009 at 00:29

Why is Mehdi complaining about a lack of context and selective quoting and then immediately following this with not one citation from the 5 posts at HP or any comment made by an editor there, but instead reproduces 3 completely OTT and unacceptable comments left in the threads?

This would be like me writing a response to this article at HP by referencing 3 comments in this thread rather than anything Mehdi actually writes.

Referring to people as cattle or sheep may not be the worst insult one can fling, but neither is it a term of endearment nor is it intended to do anything other than, in some way at least, discredit those being so described. In simple terms, it's not very nice.

And both remain not very nice whether the descriptions are borrowed from a holy book or come out of a Christmas cracker.

brownie
29 July 2009 at 00:39

"It is used metaphorically in relation to people, Muslim and non-Muslim, who fail to engage their intellect, reason and logic to recognise the existence of God and overcome our base animalistic tendencies and desires."

Nice try, except in case of those who disbelieve. The very fact that they don't believe is sufficient to render them cattle.

Your comment above suggests the metaphor is used only with regard to those who "fail to engage their intellect", when in fact those who reject God are, by definition, considered to have failed to engage their intellect and thereby earn the descriptor "cattle".

It's there in the speech. Reject God, you are cattle. Accept God but behave like the "kaffar", and you're cattle also. Accept God and live your life as a true believe, you're exempt from the cattle metaphor.

I've been called worse. But again, not very nice.

Bea
29 July 2009 at 00:45

A cogent defence, Mehdi. It rises above the mud-slinging and tittle-tattle, and responds to the real

issues. ... Though based on the (selective) material cherry-picked by HB, I'm not sure that these should

have been called into question.

People need brave journalists to speak up - you do this. Keep up the good work.

Ali J
29 July 2009 at 00:56

brownie - Of course each religion will claim that it holds the truth and that those who do not use their intellect to realise that are misguided. Particularly so as Islam puts so much emphasis on the use of logic and reason.

The cattle metaphor, as Mehdi put it, has no more pejorative charge than does the word "sheep" when applied by atheists to religious believers.

However, what isn't mentioned and widely understood is the holistic picture that Islam paints about how to interact with wider society, be they Muslim or non-Muslim, and the emphasis it puts on mutual respect, courtesy, manners, politeness, etc.

Verses from the Holy Quran:

"Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner" - 16:125

"Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice." 60:8

Another verse, reference not to hand, refers to the Holy Prophet as having been sent by God with the sole purpose of "perfecting moral character", which is what Islam is all about.

Narrations from Imam Ali (as):

"Live amongst people in such a manner that if you die they weep over you and if you are alive they crave for your company."

"People are of two kinds: Either your brothers in faith or your equals in humanity"

lazymoss
29 July 2009 at 01:38

"Nice try ... the very fact that they don't believe is sufficient to render the ..."

Yes, quite simply, because more is expected of a man.

Since it is the quality of 'belief' that is used by the Quran to pronounce a judgment, therefore, obviously, any argument or 'intellect' referred to is pertinent to the discussion related to the existence of God. However, God is, or at the very least is seen as, the absolute and infinite. His existence, or indeed existence itself, is a fundamental truth in Islam, which indicates that He must exist! Anything other than this is either an absurdity or rests on the impossibility of circularity,

According to many, the use of the word "cattle" is charitable given the point of comparison is God Himself.

The Quran stresses that if one reflects, then one must conclude that he/she exists, and therefore one must conclude that God exists - here creation which depends on a creator is being used as a proof, even though it depends on a creator, though as Kant contends you cannot use anything empirical to prove something metaphysical. However, ‘He’, whatever 'He' is, is a ‘necessary’ because of the impossibility of infinite regress. This is seen as something obvious by the Quran and only an animal without any intellect would overlook something so obvious and say everything just came out of nowhere. That is the contention of the Quran.

Yet it may equally be the case that those 'atheists' are not really 'atheists' as such, because by denying ‘God’ they may effectively be saying they don't understand the concept or the question or the notion. They are not convinced, perhaps, of the way God is conceived. I am genuinely not sure whether everyone believes in ‘something’? The 'atheists' too are believers in the idea that there is 'no God', are they not? I wonder how they justify this, and with what evidence do they jump to this conclusion? Is it simply an animalistic reaction to jump on the bandwagon of atheism?

I don’t know....

lazymoss
29 July 2009 at 01:51

By the way, Mehdi, if comments and circulation of your articles on the net are anything to go by, rather than firing you, the NS should be doubling your salary. Ironically you have 3 lame HP blogs to thank for that. Funny, no?

jane
29 July 2009 at 02:19

Mr Hasan - well done on putting yourself out there with innumerable facts and examples to put an end to this ridiculous and false campaign by the 'anonymous' guest blogger on HP.

I have always understood kafir to be simply be the Arabic translation of 'non-Muslim' too, like the word atheist means a 'non-believer' in god, without any derogatory implications unless someone goes looking for one like C4 insider did desperately in this word and the word 'cattle' (as you said, ironic, when we use 'sheep' all the time in a similar context and no one seems to take much notice let alone offence).

The witch hunt against you has been well summed up by Jonathan Derbyshire on this site when he quotes the Harvard writer on the dangers of blogging:

'The recent experiences of my colleague Mehdi Hasan rather bear out this passage from Michael Massing's very interesting piece about blogging and the future of print journalism in the latest edition of the New York Review of Books:

"The polemical excesses for which the blogosphere is known remain real. In And Then There's This, an impressionistic account of the viral culture on the Internet, Bill Wasik describes how "the network of political blogs, through a feedback loop among bloggers and readers", has produced a machine that supplies the reader with "prefiltered information" supporting his or her own views. ... With so many voices clamoring for attention, moreover, a premium is put on the sexy and sensational. Headlines are exaggerated so as to secure clicks and boost traffic. ... [Consequently], the Internet remains a hothouse for rumors, distortions, and fabrications."

Enough said ... methinks.

The Common Humanist
29 July 2009 at 10:39

So still no explanation of:

"We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire."

Lazymoss:

"Is it simply an animalistic reaction to jump on the bandwagon of atheism?"

Again, the unbelievers as animals theme. Do you have any idea how offensive that is?

williamhazlitt
29 July 2009 at 11:12

The Common Humanist - I think Mehdi's position is clear. He's quoting a passage from the Quran, which he then uses as a way of reflecting critically on the need for Muslims to engage with society in various different ways.

You describe the 'unbelievers as animals' theme as 'offensive' to you as an atheist. You're perfectly at liberty to feel this way. However, as a liberal Christian, I find this idea no more offensive than Dawkins's contention that people with religious beliefs are 'sheep' or Jonathan Miller's argument (if I remember rightly) that religion is 'a mental illness' that needs to be treated with drugs.

Belief systems tend often to speak of those who don't adhere to them in pejorative terms. This isn't necessarily an easy or desirable thing. But allowing such views to be aired is essential to the maintenance of free speech and a tolerant society.

EU22
29 July 2009 at 12:42

It is interesting that you use the word 'sheep' when making reference about atheist to Christian believers.

But using it in a Muslim context takes a different connotation - because in no Muslim country can you freely leave Islam.

So to use light terms such as sheep doesn't fit here - Muslims in the Islamic world and in the western to

some extent are coerced or forced into remaining Muslim.

It is not a simple matter of if I decided to change my religion from Islam then I would be seen by others as unintelligent - I might likely lose my life - because, as Muhammad said, kill those who leave their religion (of Islam).

That's where calling someone a sheep or cattle or kuffar could be taken to a supremacist level. You don't have the freedom to leave. You can't freely criticise Islam or the life of Muhammed.

As a Muslim you are already under extreme strictures - by the dictates of the religion - and so to call someone unintelligent who wants to leave that structure - could and I think should be taken as offensive.

-

-

Muslims in the west are always talking about 'the way they are treated' which could possibly be translated

into 'we are upset because people are rejecting Islam'. In the Islamic world this becomes more evident - take Pakistan, for instance - Christians were not allowed into the refugee camps for those fleeing the SWAT - they were turned away at the gates and told that their food was dirty and therefore Muslims would not share cooking and living space with them.

Christians in Pakistan are constantly being hauled into court for blasphemy - in one case a Christian couple helping a Muslim man to store his belongings touched his Koran and found themselves in court for

blasphemy and defiling the Koran.

One Christian Pakistani man who stopped on a long bus journey at a roadside tea stall was beaten to

death - for drinking from a Muslim-only cup. No arrests.

Shari'a-based laws give Muslims priority - to them this is right!

Do Muslims want it all?

brownie
29 July 2009 at 14:06

You describe the 'unbelievers as animals' theme as 'offensive' to you as an atheist. You're perfectly at liberty to feel this way. However, as a liberal Christian, I find this idea no more offensive than Dawkins' contention that people with religious beliefs are 'sheep' or Jonathan Miller's argument (if I remember rightly) that religion is 'a mental illness' that needs to be treated with drugs.

Given you are a liberal Christian, you presumably find being called "mentally ill" for having your faith offensive? So when you say you find Mehdi's comments "no more offensive ... than those of Miller", what you really mean is you find them equally offensive, no?

The only other explanation is that you don't mind being insulted by Muslims or people of any other faith, but you do mind when the speaker is an atheist.

FWIW, why are those defending Mehdi's comments automatically assuming that his detractors are okay with the sort of virulent anti-theism that comes from the likes of Dawkins?

williamhazlitt
29 July 2009 at 14:54

Brownie - Am I offended by Richard Dawkins or Jonathan Miller? No, not really. I might disagree with their points of view, but I'd absolutely uphold their right to hold them.

In much the same way, I have evangelical Christian friends, Muslim friends, agnostic and atheist family members, all of whom presumably think that to some extent I'm wrong to hold beliefs that differ from there's. For me at least, that difference is productive - it's the mark of a society in which (at a basic level at least) there's some degree of religious tolerance and freedom of speech. The ability to debate these issues free from restriction is one of the best functions of democracy.

Freedom of speech is not, of course, a trouble-free thing. Words carry a lot of historical baggage with them, and people therefore - rightly - question the use of language that they deem to be racist or otherwise offensive. The most important thing is that we're able to have a debate about language in the first place - and that seems to be precisely what Mehdi's invited above.

Freedom of speech is a complex area

Dmoloney
29 July 2009 at 16:41

Hi Hassan. You accuse HP of being inaccurate in describing your views, but arent you doing the same, in the second post the writer clearly states "Hasan is not an Islamist. Indeed, he has clearly written and spoken of his opposition to the idea of an 'Islamic State' as well as criticising Wahhabi and Takfiri groups". Yet a good half of your article you seem to be trying to portray HP as making accusations of you being an Islamist whereas the previous quoted statement shows that to be untrue.

brownie
29 July 2009 at 18:23

"Brownie - Am I offended by Richard Dawkins or Jonathan Miller? No, not really. I might disagree with their points of view, but I'd absolutely uphold their right to hold them."

You're not offended by someone referring to you as having a "mental illness" and needing drugs to cure you of your faith? Fair enough, but I take it you accept that others might not be so forgiving? That being offended by such remarks and others that refer to you as "cattle" is perfectly understandable?

And no one is suggesting that anybody shouldn't be allowed to be offensive (within the limits of the law) if that's what gets their rocks off.

"In much the same way, I have evangelical Christian friends, Muslim friends, agnostic and atheist family members, all of whom presumably think that to some extent I'm wrong to hold beliefs that differ from there's. For me at least, that difference is productive - it's the mark of a society in which (at a basic level at least) there's some degree of religious tolerance and freedom of speech. The ability to debate these issues free from restriction is one of the best functions of democracy."

How exactly do you begin a debate with someone whose starting point is that you have a "mental illness" for thinking what you think? Of even if you think it's possible, do you believe remarks such as Miller's and Hasan's are useful contributions to that debate? Do they foster an environment in which a civil exchange of opinions is likely to flourish? Or are they more likely to create division and suspicion of the 'other'?

Shuggy
29 July 2009 at 21:15

"Shuggy - perhaps you need to read Mehdi's reponse again and stop taking things literally."

No I don't think so. I can assure you it's already clear to me that the references to 'cattle' and 'animals' are metaphors; it would be absurd to take them literally. I am also clear that they are meant in a pejorative sense. The attempt to suggest otherwise doesn't convince. This won't do either:

""People of no intelligence" - simply and narrowly refers to the fact that Muslims regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position."

Holding intellectually untenable positions and having low intelligence are two different things. Personally, I don't think scripturalism, regardless of which branch of the salvation religions practises it, is intellectually tenable - but I wouldn't impute to those holding it low intelligence.

But that wasn't, in any event, my central point. Rather I was narrowly interested in this one: how does pointing out that someone is quoting a text provide 'context' when in fact the speaker *believes* the text in question? I just thought it was a rather weird way to defend oneself.

Sharif
30 July 2009 at 16:14

To preach that these things have nothing to do with

Islam is not telling the whole truth. In quran and hadis,

many suras ask followers to take the law in their own

hands. 'When it says: Kill all those who join other

gods', there is no mention that the matter should be

dealt with country courts.

A good start would be to say: In 21st century, certain

suras are not valid.

exiledinyorkshire
11 August 2009 at 16:38

It seems to me that its very cool to be of Faith on the left at the moment. But such people start with so much baggage, that its impossible to take what is said on any other issue seriously.Mehdi, by wearing your faith as such a shiney badge you bring this on yourself.

Answer the questions.......what are your views on gay rights? And women in society? Big deal so you dont think the jews should be wiped off the face of the earth, but your belief system is still based virbatum on a medieval text.

MassParade
20 August 2009 at 10:08

I think this debate has gone from a minor misunderstanding to outrage and pure hate. I say this with the utmost clarity, we need to stop pointing fingers at each other and STOP behaving like children. Grow up! Mehdi, you like others have been defamed before over belief, let not their words enrage you. let your words speak the truth with kindness. Now can we all take a deep breath! (sigh)

terence patrick hewett
27 August 2009 at 14:13

As an unrepentant Kafir I feel in need of a swift Djinn and tonic.

Davey Wonder
02 September 2009 at 23:37

This is ridiculous defending remarks like this is like defending aparthied south africa - how can any sane person attempt to squirm out of 'keeping the moral highground sentiments from kaffirs' - is the church of england exhorting its followers to keep the moral highground against Islamists? What an utterly supermacist statement - how long before those of us not judged to be keeping the 'moral high ground' by Mr Hasan suffer 'moral corrections' through punishment...

arieh zimmerman
03 September 2009 at 03:35

Dear Mr. Hasan,

As a left-wing, Jewish atheist, Israeli kibbuznik, I have read your explanation and the comments of those who seem to believe it and of those who remain skeptical.

Using the Torah as an example, (I have begun reading the Koran but have not progressed far enough to offer an opinion), it seems clear that any of the "bibles" of the world's major religions may be interpreted according to the preconceptions of whomsoever reads them. Therefore, without prejudging, as I am not familiar with your writing, but according to the style and tone of the justification of your recent remarks, I would suggest that only you know to what degree your mind is open and free of bigotry. I hope for the best, and, if I may, commend you on the lack of rancor and animosity in your text

an indian
04 September 2009 at 13:03

Islamists definitely exis if Christianists are

found among us.Recently a Christianist said in s sermon that Obama ought to be aborted.Obama is said to be pro-choice.

an indian
04 September 2009 at 13:03

Islamists definitely exist if Christianists are

found among us.Recently a Christianist said in s sermon that Obama ought to be aborted.Obama is said to be pro-choice.

an indian
04 September 2009 at 13:03

Islamists definitely exist if Christianists are

found among us.Recently a Christianist said in s sermon that Obama ought to be aborted.Obama is said to be pro-choice.

nawawimohamad
11 September 2009 at 08:20

Mehdi, even if the whole world called you an Islamist, so what?

rayner
18 September 2009 at 14:44

Kafir used to be a derogatory term used by South Africans to describe an indigenous person of South African origin. One of the 'original' people of their country.

I have never heard it employed in any other form except on this blog.

rajendra C
10 October 2009 at 01:32

I think you should try and push Islam out of the picture in your articles and focus on some edgier, surprising articles on the state of politics.

It appears as though, it's a form of citizen journalism - basically reactionary to the ambience created by our tabloids.

There appears to be no doubt you can avoid this but if the direct narrative you choose is a direct response to the narrative in the public political field (in that I mean politics as seen by popular culture as opposed to any non-popular culture that would comprehend investigative works in politics) then people will find it easier to respond to you, with some venom.

I would like to see you comment on stories where Islamic activity, or people acting in the name of Islam negatively (in the same fashion you do so here) but, I'll have to wait and see on that one.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Expenses: the story that never ends

19 November 2009 22:31

Bin Laden and me

19 November 2009 08:52

Vote Blue, Go Green?

18 November 2009 17:11

Why die for Karzai?

17 November 2009 13:12

Stephen Byers to quit parliament...

16 November 2009 18:02

Britain's Israel lobby

16 November 2009 17:54

On a break

09 November 2009 00:36

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker