هذه المادة على www.newstatesman.com هو المرجعية تستحق في رأيي. انه يستحق الادخار للرجوع اليها في المستقبل. انها قراءة رائعة مع العديد من النقاط الصحيحة للتأمل. لقد لنتفق على كل نقطة تقريبا في غضون هذه المقالة.

@Mehdi'
You had Maude and Murray, in punching distance, how could you resist?

well, if we all listened to Mehdi non of us would be able to vote and we would all be stoned to death for opposing him. hypocrite of the first degree

Mehdi you really tied yourself into knots in your attempt to dismiss the influence of religion (ie Islam) on terrorism.

The gentleman in the audience said terrorism is caused by bad teachings in religious schools and your reply was... "Rubbish!"

Douglas Murray then mentioned that the terrorism is a religious problem too (as well as a political problem) and your reply was... "In YOUR view Douglas it's a religious problem".

Then after a bit of interrogation from Murray and Dimbleby you eventually admitted that there "is a religious component".

@normalguy
Agreed. He's hijacking politics in favour of his chosen religion. I'm all in favour of dissident voices but to attempt to use a so called political platform on one of the few left leaning magazines in this country to overtly promote your religious beliefs is both despicable and worrying.

Who voted to invite so many Muslims to Europe in the first place ?

If nobody did, why do we insist on calling ourselves a democracy ?

Surely we should be able to keep 3rd world Muslim immigrants out, just as we were allowed to keep socialism out in 1983. Democracy, no ?

Mehdi I hate to break this to you, but you are not in the same league as Murray. Moreover, the vast majority of the people in this country loathe you because you are an islamist nutter

ok now you have. thanks

Douglas Murray is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person is like

Dave S calls me out. Thanks for your reply !

Would it be unkind of me to point out that the word "its" has no apostrophe when it denotes possession ? "It's" must mean either "it is" or "it has". Please learn to speak English before you condemn as Nazis those with whom you disagree.

You say that Britain needed huge numbers of Muslims following the war. I'm not sure I agree with that. Look at Jack Straw's constituency, Blackburn. The Muslims were brought in to work in jobs that were soon to disappear. How much foresight did politicans have ?

The work of Christopher Caldwell has been mentioned before in this blog. Martin Wollacott, in his review of the book, denounced politicians' ludicrous short-sightedness after the war.

Wollacott was right, I fear.

Dave S - you can go on calling people Nazis if you want. Isn't that Godwin's Law ? When you've lost the argument, call people Nazis.

Bring on the Islamic Republic of Britain.

Tant pis, mes amis.

personally I dont agree with Mehdi Hasan's views on issues such as the prescence of British troops in Afghanistan but there is a concept in this country known as democracy and I dont think our divergent views on say Afghanistan makes Mr Hasan a militant jihadist, far from it. He is often attacked for his speech where the word 'cattle' was mentioned, in that speech he is clear and explicit about the context of the phrase, he is chiding those within Islam who reject learning, they are the 'cattle', and instead he unequivocally says that it is an Islamic duty to seek out knowledge, including secular knowledge and the knowledge to be gleaned from other religions, this is not a call to close girls schools as the Taliban have done in Afghanistan, it is infact the polar opposite, it is a straightforward call for more education, an openess to other religious traditions and perhaps a modernisation process within Islam itself. It is not a call to arms it is a call to books, 'we are not under-armed we are under-educated' is, I believe a direct quote, maybe those who post comments here citing this speech should listen to it, in its entirety and coherently argue with the points I have just raised, I think its unlikely that they will though.

@Andy
interesting link that you posted 'Andy', where Mehdi Hasan says in no uncertain terms that Muslims and Islamic nations having nuclear weapons is unIslamic, and this link to a video is meant to prove that he is a jihadist extremist, how does that work exactly?

One of the best Question Time programmes I have seen in a long time and so refreshing to see someone of the calibre of Mehdi Hasan on there to give another viewpoint that often does not get well articulated or does not get aired. The idea that Mehdi posed with regards terrorism not being a religious phenomenon but actually a political one is often sometimes not put out in the domain because it does not serve a purpose of those that are benefitting from the acts of terrorism.

Islam has NEVER been for violence or destruction. Some people, very few in the grand scheme of 1 billion followers of this faith, take things out of context so that they can meet the needs of their supporters and the benefactors of terrorism.

Islam is derived from Peace and is Peace. Well done Mehdi for putting accross these viewpoints very clearly and articulately.

To echo a previous contributor, it is laughable for Mr Hasan to compare himself to Douglas Murray, as if there exists a modicum of equilibrium between the two.

Why does Murray always look so earnest and intense and like he does not possess the slightest sense of humour. I agree that he is disingenuous too.

@ Amy Wevill
I appear to have been censored so don't know if this will post but I'd like to say that the following

Yes it is blatant self promotion. What other journalist posts youtube links of their TV appearances.
Secondly, it doesn't matter whether this is Mehdi's blog or an article. They constitute his views and as such are open to scrutiny and/or criticism.

When I watched this Question Time live, I had never seen or heard of Mehdi before. My thoughts were that here is an educated man full of hate, and his views scare me. Writing this now I feel that Mehdi would be pleased to have induced those feelings in me. I was worried that he holds such a prominent and influential position in our society, and I started to see how some intelligent young people have such hate that they would become suicide bombers. I then watched the Youtube videos referred to above. How can a tolerant society welcome people who are intent on destroying that society? Can Mehdi turn his talents to helping us all get on together? Or is it really to do with religion, and Muslims in particular being unable to accept that some people have another religion or none. When I was 8 years old (50 years ago) I realised that generally the religion you believed in was down to where you were born, so it was unlikely that any religion was the true word of God. Unfortunately you can be killed in some parts of the Muslim world for saying this. How can an educated man defend such intolerance? If educated men will not speak out, then who will? If educated men speak with hate against their fellow man then I fear for our future. Mehdi please think carefully about how you may be promoting hate amongst young people.

Well done Mehdi, you took this rat down! Murray was exposed as being totally out of touch. But what did we expect of this right-wing, upper-middle class, white neo-con? A British neo-con? I didn't think Britain did neo-cons, it's not in your nature!

Hasan should broaden his repertoire. His Aunt Agatha impression is beconming tiresome.

And Fraziel mate - talking about a sense of humour - is that now considered a virtue among the victim-left, and if so when can we see a Hasan joke?

How think does one have to be to believe that ?

SHOULD BE

How thick does one have to be to believe that ?

I meant to write 'thick'. Forgive me.

No idea if its considered a virtue among the victim left, not being a part of it and an advocator of personal responsibility myself,but i remember when i first saw Murray years ago and he is always so angst ridden,angry and stern. I remember someone on QT making a comment about it to him a few yrs ago. Personally in terms of debating i think Mehdi is on a different level from him and personalities aside i think Mehdi is one of the best debaters to appear on QT whereas Murray is is a slippery liar who will twist anything and everything to justify his neo con position. I often disagree with mehdi too but at least he is not spouting lies and the politics of selfishness and greed, like Murray

Douglas Murray was very good and persuasive - as usual

Learn to conduct yourself in a discussion Medhi. Your an embarrassment to a historic newspaper.

It was a great debate Medhi, you came out as the clear winner. My only criticism is that you could have put the boot in more with Murray, bur then again he was doing such a good job of it himself, tying himself in knots with his libertarian claptrap.

As an aside, it's always highly amusing to read the comments section in your articles, Medhi. The presence of so many trolls and agitators means you are clearly hitting them where it hurts with your eloquence and vastly superior intellect. Or maybe they got bored with conservative Home, Stormfront and Guido Fawkes? Awww, poor little mites.
Either way, it's hilarious, always gives me a good chuckle.

@ Tom

Douglas Murray acknowledged the foreign policy AND the religious component to the terrorism.

Mehdi however initially tried to dismiss the religous component, but then he finally admitted it when Dimbleby questioned him.

Mehdi DID tie himself into knots and contradict himself on this issue. Douglas did not.