Presenting the antisemitic, anti-Sunni, anti-atheist, ‘non-Muslims are cattle‘, ‘Muslim World-ist‘, big-C Conservative hating ‘progressive leftist‘ - that’s right folks, Mehdi Hasan hosted by Quilliam Foundation and the Conservatives in a day-long love fest, apparently. Who would have guessed it?
This is a time of unprecedented change for British Muslims. With Muslims facing rising levels of anti-Muslim sentiment, hostility due to terrorism and other factors, questions are increasingly being asked about what it means to be British and Muslim both in the challenging present and uncertain future. It is in this context that we, in co-operation with the Al-Karimia Institute and the St Paul’s Institute, would like to invite you to the first in a series of events designed to build trust and confidence between Muslim thought leaders.
This is an invitation-only event, aimed for a limited number of some of Britain’s most influential Muslim thinkers, activists and scholars to attend and discuss issues of socio-political importance. The gathering will be held at St Paul’s Cathedral, London, on Saturday 23rd January 2010.
St Paul’s is an auspicious venue for this event as the first cathedral in this location was constructed in 604CE, shortly before the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) started hisda’wah in Makkah al-Mukarramah. Thus Christians have been worshipping God in this location since the very first generations of Islam. That Muslims are to meet there to discuss what it means to be British and Muslim is a symbol of both the depth of Muslims’ ties to Britain and the ways in which our religious traditions can be used to unite us, not divide.
The topics to be addressed include:
‘British Muslims and a Conservative Government: How to Engage?’ – Panellists will include Paul Goodman MP, Adeela Shafi (Tory Parliamentary candidate, Bristol) as well as other leading Conservatives. This will be moderated by Mehdi Hasan (Senior Editor of the New Statesman)
‘Britishness, Muslims and Integration; Where are the Barriers?’ – This will be chaired by Canon Giles Fraser (St.Paul’s Cathedral) and panellists will include Imam Muhammad Yazdani Misbahi (Islamic Centre of Brent), Captain Afzal Amin (served in the British Army and studied Maliki fiqh in Mauritania) and Lucy James (Author of ‘In Defence of British Muslims: A Response to Racist BNP Propaganda’)
All attendees will be encouraged to make contributions to these important discussions in an intimate and neutral environment, with candour and under the Chatham House rule.
We will start with a coffee reception at 9.30am, followed by discussions, lunch and prayer. A personal tour of the Cathedral will be led by Canon Giles Fraser at mid-day, before the afternoon discussion and we aim to close in time for Maghrib prayers.
We hope that you will join us for what promises to be an inspirational and educational day, inshaAllah.
hat tip: Chishti
49 Comments
Strange bed-partners. But QF has been whoring it’s wares to anyone with so much as a glancing association with the Tories. But Mehdi “Kuffar are Cattle” Hasan? Who knew?
All of this is designed to secure funding from Cameron and his gang with the inevitable change in govt. this year.
First they befriend Bunglawala and now Mehdi Hasan! This goes to show Quilliam are not serious about tackling extremism. All they’re after is funding and they will do anything to secure it!
Hi All,
In the spirit of genuine inquiry – I followed the Mehdi Hasan ‘Kuffar are cattle’ spat and I was not impressed.
His pitiful defence was shocking and it looked like a definate example of a muslim telling one thing to a muslim audience and quite another when was caught on camera addressing the former to the rest of us.
Does this man think the ‘Kuffar* are of no intelligence and are like cattle? How prevalent is this view in private in the Mosque? As this man is considered a ‘progressive’, are these views common amongst liberal muslims as they are the beard of hate???
*What level would the outrage be if a white person in a very senior position at a national publication said ‘the niggers have no intelligence’ – exactly we would rightly be outraged. Yet a political British Muslim can slander around the equivalent and his cover is…..’The Koran says’……….oh well, thats ok, if a 1400 year old book says so then thats ok…(not)…….but he won’t say if he thinks that or if he thinks muslims need to or should.
“Presenting the antisemitic, anti-Sunni, anti-atheist, ‘non-Muslims are cattle‘, ‘Muslim World-ist‘, big-C Conservative hating ‘progressive leftist‘ – that’s right folks, Mehdi Hasan…”?? Are you guys crazy? Have you ever been to any of Mehdi Hasan’s lectures aside from out-of-context excerpts of videos on Harrys Place? I have, over the years – and I can assure you that he is one of the few speakers in the Shia, nay the Muslim, community that condemns Muslim anti-Semitism and urges Shia-Sunni dialogue and unity. You call him “anti-Semitic”, an outrageous and offensive accusation, but where’s your evidence? I notice there’s no link for that particular libel.
And “Common Humanist”, did you even bother to listen to the speech while you “followed” the spat? He called anyone – Muslims and non-Muslims – who fall prey to groupthink and closed-minded-thinking “cattle”. It’s a metaphor. Don’t be so literal. And don’t feign such mock outrage.
You guys are sad and pathetic with your witchhunts. Why don’t you try getting hold of Mehdi Hasan and see what he really thinks instead of assuming on his behalf and calling names like you’re in a playground? As I said, sad and pathetic.
It’s a belief – I think – in all the popular monotheistic religions that nonbelievers are so appallingly ignorant they deserve to be consigned to eternal damnation. Insulting, in my opinion, and foolish, but pretty widespread (billions of people hold it, at least). If we’re to damn them all as “extremists” there’ll be precious few moderates about. And if Mehdi Hasan, and people like him, are Islamic extremists we could probably count the number of moderate Muslims on our finger and toes…
Asim
Funnily enough Jai and I were discussing Mehdi going both ways – i.e. taking Muslims to task as you describe but also he describes non muslims as cattle and of no inteligence.
Now, it may well be as you describe but I think not, he certainly didn’t explain himself well and couldn’t say if he agreed with the Koran that people like me were cattle and of no intelligence. How nice of a progressive.
Now I think people are complicated and multi-faceted and Mehdi certainly is but lets be clear a non muslim watching that talk wouldn’t be impressed with his descriptions of non muslims, would they?
And don’t call bein g pissed off at being called a kuffar mock outrage, it is a base, gross insult and I would get used to non muslims being insulted by it. It is the equivalent of n8gger or p8ki and is just as deeply offensive.
BenSix
You really think that? You must either have a very low opinion of normative attitudes and behaviours held by most Muslims towards their non-Muslim neighbours or you must have lots of fingers and toes.
I recall an incident that happened in rural North Western Bangladesh, where the village imam used his tenure as the village religious authority to rabble rouse against the small community of Hindus who also happened to live in the village. His nasty religion-baiting was finally put to an end when a group of Muslim villagers raised hue and cry for the sake of peace and community cohesion and chased the crazy baldhead outta town, so to speak.
Those villagers were Muslims but they were also instinctively normal people, call them liberals if you want. They were not monomaniacal monotheists as your understanding would have it. They understood instinctively the damage done by religious supremacism and why the nasty imam was employing the word “kuffar”.
Now if some illiterate villagers who live in a rural backwater of one of the poorest countries in the world can understand that, why does a highly educated political editor of the esteemed New Statesman and one our “British Liberal Muslim” opinion makers not?
Faisal
Agree with everyword. Brilliant response.
TCH
Excellent remarks by Faisal. Britain’s Islamist extremists could learn a lot from those enlightened villagers too.
I’ve mentioned this before — and apologies if the caveat “popular” was intended to pre-emptively not include Sikhism, ie. it specifically referred to the “Abrahamic” faiths — but Sikhism is one of the world’s major monotheistic religions (obviously not as many followers as Islam or Christianity, although it has more than Judaism) and it does not have the “believer/non-believer” dichotomy, nor does it state that non-Sikhs will be consigned to eternal damnation, and neither does it state that “eternal damnation” exists for anyone full-stop.
If BenSix is referring to ultraorthodox “exclusivist” interpretations of Christianity and Islam (as far as I know, Judaism has a different viewpoint), then yes his point is correct with regards to some quarters, especially historically.
Jai,
No, I wasn’t consciously excluding Sikhism. It slipped my mind, which was remarkably foolish. Sorry all.
Faisal,
I’d like to draw an unlikely paralell between Mehdi Hasan and Richard Dawkins (one that, I suspect, both men would be acutely aggrieved to see). For Hasan, nonbelievers are “deaf and stubborn“, and “incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off th[eir] blind prejudices“. For Dawkins, believers are ignorant “faith heads” who deserve little but mockery. Both these views, I think, are foolish and insulting, but the contempt they display doesn’t colour either man’s life. They both work with nonbelievers/believers; they’ve both shown respect for their opposites-in-belief; they don’t apply their apparent disdain to social policies; it’s beyond me why – as this post appears to suggest – either man should be excluded from the political sphere.
On Hasan’s credentials as an, er – non-extremist (I dislike the term, but will take it to apply to the Islamist radicals that this blog justly opposes): well, he doesn’t seem all that distinct from any other mainstream social democrat. He opposes the Caliphate, terrorism and religious compulsion. He defends electoral reform, community cohesion, even Ed Balls for God’s sake (I must be more of a radical than he is). What are the actual objections against him?
After the embarrassing mistake that Jai pointed out, I should cut out the sweeping generalisations! I’ll tentatively assert, however, that a belief in religious supremacy – which I assume we’re defining as the overwhelming truth/righteousness of one’s own religion – isn’t rare among Muslims/Christians. 59% of Americans, for example, believe in hell, which is a pretty strong assertion of one’s own belief’s primacy. That doesn’t suggest, however, that they act – or advocate others acting – with abject contempt for people with other opinions. It doesn’t, I think, indicate anything significant about their political views.
Lastly – I’ve rambled on long enough – no one’s defended the “anti-semitic” descriptor, and I suspect that the author will not be able to defend his “Islamism” tag (even the HP post admitted that this would be unfair to Hasan).
Ben
If you follow the links it cites his statements of we ae always fighting with the Jews and we need kore intellectual weapons to win etc.
Muslim scholars of theology see the discussion of kufr and rejection of faith very different and in non-binary forms. See Shaykh Hamza Yusuf’s discussion for this. (I’ll post a link).
As for the remarks, they are plain stupid and biggoted. Just because Dawkins also does in some respect make sweeping generalisations usually about people rejecting evolution does not equate with Mehdi Hasan’s statements.
The strange thing here really is why is Quilliam Foundation hosting this man, as a muslm thought leader?! This chap is pro-Islamist, and regressive in his statements.
Not what we expect of Quilliam Foundation. Though since the Bungles over Mel P incident it is clear that anti-Semitism isn’t one of their priorities – shame…
Lastly – I’ve rambled on long enough – no one’s defended the “anti-semitic” descriptor, and I suspect that the author will not be able to defend his “Islamism” tag (even the HP post admitted that this would be unfair to Hasan).
The “tag” and the “descriptor” are applied in the case of Mehdi Hasan because of his implied support for the Islamic regime of Iran. If you support a political system in which the State executive is administered by an assembly of unlected Islamic theologians, the Majlis, then you believe in a modern form of caliphate. Islamists are disparate in flavour, but they almost all believe in authoritarian theocratic systems of governance.
Hasan’s comments on Iran in the NS include a piece which defend the regime’s official line that it is strictly nuclear non-proliferation. Another piece protests the prospect of Iran turning into another Iraq by using Iran’s nuclear program as a pretext for the West to launch another pre-emptive attack. I note that these are themes which are also obsessions of Islamist groups based in Britain
It would be nice to know Hasan’s take, as a New Statesman polemicist, on Ahmadinejad’s anti-semitism. His views on Iran’s support of terrorist groups such as Hizbullah. And especially, how it is possible for British Muslims to support the Islamic regime of Iran whilst distancing oneself from its anti-semitism and its sponsoring of Hizbullah and be a left-leaning liberal and a right-wing Islamist at the same time?
Abdul -
You’ve jumped from Hasan’s belief – naive or otherwise – that Iran has no intention of producing nuclear weapons to the claim that he has “implied support for the Islamic regime of Iran“, and thus “believe[s] in a modern form of caliphate“. How is this implied? I’m reminded of an article here which criticised the notion that if one offers the slightest defence of American policy one must be a neoconservative, supportive of the war agenda. I assume that you disagreed with that piece, because your logic is precisely the same.
Moreover, you “note that these are themes which are also obsessions of Islamist groups based in Britain“. All I can summon in response is – so?
Captain R,
You draw the implication that Hasan is anti-semitic from his words “our Jewish brethren who we spend so much time fighting and arguing with“. Muslims – not all Muslims, clearly – have spent a lot of time fighting and arguing with Jews. This is a terrible thing. Mentioning it, however, does not imply support of it.
How is this implied?
From the tone and content of the two articles on Iran that he has written for the NS that I linked to, the implication seems Hasan is more supportive of the present Islamic regime rather than not.
All I can summon in response is – so?
On its own, I agree, so? So, which is why it would be nice to have a clarification by answers to the questions I asked in the last para.
BenSix
Ben, whilst I generally agree with much of what you wrote, I must pick you up on a few – perhaps minor – points.
I am concerned to understand better what you mean by an expression like “a belief in religious supremacy”, Ben. Especially, as you illustrate the same with reference to the statistic that 59% of Americans believe in hell – a fact that you assert shows a “pretty strong assertion of one’s own belief’s primacy.”
Let me start with this latter assertion. In fact what it shows is that 59% of Americans believe in hell; and that is all. There is actually no reason why such a belief would mean that such believers also held that their religious faith was in any way supreme. It simply does not follow that belief in the existence of hell requires one to believe that one’s faith is necessarily better (by whatever measure) than any other.
What it may suggest, however, is that a considerable number of Americans take a very literalistic, “traditionalist” approach to their faith (which, I take, is principally Christian) – and that this is a rather conservative faith community (something we know from other evidences, in point of fact).
Now, it may well be the case that, more often than not, this sort of faith community will also hold to beliefs about the primacy of their particular faith (or indeed sect within a wider faith); but this remains a contingency and not a necessary correlate of any particular belief or sub-set of beliefs they may also hold.
In another way your comment troubles me. What exactly is meant by belief in hell? If asked such a bald question, one would want to be careful to distinguish between those responses that indicated a belief in a literal hell – a real place (perhaps on some other metaphysical plane) where the transgressors against God’s Law received their deserts. Yet, one would also want to distinguish such answers from those that indicated a belief in hell as a metaphor for (at the very least) some sort of specie of existential angst (for example, this sort of “hell” as psychological condition, or – indeed – real social condition of life has figured in radical Protestant reconfigurations of liberation theology since at least the English Revolution).
Again, one might the latter sort of answer to be given by those who might also not want to make claims about their faith’s supremacy or primacy (yet, still they might – for the earlier given reasons).
Yet again, as you would seem to indicate, at least two of the Abrahamic monotheist faiths do often seem to make claims that theirs is the only way to God. In passing, I am not sure why you leave Judaism out of this dilemma – especially after Sachs got into such trouble for basically arguing against belief in exactly a Jewish – to borrow your expression – religious supremacy. However, one might argue that nearly all faiths are capable of expressing their necessary internal belief that they are correct ways of connecting the divine and mundane in such unfortunate and tactless ways.
On the other hand, nearly all faiths have moved away from such assertions of their peculiar supremacy or primacy – and not simply as some sort of tactic of social convenience.
I think that there is a fair distinction to be drawn between a belief in one’s religion’s appropriateness as a means by which to commune with the divine (which is perfectly reasonable a tenet for a believer to hold of his/her faith) and religious supremacism., which implies a fundamental intolerance and lack of respect for the worth of other faiths. Perhaps in too prolix a manner, I have been suggesting that your descriptions are in danger of not making that distinction clear enough.
Abdul Hamid
Since I am in picky mode…
Can I point out that it is not the majlis which is unelected? Nor is it an assembly exclusively of clerics.
The majlis is the nominally elected Parliament of Iran. However, being selected for election is determined by unelected clerics, the elections are overseen by unelected clerics (and rigged by the same via their access to the mechanisms of state power) and the decisions of the Majlis are subject to veto, or at least modification by gaggles of unelected clerics.
Abu Faris, thank you. I stand corrected.
Abdul -
Considering the broad conclusions that you draw from it – that he “support[s]” the regime and would advocate a caliphate – that’s extremely unfair. If he does “believe in authoritarian theocratic systems of governance” it’d need a far more direct statement to supersede all the stuff he’s written that seems to be in favour of parliamentary democracy.
This is fair enough. Emailing him, though, might be a better course than asserting that he “believe[s] in a modern form of caliphate“.
Abu -
Interesting comment! If I don’t reply for a while, it’s not because I’ve run away; I’ve got to go and do some work (and mull it over).
it’d need a far more direct statement to supersede all the stuff he’s written that seems to be in favour of parliamentary democracy
But yet, near total silence on the pro-democracy Green Movement.
Thanks, Ben. I look forward to your reply.
Abdul Hamid – that’s alright! The very strong theocratic basis of the Iranian system of government will often lead to the belief that democracy – even the incredibly limited and strangulated form as exists in Iran – plays no role whatsoever.
Khomeini was initially ardently opposed to any intervention of democracy in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran; he was persuaded not by the eloquence of pro-democracy voices in his circle (there were none); but by, in the main, sheer oppotunism and the exigency of keeping on board (at least initially) non-Islamist elements in the early days of the post-Revolutionary period. That the theocrats at the heart of the Iranian system are now abandoning even the fig-leaf of “Islamic democracy” reveals, at least, their continued commitment to clerical fascist ways and means.
This neatly ties in with the discussion you are having with Ben. If by “support for Parliamentary democracy”, Ben means Hasan’s support for the crippled, deliberately hamstrung, deeply limited form of “Islamic democracy” as exemplified by the Iranian system, then – clearly – questions would have to be asked about Hasan’s commitment to the notion of democracy, as the Iranian Parliamentary democratic system is about as undemocratic as a supposed democracy can get without being an outright travesty of the term.
(Will reply to 6.14 later this evening, but I’d better clear something up: when I said “parliamentary democracy“, I meant democracy as it’s exemplified here. Of course, that’s problematic as well! Still, a debate for another time, perhaps…)
Thanks, Ben – that was the clarification I needed.
Abu -
I took “religious supremacy” – in the context of this thread, as inferred from Faisal‘s comment – to be the belief that one’s faith holds the ultimate truth and righteousness, and is separated from others by its validity (ie. its teachings are correct) and its moral superiority (its tenets point towards the good life). You seem to be, rightly, drawing a distinction between the notions a) “our religion is supreme” (but we are still weak/sinful etc.) and b) “we, as the religious, are supreme” (so ya boo, sucks to you etc.). I think, though, that the former entails a bit of the latter: one can’t, it seems to me, believe in an ultimate truth without holding that those who reject it are ignorant, and I’ll tentatively assert that the belief in a righteous path to follow necessitates the view that those who ignore it are being unethical. How ignorant or immoral one considers nonbelievers to be will, of course, vary wildly, so before describing someone as a [you say
potatoreligious supremacist, I say "insert perjorative here"] it’d be necessary to place one’s term.(Though I don’t know Hasan – to wrench myself back onto the topic-y rails – I suspect that he isn’t guilty of fundamental intolerance.)
I’m not especially convinced by this. It’s probably true for some, of course, but I don’t think it’s unfair to assume that the belief in hell is usually* accompanied by the views that a) it’s the place that sinners are consigned to, b) that sinners are those who unapologetically broke the demands of the faith, c) that the God who sends them there is rightous and d) – finally, thank whichever Lord – that there’s a paradise where the forgiven may dwell. The upshot of those opinions is that acceptance of the faith brings one to joy, while rejection leads one to deserved suffering. I think that implies that the religion – whatever it may be – is “better“; superior to another.
[*]It’s certainly true of the living Pope; to a gentler extent, I think, of Jews; it was always my experience when I attended church, and I think it’s true for most Muslims/Protestants, though I can’t, I’m afraid, back that up at the moment.
Abdul -
To continue my Neocon Europe parallel, I think you’d disagree with Miller et al.‘s insinuation that because the Spittoon doesn’t criticise Israeli policies it must be hotbed of Zionist fanatacism. The same logic applies here (I’d add that I haven’t written a lot on the demonstrations in Iran, and I don’t, as far as I’m aware, “believe in a modern form of caliphate“). While I applaud the apparent purpose of this blog, you need to be careful how you apply the brush of “extremism” (so the truth may reign, and, as for all bloggers, so you don’t get sued).
BenSix
At no point have I accused Mehdi Hasan of extremism. I have noted that he probably supports the present theocratic, anti-semitic and anti-democratic Islamic Republic of Iran. If he does lend it his support, and by implication (see above) he does, I would like clarification from him on how he intellectually reconciles being a supporter of this regime and what it stands for whilst being a British Muslim opinion maker and a left-leaning liberal. Especially now that he is being feted by the Quilliam – who, as far as I know, stands for liberal principles.
BAsically it does look like he wants it all ways – British Liberal Muslim to non muslim audiences, both that AND a right wing Kuffar Disliking Islamist to British Muslim audiences AND then a supporter of totalitarian theocrats in Iran.
Wow. He must have to get up early.
Imagine the outrage if this chap was a white political operative and playing an equivalent game????
How long will colour be a protective barrier against criticism from my fellow lefties in Britain?????
I see that the arguement has moved on to something completely unrelated to the original blog.
Before I get back to the original claims of the blog, going through the posts, there seems to be a lot of assumptions about Hasan’s views on Iran and democracy. There is a simple answer to all this – you can ask him directly – I’m sure his contact details are on the New Statesman website. However, since the tone of the comments seems to suggest that no-one can actually be bothered to be that considerate, have a look at this link (Hasan’s own blog): http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2009/11/israel-lobby-jnf-british, scroll down and read Hasan’s response about his views on Iran. It may not go into enough detail for some of you, but then you can ask him about the rest surely? Abdul Hamid, instead of making assumptions about his views, if you would like “clarification”, why don’t you ask him and get back to us???
Back to the original point of this blog – I’ve yet to find any reason as to how he can be labelled anti-semetic or anti-Sunni. It’s amazing how everyone rushes off to label him Islamist, pro Iran etc etc as if it’s the truth. I guess it’s the vicious world of the Blogosphere where you can say pretty much anything and people just jump on the band-wagon regardless of the minor thing called “facts!”
This has already been done by others on this blog and over at HP last year, but to clarify – he states that the Kuffar are like cattle and have no intelligence. To Abdul Hamid or Faizl Gazi, what is your religious viewpoint on Atheists (assuming you are indeed muslims)?? The Quran describes them as Kafir, this is the arabic term and Hasan is quoting it from the Quran to a muslim audience. To deny the existence of God is a big deal in Islam and rightly so and when making that point to a muslim audience, why is that then being taken out of proportion by everyone – both muslim and non-muslims???
Abdul -
You accused him of being anti-semitic, claimed that he “believes in a modern form of the caliphate” and still assert that he “lend[s] it his support [to the Iranian regime]…by implication“. If it was unreasonable to infer from those opinions that you believe him to be an extremist I apologise. As I’ve argued in comments at 5.48, 6.22 and 3.11, however, yours is a very strange interpretation of his comments, and almost certainly unfair. If “clarification” is what you seek, why not email him and ask for his views on Iran? Wonder how he “reconciles being a supporter of this regime“, however, and be prepared for a response that’s somewhere along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife?“.
Curiously, you extend this to a snipe at the Quilliam Foundation. Really: a) Hasan doesn’t seem to be any more illiberal than you or I, and b) inviting someone to moderate a discussion is not “fet[ing]” them.
If it was unreasonable to infer from those opinions that you believe him to be an extremist I apologise.
Earlier in the thread you inferred I had called him an “extremist” because he used the “kufaar are cattle” analogy to modern non-Muslims. But you went further by suggesting that all Muslims must also be “extremists” since you assumed all Muslims subscribe to the “Kufaar are non-Muslims are cattle” doctrine. You seem to be happy with assumptions as long as its you making them.
Surely you can understand that anyone who supports the Iranian regime must must clarify his positions on Jews and democracy in Iran. I admit that I am making assumptions, but if a political editor at the NS were writing articles defending the BNP, no one would think twice if I assumed him to be a race supremacist.
“I admit that I am making assumptions”
So why don’t you stop right there???!? I’ve already provided a link about Hasan’s views on Iran which would suggest he is not a supporter as you assume. Why don’t you ask him yourself???
Abdul -
This is ad hominem. Nevertheless: a) I specifically said that I didn’t think it would be fair to describe Hasan, and those who are like him, as “extremists“, b) I didn’t “assume [that] all Muslims subscribe to the “Kufaar are non-Muslims are cattle” doctrine“, and c) I apologised for my sweeping generalisations.
He doesn’t support the Iranian regime (or, at least, there’s no evidence that he does). This is not a view, I think, that I’ve failed to express, in comments at 5.48, 6.22, 3.11 and 12.20. I ask this sincerely: do you think it’s fair that Neocon Europe points out that this site attacks supporters of Hamas, and then infers that it has a “Zionist orientation“? I’m not trying to start a game of blog-boxing, but I genuinely can’t see how your logic is any different.
He doesn’t support the Iranian regime (or, at least, there’s no evidence that he does). This is not a view, I think, that I’ve failed to express, in comments at 5.48, 6.22, 3.11 and 12.20. I ask this sincerely: do you think it’s fair that Neocon Europe points out that this site attacks supporters of Hamas, and then infers that it has a “Zionist orientation“?
I only write for this blog because I too attack supporters of Hamas. Neocon Europe can think what they like.
I repeat that I am making assumptions about Hasan, but if a political editor at the NS were writing articles defending the BNP, no one would think twice if I assumed him to be a race supremacist. There is no reason why I cannot assume Hasan is a supporter of the Iranian regime and what it stands for.
Abdul –
Right, so let’s see what constitutes his “defence“: reporting that the Ayatollah Khamenei (who, in the link provided by Asim Abbas, he explicitly states that he doesn’t support) has issued a fatwa denouncing nuclear weapons, and suggesting that this is a good thing. One might argue that he’s naive to take the man’s statement at face value, but there are several things that this doesn’t imply: a) a defence of the Ayatollah generally, b) a defence of Ahmedinejad, and c) a defence of the Iranian theocracy. If I defend a policy of the Israeli government, I am not necessarily a supporter of theirs; if I promote a statement from Hamid Karzai, I am not necessarily a friend of his. The problem is not that you’re “making assumptions“, it’s that you’re making false assumptions.
You can in fact – unless, of course, Hasan sues you – but you can’t in truth. Your argument – as I’ve lengthily, and tediously for all concerned, explained – isn’t correct.
Of course no one would sue me if I assumed Hasan to be a defender of Iran’s official party line but deeply opposed to it’s ugly anti-semitism, a supporter of the pro-democracy Green Movement to overthrow the oppressive Khomeniest theocracy, which, I assume, he regards as illiberal and dictatorial. Even though that too might be a false assumption.
Abdul Hamid -
Not quite – a defender of one statement from the Ayatollah: he states in the link that’s helpfully provided by Asim Abbas that “whether the Iranian regime heeds th[e] fatwa is a different matter“. I’m glad, however, if, as you seem to be, you’re moving away from your previously stated view that he’s a supporter of the regime, of “a modern day caliphate” and of anti-semitism. There is, indeed, no evidence for any of those.
There is no evidence that Hasan is not a supporter of the Iranian regime either, judging from the tone and content of his articles on Iran in the NS.
And there are two facts: The Iranian regime is a modern day caliphate – an interpretation of the Shariah state. It is also deeply anti-semitic.
Can we not all agree that if you support the Iranian Regime then you are most definitely not a progressive and have no place at the UK’s leading progressive magazine????
Surely we can agree on that????
Abdul -
Commonly known as the appeal to ignorance…
There is evidence that he doesn’t support the Ayatollah. There isn’t evidence, that I’ve seen, that he doesn’t support Ahmedinejad, but the absence of evidence isn’t evidence.
TCH -
Well, one certainly couldn’t be a liberal, or a social democrat (luridly picky, I know, but I’m not a big fan of the term “progressive“).
I’m not sure the content of his articles on Iran, is entirely refuted by his comment “whether the Iranian regime heeds th[e] fatwa is a different matter” means he does not support the Iranian regime princicipally.
And I was wondering when you’d point the McCarthy reference at me. Especially after assuming Muslims think the “kufaar are cattle” en masse. No fallacy there, of course.
I keep repeating myself, by why do none of you have the common courtesy to ask him directly rather than make false accusations??
Yea Abdul Hamid, this is your Lord speaking!
Hast thee forgot, the High Priests of the New Statesmen will use a Muslim to do their dirty deeds for they know that the Left of the Kingdom of Ingleterra would not dare speak out against funny brown Muslims and their funny ways. Verily the Liberal Establishment is wicked! Treacherous!
s IX; a XXIV
CommonHumanist
“What level would the outrage be if a white person in a very senior position at a national publication said ‘the niggers have no intelligence’ – exactly we would rightly be outraged.”
An absurd comparison. Islamophobes keep telling us verbal attacks on Muslims are OK because “Muslims arent a race”. By the same definition neither are non-Muslims. So how can criticising them be the same as being racist eg criticising Black people?
Abdul -
What “content“, and why does it need “refut[ing]“? His faith in the Ayatollah’s sincerity may turn out to be naive, but there’s nothing terribly egregious about the posts. You’ve yet to give evidence for the notion that Hasan “support[s] the Iranian regime” – principally (?) or otherwise – or even explain why it’s a remotely fair assumption.
I’m not charging you with McCarthyism, I was implying that – in this post/comment thread – you’ve used some arguments silly enough to have been garbled out by ol’ Uncle Joe. You’ve claimed that Hasan is anti-semitic (there’s no evidence of this), an Islamist (there’s no evidence of this either), a supporter of the regime in Iran (nor this), and an advocate for a caliphate (I’m in danger of repeating myself).
Thus, you eventually offer this…
…which, as you’ve yet to contest, is a nice example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Again, I’m not ragging on you, I just think you’re wrong on this point and should correct yourself.
I didn’t – I made a (possibly) rather too broad assumption about the number of Muslims/Christians who believe in damnation for nonbelievers. In fact, I corrected you on this minor point in the comment at 12.59.
Loading a sentence with heavy sarcasm doesn’t necessarily render its content absurd. This example is correct: there isn’t a fallacy there.
Zia
The point is that a British Muslim Progressive to a Shia audience was throwing around kuffar as an insult – the low intelligence stuff etc – and alot of people disturbingly decided that that was ok.
It isn’t. It is a gross insult.
Hence my comparison – I and I would hope most people would be outraged if a white person would be saying that. I don’t see why being a muslim should give you a free pass on an equivalent insult.
A level playing field and an avoidance of base insult would be nice from people, do you not agree????
Asim
I did via his blog on the NS website. He wouldn’t answer.
TCH
You’ve claimed that Hasan is anti-semitic (there’s no evidence of this), an Islamist (there’s no evidence of this either), a supporter of the regime in Iran (nor this), and an advocate for a caliphate (I’m in danger of repeating myself).
I’ve already explained why these descriptors and tags were used and we’ve been over it over two rounds. I don’t want to have a third. I stand by them.
Zia
You really are not very bright, are you?
Thanks for the reply, Ben.
I would almost completely agree with you on nearly everything you wrote above (and apologies for the late response).
Can I get back to you later, as I have had no sleep in nearly 36 hours and I am a bit frazzled?
Thanks, again, for your thoughtful, careful comments.
Abdul -
Well, plainly I’m not going to convince you. While I still disagree entirely, thanks for a civil discussion.
Abu -
Thank you! And yes, no worries (your 36 rather puts my 28 in the shade; it’s just a shame that, in all that time, I never got around to the work).
BenSix,
I arise from my coma!
When you put in such a manner, Ben, I think that is an entirely reasonable line of argument – one with which I find little to disagree.
I think my quibble was simply the assumption I read into your original comment that this belief (in hell) was a necessary grounds for a creed of religious supremacism. I now see that you did not mean it to be read in such a manner. Thanks for the clarification.
I recall (many moons ago at university when studying such things) that Tertullian had once argued that the joys of Paradise were encapsulated in the sheer pleasure the Saved would find in viewing the heretics and the enemies of the Faith burning for eternity in the fires of Damnation. I was somewhat relieved to later find that Nietzsche picked up on this exact piece of horrendous nastiness to exemplify what he found wrong about Christianity (or rather what passed for the Christian faith – Nietzsche is never clear about this distinction, frankly – and to his loss).
Of course, one irony is that Tertullian was later declared heretic himself!