More equal than others: ‘Comment is Free’ contributor Mehdi Hasan is not a victim.


We, of course, can’t see into Mehdi Hasans soul.

As such, we will then never know for sure what he was thinking when he blamed the rise of antisemitism on Israeli actions, rather than on the antisemites who target innocent Jews. Nor will we ever truly understand with certainty why he singles out the Jewish state (and no other state) as unworthy of existence within any borders.

However, we can assume it didn’t occur to the former New Statesman political editor how hypocritical it is for him to complain (in a ‘Comment is Free’ essay titled, We mustn’t allow Muslims in public life to be silence, July 9) that you can “say things about Muslims in polite society…that you cannot say about any other group” while himself rationalizing the hatred of Jews, and negating the rights of Jewish self-determination.

And, we’ll also never know for sure what was in Hasan’s heart when he claimed (below) that “the kaffir, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf…to the teachings of Islam [are] people of no intelligence”, [like] “cattle,” and another suggestion that non-believers “live their lives like animals”. 

However, we can assume it didn’t occur to Hasan that such demonization of non-believers would undermine his complaint (in the same ‘Comment is Free’ essay) about lazy “stereotyping” and prejudice in the UK media. 

Click image to go to video

Click image to go to video

As Harry’s Placed argued, in the context of Hasan’s words, seen in the video above:

“Ask yourself how you would react if a prominent white, non-Muslim journalist gave a talk to a primarily white audience on the need for greater education in which he argued that “we whites should educate ourselves and embrace knowledge, otherwise we will be no better than Muslims” in which he also compared Muslims to “cattle” and “animals”.”

Do we really even have to ask?

Hasan’s essay evokes the risible specter of a Britain infested with anti-Muslim racism and, indeed, he would have us believe that there is nothing short of political witch-hunt against those who practice Islam in UK.  

Writes Hasan:

“The mere mention of the words “Islam” or “Muslim” generates astonishing levels of hysteria and hate on the web.”

Later, he writes:

“From my perspective, the British commentariat can be divided into three groups. The first consists of a handful of journalists who regularly speak out against the rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry – from the Telegraph’s Peter Oborne to a bevy of Guardian columnists, including…Seumas Milne.”

Of course, it likely didn’t occur to Hasan that he would have a bit more credibility if he didn’t promote the “liberal” virtues of Seumas Milne, the (former?) Stalinst who has defended Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and characterized Islamist terror groups as representing legitimate, and justified, anti-imperialist “resistance”

Hasan continues:

“[The] group that concerns me most [are] those commentators who boast otherwise impeccable anti-racist credentials yet tend to be silent on the subject of Islamophobia; journalists who cannot bring themselves to recognise, let alone condemn, the growing prevalence of anti-Muslim feeling across Europe – or acknowledge the simple fact that the targeting of a powerless, brown-skinned minority is indeed a form of racism

Here, Hasan plays to Western guilt, and the media’s racially based hierarchy of victimhood, impeccably.

He conflates European attitudes about Islamism and Islamist terrorism with that of Muslims more broadly, and imputes racism (of “browned skinned” people) to non-Muslims who legitimately fear the former.  

Indeed, what many in the UK and elsewhere are fearful of, the rise of radical Islam, is a quite rational response to a very real terrorist threat.  Per the U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center’s (NCTC) website, radical Islamic groups were responsible for approximately 70% of all terrorism related deaths worldwide (9,092 out of 13,186) in 2010, representing an astonishing 98% of all religiously inspired attacks.

While, naturally, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world are not terrorists, it is simply undeniable that the overwhelming majority of terrorists are individuals motivated by political Islam.

Hasan also advances the simply risible claim that Muslims – who represent, for instance, roughly 10% of the total population in France, Austria, Belgium and Sweden – are powerless.  In fact, the Muslim population in Europe in 2010 was 44 million, a number which is predicted to rise by 32% in the year 2030.  

Indeed, belying the claim that European Muslims are weak were the results of the French elections, where an extraordinary 1.7 million French Muslims (93% of the total number of Muslim voters) cast their ballot for François Hollande, arguably giving Hollande the election.  And, in the UK, many attributed George Galloway’s victory in the Bradford West by-election to the overwhelming support he received from Muslim voters.

Just compare Muslim political strength in Europe with that of Jews, whose population is 1.4 million, representing 2/10 of 1% of the European population.

Hasan continues:

“But if those of us who try to participate in public life and contribute to political debate are constantly painted with a broad brush of suspicion and distrust, then what hope is there for the thousands of young British Muslims who feel alienated and marginalised from the political process?”

… 

“I should throw in the towel and go find a less threatening, more civilised line of work. But that’s what the trolls want. To silence Muslims; to deny a voice to a voiceless community.”

The suggestion that Muslims are being “silenced” and “marginalized” represents one of those memes which, though possessing little basis in fact, has come to represent conventional wisdom among the political and cultural elite in the UK.  

Hasan himself is a perfect example of a Muslim who is anything but “marginalized”, having been political director at the New Statesman, and routinely being offered a platform at ‘Comment is Free’ (a forum with no shortage of Muslim and Islamist voices) where he is read by millions of UK readers. 

More broadly, an internal memo in 2006 provided a glimpse of the prevailing political culture in the UK by revealing that BBC officials deemed it acceptable to show a Bible, but not a Koran, being tossed into the garbage.  

BBC also reportedly canceled a film on the 2005 London 7/7 transit bombings because they found the script “Islamophobic” — discounting the opinions of the terrorists’ own parents who backed the show’s portrayal of their children.

During a recent interview in February outgoing BBC director general Mark Thompson admitted that Christianity receives less sensitive treatment because it is “a broad-shouldered religion, compared to religions in the UK which are closely identified with ethnic minorities.”  He added that Islam in Britain is “almost entirely a religion practiced by people who may already feel in other ways isolated, prejudiced against, and where they may well regard an attack on their religion as racism by other means.”

So, if the director of the BBC, a taxpayer financed media empire whose programming is viewed by a staggering 97% of the UK public, acknowledges to privileging Islam over other religions in their decisions regarding programming content, on what basis can Hasan claim that Islam is actually singled out for a disproportionate degree opprobrium? 

At the very least, it seems reasonable to conclude that someone who demonizes non-believers in the crudest, most dehumanizing terms, as Hasan has done, will necessarily not take kindly to even the most sober public scrutiny of his faith and the actions of his fellow believers. 

So, as long as Hasan and his allies continue to effectively play upon the guilt and moral vanity of the British left, as he’s done again in the Guardian, we will be assured that the BBC, and much of the media, will continue to abide by the unwritten rule of the PC gatekeepers: all faiths are equal but some are more equal than others.

30 comments on “More equal than others: ‘Comment is Free’ contributor Mehdi Hasan is not a victim.

  1. If it looks like a pig,
    And smells like a pig,
    And oinks like a pig than it must be…

    The new statesman political editor.

    Sorry guys but he started with the personal insults.

      • Well sunshine, I notice you ain’t lifting the tone at all.

        Wassamatter, nothing to say to support Mehdi (kufar are cattle) Hasan just for the contrariness of it?

        No?

        You surprise me!

  2. I have no sympathy for Mehdi Hasan whatsoever. Although he has tried to weasel out of his bigotry (“I was only quoting the Koran”), his protestations have convinced nobody, and he has never apologized for his appalling statements.

    The fact he receives abuse himself is poetic justice. One would hope he would learn something by it.

    • The fact that he quoted such a verse from the koran in a totally inappropriate context and in public was meant to portray what? His open-mindedness and willingness to engage on equal terms with non-Muslims?

      Thank heavens he has no insight and no inkling how to behave in polite company, but it must be perpetually bewildering to be him and to have to wonder why, whenever he opens his mouth and puts both his feet in it, the sky falls on him.

      I am amazed that he can walk at all, with both feet in his mouth.

  3. The funniest thing is that he preaches to a Muslim crowd about prejudices, yet spreads them about the ones who are not like him.

    And then he speaks about not questioning the ways of the world.

    Who’s praying 5 times a day in a specific direction because he’s told to do so?
    Are those the actions of someone who asks “why” too often?

    Stick to your religion, any of them, whatever makes you happy, whatever does it for you, but do not mock the ones who do not follow in your ways.

    • This is classic paranoid projection, Itsik. Hasan has to feel “all good” inside so he splits off from his consciousness the parts of him which hate Jews and “cattle-like kufar, and projects them onto kufar who he says hate Muslims.

      This puts him into his preferred default position of belligerent self-pity where, ironically, he feels most comfortable, but he is unable to realise at any level of his consciousness that what he is saying about the wider world’s attitude to Islam and Muslims, is identical to how he and many other Muslims behave towards that wider world!

      He can’t have any inkling either of how that CiF article came across to all the readership because he lacks the insight and is so well defended against that realisation. If once he did realise it would cause him such discomfort that he would become even more rigid and belligerently self-pitying or the realisation would unman him completely because he would have to rethink his whole world view.

      His is the typical cognitive distortion of the paranoid Islamist when backed into a corner.

  4. The generally received wisdom is that Hasan was given the order of the boot from the Statesman, (see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100159587/mehdi-hasan-liar-leaves-job/ ) because, according to Andrew Gilligan of the Daily Telegraph, “..the job needed more scruples than he possessed, and his temper sometimes get (sic) the better of him…”

    The article at the link above shows the anger which comes from the narcissistic injury of such a one, when he is called to account for the mistakes he has made.

    Mehdi Hasan, in this miserable burble, does not show himself to be aware that he is accusing (who? society in general?) of doing to Muslims what people like him have been trying to do, by lawfare, vexatious law suits and threatening behaviour at demonstrations in response to imagined insults, to the wider UK society – ie trying to gag or silence any criticism of the excesses of Muslim behaviour and the belief system which enables it. He can dish it out all right but like all namby-pamby bullies he can’t take it.

    Indeed, if we were to substite “Jew” for “Muslim” in parts of what he wrote it’d be more factual and true. Muslims have more power, passive-aggressive power, than do Jews in the UK because of the innate and institutional bias of governments towards Arabism and because of the phobia to be found in institutions like the police and social services about being thought to be racist (a phobia which has led in the past to lawbreaking by Muslims being ignored, as it was for years in Rochdale, UK). This means that there is an egregious double standard in play which is damaging to social cohesion.

    Hasan’s bleating is particularly nauseating at:

    “But it is the third, and perhaps biggest, group that concerns me most: those commentators who boast otherwise impeccable anti-racist credentials yet tend to be silent on the subject of Islamophobia; journalists who cannot bring themselves to recognise, let alone condemn, the growing prevalence of anti-Muslim feeling across Europe – or acknowledge the simple fact that the targeting of a powerless, brown-skinned minority is indeed a form of racism…”

    This would fit equally well:

    ” But it is the third, and perhaps biggest, group that concerns me most: those commentators who boast otherwise impeccable anti-racist credentials yet tend to be silent on the subject of antisemitism under the guise of anti-Zionism; journalists who cannot bring themselves to recognise, let alone condemn, the growing prevalence of anti-Jewish feeling across Europe….”

    (particularly since much of the thinly-veiled Jew-hatred under the guise of anti Zionism is driven by people like him).

    And as for “– or acknowledge the simple fact that the targeting of a powerless, brown-skinned minority is indeed a form of racism..” the racism is there in inverted form by Hasan’s plea for special consideration, regardless of what he writes in the article. There is nothing so nauseating as the sort of nasty inverse racism practised by the extreme Left and as typified by the Guardianista nonsense – that the “brown-skinned minority” cannot be expected or have demands made on them to behave as decently as they would have anyone else behave because to expect them to behave like everyone else and accept the consequences of their actions would be “racist” !

    In short, Hasan is a hypocritical stinker. There is an Arab saying

    “He strikes me and weeps and then he runs before me weeping and saying that I struck him” – ضربني وبكى وسبقني واشتكى Darabni Wabaka, Saba’ni Wishtaka ”

    which fits him and his kind and the content of his article to a T. It’s high time we called it out for what it is and refused to be manipulated by it.

  5. “I should throw in the towel and go find a less threatening, more civilised line of work. But that’s what the trolls want. To silence Muslims; to deny a voice to a voiceless community.”

    Cue the violins….

    Hasan shouldn’t throw in the towel. They might find someone better at hating than he is.

  6. Excellent analysis of this silly article.
    The whole self-pitying, hypocritical piece (‘poor me, oh poor, poor me!’) is just an obvious attempt by Mr. Hasan to silence any kind of criticism of radical Isalm by making claims that run counter to reality (Islam being singled out, powerless, voiceless minority, blablabla) – the facts speak otherwise. I am glad you called him out on his Bullsh…!

      • Yes, Hasan’s statements on unbelievers are just too notorious and well-known!
        I just skimmed the BTL comments and noticed that some other CIF contributors (Inayat Bunglawala and Becky Gardiner -p.2) are coming to Hasan’s rescue because he seems to be soo busy today. – He is probably too cowardly to defend his own corner – pathetic, really…

  7. Well, he’ll be fast-tracked to the journalist hell if Inayat the Bungler is speaking up for him That one couldn’t carry an argument in a bucket!

    • Comments on the CiF article are closed now and will reopen tomorrow. The Bungler’s post was well down at his usual standard, full of taqiyya and actually asking why Hasan should have to jump through all the hoops (in reply to a post asking Hasan what he thought about homosexuality) as if the Bungler was really an ignoramus (oops! forgot. He is).

      Of course, the answer to the Bungler should be to ask him why he is so concerned and to remind him that most civilised people have no problem with homosexuality and ask why he feels the need to answer for Hasan? And to remind the Bungler that his answer is really rich, coming as it does from a man who dared not condemn the stoning of adulterous women because that was in the time of his prophet and would be akin to condemning his prophet. (Post wouldn’t last long, however).

      With Bungler for a friend, I am almost feeling sorry for Hasan.

      But not quite….

  8. See SarahAB’s post on this topic at Harry’s Place

    Did anyone here see or save the comment she refers to?

    “a very informative comment by Quizblorg has just been, I believe, deleted from underneath this article. I didn’t save it, so I can’t be absolutely sure, but my recollection was that it was a long comment, that it attracted well over 1000 recommends, and that it may possibly have included the word cattle.”

    http://hurryupharry.org/2012/07/09/quizblorg-vanishes-mehdi-hasan-at-cif/

  9. Ah, there is an update on HP- someone has saved the comment and it now reproduced there: well worth reading

    • Yes, amie, it’s a very measured and intelligent post, which calmly and respectfully reminds the readers of what Hasan actually said in THAT speech, and asked him to explain why he had said it.

      There was no rudeness, no ad homina, only the truth and the links to prove it.

      Perhaps that’s what got it deleted. The one thing CiF cannot stand is to be shown to be in error. The poster proved that Hasan and his apologists below the line were lying through their collective teeth, even the Bungler who, instead of addressing that and the other criticisms, did the taqiyya of deflection, but so poorly that we could all see through it.

  10. My comments were deleted presumably on the grounds of being honest about modern Islam.

    Here’s one:

    “There are a number of these commenters who make an excellent living out of being a “professional Muslim” and “professional victim”.

    The secret is to whinge loudly and often about supposed “Islamophobia”, when all that is happening is that rational observers fear the encroachment into UK life of a religion with medieval values about women, gay people, atheists and non-Muslims.

    There is no modern religion as intolerant as yours. Ask a Jew. So I’m afraid you’ll just have to put up with it being criticised.’

    • Oh dear, Geary.

      I think you know as well as I why the politbureau of Gulag CiF deleted your post (apart from the fact that the truth always hurts) and every word in your post was true.

      I liked the last sentence and “Ask a Jew.” in particular. If nothing else sent the mods into a tailspin it had to have been that!

  11. And here’s another

    ‘Muslims … silenced.

    Come off it.

    Please tell us who is silencing them. You are a senior editor at the New Statesman, every third contributor on CiF is a Muslim, there are oodles of Muslims on the BBC and Channel 4.

    What we need is to hear more from liberal Muslims and less from victim-complexed western-hating ones.’

    Why these were against house rules beats me.

    • That’s easy –

      It’s really uncomfortable for Gulag CiF to be confronted by any truth which doesn’t chime with their version.

  12. The recent sexual grooming and exploitation of young and vulnerable (but absurdly stupid) white girls lay uninvestigated because of racial sensitivities. Better to turn a blind eye to vile behaviour than to risk accusations of “racism”. Is this political scandal such a case? Are we so fearful of “offending” a cult that is long ovedue for it and which has no qualms at all about offending everyone else with their bigotry and double standards? So timid that we shrink from the stern corrective measures actually required? So diffident that we recoil from exposing this perverse and duplicitous creed for the nonsense it is. Probably we do. We allow them to get away with things that should be halted before they begin. Here in special pleading; there in politics; everywhere in claiming some sort of exemption from public disbelief or healthy ridicule.

    We should remember that our right to condemn, criticise, question, doubt and pour scorn is as much in Britain as mohammedans’ right to peddle their improbable ideas and utterly implausible claims. Freedom cuts both ways. Frankly, these people need ramrodding with the most penetrating of analyses. From their flawed concept of an Almighty (a Tribal Moon God), to their slavish near-worship of a medieval brigand, to their bogus claim to Jerusalem, to their excessive bigotry towards other beliefs, to their imperialist mohammedan fantasies which the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood will probably make plain before too long, to their lofty but unsustainable claims to perfect righteousness ……. all of this is overdue for an ideological thrashing. Especially in Britain. They exercise their rights to disseminate their sordid theology. We absolutely must exercise ours to pull it to shreds – along with the political ambitions it inspires.

    • Hear hear, Joe Bloggs, but I take issue with one remark in your post, that the girls who were groomed by British Pakistani males were “absurdly stupid”.

      They had been failed by every official agency they thought they could trust – social services and the police. These men were very plausible liars and gave them what they craved, attention and a spurious status of being cared about.

      Their situation was very complex, so to dismiss them as “incredibly stupid” rather than gullible and very needy is simply not fair.

      Go to http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/will-white-girls-still-be-easy-meat-in-the-uk/ You will see that the “incredible stupidity” rests with social services and the police who knew what was going on and turned a blind eye to it.

    • iblis, could you please provide a link as I do not want to trawl through the whole sordid thing to read this gem. No I’m not being lazy, honest.

    • Iblis,

      I posted a comment mentioning that Berchman had admitted to being a Muslim on CiF earlier this year, anyone who has the stomach to trawl though his posts can see that he is both A) Muslim & B) Extremist.

      I also think that Berchman has some serious personal issues, depending on the topic he claims to have been a Social Worker for 40 years, Lecturer or indeed a Postman. He also claims to be a pacifist even though he has clearly stated that terrorist organisations such as Hamas have every right to shoot rockets at Israel etc.

      In my opinion the man is a Walter Mitty character who has absolutely no clue how stupid, infantile and counter-productive his comments come across to the majority of CiF posters.

  13. No sympathy for the miserable whinging creep,he was fishing for some sympathy with his whining………

    I got deleted for posting that he deserves the same kind of sympathy that he has for Israeli’s, which is none………………….

  14. I too got the impression that Berchmans has admitted to being a Muslim.This is the one time that I actually feel sorry for the Muslims.

  15. It’s a well known Muslim ploy speaking from both sides of their mouths,on one side for Muslim consumption and from the other for the Western world…….

Comments are closed.