The BBC love Mehdi Hasan.  He is an everpresent presence on our screens, as much or possibly more than that other wretch Alastair Campbell.

I wonder why….of course he’s a Muslim but he wears a nice suit and he talks of reform of Islam…the BBC lap it up.

But really, what is it about this two faced, duplicitous, lying little toady of the Iranian regime who on our screens dresses in those western suits but when kicking back with his brethren changes into his Islamist garb…Mehdi being a Shi’ite lay preacher….as he lays into the Kufar, those ignorant cattle?

 

 

If you want your very own Mehdi Hasan they’re available now at Amazon…as seen on the BBC:

 

Buy Mehdi Hasan at Amazon

www.amazon.co.uk/mehdi+hasan

Low Prices on Mehdi Hasan.
Free UK Delivery on Eligible Orders

 

However there is more than one Mehdi Hasan, not just the BBC, Westernised version…if you would like the radical, preacher version or the devout Muslim who claims also to be secular and progressive version you’ll find them here, a huge selection, going cheap:

 

Mehdi Hasan for less

www.xxl-sale.co.uk/Mehdi–Hasan

Now or never: Mehdi Hasan
Huge selection sale on!

　

Yes there are many versions of Mehdi Hasan, one moment secular progressive the next radical Islamist preacher, the next Muslim reforming barnstormer, the next a vocal advocate for the advancement of Islamic influence in the West.

　

Hasan provides you with the version that he thinks you will believe in, the one that will get him on the telly and into print.

He knows that if he dressed as he does when talking to a Muslim audience and started preaching verses from the Koran he wouldn’t be taken seriously and his message would be lost.

His message is simple.

His sole aim is the advancement of Islam, to increase its influence and to eventually see that Islam is the dominant political and social ideology in this country.

That is not a message he knows he can put out openly and so he hides behind his reformist, progressive, secular image whilst all the time slowly, slowly pushing the message that inch by inch gains weight and influence.

He urges his fellow Muslims not to be doctors and engineers but to be journalists and media poppets…in order to ‘ help influence the industry’s coverage of issues such as terrorism and integration.…“I see people like myself – who happen to be both a professional journalist and a practising Muslim – as a bridge between the Islamic community and the media, and by extension between Muslims and wider society,”

In other words he means to get Muslims into positions of power and influence to push a media assault that presents Islam in a way they want you to see it, but not as it really is.

　

Think not?

Let’s have a look at the many faces of Mehdi Hasan.

　

　

I saw this last night on Guido’s site and thought ‘Weird…a spoof…and yet…it’s funny peculiar rather than funny ha ha’.

All became clear reading the Mail this afternoon and found to my great amusement that it was all too real, Mehdi Hasan had grovelled for a job at the hated Daily Mail……

Dear Mr Dacre,

My name is Mehdi Hasan and I’m the New Statesman’s senior political editor. My good friend Peter Oborne suggested I drop you a line as I’m very keen to write for the Daily Mail.

Although I am on the left of the political spectrum, and disagree with the Mail’s editorial line on a range of issues, I have always admired the paper’s passion, rigour, boldness and, of course, news values. I believe the Mail has a vitally important role to play in the national debate, and I admire your relentless focus on the need for integrity and morality in public life, and your outspoken defence of faith, and Christian culture, in the face of attacks from militant atheists and secularists.

I am also attracted by the Mail’s social conservatism on issues like marriage, the family, abortion and teenage pregnancies. I’d like to write a piece for the Mailmaking the left-wing case against abortion, or a piece on why marriage should be a Labour value, and not just a Conservative one. My own unabashed social conservatism on such issues derives from my Islamic faith.

I do hope you’ll consider me for future columns and features in the Daily Mail on political, social, moral and/or religious issues. I believe you once told sports columnist Des Kelly that he should “make them laugh, make them cry, or make them angry”. That’s something I believe I could do for you, and for your readers, on the pages of the Mail.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Mehdi Hasan

Senior Editor (Politics)

New Statesman

　

 

Well  yes…certainly made this reader of the Daily Mail laugh.

　

　

Now most of you will know why that is so jarringly funny…you will have seen his performance on Question Time when he launched an all out attack on the Daily Mail asking:

‘Who hates Britain more…is it Ralph Miliband or the immigrant bashing, gay baiting, women hating, Muslim smearing, NHS undermining Daily Mail?’:

 

 

 

Nothing like a good old bit of dog whistle rhetoric.

　

Previously he’d said:

Question Time is a fun show to do but I’d be the first to admit that it doesn’t lend itself to nuance or depth and doesn’t allow panellists enough time to unpack their views and opinions in any detail.

Here he writes in The Guardian about the British media:

“I grow tired of having to also endure a barrage of lazy stereotypes, inflammatory headlines, disparaging generalisations and often inaccurate and baseless stories.”

Quite so Mehdi.

So let’s unpack Mehdi’s politics and religious convictions and ask who is it that hates Britain more, the Daily Mail or the immigrant bashing, Gay hating, women hating, Kufar smearing, intellectually stagnant Islamic world?

You’re no doubt shocked…how could I say such a thing…well don’t look at me…ask Mehdi…he has said all those things about Islam as he presents his ‘secular, progressive’ face to the western media.　

But….if this is a hatchet job on Mehdi Hasan then so be it.

Tom Holland ‏@holland_tom 12h As ever, @NickCohen4 is very good on the tensions that can exist between progressive & religious ideals on the left:

 

Nick Cohen on Mehdi Hasan:

He is a religious reactionary.

As things stand, the world remains upside down. The left rather than the right defends reactionary religion, as long as the reactionaries do not have a white skin. You should never tire of pointing out that they are complicit in an enormous betrayal of progressive principles. Women, gays, secularists, liberals and socialists from ethnic minorities ought to be able to turn to British liberals and leftists for support against the patriarchal men, who seek to control them. Rather than fraternal greetings, they find indifference and hostility.

 

Hasan doesn’t agree with Cohen’s label of ‘religious reactionary:

Mehdi Hasan ‏@mehdirhasan 10h @J_Bloodworth @scarletstand @sunny_hundal given you seem to agree with Cohen on me being an ‘Islamist’ you have zero credibility on issue…

　

Curiously Hasan doesn’t think we should criticise Islam…he believes that it will have terrible consequences, so shut up:

Its going to end in the holocaust…‘…years ago when Europeans got concerned about a religious minority in their midst it didn’t end too well, so forgive me for being worried.’

　

Of course the Jews weren’t forcing their religion down people’s throats, nor were they attacking people across the globe driving Jews and Christians from their homes.

This is what Tony Blair had to say about the influence of Islamic ideology:　

We have to put it on the table and be honest about it. Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.’

　

This is what David Cameron, in his Munich speech, had to say about tackling the Islamist threat:

In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion.

All these interactions engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply.

You might say: as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what’s the problem with all this?

I’ll tell you why.

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’ and then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.

And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past.

And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.

So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms.

At stake are not just lives, it’s our way of life.

That’s why this is a challenge we cannot avoid – and one we must meet.

 

 　

　

Is the Mail unBritish or is it Mehdi Hasan  that is ‘Dangerously unBritish’?

This is a speech given by the Rt Hon Baroness Warsi to Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) in Jan 2013:

Let me tell you what’s really dangerous:

It’s when people are treated differently because they hold a different religious belief.

It’s when a country turns a blind eye towards that discrimination.

And it’s when we allow a perception of a people to become so entrenched that extremists are able to capitalise on it.

Because any form of prejudice, bigotry or discrimination is wrong.

It’s unBritish.

　

So….

what’s really dangerous?….what’s ‘UnBritish?

It’s when people are treated differently solely because they hold a different religious belief.

　

Well just have a look at this video of Mehdi Hasan denouncing the unbeliever, the non-Muslim…the Kufar…you know, the Jew, the Christian, You (You who clapped him so loudly on Question Time)…as ignorant cattle…animals….without morals…

 

 

Hasan says:

“In Islam we do not bend our Law…never…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.”

　

One other point from that…’We do not bend our Law…ever…’

And yet this is the Mehdi Hasan who in the Guardian, the New Statesman or the Huffington Post or on the BBC ,wearing his slick Western suit, will insist he seeks to reform Islam.

If you never, never ‘bend our Law’ then you aren’t being honest about the possibility of reform…The Quran being the final unchangeable word of God.

　

And here he is again smearing ‘the other‘:

 

 

 

 

Via Harry’s Place:

From Jahiliya to Jahiliya’, given at the Al Khoei Islamic Centre in February 2009 (the speech has now been removed from the IUS website, but we have archived a copy):

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

　

Fairly clear what Hasan thinks of non-Muslims…..but is Hasan’s ‘them and us’ rhetoric harmful?

Is Hasan one of the ‘Young, dynamic leaders‘ that Cameron spoke of?….

In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion.

　

You’ve already read Cameron’s view…rhetoric of the sort Hasan peddles needs to be combated….here Blair admit’s the start point for the radicalism comes from a belief, not politics…..

Their cause is not founded on an injustice. It is founded on a belief, one whose fanaticism is such it can’t be moderated. It can’t be remedied. It has to be stood up to.

We must be clear about how we win this struggle. We should take what security measures we can. But let us not kid ourselves.

In the end, it is by the power of argument, debate, true religious faith and true legitimate politics that we will defeat this threat.

　

　

At the top I asked ‘Who is it that hates Britain more, the Daily Mail or the immigrant bashing, Gay baiting, women hating, Kufar smearing, intellectually stagnant Islamic world?’

So let’s have a look at if there is any legitimacy to those claims at all….

We’ve already seen the anti-Kufar language used by Hasan…but who else used such language all too recently?　’Kufar‘ of course being highly derogatory in itself.

What is the difference between Mehdi Hasan’s ramblings and that of the killers of Lee Rigby who make similar statements about the Kufar as he did…all based on the Quran?

Adebalajo said, in his speech, “We are not scared of Kufar … my brothers remain in your ranks and do not be scared of these filthy Kufar. They are pigs … Allah says they are worse than cattle.”

 

 

The language is the same..only the method is different….so you have to ask is it the beliefs from which their actions derive which are the real danger?

When you start using the language of them and us, when you isolate others, when you belittle and demean them, when you demonise them the result is that they become less human in the eyes of those who listen…..and the result is they are treated very differently.

　

Hasan in this article rejects any claim that the killers of Lee Rigby were influenced by Islamic teachings:

The Muslim faith does not turn men to terror

The two suspects in the Woolwich killing were violating the doctrine of their own holy book

To prove this Hasan quotes this from the Quran:

‘Whosoever killeth a human being…” says the Koran, in the 32nd verse of its fifth chapter, “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

 He goes onto say:

Some cut and paste verses from the Koran out of context; others unthinkingly demand “reform” of Islam. Few want to discuss the role of British foreign policy in helping to radicalise these young, disaffected individuals.

 

When a Muslim quotes that verse (5:32) to you you know immediately you are being spun a line and  it seems Hasan has been ‘cutting and pasting’ to suit himself for the actual, full quote reveals that verse refers to Jews and not Muslims:

We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

 

　

 

But jump back a bit…Hasan also said he was happy to talk about foreign policy and its role in radicalising Muslim youth…and that Islam is not responsible…it is a religion of peace….

 

That’s odd…because in this speech to a Muslim audience he refers to the work of Pervez Hoodbhoy , professor of nuclear and high-energy physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, who in a speech in 2001 denied that foreign policy was responsible for the hijacking of Islam and the subsequent radicalisation of Muslims…or that Islam is a religion of Peace…..

Fearful of backlash, most leaders of Muslim communities in the US, Canada, and Europe have responded in predictable ways to the Twin Towers atrocity. They have proclaimed first, that Islam is a religion of peace; and second, that Islam was hijacked by fanatics on the September 11. They are wrong on both counts.
First, Islam – like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other religion – is not about peace. Nor is it about war. Every religion is about absolute belief in its own superiority and its divine right to impose itself upon others. In medieval times, both the Crusades and the Jihads were soaked in blood. Today, Christian fundamentalists attack abortion clinics in the US and kill doctors; Muslim fundamentalists wage their sectarian wars against each other; Jewish settlers holding the Old Testament in one hand and Uzis in the other burn olive orchards and drive Palestinians off their ancestral land; Hindus in India demolish ancient mosques and burn down churches; Sri Lankan Buddhists slaughter Tamil separatists.
The second assertion is even further off the mark: even if Islam had in some metaphorical sense been hijacked, that event did not occur on September 11, 2001. It happened around the 13th century. Indeed, Islam has yet to recover from the trauma of those times.

　

Hasan tells us that:

I have been a Muslim all my life and visited mosques across Europe, North America and the UK. Never, not once, have I come across an imam preaching violence against the West or justifying the murder of innocents.

He clearly hasn’t watched the Dispatches programme nor read Harry’s Place:

Undercover Mosque

And Undercover Mosque – The Return

 

　　

Hasan tells us that Muslim terrorism is a result of politics not religion or culture, here he denounces Cameron’s Munich speech which condemned State Multi-Culturalism: 

The Prime Minister’s provocative speech prompted this particularly odious headline in the Telegraph:

Muslims must embrace our British values, David Cameron says. (Why “odious”? Because it implies that the majority of Muslims don’t embrace basic “British values” and aren’t integrated, which, as Cameron knows, and I can attest, isn’t true.)

The English Defence League (see point five, below) is, in my view, made up of violent extremists and yet they are not a product of “multiculturalism”, failed or otherwise.

Terrorism is a political problem; not a cultural problem.

　

　

However he had to admit religion was an inciter of terrorism:

Is Islamic terrorism cultural or religious:

 

Gentleman in audience – “The root cause of terrorism is bad teachings in religious schools.”

Mehdi – “Rubbish”

Mehdi – “Terrorism is not a cultural problem, terrorism is a political problem”.

Douglas [Murray] – “And it’s a religious problem as well”

Mehdi – “In your view Douglas it’s a religious problem”.

Douglas – “I’m perfectly willing to talk about foreign policy as would David Cameron be, but you cannot pretend that there is no religious component to the terrorism because there is ”

Mehdi – “I thought you said it was cultural. Culture and religion is not the same thing”.

Dimbleby – “Mehdi, you’re saying there is no religious component?”

Mehdi – “I’m saying there is a religious component; I’m saying there’s not a cultural component”.

　

　

Hasan always uses the example of the 7/7 bombers and converts to suggest integration had nothing to with radicalisation, that being ‘integrated’ didn’t stop you being a terrorist….

Some of the most high-profile terrorists in recent years have been “integrated” Muslims. Take Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the London bombings in July 2005. He was a teaching assistant who impressed parents, colleagues and pupils at the school where he worked. As a teenager, he called himself “Sid” and spent most of his time playing football with white kids.

Then there are the white, British-born people who convert to Islam and become terrorists, like Nicky Reilly or Oliver Savant – are they unaware of, or unfamiliar with, British values? Would teaching them to speak English help secure our airports or railway stations?

　

Of course Hasan always misses out the vital ingredient…the conversion or reconnection to Islam and the awakening of a devotion to the religion not previously there……a devotion which when inflamed by preachers who sow seeds of division and provoke apartheid can grow into something beyond mere devoutness.

　

Hasan goes so far as to utterly deny a religious element, despite, as shown above, admitting it exists:

Talking of 9/11 he asks…..What motivated them to do it?

No mention of religion. No mention of Islam. No mention of virgins in heaven, 72 or otherwise. For the lead investigators into the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, politics, not faith, was the key motivating factor. Terrorism, as even that notorious Islamist-baiter Martin Amis once conceded, “is political communication by other means”

　

　

And here is another dodge where Hasan tries to evade responsibility for previous smears:

On multiculturalism: I didn’t equate David Cameron with the EDL or “smear” him, as Tim Montgomerie and others have claimed.

 

Well, actually Hasan, yes you did, here tying Cameron in with the Neo-Cons and Quilliam ( Hated by Muslims who see it not unlike the EDL) and making a casual link to the EDL and BNP:

How is this new, original or different? As I said, much of the Cameron speech fits in with a pre-existing, long-standing Gove/Quilliam/neoconservative agenda. As Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadan Foundation points out:

‘On the day we see fascists marching in Luton, we have seen no similar condemnation or leadership shown from the government.’

The timing of Cameron’s speech is awful. It comes on a day on which the far-right English Defence League is marching in London in protest against Islam. As Nick Lowles, editor of Searchlight, writes, “What began as a street movement to oppose Islamic fundamentalism has broadened its target to the religion itself.”

Yet Cameron did not spare a single one of the 2,476 words in his speech for the EDL – or for other far-right groups such as the BNP.

　

And then there’s Labour’s Muslim MP Sadiq Khan, who accused the Prime Minister of ‘writing propaganda for the EDL’.

　

 

As for the Mail’s ‘immigrant bashing’

Well calling for restrictions on immigration is hardly ‘bashing’…unlike of course what happens to Jews throughout Europe, under attack from immigrants to their land….Sweden, Holland, France and Germany have all seen a rise in anti-Semitic attacks with Jews being forced to flee their homes and country.

Attacked by Muslim immigrants.

So who is doing the ‘bashing’?  Not the Mail.

Christians around the world are under threat, none more so than those within Muslim majority countries where their communities are being destroyed, their churches burnt and their clerics beheaded.

Even within Islam itself Hasan admits that problems arise…because of the religion…and yet he remains a Muslim.

He castigates the Mail for ‘Muslim smearing’ and yet he admits that Islam has a dirty little secret…its anti-Semitism:

It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.

 

And the real problem is that anti-Semitism is integral to Islam, it is part and parcel of it…and yet Hasan remains a Muslim for all his ‘angst’ about it.

‘You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ 5:82

‘The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of creatures.’ 98:6　

Believers take neither Jews nor Christians for your friend. 5:51

‘Believers make war on the infidels who dwell around you.’ 9:123

‘Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them.’ 9:73

 

Hasan of course has little compunction about working for the Guardian (or as shown above for the Mail itself) which is well known for having anti-Semitic articles in its pages:

‘Somebody’ invented a ‘heroic past’……one of the great mistakes of history.

The whole of the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, can be read as a record of people coming to terms with failure. In part this was done by the invention of a heroic past, in the empire of Solomon’s time, something that may have been one of the truly great mistakes of history

　

Who would that ‘somebody’ be?

The ‘Jews’ of course……the Jews invented their past…invented their existence as a ‘nation’ and invented their right to exist as such a nation.

The Guardian calls that ‘one of the greatest mistakes in history.’

In other words it would have been better if the Jews had never existed, then Israel would never have existed and the Middle East would be the land of milk and honey where everyone lives in peace and harmony.

　　

Hasan says this:

I, for one, refuse to worship a God who is so weak and needy that he compels Muslims to worship him

And yet, he remains within the Islamic fold…he doesn‘t ‘refuse to worship’ such a God. He does so by living in denial or by turning a blind eye.

He denounces the death penalty for apostates in Islam because he claims that there is no Islamic law that pronounces such a sentence:

The Prophet Muhammad never had anyone executed for apostasy alone. In one case, in which a Bedouin man cancelled his pledge of allegiance to Islam and left Medina, the Prophet only remarked that “Medina is like a pair of bellows: it expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good.”

　

But again that’s misleading from Mehdi Hasan.

Islamic law is very clear, apostates can be killed. The Hadiths, which are an essential and integral component of Islamic law tells us so:

Bukhari (52:260)  – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.

The penalty of death for apostasy is repeated elsewhere in Bukhari: Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him (Bukhari 84:57). Another Hadith (Bukhari 83:37) holds that death is required in three cases: for a murderer, for a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, and for one who deserts Islam.

　

Mohammed said that if an Apostate did not ‘attack’ Islam, that is, criticise it and disparage it, then they could live….if they did criticise Islam they could be killed.

　

　

And what of Homosexuals? Mehdi accuses the Mail of ‘Gay baiting’.

This from a man who supports the Iranian regime which hangs people for being gay.

This from a man who stays in a religion that insists gays be killed…you can throw them off mountain tops or stone them to death….watch Undercover Mosque….such horrors are being preached in the mainstream, major mosques…authorised by the most respected religious authority in Saudi Arabia.

　

Here’s a poll from the guardian:

Muslims in Britain have zero tolerance of homosexuality, says poll

　

Here’s what Mehdi Hasan has to say:

Yes, I’m a progressive who supports a secular society in which you don’t impose your faith on others – and in which the government, no matter how big or small, must always stay out of the bedroom. But I am also a believing Muslim. And, as a result, I really do struggle with this issue of homosexuality.

As a believer in Islam, however, I insist that no mosque be forced to hold one against its wishes

 

So Mehdi pronounces himself ‘secular and progressive’…and yet he is also a devout, practising Muslim….the two things are complete opposites….you cannot be secular and religious, you cannot be progressive and live by a 6^th century religion which teaches you to hate gays, kill Jews and apostates, treat women as second class citizens and non-Muslims as cattle.

He says he is forced to be homophobic because of his religion.

He claims he hates homophobia.

And yet, not only does he stay within the religion he is a lay preacher for that religion.

　

So all in all Mehdi Hasan has many faces, one which he presents to the ‘Western World’, the Liberal Media that he needs to access to spread his message and to win supporters, and the face he presents to Muslims where he preaches a fundamentalist and a very Islam Über Alles message….

He states that

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and yet Muslims have only 10 Nobel Prizes whilst 12 million Jews have 150 Nobel Prizes. There are 6 Jewish universities (note Jewish, not Israeli…does Israel not exist in Hasan’s world?) in the top world 200.…and no Muslim universities at all.

And then we wonder why we are losing battles…we’re not being out fought, we’re being out thought, we are not under armed, we are under educated.

　

‘Losing battles….outfought, under armed’…what sort of language is that, what can he mean?

Clearly Hasan thinks in terms of ‘them and us’, Muslims and ‘the other’. and it is a war out there….a clash of civilizations…he wants the Islamic world to over take the ‘West’….Why? 

 

For a man who proclaims his secular, progressive, democratic loving philosophy…you have to doubt that somehow.

But then is there anything you can believe about Mehdi Hasan, the man who writes articles about anti-Semitism, about homophobia, about killing apostates….and why they are wrong…and yet, he remains a Muslim despite all those horrors being sanctioned by that very religion.

And we haven’t even got onto women….you know the other sex who don’t really need to be educated…but if necessary, well they can sit at the back of the class because they’re just not important in an Islamic Faith school.　

Hasan isn’t exactly a pro-choice liberal on women:

Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body – but a baby isn’t part of her body.

Oh hang on, he says;

You can’t keep smearing those of us who happen to be pro-life as “anti-women” or “sexist”. …You might assume that my own anti-abortion views are a product of my Muslim beliefs. They aren’t.

Wonder what he makes of Evolution….because Muslims, those obviously no longer in the Golden Age of Islamic Science, believe in Creationism.

 

He is quite liberal about nuclear weapons though…as long as you’re a Shia country…like Iran;  Sunni Pakistan, or Israel, nah, not so keen (See above video for the anti-‘Islamic bomb’ comments):

 If you were our mullah in Tehran, wouldn’t you want Iran to have the bomb…., wouldn’t it be rational for Iran – geographically encircled, politically isolated, feeling threatened – to want its own arsenal of nukes, for defensive and deterrent purposes?….of course, less than a thousand miles to the west, there is Israel, your mortal enemy, in possession of over a hundred nuclear warheads and with a history of pre-emptive aggression against its opponents.

 

Why is Israel Iran’s mortal enemy?  Israel would not have any desire to attack Iran if Iran were to leave Israel alone.

 

And he’s not so keen on answering awkward questions about Iran and its brutal oppression:

 

 

 

 

 

 

　

Whatever, I’m sure we’ll find out what he thinks on every subject under the sun….as Peter Hitchens ruefully looks forward to:

I’d like to think we’d hear a bit less of him in future. But I doubt it. Since he first stormed into my e-mails many years ago, anxious to bombard me with his views of Israel, he’s grown, and grown and grown as a voice in our media. I think he will continue to do so.

 

 

 HAsan defends himself here:

Anatomy of a Hitchens Hatchet Job

 

But take it all with a pinch of salt.  This article for example is given as an illustration of his urging Muslims to ‘integrate’.  But why?

 

Hasan is a Labour man.  He knows Muslims will mostly vote Labour…..but also the more they participate and take control of political processes the more they can influence laws and the ploitics that can be advantageous to the Muslim community, advancing the Islamisation of a small part of the UK, a mini-Pakistani state…..

How can Muslims complain about our rights, our freedoms, our collective future, if we aren’t engaged in the political process across the board as active British citizens?

 

 

Final word to Mehdi Hasan himself:

Mehdi Hasan ‏@mehdirhasan 6h  @hina3661 @alomshaha Which principles was I selling? You cant have it both ways. Either I’m a secret reactionary or a principle-free zone