• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

UK fascist Mehdi Hasan doubles down, rebuts charges that he’s against free speech by again calling for restrictions on free speech

Nov 19, 2014 3:01 pm By Robert Spencer

mehdi-hasanSmarting from being outed as a foe of the freedom of speech, the UK Islamic supremacist Mehdi Hasan has come back with a defensive, self-pitying, whiny piece that claims to rebut the contention that he wants to “block all criticism of Islam or Muslims in the press and, effectively, ban free speech,” but in fact only reinforces it.

“Hiding Anti-Muslim Bigotry Behind ‘Free Speech’ Won’t Work,” by Mehdi Hasan, Huffington Post UK, November 19, 2014:

Oh dear. What I am being accused of, and attacked for, now?

Awww, poor victim!

Apparently, I want to block all criticism of Islam or Muslims in the press and, effectively, ban free speech.

“A lie,” as the old saying goes, “will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” Never has that particular statement been more apt and accurate than in today’s era of social media, of Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp, in which a lie goes round the world three or four times before truth has even bothered to go looking for its boots.

First, some background: I gave a talk at Mindshare UK’s ‘Huddle’ in London on 13 November – a talk that I also gave at the Wilderness Festival in August, incidentally – in which I outlined the various ways in which sections of the British press routinely demonises, discriminates against and fearmonger about British Muslims, especially in the form of inaccurate, misleading and dishonest headlines, images and stories. (You can see for yourself a selection of the hysterical and flat-false front page headlines that I presented, via Powerpoint, here.)

Hasan made this claim in his first piece. It is just as much hysterical nonsense and manipulative propaganda in this one as it was in that one. In reality, the British press, and the press in all Western countries, is extremely careful not to write anything negative about Muslims, and routinely ascribes Islamic jihad activity to “Asians,” “youths,” “insurgents,” “militants,” and the like — any word will do as long as it obscures the Islamic inspiration and goal of jihad violence.

I suggested that, in the context of an ongoing British debate over the best form of press regulation, there needed to be tougher action by any proposed new regulator against the promulgation of falsehoods and smears against marginalised minorities of all types – Muslims, Gypsies, asylum-seekers, etc. I made no mention of the religion of Islam, to beliefs, practises, theology and the rest. In the Q&A after my talk, while thinking aloud, I said I genuinely couldn’t think of any way of changing press attitudes and practises that didn’t involve some sort of sanction or penalty, maybe in the form of pressure from consumers or advertisers. I was referring here specifically to the campaign against the Daily Mail‘s homophobic response to the death of Stephen Gately in 2009. To be clear, the background and context to all my remarks was the Leveson-inspired debate over press regulation in the UK; I wasn’t advocating new laws or financial penalties or restrictions on speech – nor did any of the audience members present at either Mindshare or Wilderness interpret my remarks in that way.

The fallacy here is that Hasan and his comrades regularly tar any analysis of how jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as “the promulgation of falsehoods and smears” against a “marginalised” minority. Yesterday on Twitter I asked Hasan to clarify the distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and Muslims and the “promulgation of falsehoods and smears,” specifically by giving an example of criticism of Islam that he did not consider to be a hateful example of “anti-Muslim bigotry.” He did not, of course, respond, and he could not — because there is no criticism of Islam and Muslims that he actually considers legitimate. In a similar way, the UAE-designated terrorist organization Hamas-linked CAIR claimed a few years back that there was legitimate criticism of Islam and Muslims that did not constitute “Islamophobia,” but this was just window dressing for the gullible; in reality, neither Hasan nor Hamas-linked CAIR has ever spoken or written approvingly of anyone who utters the slightest negative word against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.

Nevertheless, across the pond, right-wingers of varying hues – taking their lead from this news report in the Guardian and this spin-off report on Mediaite – took great offense at my remarks. CNN’s conservative host S.E. Cupp claimed I wanted to “censor anti-Muslim speech”. Michael Moynihan, a libertarian writer and editor at The Daily Beast, decided I had “come up with a really stupid and dangerous idea”.

Note his characterization of his critics as “right-wingers”: this is just semaphoring to the easy marks who read the Huffington Post UK — “These are the bad guys. Do not agree with them or you will be cast out of polite society.”

JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer declared: “Mehdi Hasan goes full fascist, calls for sanctions for criticism of Muslims”. (The “fascist” charge is deliciously ironic, given the fact that Spencer, oft-quoted by Anders Breivik, has been banned by the Home Office from entering the UK due to his far-right views on Islam and Muslims.)

Regarding the Breivik smear, see here (scroll down). As for the Home Office, in their letter to me they said I was being banned for saying, “[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers…” In other words, they banned me for enunciating a manifest and obvious fact. (To be sure, it is a fact that Mehdi Hasan disputes; I refuted him here.) Is it a “far-right” fact? A “far-left” fact? Neither. It is just a fact. Do I hold to “far-right” views — say, the infringement of the freedom of speech to placate a ruling elite, and the denigration of those outside the group as subhuman “animals”? No, that would be Mehdi Hasan.

Egged on by Spencer and co, the Muslim-baiting trolls on Twitter and Facebook went further, falsely claiming that I wanted to “silence” and “punish” critics of Islam by introducing “genocidal blasphemy laws” and angrily demanding I be “shot” for my supposedly illiberal views. “It would appear that the Huffington Post has been infiltrated at the highest office by Islamists,” wrote one charming Facebook commenter.

Note once again that Hasan tries to defect legitimate criticism of his far-right, fascist views by caricaturing his opponents as “trolls” who want to see violence done to him.

Why on earth would I want to punish or prevent “criticism” of Islam or Muslims? I spend a good chunk of my time as a writer, commentator and TV presenter criticising and condemning the behaviour of certain Muslims, certain Muslim groups, certain Muslim-majority countries – see here, here, here, and here. Oh, and here, here and here. Would I really call for a “penalty” on myself? Really?

Note the sleight of hand. He asks, “Why on earth would I want to punish or prevent ‘criticism’ of Islam or Muslims” and protests that he has been busy “criticising and condemning the behaviour of certain Muslims, certain Muslim groups, certain Muslim-majority countries” — but not, conspicuously, Islam itself. And there’s the rub. Anyone who dares to notice how groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and oppression would be, in Hasan’s view, promulgating “falsehoods and smears against marginalised minorities.” If we say, “That Islamic State is terrible, and look how they’re hijacking the Religion of Peace!,” that would be just fine with Mehdi Hasan. But if we say “That Islamic State is terrible, and look how they’re basing all their actions upon the Qur’an and Sunnah!,” he will want us shut down as purveyors of “hate speech.”

But what if they really are basing all their actions upon the Qur’an and Sunnah?

Now, am I guilty of making off-the-cuff and perhaps clumsy remarks, during a brief audience Q&A, followed by an even briefer and impromptu interview with a Guardian journalist in the crowd? Yeah, in hindsight, probably.

Translation: “I know I have been caught dead to rights on this one, and am trying to slither out of it somehow.”

But am I guilty of trying to shut down debate or limit free speech on this issue? To quote the great champion of free speech, the late Christopher Hitchens: “Don’t. Be. Silly.”

Yes, he is. Read on.

I have a long history of defending, and promoting, free speech and open debate – especially (especially!) within Muslim communities. In October 2012, for example, I published an open letter to “Muslim protesters” who were rioting over the controversial YouTube movie about the Prophet, urging them to value free speech and tolerance while denouncing their violent antics.

I also happen to present a discussion show on Al Jazeera English, called ‘Head to Head’, in which my guests have included high-profile and very robust critics of Islam and Muslims – including atheist Richard Dawkins, ‘Muslim refusenik’ Irshad Manji, feminist Mona Eltahawy and Israeli settler Dani Dayan. None of them complained afterwards that they had been censored by me; in fact, Manji welcomed the opportunity to set out her stall on Islamic reform on one of AJE’s most-watched programmes. I disagree with much of what she says but I not only defend to the death her right to say it, I even offered her a global platform on which to do so (to the annoyance, I should add, of many of my fellow Muslims).

Hasan actually only allows for a very small spectrum of thought on his show. Eltahawy is as much of a fascist and foe of free speech as he is. When he has Ayaan Hirsi Ali — or me — on his show, then he can talk about defending to the death his opponents’ right to speak.

So, as I say, I support free speech, free expression, open debate. Apparently, you’re not allowed to add a ‘but’ after this statement. Hmm. The problem is that there is no such thing as an ‘absolute’ or untrammelled right to free speech. That’s not a controversial or provocative thing to say. It’s just a fact. People – especially journalists, ‘The Hitch’ or otherwise – who suggest otherwise are either being naive or just plain disingenuous.

Consider the European Convention on Human Rights: the ECHR in article 10 says “everyone has the right to freedom expression” before going on to add that “the exercise of these freedoms… may be subject to…restrictions or penalties”. Even in the United States, exceptions to the First Amendment include, among other things, incitement to violence, obscenity and child pornography, slander and defamation, copyright and patents and national security. Oh, and don’t get me started on John Stuart Mill and the ‘right’ to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre…

None of these, you’ll notice, come close to justifying restrictions on criticism of Islam.

Regardless, my talk had nothing to do with free speech, or restricting free speech. I was making a much broader, more moral point: you may have a right to be offensive and bigoted towards a group of people, but why should high-profile newspapers and media organisations exercise that right only in relation to one particular community, i.e. Muslims? Does S.E. Cupp want CNN giving TV shows to 9/11 ‘truthers’ to present? Does Michael Moynihan want The Daily Beast to give Holocaust deniers or KKK members a regular column? Why is it that there’s outrage when papers are racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic, but not when they’re Islamophobic? Why the double standard?

Once again: the problem here is that Mehdi Hasan and his ilk tar all counter-terror analysis that examines the motives and goals of jihad terrorists, which are rooted in Islam, as “offensive and bigoted.” Then he says that what is “offensive and bigoted” should not be given a platform. But who should be given the power to determine what is “offensive and bigoted” and what isn’t? Mehdi Hasan? Whoever would have that authority would wield enormous power, as he or she would effectively have the power to control the public discourse. And that’s the idea. What Mehdi Hasan is advocating here is quintessentially fascist.

As my good friend Nesrine Malik argued in the New York Times in April, liberal commentators’ “preciousness about the right to offend won’t be credible until they advocate extending it beyond Islamophobes — to racists, anti-Semites and homophobes, too”. Those who “fancy themselves defenders of free speech,” she concluded, “must be consistent in their absolutism, and stand up for offensive speech no matter who is the target”.

Attacking me for my off-the-cuff remarks and poor solutions is a nice and neat way of avoiding the problem that I highlight: you can now say things about Muslims that you cannot say about any other minority community, and such an egregious double standard is both morally wrong and, from a counter-extremism and counter-terrorism perspective, completely counter-productive. Can we deal with this point please? Rather than sticking our heads in the sand?…

You can’t really say anything about Muslims at all that people like Mehdi Hasan would deem objectionable and offensive. As I have shown many, many times here, the mainstream media is a one-party state. If it runs an article headed, “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?,” the only answer you will ever see is “Yes.” If it runs an article entitled, “Was Bill Maher right that Islam is inherently violent?,” you can be sure it will be saying that Maher is wrong. The only place where the truth is still allowed is on the Internet, in places like Jihad Watch. But even that small blade of grass through the concrete drives Mehdi Hasan crazy, and he wants authorities to “deal with this point,” rather than sticking their “heads in the sand.” They are in the sand indeed — but that is because of the active efforts of Mehdi Hasan and his allies.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: free speech, journalistic bias, War is deceit Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. john spielman says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    islam must be held to up scorn and ridicule as it IS EVIL FASCIST political system operating under the guise of reigion In a free country with freedom of speech, it is essential to speak out continously about what is evil and to hold islam and muslims acountable just like Christ and Christianity is held accountable!

    • Champ says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 3:35 pm

      I agree, John …problem is, islam and company do NOT allow for any checks and balances outside of the islamic law system.

      • john spielman says

        Nov 19, 2014 at 3:52 pm

        that’s why we must flood the internet with the truth about islam and muhammed -pbuh, *that demon possessed mass murderer, thief, liar, misogynist, AND PEDOPHILE!
        *PBUH-PERPETUAL BANISHMENT UNTO HELL!

    • Mo says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 3:49 pm

      @ john spielman

      “In a free country with freedom of speech, it is essential to speak out continously about what is evil and to hold islam and muslims acountable just like Christ and Christianity is held accountable!”

      Uh, neither Christ nor Christianity needs to be held accountable for anything. Neither Christ nor Christianity teach the things Islam does. Neither do the followers commit them, in obedience to any such teachings.

      • john spielman says

        Nov 19, 2014 at 4:03 pm

        I am a follower of Jesus the Christ. Daily in our evil world, Christ and Christianity is being scutinized by the media and governments. Unlike islam and the pervert muhammed, Jesus and true Christianity can stand up to any review and be triumphant because Christ defeated all that Satan /allah threw at him from temptations to ridicule(from the pharisees to Roman guards while on the cross). In the end all scoffers need to do is wait and see what the Day of the Lord brings!

        • Mo says

          Nov 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm

          @ john spielman

          “I am a follower of Jesus the Christ. Daily in our evil world, Christ and Christianity is being scutinized by the media and governments. Unlike islam and the pervert muhammed, Jesus and true Christianity can stand up to any review and be triumphant because Christ defeated all that Satan /allah threw at him from temptations to ridicule(from the pharisees to Roman guards while on the cross). In the end all scoffers need to do is wait and see what the Day of the Lord brings!”

          All good and fine. I was simply clarifying, in case there was any confusion (especially for the benefit of others), that there is no equality between these two religions.

    • mortimer says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 5:23 pm

      The point, John, is SHARIA LAW.

      Sharia law forbids a kafir from MENTIONNING (yes, just mentioning…not even criticizing) ANYTHING the Muslim does not want to hear that will embarrass him. That means you have to read a Muslims mind. If you don’t he has the right to assassinate you for ‘slander’ or ‘blasphemy’ … his choice.

      Kafirs may not MENTION ANYTHING about Islam, whether good or bad or indifferent.

      • zebo says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 6:13 am

        Sir-do you have a source/a link.

        I do not doubt your words,because there is nothing that surprises me in islam and Islam is so full of crap,lies,contradiction and evil that only terror could keep this system alive,but i need to check the facts

        • gravenimage says

          Nov 20, 2014 at 5:28 pm

          zebo, all you have to do is look at blasphemy laws throughout the Muslim world, and how they are used to shut down freedom of speech.

          Jihad Watch has dozens of these stories here:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/blasphemy

          Pakistan is notorious for this, as is Iran, but they are hardly the only Shari’ah states to criminalize criticizing Islam:

          “Nigerian atheist held for blasphemy against Islam, gets death threats”

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/nigerian-atheist-held-for-blasphemy-against-islam-gets-death-threats

          And this, from ISIS:

          “Islamic State announces beheadings for all who insult Allah”

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/11/islamic-state-announces-beheadings-for-all-who-insult-allah

          And these are just the actions of Muslim states. Surely you haven’t forgotten the infamous Fatwa against Salman Rushdie for daring to characterize an an aspect of Islam in a questionable light?

          And what about the riots and attacks over the Danish Mo Toons? A pious Muslim with an ax tried to murder cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.

          A Muslim set “Mo Doggies” cartoonist Lars Vilks’s house on fire.

          A Muslim murdered Theo van Gogh for co-creating a film critical of Islam.

          Two politicians in Pakistan were assassinated for merely suggesting that that country’s blasphemy laws should be reviewed.

          Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders are under 24-hour security due to constant Muslim death threats.

          Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris had to change her name and go into hiding after the FBI determined that they could not protect her from homicidal Muslims after she created “Everybody Draw Muhammed Day”.

          Robert Spencer himself receives constant death threats for daring to tell the truth about Islam.

          I could go on—there are scores more examples.

          And these are not later accretions—the “Prophet” Muhammed himself set the precedent by having his critics assassinated:

          This, from the Sira:

          From Ibn Sa`d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, pages 30-31.

          SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
          Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma’ Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma’ was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?” He said: “Yes. Is there something more for me to do?” He [Muhammad] said: “No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, “basir” (the seeing).

          She was not the only critic to be murdered at the hands of Muhammed’s vicious followers.

    • daniel says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 6:28 pm

      It is written in the Christian Holy Bible, OT; Do not trust the people of Ishlam! Yet we do not listen!

      • zebo says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 6:17 am

        Sir-there is no evidence that islam existed before mohammed,therefore don”t missuse the bible to prove that islam has existed before.
        The bible only talks about “Ismael”(anagramm of islam) and that f

        Either provide us with a link or don”t post such thing.

        • John spielman says

          Nov 20, 2014 at 6:45 am

          Though Islam is not mentioned in the Bible, Paul the apostle of Christ Jesus said that Satan masquerades as an ” angel of light” and that ANYONE who brings a different. “gospel” other than the one that the one we first received is cursed. So muhammed-pbuh* was actually speaking to Satan masquerading as the angel Gabriel, and muhammed’ s new revelation is actually a doctrine of demons! pbuh*_perpetual banishment unto hell

      • Leah says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 2:21 pm

        The OT is JEWISH, not ‘Christian’.

        • deja vu says

          Nov 21, 2014 at 3:32 pm

          Leah, the Old Testament is included in the Bible because prophecies and references to the coming Messiah are found throughout its pages. The OT is the foundation of the NT which is full of cross-references to it. Studying it in depth is essential in order to grasp the full significance of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

          Both the OT and the NT are intertwined and with the same ‘voice’ throughout, the voice of God. As the saying goes, the New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed’. Significantly, Jesus has already fulfilled almost every prophecy in the OT. Only those pertaining to His second coming remain.

          A number of years ago, Professor Peter Stoner wrote a book entitled Science Speaks. The book was based on the science of probability and vouched for by the American Scientific Affiliation. It set out the odds of any one man in all of history fulfilling only *eight* of the 60 major prophecies fulfilled by the life of Christ.The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled eight such prophecies would be 1 in 10 to the power of 17. That’s 1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.

  2. Lu says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    Robert,

    you called a spade a spade – yes, he is a fascist, by all indications. The term “fascism” is being increasingly used here on JihadWatch and it would be “beneficial to the cause” if somebody (you, Sir ?) could present a “comparative analysis” between the old-fashioned fascism of 20’s – 40’s of Europe and the current one I also call “shariatic fascism” …

    • Coolio says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 4:58 am

      The socialist establishment (which includes all current Western ‘centrist’ and ‘conservative’ parties) labels all opponents of Islam as far-right fascists. These are more ‘R’ words. They end the discussion and close down all debate. Anti-fascists are axiomatically the forces of good, fighting valiantly for fascism’s powerless victims, against the overpowering fascist forces of evil. Accusations of being Nazi similarly occur frequently against political opponents in general. Considering the millions killed in World War II fighting Hitler, and the Nazi holocaust, such an extreme reaction to anything looking fascist is actually quite rational and understandable. Considering how far left the Western establishment has moved, it is also understandable that, from their point of view, anything much to the right of Marx is ‘far-right’.
      So, what exactly is fascism? Let’s look at a few definitions. Urban Dictionary is a favourite of mine, not least because the definitions are voted, but we will also consult other references.
      Urban Dictionary: (voted 1010 up vs. 183 down):
      The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
      1. “Everything in the state”. The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompassing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
      2. “Nothing outside the state”. The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
      3. “Nothing against the state”. Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.
      Dictionary.com’s definition is concise: “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”
      Google: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
      synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism.
      (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.
      “this is yet another example of health fascism in action.”

      Opponents of Islam operate in various spheres, from purely pro-human rights anti-Islamic to full-fledged political parties and alternative ideologies.

      If we look at political opponents of Islam like Geert Wilders, leader of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) or Marine Le Pen, leader of the French Front National, their politics are clearly for free speech (which they exercise robustly) and standard hard-won liberal democratic freedoms, as practiced and refined in Europe for hundreds of years.

      Islamic lobbyists and nations however are very much against free speech. Islam, as practiced in Islamic states around the world, is unanimous on proscribing harsh punishments (including the death penalty) against both ‘blasphemy’ and apostasy (leaving Islam).
      [from Wikipedia:] ‘As of 2011, all Islamic majority nations, worldwide, had criminal laws on blasphemy. Over 125 non-Muslim nations worldwide did not have any laws relating to blasphemy. In Islamic nations, thousands of individuals have been arrested and punished for blasphemy of Islam. Several Islamic nations have argued in the United Nations that blasphemy against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad is unacceptable, and laws should be passed worldwide to place “limits on the freedom of expression.” Non-Muslim nations that do not have blasphemy laws, have pointed to abuses of blasphemy laws in Islamic nations, and have disagreed.’

  3. Chabuco says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Fascist? The socialist Mussolini, nor his Marxist comrade Bombacci invented Islam. Mehdi Hasan is a Muslim, a devout Muslim.

    • Mark says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 12:43 pm

      Nazi-ism, communism, socialism, Islam are all cut from the same cloth. A few individuals having the supreme authority to determine what is truth, what is allowed or not allowed(usually criticism of the authority, free speech) and what religion will be the only permitted.

  4. albert says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    I wonder how long it will take Islamofascists like Mehdi Hassan to realise that the phrase they promulgated “religion of peace” is so overlaid with sarcasm that it has become a world wide joke, I suppose we’ll find out when he asks for someone using it to be prosecuted for “Islamophobia”

    • Huck Folder says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 12:01 am

      albert, et al, we have to come up with something which reduces the farcical but deadly pantomime called mohammedanism to its nihilistic nadir:

      “islam – religion of peaceophobia”

      Or something like that.

  5. shrugger says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    When you find yourself in a hole. The best course of action is to stop digging. Please don’t tell Mehdi I said that. His incessant whining far too entertaining.

    • Joginder Singh says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 4:32 am

      When digging his hole it looks like mehdi hasan has stopped using a shovel and started with a JCB

  6. marc says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    reading his weasle words, It’s like these mendacious grievance mongering taqiyya artists are all reading the same book

    • Darren says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 12:27 pm

      Well they do use the same exact set of tactics everywhere they settle. Sadly these tactics continue to work and are very effective. If it aint broke don’t fix it.

  7. Salah says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm

    Meanwhile, the UN Security Council adds one more Muslim Brotherhood offshoot to its terror list.

    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Nov-19/278255-un-security-council-adds-libyas-ansar-al-sharia-to-terror-list.ashx#axzz3JYJImW3T

  8. somehistory says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    The look on his face says he has a pain in his innards. Guess it’s from all that defiling stuff he has coming from his mouth/keyboard (“It’s what comes out of the mouth that defiles a man.’Matthew 15:11).

    His look also reminds me of a line Lou Costello uttered when he said he didn’t look in the mirror because he didn’t want to hurt his own feelings. Hope this doesn’t sound too petty, but this guy, along with his counterpart, Aslan, make me have to try to avoid their photos.

    Islam is evil and evil has to be exposed. He’ll just have to *grimace and bear it* because the truth must be spoken, written and published for all who care to hear.

  9. somehistory says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    Oh, and he knows about yelling fire in a crowded theater. Quoting him:
    ‘right’ to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre…
    No one has that *right* unless there is a fire and the crowd in the theater needs to beat it outside.
    But, maybe that’s why muslims think it’s okay to shout that alla akbary thing in a crowded mall, church or synagogue. They believe they have a *right* the rest of mankind does not have to say whatever, whenever, and wherever they choose.

  10. Wellington says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    Even truly hateful speech, which only fools or the malevolent would consider included criticism of Islamic doctrines, the Koran and Mohammed, should be protected speech if freedom is to survive. Start disallowing certain speech on the basis that it is hateful and a society will quickly descend into a non-free society, only the degree of the dearth of freedom being a variable, and replete with all kinds of Orwellian rules inimical to true liberty. As an example of this, just look at what has happened to modern Britain, where real freedom once existed. As another example, consider the lack of liberty on many American college campuses, where real freedom also once existed, PRECISELY because of silly hate-speech rules.

    Freedom is at its strongest when the vilest members of a society can say virtually anything they want. For instance, the existence of the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi groups in America are a testimony to how free America is. And let such truly hateful groups be dealt with by way of ostracism, ridicule and, in some instances, defamation suits and not by way of limiting speech.

    Not surprising in the least, however, that deceivers like Mehdi Hasan want to, in effect, disallow criticism of Islam since Islam and liberty have NOTHING in common. And doing so by way of asserting that one is for freedom of speech, but not if it is hateful, should be a red light to anyone of sense that such people don’t give a damn about, nor have any understanding of, true freedom. Like Mehdi Hasan.

    • Arthur says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 10:06 pm

      Wellington, I cannot disagree with what you say.

      But how should we defend ourselves from being overwhelmed by jihad executed by individuals in today’s struggle? If we keep on the status quo, we could have 2-20 people lost to each jihadi for years on end as talk randomly explodes into action. Imprisonment of each person who acts out jihad, or gets caught in planning it, becomes a growing financial burden on the policing and penal infrastructure (already a mess). I look at the growing Muslim prison populations in European countries–in a sense it is a mass jihad on a country’s resources.

      Tolerance until our enemy chooses to cross the line of legality at the most damaging point in time does not seem to be a viable strategy as we look through history at Lebanon and other fallen countries. What countries have successfully defended their culture from Islam? Is there an example of a free country which allowed freedom to triumph over Islam? Myanmar isn’t really free, although they aren’t threatened by Islam. Not sure of any other examples of successful defense against this ideology. Help me out.

      Segregation of Germans or Japanese during WWII was predicated on suspension of freedoms due to a state of war. But how do we declare war against an ideology in place of a national political body? Anti-communist McCarthyism was a peacetime policing of ideology. Today we view it as “wrong,” but perhaps it effected a necessary purpose in its time? Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms were compromised. This new enemy of freedom is at least as subversive, more self-sacrificial, and more ethnically diverse than previous foes. (And instead of J Edgar Hoover we seem to be at the other extreme).

      This is a very tricky problem and we are losing the battle day by day. I’m curious to know what you and other JW readers would suggest as a tactics/strategy to preserve constitutional freedoms while stopping the threat of jihad. Perhaps the biggest question being, can Islam’s political machine be stopped by laws on principle, not naming Islam specifically? Or, must Islam be singled out as unique and separable from other protected rights/people/groups?

      It would be interesting to see if a computer model could be constructed to predict the spread of this tyrannical ideology in a society under differing conditions. Are Robert Spencer’s ‘presidential platform’ suggestions–more efficient policing, immigration restriction, defensive education, and boycotting trade with (and outright gifts to) the enemy–sufficient to win the ideological battle? Obviously, they would have an impact, but are they enough?

      I think of the immune response in biology. The *innate* immune response fights things that are “wrong”, like bacterial peptides and sugars. But sometimes an *adaptive* immune response is necessary, generating antibodies unique to a particular pathogen.

      Not trying to be antagonistic. I dearly want this to be a free country (at least no less free than it is currently). How can we defend our culture against an ideology of violent subjugation?

      • Wellington says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 11:49 am

        Arthur: Thanks for your reply. Here is what I argue a free society should do about Islam: 1) alllow it; 2) characterize it as evil and not something good; 3) prosecute to the maximum any Muslim who, acting upon a dictate of his faith, breaks the law (e.g., a husband invoking Sura 4:34 against his wife); 4) mock and criticize it regularly so that over time adherents of Islam will be looked upon overwhelmingly as losers, confused human beings, miscreants, etc.; 5) find legal pretexts to virtually halt all Muslim immigration to Western nations; 6) encourage Muslims to leave their wretched faith, sometimes providing protection for those that do; 7) strip the most “enthusiastic” Muslims of their citizenship (e.g., any going to fight for ISIS); 8) be as knowledgeable about Islam as possible since knowledge is power.

      • Darren says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 12:49 pm

        Very good questions, the only answer I can come to is very bloody. I think the true danger in the ideology of islam is that it rewards and give moral sanction to every dark impulse and desire humans have. It amplifies human nature to the extreme. It’s like human nature on steroids. This attracts the worst kinds of people like flames attract moths on dark nights. The other dangerous aspect is this is a religion.

        So denouncing the ideology is denouncing god himself. muhammad for all of his faults was brilliant when it came to manipulating people and human nature. Even things like reformation are impossible in islam in my opinion. You either believe in everything he said word for word or you are an apostate.So this ideology attracts literal armies of psychopaths and weak minded people who can’t control their dark impulses, what’s worse they are given moral sanction and reward in the after life for this.
        I honestly feel there has never been a more dangerous ideology ever created by man.

        To me islam is like the Captain Trips of human ideologies. If you read the Stephen King book the Stand you know Captain Trips was the flu like virus that wiped out most of humanity. The virus is out there is no putting this genie back in the bottle. The only way to deal with an invasive and destructive virus is to wipe it out. Simply saying islam is bad won’t cut it. As I said what if a lot of people want to be bad? Human nature will never leave us it’s our dark passenger. We all have it no matter how kind we are, though the majority of us control our dark impulses. Islam does the opposite, islam is like the devil on your shoulder saying ya do this it will feel good this is cool go right ahead. Islam is the Joker in Batman wanting to burn the world down, and this is very attractive to many people. Then you have the brainwashed religions types found in all religions who follow their religion with pure devotion.

        Then you have your people with imperialistic ambitions who have found the perfect vehicle to use to manipulate a large group of people to gain power. Even Hitler said if Germany was muslim they would have taken over the world. Hitler for all of his faults knew how to manipulate the masses, and he even recognized this characteristic in islam. Then you have the fear factor that keeps the rest of the people in line. Power comes from the barrel of a gun this will never change. How do we distinguish the normal people living in fear who will go along with the group out of fear between the rest? If we can’t do we continue to go along with being taken over within until they day comes where they feel they are ready? This happened in Lebanon, this happened in Kosovo, this is happening in Africa, this has already happened in every country islam is the dominate religion in. Remember Indonesia and Afghanistan won’t muslim. They spread islam through the sword. Yes the Catholic Church did as well, but when was the last time this happened? Let’s talk about what’s happening right now not the sins of our fathers. Also the Catholic Church by waging genocidal campaigns was ironically breaking Christ’s teachings, in islam you are ordered by god to wage jihad. Big difference. Christians now a days might try to convert you through talking but they won’t try to convert you through force. I think most of us knows what needs to be done, but the sheer thought of it is too horrible to comprehend. If anyone else out there can think of some other strategy that doesn’t involve lots of bloodshed please share it.

        • Darren says

          Nov 20, 2014 at 1:00 pm

          There has never been a better vehicle in all of man kind to use than islam for people who are sociopaths who want power. Granted most people in power are sociopaths by default across all nations. Hitler agreed. It won’t surprise me in the future of many of those in power convert to islam for show. (Think Saudi princes snorting coke and having orgies then putting on holy robes.) For a man who seeks power you have a large group of people easily bent to your will if you put on a holy robe, and many of whom don’t fear death, and actually many embrace it. You have a willing army as well as a malleable population. Besides attracting psychos and sociopaths this ideology attracts sociopaths with imperialistic ambitions like a flame draws in moths.

        • Darren says

          Nov 20, 2014 at 1:11 pm

          I forgot to add another truly frightening but very effective aspect of islam is they weaponize everything and anything like a prisoner making a shank in prison, to further the cause of islam. Things like basic human weapons, weaponized, freedom of religion, weaponized, political correctness which is already bad t o have in a society they make a truly effective weapon out of it. Charitable organizations weaponized. Demographics (jihad by the womb) weaponized. The fact they even weaponize giving birth is amazing. Many of their tactics western and free socities have no counter against or defense as it stands now. Scary though indeed if you are a lover of Western Civilization like I am.

        • Darren says

          Nov 21, 2014 at 12:25 pm

          You are right, but for some reason islam excels at using these tactics, what’s worse many of these tactics haven’t been used in a long while. It’s like humanity’s immune system is in a weakened state against such methods due to not being exposed to them for so long. I consider islam a virus to the body of humanity, humanity consists of anything not islamic. My government might be enemies of China and Russia, but both people despite their faults are civilized, thus they are included. Not to mention both civilizations have contributed to mankind so they are a benefit not a burden on advancing humanity. The thing I believe in the most and wish for the most is for humanity to evolve and advance, which is why I love space so much since I view space as the future.

          But back to the original topic the modern western world views world in two dimensions. I am not saying there aren’t brilliant people in intel and the military who don’t see what we see, but due to chain of command they are unable to act. Often times if they try, they will suffer the fate of Mcnulty from the show The Wire. He saw through all the bullsh*t too but where did it get him in the end? Most people care about a steady paycheck and supporting their families and are unwilling to risk either.

          You can weaponize human nature and the obvious one chain of command. The rigid nature of any bureaucracy presents a whole host of weaknesses you can exploit. Then there are things like no organization is monolithic and you can find disenfranchized factions to play against one another to weaken the over all organization as a whole or find a faction of said organization to aid you.

          A smart enemy avoids engaging the enemy where they are strong and engages them where they are weak. Though islam being islam you have factions that do both. There is no united monolithic organization within islam just a whole host of factions all trying to do the same thing spread sharia law but with them being top dog. I was thinking maybe play the Sunni against the Shiite. Get some agent provacoteur’s disguised as imams and have them build up influence and preistige within the islamic communities and play the Sunni Shiite divide for all it’s worth. How well this would work who knows, better they kill each other than the infidels of the world. Then again this still won’t stop the islamization of Europe, or the infilitration and Islamization of Canada, or Australia, or the jihad in Africa. I’d love to hear other peoples opinions too. I wish someone in the intel community could comment, unless they have some grand master plan we all don’t know about (I highly doubt it) I say they are wide open have more weaknesses and vulnerabilites than stars in the sky, and have no counter or defense against the tactics I and many others have listed. If I am wrong I would love to hear why and how. Being proven wrong never offends me it simply means I gain more knowledge.

        • Darren says

          Nov 21, 2014 at 12:26 pm

          Views war in two dimensions worry, yet another typo. After another gallon of coffee this problem should correct itself… I hope.

      • Arthur says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 11:05 pm

        Thanks for your replies. I read them all with great interest.

  11. duh_swami says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    ‘I have been given the shortest expressions with the widest meanings’…Try this short one…never trust anyone who believes Allah is God…

  12. Henry says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Freedom of speech, the ability to criticise anyone, anything or any idea was fought and struggled for by countless people, many sacrificing their lives in that cause, and this over a long period of time. A great gift we’ve been given, we have an obligation to preserve it, and a moral duty to try to expand it to those who don’t enjoy it. Mehdi Hasan, works in the opposite direction, a taqiyyya tactician whose remit is to shut down free speech, to prevent the true nature of Islam reaching our ears, all in the service to the advancement of the cause of Jihad.

    Mehdi as a purveyor of lies and 1/2 truths utilizes many tricks to deceive, he’s one slippery fish! He’ll whine and squirm, duck and dodge the facts, all the while playing the victim and smearing foes with cries of ‘racist’, or ‘Islamophobe’.

    All credit to Robert for pinning down, and exposing this fraud. Some good points were presented to Hasan in those twitter exchanges, he ran from them, showing him up for the coward, hypocrite, and liar that he is.

  13. tpellow says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    Mehdi Hasan STILL propagandizes for the Organization of Islamic Co-operation’s aim of censoring out all criticism of Islam.
    He is really incensed when his critics point out the facts about Islam and the violence of jihad, and of Sharia law.
    He is in denial about the islamic nature of the utterly barbaric Islamic State and how attractive it is to many Muslims.

  14. Judi says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 6:46 pm

    I’ve made this comment every time I see him. He is a little worm. Google his ‘discussions’ at the Oxford Union debates. Too numerous to list here. He speaks over anybody who dares defend Israel and critisize islam.

    As for the HuffPo, not only have I not seen anyone reading it, but I haven’t even seen it on the new stands here in the UK.

    • mortimer says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 9:21 pm

      Mehdi Hasan is enforcing Sharia law surreptitiously. Sharia forbids non-Muslims from MENTIONING anything Islamic. It matters not if they ‘mention’ positively or negatively. Only Muslims may speak about Islam according to Sharia.

    • pumbar says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 10:52 pm

      I think it’s online only in the UK Judi.

  15. tpellow says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    “Peter Hitchens vs Mehdi Hasan”

    By Douglas Murray

    (2012).

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2012/08/peter-hitchens-vs-mehdi-hasan/

    • Huck Folder says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 12:26 am

      tpellow: recommended, with one observation:

      If Tayyip Erdogan Armenicide had a son…?

      Three quotes from that article:

      Daz • 2 years ago
      What amazes me is people think this Jihadi is a good debater. If debating means raising your voice, being aggressive and continuously interrupting people…then Hassan is the best
      47 + votes

      Marcus • 2 years ago
      We have to ask ourselves how a man like this can be given the time of day?
      It speaks volumes that his ramblings are given any credibility whatsoever. What on earth is wrong with the BBC that they would invite him on to a show and listen to his opinion. To even engage with him demonstrates the bias of the BBC. This is a fringe opportunist fool who does nothing but damage race relations.
      58 + votes

      Andy Gill • 2 years ago
      If Hasan had been white and called Muslims ‘cattle’, he would now be cooling his heels in a police cell, and his chances of working for the BBC would be nil.
      Instead, the bigoted dick gets to dribble on Question Time and write self-pitying columns in the Guardian.
      38 + votes

      • Joginder Singh says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 4:39 am

        The clues are in the BBC and Guardian, The BBC is struggling to retain its £145-50p per annum from the tv licence and the Guardian is losing both money and readers Both are well known in the UK for their industrial strength islamic arse kissing, As for me I neither pay the tv licence or buy the guardian or their islamic taqiyya

        • Mirren10 says

          Nov 20, 2014 at 5:26 pm

          ”As for me I neither pay the tv licence or buy the guardian or their islamic taqiyya”

          Me neither ! 🙂

        • Darren says

          Nov 21, 2014 at 12:35 pm

          I agree, I actually enjoy reading the comments more than the articles. It’s not because Robert does a bad job, it’s quite the opposite, it just means he was able to attract a bunch of interesting and smart people to his site where we can freely converse and share ideas with each other. I’ve learned just as much from reading the comments as I did reading the articles.

          I think a big selling point of this website is it’s community, minus the usual stealth jihad trolls and their dhimmi slaves of course. Though they do provide the community with good entertainment, kind of like how court jesters provided the nobles and peasants a like with some good amusement. We need to have a contest which stealth jihadist would you vote for to be king of the court jesters?

          I guess that would be easy Rezali never mind no need for a contest. Rezali the queen of the clowns. Maybe clown queen sounds better. If there are any court jesters in the house please continue to entertain us at court. It would be funny if Mr. Spencer created an alter ego stealth jihadist and role played as one. Plus playing devils advocate might sharpen our debating skills. I was thinking of pretending to be a jihadist and infiltrating places where the Islamic State and others hang out, but I am afraid I will get flagged on the government watch list.

  16. PAthena says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 9:22 pm

    Fascism is not “right-wing” but “left-wing.” Benito Mussolini founded the Fascist Party as a nationalist socialist party in 1917. He was a leader of the Italian Socialist Party and editor of its newspaper Avanti. During World War I, Italy being against Germany, the Italian Socialist Party objected, because, according to Socialist doctrine, war was between capitalist countries. Mussolini changed his mind, and, instead of supporting internationalist socialism (the Bolsheviks establishing the Soviet Union did that), supported nationalist socialism. He chose the name “Fascist” because the fasces – wheat wound around an axe – were a symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The nationalist socialists in Germany followed suit and founded the party of National Socialism, Nazional Sozialismus, Nazi, for short.

    • Wellington says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 10:26 pm

      Fascism can be found both on the far left and the far right. Generally speaking, when it’s mixed with ugly nationalism it is more accurate to describe it as a far-right phenomenon since far-left thought ordinarily decries nationalistic sentiments as yet one more manifestation of the capitalistic order (Stalin, rather amusingly, had to back track on this once Germany invaded the USSR with his appeal to defending Mother Russia) .

      With respect to Nazism, this extremely muddled “ism” had some features in it which were leftist (e.g., profit-sharing in large industries) and some that were right-wing (e.g., the union of all Germans in a Greater Germany), but after the Night of the Long Knives (June 30th, 1934), when left-leaning Nazis like Rohm were killed, Nazism henceforth, though still at times paying lip service to certain left-wing concepts, was, for all intents and purposes, an almost entirely right-wing phenomenon to its dying days. I would say the same of Italian fascism under Mussolini, especially in its later years.

      Since far-left and far-right thinking (if you can dignify it by calling it “thinking”) both abhor liberty and function in full control-freak mode, it’s probably best not to make too much of the distinction between the far right and the far left. Both are fascist and both eradicate freedom, though in one respect the far left is even worse than the far right because it ordinarily destroys the economy of a country with silly and excessive socialistic concepts. The far left also tends to hate religion while the far right often does not (Hitler and his high Nazi cronies being an exception here).

      • Sweetness says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 12:39 am

        well, I have to disagree with you on this, ol chap.

        left is totalitarian. right is chaos.

        left is communism, nazi, fascism, sharia, imperialism, not necessarily in that order.

        the middle is the individual. Most politically protected and honored by the US Constitution, imho.

        the far right is a guy with a knife and a bag of beans living in the woods.

        democrats today are left because they want more govt. Repubs and tea party peeps want less govt and so they are right.
        but they are very close, really, to the idea of protecting the rights of the individual.

        The french revolution gives us that outmoded model of those who oppose the monarchy sat on the left and those in favor sat on the right in the govt. assembly.

        So the leftists opposed another leftist for control. wow. totally haven’t seen that ever again….nazi vs communism….tiger vs lion – who gets to eat you?

        we all know about the reign of terror the left indulged in when they took power. Thousands murdered who disagreed with the presently powerful.

        so then the silly game continues: those who want a revolution sit on the left. Those in favor of the status quo sit on the right. and so it goes.

        This is brain melting anti-logic.

        There is total control or there is none. Or do not use the terms left and right. use something else!

        there are the inalienable rights of man as granted by his creator

        Which do you favor to protect the rights of the individual, the middle?

        do you know of the laws of Ashoka? Buddhist king, ex-homicidal maniac.

        cheers!

        • Wellington says

          Nov 20, 2014 at 11:33 am

          I would argue that both the far left and the far right are totalitarian, though the far left I tend to refer to as “radical” and the far right as “reactionary.” As for your contention that “the far right is a guy with a knife and a bag of beans living in the woods,” then what would you call Franco’s Spain? I would call it a classic example of a far-right, totaltiarian, reactionary regime (though still not as bad as Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s USSR).

          Keep in mind too that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” have done a 180 over the past two hundred years or so. Alexander Hamilton was a conservative and wanted more government. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal and wanted less government. Today, the liberal wants more government and the conservative less (this is why I sometimes describe myself as a Jeffersonian liberal).

          Respecting anarchy, this is as far left as you can go, though modern libertariansim, with its deep skepticism of almost all government, ironically shows some similarities to anarchy even though it is a right-wing phenomenon, demonstrating yet again that as one goes to the two extremes of right and left they actually have a good bit in common, though in defense of libertarianism I must say that it does not want to eradicate liberty.

        • gravenimage says

          Nov 20, 2014 at 5:57 pm

          The “far right” and the “far left” are virtually indistinguishable in their crushing of freedoms.

          One can argue whether this categorizing is particularly useful, but as it stands now, the differences between “far right” and “far left” become essentially meaningless on the ground.

        • Huck Folder says

          Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 pm

          @graven image:

          I think of isms not as a line from (extreme) left to (extreme) right, but rather as formed into a ring.

          So normalism is front and center, and the line stretches to left and right while curling towards the rear, the most extreme leftism and rightism meeting the other side of the circle, opposite normalism.

          I think it’s somewhat similar to genius and insanity.

  17. Beagle says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    Medhi Hasan’s worst case apocalyptic scenarios deserve consideration. If The Daily Beast did have a KKK- Holocaust denial corner, or something, what would happen? Other than some leftists finding common ground with people they assumed they opposed, not much.

    It is easy to theorize harms from mere speech. But creeping fascist speech police, bringing real harmful punishments, as we see in the UK, or Saudi Arabia, are never far behind. In the UK a grandmother’s knitted monkey recently sparked a police inquiry for “racism”. Fortunately there is no real crime in the UK to investigate. Saudi Arabia leads the global fight against witchcraft.

    Let everyone speak, and defend their views from aggressive criticism. Who knows? Maybe our modern western society of sensitive special flowers will learn to debate instead of trying to shut up their opponents.

    • Arthur says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 10:31 pm

      Indeed! The police even lied about getting a call of complaint! They just thought they needed to investigate.

      The UK has thousands of children being sexually abused by Pakistani immigrants while the police are preoccupied with interrogating grandmothers who display knitted children’s toys in their home window.

    • Mirren10 says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 5:47 pm

      ”In the UK a grandmother’s knitted monkey recently sparked a police inquiry for “racism”.

      I googled this, but couldn’t find anything. Do you have a link ?

      ”Let everyone speak, and defend their views from aggressive criticism. Who knows? Maybe our modern western society of sensitive special flowers will learn to debate instead of trying to shut up their opponents.”

      Agreed. The trouble is, scrotes like hasan , as Robert points out, consider any form of criticism, ”aggressive”. What we really need is a repeal of the hateful ‘hate speech’ laws, which should never have been given credence in the first place.

      • gravenimage says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 6:15 pm

        Beagle wrote:

        In the UK a grandmother’s knitted monkey recently sparked a police inquiry for “racism”.

        Mirren wrote:

        I googled this, but couldn’t find anything. Do you have a link ?
        …………………………..

        Mirren, I found the story here:

        “Police quiz gran over ‘racially offensive’ knitted gorilla in window – despite no complaints”

        http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/police-quiz-gran-over-racially-4643771

        “Political correctness” run rampant.

  18. PJG says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    He is playing the trick which we hear played every day on mention of Islam, which is that criticising Islam is picking on poor innocent Muslims, a “group of people”. He deftly slides from one to the other, knowing it will work and that his opponents will defend themselves from any suggestion that they were having a go at actual (gasp!) *people*, let alone (gasp, gasp!!) a *minority*!
    Well, two can play that game. If we discuss the Islamic texts without mentioning “Muslims” at all, apart from perhaps stating facts about the Islamic State goondas – and even then, we can call them anything we like such as “militants”, “extremists”, “fighters” or just “chaps”, it can’t be on any logical basis that we can be accused of attacking poor innocent Muslims.
    Stating facts cannot be called “offensive and bigoted” or the media would not be allowed to relay the daily news about the “religion of peace”.
    What this creep wants is a ban on criticism or negative portrayal (ie facts) of ISLAM, not a ban on saying mean things about Muslims. He is using the latter to achieve the former, to achieve a sharia blasphemy law.
    It can only work if he is not called out at some point on his dodgy logic. A blasphemy law is just that, not a law to prevent groups of people from being picked on. It needs to be exposed that the only reason people like this character want laws against free speech is that they want all the power a blasphemy law will undoubtably give them.
    So, all you “moderate” Muslims out there, do you like being used in this way?

    • mortimer says

      Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37 pm

      PJG,
      It’s actually a defence of SHARIA LAW that he’s sliding past us!

      Sharia law…the FASCISM that DARE NOT speak its name!

      OUTED! Mehdi Hasan has OUTED himself as theocratic FASCIST.

    • Babs says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 1:12 pm

      Let’s not forget that this is the same Mehdi Hasan who was the apology-bearer for cowardly and egregious Lord Ahmed who, in spite of having been responsible for death by dangerous driving (Ahmed had been texting while driving, which is against UK law) of another human being, and having been sent to prison for a derisory period, lost no time speechifying in Pakistan that he had been found guilty only because the judge had been bought off by the Jews. When he was later called to task for that he actually wanted sane people to believe that he had blamed the Jews because there was no word in Urdu for Zionist!

      Ahmed was slung out of the Labour party although he is still in the Lords which lowers the already low standards there considerably.

      And Mehdi Hasan had the nerve to condemn antisemitism whilst carrying Ahmed’s apologies! Can someone type with his fingers crossed behind his back?

  19. PJG says

    Nov 19, 2014 at 10:28 pm

    I forgot to mention his tie, but I don’t really know what to say about it anyway. A trifle showy, mister?

  20. Anon says

    Nov 20, 2014 at 2:58 am

    Wow, blah blah blah, this Mehdi Hasan guy is WORDY for a reason, it’s deception. As long as no-one is shouting MUSLIM in a crowded theater then it’s just plain wrong to whittle away at free speech in any way shape or form. He does not show ANY hint that Islam needs to be reformed, nor will it ever be. WW3 is inevitable.

  21. sheik yer'mami says

    Nov 20, 2014 at 4:19 am

    In the previous article the Islamofascist Mehdi Hasan demanded that every scribbler in a newsroom would have a Mohammedan minder just to be sure to write “the right stuff” about Islam.

    Mehdi’s suit doesn’t make him a civilised man. He is a Mohammedan savage with a big mouth.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 10:54 pm

      It’s already happening, a lot of the time.

      Very often when there’s a Muslim/ Islam-related piece in the news media, if a byline is given, you see two names: a non-Muslim name and a Muslim name. The Muslim, presumably, supposedly acting as “cultural adviser” or “native guide”, or, to be blunt “minder”.

      • Darren says

        Nov 21, 2014 at 12:38 pm

        Reminds you of the old Soviet Union doesn’t it? Scary indeed.

  22. epistemology says

    Nov 20, 2014 at 7:27 am

    It’s preposterous. Infidels aren’t even allowed to quote the Koran, when the quotes can be used against Muslims. Here are the true double standards. Mehdi Hasan is a disgusting liar.

    • mortimer says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 9:47 am

      Prohibited ‘Impermissible’ Speech from Reliance of the Traveller:
      Chapter ‘O’ 11.10
      The (DHIMMI) agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
      -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

      Sharia permits the murder of anyone who verbally opposes Islam, since they are at war with Islam:
      “There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.” -Reliance of the Traveller, o4.17, p.593

      Comment: Islam mandates death for non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state who mention “something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o11.10), and such laws go back to passages in the Hadith and Sira in which Muhammad orders the murders of people who have insulted him, including Abu ‘Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess ‘Asma bint Marwan. Abu ‘Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad’s question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop ‘Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, ‘Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676)

      • gravenimage says

        Nov 20, 2014 at 6:53 pm

        Thanks for posting that from the Reliance of the Traveller, Mortimer.

        And to remind everyone, is the Dhimma was held to be violated, then Muslims could act violently to *anyone* in the dhimmi community.

  23. andrew sapia says

    Nov 20, 2014 at 11:47 am

    Medhi is a total Islamic supremacist. You can find him on youtube addressing an audience in Pakistan where he refers to all non-Muslims as animals and there is no other way to interpret it. It is his true colors. If any white public figure said what he does in this video their carreer would be over. In some European countries they would be charged with a hate speech crime. Watch the video and tell me I am wrong. You can see it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utckFfsgeO0&spfreload=10

  24. Darren says

    Nov 20, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Correction islam and the world have been at war for 1400 years. I believe the same agenda behind importing tens of millions of illegal hispanic immigrants into the U.S, is behind importing millions of muslim immigrants into Europe. Are they interconnected or are the powers that be just using the same sort of tactic, I have no idea. The globalist agenda and those behind much of it cause me to believe it is interconnected though. Globalism is the devil just like islam is.

  25. gravenimage says

    Nov 20, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    UK fascist Mehdi Hasan doubles down, rebuts charges that he’s against free speech by again calling for restrictions on free speech
    ………………………….

    What Mehdi Hasan will not tell you is that crushing criticism of Islam is normative for that creed—under Shari’ah law you can be imprisoned or executed for so much as questioning Islam.

    And we have all seen how murderous Mohammedans become over the Satanic Verses, or the Danish Mo Toons, or the Mo Doggies, or Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, or any other criticism of Islam or the “Prophet”, no matter how mild.

    What Hasan is trying to do is just another tactic in that same end goal: using “politically correct” ideas and concern over being considered “Islamophobic” to shut down criticism of Islam. But the ultimate corollary to this “slow Jihad” tactic is always fear.

  26. sidney penny says

    Nov 20, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    The key to everything ,who decides? Yes who? and how?

    ” Then he says that what is “offensive and bigoted” should not be given a platform. But who should be given the power to determine what is “offensive and bigoted” and what isn’t? Mehdi Hasan?

    Whoever would have that authority would wield enormous power, as he or she would effectively have the power to control the public discourse. And that’s the idea.

    What Mehdi Hasan is advocating here is quintessentially fascist.”

    This part is part of the excellent talk you gave to students where some one said that she agreed to free free but not hate speech.

    You gave an excellent reply at the end of the talk in the Q and A

    • sidney penny says

      Nov 20, 2014 at 11:43 pm

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/cal-poly-free-speech-under-attack-in-academia

  27. mark says

    Nov 21, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    These asses have everyone too freaked to DARE say anything bad about muslims in the media, how can they seriously keep playing this card? Even South Park to this DAY won’t air the (previously aired in the pre-muslim supremacy days) episodes mohammed is in. It’s even worse now, more dangerous and everyone handles these people with kiddie gloves.

    I admit I fell for the ‘anti-muslim discrimination’ a bit back in the day when they started this shit after 9/11, but I knew nothing of the horrors of Islam and the actual history of the “Arab World”. Like many, I thought the terror attacks was what they said, a few nutjobs. Time passed and my own intelligence clicked in that started to notice, hmmmm, these people say one thing do another but then have a tantrum pretending they’re still victims while blood drips off their hands. But the rest of the world didn’t and I don’t know what to think about that.

  28. matt lucas says

    Dec 17, 2014 at 3:39 am

    I stopped thinking that Mehdi Hasan is the voice of moderation our country needs.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • James Lincoln on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • revereridesagain on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • SKA on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.