Well said

“It’s not good enough to excuse intolerance by suggesting that “it’s OK because they do something worse in their countries”. ”

Along with the obvious two-wrongs-make-a-right attitude of the above, it also carries an implicit fallacy in the concept of “they” and “their countries”. If a Muslim is British born and bred, Saudi Arabia (or wherever) is not *their* country, and *they* are certainly not the person throwing rocks at adultresses.

I think it’s acceptable short-hand, but unfortunately it gets equivocated into an attempt to make moderate British Muslims responsible for things that happen in other places that have nowt to do with them. We’ve already seen a couple of people in the other thread using this fallacious reasoning to indulge in apologetics for Islamaphobia.

1. Chaise Guevara

Along with the obvious two-wrongs-make-a-right attitude of the above, it also carries an implicit fallacy in the concept of “they” and “their countries”. If a Muslim is British born and bred, Saudi Arabia (or wherever) is not *their* country, and *they* are certainly not the person throwing rocks at adultresses.

No but they may be policies they support and they may be the sort of person who wants to throw rocks at adultresses.

I think it’s acceptable short-hand, but unfortunately it gets equivocated into an attempt to make moderate British Muslims responsible for things that happen in other places that have nowt to do with them. We’ve already seen a couple of people in the other thread using this fallacious reasoning to indulge in apologetics for Islamaphobia.

Really? Shame on them. However, like the Left’s obsession with Israel, when anyone bangs on about the West’s minor flaws while ignoring far larger flaws elsewhere – while perfectly justifiable in theory – at some point reasonable people can reasonably assume there is some other reason driving these complaints. A Muslim who complains about isolated incidents of disgusting behaviour in Britain while remaining utterly silent about far worse thing elsewhere is probably – only probably – a hypocrit making a very different point.

Let’s jsut remind ourselves of what Mehdi Hasan has said in the past shall we?

“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”

and…

“In Islam, to believe is to know. To disbelieve is not to know. That is what it fundamentally comes down to; it [to disbelieve] is to remain ignorant; to cover up knowledge. After all, what is ‘kaffar’? Kaffar comes from the root word which means to cover up, to conceal. The kaffar is the one who covers up that knowledge which is clear. The French orientalist scholar Lamens [?], he once wrote that the “Quran is not far from considering unbelief, disbelief as an infirmity, as an illness, as a disease of the human mind”. Subhanallah. Non-Muslims point this out to us”

Street goes both ways you know….

@ 2 SMFS

“No but they may be policies they support and they may be the sort of person who wants to throw rocks at adultresses.”

That bloke walking past you in the streeet *may* be a wife-beater but that doesn’t mean it’s ok for you to mug him.

“Really? Shame on them. However, like the Left’s obsession with Israel, when anyone bangs on about the West’s minor flaws while ignoring far larger flaws elsewhere – while perfectly justifiable in theory – at some point reasonable people can reasonably assume there is some other reason driving these complaints.”

At some point, yeah. Depends on context really.

“A Muslim who complains about isolated incidents of disgusting behaviour in Britain while remaining utterly silent about far worse thing elsewhere is probably – only probably – a hypocrit making a very different point.”

Or they’re just someone who chiefly cares about things that might affect them personally, i.e. a normal human being. A news report of a plane crash in Indonesia will cause you a lot less pain than stubbing your toe.

@3

Ooh look, Tyler is duty troll today.

Right on cue, he does exactly what I noted in the original of this post (which can be seen here: http://zelo.tv/LbtdTp).

We can all take the odd paragraph out of context. Some can go further and project their own interpretation, saying that what was meant was what the person doing the projection – rather than the original author – says was meant.

It’s as if Tyler, and all the others who dig out exactly the same wording, have the text ready to cut and paste whenever Mehdi Hasan has the temerity to publish anything.

As to what that makes the likes of Tyler and the ones that lie in wait for Mehdi Hasan at CiF and elsewhere …

“In the UK, and indeed in any part of the free world, peaceable debate and the ability to enjoy freedom of speech should not be conditional on a person’s religious or political beliefs.
Nor should those beliefs be used as an excuse to indulge in hate speech, threats, bullying and intimidation.”

Indeed. Absolutely not.
As certain novelists and cartoonists know all too well.

@ Tim Fenton

Ah, the Left’s standard argument when their own looks at best hollow – I’m a troll.

It’s not too different from Mehdi Hasan’s “I was quoted out of context” argument. If you care to believe him he’s saying that he said what he said (and of course, you only need to look on youtube to prove he did say it) but he didn’t *actually* mean it.

Right.

It’s not hard to find the full text of what he said on google, amongst the 700 thousand hits. Feel free to make your own mind up about it. I have, and as far as I can see he’s a liar and a hateful little hypocrite for trying to silence his own critics freedom of speech whilst steadfastly defending his own.

And Hasan should obviously say or write whatever he likes.

But he should not cry foul if people choose to quote it back to him.

Well, yes, up to a point. Let’s reverse the order of your last two sentences, without changing any words:

Mehdi Hasan, and any other follower of The Prophet, must be allowed to say and write as they think fit. Nor should those beliefs be used as an excuse to indulge in hate speech, threats, bullying and intimidation.

The continued trouble with all of these debates, besides the worrying conflation of religion with race, is the generalised assumption too often made on either side that Islam is one bloc. That one follower of the Prophet believes the same things as any other, with the same emphases and priorities. And that they all share the same patterns of behaviour and outlook. This is demonstrably untrue, but still pervades, leading to both blanket demonisation from the right, and instances of “blindness” to criminality by some who happen to be Muslim from the well-intentioned on the left.
There is no “they”, not in a coherent sense, about which generalisations about behaviours and outlook can be made.

Dear me. Who is better and who is worse …. this website or Harry’s Place?
Sarah AB of HP did a post yesterday on the very subject of Mehdi Hasan in the Guardian.

”Quizblorg vanishes? Mehdi Hasan at CiF”

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

I think it’s 50/50 in the who is better or worse stakes.
Somewhere between the two, reason is lost.

I’d like to hear Mehdi Hasan’s explaination for what the context of his often quoted speech was. I’d certainly give him a fair hearing. Maybe it was just some religious mumbo jumbo – which religious people are inclined to get a bit carried away with sometimes.

We can all take the odd paragraph out of context. Some can go further and project their own interpretation, saying that what was meant was what the person doing the projection – rather than the original author – says was meant.

It’s as if Tyler, and all the others who dig out exactly the same wording, have the text ready to cut and paste whenever Mehdi Hasan has the temerity to publish anything.

Riiighht. Tyler is projecting his own interpretation of Hasan by deviously quoting Hasan’s exact words.

And of course if the quote wasn’t exact you’d be the first to point this out.

And maybe you should stop describing all criticisms of Islam as Islamophobic: Amnesty International’s own report on anti-Muslim bigotry refused to use the word, and explained why in it’s opening pages, had you bothered to read it.

@ Tim

It seems very probable, from the coverage, that the Asian child Shabir Ahmed was found guilty of abusing was a very close relative yet you are arguing that this crime, in some way, mitigated against the horrific nature of the other crimes committed against the white girls because the racial aspect of the latter crimes is diminished.

“They’re paedophiles, but this proves they are not exclusively racist paedophiles so the right wing press should stop being critical and admit that Islamic culture had no influence in the matter.”

It’s an argument, I suppose, but one I’m surprised to see LC associated with.

Can I just check, Tim are you pro-islam, for example do you think that sharia is a good system, one that should be extended more widely throughout British institutions (of course, I don’t expect you to answer this honestly, or say why the likes of sharia has no place on a forward looking culture).

To my mind debate about islam (or any of the monotheisms) must begin with the tenability of the fundamental propositions contained in the big book – from this perspective islam should be afforded equal deference to that shown to scientologists or creationists, because it is no different in terms of its unwillingness to embrace a view world that can be subject to proper, and rigorous scientific investigation.

Now you might argue that it is wrong to interfere with religion, even one that has become infamous because of it’s international reputation for misogyny, and in many respects there is an obvious bind in trying to enlighten sectors of a community who prefer to cling to an explanation of the world based on violent children’s stories.

I probably even agree with you to the extent that such groups (rather like the mad scientologists) should be left to stew in their own anti-intellectual juices because we have no right, or business telling people what they should or shouldn’t believe unless those beliefs threaten a third parties safety – but what constitutes a threat.

Well lets take children – muslim children (since we are talking about islam) are subject to a form of psychological conditioning that makes it very difficult for them to ever truly escape the sexist and pedagogic mindset that permeates such an all encompassing doctrine (same is true of other pedagogic religions) – in fact, some are even going so far to frame this powerful indoctrination process as a form of child abuse (see Dawkins clip on thread you link to in OP).

While I strongly agree that people should be free to cling to outmoded beliefs free from harm or intimidation – I think we still have a duty to use reason to persuade them that such beliefs are based on tradition, and the power of numbers rather than on reality.

@ 12 pagar

“It seems very probable, from the coverage, that the Asian child Shabir Ahmed was found guilty of abusing was a very close relative yet you are arguing that this crime, in some way, mitigated against the horrific nature of the other crimes committed against the white girls because the racial aspect of the latter crimes is diminished.”

Where does he say that? He says that it shows that the “Muslims specifically hunting white girls” meme is bollocks. That’s a fair cry from saying “…and therefore the abuse is ok”.

The papers decided to make this a race issue, and regardless of what your or my personal feelings would be, people are going to get more angry about crimes with non-white perps and white victims, especially if it’s claimed that the perps specifically targeted the victims based on race. Tim’s just claiming that the papers are wrong about this.

You really ought to try arguing honestly instead of relying on straw-man attacks. They don’t help you and they just drag down the conversation.

@6

Another “what about the cartoonists”. You make my point well.

@7

You were there less than an hour after the post was published with your text ready to cut and paste. Yet that does not make you a troll.

But, sadly, you then spray your credibility up the wall by ranting “liar and hateful little hypocrite” and asserting – wrongly – that Mehdi Hasan is trying to silence his critics.

@11

Try reading what Mehdi Hasan actually said on the subject:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dissident-voice/2009/07/islamic-extremists-muslim

@12

“It seems very probable, from the coverage”. So you’re making it up, then doubling down with projection. What you pretend I’m saying is beneath contempt, but hey, you’re probably getting a kick and a quiet snigger from knowing you got a reaction.

Note also that Jonathan Freedland has said that he stands with Mehdi Hasan:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/10/stand-mehdi-hasan-torrent-islamophobic-abuse?CMP=twt_gu

Or is quoting Freedland only OK to the troll gallery when he’s critical of Ken Livingstone?

Anyway, if God does exist he has made a new covenant ………. with the nazis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xwZt8ypufE

If you bother to track down the whole of Mehdi’s oft-quoted controversial speech, you’ll hear that he spends virtually the whole thing slamming the modern Muslim world for failing to upholding the scientific and intellectual traditions of the Islamic golden age, the lack of education for women, the widespread functional illiteracy, etc.., and its excessive focus on bloodshed and warfare.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EGGiKwijjlUJ:www.ius.org.uk/audio/arbaeen-majlis-2009.html+http://www.ius.org.uk/audio/arbaeen-majlis-2009.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Just one quote from it which you won’t hear the likes of Tyler pulling out: “The only way to learn is to open your mind to non-Muslims, to open your mind to other cultures, to learn foreign languages… When he [Mohammed] arrived in Medina one of his first acts was to send Zaid to the Jews to learn Hebrew so that the interfaith dialogue and exchange of ideas could begin”.

What an extremist, eh.

@ 16 Larry

All well and good, but what about the bit cited by Tyler @3? I’m interested in the first paragraph, the bit about atheists being “cattle”.

It’s quite possible that the words are taken out of context (for a start, you could reverse that whole paragraph by ending with “However, the Quran is wrong about this”). But if not, you can’t magic away the bigotry of those words by pointing out something else he said that is more impressive.

@ Chaise

Tim says

“While there was much punditry devoted to emphasising the line that Muslim males were going after white girls, little space was given to the report that showed the ringleader to be going after any young women, after he was convicted of raping an Asian girl.”

Pagar says

“you are arguing that this crime, in some way, mitigated against the horrific nature of the other crimes committed against the white girls because the racial aspect of the latter crimes is diminished”.

Chaise says

“Where does he say that? He says that it shows that the “Muslims specifically hunting white girls” meme is bollocks.”

But my argument was that it was not bollocks. It remains the case that no Asian girls were groomed by the gang. If Asian girls are abused, it is more likely to be in their own homes because they are not generally permitted to roam the streets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18774627

Chaise says

“You really ought to try arguing honestly instead of relying on straw-man attacks. They don’t help you and they just drag down the conversation.”

Not valid.

I was dealing precisely with the point being made in the OP, which was attempting to deny the cultural background to the crimes and criticising the press for mentioning them. If you are interested to read an intelligent analysis of these I’d suggest this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/asian-grooming-why-we-need-to-talk-about-sex-7734712.html?origin=internalSearch

If you bother to track down the whole of Mehdi’s oft-quoted controversial speech, you’ll hear that he spends virtually the whole thing slamming the modern Muslim world for failing to upholding the scientific and intellectual traditions of the Islamic golden age, the lack of education for women, the widespread functional illiteracy, etc.., and its excessive focus on bloodshed and warfare.

And if a Catholic denounced the Crusades but added ‘P.S. Muslims are dogs’ it wouldn’t make them any less bigoted.

Hasan isn’t some possibly socially isolated, possibly illiterate woman being abused by idiots on a bus. He’s a highly educated intellectual thug with a public platform.

Chaise, well I’ve provided a link so peope can make up their own minds.

To me, the context of the speech makes pretty clear that he’s drawing attention to an irony in that section: non-Muslims are meant to be like cattle in that they supposedly lack the intelligence and education to see the truth; but in fact – and this the whole point of the speech – if you look around the modern world, it is Muslims who are overwhelmingly uneducated and ignorant compared to the west.

It’s not just “something else he said that is more impressive”, it’s “something else he said that is in flagrant contradiction to the supposed implication of the first thing he said [namely that non-Muslims are worthless and stupid] – and what is more that something else is the major point he was trying to get across”.

@ 19 Pagar

“But my argument was that it was not bollocks. It remains the case that no Asian girls were groomed by the gang. If Asian girls are abused, it is more likely to be in their own homes because they are not generally permitted to roam the streets.”

Nope, your argument (as quoted in your own post!) was that Tim thought that the crime against the Asian girl “mitigated against the horrific nature of the other crimes”.

“Not valid. ”

I’m afraid it IS valid, because I have identified a straw man in your post, and straw men are fallacious. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

“I was dealing precisely with the point being made in the OP, which was attempting to deny the cultural background to the crimes and criticising the press for mentioning them. ”

Another lie. He was criticising the press for selectively reporting the details of the crimes.

Maybe there is a good argument against the OP; perhaps you should present it instead of just piling up the straw men?

@ 21 Larry

The link appears to be audio, I can’t really sit here and listen to it at work.

The point about Shabir Ahmed was interesting and deserved wider reportage. There’s still considerable evidence that his partners in crime preferred to abuse white girls but it’s worth knowing that this wasn’t a collective principle. I’m less moved by the point about the varying levels of reportage around different terrorism charges because that involving the London suspects seems to have been far more significant: it’s thought to have involved a conspiracy, and one that had begun preparations, whereas Florence doesn’t seem to have had any active plans. (The equivocation between acts inspired by forms of Christianity and Islam, meanwhile, is ludicrous.)

I remember giving a qualified defence of Hasan’s remarks – here, perhaps; I’m not sure – on the basis that as most religious people feel that nonbelief is punishable by an eternity in the hellfires such a contempt for the views of nonbelievers is inevitable. I was more inclined to give a generous interpretation of Islamic views back then and might feel differently now but, still, I’m not sure how one can maintain traditional religious doctrine without being contemptuous towards the beliefs of others. Perhaps someone more versed in theological studies could enlighten me.

@ Tim Fenton

I do indeed think Hasan is a liar and a hypocrite – of both which he has form – but not because he is a Muslim. There are plenty of commentators out there, let alone polticians, who I share exactly the same thoughts about in a refreshingly and honestly non-racist fashion.

And do forgive me if I don’t take hasan’s own mealy-mouthed mea culpea for his own words as some kind of vindication.

Do you also honestly think I was busy staring into my crystal ball before you posted this article and waiting with baited breath with the quotes I put up? Of course not. If you keep roughly abrest of the political blogosphere though, you will know that Hasan’s most famous for calling people like me livestock. A few seconds spent on google and the quotes are easy to find, as is the youtube video, as is indeed the whole transcript and audio file of his speech.

I’m not sure what Hasan’s latest article is other than an attempt to silence his critics under the guise of islamaphobic victimhood.

Mr Fenton’s habit of implying that commentators he dislikes are part of some ill-defined conspiracy, by the way, is a bit perplexing. I suspect that Ann Leslie is old enough and rich enough that she doesn’t have to be “on duty” for anyone, and even if Tyler was trolling there’s no reason to suspect this was due to his moral or legal obligation to some other shady customers.

I see Jonathan Freedland has adopted the ‘I stand with Mehdi Hasan’ line in the gruniard.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/10/stand-mehdi-hasan-torrent-islamophobic-abuse

It’s not until the end of the article that we get some inkling into why such a position might have been adopted.
Freedland says, ‘I’m afraid that I and other Jewish writers have had more than a taste of the treatment Mehdi describes’.
In other words objections to judaism or islam are framed as a form of bigoted intolerance (complete with a lexicon that can be deployed as shorthand to reinforce their position, such as ‘islamaphobia’, etc,)

As far as I can see there is no discussion as to why so many people remain deeply skeptical about the basis for Jewish, or Islamic faith, either in terms of their shaky theoretical foundations or belligerent presence in some places.

In short haven’t the likes of Freedland failed to distinguish the difference between those who voice objections to organised religion on intellectual grounds, and those who go about intimidating people because of a toxic atmosphere that is whipped up around expression of religious beliefs, even when those beliefs lead to conflict and oppression in the name of the various gods?

@ Chaise

Nope, your argument (as quoted in your own post!) was that Tim thought that the crime against the Asian girl “mitigated against the horrific nature of the other crimes”.

You don’t quote the whole sentence and then accuse me of sleight of hand.

I said of the OP “you are arguing that this crime, in some way, mitigated against the horrific nature of the other crimes committed against the white girls because the racial aspect of the latter crimes is diminished.”

Presumably you are arguing that a racial element in a crime should not be an aggravating factor?

Shatterface,

And if a Catholic denounced the Crusades but added ‘P.S. Muslims are dogs’ it wouldn’t make them any less bigoted.

True dat. But if the same Catholic went on also to describe Catholics as ‘dogs’, then you’d have to take a step back and contemplate what he meant by the term, and what point he was trying to make, wouldn’t you?

On which topic, here’s another quote from that speech:

We just follow the crowd, we are the cattle that Allah condemns in the Quran

So there you are. Mehdi Hasan thinks Muslims are cattle too.

We saw the selective reportage reprised last week, when six people arrested on suspicion of offences under terrorism law were widely reported, and merely by coincidence they happened to be Muslims. But there was little reporting, and no punditry, devoted to the six terrorism charges made against Niall Florence from Rochdale, who is not a Muslim.

I like that play on the word ‘six’. Six people accused of terrorism who just happen to be Muslim (who you don’t name, btw) and a non-Muslim (or just-happens-to-not-be-Muslim?) terrorist-suspect charged with ‘six’ offenses – it gives the false illusion of symmetry.

How many charges were actually laid against the just-happen-to-be-Muslims?

In the UK, and indeed in any part of the free world, peaceable debate and the ability to enjoy freedom of speech should not be conditional on a person’s religious or political beliefs.

Even if those religious or political beliefs are opposed to, say, those of a CiF commentator? You seem hopelessly confused here. You are all for ‘free speech’ – so long as that free speech is not directed at a known race-baiter.

Nor should those beliefs be used as an excuse to indulge in hate speech, threats, bullying and intimidation.

Even if those beliefs are themselves hateful, bullying and intimidating? Lets take for example, an honest hate preacher rather than an equivocating political editor – should we not treat this speach with the contempt it deserves?

Mehdi Hasan, and any other follower of The Prophet, must be allowed to say and write as they think fit.

I’m all for them saying and writing what they think fit, such as it is, because the best argument for secularism comes from the mouths of the faithful.

And I’m all for the right to respond. That’s the difference between supporting free speech in general and merely giving a platform to those your liberal guilt tells you to help shoulder their burdon.

the best argument for secularism comes from the mouths of the faithful

True, but not in the way that you think.

Mehdi Hasan on secularism:

‘a diverse polity such as India can prosper only if it has faith in the inclusive and religiously neutral model of governance established by its founders in 1947. As Gopal says, this model of secularism is “integral to the survival of a nation cobbled together from such a diverse range of faiths, practices, beliefs, identities and languages”.’

@ 28 pagar

“I said of the OP “you are arguing that this crime, in some way, mitigated against the horrific nature of the other crimes committed against the white girls because the racial aspect of the latter crimes is diminished.””

Which is untrue, unless you really think that a white rape victim will feel better once they learn that an Asian girl was also raped. And you went on to say that he meant that the right-wing press should stop being critical, as if the OP at any point said “child abuse doesn’t matter, all we care about is racism”.

The point is that he didn’t say anything about the horror being mitigated, he just said that it wasn’t racially motivated. Whether he’s right or wrong, it’s very low of you to put words into his mouth to create an appeal to consequences.

So what I’m essentially getting out of your post is that you’re implying that anyone who denies a racial motivation is downplaying the horror of the crime itself, rather than you actually disagreeing with the facts on a factual basis.

“Presumably you are arguing that a racial element in a crime should not be an aggravating factor?”

Well, I wasn’t, but I can if you like.

His defence makes clear that he isn’t an extremist, islamist or terrorist sympathiser. He’s just a bigot – not unlike many religious and some non religious people, but unexpected from the editor of the New Statesman.

‘Nor should those beliefs be used as an excuse to indulge in hate speech, threats, bullying and intimidation’ – unless the recipient is a child of religious pedagog then there is no more to be said about.

‘Your bloody right I’ll be a good little boy’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk

@ Chaise

And you went on to say that he meant that the right-wing press should stop being critical, as if the OP at any point said “child abuse doesn’t matter, all we care about is racism”.

Thought you didn’t like straw man arguments.

So what I’m essentially getting out of your post is that you’re implying that anyone who denies a racial motivation is downplaying the horror of the crime itself

Then you are misunderstanding. I suspect wilfully.

@ 35 pagar

“Thought you didn’t like straw man arguments.”

[…]

“Then you are misunderstanding. I suspect wilfully.”

And you are being content-free. I’ll check back later and see if you’re going to make any statements, e.g. why you think I’m straw-manning/misunderstanding you. For now I’ll provisionally put it down to you realising you’ve been unreasonable but being too proud to admit it,

My thoughts about Mehdi Hasan are that for a clever bloke (his cv demonstrates it), he doesn’t half say some stupid things. I can follow the argument that he quoted some objectionable Islamic theology/philosophy and that he was using those quotes within an argument, but he should understand how to wrap qualifications around those quotes.

If I was going to quote something obnoxious, I would say that I disagreed at the top. I’d recite a few sentences, then qualify it again. I wouldn’t deliver an unexpurgated version that could be open to misreading. OK, it happens in blog comments, but it shouldn’t happen at a public address.

Haters gonna hate.
No need to carry this thread on now, that about sums it up.

Good piece.

I don’t always agree with everything that Hasan says but that isn’t the point. He shouldn’t have to endure the level of trolling that he and Alibhai-Brown have to put up with.

I’ve written a few thoughts on the subject myself:

http://representingthemambo.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/why-mehdi-hasan-is-probably-on-to-something/

Anyone else getting an “Arab Ladies Dating” banner ad on this page? Classy stuff that rather sours an otherwise pertinent point.

Having had to listen to an anti-Muslim rant from a hotelier in Huddersfield this weekend, I am feeling especially apalled by the continued insistence that “all Muslims are the same” – if this kind of sentiment was directed towards any other religious or racial group it would generate derision.

@OP, Tim Fenton: “But there was little reporting, and no punditry, devoted to the six terrorism charges made against Niall Florence from Rochdale, who is not a Muslim.”

Niall Florence was arrested in December 2011 (I don’t know what happened to him after that time, but am interested) and charges were presented last week. Niall Florence appears to be a supporter of the EDL.

As much as I am suspicious of UK intelligence services, I accept that they have a vague clue about who is up to what in “traditional” sources of terrorism such as the far right and Northern Irish extremists. Note the qualified “vague clue”.

So when somebody gets picked up for an alleged “traditional” terrorist offence, it isn’t big news. The genuine threats are a small group of people and the danger is one that we understand. Thankfully, none of these people have recently committed terrorist acts in mainiand UK (I do not dismiss acts in Northern Ireland), and perhaps we underestimate their hate.

But their threat is very different from that of Islamic extremists who are unknown and not “understood”. For my entire adult life, I’ve known about conflict in Northern Ireland and I’ve seen the UK far right in all of its forms. Islamic terrorism in the UK is a new thing however.

Irish people living in England during the 1970s had a very rough time. The people planting bombs in the UK at that time were Irish, and everyone with a dodgy accent got a funny look. On top of that was historical discrimination against Irish people. I can’t see a particular turning point in UK opinion, but general distrust of Irish people mellowed long before the Good Friday Agreement. One guess is that citizens recognised that there weren’t many Irish terrorists.

Returning to today, there are not many UK Islamic terrorists, active or in waiting. Probably. But the threat is unknown and unclear.

Public perception of the threat is not illuminated by the press. As an avid reader of current affairs, I do not know what Muslims think about homosexuality, female equality or House of Lords reform. I know what the head bangers think, caliphate and the rest, which is threatening. But nobody talks about mainstream Muslims — the ones at work or on the school governorship committee.

In electoral politics, we notice Muslims when they vote en bloc for a candidate. That is not my idea of democracy but if they are voting, that’s a start.

He shouldn’t have to endure the level of trolling that he and Alibhai-Brown have to put up with.

I bet A-B gets it worse than him, being female and middle-aged, which always attracts quite hideous abuse, as well as being Muslim (so she gets the anti-Muslim bigots) and a liberal Muslim (so she gets the Muslim bigots).

It’s certainly extremely nasty and uncivilised, and of course it’s new. Fights in the press and fierce letters to the editor were by their nature moderated. You might be attacked in the Nasty News, but you didn’t have to read the attacks. I don’t think he’s being overly thin-skinned in finding life difficult because he is barraged by anti-Muslim comments. Perhaps he should be tougher – but it’s easy enough for me to say that. n

If M-H or anyone else gets abuse on threads under their own articles, these threads should be moderated. As far as I can see, this doesn’t happen at the New Statesman, which lets disgusting stuff through. He can put a filter on his email so “goatfucker” is treated as spam.

He can’t do anything about what people say of him on other blogs, but he doesn’t have to read them.

Of course there is a problem that moderators get deletion happy. M-H’s thread on The Guardian included some reasonable, polite posts pointing out errors of fact in his article – and those were deleted.

@ 40 Harry

“Anyone else getting an “Arab Ladies Dating” banner ad on this page? Classy stuff that rather sours an otherwise pertinent point. ”

LC shows different ads for different people, and I reckon it’s personalised. Not that this means you must have been checking out sexy Arab babes, though: it’s just as likely that you’ve been perusing blogs about the Middle East and Google has picked up on the keyword “Arab”, already knows that you’re male, and decided you must want a mail-order Mesopotamian.

Point being that LC doesn’t pick its advertisers. People regularly notice that they get sexy dating ads on posts about female objectification, too…

4. Chaise Guevara

That bloke walking past you in the streeet *may* be a wife-beater but that doesn’t mean it’s ok for you to mug him.

I don’t see why it is right to mug him even if he is a wife beater. You will have to explain that to me. However if someone with a known history of wife beating, or even someone who merely advocates a little light wife beating in the right circumstances, lays into Britain’s record on the treatment of women, we ought to be suspicious.

Or they’re just someone who chiefly cares about things that might affect them personally, i.e. a normal human being. A news report of a plane crash in Indonesia will cause you a lot less pain than stubbing your toe.

It is possible but no one in any of these threads, from what I can see, has any toe-stubbing to complain about. They have trawled the British Muslim community for examples, but they have no personal experience at all – nor have they been able to find many other people who have. Britain remains an astonishingly tolerant place.

As for Medhi Hasan, I hope everyone who is insisting that his words were taken out of context is going to be defending John Terry this week. His defence is more or less the same – words taken out of context, his other actions such as giving money to African children, proves he is a nice guy etc etc. So we should not judge the toe-rag either, right?

42. Rosie

I bet A-B gets it worse than him, being female and middle-aged, which always attracts quite hideous abuse, as well as being Muslim (so she gets the anti-Muslim bigots) and a liberal Muslim (so she gets the Muslim bigots).

As well as being thick, opinionated and utterly lacking in self awareness. It may be that some people abuse Ms Alibhai-Brown because of her race, her religion, her age and her gender, but I doubt most do. They have plenty of other reasons to do so.

I don’t think he’s being overly thin-skinned in finding life difficult because he is barraged by anti-Muslim comments. Perhaps he should be tougher – but it’s easy enough for me to say that. n

Perhaps he should not throw abusive terms around in public? I don’t have much sympathy for people like Sir Oswald Mosely who got a lot of public criticism. Why should I for Hassan?

@ 44 SMFS

“I don’t see why it is right to mug him even if he is a wife beater.”

It was a metaphor, and an admittedly clumsy one at that. You get my point, though – just because someone might be part of a demographic does not mean you can assume them to be part of that demographic and treat them poorly as a result.

And no, it wouldn’t be acceptable to mug someone even if you knew they were a wife-beater.

“However if someone with a known history of wife beating, or even someone who merely advocates a little light wife beating in the right circumstances, lays into Britain’s record on the treatment of women, we ought to be suspicious.”

Sure, but I was responding to you saying that Muslims may be the sort of person who wants to throw rocks at adultresses. So it’s not about personal history but instead about demographic.

“It is possible but no one in any of these threads, from what I can see, has any toe-stubbing to complain about. They have trawled the British Muslim community for examples, but they have no personal experience at all – nor have they been able to find many other people who have. Britain remains an astonishingly tolerant place.”

Firstly, while I agree with this it doesn’t change the fact that we should do something about the things that do happen.

Secondly, I said people are concerned about things that *might* affect them personally – if there have been attacks on Muslims in the area, it’s understandable that a local Muslim who hasn’t been attacked will be concerned. They could be next.

‘a diverse polity such as India can prosper only if it has faith in the inclusive and religiously neutral model of governance established by its founders in 1947. As Gopal says, this model of secularism is “integral to the survival of a nation cobbled together from such a diverse range of faiths, practices, beliefs, identities and languages”.’

I’m neither attacking nor supporting Mehdi here, but an argument that India should be secular can be seen as nothing more than an argument that it shouldn’t be Hindu. It would be more instructive if he’d argued that, say, Indonesia (88% Muslim, whereas India is 81% Hindu) should be a secular state.

I’m sure he’s done this, of course.

Tim J,

Well, the closest I can find is this: There’s nothing Islamic about a state.

SMFS,

I don’t have much sympathy for people like Sir Oswald Mosely

Really? I’d have thought he’d be exactly your cup of tea.

48 – Um, I think that’s essentially a theological argument that even when states are based on sharia law, and Islam is the official (or even sole) religion, they can’t properly be called Islamic states, because Islam is inherently non-political – “the divinely revealed, perfect and infallible faith”. The extension of that is that because ‘states’ are a Western concept (referred to as ‘post-colonial’ which is odd, because Westphalia is usually taken as the birth of the nation state), they do not appear in the Koran, and therefore can’t be Islamic.

It’s certainly not an argument that Muslim majority countries should be secular.

Boneheads aside. It interesting to flag up the liberals fear as well. The lumpen fat white lad. It represents all the fear of a white liberal. The lack of cosmopolitanism,the unfettered lifestyle,the holidays in magaluf wi t’lads rather than a tour of gaza with Isobel. No clitivist weekends with elle mea, no interfaith BBQs with owen,a hardcore porn collectiion rather than a Stewart Lee DVD. The flapping England flag outside council houses,the pasty white skin etc etc. Its cultural fear that they fear even more now that beige ken is out of sight.

Tim J,

To be honest I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. Mehdi has published various articles which I’ve linked to, which most people would read as pointing firmly towards secular states and against Islamic ones. He also says “I am a strong supporter of, and participant in, secular, civil society”.

You can wave all of these away as being narrow theological points, or India-specific, or only applicable in Muslim-minority countries, or whatever, if you like. But taken together the general direction of travel seems pretty clear. If you disagree, perhaps it’s your turn to provide a link in support of whatever your position is?

@ 50

Fascinating. Please come here more often so we can all be inspired by your irrelevant bigoted rants.

The lumpen fat white lad. It represents all the fear of a white liberal.

In my experience you don’t need to be lumpen, white or even a lad to be a tedious dick about everything or to give out lots of angry waffle with minimal prompting. People from a broad swathe of the population are quite capable and even enthusiastic in peddling insults and whack-job fantasies about ethnoreligous minorities and so on. .

Still, I like the idea that the Guardian’s comments sections are filled with “lumpen fat white lads” giving Mehdi Hassan grief. I have my doubts on that, since so few of them ever understand my football analogies, but maybe they’re rugby fans or something.

/////”In the UK, and indeed in any part of the free world, peaceable debate and the ability to enjoy freedom of speech should not be conditional on a person’s religious or political beliefs”\\\\

Except when you want to prevent criticism or scrutiny of Islam and Islamism by conflating it with anti-Muslim bigotry?

I’m afraid this has been sussed out. Its not flying any more.

@ 54

“Except when you want to prevent criticism or scrutiny of Islam and Islamism by conflating it with anti-Muslim bigotry?

I’m afraid this has been sussed out. Its not flying any more.”

Conflating fair criticism with bigotry is indeed unreasonable. Please point to where Tim has done this.

I’m not about people who reply on CIF threads. They more or less come from the same swamp as mehdi/owen and them lot. I think its a definite fear of that fat white lad,the scary pitbull necked yobbo. Its unites peter oborne right through to jeramy hardy and co. Imagine a world without adam curtis?.

@ Chaise

Conflating fair criticism with bigotry is indeed unreasonable.

Ah, but it is not so simple, is it, because any criticism can be interpreted by the criticised as hate speak or bigotry.

Consider the following statements- I’m not asking if you agree with them but at what point they cross the line in terms of bigotry, for you. And even if you say that they don’t, they probably will have for someone else.

Islam has some totalitarian tendencies within its teachings.

Arranged marriages are fundamentally illiberal.

Muslims are homophobic.

The practice of forced marriage is abhorrent.

Muslims are generally intolerant.

Islam is authoritarian.

Sharia law is often barbaric.

The Muslims who come to the UK from Pakistan do not integrate well into the UK and their Islamic faith is a major factor in this.

Muslims are misogynists.

The extremism of some Muslims and the resultant terrorism is inherent in the religious teachings of Islam.

Islam is founded on a false premise and the prophet Mohammed was a fraudster.

We need to cleanse our country of the Muslim menace.

So lets stop talking about bigotry and hate speak and get back to allowing people to express their opinions freely- even those opinions that can be easily shown to lack logic or sense.

I think its a definite fear of that fat white lad,the scary pitbull necked yobbo.

Well, that’s pretty damn odd since the discussion, at least to me, looked like it was specifically about people who read and post on politics websites. I don’t have access to demographic information on such people, but I imagine the Staffies-per-square-mile ratio is pretty damn low.

But then, I’m talking about basic deduction, rather than divination. Perhaps I’m not attuned to their auras, or I need to reread the chicken entrails.

Imagine a world without adam curtis?

Interesting – let’s unite against the baleful threat of adam curtis, peter oborne & jeremy hardy, and see what happens.

I’m guessing: the square root of fuck-all.

@ 57 pagar

While a) there is a grey area between fair criticism and hate-speak and b) interested parties can wilfully pretend one is the other, I reserve the right to say “I support this comment as it is fair criticism, but denounce that one as being bigotry”.

Please note that me denouncing something is not the same as me somehow preventing the speaker from using their freedom of speech. In fact, it is ME using MY freedom of speech to disagree with the other guy.

I agree with laws banning harassment and incitement to violence, although I think recent cases regarding online comments have seen people punished for things they shouldn’t be.

Ive just said i am not on about CIFers and them lot. Its a general point about liberal fear both on the right and left of the matalan shoppers,the frozen food dieters,those who have not heard of the sunny hundal.

@ 60

” Its a general point about liberal fear both on the right and left of the matalan shoppers,the frozen food dieters,those who have not heard of the sunny hundal.”

A general point about a phobia you just made up, rather.

Why the hell would I be scared of “frozen food dieters”?

Why does a fat white yobbo have a pitbull for a neck?
I’d be fucking terrified of that sort of mutant.

I enjoyed your use of the definite article in “the sunny hundal”.

I think this construction should enjoy wider usage.

@ Tim Fenton

“six people arrested on suspicion of offences under terrorism law were widely reported, and merely by coincidence they happened to be Muslims.”

There have been a lot of such ‘mere coincidences’ over the past decade, haven’t there? Any real explanation as to why such a small proportion of the population should have provided us with the vast majority of people charged with terrorism offences in that time. ‘Demonisation’? or will you smugly stick with ‘mere coincidence’?