The site run by a Jew called David Toube a vicious little prick whose love of Israel and the Iraq war makes him one of nastiest creatures on the blogosphere constantly attacks Muslims who stand up for the community eg, Inayat Bunglawala, Azad Ali etc etc.
This Mehdi thread is the most openly libellous, racist and Islamophobic thread one can imagine against a Muslim journalist's integrity and reputation who, in my opinion should not hesitate to sue.
London Muslim is all for free speech but frankly for the reasons outlined by Mehdi's News Statesman colleague James Macintyre here the thread has crossed the line into defamation of character and a writ should be issued forthwith. Interestingly HT are already beginning to take down certain posts.
I have just listened to the relevant section in context and did so with an open mind. So, this is my honest assessment of it.
ReplyDeleteThe context is this: Mr Hasan is making an argument that for Muslims it is not enough to worship, it is also imperative that they apply their intellect and reflect, consider and examine their religion and lives. In the course of the speech - before this point and thereafter - Mr Hasan quotes the Quran in support of the case that he is making at a particular moment. He does not quote the Quran simply in order to discuss or critique a particular passage but exclusively to support his case.
In that context, he turns to the non-believers who he refers to in his own voice (i.e not in quotation marks) as the kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists. He then uses quotes from the Quran to characterise these people as “people of no intelligence” and “cattle”. It is crystal clear that he is using these words from the Quran to pursue his argument that intelligence and intellectual activity are vital for the Muslim community, by contrasting such an approach with the attitudes of the kaffar who are unintelligent cattle by the testimony of the Quran itself.
So he is not merely describing this view but endorsing it and stating it with emphasis (listen to the tone). He DOES NOT qualify it therefater, he simply returns to the thrust of his argument.
The overall message may be inoffensive, it may even be admirable - he is right, after all, to call for intelletcual engagement - but his attack on “the kaffar” is clear and very offensive.
It is like, for example, an anti-semite making a speech calling for a return to simpler, less materialistic values and a then saying almost as an aside “we are all aware of what happens when your focus is on money and greed, you become like the Jews” before moving on. The aside may not be the focus of the speech but it speaks volumes about the racist attitude of the speaker.
So, the Senior Editor (Politics) of the New Statesman regards non-Muslims as “kaffar” who are unintelligent cattle. I genuinely cannot see any other reading of this speech.
Why is relevant that David Toube is a Jew?
I'm a rather intelligent chap and I am of the opinion that believing in any invisible sky god makes you a complete and utter tool.
ReplyDeleteSort your head out.
I liked that guy but he has plummeted in my estimation of his character.
He also disables all comment on his articles.
A weak man, spouting medieval nonsense.
Shame on him.
As Grace asked above: why the reference to "a Jew called David Toube"?
ReplyDeleteWhat does that mean in your eyes - that the man is guilty until proven innocent?
medhi hassan, is what he is a muslim idiot with barbaric veiws. he is what we call a clown.
ReplyDeleteMehdi hassan is far above the odious nature of barbaric uncivilised whites - shame there are too many them. But I suppose that's what you get when your culture is saturated with racism.
ReplyDelete