Mehdi Hasan is an Islamist – someone that expresses support for Islam, politically. He is an active apologist for Islam.
He is also rather sparing in his criticism of Islamic extemists. It’s not that he never criticises them, it’s that his criticisms appear to be one of two kinds, possibly both:
- Where the outrageous atrocity of an Islamic terrorist incident is so extreme, it would be remiss not to criticise it. I find Mehdi to be an insincere person on the whole, but without evidence to the contrary I have to accept he’s sincere in his opposition to these extreme cases of Islam.
- He feels he must make some criticism, to avoid being seen as supportive by his omission of any comment. You can only ignore Islamic terrorism so much.
One of Mehdi’s ploys is to complain about how little criticism of ‘far-right’ attacks there is. Or, more specifically, he wants to know why when some perceived ‘far-right’ attack happens they are often attributed to the ‘mental health’ of the ‘far-right’ perpetrator, and not labelled as terrorism. In many cases he uses the ‘far-right’ label when there is no connection to any political cause, and he is using this as an opportunity to expand the number of ‘far-right’ incidents he can point to – an aspect of his insincerity and duplicity.
He then wonders why most Islamic terrorist attacks are labelled as terrorism, and not the result of ‘mental health’ problems.
He attributes this difference in blame as a result of Islamophobia.
Let’s address the labels he uses, ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘far-right’.
Islamophobia as Racism – The term ‘Islamophobia’ was invented, it is said, by the Muslim Brotherhood, as a means of making Islam seem like a race, so that it can compete with ‘antisemitism’ as a form of racism – and that’s certainly how many non-Muslim politicians use it (shout out to the race baiters of UK Labour). The problem is, Islam is not a race. Many white Muslims from the West joined ISIS, so how can white critics of Islam be racist towards those Muslims. When some of the most vociforous critics of Islam are ex-Muslims, of the same ‘race’ as their Muslim families, it makes the charge of racism look a little foolish.
In fact Islam is specifically not a race by design, and theoretically is not a racist religion – anyone can become a Muslim. The principle of non-racism is about the only redeeming characteristic of Islam – though even that can be questioned, not only by looking at the words and acts of Muslims, but also of Mohammed. So that raises the question of how can opposing Islam be racist?
Not is opposing Islam a phobia.
So the cry of “Islamophobia!” by Mehdi and other apologists for Islamism is a dishonest means of deflecting attention away from Islam and towards its supposedly racist critics.
Far-right – This is an odd one. Because Islam is a far-right political ideology: it’s ultra-conservative, homophobic, misogynistic, endorses slavery, demands the death penaly for apostasy, blasphemy, adultary and other non-crimes, and the Quran has prescriptions for beheading and chopping off of limbs. How on earth can Islam not be considered far-right?
In Mehdi’s 2017 article, “The numbers don’t lie, white far-right terrorists pose a clear danger to us all.“, he said the following:
Compare and contrast: Islamist terrorists are depicted as wild-eyed fanatics driven to kill by their religious faith or ideology, while far-right terrorists — be it the shooter of two Hindus in a bar in Kansas in February, or the killer of nine black worshippers in a church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015, or the murderer of six Sikh worshippers in a temple in Duffy’s own state of Wisconsin in 2012 — are almost always “mentally ill.” After the recent double murder in Oregon, it didn’t take long for Portland police spokesperson Pete Simpson to announce: “We don’t know if [the suspect] has mental health issues.” (Isn’t it weird how we Muslims seem somehow immune to “mental health issues”? Mashallah.)
OK, fine Mehdi, all terrorists suffer mental problems, so all Islamic terrorists are wide-eyed fanatical mental cases. What makes them so mentally unstable? Islam. They cite Islam when they commit their attacks. They do it for Allah. They can often quote from the texts of Islam to justify their attacks.
This ‘mental health’ issue is not restricted to Islamic terrorists. How many times have we seen enraged mobs of Muslims rioting? Many rioted over Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and many more wanting to hang Asia Bibi. Are they mental cases too? Maybe Mehdi is right, Islam causes mental illness.
It won’t be the first time that religious fanaticism has been considered a mental health problem. So, what is it about religions, Islam in particular, that makes it so appealing to the mentally ill? Or, what is it about Islam that makes otherwise stable people go off the rails, become so insensed by the ‘insult’ that people commit towards Iaslam that makes these Muslims think they should kill someone?
It’s not restricted to acts of public terrorism on strangers, or mobs of offended and enraged Muslims. Many an ex-Muslim will attest that their families have theatened to kill them for leaving Islam. So devout are these Muslims that they think their own children should die for leaving Islam! That sounds pretty mentally deranged to me.
There does indeed seem to be something unstable about a religion that promotes death over life. Many Muslims will tell you themselves this is so:
The Death Cult – We Love Death As You Love Life – This is what Muslims say, in their own words. When you read what they actually say, you come to understand why dying in a terrorist attacks isn’t a big deal. Now, Mehdi might come out with the usual excuse, “It’s a sin to commit suicide in Islam” … well, maybe, if it’s a pointless death, but not if it’s considered an act of martyrdom in a justified battle against Jews, Christians or infidels. Mehdi is a Shia Muslim, and it’s the Shia Muslim clerics of Iran that popularised suicide bombing … so, who is Mehdi to disagree with the clerics of his religion?
The Numbers Don’t Lie – Oh Yes They Do
Mehdi tries to pull the wool over your eyes with figures from the USA, “since September 12 2001”.
Why do they always choose figures “since 9/11”. Why not including 9/11? They do it because by ignoring 9/11 it makes the deaths from Islamic terrorism look much smaller. Why not choose since 31st December 1999 – i.e., why not start counting for the 21st century?
The duplicitous Mehdi Hasan, skipping 9/11, gives us these figures (his article was in 2017).
Yet the numbers don’t lie — even if the Islamophobes do. “Since September 12, 2001,” noted a recent report prepared for Congress by the Government Accountability Office, “the number of fatalities caused by domestic violent extremists has ranged from 1 to 49 in a given year. … Fatalities resulting from attacks by far-right wing violent extremists have exceeded those caused by radical Islamist violent extremists in 10 of the 15 years, and were the same in 3 of the years since September 12, 2001.” Imagine that.
The report continues: “Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far-right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).” That’s a margin of almost three to one.
What Mehdi neglects to tell you here is that Muslims amount to less than 2% of the US population. So how about multiplying his Islamic terrorist attacks by 50 for a pro-rata comparison with everyone else in the USA.
It’s also rather convenient that Mehdi focuses on the USA, where the number of Muslims is relatively low, when Islamic terrorism is a world wide theat – even in “Muslim lands”. Yes, Islamic terrorism poses a top security concern in most Western nations, and in many Muslim nations too.
Mehdi Being Mehdi
It’s not unusual for Mehdi Hasan to twist words to suit his own Islamist agenda. Many other people have noticed.
Here he is pretending a comparison of Islam and Nazism is supposed to be excusing Nazism rather than criticising both.
Special pleading for Islam …
Failing to criticise Islamic terrorists …
More special pleading – Mehdi has no problem with the vile messages in the Quran, but complains when anyone bad mouths Islam …
Getting blood from a stone is easier than getting Mehdi to criticise Islamic terrorism …
For this next example, you may have heard that Mehdi has distanced himself from these opinions. However, you should know what Taqqiya is in Islam:
1-Taqiyyah, according to Ithna-`Ashri Rafidis, means presenting outwardly something that is different from what one believes inwardly, as an act of religious devotion. 2- Taqiyyah, according to Ahl as-Sunnah, is something to be resorted to when one has no other choice, and it is an extraordinary measure to be used only in times of extreme necessity. For more, see the detailed answer. What is Taqiyyah
These were Mehdi’s views, but now he claims they are not …
Bear in mind, Hamas removed their explicity antisemitic end-times antisemitic quote, “Oh Muslim, there is a Jew behind me come kill him.” from their second charter … nobody believes they don’t still mean it. What makes you think Mehdi doesn’t still hold his views privately? Does he now deny that these passages from the Quran are applicable? This is a tricky one when the Quran is supposed to be the inerrant world of Allah … isn’t is blasphemous to not hold the same views as Allah?
So, Mehdi do you really want Islam to appear as an insane psychotic death cult mental problem, or not?
Here’s a guide to terrorists for idiots: https://ronmurp.net/2016/03/31/a-guide-to-terrorists-for-idiots/.
Ramblings 