I’ve spoken with similar vitriolic words against St. Thomas Aquinas and his ilk, and probably with less respect. I do not see what the big deal is.

“Burn the heretic!”

See how he would like that.

For a message from an infiltrator, watch Shahid Malik MP in action here at this YouTube video.

“At this rate the whole parliament will be Muslim.”

Out of context? Like Hasan’s worthy words? Only if there are any journalists present.

Malik continued – “… But just to say – in case there are journalists here today – that is not my objective.”

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/shahid-malik-mp/

Some pertinent questions.

A lot could be got out of the way if Mr Hasan chose to make some positive statements about democracy, the country he lives in, his fellow non-Muslim citizens, his views on terrorism, the right of Israel to exist, whether he wants to see the Taliban defeated. People tell us he is a moderate, a liberal. But the cupboard is bare. Look at his writings and you won’t find any positive statements.

So far, his response seems to be silence. His prerogative. But then it is our prerogative to presume if he quotes from his Holy Book, that he approves of the statements he quotes and interprets – certainly in teh absence of anything to the contrary.

I also approach this from a free speech perspective. Firstly that we are engaged in a full scale cultural conflict where we have to defend our civil rights from the Pro-Shariah movement (made up of not just Muslims but which on it soft wing includes non-Muslim MPs, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chief Justice and the Prince of Wales). Secondly, that he should be free to express his Islamic beliefs and we should be free to criticise him and them. Finally, yes it’s up to the NS whether they employ him but we should be at liberty to say it is outrageous they do.

1. Free speech; is it morally right to describe people like this?
2. National or cultural identity; is it morally right for people like him to describe the host nation in such terms.
3. Cynicism; is it morally right for someone to campaign to silence others for saying the sort of things about his lot that he says himself, just about different people.
4. Is it morally (or whatever) right for a man at the New Statesman to say such things?
5. Does this prove that all religion is like this, or just Islam, or just him?
6. Is anyone allowed to say anything about atheists that atheists don’t like?
7. Is anyone allowed to say anything about Moslems that Moslems don’t like?
8. Is there a list of people about whom we may say things that those people don’t like?
9. Should people be sacked if they hold opinions we don’t like? Or only if we are in a particular group?

Others may perceive more issues; but until we can separate them out, it will be hard to get a sensible view.

My own view is that I don’t mind people expressing their views, whatever they are; in a free society they should be able to do so. I do mind them conducting a campaign to stifle opposition while holding such views. I do mind them doing it in my country. I do object to this being used as an excuse to demonise Christians (by eliding the word ‘Islam’ and replacing it with the word ‘religion’). I have no view on whether a person of this kind should be employed by NS; that is for the owners of NS to decide. But since they probably appointed him because he was a Moslem, it would seem hard to sack him for being one.

I wonder a little bit about the context of the quote, by the way. I’d really want to see more before deciding whether he was calling us all cattle — to be milked — because he thinks so, or is merely reading out what the Koran says. Obviously our view of him will depend on which is the case.

You don’t see the contradiction, do you? Why does your own “few seconds in isloation” provide the *right* context, but the 45 second clip that is the focus of this post not? Just because it reflects more favourably on the speaker? Is that how it works?

I think everyone should read this blog website (http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5296) which has picked up on the unfair and unfounded targetting of this NS journalist by this site, and has summed things up very well (again written by someone like myself who has bothered to listen to the whole speech in which Mr Hasan has clearly spoken out against Muslims who do not educate themselves, against Muslims, who wrongly misunderstand non-Muslims, and said Muslims should try and integrate and communicate with non Muslims)

On that site the blogger says amongst other things:

“The full speech is actually more critical of Muslims than than the west….Here are some more key quotes (of Hasan in that same speech):
We just follow the crowd, we are the cattle that Allah condemns in the Quran, and we can’t be. We can’t be. We have to acquire knowledge every day, night and day. And Rasoollah [the Holy Prophet] says…you have to go as far afield as China.

I watched this programme [“Science and Islam”, BBC4] and I really enjoyed it: a well-made programme, presenter very good…and yet I watched it with a sense of despair and a sense of sadness. Because this programme was pure history, every contribution was from the past, and the elephant in the room is the current Islamic contribution to knowledge and science and learning. Where was that in the series of programmes? It wasn’t there because fundamentally there isn’t one. That is the tragedy of our community today.

The Middle East, despite all its oil wealth…is an intellectually stagnant area of the world, where one in three Arabs, 65 million human beings, Muslims, are functionally illiterate, of which two thirds are women. 10 million children in the Middle East have never stepped foot inside a classroom, inside a school. That is the modern Muslim legacy. The Middle East…is now intellectually closed off to the outside world. … Closed off to the world – and let s not hear any of this nonsense about foreign literature, or foreign books, or foreign languages, being alien to Islam. It is the only way to learn, to open your minds to non-Muslims, to open your minds to other cultures, to learn foreign languages.”

Last line provides more context than any few seconds clip taken out in isolation of an hour long speech.