Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mehdi Hasan

GET UPDATES FROM Mehdi Hasan
 

Anatomy of a Hitchens Hatchet Job

Posted: 05/08/2012 01:00

Almost exactly three years ago, I rang Peter Hitchens, the Mail on Sunday columnist, who is a friend of a friend, to ask his advice. A right-wing, anti-Islam blog had edited together, totally out of context, various quotes from me speaking in front of a group of British Muslim students in Manchester and made me look like an ultra-Islamist loon. Would the right-wing tabloid press jump on this "story", I wondered? Would I end up appearing on the pages of, say, the Mail, under the headline of 'Extremist!"? Don't be silly, replied Hitchens, I don't think anything you've said is worthy of publication in a national newspaper. You've got nothing to worry about so you should just calm down.

Fast forward three years: imagine my surprise to discover that a man named Peter Hitchens has produced a column in the Mail on Sunday attacking me over those very same out-of-context quotes.

It would be funny if it wasn't so personally offensive. I'll deal with Hitchens in a moment but first let me deal - again! - with those damned "quotes".

Did I, invoking a verse from the Quran, refer to unthinking, incurious non-Muslims as "cattle"? Yes but - and here's where context matters! - if you listen to the full speech, you'll hear me refer to unthinking, incurious Muslims as "cattle" too ("We are the cattle that Allah condemns in the Quran," I said.) Peter omitted to mention this key point.

Then there's the quote in which I seem to refer to non-Muslims as "animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire". Again, I was quoting from the Quran and, in fact, if you listen to the full speech, it is very clear that I was referring to those human beings, both Muslims and non-Muslims, who live their lives without a clear moral code, without an ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

In hindsight, I accept in this particular case that my phraseology was ill-judged, ill-advised and, even, inappropriate, but it is a bit of a stretch to claim I was attacking non-Muslims when the entire 45-minute speech is primarily an attack on Muslim extremists who try and justify violence against non-Muslims on an "ends justify the means" basis. But, I suppose, the whole point of a "gotcha" quote is to that it is totally and conveniently context-free.

I've been a victim of plenty of right-wing hatchet jobs but I guess I naively expected more from Peter - who has known me for almost 10 years and knows full well that I am not anti-Christian or an extremist of any sort. I was especially shocked when he admitted to me, over the phone on Friday, that he hadn't bothered to listen to the two speeches in full in order to discover the proper context of those remarks. "Where would I find them?" he asked, apparently having never come across www.google.com.

He also admitted to never having read any of the articles that I've had published in the New Statesman, the Guardian and the Times, over the past three years, on the subject of Islam, Muslims, secularism, extremism and the rest; he preferred to base his entire column on a 45-second quote ripped, out of context, from a four-year-old, 45-minute speech in which, ironically, I not only praise non-Muslims but also encourage Muslims to learn from non-Muslims and, in particular, the West.

The inconvenient truth, for Hitchens and for the right-wing trolls who mimic his smears online, is that I have published hundreds of thousands of words in the afore-mentioned publications; countless articles and columns and blogposts in which I have decried Muslim extremism and intolerance and declared my support for religious pluralism and a secular, multi-faith society.

Here I condemn Iran's anti-Christian apostasy laws; here I unconditionally condemn all forms of suicide terrorism; here I criticise British Muslims for "our navel-gazing and victim mentality"; here I denounce those Muslims like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad who engage in Holocaust denial; here I praise Muslim diplomat Abdul-Hossein Sardari for saving Iranian Jews from the Nazis during the Second World War; here I attack Anjem Choudary for his intolerance and bigotry.

Do these sound like the views of a Muslim extremist or reactionary? And is it too much to ask to be judged on my large body of published works rather than spurious "gotcha" quotes from ancient and dodgy YouTube videos?

The claim that I view non-Muslims as somehow inferior or unequal is not just absurd and offensive but would come as a bit of shock to the hundreds of non-Muslims I have worked with in the British media over the past decade and who I count among my friends, including Jonathan Dimbleby, Jeremy Vine, Dermot Murnaghan, Kay Burley, Eamonn Holmes, Jon Snow, Dorothy Byrne (head of Channel 4 current affairs), John Ryley (head of Sky News) and Jason Cowley (editor of the New Statesman). Ask them if they think I'm an extremist or a bigot.

A few months ago, I received a letter from a man who warned me that "there will not be one live Muslim left in Europe when we have finished" and then threatened to drown me in "a large expanse of water, like the Thames". What had prompted him to contact me? Yep, you guessed it: it had come to his attention, he wrote, that I had referred to non-Muslims as "cattle" and "animals".

Dear Peter, words have consequences. Your recklessly inaccurate, inflammatory and irresponsible column only indulges the Islamophobic fantasies of the UK's violent, far-right crazies - and encourages them to make their vile threats. Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.


Update: We have been asked to make clear that Peter Hitchens doubts Mehdi Hasan's ability to recall verbatim their conversation of three years ago. Neither party to the conversation possess contemporaneous notes. We have therefore removed the quotation marks from around the comments.

 

Follow Mehdi Hasan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mehdirhasan

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 138
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
08:54 PM on 08/10/2012
"In this respect, the Koran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world."

Calling people cattle like this implies to me that they 'follow the herd' and don't reflect on the big questions. I don't think this is an expression of contempt, like if he called them dogs or pigs.
02:47 AM on 08/07/2012
Well when you say:

"We know that keeping the moral high ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest, of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfill any desire"

When you say:

"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"

It's hard to claim that you have been taken out of context.

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

See this post because what Mehdi says in what he thinks is private is not the same as he says in public.
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
01:24 PM on 08/06/2012
Men like P. Hitchens demonstrate with absolute clarity that the further one travels from the middle ground, the more one has to bend, manipulate or massage the truth to fit one's ideology.
12:55 PM on 08/06/2012
So all atheists and unbelievers are 'cattle', whereas only some Muslims are 'cattle'. No, not bigoted at all!

I suppose, it's to Mr Hasan's credit that he admits that his horrific speech was badly phrased, and I accept that he isn't a loon.

Still, both journalists come across pretty badly here. A little bit of growing up is necessary on both sides.
07:23 PM on 08/06/2012
"Did I, invoking a verse from the Quran, refer to unthinking, incurious non-Muslims as "cattle"? Yes"

Not all non-muslims. Unthinking, incurious ones. Its like calling somebody a sheep- somebody who just follows the herd.
07:42 PM on 08/06/2012
Although if you read the actual quote in Peter Hitchen's column, he described ALL atheists as cattle.

Does he think all atheists are 'unthinking and incurious'?
09:25 PM on 08/05/2012
Does Mr Hasan have a contemporaneous note, shorthand or longhand, of our conversation in 2009? Or a recording? If not, how can he quote from it directly in quotation marks, and so precisely?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Itsbeenalongday
Eliminating poverty is smart business
04:40 AM on 08/06/2012
Is that a denial?
05:24 AM on 08/06/2012
Does it matter? Did Mr Hasan say what Hitchens said he said?
09:00 AM on 08/06/2012
Hitchens: "Do you think the BBC would give a presenter’s chair on a major channel to someone who said that non-Christians were ‘cattle’ or ‘animals’? No, nor do I."

Yes - they hired Richard Littlejohn who said "The Palestinians are the pikeys of Europe. No more hand-wringing. It’s time for neck-wringing"

Why do you refuse to post this Littlejohn quote on your blog? It's a direct quote. You pretend it's a blog for free speech and debate...
07:21 PM on 08/05/2012
Well wouldnt things be a lot simpler if people stopped believing in absolute nonsense stories of old, and take responsibility for themselves. All religions certainly were, and still are in many areas of the world, aimed at brainwashing the less educated, the poor, the infirm and those who are easily led. The stories form the Bible and the Koran are simply out of date nonsense which was initialy aimed at controling the many, by the select few, in order to gain power, prestige and wealth. Its time we grew up and stopped using these stupid stories as justification to control, maim and kill each other. Get over it.
09:13 PM on 08/05/2012
"tetleys" You are absolutely 100% correct, you have hit the nail firmly on the head! The main problem is that it is going to take at least another 100 years for the more primitive religions to catch up, most of their followers cannot function independently!
09:01 AM on 08/06/2012
"more primitive religions"?

Which religions are not based on primitive beliefs? Their intentions and role in structuring society mainly for the better are clear, but they all require a primitive belief in a super-being who will judge us. Without this faith that there is something out there, all religions fall down. Everything religious ever is man-made. It has to be a pretty primitive belief to ignore this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philip J Sparrow
When your work speaks for itself, keep quiet
05:35 PM on 08/05/2012
Do you really think any Daily Mail readers will see this article, let alone be swayed by it?

They've already made up their mind on islam - just as they have on immigration, Europe, and indeed foreigners in general - no doubt Hitchens was simply giving his people what they want, something to get angry about over their cornflakes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FanaticRealist
Romney's Dog: 21st Century Schrodinger's Cat
04:41 PM on 08/05/2012
Peter Hitchens.

Mail On Sunday.

A reactionary bigot writing for a paper whose background is in sympathising with the Nazis in the Thirties and whose editor-in-chief revels in articles that make people angry or afraid.

Why did the scorpion sting the frog halfway across the flooded river? Because it was his nature.

So it is with Hitchens.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:55 PM on 08/06/2012
"...a paper whose background is in sympathising with the Nazis in the Thirties ..."

Wasn't that 80-odd years ago? What's the relevance to today?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FanaticRealist
Romney's Dog: 21st Century Schrodinger's Cat
06:46 PM on 08/06/2012
Well it shows that The Mail has been into the politics of division and victimisation for 80-odd years.

Writing as a (lapsed) Jew, I have a problem with the disdain the Rothermere's showed to the plight of Jews in the Thirties and their support of Mosley: a disdain they still display by conflating those who genuinely require asylum with those who might be 'trying it on'.

As a British citizen, I have a problem with their contemporary hypocrisy when criticising BBC TV talent for tax avoidance whilst the current Viscount claims to be domiciled in France.

I don't like people like Jan Moir writing nasty little articles about the death of Steven Gately, I'm not fond of Melanie Phillips and Liz Jones (described by Philip Schofield, rather kindly as "no greater force against all womankind…She is inconsistent, bitter, nasty and unhinged." as reported here on HuffPo http://huff.to/OL9uYE ). I don't even want to get into Littlejohns and MacKenzie - thay had no redeeming qualities when they worked for The Sun.
08:44 PM on 08/06/2012
When you brand someone a "reactionary bigot" what does that make you?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FanaticRealist
Romney's Dog: 21st Century Schrodinger's Cat
11:23 PM on 08/06/2012
Observant.

Merely because you can identify a trait in someone, it doesn't mean that you also have that trait. If that were true, nobody would go into a psychiatrist's office.
03:27 PM on 08/05/2012
Bet your glad your name aint Alex Salmond, he holds the title of the most miss-quoted man in history. This is Britt journalism at work, i suppose if they hav'nt tapped your phone and read your emails your doing good. You do have my sympathy though as do all who get that treatment from these shameless swines.
03:06 PM on 08/05/2012
Not only is it a hatchet job but Hitchens heavily moderates his blog to ban any dissent that points out this fact.

His complaint is that the BBC employ you when you've used words like 'cattle'. Would they employ someone who criticised non-Christians he asks? The answer is yes - Richard Littlejohn called Palestinians the 'pikeys of the Middle East' and added 'It's time for neck wringing, not hand wringing.' Littlejohn was employed by the BBC for years.

Hitchens has twice refused to post this direct quote on his blog - a quote which completely undermines his feeble argument about BBC bias.
06:50 PM on 08/05/2012
The BBC is always inviting right wing, rent-a-gob newspaper columnists onto it's political panel shows. Peter Hitchens should change the record.
03:22 PM on 08/06/2012
He was recently on both Question Time and Any Questions in (I think, I could be wrong) the same week. Cant really see where the snub from the beeb is coming from.
09:00 PM on 08/06/2012
And then attempting to ambush and deride them.
02:40 PM on 08/05/2012
http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/mp4/DHU227v2_WS
Please check the above video, it may show what we face for the future.
07:50 PM on 08/05/2012
May ? Probable. The pc mob who made this possible, and who decry those who see the danger as knuckle draggers ect, remind me of those who appeased hitlers facists in the 1930's.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drg40
Representative Democracy is all we have.
02:17 PM on 08/05/2012
I really don't understand the point of this article. This is what Dacre does. This is what Dacre's readers want to read. This is why his punters buy it, ad that's why his advertisers are willing to pay good money for ad space. None of it is illegal, in breach of any regulation or the subject of adverse adjudication by the PCC. In the trade it's known as "free speech", Dacre has it and you don't. Too bad, live with it.
photo
AlanDente
Noses: made to hold glasses
03:05 PM on 08/05/2012
Misquotation is not part of free speech. You seem to have misunderstood what free speech is. Defamation, for example, is also not part of it...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drg40
Representative Democracy is all we have.
04:48 PM on 08/05/2012
Clearly you haven't been following Leveson. The press argue that anything they choose to print that is not illegal is free speech. Misquotation has, in general, no legal preventions. It is, therefore, free speech. Secondly as Murdoch and before him Maxwell have shown time after boring time, if they have the means to defend any action for defamation and you do not, you might as well view the remarks of which you complain as free speech..

To return your remark. Not only do you fail to understand the meaning of the word "free" in the phrase "free speech", that is speech not liable to legal remedy, but you fail to understand that the term in itself is a nonsense. You are free to shriek any incendiary libel into the darkened forest any time. You are asking for the right and the means for your speech to be heard. Dacre has it and you don't.

I regret to say you seek an ideal world. None of those in power have the slightest interest in moving in your direction, however certain you might be of your convictions. As the evidence given under oath to Leveson shows, politicians have a special meaning regarding "free speech", and their meaning has nothing at all to do with yours. Most politicians, confronted with the need to define "free speech" would take it as the right to misquote an opponent and the equal right to defame him. Collapse of your argument, I fear.
02:50 PM on 08/06/2012
Clearly, the point of the article is to retort. I really don't understand the point of going on about the legality of Dacre publishing defamatory articles when the article doesn't mention the law. Even when the writer makes the point about how such defamation wanders into grey ares regarding incitement and shouting fire in a crowded theatre, he doesn't bring the law into it.

I wonder if someone wrote an article misquoting you to make you sound like a child molester, you'd be impressed at a guy who didn't understand your article telling you that it's too bad that your defamer has free speech and you don't.
01:29 PM on 08/05/2012
Oh come on..the writer is back pedaling on what he said.
There is no Islam light. Only Islam.
And it has no place in the West.
03:02 PM on 08/06/2012
How about Christianity or Judaism? Aren't there more moderate 'light' versions of those religions or are all Christians swivel-eyed fundamentalists? There are some nasty parts of the Bible, but that doesn't mean all Christians takes it literally.

One more thing - Christian terrorism is a bigger domestic threat to the USA than Islamic terrorism. Just think about that.
This comment has been removed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edward Lucie-Smith
Art historian, photographer, poet
12:56 PM on 08/05/2012
Very sorry, Mr Hasan. This outcry will be water off the back of the proverbial duck. Mr Hitchens will no doubt be giggling uncontrollably and crying 'gotcha!' - that is, if he actually reads what you write here on Huffpost. He belongs to the Michelle Bachmann school of Western/Islamic relationships: any smear will do. And there'll always be people around who - er - "absolutely believe what he says". Best thing you can do is to circulate a rumour that he's probably a transvestite, who wears a hijab in private. Remember, you read it here first.
photo
AlanDente
Noses: made to hold glasses
02:35 PM on 08/05/2012
He's a male Jan Muir...