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
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.
"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.
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.
Not all non-muslims. Unthinking, incurious ones. Its like calling somebody a sheep- somebody who just follows the herd.
Does he think all atheists are 'unthinking and incurious'?
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...
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.
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.
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.
Wasn't that 80-odd years ago? What's the relevance to today?
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.
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.
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.
Please check the above video, it may show what we face for the future.
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.
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.
There is no Islam light. Only Islam.
And it has no place in the West.
One more thing - Christian terrorism is a bigger domestic threat to the USA than Islamic terrorism. Just think about that.
"dire-tribe" should be diatribe?
"sphear" should be sphere?
A lot of people cycle without a helmet and what's your problem with that, it's up to them. Judging by your combination of illiteracy and conviction that you are the measure of everything I am not surprised you are viewed with disdain, you sound like a prime candidate. Anyway Hitchens is worth a hundred of you but why am I wasting my time responding to a left-wing troll/general half-bake who is or strongly resembles a dim teenager, I have no idea.