Share |

Sunday 7 March 2010

Any Questions: Fawning to Mehdi Hasan's Islamist Agenda

Just what did the BBC think it was doing by broadcasting its most recent episode from an East London mosque, filling the audience with a Muslim claque to applaud the Islamist ranting of Mehdi Hasan and Ken Livingstone's dhimmi grovelling? How is it that the BBC, funded by you and I, can take it upon itself to give airtime to Hasan, and allow him unchallenged to describe atheists as "extremists", and to assert that people such as Richard Dawkins deserve as much opprobrium as Anjem Choudary? It may have appealed to the hooting and applauding Muslim mob in the mosque, basking in their ressentiment, but why was Hasan not challenged? I would not wish to censor him, for it is better for us all to know what he thinks as we are then better forearmed; but why did Dimbleby and the other panellists seemingly concur with Hasan's repellent rant?

As an atheist I am worried; deeply worried about the future prospects for my liberty and personal safety. A nascent aggressive bullying Muslim elite, exemplified by the likes of Mehdi Hasan, Shahid Malik and Salma Yaqoob, is taking shape and beginning to flex its muscle. These people shamelessly play the race, 'minority' and victim cards for all they are worth, seeking to cow potential critics through invoking the guilt with which most indigenous British people have been imbued by their (post)-Christian cultural inheritance. Indigenous members of our younger generation have also been indoctrinated with ethnic and national self-hatred in our classrooms and universities for many years now, and are thus even more open to being emotionally manipulated by Islamic supremacists.

Knowing that these words will bring to the fore powerful emotions that will short-circuit the logic circuits in the majority of those whom they accuse of  "Islamophobia", "hate", "bigotry", "discrimination" and "racism", Muslims cynically deploy them to their maximum devastating effect, to disorientate and verbally bludgeon their non-Muslim interlocutors. This is what we heard at play in Hasan's rant, once again peddling the pernicious myth of Muslims as collective 'victim', and Dimbleby, Livingstone, Kenneth Clarke and the naive Lib Dem lass from Cornwall all playing along with it.

Mehdi Hasan, senior politics editor of the New Statesman, a man with ready access to the national media: a 'victim'? Shahid Malik, MP and government minister: discriminated against? Salma Yaqoob, a bellicose Islamo-Leftist at the top of the Respect hierarchy: disadvantaged? Who are these wretched ingrates? Incomers who spit upon the values and traditions of the people whose country they seek to usurp and refashion in their own ugly image. What has happened to our media and political 'elite'? Why do they feign not to understand what is going on? Why, indeed, do they give it support? Why do they vilify Nick Griffin as being some sort of sub-human, when Mehdi Hasan, Malik, Yaqoob et al unselfconsciously spout venom day after day, and demand an end to our way of life and our liberties?

The Left? What is the Left? It is, apparently, now in thrall to the muscular appeal of seventh-century monotheism. It is dead.

Why does Hasan hate atheists and Dawkins in particular? This, for anyone who knows anything about Islam, should be no surprise: Islam demands that we atheists should either convert or be killed. It is an exterminist ideology, like Nazism. Yes, Mr Mehdi Hasan, a great deal of dehumanising language is employed by people with a certain ideological standpoint in the UK today, and they are not atheists; indeed Mr Hasan, you are so imbued with quranic literalist hatred that you revel in spitting out your description of us as "cattle" in the clip below. The BBC should be ashamed.


  1. Pity you weren't there, then you'd have known that Muslims made a small minority in the audience, most of the cheering and shouting was from people who clearly weren't Muslims, but neither had they been taken in by the lies of Gilligan.

    1. The "lies" of Gilligan, which today turn out to be 100% founded.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.