Dr Usama Hasan and the campaign against him


by Sunny
7th March, 2011 at 12:05 am    

Last week I blogged about a campaign against the London-based imam Dr Usama Hasan, by a group of Muslim fanatics. The fanatics wanted to oust him from his mosque in Leytonstone for talking about evolution, and saying women should be free not to cover their hair.

Some clarifications for those already following the story. It turns out that the letter I posted saying he had been ousted was a fake, circulated by the fanatics to make it look like it came from the Mosque. It didn’t. Dr Hasan still remains the imam there, though the fanatics are still after him.

The story has been picked up the Indy and the Guardian too.
From the Guardian:

Hasan, who has taken out extra security on his house where he lives with his wife and four children, said he was adamant he would not be leaving the mosque, although he would not be returning to give prayers for the time being.

“I’m not leaving,” he said. “I’ve been here for 25 years and I fear that the mosque could fall into the hands of extremists. There are plenty of other mosques in the country that have gone that way. My supporters [at the mosque] don’t want that and are encouraging me to stay to fight our corner.

“I’ve stopped giving prayers because they were interrupted by outsiders who were making some women members feel intimidated. Most people come to the mosque once a week for a quiet space to pray and find peace and inspiration and I want to respect that.”

Inayat Bunglawala, chair of Muslims4UK, a group promoting Muslim engagement in British society, said there was “widespread ignorance” about evolution among the Muslim community. “Many traditional imams are grounded in ancient books in Arabic but have very little grounding in science. I find it staggering how they can be so strongly opposed to evolution without reading about it. That seems to be opposite of the very first commandment of the Qur’an, which is to read,” Bunglawala said.

I’m going to keep an eye on this story to see how it develops.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Religion






62 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. liberalideals

    Pickled Politics » Dr Usama Hasan and the campaign against him: Labour MP @SadiqKhan unveils a (very welcome) hu… http://bit.ly/gxEviv


  2. Imam learns the high price of speaking out | Blackwatertown

    [...] find other discussion about this on the Pickled Politics blog and a Guardian piece here. Dr Hasan’s own site is here – where you can read his [...]


  3. The Samosa « 1947/1948

    [...] A group of people, including Yahya Birt, have set up a group on Facebook to rally people in support of Usama Hasan (background here)… [...]




  1. douglas clark — on 7th March, 2011 at 6:52 am  

    But in recent years a small number of orthodox scholars, mainly from Saudi Arabia – where many clerics still preach that the Sun revolves around the Earth….

    Are these people mad?

    It is a bit more than sad that Dr Usama Hasan has seen fit to withdraw his remarks. These people wallow in ignorance.

  2. cjcjc — on 7th March, 2011 at 11:07 am  
  3. BenSix — on 7th March, 2011 at 11:39 am  

    The response is so depressing. “Usama Hasan is wrong because we say so. You disagree? Bigot!”

    (On the other hand (I know, I know) HP claims Smith and Mannion “threaten” Hasan. They don’t. This is what I was saying about accuracy.)

  4. Effendi — on 7th March, 2011 at 11:53 am  

    BenSix, first time round, you were willing to suggest that the veiled death threats to Usama Hasan were not threats at all. So I’m not at all surprised to see you now suggest that Mannion who ignored the death threat in his coverage of the lecture at Masjid Tawhid, and Smith who plays down the threats altogether (rather like yourself) have been misinterpreted.

  5. Effendi — on 7th March, 2011 at 11:57 am  

    Wiberals like you also play down terrorist threat posed by Anwar al-Awlakit to the point where you would much rather see his rights being upheld over the rights of his victims, who have so far been Muslims.

    So again, not all surprised that you think Abu Zubair threat to Usama Hasan which has been tacitly condoned by Mannion and Smith to be acceptable.

  6. BenSix — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:00 pm  

    That’s not true either, Effendi. First (and sorry to those who aren’t fascinated by my opinions) I said that he doesn’t directly threaten Hasan with death (an important difference as tha police would tell you); then I gave him an opportunity to disassociate himself from the cleric’s words (because nothing is lost in being clear). He didn’t, of course, which might tell us all we need to know about him.

    So I’m not at all surprised to see you now suggest that Mannion who ignored the death threat in his coverage of the lecture at Masjid Tawhid, and Smith who plays down the threats altogether (rather like yourself) have been misinterpreted.

    Well, they have. Because neither of those things constitute threats.

  7. BenSix — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:03 pm  

    The “response” from Islamic Awakening is an eye-opener.

    Usama was not alone in this. He was acting in unison with his network of friends from the Quilliam Foundation, The Centre for Social Cohesion and Harry’s Place – arguably the most vicious anti-Islamic forces we have seen thus far in the UK…

    Evolution is a Decent plot!

    Ever since since 9/11, the Muslims have been losing ground to the secularists and liberals from within, without putting up a fight.

    If this means that Muslims have been becoming more liberal and secular then, well – good’oh.

    If they truly are community leaders, let them prove it to the masses by leading from the front as opposed to remaining silent, or joining much later once victory has already been gained and it’s all over.

    Ensuring that activists/the state don’t maximise the influence of community leaders was a good bandwagon, Sunny. Worth hitching up again.

  8. BenSix — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:05 pm  

    Wiberals like you also play down terrorist threat posed by Anwar al-Awlakit to the point where you would much rather see his rights being upheld over the rights of his victims, who have so far been Muslims.

    To be clear, I’m a “wiberal” as I thought U.S. assassination wasn’t right nor wise? You’re getting Palinesque.

  9. Effendi — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:05 pm  

    “Well, they have. Because neither of those things constitute threats.”

    No not literally. But they have been happy to tacitly agree with the takfiri pronouncements that Usama Hasan is a murtad and has made kufr. Now, the punishment for both of these is death. Do you know how that translates to a man living in Leyton? Do you have a fucking clue? And not for nothing has Dr Hasan been forced to take police protection.

    Your excuses are more of the usual sophistry and horseshit you are willing to employ to excuse the real danger of violence to moderate Muslims by extremists. We can always depend on you to excuse the latter.

  10. BenSix — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:19 pm  

    I’m not “excusing” anything, Effendi. I think both of their pronouncements are nad-stingingly irrational and damned unpleasant. But it’s nonetheless true that giving an opinion on what is or isn’t Islamic doesn’t constitute a threat. And that’s pretty important ‘cos last time I checked making threats remained illegal.

    Now, the punishment for both of these is death.

    To who? To these guys or to Muslims generally? If it’s the former, evidence please. If it’s the latter, well – we’re in big trouble.

  11. Effendi — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:22 pm  

    “To who? To these guys or to Muslims generally? If it’s the former, evidence please. If it’s the latter, well – we’re in big trouble.”

    Jesus, your stupidity doesn’t let up, does it. I’d advise you to get hold of the original leaflets distributed by Abu Zubayr and try and understand who is being called the murtad and what the punishment for that “crime” is by Islamic law.

  12. Effendi — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:23 pm  

    “You’re getting Palinesque.”

    And a bright future as the understudy of Seumas Milne awaits you.

  13. BenSix — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:30 pm  

    11 – As far as I’m aware it means apostate and the punishment according to many but not all clerics is death.

    And a bright future as the understudy of Seumas Milne awaits you.

    Christ, dude, can’t we drop this “with us or against us” shtick and just be, er – with Hasan? I’m trying to understand here. Is your argument that the perception of apostasy as deserving of death is so widespread that one can’t give a view as to who is/isn’t a Muslim without the implication that they’re worthy/unworthy of life? Hell, I’m not even saying that’s wrong, I just wish you’d drop this “wiberal…sophistry” bullshit and explain yerself.

  14. Effendi — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:36 pm  

    “Christ, dude, can’t we drop this “with us or against us” shtick and just be, er – with Hasan?”

    You mean in your clever-clever, abstract, wiberal (always excuse the extremists if you can) kind of way?

    The facts on the ground are these:
    1) Usama has received death threats to he and his family.
    2) A pair of “non-violent” extremist Muslmis, so favoured by the Guardian and the Lambertists, have tacitly condoned the calls for his removal insisting he is a murtad .

  15. Effendi — on 7th March, 2011 at 12:48 pm  

    Hey BenSix, I’ve been advised that I have been overly harsh on you. And on reflection, I think I have.

    I’m going to cut and paste a comment made by Alan A in observation to our dialogue, posted on “that site” which is banned from mentioning on here.

    Copying and pasting:

    I think BenSix’s point is that it just isn’t clear to him what the consequences of declaring a man a murtad who has made kufr.

    ”Is your argument that the perception of apostasy as deserving of death is so widespread that one can’t give a view as to who is/isn’t a Muslim without the implication that they’re worthy/unworthy of life? Hell, I’m not even saying that’s wrong, I just wish you’d drop this “wiberal…sophistry” bullshit and explain yerself.”

    I can see why he’s not entirely clear about this. It does seem very odd, to a liberal atheist or agnostic used to religious pluralism, that there might be people who genuinely believe that there’s a strict religious code which requires apostates to be executed in an Islamic State. He also doesn’t have sufficient familiarity with these two guys, to be able to judge for himself whether they fall within this ideological camp.

    More generally, there’s a general preparedness to give those at this end of the political spectrum a pass: for example, when they say “of course, this shouldn’t be carried out in the UK, or by vigilantes”, that’s seen as neutralising the nature of the threat, which is seen as essentially symbolic only. That ignores the fact that they’d support his execution in an Islamic State, and support the ideal of such states. It also ignores the fact that there’s a pretty thin dividing line between those who would kill apostates and other insulters of religion outside an Islamic State, and those who wouldn’t. The only thing that differentiates them is the question of authority.

  16. cjcjc — on 7th March, 2011 at 1:04 pm  

    “Do you know how that translates to a man living in Leyton?”

    Welcome to modern, er, medieval Britain.

  17. BenSix — on 7th March, 2011 at 1:07 pm  

    Well, Alan nailed it. (Although, condescension to the contrary, I’m quite aware of the tossers who believe apostasy is punishable by death.)

    He also doesn’t have sufficient familiarity with these two guys, to be able to judge for himself whether they fall within this ideological camp.

    True enough.

    That ignores the fact that they’d support his execution in an Islamic State, and support the ideal of such states.

    Here’s a question, though. If people think it’s punishable by death in an Islamic state I don’t want them here. End of. But if they are here are you saying we should ignore the difference between punishable under Shari’ah and punishable anywhere?

  18. Effendi — on 7th March, 2011 at 1:14 pm  

    “But if they are here are you saying we should ignore the difference between punishable under Shari’ah and punishable anywhere?”

    Well, quite clearly Usama Hasan is not willing to ignore the difference. And he is the one who is now living under the threat in London E17.

    Meanwhile, Abu Zubayr, Dawud Mannion and Yusuf Smith are free to go about their business.

  19. Imran Khan — on 7th March, 2011 at 1:18 pm  

    Douglas – “Are these people mad?”

    No they are not because these people like to have a go at Saudi Scholars then throw out things like this without the explanation to try and make them look backward and stupid.

    A particular favourite was Shaykh Bin Baz who said the earth was flat. In a detailed explanation he explained that it had been revealed that the earth was flat, in that the large size of the circumference of the earth is so vast that it makes the land appear flat to allow people and animals to walk on. Thus the earth is round but of such a size that the surface appears flat.

    So what was reported by Saudi bashers was he said the earth is flat which is quite a change from waht was said.

  20. douglas clark — on 7th March, 2011 at 1:28 pm  

    As an aside to this affair and when trying to determine whether or not any ex muslim in the UK had been murdered for apostasy, I was somewhat surprised that there was some opinion that some ‘honour killings’ were indeed for that reason. I’d never come across that before, though it seems quite likely when you think about it.

  21. Effendi — on 7th March, 2011 at 1:52 pm  

    I also note that Yusuf Smith’s blog, Indigo Jo, is still linked to from here.

    I know we’re not your friends anymore, but I hope you see fit to see beyond the enmity and do the decent thing and remove the link to Smith’s blog.

  22. Nadeem — on 7th March, 2011 at 1:55 pm  

    Imran

    No it isn’t.

    If you have a “detailed explanation” I would love to see it!

  23. Imran Khan — on 7th March, 2011 at 1:59 pm  

    Douglas – If I could be permitted to point out one thing, many of the people who promote khilaafah, shariah and so forth know very little about these things and secondly hide behind computers, groups etc to call for these with little understanding of Islam.

    Khilaafah can only be established by Allah (swt) as a gift for Muslim following the correct way. Shariah itself requires exceptional justice and most Muslim and Muslim countries are nowhere near this.

    No major scholar has made the charge of apostasy against Usama Hasan and they are the only ones who can do it and not someone here who lacks understanding of the principles.

    One of the scholars I quoted was asked directly if a charge of takfir (apostasy) was made and he said “No”. So if they are not making this charge and they are qualified what makes a website operator think he can make such a charge. In Islam there are systems in place and they cannot be bypassed so all these people are simply whipping up people for their own desires.

    What about the fact they are ordered to convey with goodness so where is the goodness in what they are doing? They are simply following doctrines of Sayid Qutb and these have been roundly condenmed by the major scholars of Islam.

  24. Marina — on 7th March, 2011 at 2:26 pm  

    Effendi is right; for Pickled Politics to remain linked to the Indigo Jo site as a ‘comrade’ would be revolting. It’s an oversight, I’m sure, but I hope it is rectified. I can’t see how the disgusting and idiotic atittudes espoused there have any more to do with liberalism than do those of the Westboro Baptist Church.

  25. Imran Khan — on 7th March, 2011 at 6:42 pm  

    Nadeem – Love to see what?

  26. joe90 — on 7th March, 2011 at 11:16 pm  

    this is hardly new, if a group of people don’t like a particular imam or scholar they always try to put him down.

    Best way to settle this is to have an open debate between the two opposing groups/ scholars the one with strongest evidence and argument wins, and problem settled.

    this is how the old scholars used to settle disagreements.

  27. BenSix — on 7th March, 2011 at 11:26 pm  

    Best way to settle this is to have an open debate between the two opposing groups/ scholars the one with strongest evidence and argument wins, and problem settled.

    Considering that one side’s evidence is “God said so” I foresee little worth in this debate.

  28. Sean — on 7th March, 2011 at 11:31 pm  
  29. damon — on 8th March, 2011 at 12:07 am  

    Joe90, would it be bad manners of me to ask you if you believe that Adam was the first human and was (actually) made by God from clay or something?
    I suspect that it is bad manners. Is it?

    Anyone who has been talking about punnishments for Dr Usama Hasan, cleary are ”fanatics” as Sunny says.
    But rather focus on fanatics, I’d be more interested to know how much support Dr Hasan would have from ordinary everyday muslims. Is it something that is causing lots of debate in and around the mosques of Britain?

    I saw the Indigo Jo Blog had little sympathy for him.
    Does that mean they are fanatics too?
    http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2011/03/05/usama-hasan-thanks-for-the-apology-now-clear-off

    You can’t get clearer than the picture they have of Dr Hasan next to a group of chimpanzees, and the caption:
    ”Beware of This Man ….. He says your forefathers are monkeys. Are you going to let him lead you in prayers.”

    For that they really have to be called fanatics. Or delusional.
    Or maybe they are just regular Muslims. Which is it?

  30. joe90 — on 8th March, 2011 at 12:32 am  

    damon at post #29

    from information i have seen he has next to 0 support from muslim community. This was because he was on the quilliam bandwagon sometime ago.

    but that has no bearing on this issue, if people are drawing cartoons and mocking him that is childish.

    there have been numerous debates on evolution and i don’t know if another one will actually make any difference come to think of it.

  31. Roger — on 8th March, 2011 at 2:20 am  

    “For that they really have to be called fanatics. Or delusional.
    Or maybe they are just regular Muslims. Which is it?”

    …or all of them, Damon, or sll of them.
    Muslims are obliged to believe all of the quran is literally true unless such belief is so preposterous that it has to be rejected. The koran says god made Adam and Ece in paradise and later put them on earth. The claim that evolution is true of humans as well as other animals is a challenge and insult to “just regular Muslims” too. As we have seen elsewhere, “just regular Muslims” have no objection to people who challenge their beliefs being killed even if they don’t do it themselves so Dr Usama has good reason to worry about his and his family’s safety.

  32. fugstar — on 8th March, 2011 at 2:27 am  

    it would be interesting to know the information upon which you base your 0 support reckoning.

    people are commodities to be valued as transformative tools insofar as they map onto community influence. mwahahahah

    duas for usama

  33. anon — on 8th March, 2011 at 4:40 am  

    “I’ve been here for 25 years and I fear that the mosque could fall into the hands of extremists. There are plenty of other mosques in the country that have gone that way”

    So there are plenty of UK mosques that are in the hands of extremists – so much for the Prevent strategy.

  34. muslim — on 8th March, 2011 at 1:31 pm  

    Interesting to see the anti-Muslim fanatics, such as damon, accusing Muslims of being fanatics…..

  35. damon — on 8th March, 2011 at 2:13 pm  

    ”Muslim” – you’d really have to define what you meant by fanatic. Headbangers could said to be fanatics. I went to Ian Paisley’s church on sunday, just to see what it was like. The people were friendly, but I thought they were all bonkers.
    Dr Paisley was there reading from the bible, and particularly ”First Timothy” verses 9 and 10.

    9: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
    10: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

    He went through these two verses line by line, rolling the words like ”whoremongers” around in his mouth in his immutable style.

    Of course the poor people who sit and listen to such nonsense are ‘away with the fairies’. How about you ”muslim”? Are you a rational person, or do you just condemn people who might see through your childish views?

  36. douglas clark — on 8th March, 2011 at 2:34 pm  

    Imran Khan @ 23,

    I hope you are right. The problem seems to be that the distinction you draw is not widely enough understood amongst some of the people commenting hereabouts.

  37. Sunny — on 8th March, 2011 at 4:06 pm  

    Oh god, Effendi is coming here to give me lessons on what I should do with my blog again.

    I can only say “fuck off you twat” so many times before it becomes a cut and paste job.

  38. Sunny — on 8th March, 2011 at 4:07 pm  

    Also – the twats at HP and Spittoon are focusing on the wrong people. Yusuf and the other guy are idiots on this issue – but the real culprits here are from IslamicAwakening.

  39. Imran Khan — on 8th March, 2011 at 4:19 pm  

    Douglas – The problem is that the media give wide coverage to self-appointed Shaykhs like Anjem Choudary who won’t do what he preaches!!

    But what I would like to point out is that the Hasan family are also to a degree playing the sympathy card. Last night his sister on BBC London News said that her brother had not said Prophet Adam (pbuh) was descended from apes, but in the videos of his lecture he clearly did so why the change?

    Also if people don’t want to believe what Usama Hasan says and don’t want to pray behind him that is their right. Just because he is approved by Quilliam and others does not mean people have to accept him.

    It is up to the locals who they want to pray behind and if they find his views unacceptable then that is their right.

    If people don’t want to believe in evolution and it is such a fact why is the evolution community imposing its views rather than having the debate. Dawkins is quite selective about who he debates with. In the USA people are being denied tenure for refusing to accept evolution so that sounds fairly disturbing to me.

    Strange how extreme evolutionists are not labelled nutjobs. Before you dive in I have had a debate with a card carrying evolutionist who graduated in Zoology from Cambridge University and his specialism was evolution and he accepted at the end the theory had holes in it and this after being adament that it was fool proof. But when asked to prove certain points he couldn’t and said one just had to accept them, so when it was pointed out this was like belief he went rather red!

    It is people’s right to believe what they want. It was the Muslim world that helped preserve ancient works so there is legitimacy in preserving what you don’t accept in Islam so the idea of inquisition is not from Islamic Law and non-Muslims can believe what they want. All the Islam bashers that regularly turn out at such events usually distort history and a few of them will no doubt start now.

    Usama Hasan is entitled to his view but he shouldn’t keep changing it if he has facts behind him as was his claim and he should be straight forward about what he said. The nutjobs who threatened him probably lack understanding of their own religion and thus resort to threats than facts which simply expose them for what they are. Nuff said! Back to just reading.

  40. douglas clark — on 8th March, 2011 at 4:32 pm  

    Imran Khan,

    Comment is free, but facts are sacred? Obviously no-one can stop someone else from holding a different point of view. But most definitely people who are clearly ill-informed shouldn’t be issuing death threats.

    Apart from abiogenesis – which I accept isn’t well understood, but isn’t strictly part of evolutionary theory either – the evidence pro evolution just keeps stacking up all the time. And could you please stop saying we are descended from monkeys? It makes you sound like someone from the Deep South, circa 1920. Monkeys and us – we have a common ancestor, but we and they went down different evolutionary routes quite a long time ago. That is the point.

    I have read quite a bit of the material that is available to a lay man on all of this and it is highly persuasive. So, just out of curiosity, what were the questions that you put that flummoxed your friend so much?

  41. BenSix — on 8th March, 2011 at 4:54 pm  

    Usama Hasan is entitled to his view but he shouldn’t keep changing it if he has facts behind him as was his claim and he should be straight forward about what he said. The nutjobs who threatened him probably lack understanding of their own religion and thus resort to threats than facts which simply expose them for what they are.

    Allow me to submit, Imran, that these two events might not be wholly unrelated.

    Before you dive in I have had a debate with a card carrying evolutionist who graduated in Zoology from Cambridge University and his specialism was evolution and he accepted at the end the theory had holes in it and this after being adament that it was fool proof.

    That depends on where the holes are. A ship with holes in its canteen walls is still quite safe to travel in.

  42. Soso — on 8th March, 2011 at 6:16 pm  

    “Many traditional imams are grounded in ancient books in Arabic but have very little grounding in science. I find it staggering how they can be so strongly opposed to evolution without reading about it. That seems to be opposite of the very first commandment of the Qur’an, which is to read,” Bunglawala said.

    Look, half of the Muslim world still lives in the Bronze Age.

    No major scholar has made the charge of apostasy against Usama Hasan and they are the only ones who can do it and not someone here who lacks understanding of the principles.

    When why haven’t any of them stepped forward to denounce the death threats?

    If these scholars have principles, then shouldn’t they be doing just that?

  43. KB Player — on 8th March, 2011 at 6:29 pm  

    Strange how extreme evolutionists are not labelled nutjobs.

    Perhaps because they don’t offer death threats to those who disagree with them? Richard Dawkins doesn’t think his opponents should be executed, even though he thinks that they are fools.

  44. Imran Khan — on 8th March, 2011 at 7:50 pm  

    “When why haven’t any of them stepped forward to denounce the death threats?

    If these scholars have principles, then shouldn’t they be doing just that?”

    What nonsense. This is just an exercise to bash Muslims and sadly the media is not reporting the whole story as usual.

    Qulliam Foundation have issued their usual nonsense proclaiming all this the fault of Wahabi Scholars, a statement which will be taken up by the likes of Gove etc. but which lacks any proof.

    They allege that Shaykh Sadlan has issued a potentially lethal fatwa when all he said was don’t pray behind Usama Hasan and in fact he spoke to Usama Hasan. So why do people not challange this type of gross misrepresentation which has influence at the heart of government and is paid for by the tax payer?

    Why are people being smeared incorrectly and with total impunity via tax payers money?

    Where are the blog articles on that?

    All the major scholars have said that Muslims need to behave correctly towards Usama Hasan.

    If Qulliam Foundation had evidence that Saudi Scholars have been issuing potentially lethal fatwas as they claim then Usama Hasan would have said so but he didn’t.

    As for extreme evolitionists they don’t call for people to be executed but they are stopping debate and denying tenure to people who disagree with them so how is that freedom of expression?

    If Muslims did that then people would complain that they don’t conform and adhere to secular values but when it happens from within then its ok!!!

  45. blackwatertown — on 8th March, 2011 at 9:14 pm  

    Interesting post and comments too. Glad you mentioned the comments from Inayat Bunglawala.
    I’d be tolerant of Usama Hasan’s retraction – it’s not pleasant being on the receiving end of this type of abuse and threats. (I don’t know if he other family members to think about.)

  46. Doug — on 8th March, 2011 at 10:41 pm  

    Supporters of the theory of evolution aren’t stopping any debate, any more than supporters of the theory of gravity are. What a fatuous claim. Frankly, there is far more time and respect given to its deniers than their worthless position deserves.

  47. douglas clark — on 8th March, 2011 at 11:08 pm  

    Doug,

    Spooky!

    I agree.

  48. Effendi — on 8th March, 2011 at 11:12 pm  

    :-)

  49. douglas clark — on 8th March, 2011 at 11:16 pm  

    Effendi,

    Why the :-) ?

    :-)

  50. Effendi — on 8th March, 2011 at 11:26 pm  

    Sunny

    “Also – the twats at HP and Spittoon are focusing on the wrong people. Yusuf and the other guy are idiots on this issue – but the real culprits here are from IslamicAwakening.”

    We know who the real culprits are, we have been raising the alarm on this story on the spit toon a number of time in the last few weeks. Yusuf Smith and David Mannion have added their voices to the baying mob of takfiris and are therefore as culpable as Saleem Begg, he who distributed the first leaflets *suggesting* the death threats on Usama Hasan.

    And rest assured, we’ll continue to alert you of any more of these “idiots” who join this witch hunt against Hasan for his “heretical” views.

  51. Effendi — on 8th March, 2011 at 11:27 pm  

    “I can only say “fuck off you twat” so many times before it becomes a cut and paste job.”

    Oh dear. Was that really necessary Sunny? :-)

  52. anon — on 8th March, 2011 at 11:44 pm  

    “I can only say “fuck off you twat” so many times before it becomes a cut and paste job.”

    Well that would be consistent with your other postings on this blog.

  53. Effendi — on 8th March, 2011 at 11:56 pm  

    Are you miffed at me, anon? Please, don’t be. :-)

  54. damon — on 9th March, 2011 at 12:18 am  

    I saw on the Qulliam Foundation’s website that they had a link to this Evening Standard article about this case.
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23929834-imam-fears-nutters-could-kill-him-for-preaching-evolution.do

    And reading the Standard article, I just thought ”Oh dear”. How can you report this story without drawing ‘Islamophobic’ readers comments like this one (about Dr Hasan)?

    He’s obviously a few centuries ahead of his time, the equivalent of transplanting a trendy vicar to the time of the Holy inquisition.

    - Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent

    And why are the Quilliam Foundation linking to this Evening Standard article?
    The result of the article and the readers comments is to just add to make Islam look bad.

  55. joe90 — on 9th March, 2011 at 12:39 am  

    post #54

    “And why are the Quilliam Foundation linking to this Evening Standard article?
    The result of the article and the readers comments is to just add to make Islam look bad.”

    dude you just found the Raison d’être for the quilliam money train i mean foundation :)

  56. anon — on 9th March, 2011 at 1:08 am  

    “Are you miffed at me, anon? Please, don’t be”

    My post was to the author of the quote.

  57. Sarah AB — on 9th March, 2011 at 7:19 am  

    I don’t see why it would be so unthinkable to go and put people right on HP if they’re wrong rather than just moan about them (or indeed us, not that I’ve written anything about this issue) here. If it is the case that it is being asserted that a Fatwa against Dr Hasan is call that he should be killed, when it is really just a rap on the knuckles – go over there and say so. I have no opinion on this either way – but it would good to get the facts straight.

  58. damon — on 9th March, 2011 at 9:57 am  

    Joe90

    dude you just found the Raison d’être for the quilliam money train i mean foundation

    But the Evening Standard article didn’t say anything that isn’t true, it just brought it to a wider audience. Should they have just kept it quiet?
    Not to wash the community’s dirty linen in public so to speak? I don’t think that is a solution either.

    That would be like people feeling uncomfortable about infanticide and honor crimes being discussed in public too. Keeping this kind of thing quite is not a solution.

  59. Shaaz — on 9th March, 2011 at 10:46 am  

    This is an alarming development…

    Take the campaign against Dr Hasan in the context of another teacher (Usama also holds a teaching post at a uni) who was attacked for “teaching other religions to our sisters” –

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359160/4-men-slashed-teachers-face-teaching-religions-Muslim-girls.html

    .. and also need to take into account what has recently happened in Pakistan with the Minorities Minister Bhatti and Governon Taseer assassinated for holding views that go against the intolerant version of Islam that the extremists follow.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.