Gentle, friendly, courageous »« On the nerves of Islamists

Imposing signature orientalist questions

So let’s sample a bit of Dilly Hussain’s work. Here’s a piece posted at the Huffington Post UK yesterday. It’s about the pressure on Muslims to disavow Islamist violence and repression.

This pressure on Muslims to bend over backwards in distancing themselves from crimes committed by their co-religionists comes in many forms: the war on terror rhetoric our government uses when talking about ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalisation’, the media’s demonisation of Islam linking it to every crime under the sun from sexual grooming, domestic violence to terrorism, and TV/radio presenters’ aggressive methods of interviewing. The sight of prominent Muslim figures and organisations tripping over themselves when they race to condemn on national TV, you can’t help but think, how different it is when let’s say white Britons or Americans commit similar crimes, or Christians or any other ethnic, racial or religious group – this apologetic syndrome has affected Muslims exclusively.

When the Madrid and London 7/7 bombings happened, Muslims in the West felt cornered as their governments and the media targeted their religion. Whilst the perpetrators of these attacks were Muslim, you would be naive to think that Islam was the catalyst behind the attacks, totally ignoring the West’s unequivocal support for Israel and its brutal occupation of Palestinian territories, propping oppressive dictators in the Arab world like Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gadhafi, Ben Ali and the petrol rich sheikhdoms of the Gulf, as well as the illegal war against Iraq.

But how does the West’s unequivocal support for Israel and its brutal occupation of Palestinian territories, propping oppressive dictators in the Arab world like Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gadhafi, Ben Ali and the petrol rich sheikhdoms of the Gulf, as well as the illegal war against Iraq justify or explain or require the murder of 52 random people in London? In what way is murdering random civilians a method of disputing or reforming the foreign policy of “the West”?

Also, in fact, you wouldn’t be “naive” to think the London bombers were all radical Islamists, because they were just that.

I found myself hounded upon by a BBC radio presenter last week when I was invited to speak on the topic of ‘Should British Muslims support a Caliphate‘. The discussion went from my personal views on the Caliphate to whether I acknowledged that Yazidis were being persecuted and if I condemned it. Furthermore, the presenter was hell-bent in his condescending style of ‘ impartiality’, imposing signature orientalist questions of analysing the Caliphate from the prism of secular liberal democracies as a bench mark to measure its viability in the modern era.

Golly. Now I have another question about why the Huffington Post publishes this guy: I want to know why they want such a bad writer writing for them.

Comments

  1. RJW says

    “imposing signature orientalist questions of analysing the Caliphate from the prism of secular liberal democracies as a bench mark to measure its viability in the modern era.”

    Well, yes, what other criteria could be applied, 7th century tribal mores, perhaps? Hussain was in a public forum, in a liberal democracy, people ask questions.
    It’s rather difficult for Muslims “to disavow Islamist violence and repression” as they would be rejecting Mohammed’s example.
    What an arrogant wanker.

  2. Andrew B. says

    “Furthermore, the presenter was hell-bent in his condescending style of ‘ impartiality’, imposing signature orientalist questions of analysing the Caliphate from the prism of secular liberal democracies as a bench mark to measure its viability in the modern era.”

    Yeah…and? Oh, I see, it’s awful to compare the Caliphate to something good, because that makes the Caliphate look not-so-good. It’s better to compare it to say, Mad Max, or some other futuristic sci-fi dystopian story, so that the Caliphate looks nice and orderly.

  3. miraxpath says

    One name. Mehdi Hassan. That’s why you have this pillock writing for HP Uk. I have no answer to why the New Statesman ever chose MH to be its political editor.

  4. Katherine Woo says

    imposing signature orientalist questions of analysing the Caliphate from the prism of secular liberal democracies as a bench mark to measure its viability in the modern era

    So basically Hasan, who chooses to live in a secular liberal democracy, is happy to dent that to other Muslims because…orientalism.

    I think even Edward Saïd for all his own issues with telling complete truths would weep at the insanity of this discourse.

  5. says

    To be fair (although I agree with the criticisms of Dilly Hussein) Mehdi Hasan publishes a wide range of views at the HuffPo, assuming he is responsible for commissioning/selecting all the political opinion pieces.

  6. moarscienceplz says

    So Muslims have to be “pressured” and have to “bend over backwards” to distance themselves from crimes committed by their co-religionists? That’s some “religion of peace” they’ve got there!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>