Commentary on Mohamed Hassan - Public Enemy, Part 2

"Say: This is my Way: I call on Allah with sure knowledge. I and whosoever followeth me - Glory be to Allah! - and I am not of the idolaters."  Koran 3:83

We can expect someone with the name Mohamed Hassan to shill for Islam, for this is what Islam expects of its followers.  That Radio New Zealand gives him not just the freedom of saying what he wants in the name of Islam, but a very public platform to do so, goes beyond normal bounds of a personal crusade and into the realm of active publicly-funded support for his religion.  There are deeper aspects to this which are extremely disturbing.

"Can we talk about this?" Theo van Gogh to his assassin.

In the interest of balance on this subject, in which, like all of New Zealand’s media, RNZ shows great reluctance, it could offer a rebuttal of Hassan’s diatribe.  This would include subjects such as:

•  Muslim violence.  The greatest threat to Muslims anywhere in the world is not ‘Islamophobes’ but other Muslims and this is due to Islam’s policy of retributive subsidiarity where individual Muslims are responsible for Islam’s defence.  (This is contrary to Max Weber’s axiom of the state’s monopoly of violence, just one of the many irreconcilable differences between Islam and the West.  The consequences of this will be highly destructive.)  Death threats and their execution are commonplace.  Many Muslims have police and bodily protection against extremists of their own religion.  In contrast, deaths attributable to ‘Islamophobes’ are negligible.  Where such cases do occur, however, and motivation is clearly not ‘Islamophobic’, they are promoted as being so. Perhaps the most public example of this deception is Suzanne Barakat on TED Talks.  But unlike Muslims, ‘Islamophobes’’ death threats are not supported by their religion.

• Systematisation of ‘Islamophobia’ and the creation of its straw man.  Saudi Arabia gives massive support for ‘Islamophobia Studies’, an academic industry which has the principal purpose of shutting down criticism of Islam.  They have lesser but important purposes such as minimising discussion of Western and Islamic moral differences, obfuscating any debate concerning Islam’s record of supremacism, conquest, and death for those leaving it, and revising history by grossly inflating Islam’s tiny role in Western civilisation while reinforcing the West’s own cultural repudiation.

• Muslims’ grievance narrative.  The logic is that since Islam is the perfected model for human society, any failings in its governance are due to external causes.  The cure, as with any doctrinaire ideology, is greater enforcement of its dogma and elimination of its enemies, both within and without.

• Why it is that only Islam attracts opprobrium, not any other religious category?  There are excellent reasons for this, but their publication is suppressed.  Why?

•  Contrary to the impression that Hassan’s interviewees’ complaints give, the world’s greatest persecutors are Muslims.  They will persecute anyone perceived to be an infidel as endless global examples attest.

• Why it is that attempts to maintain and develop a sense of historical narrative and continuity are met with accusations of Right-wing extremism, nationalism or undue patriotism? The consequence of the cultural repudiation the West has experienced over the last few decades is of the indefensibility of its societal principals, and thus their replacement with anything more robust.  The prime candidate is Islam which is evidentially successful.

 Hassan is manipulating Radio New Zealand.  Since RNZ gives no evidence that it understands this, nor the Islamic nature of credence, its morality, history, narrative, aetiology and eschatology, one is left to assume it has no idea what is going on. 

None of the above commentary is opinion.  It is based on observations grounded in facts, evidence of which, for those who wish to delve beneath Hassan’s superficial series, can be supplied on request.