Commentary on Mohamed Hassan - Public Enemy, Part 3

Mohamed Hassan’s plaintive conclusion to his series on Muslims as public enemy should draw independent thinkers, even those ignorant of the moral and existential gulf between Islam and Western nations, to the realisation that Muslims set themselves apart from the country, those of the West, that is, that they live in.

People who are aware of Islam’s inviolable precepts and its permissible mores will take a lot more from it.  Hassan’s use of grievance runs as a plangent theme throughout, yet he ignores its source, the effect of Islam’s inherent and indiscriminate violence on secular societies, and its moral supremacism.  

“War is deceit.” Muhammad

Christianity’s “Thou shalt not bear false witness” imbues Western morality without demur.  The requirements of human interaction require bending this rule for the sake of getting on without hurting feelings, but in its religious form it is unqualified.  Islam is different, because it is in a preordained and perpetual war with the non-Islamic world.  Islam permits, demands, even, a variety of mendacious processes, including taqiyya, muruna, kitman, tawriya, hifz-al sirr, and talbis.  These are primarily reserved for non-Muslims, the ‘kuffar’, to whom Muslims are under no obligation to tell the truth.  In extremis, and for the requirement of the defence of Islam, they can even be used against other Muslims. 

Hassan opens this episode with Ahmed Zaoui proclaiming his membership of New Zealand’s Human Rights Foundation, and its website does indeed give him a desultory, almost reluctant, credit.  Here is a man with convictions in Algeria, France and Belgium. He was an MP for a party described as, “. . . not pluralistic at all. In reality it was a completely fascist party” and one which indicated a crackdown on women’s independence, non-Islamist thinking, and homosexuals.  Yet wording elsewhere on the website describes him as “a passionate advocate for peace through democracy in Algeria” and him being a victim of ‘Algeria’s military regime.’  HRF gives an FAQ on his application for refugee status which in itself should give a disinterested observer pause for thought.  For example, “As a former French colony, Algeria’s leaders enjoy close links with the secret services of France and Belgium, the two European countries in which Zaoui was convicted.”  It seems Zaoui’s HRF does not have these nations’ best interests at heart, and implies HRF as having an ideological bias against our own government’s attempts at safeguarding New Zealand’s security.

One specific grievance Hassan illustrates is interviewee ‘Adam’s’ complaint about being held up at airports.  This ignores three things.  Firstly, the escalation in airport security is a direct result of Muslims attacking aircraft or using them to attack buildings.  Secondly, Muslims are the greatest single and identifiable threat to aircraft security.  Thirdly, the irresolvable global instability regarding Islamic state and non-state actors renders this threat a continuous potentiality.  While I share his annoyance at the impositions of airport security, there is clear justification, notwithstanding the denials, of profiling Muslims rather than Westerners.  Nonetheless, we all have to suffer from the intransigent officiousness of security staff who are given no discretion and have manifestly poor judgement on what constitutes a threat.  The lesson in Islamic awareness we experience at airport departure gates is a quotidian reminder of Islam’s belligerent goal.

Radio New Zealand’s position on resurgent Islam is at best ambiguous, at worst complicit.  The freedom it grants Hassan to project his views, and its extreme reluctance to consider alternative world views on the subject, favour the latter.  It seems unlikely that all RNZ’s journalists – and for that matter, its production and management team – are, down to the last individual, completely ignorant of the existential threat Islam presents to the Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman world’s Weltanschauung, but the voice of contrarians, such as it might be, is rigidly suppressed.  I feel sure that the reasons for this go above and beyond RNZ’s control. 

One can only speculate on how the opinion that Islam is a religion like any other, and that its adherents are victims of unjust prejudice, can take unexamined root through the chain of command from the government and its quangos down, that results in Hassan’s self-serving documentaries.

One journalist – Karl du Fresne – has timorously raised issues about Muslim migrant attitudes but in doing so make clear he does not understand Islam.  Thus the field is left open and unchallenged to Muslims and Islam’s supporters such as Donna Mojab, Tayyaba Khan, Anjum Rahman, Ahmed Zaoui, Golnaz Bassam-Tabar, Mava Moayyed, Eva Bradley, Mona Alfadli and so many others, to dissimulate about Islam and and its adherents in direct contradiction to objective news reports and analysis. 

Nobody is defending the core civilisational values that have led New Zealand to its global leading position.

This raises a much deeper issue that crosses ideological boundaries and leads to the intersectionality of the victimhood of ordinary people that Trump, Brexit, and Europe’s sundry nationalist parties are exploiting – the management of the discourse of defeat.  This is far too complex to go into here, and for those who fail to understand Islam, explaining it would be a lost cause. 

But RNZ plays no small part in its role in New Zealand.

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.

Commentary on Mohamed Hassan - Public Enemy, Part 1,

Mohamed Hassan - Public Enemy, Part 1,

Broadcast on Radio New Zealand National Programme, Sunday 4 December 2016. 

Mohamed Hassan’s sympathetic presentation of Muslims’ grievances and ‘Islamophobia’ is another episode in an unrelenting series of Radio New Zealand’s support for Islam and its exponential growth in New Zealand and other Western countries. 

It was predictable, totally one-sided, and carried nothing in the way of insight into underlying issues.  So far, so Radio New Zealand. 

I wish I could look forward to Radio New Zealand examining issues such as Islam’s policy of vicinal arrogation, where Muslims will colonise existing suburbs to the cultural exclusion of others, imposing sharia law and Islamic standards regardless of others’ beliefs.  It results in the many hundreds of no-go zones across Europe, Thailand’s and Burma’s problems with Rohingyas, and the disaffection of ordinary people who feel alienated in their own countries resulting in the rise of the populist right.  Eventually it will result in civil war.

I’d like to see a programmed dedicated to Islam’s policy of retributive subsidiarity, where Muslims are enjoined to carry out violent actions in the perceived defence of Islam.  The consequence of this is increasing throughout the world, with jihadi attacks, suicide bombers, lone wolves, the killing of a shopkeeper for wishing his clients an enjoyable Easter or a soldier just for being a soldier, or the lessons in Islamic awareness I get at an airport’s boarding gate.  It could examine the huge increases in security and intelligence costs associated in keeping New Zealanders safe from Islam’s more active contingent.

National Radio’s audience figures would perk up if it were to bring its listeners an explication of Islam’s sexual mores, its implicit pederasty or its explicit paedophilia in its child-marriage laws.  While the former explains the rush for boys to grow beards, the latter is the absolute repudiation of female emancipation, but even feminists seem loath to give expression to protest. 

There could be a programme about the contrast between the intensity and obsession of Islam’s believers and their countries with the societal progress that secular states have made.  After all, in every measure of civilisation, Western states dominate and Islamic states fail.

Perhaps the programme we are least likely to hear from Radio New Zealand will be one where the role of the management of discourse in the West’s succumbing to Islam’s conquest is examined, because it will be too close to home.  But of all subjects related to the the epochal change we are witnessing, this is the most crucial.  It has eliminated our defences.

The sort of programmes that Radio New Zealand presents about Muslims and Islam require more than just a simple ignorance of Islam’s unbridgeable moral differences with the West.  It needs a wilful blindness to evidence, facts, statements, activities, scriptural texts, history and the testimony of objective, wise and educated Western-orientated commentators.

Instead, it listens to Muslims, who, by virtue of their religion, are required to bring the West into submission to the will of Allah.  And thanks to the likes of Mohamed Hassan, to the great shame of journalists and broadcasters, they are succeeding.