Khola Hasan - for the record (with update)
by Scoop Shachtman, 5 September 2007
Tonight on Newsnight they were discussing extremist Islamist books in public libraries, such as Mawdudist and Qutbist tracts. One of the invited guests, Khola Hasan, argued that removal of “our books” would be seen as attack on the Muslim community. One of the other Muslim guests pointed out her slip and remarked that the books were not “his books”. Just in case you saw her and wondered about her other views, here’s some examples just for the record.
Here are two letters she wrote in 2001 to The Independent as evidence. This one is from November.
Sir: While dissecting my letter (27 October) and singing the mantra of multiculturalism, Howard Jacobson says, “so solicitous have we been not to cause offence to any other culture”. During the Satanic Verses affair, secular writers vilified Islam without restraint. Where was Mr Jacobson when newspapers (including this one) were filled with venomous tirades against Islamic rules on modesty and the veil, stoning for public adultery (for both men and women), prohibition of alcohol, amputation for theft…?
Where was he when George Bush made his Freudian slip about the Crusades, and when the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, insulted one of the world’s greatest religions? Where was he when the West declared Islamic extremists to be guilty within 10 minutes of the twin towers collapsing, without a single minuscule shred of proof? And where was he when the US launched cruise missiles against one of the poorest nations on earth, again without any proof or attempts at a peaceful judicial process?
The West has made it very clear that it regards Islam as a medieval and inferior culture which needs to be civilised. Until we Muslims see an open trial in which proof will be presented, we will continue to see this war as an attack on Islam.
As far as my description of Western decadence is concerned, all I have done is hold up a mirror for the West to see itself. There really is no point in insulting the messenger; listening instead to the message would make a welcome change.
and here she is in October 2001 holding up that mirror:
Sir: Thank you to Barry Jones for his vivid description of the Western values of drink and partying, and for his attack on the Islamic ban on such behaviour (letter, 23 October).
When boasting of the frivolity in this society, he conveniently omits to mention the sheer moral decadence it leads to: sodomy; serial adultery; drugs; drink-driving leading to murder; extensive health and social problems related directly to alcohol; teenage pregnancy due to the sexual openness and sex-obsessiveness of society; lack of marital fidelity, resulting in countless people consumed with jealousy as they worry about which colleague their partner will have an affair with next; the manipulation of women on television, where furniture, chocolates, communications companies and even cars are marketed with images of scantily dressed women; glamour models and actresses who know that success is directly proportionate to the amount of clothing they remove in public. A culture in which women are “prized” (rather like farm animals) for their bodies, where women endure the pain of plastic surgery in order to conform to the ideals of men - so much for feminism.
As a Muslim woman, I wear the hejab with pride because I do not wish to be the subhuman sex object, alive purely for the gratification of men, that women are in Western culture. The decency, clean living and morality of Islamic fundamentalism is a far cry from the filth of modern decadence. Believe me, we Muslims have plenty of fun, but not in a way that involves alcohol-induced paralysis and lying in one’s own vomit in bed with a total stranger.
And here she is going on about women and their clear inferiority to men in June 2005.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Khola Hasan, thank you very much indeed. You rail against what you call a ‘unisex world’. Why shouldn’t women want to do the same things as men? We now have two Muslim women for the first time, they’ve conquered Everest, they’ve climbed Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Why shouldn’t they?
KHOLA HASAN
Women are different, as I said earlier, and the problem at the moment is …
TIM SEBASTIAN
Different in what way?
KHOLA HASAN
We are physically different to men. We look different.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But if they can climb Everest, what difference does it make?
KHOLA HASAN
Wonderful, good for them, but the average woman is weaker than a man. The average woman is weaker than a man. There have been a lot of studies in America.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Not if they carry a rifle, they’re not.
KHOLA HASAN
No. But for example the muscle weight of a man is 40% of his body. Only 23% of a woman’s weight is muscle.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But why should they be treated differently even if there are physical differences, why?
KHOLA HASAN
Because you have to make allowances for their weakness.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Who says so?
KHOLA HASAN
God says so.
Scoops adds:This post was written to put on record the thoughts of Khola Hasan, rather than express my own opinion on the freedom of speech - on which matter I share my views with Christopher Hitchens. So it was with some surprise I noticed that an intellectually-impaired commentator ascribed an opinion to me I did not hold.
While I am not against the writings of Qutb and Mawdudi being in a public library, it would have saved me the bother of buying my own copies, there are legitimate questions to be asked about the number of texts, the purchase of propaganda with public money and the context in which they are presented - in terms of promotion and balance. Certainly, one might wonder about the public service a library is providing by purchasing a book entitled “Women Who Deserve To Go To Hell”. Apparently, to wonder about that may have you labeled racist these days. Misogyny is apparently acceptable to some pseudo-leftist students, especially if coming from a strong man with a beard.
Wednesday 5 September 2007 at 23:55
Another excellent post.
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 8:33
Even that ridiculous old racist Patrick Mercer was careful to say he did not believe in actually “removing” books from libraries, but you seem to be suggesting that the books in question should actually be taken off the shelves, or have I misunderstood yr point ?
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 10:53
Even that ridiculous old racist
How is removing religious hate literature “racist”?
How is your position that it should be left in place because of how you imagine its readers’ ethnicity not “racist”?
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 12:50
Dirgible (Colonel Blimp ?) - Patrick Mercer is a ridiculous old racist because of his racist comments about soldiers, made previously, not because of the issue at hand .
I guess I’ll take that as a confirmation - Mercer’s position was against censoring, banning withdrawing etc library books. He favoured instead the idea the T Hamlets Council should renew stock by adding extra books from a liberal tradition, as a counterbalance.
but the consensus here is - get rid of the books pronto ?
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 14:16
“…sodomy; serial adultery; drugs; drink-driving leading to murder; extensive health and social problems related directly to alcohol”
One wonders if Khola has ever been a Muslim country. Iran is ruled by a Theocracy and has the worst drugs problem in the world. Sodomy is incredibly popular amongst the Taliban. Etc.
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 15:30
Blimps don’t have a framework, although they are gasbags that are prone to bursting into flames.
If BNP or KKK literature was present in your local library would you be happy for it to remain as long as a copy of “Tom Kitten” was added to the collection during the next purchasing round? I certainly wouldn’t.
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 16:14
Well Mein Kampf certainly is available from my local library. Indeed the authors of the Centre of Social Cohesion, who wrote the report behind this piece explicitly accept that, as with Mein Kampf, “offensive” political books are and should be in local libraries - even the Social Cohesion people (who are a load of barmy old tories, like Mercer), after some shock horror headlines, pull back from the idea of censoring books, and instead argue for more balance in Islamic collections (ie more moderate, Sufi, critical, liberal etc books) . Yet a “drink soaked trot” (has he ever read any trotsky ?) seems to go way beyond all these old reactionaries and say “ban the books”. And the first comment comes from a man known as “fat Gadgie”, who I discover is an “anarchist ” involved in “adult education” and he seems to be saying “good” to the book banners and censorers. And what of the Trotsky books and Anarcho books ? Do any of them advocate violence or hate ? Should they be removed from the bookshelves as well ?
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 16:22
Incidentally, I don’t think it is “intellectually impaired” to think that when you criticise someone for objecting to ‘removal of out books’, then that means you are likely in favour of removing books . If you are going to resort to silly name calling, can I suggest that only the intellectually impaired writes a long critique of someone objecting to book removal without considering that they might create an impression of their enthusiasm for book removal - indeed your dirigible (like a blimp, but more rigid apparently)fan seems to have precisely taken this meaning.
Scoop adds: You are wrong. I suggest you go to Amazon and peruse the books on logical arguments, or contact your course tutor to see if some remedial lessons on logical thinking can be arranged. In addition, this post was not a “long critique”, Kholan Hasan’s own words were enough to get the message across about her true commitment to liberal values. Only a mindless fool of the highest order would have taken this post to be an endorsement of banning books.
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 17:22
and he seems to be saying “good” to the book banners
Not at all, the post is about the views of someone who was claiming to speak for all Muslims. In fact, on this I am a liberal and my views on freedom of expression are close to Mill’s. Scoop was exposing the views of someone invited onto television to speak as a representative without specific reference to her political allegiance.
There is a second issue here. How should the small purchase grants of a public library be used? I would certainly question it if they were buying up copies of, say, holocaust denial literature. Questioning whether some literature should be available free through a public library system is very different from banning books.
You should also check on the origin of the name of this blog.
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 17:47
Incidentally, I will now be a pedant on the use of quotation marks. You can use them round ‘adult education’ as that is how I describe my employment on my profile. When you write who I discover is an “anarchist” you are selectively quoting, as my profile says that I am ‘a researcher into the history of Anarchism’. Indeed, I teach on the history of ideas and hold a doctorate on late 19th and early 20th Century Anarchism. This is not the same thing as being an anarchist. Your use of quotes is, therefore, misleading. The most egregious use comes when you write he seems to be saying “good” to the book banners. The word ‘good’ is in quotation marks though it appears nowhere in my brief comment. I use the word ‘excellent’ but not in the context of book banning. You are welcome to disagree with me but not to misrepresent me by claiming non-existent quotations and removing single words from context.