Suhaib Hasan - Who is he and why should I care?

You —

Who is he, why was he attacked on some program and did he really change his views after the program?

If so, why did he change them? What did he change from and what to?

I am quoting from a post in another place:

(articles like http://www.votinghalalorharam.blogspot.com/ show even the confusion, divisions and even political pressures on Western Muslim scholars to conform otherwise they are labelled preachers of hate and marginalised like what Ch. 4 did to Suhaib Hasan who in turn quickly turned and began to praise democracy - what can they do?)

The bit that I do not get is that non acceptance of demcoracy is not a crime in the UK. Why would he then be forced to change his view - if that is what actually happened?

From the narration I doubt that is what happened at all, but I will let others do the leg work instead of presuming.

Forum
General

39 comments

Anonymous1 (not verified) Fri, 18 Jun 2010 - 02:03

You

Anonymous1Most academic works are not subjective - just take a look at many political texts - they are quite clear in their purport.

This bit puzzles me... I have not read very many political books about political theory... but since they are written by humans with their own experiences and political leanings, surely they cannot be objective? I would classify these as subjective.

Subjective books are those where there are no facts to verify except personal intuition/judgement - objective are those where there are facts. Political texts geared towards undergraduates for example are all full of facts...

YouThe books that follow (eg political analysis) are after the fact and an attempt to understand something. They do not need to be complete, unbiased or anything, but merely the results of the author's writings and research.

Much political analysis is geared in fact to predicting where events are heading - read Nixon Foundation, Stratfor or Heritage Foundation's analysis for example.
Some political analysis is after the fact as you rightly say.
But not sure of your point here?

Ya'qub Fri, 18 Jun 2010 - 02:09

Anonymous1

It may not have occurred to you that you disagree with my views so vehemently as you may have an extreme ideological outlook which you have never bothered to think about.

if you'd read my posts, u'd realise that i actually agree on most things u say... especially when it comes to Britishness and identity etc.

What I don't like is your horrible character. Or at least that's the way you've come across on this forum.

And why should I answer any of your questions when you still ignored the ONE question I asked you (twice)?

I was actually very polite to you at first telling other people not to give you a hard time.

But you constantly divert conversations from their original topic, ask irrelevant questions and try to belittle people's ideas and suggestions.

So unless I notice a change in the way you address other people, no, I won't be answering any of your questions.

Anonymous1 (not verified) Fri, 18 Jun 2010 - 02:45

Ya'qub

Anonymous1Your choice - you are free to do what you want...

So that means you're not going to start debating politely and sensibly with people, I take it.

I debate politely and sensibly with people - where I don't and someone provides some substantiation, I will apologise and be more careful in future.

Where someone doesn't discuss sensibly, resorting to rhetoric, personality attacks or polemic, or utilises sarcasm, irony or cynicism, I see no problem in employing it with them.

You Fri, 18 Jun 2010 - 10:36

Anonymous1
I debate politely and sensibly with people

depends on if you are holding others to the same standard s yourself... you found this statement of mine rude: "I want proof"

On the other hand in your defence I have also been ill mannered often enough, and probably not given you reason to act otherwise...

You Fri, 18 Jun 2010 - 10:40

Anonymous1It may not have occurred to you that you disagree with my views so vehemently as you may have an extreme ideological outlook which you have never bothered to think about.

This can actually be judged from posting style.

Ya'qub generally expected people to agree with him in many posts, indicating that his opinions are not that different from what others have in the circles that he has explored.

Yopu on the other hand have attacked everyone, which to me indicates that in the circles that you travel, your opinions are not all that popular or expected, which makes you combative from the start.

Is that true? Do your opinions fit in with the people around you?

(do you even like and accept very many Muslims?)

Anonymous1 (not verified) Fri, 18 Jun 2010 - 14:01

You

Anonymous1It may not have occurred to you that you disagree with my views so vehemently as you may have an extreme ideological outlook which you have never bothered to think about.

This can actually be judged from posting style.

Ya'qub generally expected people to agree with him in many posts, indicating that his opinions are not that different from what others have in the circles that he has explored.

Not too sure what the point of this is...

YouYopu on the other hand have attacked everyone, which to me indicates that in the circles that you travel, your opinions are not all that popular or expected, which makes you combative from the start.

Popularity of opinions is neither here nor there - if it was, we wouldn't be Muslims as the companions would have followed the Quraysh and not the opinions of the Prophet(saw).
It is interesting how you will use any and every kufr criteria to determine the truth (from numbers, popularity, number of scholars etc), apart from the correct one Islam and reason ordains for us - the evidence!

Comments are closed on this post.