Hasan at a Labour conference in 2012
|Born||Mehdi Raza Hasan
1979 (age 37–38)
|Alma mater||Christ Church, Oxford|
|Organization||Al Jazeera English|
|Notable work||Ed: The Milibands and the making of a Labour leader|
|Television||The Café, Head To Head, UpFront|
From Shia Muslim and British Indian background,, Hasan is the co-author of a biography of Ed Miliband and the political editor of the UK version of The Huffington Post. He is the presenter of the Al Jazeera English shows: The Café, Head to Head and UpFront.
Hasan was educated at Merchant Taylors' School, a day independent school for boys at Sandy Lodge in the Three Rivers District of Hertfordshire, near the town of Northwood in North West London, followed by Christ Church at the University of Oxford, where he read Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE), and graduated in 2000.
Hasan worked as a researcher and then producer on LWT's Jonathan Dimbleby programme, with a brief period in between on BBC1's The Politics Show. Following this, he became deputy executive producer on Sky's breakfast show Sunrise before moving to Channel 4 as their editor of news and current affairs. He was appointed senior editor (politics) at the New Statesman in late spring of 2009, where he stayed until May 2012, then becoming political director of The Huffington Post website.
Hasan became a presenter on Al Jazeera's English news channel in May 2012. Hasan has appeared (six times) on the BBC's Question Time programme, and the Sunday morning programmes The Big Questions and Sunday Morning Live.
Recorded at the Oxford Union, Head to Head is a programme on Al Jazeera English in which Hasan interviews major public figures; it had run for three series by December 2014. Since 2015, working full-time for the network in Washington DC, Hasan has hosted a weekly interview and discussion programme.
In a 14 February 2013 article for the New Statesman, Hasan wrote:
The Iraq war was a strategic disaster – or, as the Tory minister Kenneth Clarke put it in a recent BBC radio discussion, 'the most disastrous foreign policy decision of my lifetime ... worse than Suez'. The invasion and occupation of the country undermined the moral standing of the western powers; empowered Iran and its proxies; heightened the threat from al-Qaeda at home and abroad; and sent a clear signal to 'rogue' regimes that the best (the only?) means of deterring a pre-emptive, US-led attack was to acquire weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq has been destroyed and hundreds of thousands of innocent people have lost their lives, as the direct result of an unnecessary, unprovoked war that, according to the former chief justice Lord Bingham, was a 'serious violation of international law'.
A regular contributor to The Guardian, Hasan argued in November 2011: "Wouldn't it be rational for Iran – geographically encircled, politically isolated, feeling threatened – to want its own arsenal of nukes, for defensive and deterrent purposes?" Pointing out the difference between America, and its allies, going to "war with non-nuclear Iraq" and their "diplomacy with nuclear-armed North Korea", Hasan concluded: "The simple fact is there is no alternative to diplomacy, no matter how truculent or paranoid the leaders of Iran might seem to western eyes."
Hasan wrote an article in The Guardian in September 2011 condemning the Iranian regime for its proposed execution of an "apostate." "The death sentence given to Youcef Nadarkhani in Iran is an affront to universal moral values and a disservice to Muslims."
Hasan, a Shia Muslim, has written articles about Islam and Muslims for the New Statesman and newspapers. He has written in favour of secularism, writing that a "religiously neutral model of governance" is the only way for a country like India to "prosper". "My Islamic faith is based on the principles of peace, moderation and mercy", he wrote in September 2012. While Muslims "have every right to be angry", such "anger, however, is not an excuse for extremism."
In April 2009, Hasan argued against the concept and idea of an Islamic state. He argues that "Today it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify a Muslim-majority nation that could plausibly be identified as a modern, viable and legitimate "Islamic state" and that "contrary to popular Muslim opinion, there is not a shred of theological, historical or empirical evidence to support the existence of such an entity."
In November 2009, Hasan wrote a column denouncing suicide bombing from an Islamic perspective. Hasan argued that "There is, in fact, nothing Islamic about so-called Islamic terrorism… So why are many Muslims so reluctant to condemn such cold-blooded tactics of terror?"
In April 2010, Hasan wrote a piece condemning the controversial Islamic advocacy of the death penalty for apostasy in the New Statesman. He states that "The sharia (or Islamic law), it is claimed, sanctions the death penalty for any adult Muslim who chooses to leave the faith, or apostatise. This is an intellectually, morally and, perhaps above all, theologically unsustainable position."
In April 2012, Hasan wrote an article criticising British Muslims for being obsessed with foreign affairs and the anti-war movement. He criticised British Muslims' apparent apathy towards national issues: "Why is it that most British Muslims get so excited and aroused by foreign affairs, yet seem so bored by and uninterested in domestic politics and the economy?"
Following the 2017 Westminster attack, Hasan wrote an article in The Intercept criticizing what he referred to as the "common stereotype of the Middle Eastern, Muslim-born terrorist." He pointed out that the perpetrator for the Westminster attack, Khalid Masood, was born and raised in the United Kingdom and, therefore would not have been affected by any immigration ban. He also pointed out that Masood converted to Islam late in life and still had a history of criminality prior to his conversion. Hasan concluded, ergo, that while "a distorted, simplistic and politicized form of Islam" provided the justification for Masood's actions, the main motivation lied in "social networks and family ties; issues of identity and belonging; a sense of persecution; mental illness; socio-economic grievances; moral outrage over conflict and torture; a craving for glory and purpose, action and adventure." Hasan also referenced to a 2008 leaked report by researchers for MI5,[note 1] a 2010 Demos study,[note 2] and a 2016 Egmont study,[note 3] that came to similar conclusions "challeng[ing] the conventional... wisdom on the role of religion in the radicalization process."
Hasan stated that the media should be sanctioned for "dishonest, demonising press coverage" of Muslims and other minorities, stating: "I'm all in favour of free speech and the robust criticism of all religious beliefs. But it's the made-up stories and the smearing of individuals and whole communities that I have an issue with. Why isn't anti-Muslim bigotry as unacceptable in the press as anti-Jewish bigotry?".
In October 2013, on BBC Question Time, Hasan claimed that The Daily Mail was, among other accusations, "Muslim-smearing". The paper responded by claiming that he had applied to them for a column in 2010, praising their editorial standards and some of their positions.
"What I would like is for my fellow lefties and liberals to try to understand and respect the views of those of us who are pro-life," Hasan wrote in an October 2012 online column for the New Statesman. Hasan argued that the issue of abortion "is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies: right-wingers talk of equality, human rights and 'defending the innocent', while left-wingers fetishise 'choice', selfishness and unbridled individualism." (He later regretted expressing himself in this way.) The article gained much attention on Twitter and Hasan debated the issue with Suzanne Moore on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4.
Telegraph blogger Brendan O'Neill thought both Hasan and his pro-choice opponents shared the modern left's "instinct for paternalism" which contrasted, he asserted, with the pre-occupations of radicals a century ago, an era in which such figures, Hasan asserted, often opposed abortion. Labour MP Diane Abbott thought that "any feminist, worth the name, knows that control over [our] own bodies is ground zero for every educational, social and economic advance that women have made in the last century". Cristina Odone wrote: "There are some things no one is allowed to speak of – especially if they are men."
During a sermon delivered in 2009, quoting a verse of the Quran, Hasan said to an audience: "The kuffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Koran; they are described in the Koran as “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Koran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world."
In response to criticism over the use of the term "cattle" to describe non-believers, Hasan wrote in his New Statesman blog: "The Quranic phrase 'people of no intelligence' simply and narrowly refers to the fact that Muslims regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position, just as atheists (like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris) regard believers as fundamentally irrational and, even, mentally deficient." Hasan returned to this issue in August 2012 following criticism from the columnist Peter Hitchens. Hasan wrote: "the entire 45-minute speech is primarily an attack on Muslim extremists who try and justify violence against non-Muslims on an 'ends justify the means' basis", but noted of his 2009 comments that his "phraseology was ill-judged, ill-advised and, even, inappropriate".
None of the audio/visual content is hosted on this site. All media is embedded from other sites such as GoogleVideo, Wikipedia, YouTube etc. Therefore, this site has no control over the copyright issues of the streaming media.
All issues concerning copyright violations should be aimed at the sites hosting the material. This site does not host any of the streaming media and the owner has not uploaded any of the material to the video hosting servers. Anyone can find the same content on Google Video or YouTube by themselves.
The owner of this site cannot know which documentaries are in public domain, which has been uploaded to e.g. YouTube by the owner and which has been uploaded without permission. The copyright owner must contact the source if he wants his material off the Internet completely.