My response to Mehdi Hasan

Yesterday, Mehdi Hasan published a video on X, responding to my interview with Sami Hamdi and how this has changed the public debate in America. For context, our conversation has circulated far and wide in US circles, and one particular clip has been picked up by many, including prominent non-Muslim influencers. You can see some of its impact here, here and here.

Mehdi recognises the impact this is having on US Muslims and has decided supporting Harris is regrettably a hill he is willing to die on.

Dear Mehdi,

Assalam alaikum warahmatullah brother,

Let me start by saying my disagreement with your problematic logic does not take away from the good you have done on Gaza, and neither does it (contrary to your assertions) make me believe you to be a lesser Muslim for holding these views. Indeed, the central argument of my guest, Sami Hamdi, in our Thinking Muslim interview was based on a series of well-crafted political points, and not to 'badger people based on faith'. Contrary to what you said, at no point in our discussion did Sami say, "It is your obligation as a Muslim to vote against Harris". He was not making a faith-based argument but rather a political one.

Any fair-minded person who watched the conversation could only conclude that he forwards a compelling story for why voting for Harris is not only politically naïve, it undermines any political leverage Muslims may feel they have. That's why the most substantial positive comments have come from conscientious non-Muslims moved by his logic. One only needs to read the YouTube comments to see evidence of this.

But it seems to me that the comments surrounding weaponising religion and the like were not aimed at addressing the arguments but rather to prepare your liberal-minded base that your anti-Harris detractors should be dismissed because they are religiously motivated. You are not averse to using political emotion to make an argument, but it seems when Sami does this, he is being a zealot, but when you do it, you are 'winning the argument'. I am disappointed in why you believe this is a faithful way to engage in a political discussion.

Let's then really get to your central argument that not voting for Harris means Muslims would have helped Trump win. And Trump will be worse than Harris. In a two-party system, only one of the two candidates can win. But, with your political logic, there is actually nothing the Democrats can do that will give you a reason not to vote for Harris. In my piece here,  I detail the charge sheet against the Biden-Harris Administration. You suggest that because Trump is worse, we have to hold our noses and vote for the Democrats, who you admit support genocide. It's akin to calling upon a victim of domestic abuse to stay with her violent partner because the streets are a more dangerous place.

I agree with you that when it comes to foreign policy, and in particular Palestine, Trump is as bad as Biden and the Democrats. Under his watch, not only did he support MBS in Yemen, but also committed horrific crimes in cities like Mosul under the guise of liberation. But you forget to mention that Saudi Arabia’s deranged Yemen campaign started under Obama's watch, and he showed as much disdain for Muslim lives as Trump. Obama helped subvert the Arab Spring in countries like Egypt and ensured the Arab world remained under 'strong men' who supported Western interests. He widened the death and destruction of Afghanistan, with his ‘troop surge’, failing to accept the failure of US militarism.  He also widened drone warfare, including targeting US citizens, and at the time, analysts warned this would hand a killing machine to a future president.

It's no surprise then that Trump went on a drone killing spree; he had the legal and technological resources at his disposal thanks to his 'liberal' predecessor. The fundamental pointe here is that both the Democrats and the Republicans have similar propensities to hypocrisy. Playing brutal American foreign policy top trumps is a fool's errand.

This lesser of the two evils argument is overly simplistic. When it comes to US foreign policy, elections are a game of Russian roulette. Both parties have the propensity to wage war, commit genocide, dehumanise, feed the Israeli war machine and worse. You claim Trump will go to war with Iran as if that's a result of some peculiar Republican misadventure. The truth is, the current administration is colluding with the Israelis to find suitable Iranian targets, with many analysts suggesting they are waiting until after November 5th so such an escalation will not ruin their election campaign.

There are definitely strained relations between the Biden team and Netanyahu. These tensions come not from strategic differences but from immediate tactical considerations. Of course, some in the current Israeli regime are rooting for Trump, but that’s not because the Democrats have not been wilful accomplices. Instead, their need to appease conscientious voters means they have often used language the Israelis find detestable. This genocidal state can only hear varnished praise. 

Whatever the case, it's impossible to weigh up their evil. Each administration outdoes one another. I suspect in 2020, people on your side of the argument would have been claiming at least Biden wouldn't commit genocide and is in favour of a two-state solution. It is beyond credulity to claim such a thing today after so many murders in Gaza.

I would suggest, my brother, that in reality, despite your protestations, you are endorsing Harris, and no amount of killing and murder between now and the election will change this endorsement, because ‘Trump is worse’. If tomorrow, Harris allowed the Israelis to bomb Madinah, the claim would be that Trump would have bombed Makkah, so we should still vote for Harris. There comes a time when we say, enough is enough of this two-party nightmare.

No one is being politically naïve here. We don't believe Muslim voters can pick winners. But there is a crack in the system that allows American Muslims to help consolidate a loss. Harris must lose. We must punish her administration for genocide. I agree with you; when it comes to foreign policy, this punishment at the hands of pro-Gaza voters may not achieve the leverage some claim within the Democratic Party. But punishing genocide is a good in itself. It does not need to lead to a systemic change for it to be the most appropriate action.

I do, however, believe that if enough anti-genocide voters can bank their votes in, say, the Green Party, then that helps build a compelling media story that Gaza is what led to Harris's loss. You may retort, zionists have a disproportionate sway over the media, and they will ignore you. I would respond that's why we rely on alternative media, like Zeteo to be on the right side of history. If we restrict ourselves to the artificial limits set by this American empire, then we would never be able to tell our story. You understand this more than many. 

Dear brother, we have it within our ability to punish the proponents of genocide of this administration. And we have it in our ability to coin an alternative story for the fallen in Gaza. But to do what Muslims have always done, time and time again, and vote for a party that consistently disappoints is no more than doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

When we spoke last week, I extended an invite to The Thinking Muslim the next time you are in London. That invite still remains, and despite our disagreements, I will always support the good that you do.