Hate speech in British mosques

David T at Harry’s Place writes about hate literature on sale in British mosques:

The Policy Exchange has uncovered the presence, in mosques, islamic schools, and other cultural organisations, of political material which flies in the face of the values which Inayat and I cherish.

Hate material was found at only 25% of British Mosques surveyed. However, those mosques were typically those generously funded by Saudi Arabia, and included many institutions regarded as both moderate and mainstream.

One of the examples he gives is this:

I believe that Jehad is obligatory against hostile, non-compromising, nonMuslim states if Muslims have enough power to carry it out, so that their force is broken and they do not obstruct the preaching of Islam. Aggressive Jehad is not advisable against those non hostile and compromising non Muslim states who allow preaching of Islam in their territories particularly these days when territorial subjugation is generally condemned in the world, contrary to the times when capture of land was common. The Aggressive Jehads of the major part of Islamic history all belong to the same period. However, Muslims must attain their martial superiority and keep expanding it so that non Muslim states remain subdued ‘for fear of Jehad’, to say nothing of actual Jehad.
– Islam and Modernism, Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani who is a prominent Deobandi cleric

Now let’s modify this paragraph somewhat:

I believe that war is morally correct against hostile, non-compromising, non-Western states that are part of the Axis of Evil if the USA and its allies have enough power to carry it out, so that their force is broken and they do not obstruct the spread of freedom and democracy. Aggressive war is not advisable against those non-hostile and compromising non-Western states particularly these days when territorial subjugation is generally condemned in the world, contrary to the times when capture of land was common. However, the USA must keep its military superiority so that non-Western states remain subdued for fear of being attacked, to say nothing of actually being attacked.

This paragraph is probably very close to the beliefs of George Bush and Tony Blair. If one is hate speech and should be banned, then on what grounds is the other not hate speech? Or does David T think statements like the 2nd should be banned too?