Maajid Nawaz

Raoul said:
Very interesting Sults. Choudhary seems to support a near ISIS-like Shari'a state where as Nawaz seem to challenge ordinary Muslims to condemn things like apostate beheadings etc. Do you really feel there's a moral equivalence between both their positions ?
Click to expand...
Both their positions are very unlikely to attract much support from everyday Muslims. Choudhry is siding with extremist nutjobs, and Nawaaz is pandering to audiences who want to water down Islam.
 
Raoul said:
I gathered that as well. I'm mainly curious why someone who is critical of the worst interpretations of his own religion is widely criticized by so called mainstream members of the same religion. What does that say about the current state of main stream Islam in Britain.
Click to expand...

As you say, his personal experience should be invaluable to better anaylising and understanding the problem of radicalisation. But hey, he's been to a strip club and has a dodgy friend, so who cares?

Sultan said:
Both their positions are very unlikely to attract much support from everyday Muslims. Choudhry is siding with extremist nutjobs, and Nawaaz is pandering to audiences who want to water down Islam.
Click to expand...

Comparing an extremist to a reformer doesn't particularly paint you as very moderate.
 
Sultan said:
Both their positions are very unlikely to attract much support from everyday Muslims. Choudhry is siding with extremist nutjobs, and Nawaaz is pandering to audiences who want to water down Islam.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But what has Nawaz said or done that would water down Islam ? All i've seen from him are criticisms of Salafists and ISIS types who don't condemn things like stoning adulterers or gays to death or killing non-Muslims under Shari'a.
 
Mockney said:
Comparing an extremist to a reformer doesn't particularly paint you as very moderate.
Click to expand...
Who has the right to give such titles as a moderate or extremist?

I'm content with my line of thinking of faith which wouldn't allow me to even use a fly killer never mind condoning someone to be stoned or beheaded. If people were killed for adultery, disbelief or being gay as is widely claimed to vilify Islam there'd be mass graves dug around many parts of the world every day.
 
Sultan said:
Who has the right to give such titles as a moderate or extremist?

I'm content with my line of thinking of faith which wouldn't allow me to even use a fly killer never mind condoning someone to be stoned or beheaded. If people were killed for adultery, disbelief or being gay as is widely claimed to vilify Islam there'd be mass graves dug around many parts of the world every day.
Click to expand...

Its a matter of legal and social norms in the UK isn't it? Choudhary is a proponent of Britain moving to Shari'a law whereas Nawaz seeks to deradicalize the Islamist narrative. They seem a million miles apart in that sense.
 
Sultan said:
Who has the right to give such titles as a moderate or extremist?

I'm content with my line of thinking of faith which wouldn't allow me to even use a fly killer never mind condoning someone to be stoned or beheaded. If people were killed for adultery, disbelief or being gay as is widely claimed to vilify Islam there'd be mass graves dug around many parts of the world every day.
Click to expand...

I've no idea what that has to do with your comparison of Nawaz and Choudhary.
 
It's very well finding religious quotes to show the rigidness or backward nature of religion. However, people hardly research enough to find the many strict conditions, restrictions to prevent execution to be admissible or fulfilled.
 
Sultan said:
It's very well finding religious quotes to show the rigidness or backward nature of religion. However, people hardly research enough to find the many strict conditions, restrictions to prevent execution to be admissible or fulfilled.
Click to expand...

I agree generally. I just found it odd how none of the people he asked on TV were comfortable condemning things like stoning and killing non-Muslims.
 
Raoul said:
Its a matter of legal and social norms in the UK isn't it? Choudhary is a proponent of Britain moving to Shari'a law whereas Nawaz seeks to deradicalize the Islamist narrative. They seem a million miles apart in that sense.
Click to expand...
Choudhry is in my opinion a nut-job. I don't consider my self as radicalised. Yet Mockney hinted my opinion as not coming across me as very moderate for not siding with either Choudhry or Maajid.
 
Sultan said:
Choudhry is in my opinion a nut-job. I don't consider my self as radicalised. Yet Mockney hinted my opinion as not coming across me as very moderate for not siding with either Choudhry or Maajid.
Click to expand...

I don't expect you to side with either, but by equating them as as bad as each other - when one is (as you say) a nut job who incites violence and the other a diplomat who advocates reform - it gives the impression you consider Nawaz as extreme as Choudhary. Or at least as equally far away from your own interpretation of Islam. Which is a position I don't personally consider to be very moderate.

It's easy to dismiss Choudhry as a nutter. He praises 9/11 and supports global Sharia. To try and dismiss Nawaz as one too seems more like an attempt to dismiss his criticisms, since he's clearly not of the same ilk. But hey, I'm probably one of those he's pandering to.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
He is quite articulate and an advocate of normalization of perceptions of Islam among non-Muslims. I can understand however, where the likes of Hasan and Nawaz would bump heads, as they seem to approach the same problem through different solutions. Its fascinating to me that Nawaz, the one person who has had the experience of having been radicalized, served time in prison, then de-radicalized, is being shouted down so vociferously by so called mainstream Muslim talking heads when he is one of the few people qualified to talk about Islamism and deradicalization. Why are mainstream Muslims so opposed to concepts like comdemning apostate beheadings under Shari'a conditions (like this guy @ 3:30 in the video) or (this guy towards the end, who seems to have a problem with condemning stoning women to death).
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with Maajid and his views on a secular state, secular education and denouncing all of the evils of evil people professing to be Muslims etc. I think the problem he is facing is that he has lost touch with the Muslim communities and is being seen as an outsider by them, almost blending into, what they see, as the Anti-Islam noise.

We need to both respect the right to religious expression and also admit that some areas of Islam in many ways do have to change if it wants to be a cohesive part of our society. This is why we need someone who can bridge both the close-knit muslim communities and the wider non-muslim population. Otherwise we risk further making it an us vs them debate, which it should not be. The debate should be phrased in terms of making a more cohesive society, not by demonising (moderate) muslims or by saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with their religion and also not by Muslims closing off and refusing to accept any change.
 
HabeasC said:
I 100% agree with Maajid and his views on a secular state, secular education and denouncing all of the evils of evil people professing to be Muslims etc. I think the problem he is facing is that he has lost touch with the Muslim communities and is being seen as an outsider by them, almost blending into, what they see, as the Anti-Islam noise.

We need to both respect the right to religious expression and also admit that some areas of Islam in many ways do have to change if it wants to be a cohesive part of our society. This is why we need someone who can bridge both the close-knit muslim communities and the wider non-muslim population. Otherwise we risk further making it an us vs them debate, which it should not be. The debate should be phrased in terms of making a more cohesive society, not by demonising (moderate) muslims or by saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with their religion and also not by Muslims closing off and refusing to accept any change.
Click to expand...

I agree with this generally, I'm just confused as to why Nawaz isn't that person. He seems to have the background to do it as a reformed jihadist who understands why people get radicalized in the first place. He seems to raise perfectly reasonable questions that generally seem to make the mainstream "moderate" Muslim community a bit uncomfortable, which seems a bit odd to me.
 
Raoul said:
I agree with this generally, I'm just confused as to why Nawaz isn't that person. He seems to have the background to do it as a reformed jihadist who understands why people get radicalized in the first place. He seems to raise perfectly reasonable questions that generally seem to make the mainstream "moderate" Muslim community a bit uncomfortable, which seems a bit odd to me.
Click to expand...
Yes it reminds of his appearance on newsnight with Mehdi Hasan and Mo Ansar

The way the conversation went to turn on Maajid was slightly worrying on what was such a basic question.
 
Sweet Square said:
Yes it reminds of his appearance on newsnight with Mehdi Hasan and Mo Ansar

The way the conversation went to turn on Maajid was slightly worrying on what was such a basic question.
Click to expand...


Yep, I lost a bit of respect for Hasan when i first saw this. He seemed to have the knives out for Nawaz from the get go but couldn't really get into the substance of the retweeted cartoon. As for Ansar, I don't even know why he gets invited onto these shows. Seems like he has little to offer the discussion.
 
Raoul said:
Yep, I lost a bit of respect for Hasan when i first saw this. He seemed to have the knives out for Nawaz from the get go but couldn't really get into the substance of the retweeted cartoon. As for Ansar, I don't even know why he gets invited onto these shows. Seems like he has little to offer the discussion.
Click to expand...
Ansar understands better than most that if you want to exploit the media you must always be available to harassed researchers on rolling news programmes. ‘He invented himself as a rent-a-quote commentator,’ says the LBC broadcaster Iain Dale. ‘We know he’ll always say “yes”. And when you’re setting up a topic, that’s worth its weight in gold.’ A producer recalled marvelling as Ansar bombarded him with ideas for films. ‘This man wants to be on television more than anything else in the world,’ he thought.
Click to expand...
 

So much so that he recently did a segment on Russell Brand's channel. Now that's desperation.
 
Raoul said:
I agree with this generally, I'm just confused as to why Nawaz isn't that person. He seems to have the background to do it as a reformed jihadist who understands why people get radicalized in the first place. He seems to raise perfectly reasonable questions that generally seem to make the mainstream "moderate" Muslim community a bit uncomfortable, which seems a bit odd to me.
Click to expand...

I think he has the credentials to be that person. However, he is disliked by a number of muslim communities and is trying too hard to be liked by middle England. By alienating the people he is professing to represent, he is like a general without an army.
 
I really don't understand the need for politicians to be saints. We elect them to provide good governance, not moral lessons. Competency in improving social infrastructure should be priority not whether he goes for a lap dance or not.
 
Raoul said:
Yep, I lost a bit of respect for Hasan when i first saw this. He seemed to have the knives out for Nawaz from the get go but couldn't really get into the substance of the retweeted cartoon. As for Ansar, I don't even know why he gets invited onto these shows. Seems like he has little to offer the discussion.
Click to expand...
Yeah Hasan has some strange opinions at times, I haven't listened to anything he's wrote after this mess( http://www.newstatesman.com/mehdi-hasan/2015/01/muslim-i-m-fed-hypocrisy-free-speech-fundamentalists).

Still I'm getting off topic.
 
Sweet Square said:
Yeah Hasan has some strange opinions at times, I haven't listened to anything he's wrote after this mess( http://www.newstatesman.com/mehdi-hasan/2015/01/muslim-i-m-fed-hypocrisy-free-speech-fundamentalists).

Still I'm getting off topic.
Click to expand...

Hasan would have more credibility if he stopped trying to be the articulate protector of Islam in Britain and gave up trying to be a Hitchens like polemicist. That sort of thing only works if you're on the right side of the issues.
 
Raoul said:
Hasan would have more credibility if he stopped trying to be the articulate protector of Islam in Britain and gave up trying to be a Hitchens like polemicist. That sort of thing only works if you're on the right side of the issues.
Click to expand...
Agree.

While I think it's clearly worth having debates like the one on Newsnight, I always get the feeling that us even debating this (Although people should be able to debate whatever they want) some how adds some credibly to these's ideas. You can end up watching hours of debates and then at end you have to remind yourself that it's all about a story with as much evidence as the Tooth Fairy or Santa.

It's incredibly frustrating.

Also here's a interview with Maajid from a couple of months ago for anyone interested.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaP...&islist=false&id=377442344&m=377495115&live=1
 
Last edited:
Mehdi Hasan is a barefaced hypocrite. He goes on telly blasting the Daily Mail pretending he's sticking up for immigrants and the poor after he wrote this pathetic letter asking that cnut Dacre for a job.

Dear Mr Dacre,

My name is Mehdi Hasan and I’m the New Statesman’s senior political editor. My good friend Peter Oborne suggested I drop you a line as I’m very keen to write for the Daily Mail.

Although I am on the left of the political spectrum, and disagree with the Mail’s editorial line on a range of issues, I have always admired the paper’s passion, rigour, boldness and, of course, news values. I believe the Mail has a vitally important role to play in the national debate, and I admire your relentless focus on the need for integrity and morality in public life, and your outspoken defence of faith, and Christian culture, in the face of attacks from militant atheists and secularists. I also believe – as does Peter – that I could be a fresh and passionate, not to mention polemical and contrarian, voice on the comment and feature pages of your award-winning newspaper.

For the record, I am not a Labour tribalist and am often ultra-critical of the left – especially on social and moral issues, where my fellow leftists and liberals have lost touch with their own traditions and with the great British public. In my column in this week’s issue of the New Statesman, for example, I offered a critique of the five Labour leadership candidates, and their various inadequacies, accusing them all of lacking what George Bush Snr once called “the vision thing”.
I could therefore write pieces for the Mail critical of Labour and the left, from “inside” Labour and the left (as the senior political editor at the New Statesman).

I am also attracted by the Mail’s social conservatism on issues like marriage, the family, abortion and teenage pregnancies. I’d like to write a piece for the Mail making the left-wing case against abortion, or a piece on why marriage should be a Labour value, and not just a Conservative one. My own unabashed social conservatism on such issues derives from my Islamic faith. But as a British Muslim, I have also upset some of my more hardline co-religionists in the past by arguing, in print, for a change in Islam’s draconian apostasy laws to allow Muslims to convert to other faiths (like Christianity). Here is a New Statesman column I wrote on the subject in April.

In addition, I wrote a column last year condemning suicide bombings, from an Islamic and moral perspective, in which I also castigated Muslims for failing to unequivocally condemn such acts of terror wherever in the world they occur.
And, earlier this year, I wrote a piece for the Guardian belittling Muslim extremist Anjum Choudary and his crude, headline-grabbing attempt to carry “coffins” through Wootton Bassett.

A bit of background: I am 31, and was born and brought up in the United Kingdom, the son of Indian immigrants (an engineer and a doctor) who came here in the 1960s. I am an Oxford graduate. Prior to joining the New Statesman in June 2009, I spent a decade working in television as a news-and-current-affairs producer at ITN, the BBC, Sky News and Channel 4.

I do hope you’ll consider me for future columns and features in the Daily Mail on political, social, moral and/or religious issues. I believe you once told sports columnist Des Kelly that he should “make them laugh, make them cry, or make them angry”. That’s something I believe I could do for you, and for your readers, on the pages of the Mail.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Mehdi Hasan
Senior Editor (Politics)
New Statesman
Click to expand...
 
Crono said:
Mehdi Hasan is a barefaced hypocrite. He goes on telly blasting the Daily Mail pretending he's sticking up for immigrants and the poor after he wrote this pathetic letter asking that cnut Dacre for a job.
Click to expand...

Its a shame he has such a muppet side to him. Otherwise he could make an effective advocate for his positions.
 
Sultan said:
Anjum Choudhry and Maajid Nawaz are both polar opposites. They both pander to different audiences.

I can't stand both characters.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. You may not like Nawaz but seriously.
 
soap said:
Oh come on. You may not like Nawaz but seriously.
Click to expand...

I also find the idea that Nawaz is the opposite of Choudhary a bit strange. One is basically an ISIS proponent while the other is attempting to drive people away from radicalization.
 
Nawaz is basically secular, that's the main oppositional factor.
 
Uzz said:
One is ultra right wing, the other is ultra left wing. They are opposite ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

You consider challenging the radicalized, Islamist narrative to be ultra-right wing ? Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.