Maajid Nawaz

@Raoul - his critiquing of radical Islam doesn't make him ultra left wing. It's his views on how to reform Islam, and his actions that make him ultra left wing.

@Silva - I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I have no real desire or intention of debating this with you. If you'd like to debate the nuances of Maajid Nawaz's views with a Muslim (not me, obv.), PM me your questions and I can pass them on to a brother who doesn't mind debating with you.
 
Uzz said:
@Raoul - his critiquing of radical Islam doesn't make him ultra left wing. It's his views on how to reform Islam, and his actions that make him ultra left wing.
Click to expand...

What specific views that he supports can you cite that would make him "ultra-left wing" ?
 
aren't these labels completely pointless in this context? I have no idea what an radical right-wing or radical-left wing Muslim is. Reformist vs. conservative would make sense to me, but thats just semantics.
His argument is reasonable. I´d be slightly worried if mainstream Muslims have any problem with this interview.
 
Uzz said:
One is ultra right wing, the other is ultra left wing. They are opposite ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

One openly supports Isis. The polar opposite of that is a white supremacist, or something like that. Not a fecking would be lib dem MP!
 
Raoul said:
What specific views that he supports can you cite that would make him "ultra-left wing" ?
Click to expand...

His tweeting of pics of religious figures in Islam, is one.

I don't want to get drawn into a debate of Maajid Nawaz's views. I don't really see the point. I think it's clear from your posts that you know the views he exposes, so, tbh, there isn't really any need for me to reiterate what you already know.

soap said:
One openly supports Isis. The polar opposite of that is a white supremacist, or something like that. Not a fecking would be lib dem MP!
Click to expand...

Uzz said:
One is ultra right wing, the other is ultra left wing. They are opposite ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Uzz said:
I should have added *of Islam, to the end of my post.
Click to expand...

Uzz said:
Within the context of Islam, of course.
Click to expand...
 
Mockney said:
How about the proof of his involvement in a fake EDL rally you promised a couple pages back?
Click to expand...
I can't find it. It was a FB shared status which linked to something separate. The story broke almost a month ago, so I have no methodological way of trawling into FB in that depth.

Having said that, I stand by what he said. Maajid Nawaz definitely knew/facilitated the shady business between Afzal Amin and the EDL.

@rednev
 
Uzz said:
I can't find it. It was a FB shared status which linked to something separate. The story broke almost a month ago, so I have no methodological way of trawling into FB in that depth.

Having said that, I stand by what he said. Maajid Nawaz definitely knew/facilitated the shady business between Afzal Amin and the EDL.

@rednev
Click to expand...

You can appreciate, how without any evidence, or being willing to actually discuss his views, despite being the first person to post in this thread, that you look like you're in here purely to smear someone who's views you don't like?

Something Nawaz himself has claimed (and trawed FB in depth to prove) he encounters a lot from so called moderate British Muslims.
 
Mockney said:
You can appreciate, how without any evidence, or being willing to actually discuss his views, despite being the first person to post in this thread, that you look like you're in here purely to smear someone who's views you don't like?

Something Nawaz himself has claimed (and trawed FB in depth to prove) he encounters a lot from so called moderate British Muslims.
Click to expand...

Specifically on the EDL/Afzal Amin issue, I'd agree with you - I haven't come across at all well. It is clear that he is a close friend of Afzal Amin. It is also clear that he is close to the EDL. It isn't too outlandish for me to say that he would have known about the plot. I suppose the bit that anyone reading would disagree with most is that he was directly involved in the plot, something I admitted I can't verify.

On my later posts in the thread, all I've really said about the guy is that he is ultra left wing - is that considered smear?
 
Uzz said:
Specifically on the EDL/Afzal Amin issue, I'd agree with you - I haven't come across at all well. It is clear that he is a close friend of Afzal Amin. It is also clear that he is close to the EDL. It isn't too outlandish for me to say that he would have known about the plot. I suppose the bit that anyone reading would disagree with most is that he was directly involved in the plot, something I admitted I can't verify.

On my later posts in the thread, all I've really said about the guy is that he is ultra left wing - is that considered smear?
Click to expand...

Well yes, a bit, if you aren't willing to provide it in any context. Specifically regarding @Raoul's consistent probing of why he should or shouldn't be respected. Both you and Sults, who come across as thoughtful proponents of Islam on this board, dismiss him categorically as someone whose unjustly held up as a spokesman, and yet seem unwilling to provide any context to this other than "we say so". Presumably part of the gripe is that the secular, non-muslim UK respect his views more than you think they should, and yet without helping us understand why you're against them, it gives us/them no reason not to. Thus you can't actually be annoyed when we do. "People shouldn't listen to him...But I'm not going to tell you why." is a poor companion to the complaint of "It's annoying people listen to him"

When Raoul asks things like this for example...

Raoul said:
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...

A vague evasion of the subject serves to paint the "state of mainstream Islam" badly IMO. At the very least propagating the idea held by many worse than Nawaz that it's insular and self protecting from criticism. How can those of us who are sympathetic to his views, be won around to yours if you wont tell us how, why, what, where and when they are wrong?

Furthermore, character assasination just insinuates that you'd rather dismiss him as a person than have to counter any of his points.
 
Last edited:
Maajid claims not being a Muslim representative. He claims not to be an ardent, or practical follower of Islam. Yet he's consistently out there in the Media defining how we should understand our faith, and reform the same.

He also thrives on telling others he is a reformed extremist.

To be an extremist, or terrorist he would have had to kill or support the killing of innocents like ISIS, calling for the killing of western civilians like Al-Qa'edah, kidnap innocent girls like Boko, blow up public places, kill or threaten people for having or expressing opinions contrary to theirs etc...

One and half billion Muslims don't need the like of Maajid or Anjum Choudhry advocating how our faith would be better practiced, or served. They are hardly modern day reformists or prophets.
 
Sultan said:
Maajid claims not being a Muslim representative. He claims not to be an ardent, or practical follower of Islam. Yet he's consistently out there in the Media defining how we should understand our faith, and reform the same.
Click to expand...

In the videos I've seen, he's said that all religions are interpreted, and as such, there is no one interpretation that is true. Practices may vary greatly from Indonesia to Mauritania to Chechnya to Somalia.

Sultan said:
He also thrives on telling others he is a reformed extremist. To be an extremist, or terrorist he would have had to kill or support the killing of innocents like ISIS, calling for the killing of western civilians like Al-Qa'edah, kidnap innocent girls like Boko, blow up public places, kill or threaten people for having or expressing opinions contrary to theirs etc...
Click to expand...

I think most people would have to admit spending 13 years inside an Islamist organization and being a political prisoner for attempting to overthrow the Egyptian government would be enough to be considered an extremist. The previous sentence could have easily been applied to Ayman al-Zawahiri circa 1990, so I think Maajid is safe in using extremist or radical for his past work.

Sultan said:
One and half billion Muslims don't need the like of Maajid or Anjum Choudhry advocating how our faith would be better practiced, or served. They are hardly modern day reformists or prophets.
Click to expand...

I see nothing in common between the two. One is an ISIS fanboy and the other is actively working against radicalization. I suppose the so called "moderate Muslim community" in England are uncomfortable with some of Nawaz's tweets and ideas, which strikes me as a flaw of the social norms within the community rather than anything Maajid has said or done. The so called Jesus and Mo retweet is a good example. He basically represents the minority view that some Muslims aren't offended by that, which apparently ruffles the feathers of the so called mainstream elites.
 
His book "Radical" is a good read. The backlash for him is a result of Quilliam's dossier to the home office of plenty of peaceful, fairly middle of the road Muslim people and organisations as being Islamists or sharing the ideology of Islamists. This McCarthyite style of smear tactics didn't exactly endear him/Quilliam to Muslims. In fact it almost dealt a fatal blow to their credibility as a grassroots organisation and that's a shame because I agree with their goals and think promoting counter-narratives to fight extremism at its core (particularly with the youth in Britain and France)

But with regards to the substance of what Nawaaz says, I usually agree with him even if he does go over a little too much into the persecuted liberal heroism shtick a bit too much.

It's also interesting how those who he calls out for not condemning stoning, chopping thieves' hands off (if Sharia conditions are met) and watching them squirm.

It isn't that I believe religion is the problem, in fact a behavioural science report from MI5 suggested strong assimilation with Muslims among their communities is a protective factor against radicalisation, the problem is that a significant amount of young Muslims are taught from their peers (or see online) Islamist propaganda which is a factor in their being radicalised, and it certainly exists in enough amounts to be a real worry. Does that mean we should demonise all Muslims for it? Not at all, but denial of it won't make it go away.

So by all means call out Islamophobes, western foreign policy, shoddy media reporting but admit and confront the problem of radicalisation too, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be to our communities. Groups like Inspire UK with Sara Khan are doing it, instead of ad hominems I think we need more unity and problem solving.
 
Wolverine said:
His book "Radical" is a good read. The backlash for him is a result of Quilliam's dossier to the home office of plenty of peaceful, fairly middle of the road Muslim people and organisations as being Islamists or sharing the ideology of Islamists. This McCarthyite style of smear tactics didn't exactly endear him/Quilliam to Muslims. In fact it almost dealt a fatal blow to their credibility as a grassroots organisation and that's a shame because I agree with their goals and think promoting counter-narratives to fight extremism at its core (particularly with the youth in Britain and France)

But with regards to the substance of what Nawaaz says, I usually agree with him even if he does go over a little too much into the persecuted liberal heroism shtick a bit too much.

It's also interesting how those who he calls out for not condemning stoning, chopping thieves' hands off (if Sharia conditions are met) and watching them squirm.

It isn't that I believe religion is the problem, in fact a behavioural science report from MI5 suggested strong assimilation with Muslims among their communities is a protective factor against radicalisation, the problem is that a significant amount of young Muslims are taught from their peers (or see online) Islamist propaganda which is a factor in their being radicalised, and it certainly exists in enough amounts to be a real worry. Does that mean we should demonise all Muslims for it? Not at all, but denial of it won't make it go away.

So by all means call out Islamophobes, western foreign policy, shoddy media reporting but admit and confront the problem of radicalisation too, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be to our communities. Groups like Inspire UK with Sara Khan are doing it, instead of ad hominems I think we need more unity and problem solving.
Click to expand...

Its funny but also a bit shocking how some of the guests on those shows refuse to condemn stoning and "apostate" killing.
 
Sultan said:
He also thrives on telling others he is a reformed extremist.

To be an extremist, or terrorist he would have had to kill or support the killing of innocents like ISIS, calling for the killing of western civilians like Al-Qa'edah, kidnap innocent girls like Boko, blow up public places, kill or threaten people for having or expressing opinions contrary to theirs etc...
Click to expand...

Raoul said:
I think most people would have to admit spending 13 years inside an Islamist organization and being a political prisoner for attempting to overthrow the Egyptian government would be enough to be considered an extremist.
Click to expand...

He was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Many Muslims seem not to consider them a particularly extremist organisation, since they claim to advocate for the restoration of the caliphate by peaceful means. Obviously for most non-Muslims the idea of restoring the caliphate is absurd and potentially dangerous, but the idea has appeal within Muslim communities far beyond the lunatic fringes, for a number of fairly obvious reasons (e.g. the horrific state of governance in most modern-day Muslim countries).
 
Found a good way to make a living. Gets to wear a nice suit and turn up in the media as a rent a quote, the right wings ideal Muslim because he says every problem in the Muslim world is caused by Islam, not by Western foreign policy
 
Mozza said:
Found a good way to make a living. Gets to wear a nice suit and turn up in the media as a rent a quote, the right wings ideal Muslim because he says every problem in the Muslim world is caused by Islam, not by Western foreign policy
Click to expand...

If only western foreign policy were solely to blame for the troubles within Muslim society.
 
Mozza said:
It's not but it's a massive part to play, the biggest in my opinion, one which every Government in the UK will deny
Click to expand...

He doesn't really get into geopolitics though. His criticisms are about things like people who can't condemn things like apostate killings, stoning people to death etc. If he asks someone a question like that and they don't condemn it, it speaks volumes about not only the person being asked, but also the culture and community that allows them to hold such a position.
 
Raoul said:
I think most people would have to admit spending 13 years inside an Islamist organization and being a political prisoner for attempting to overthrow the Egyptian government would be enough to be considered an extremist. The previous sentence could have easily been applied to Ayman al-Zawahiri circa 1990, so I think Maajid is safe in using extremist or radical for his past work.
Click to expand...
I'd call him a political activist. Mubarak was the political extremist.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
He doesn't really get into geopolitics though. His criticisms are about things like people who can't condemn things like apostate killings, stoning people to death etc. If he asks someone a question like that and they don't condemn it, it speaks volumes about not only the person being asked, but also the culture and community that allows them to hold such a position.
Click to expand...
He won't get into geopolitics simply because he/his organisation is funded by the British government. As for condemning stoning and apostate killings it's a rarity and generally committed by terrorist organisations. I'll answer Nawaaz' question regards apostasy and stoning. Law of the land and takes precedence over Islamic law in such matters.
 
Sultan said:
He won't get into geopolitics simply because he/his organisation is funded by the British government. As for condemning stoning and apostate killings it's a rarity and generally committed by terrorist organisations. I'll answer Nawaaz' question regards apostasy and stoning. Law of the land and takes precedence over Islamic law in such matters.
Click to expand...

From what I've read his organization hasn't been funded by the government in a couple of years.
 
Sultan said:
He won't get into geopolitics simply because he/his organisation is funded by the British government. As for condemning stoning and apostate killings it's a rarity and generally committed by terrorist organisations. I'll answer Nawaaz' question regards apostasy and stoning. Law of the land and takes precedence over Islamic law in such matters.
Click to expand...
I might have mis read your post and I don't want to come across as an arsehole but that's not actually condemning stoning or apostasy killings but merely saying Islamic law shouldn't be above pre existing law.
 
Last edited:
And for a website that claims "to describe the hidden realities which underlie the small proportion of political matters which ever become public knowledge. The affairs of the deep state, some understanding of which is essential to begin to grasp the significance of deep events." it seems to focus a lot on Muslims and America. It's like that's all that happening in the world. Or that website is full of shit, and I'm guessing it's the latter.
 
Sultan said:
He won't get into geopolitics simply because he/his organisation is funded by the British government. As for condemning stoning and apostate killings it's a rarity and generally committed by terrorist organisations. I'll answer Nawaaz' question regards apostasy and stoning. Law of the land and takes precedence over Islamic law in such matters.
Click to expand...

Another thing that's a bit confusing is why the mainstream Muslim community in the UK are getting worked up about Quilliam receiving government money? Shouldn't the government be funding this sort of thing to prevent violent extremism ?
 
Raoul said:
Another thing that's a bit confusing is why the mainstream Muslim community in the UK are getting worked up about Quilliam receiving government money? Shouldn't the government be funding this sort of thing to prevent violent extremism ?
Click to expand...
They're highly divisive lot.

'Every Salafi and Deobandi is not a terrorist but I have no hesitation in saying that everyone is a well-wisher of terrorists and this has not been appreciated by the Western governments'.[32][33]

Attacks on Muslim Organizations
The Quilliam Foundation has attacked various British Muslim organizations accusing them of having ties with the Pakistani Jamaat-e-Islami and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, two mainstream political parties with large followings in their respective countries. The organizations which the foundation has targeted include Muslim Council of Britain, Islamic Forum Europe, Muslim Association of Britain, Islamic Foundation, Islamic Society of Britain, UK Islamic Mission, the London Muslim Centre and Da’awatul Islam.[34][35][36]

Deobandi's run around 800 mosques in the UK, and including others they have issues with that's basically most Muslims in the UK. Good luck trying to gain support from the community.
 
"The government should be spying on Muslims even if they are not suspected of committing crimes, in order to hunt down terrorists before they strike, the head of an anti-extremist thinktank has said.

Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation, said it was the morally right thing to do, and that waiting until people had fallen prey to extremism and were drawn into terrorism was too late."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.