Your story is only one of many. And your interpretation is only one of many. And I doubt he's targeting you, he's mostly trying to get people who still don't see any issues with beheadings, stoning or treating others as second class citizens to see how that's wrong. You're not one of the ones about to be convinced to join ISIS or the like.
Maajid Nawaz
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Your impression is wrong.
I post those links is because they are interpretations I follow. Why should I post something I have no interest in?
Well out of 1.5 billion Muslims where few are joining ISIS or supporting beheadings or stonings. Majority of Muslims are living in peace with their neighbours regardless of faith and hardly treating them as any lesser humans.
Its nice of you yanks to support the narrative by bombing the shit out of countries all across the middle east
This isn't true Sultan. I fear you underestimate what many Muslims think. Even excluding the many debates Nawaz has been in where Muslims have outright refused to condemn those things, consider these:
Among many other concerning statistics found by pew. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
Gives the narrative real weight when there is actual blood and brains spattered on it
Can someone give me actual figures where actual nations have stoned or chopped hands of thieves?
I'm sure western media would not miss a chance to plaster this all over the media.
I'm sure western media would not miss a chance to plaster this all over the media.
The violins are truly out in force tonight.
Anjem Choudary mentioned the stats in one of his TV appearances. They were quite low according to him.
You have to change the minds of people who still think those things, even if most of the people in their countries (and their leaders) don't think or do them. How are we going to get people to follow progressive causes if you can't even agree with them on corporal punishment?
Well I don't think anyone here needs convincing regarding your own ideas on these matters. But since your links were posted in order to explain to another member what jihad means, presumably in a broader context, it might be more useful to link to something explaining the variety of ways it has been understood over the years rather than simply your own narrower view.
Something like the blurb for this excellent book on the topic - http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Islamic-History-Doctrines-Practice/dp/0691138389
This isn't true Sultan. I fear you underestimate what many Muslims think. Even excluding the many debates Nawaz has been in where Muslims have outright refused to condemn those things, consider these:
Among many other concerning statistics found by pew. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
Some of these stats are shocking.
I bowed out of this thread when Sults posted a link to site that claim the Jews did 9/11, but it's good to see it's still going on in much the same vein. I've still yet to see any good reason why a neutral Brit shouldn't take Nawaz seriously, which I'd imagine would be the aim of his detractors in this thread, and we're on page 5!
A nice way of summing up the flaw in religion, tbf.
A nice way of summing up the flaw in religion, tbf.
Last edited:
Can't really see anything wrong with his views here.
Stick your head in the sand if you must, whatever makes you feel better
The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, neighbourly etc. But jihadism is a problem. Polls like that are bullshit if you're going to quote Pew and then ignore findings of Gallup.
I find poll results of many things shocking. Stoning for adultery and killing apostates are barbaric regardless of anything. But to pretend that Muslims from Pakistan to second/third generation diaspora in the West are all the same and you can extrapolate their mindset through these poll numbers and deem them a threat to civilisation is disingenuous.
There's two extremes, everything's-ok-yous-all-are-fecking-idiots naivity/apologism and the Bill Maher/Sam Harris type of fear mongering or wanting not to reform or reflect, but to point out the west's cultural supremacy. And it is absolutely important that we don't exacerbate the scale of the problem which is what many on the left intelligentsia does. Because that is counter-productive leads to empowering of far right movements and alienates young communities.
Its unfair as a secular Muslim in a western country that my mindset is being collectivised because of how some guys in a far away lands who have had no influence over myself in any shape or form, my values or ideology answered a couple of questions. Now to the extent that young Muslims are being radicalised online, on university campuses etc that indeed is a problem. But to suggest it is a systemic problem is way off the mark. There are conservative ideas, wrong ideas, pernicious ideas that you'll find with most muslims (and indeed many pernicious ideas you'll find if you ask questions to almost any segment/demographic within society), but to generalise based on those ideas to their world view and to that of others is not just unfair but empirically incorrect.
Care to elaborate on what this means to you personally ?
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. And the former shouldn't contravene the latter. I don't choose to call myself ex-Muslim for example, my family are aware of a lack of belief on my part but we're a fairly observant Shia family but with people of varying opinions on theology and so forth. But we get on perfectly fine with each other. As is the case for quite a lot of Muslims, especially in western society who are perfectly fine despite being irreligious as long as you are a good person etc.
Now are there intolerant types? Yes of course, but generalities say that people like my family, friends who are devout Muslims who are tolerant neighbourly people don't exist or don't do so in significant numbers. And that's just not my opinion, interacting with the vast number of Muslims that I have during my travels to America, Canada, UK. Ex-muslims who mention problems and legitimate concerns I think are doing a brave thing but many believe or propagate orientalist hyperbole that, willingly or not, is during a time where polls suggest a hostile view of many in the west towards Muslims (in addition to mosque arson attacks which are more and more frequent, racial abuse that goes unreported etc) and may be contributing to stuff like this more than they'd like to think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=116&v=tiK811hmTHQ
There are people who are concerned about both progressive values, reforming conservative ideas of religion that are antithetical to liberalism but doing so in a responsible, understanding, appropriate manner that understands the legitimacy of those of us (secular or otherwise) who are concerned about the impact of anti-Muslim sentiment on our families, friends and communities.
As a Muslim first and foremost, he's a cretin. An odious individual who tars the reputation of millions of normal, everyday Muslims with the Islamist brush because they want to retain their Islamic identity, while still living in and contributing to British society. He likes to say that his point of view is at the very least, 'growing' among Muslims in the UK, but it really isn't. There was some analysis of website traffic for Muslim websites in the UK conducted last year, and his organisation, 'Quilliam' was ranked very low. The highest website was a matrimonial website, and the second was 5Pillars, a general Muslims in the news website which Maajid has a major issue with for peddling an 'Islamist narrative'.
Plus, his tale of 'deradicalisation' is a joke. I know people who knew him back in the day when he was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. It was nothing to do with him changing his beliefs, and was more a case of his failed attempt at leading the organisation which he was ultimately kicked out of. But you won't hear that in the mainstream media, obviously...
Don't get me wrong, I don't have my head in the sand. There are legitimate concerns with radicalisation among disaffected youth in Britain, but to somehow think it is due to the Islamic faith is at the very least ignorant, and downright vindictive at most. The line peddled by the likes of Nawaz, Hirsi Ali, Harris & Dawkins et al will only make things worse and adds fuel to the fire when it comes to radicalisation in the West.
Agreed. Birds of a feather, are those two. Both dismiss legitimate Islamic theology and instead adhere to their 'own' interpretation of Islam. The result of which, leads to these two cretins.
It's not as simple as that Mockney. Both disregard the traditional Islamic sciences of interpretation, and instead construct a DIY Islam. The only difference is the results that this approach has had for the both of them.
I've heard this before but can't seem to find any evidence of it. Do you have any examples in print or YouTube?
Just take a look at who he condemns on social media, along with the Quilliam press release that Fortitude (I think) posted that listed normal, average Joe (or Yusuf
) Muslim groups as being extremists... As Sultan highlighted earlier in the thread regarding the example of the Deobandis, who are amongst the least politically active sects of Islam in Britain today. Nawaz has/had been on the offensive regarding them. Calling groups such as the Deobandis his new favourite phrase, "non-violent extremists". He stated often times, in his latest British TV appearance (Panorama) that he believes that the Islam promulgated by groups such as the Deobandis are the stepping stones to all-out war. I come from a Barelvi background myself which, as Sultan will know, is a different group and one which traditionally, had a somewhat antagonistic position towards the Deobandis (luckily this is changing in Britain at least). So I am not a follower of the understanding of the religion as propagated by the Deobandis, but someone with at least a basic knowledge of Islam, and while I am not the most practising of Muslims, I do have enough knowledge to know where this extremism is derived from... And it certainly isn't from the after-school Madrassas of Walthamstow, Whitechapel, Dewsbury and Bury, I can assure you.It's a frankly ridiculous assertion.
Even the supposed 'threat' of ideological groups such as Hizb Ut-Tahrir, the bashing of which is a favourite past-time of Nawaz', is a hollow one. Islamic politics and the relations between these disparate groups is so multi-layered and nuanced. At some instrinsic and basic point, they all hate each other for one reason or another. But according to Nawaz, they are all a united, almost homogenous force wanting to wreck the World Order. It's stupidity beyond belief, and the gullible Western media fall for it hook, line and sinker. I have my own issues with HT, and they can be got at for a variety of reasons, but supposed extremism, and this 'pathway' to violence, is not one of them.
Just take a look at who he condemns on social media, along with the Quilliam press release that Fortitude (I think) posted that listed normal, average Joe (or Yusuf
It's a frankly ridiculous assertion.
Even the supposed 'threat' of ideological groups such as Hizb Ut-Tahrir, the bashing of which is a favourite past-time of Nawaz', is a hollow one. Islamic politics and the relations between these disparate groups is so multi-layered and nuanced. At some instrinsic and basic point, they all hate each other for one reason or another. But according to Nawaz, they are all a united, almost homogenous force wanting to wreck the World Order. It's stupidity beyond belief, and the gullible Western media fall for it hook, line and sinker. I have my own issues with HT, and they can be got at for a variety of reasons, but supposed extremism, and this 'pathway' to violence, is not one of them.
Fair enough, thanks for the detailed information.
I found this piece by Nawaz to be quite good.
http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/on-blasphemy.pdf
http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/on-blasphemy.pdf
"Every ***********, prophet, scientist and great political and social reformer of their day has started as a heretic. Mohammad blasphemed against the polytheist social order of Mecca, Jesus against the monotheistic legalese of the Temple, and Moses before them against the idols of the Children of Israel."
My understanding of that article is him trying to defend his actions depending on your viewpoint as either a heretic, blasphemer, reformer by giving examples of previous great personalities, and how they were treated in the past. He's not worth the dirt that was on the feet of those great luminaries.
Its a perfectly valid point, and one certainly doesn't have to be as famous as some of the people he cited in order for it to apply. When you challenge the Orthodoxy of your day, you are likely to be attacked (persecuted) for it by those with the most to lose. For all we know Maajid could go on to invent his own religion that will be widely practiced in about 1400 years.
He's just bigging himself. If anything he's on the defensive in that article as no-one in the Islamic world are giving him an attentive ear.
You are his audience, not muslims. The war mongers who need succor and comfort for the crimes they support
If he makes valid points, which he does quite regularly (I mean the Quillam foundation is a government think-tank) then his audience should be everyone as it is an issue that faces everyone.
C'mon Sults, you're playing the man and not the ball. I think the vitriol against Maajid stems significantly from the fact that he is challenging norms within mainstream Muslim society, which is pissing a lot of people off and inspiring them to call him a sellout etc. He's clearly touched a nerve as evidenced by the fact that he is being criticized so much. If he hadn't, surely no one would bother with the criticism. He's quite correct in the statement you quoted - when you challenge an existing power structure, whether you're Christ, Muhammad, or a common man - you are going to get attacked.
His social media pages seem to have quite a wide audience from secularists to hateful Islamists. Whether they agree or disagree with one another, that fact that he is engaging in debates that bridge both sides can only be a good thing.
There's been plenty of orientalists and Muslim critiques challenging norms in Muslim societies for centuries. I don't have a problem with such opinions. What I do have a problem with him is calling everyone not supporting his views as either terrorists or it's sympathisers. I happen to think his articles and media whoring is a just a face to beg for money for a lifestyle choice. I'm not even sure why the media keep calling a reformed radical. He was simply a political activist. Has someone questioned Nawaaz if he has killed anyone, encouraged anyone to the kill innocents? If the answer is in the affirmative he should be in prison.
I don't think he cares a jot about radicalisation. If anything he refuses to allow anyone to be contributors to his foundation he approves. That's most his past University mates or right wing think tanks. I am sure he would be nowhere to be seen had his organisation was to run out of funds. Many Islamic scholars and NGO's do excellent work without funding in this field and with a lot more sincerity.
This thread is evidence he does not sit well with any Muslim contributors in this thread.
I've yet to find any evidence of this. Do you have any ?
It is rather troubling that you would like someone who has reformed his radical ways and is actively speaking out against it to be in prison.
Lol, I've heard it all now. Maajid Nawaz now a trailblazer on the level of Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses (Peace and Blessings be upon them all) 
I won't dwell too long on it, lest I give that piece more credit than it deserves... The key difference is that the 'heresy' of the three aforementioned was not something novel or unique. They all were a call to a reversion of authentic monotheism. Furthermore, as Muslims we believe the message promulgated by Muhammad (PBUH) was the final message. That is non-negotiable. Maajid's savior complex and ego apparently knows no bounds...
No one is saying that as Muslims we want to curtail criticism of religion, or the right to offend. If someone doesn't think much of my religion, it isn't any skin off my nose... He likes to go on about the apostasy laws and the punishments of death proscribed in the Qur'an and Sunnah, but the fact is, these are not punishments of this world but the hereafter. If you look into the books of the other Monotheistic faiths, you'll see much the same. If you were to look into how apostasy is actually dealt with in States where Islamic law is used, it is mostly as a public order offence, which carries with it a much less stringent penalty.
Strange as it may seem to people in the West, Muslims couldn't give a flying monkeys if someone didn't believe. Is that to say ex-Muslims in the West don't have legitimate concerns? Of course not, but that is an issue of Muslims not being given the requisite chance to integrate into society without losing their core belief systems and structures. When you do not allow a section of your society to assimilate, while retaining their personal belief structures (which is often all they have known), you will see what is happening now, where Muslims largely live in areas of poor educational attainment and low socio-economic status. In such situations, generations of families have simply not been given the opportunity to progress, and you see what you see now, of families being perennially stuck in the 'village mentality' of their homes in their mother countries, where tradition rather than religion is their main structural influence. And where unfortunately, major issues can arise for disbelievers from a Muslim background.
Furthermore, that paper did nothing more than regurgitate the usual Orientalist tropes of Islam (and religion as a whole) being subordinate to the demands of modern society, and its argument was amateur at best. As much as Western politicians don't want to believe it, many Muslims in the UK don't place much store in the British political system, and who could blame them after centuries of colonial and imperial pillage in their lands of centuries before, all the way up to the institutional racism of the 20th Century, and the conduct of wars in Muslim lands for what seems like nothing more than greed over natural resources which is cloaked in 'Liberal-Humanitarian Interventionism'? The system just doesn't work for us.
We're defensive over the way our Prophet is portrayed in the media? After decades of dehumanisation and demonisation in said unsympathetic media, you fecking bet we are!
Also his proposition that the vast majority of Muslims in Britain today being non-practising was also very suspect. Had he any figures to back up his claims? If there are, then he didn't reference them.
There is so much more I could pull him up on, but he really isn't worth my time.
I won't dwell too long on it, lest I give that piece more credit than it deserves... The key difference is that the 'heresy' of the three aforementioned was not something novel or unique. They all were a call to a reversion of authentic monotheism. Furthermore, as Muslims we believe the message promulgated by Muhammad (PBUH) was the final message. That is non-negotiable. Maajid's savior complex and ego apparently knows no bounds...
No one is saying that as Muslims we want to curtail criticism of religion, or the right to offend. If someone doesn't think much of my religion, it isn't any skin off my nose... He likes to go on about the apostasy laws and the punishments of death proscribed in the Qur'an and Sunnah, but the fact is, these are not punishments of this world but the hereafter. If you look into the books of the other Monotheistic faiths, you'll see much the same. If you were to look into how apostasy is actually dealt with in States where Islamic law is used, it is mostly as a public order offence, which carries with it a much less stringent penalty.
Strange as it may seem to people in the West, Muslims couldn't give a flying monkeys if someone didn't believe. Is that to say ex-Muslims in the West don't have legitimate concerns? Of course not, but that is an issue of Muslims not being given the requisite chance to integrate into society without losing their core belief systems and structures. When you do not allow a section of your society to assimilate, while retaining their personal belief structures (which is often all they have known), you will see what is happening now, where Muslims largely live in areas of poor educational attainment and low socio-economic status. In such situations, generations of families have simply not been given the opportunity to progress, and you see what you see now, of families being perennially stuck in the 'village mentality' of their homes in their mother countries, where tradition rather than religion is their main structural influence. And where unfortunately, major issues can arise for disbelievers from a Muslim background.
Furthermore, that paper did nothing more than regurgitate the usual Orientalist tropes of Islam (and religion as a whole) being subordinate to the demands of modern society, and its argument was amateur at best. As much as Western politicians don't want to believe it, many Muslims in the UK don't place much store in the British political system, and who could blame them after centuries of colonial and imperial pillage in their lands of centuries before, all the way up to the institutional racism of the 20th Century, and the conduct of wars in Muslim lands for what seems like nothing more than greed over natural resources which is cloaked in 'Liberal-Humanitarian Interventionism'? The system just doesn't work for us.
We're defensive over the way our Prophet is portrayed in the media? After decades of dehumanisation and demonisation in said unsympathetic media, you fecking bet we are!
Also his proposition that the vast majority of Muslims in Britain today being non-practising was also very suspect. Had he any figures to back up his claims? If there are, then he didn't reference them.
There is so much more I could pull him up on, but he really isn't worth my time.
I do agree with this. He still claims to be a "non practicing" Muslim as a matter of his identity, but given his views I suspect he is probably agnostic.
Lol, I've heard it all now. Maajid Nawaz now a trailblazer on the level of Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses (Peace and Blessings be upon them all)
I won't dwell too long on it, lest I give that piece more credit than it deserves... The key difference is that the 'heresy' of the three aforementioned was not something novel or unique. They all were a call to a reversion of authentic monotheism. Furthermore, as Muslims we believe the message promulgated by Muhammad (PBUH) was the final message. That is non-negotiable. Maajid's savior complex and ego apparently knows no bounds...
No one is saying that as Muslims we want to curtail criticism of religion, or the right to offend. If someone doesn't think much of my religion, it isn't any skin off my nose... He likes to go on about the apostasy laws and the punishments of death proscribed in the Qur'an and Sunnah, but the fact is, these are not punishments of this world but the hereafter. If you look into the books of the other Monotheistic faiths, you'll see much the same. If you were to look into how apostasy is actually dealt with in States where Islamic law is used, it is mostly as a public order offence, which carries with it a much less stringent penalty.
Strange as it may seem to people in the West, Muslims couldn't give a flying monkeys if someone didn't believe. Is that to say ex-Muslims in the West don't have legitimate concerns? Of course not, but that is an issue of Muslims not being given the requisite chance to integrate into society without losing their core belief systems and structures. When you do not allow a section of your society to assimilate, while retaining their personal belief structures (which is often all they have known), you will see what is happening now, where Muslims largely live in areas of poor educational attainment and low socio-economic status. In such situations, generations of families have simply not been given the opportunity to progress, and you see what you see now, of families being perennially stuck in the 'village mentality' of their homes in their mother countries, where tradition rather than religion is their main structural influence. And where unfortunately, major issues can arise for disbelievers from a Muslim background.
Furthermore, that paper did nothing more than regurgitate the usual Orientalist tropes of Islam (and religion as a whole) being subordinate to the demands of modern society, and its argument was amateur at best. As much as Western politicians don't want to believe it, many Muslims in the UK don't place much store in the British political system, and who could blame them after centuries of colonial and imperial pillage in their lands of centuries before, all the way up to the institutional racism of the 20th Century, and the conduct of wars in Muslim lands for what seems like nothing more than greed over natural resources which is cloaked in 'Liberal-Humanitarian Interventionism'? The system just doesn't work for us.
We're defensive over the way our Prophet is portrayed in the media? After decades of dehumanisation and demonisation in said unsympathetic media, you fecking bet we are!
Also his proposition that the vast majority of Muslims in Britain today being non-practising was also very suspect. Had he any figures to back up his claims? If there are, then he didn't reference them.
There is so much more I could pull him up on, but he really isn't worth my time.
Isn't that a legitimate point though ? The radicalization argument aside, much of this debate is framed as a clash or interplay of traditional religious vs western, liberal democratic values, which is (imo) why he's stirred up such a hornets nest within segments of contemporary Muslim society - a one of their own turncoat, who with government funds no less, is asking difficult questions that both Muslim and western society are having difficulty grappling with. If you take the intra-Muslim vitriol against Nawaz off the table for a moment, the substance of these issues still warrants continued investigation.
There isn't a clash between religious and Western values though Raoul. I can only speak for myself, and my morality largely comes from my Islamic upbringing, and I am a productive member of society... Another thing is the fact that Muslims have lived peacefully in the West for decades and actually contributed to the multicultural make up of the State, until Western foreign policy went tits up and alienated a section of society which was already living in semi-segregation. Furthermore, the numbers of the radicals is still far, far outweighed by the vast majority of decent, fully practising citizens of Islamic faith.
Huntingdon's hypothesis was an arrogant and conceited concoction, placing no blame upon the West and its meddlings in the Middle East and instead advanced the old racist and colonial narrative of the "savage natives". Typical of those who promoted the Modernization agenda, and it's neo-Imperial designs...
Huntingdon's hypothesis was an arrogant and conceited concoction, placing no blame upon the West and its meddlings in the Middle East and instead advanced the old racist and colonial narrative of the "savage natives". Typical of those who promoted the Modernization agenda, and it's neo-Imperial designs...
Agreed. 100%