We need to talk about Maajid
Reader comment on: The New Anti-Racist Racists
Submitted by Ghost Machine, Oct 29, 2016 13:28
Douglas, I don't know if you read these comments, but I really pray you do. Whilst always having had my suspicions, in recent days I have become convinced that Nawaz is not genuine. For me it seems clearer by the day that he is the same Islamist he always was, I find his new position on LBC to be extremely perturbing.
The current furor over the SPLC (in addition that is, to all the conservative Muslims who shun him) is a very convenient smokescreen to westerners who might have their doubts about his motives. He does not deserve to be on that list which I would consider a list of people I greatly admire for the most part- I'm disappointed you weren't on it!
I have read and listened to a lot of Nawaz has to say and found countless circumstantial examples of sentiments which don't quite add up, often conveying double messages and cultivating confusion regarding Islam to the people he is talking to.
On LBC for example, he spends a huge portion of the time discussing people's attitudes towards Muslims, without ever really discussing the ideas constituting the foundation of Islam, which in turn drive the behaviour and attitudes of Muslims. When inevitably challenged by listeners on Islam itself, he quickly shifts the focus to Muslims, saying something along the lines of: "So even if you're right, what would you do? Deport all 3 million Muslims in the UK?". Thus he shifts the debate from an ideological one to pseudo-racial one. The inevitable result is that the average listener will feel racist for even daring to voice concern over Islam. Truly scary.
Another fascinating example is the famous "Jesus and Mo" tweet. Notice that he chose a cartoon which shortens Mohammed's name to the point of ambiguity and never explicitly states that Mo is in fact Mohammed. In fact, according to one of the comics which deals with the subject Mo, claims to be a body double for obvious reasons. Used in this way, Maajid retains plausible deniability. Sure you could say that this was foolish as it turned many Muslims against him, but my argument is that his message isn't aimed at Muslims, but at us here in the west. The tweet said: "This Jesus & Mo @JandMo cartoon is not offensive&I'm sure GOD IS GREATER [my emphasis] than to feel threatened by it. This is followed by Allah Huakhbar in Arabic. So he's written Allah Hu Akhbar twice followed by a cartoon which purportedly goes against what most contemporary Muslims believe (if not the actual jurisprudence itself). The double message is clear- to those people who pick up on the fact that he isn't explicitly naming Mohammed he is signalling which side he is on.
In the messy aftermath of the tweet, not once does Nawaz ever explicitly state that the the cartoon was of the prophet Mohammed.
Other people have also voiced similar suspicions (https://vkchatterjee.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/sinister-and-dangerous-the-stealth-supremacism-of-maajid-nawaz/ for example- though I don't buy all of the arguments he makes), and it's their observations which aroused my suspicions even further.
I know you that you are personally very well acquainted with Nawaz, and whilst I obviously don't know your private thoughts on the man, I really hope you can at least give some thought to what I've written. I am fully aware of how ridiculous this all sounds on the surface, but the more I see and hear of him, the more I'm convinced I'm right. I've seen so many of your videos where you are the one presented as the extremist crackpot so I hope you will take what I've written seriously. I'm Jewish and half Israeli, so kind of sensitive to this whole scenario- after all, my future living in the UK depends on it. As a result I've read a great deal about the other precedents: CAIR, Aslan, Mehdi etc. I believe that Nawaz is just the latest and most effective iteration of this strategy.
p.s. I also don't understand the reason for the choice of person in naming his organisation- Quilliam, whose political views are described on Wikipedia thusly: "Quilliam argued that Muslims should not fight Muslims on behalf of European powers. He denounced British foreign policy in Sudan and called for a worldwide Caliphate. It was as a result of his political views and his allegiance to the Ottoman Caliph that led some to denounce him as a traitor."
But I guess that's a conversation for another time...
Note: Reader comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. Gatestone Institute reserves the right to reject anything found to be objectionable. Reader comments, including the one above, represent solely the opinion or viewpoint of the readers that submitted them and do not represent the opinion or viewpoint of Gatestone Institute. Gatestone Institute takes no responsibility for the content of reader comments.
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item
Get Free Exclusive Gatestone Content: