Maryam Namazie, antisemitic supporter of jihad against Israel, claims to be anti-jihad, lies about Spencer, Geller, SIOA

"One Law For All"

Isn't that the idea behind Sharia?

"If Maryam Namazie's One Law For All claims to oppose the jihad while attacking anti-jihadists and supporting the genocidal jihad against Israel, then it is simply a false-flag operation. Maryam Namazie and One Law For All are no more anti-jihad than Hassan Nasrallah."

I think both your positions should change. Maryam Namazie is undoubtedly against Sharia and you need to be allies in this fight.

Agreed that article "Stop the Genocide Perpetrated by the Israeli ِArmy against the Civilians of Gaza" seems to be a bit one sided but she is definitely anti-Jihad.

There are parts of BNP which are OK, but parts of them are extreme and Nazi-ist. Those parts are are as anti-Semite as the Muslim radicals. They need to clean their house and have better leadership.

Write to her directly and ask for an apology.

Can't spell "Namazie" without "Nazi."

'Genocide'? By the Israeli army? This woman's credibility is dust.

Namazie is a contributing wrier for "The Left Worker-communist Party of Iraq". Hmmm.

I think Namazie is a closet Islamist. Her true colors shine through occasionally.

This is her statement of principles:

"Our Party denounces the brutal bombing by the state of Israel against the people of Gaza and considers it as a crime of state terrorism and calls for its immediate and unconditional stop, and to bring those who ordered it to trial as criminals. The end of the brutal conflict between the forces of terrorism on the regional level and the world will only be achieved through the establishment of a Palestinian state with equal rights to the State of Israel, and therefore, put an end to terrorism, racism and fascism, and the religious Right-wing on both sides of the conflict."

She has two assumptions which are questionable, to say the least:

1) The actions of both Israel and Hamas (not even mentioning the al-Quds brigade, which was the assassination squad of serial killer/Nobel Peace prize winner Yassir Arafat) are terrorism;

2) The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as the conflict between Israel and the rest of the Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, will dissolve once the Palestinians have their own country, including the right to fully arm their troops and threaten Israel's narrow corridor.

If you think she sincerely holds these beliefs, then she is simply a brain-dead leftist who has heard too many Communist slogans. I tend to this point of view, as I have had the opportunity to study the newsletter of a Communist splinter group, and I was struck by the extent to which they substituted sloganeering for any real thought.

I just wrote her this:

"Mrs Namazie,

I think the name of your group, 'one law for all', is magnificent. I had your organization in high esteem.
It saddens me to read your libellous report on what you call the 'far-right'.
It saddens me more to find out that you deny Israel the right to defend its citizens (http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2008/12/stop-genocide-perpetrated-by-israeli.html).
The fact that you are (were?) member of the Left Worker-communist Party of Iraq - LWPI) explains your name-calling."

My name is Hassan and I am an Ex-Muslim and an Executive member of the Council of Ex-Muslims. I congratulate Maryam for making a clear distinction between our stand against the Islamists on the one hand and your position and that of Pam Geller and groups like SIOE/A on the other.

I find it amusing how you throw "Anti-Semite" at her much like some Muslims throw "Islamophobe" at anyone who dares criticise Islam, simply because she criticised Israel's tactics during the invasion of Gaza. It seems you have the attitude of anyone criticising Israel's political and military policies is an anti-semite. Just as some Muslims have the attitude that anyone criticising Islam hates Muslims.

But worse than this your saying that moderates have "no truck" with extremists. I was Muslim most of my life, (I am 52) and my family and friends are Muslim and to imply that I never had - nor Muslims in general have - any problem with people who massacre innocent civilians or behead innocent people is deeply offensive to me. Do you also think the Synagogues and Jews Baruch Goldstein prayed with had "No truck" with him massacring 29 worshippers at a Mosque in Hebron? I suspect not. I guess guilt by association only applies to Muslims - right?

Unlike you, Maryam and CEMB don't lump all Muslims (or any religious believers) in one boat, nor do we see Islam as a single homogenous entity. We were Muslims and we know about Islam and Muslims very well and have a much better understanding of the issues we face than you. Although we don't believe in Islam, we have no problem with Muslims who wish to follow their own interpretations of Islam so long as they are peaceful and do not try to impose their beliefs on others. Just as we have no problem with those of other faiths who follow it peacefully.

We are only against the Islamists and harsh, literalist and violent interpretations of Islam and those who seek to impose it on others.

Contrary to what you may think there is no such thing as "True Islam". There are many different traditions and interpretations and many personal versions of Islam that differ from Muslim to Muslim.

Of course every Muslim will tell you there is a "True Islam" and it just so happens to be the version they follow. But it is obvious they would say that since they are compelled to preserve the integrity of a religion they believe is revealed by God. But those of us who do not believe that Islam was the carefully planned work of an Omniscient and Omnipotent Creator, but the rather less carefully planned work of the human mind, are under no obligation to defend it's integrity and consistency against all reason, when it is obvious that Muslims have very differing interpretations.

Even when one looks solely at the basic sources - the Qur'an and Hadith - it is clear that what Muhammad himself did and said varied at different points of his lifetime and according to the circumstances and each group is selective in how they interpret them. Nor is Abrogation - that you love to bring as evidence of the harsh verses superseding the peaceful one - as simple and straightforward as you make it out to be.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of abrogation will know it creates more anomalies than it solves, and today huge numbers of Muslims reject the idea completely - as I did when I was a Muslim.

Regardless of how you or I wish to define Islam - it is not up to us but those who call themselves Muslims. I would no more impose my view that Christianity clearly considers homosexuality a sin, on a Christian who does not regard it as a sin - than I would impose my view that the Qur'an clearly allows a man to hit his wife on a Muslim who interprets; "Hit" as; "Leave her alone" - regardless of how absurd I may think those views to be.

We stand against Political Islam and the Islamists who hold harsh and violent views and who have a political agenda to impose Islam and Islamic Laws on others.

I agree that until the Islamists are defeated, it is extremely difficult for ordinary Muslims to live their lives according to their own 'personal Islam', and this is one reason we fight this battle, for all humanity - including Muslims themselves - who are the greatest victims of the Islamists.

I find it perverse that people like you want to convince everyone - including Muslims - that moderate forms of Islam are wrong and that the true version is the terrorists' version and that Muslims that appear moderate are just practising "Taqiyyah".

Of course I realise it is because you need to justify your agenda towards Muslims in general. To convince the public that ordinary Muslims are in league with the terrorists, they cannot be trusted and harsh and restrictive measures must be imposed on them all.

Even though you say you are against violence against Muslims it is clear from the sorts of people you attract and quote you, that your words have given great encouragement to those who do want to justify violence and aggression against ordinary Muslims.

You need to look closely at yourself and the the consequences of some of the things you say and the sorts of people supporting you - if you truly care about humanity.

Hassan.

With all due respect Mr. Spencer, it seems that you in fact believe there is only one form of Islam, the supremacist variety, as evidenced by the following quote:

“My contention has always been consistent on this: that even in a secularized nominal Muslim population (eg Kosovo), granting that point leaves the door open for the radicalization of those who decide at some point that they wish to recover their faith or live it more fully. There is no Moderate Islam for such people to get into, analogous to Reform Judaism -- there is no Reformed Islamic Mosque to go to, no history of non-literal understandings of the Qur'an and Sunnah. The only Islam they can recover, should they choose to recover Islam rather than being "not really" Muslim, is the supremacist variety.”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/08/we-are-muslims-but-not-really.html.

The above also makes clear why moderate muslims are essentially nominal muslims who are always a risk to the infidels should they choose to become genuine Muslims. Also, as you repeatedly point out, the moderates/nominals are indistinguishable from the jihadists because of Taqqiya ( as you say, the Qur'an allows for religious deception (see 3:28 and 16:106 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/03/moderate-muslims-use-quran-against-jihad.html) which is why the sincerity of Moderates also “must be called into question, in light of Qur'an 3:28 and 16:106”.) “ not because jihadists attended the same mosques. As you have also stated, it is “well-established fact that many self-proclaimed moderate Muslims are actually practicing the deception of the enemy that the Muslim prophet Muhammad called for during wartime.”

Taqqiya, as you repeatedly explain is that Islam orders Muslim to lie to infidels and fool the infidels into thinking Muslims are not a threat. It is the reason why no Muslim can ever be trusted.

This has also been expanded upon and discussed at length by writers on your payroll such as

1. Hugh Fitzgerald:”it is all those who believe in Islam who must be treated as our enemies" http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/wikileaks-afghanistan-powerful-police-chief-was-iranian-spy.html.
2. Roland Shirk: “This is the true Islam, the will of that desert demon who masquerades as Allah.” http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/will-the-vatican-canonize-shahbaz-bhatti.html

I hope this will not get me banned, im just pointing out what you have repeatedly written previously. If I am wrong in what I perceive are contradictions, please let me know.

This arguing over who is or is not an "islamist" muslim is devoid of any purpose other than entertainment for those who are hooked on debate.

For me, it is much simpler. If a person identifies themselves as a muslim that tells me they are an adherent of the ideology of Islam, which is a socio-political ideology with a religious element. The founder of this ideology, known as mohammad, was only able to spread his ideology as a 'prophet-governer'.

If a person who identifies as a muslim does not support apartheid, does not support human chattel slavery, does not support the treatment of women as breeding and fornicating beasts in a man's personal bordello, does not support terrorism as a tactic to intimidate others to be subordinate to the islamic ideology - then that person should cease identifying as a muslim.

It is not for us to have to work out what is the 'true islam', who is a 'true muslim', the islamic ideology itself makes that impossible to determine with any chance of objective truth; it is only for us to ensure we are protected from the socio-political tenets of this ideology.

I've listened to talk by this woman, Maryam Namazie, a few times and have never felt comfortable with her position. She displays her dislike of others too openly and like most angry atheists, she is spectacularly ignorant of history and prefers her ideological re-write.

It can't be denied that the islamic imperialist surge was assisted by "arguments" within, and I have no time for those today who wish to repeat, and not learn from, history.

Apparently she's in Australia soon, but I've told friends I won't be attending. Have heard though there is a far more interesting visitor to our shores on the horizen and am looking forward to that, should it come about :)

A Muslim denialist above whines for Namazie because: "simply because she criticised Israel's tactics during the invasion of Gaza"-

I regret that Israel didn't turn Gaza into a parking place.

You think Israel has no right to defend itself?

Robert,

Thanks for the reply. I'm curious about one thing. What do you mean by the words: "I know what you are" ?

Hassan

Robert,

1. It's true Maryam is a Marxist. However those are her personal views (and not ones I share). More importantly they have nothing to do with "The Council of Ex-Muslims", which is an issue driven organisation and are in no-way connected to the personal political views of members (which vary from left, right and centre). We are an issue-driven organisation - to help and support Ex-Muslims. First and foremost we formed to break the taboo on leaving Islam and to make a public declaration of this as a stand against those who wish to impose the death sentence on Apostates, or subject them to violence, intimidation and abuse. We also campaign against Shari'ah Law, and on many other issues of Human Rights and Freedom. (Our manifesto on our website.)

2. Throwing the term Antisemite at Maryam for criticising Israel invasion of Gaza - regardless of how you might disagree with it - only only undermines the term "Antisemite" and does no service to those who suffer from Antisemitism. By all means argue against what it is you disagree with. But to call an Antimsemite because of it, is frankly absurd. (btw her comments on the invasion of Gaza were NOT in her capacity as Spokesperson for CEMB)

3. You may regard the report produced by "One Law For All" as a character assassination on you, Pam Geller, and SIOE/E, EDL and others, but that is your opinion. The report is there for all to see and read and people can make their own minds up. For myself I say again I congratulate One Law For All for making a clear distinction between CEMB who oppose Islamists without making sweeping generalisations about Islam and Muslims, and organisations and individuals like yourself, Pame Geller, SIOE/A, EDL and other groups.

On a personal note, leaving Islam was enormously difficult and I have huge empathy for Muslims. I know how hard it is for them to look at Islam objectively and rationally because of their deep emotional attachment. They are not to blame for being born into Islam nor for the emotional attachment, blinkered and selective vision that it leaves them with. Anyone who understands the power religion can have over people who are born to a faith will know that from a very early age it forms their whole identity, place in the world, meaning to their life and comfort zone. Rejecting it is not simply an intellectual process, but one that tears your whole world apart. It means losing your identity and meaning for life, it means losing family and friends and it means depression and emotional trauma - not to mention abuse intimidation and even death threats in some cases. I left Islam not because I hate Muslims - I love Muslims - and I love all humanity - we are all the same underneath. The only thing I hate are the things that divide us all. I try to reach out to Muslims with compassion and understanding. I am not interested in bashing them over the head or making sweeping generalisations about them that I know are not true. The vast majority of Muslims are decent, loving, kind and generous individuals - just like most human beings are. As I said before if you do truly care about humanity - all humanity - you need to seriously re-think your approach.

Best wishes,

Hassan.

Robert,

I'm disappointed that your only response to my last post was to post that quote.

I not any different in private as I am in public as you insinuate. The CEMB Forum is a public forum that anyone can view. And yes, I say all sorts of things, some of them foolish and embarrassing and some intelligent and thoughtful. I have always worn my heart on my sleeve. It got me in trouble as a Muslim and it gets me in trouble now. But that's me - warts and all.

I came here to try and engage with you, perhaps naively. However if you don't want to, I shan't bother you anymore.

However, one last thing, you say "People are on to you" - again, I'd be interested to hear what you mean by that? However if you do want to know about me I have written about my life and how I came to reject Islam here:

http://abooali.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/welcome/

and I have also made several videos critiquing Islam that you may find interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CHm2xigkBc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpu4UkT-Rl8

Best wishes,

Hassan.

No surprises out of this for me personally. We at FFI have dealt with this man’s dishonesty and subterfuge for years. He and and his current crew at the Council of Ex-Muslims forum basically self-immolated in their own depravity a couple of years ago. The best historical parallel for what happened over at the CEMB is when the Cult Awareness Network was bought out by the Church of Scientology. It’s not the same but there are striking similarities.

"It's true Maryam is a Marxist"

in behalf of Marxism been committed genocide, torture, imprisonment... should that be Karl Marx fault for people exploiting his name, his words to do their evil doers? if so where does it place Maryam Namazie?