The LBC sycophant who wrote the article below, Seán Hickey, says that the renowned moderate Muslim Maajid Nawaz “expertly debunks” the claim that Islam is “naturally fundamentalist and violent.”
All right. Let’s examine Nawaz’s “expert” argument.
He says that the claim is “dodgy.” He says that the claim “somehow doesn’t stand up.” He claims, without offering any supporting evidence, that “Islamism” arose “due to war and in fact it was used by us to stop the Soviet Union.”
He dismisses the violent passages of the Qur’an not by explaining how, properly understood, they’re not really violent at all, as others have claimed, but by changing the subject and saying: “you can find justification in the old testament and the new testament for all manner of things.” He also echoes groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in suggesting that those who highlight the violent passages of the Qur’an are just trying to make money: “How ye choose and select and contextualise passages comes down, usually to the own biases we carry, and sometimes we’re funded by those biases.”
If that’s an expert debunking, I’m Chuck Schumer. Nawaz’s claim that “Islamism,” by which he apparently means a form of Islam that takes the Qur’an literally (i.e., is “fundamentalist”) and acts upon its exhortations to violence, only arose with the U.S. aiding jihad groups against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan is completely ahistorical. Nawaz is either unfamiliar with Islam’s 1,400-year history of jihad violence, or banking on his listeners being ignorant of it. Even throughout the first part of the 20th century, before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Muslims in Palestine waged jihad against the Jews. It would be interesting to learn what Nawaz thinks of that, and of the Islamic jihad rhetoric that flowed freely from Arab leaders in those days, but of course no one among his sycophants at LBC is going to ask him.
Then we come to the sleight of hand. The Old and New Testaments may be the worst documents in the history of mankind, justifying, as Nawaz says, “all manner of things,” and that wouldn’t tell us one single solitary thing about the violent passages of the Qur’an. Nawaz’s caller asserted that Islam was “naturally fundamentalist and violent.” What the Old Testament and New Testament may be tells us absolutely nothing about that question. Nawaz is just deflecting attention away from inquiry into the actual contents of the Qur’an, and into the extent to which Muslims who commit acts of violence are incited to do so by those contents. Now, why would he want to do that?
“Maajid Nawaz expertly debunks theory that Islam is ‘inherently fundamentalist,'” by Seán Hickey, LBC, July 10, 2021:
After dismantling a caller’s argument on extremism in Afghanistan, Maajid Nawaz explains how some people’s views on Islam are flawed.
The enlightening moment came after Maajid Nawaz had a run-in with a regular caller who claimed that the idea that the West has destabilised Afghanistan is a “false narrative”. The caller then proceeded to argue that the religion of Islam is a violent faith at its core.
“This idea that Islam as a religion stands alone as being naturally fundamentalist and violent is dodgy,” Maajid said after ending his conversation with the caller.
He argued that the argument “somehow doesn’t stand up – this idea that islam is naturally an aggressive fundamentalist religion, actually no it’s not.
“If you look into the history of the rise of Islamism, as I’ve attempted to explain, primarily it came due to war and in fact it was used by us to stop the Soviet Union.”
He pointed out that miitant Islamism “was used to fight at the time what the Americans called ‘godless communism.'”…
He urged callers to research their topics before calling in to make generalised statements: “You’ve got to know a little bit about the socioeconomic and political factors that gave rise to modern day Islamic fundamentalism to understand that there was nothing inherent about it.”
Arguing against those who reference violent extracts of the Quran to clarify Islam as a violent religion, Maajid pointed out that “you can find justification in the old testament and the new testament for all manner of things.”
“How ye choose and select and contextualise passages comes down, usually to the own biases we carry, and sometimes we’re funded by those biases.” He concluded.
Savvy Kafir says
I never understood why the formerly-fearless critic of Islam, Sam Harris wasted his time collaborating with Nawaz, since trying to reform Islam is obviously a hopeless undertaking. And now we learn that Nawaz is not so much a naive would-be reformer, but rather a deceitful taqiyya artist selling false hopes to the PC infidels of the Regressive Left. That seems to be the pattern with these “moderate reformers” of the world’s most barbaric and unredeemable ideology.
PRCS says
Irshad Manji is either ignorant about Islam or is intentionally representing it as a “religion of peace”.
As I recall, Harris also thought–foolishly–she was legit too.
mortimer says
Manji gave up after she realized that the attempt to reform Islam would cost her life.
mortimer says
There is no such thing as an ‘openly gay Muslim woman’ … at least not a living one and not for long.
gravenimage says
Her most recent book–from 2019–is “Don’t Label Me”–as though that is the main thing to fear from her vicious coreligionists.
Meanwhile, she has had mobs of Muslim men try and assault her at her appearances.
She has also ludicrously claimed that it is the US “war on terror” that causes Islamic terrorism.
william says
Yes, it is true one can find all sorts of sayings in the bible and lets face it Christianity has been responsible for many atrocious acts throughout its history some decreed by Popes! The point is, which people like Nawaz neglects to say, is that Christians do not use the bible to justify such actions today and have not done so for several centuries. Jesus, we are told, spoke against the common practice of stoning to death.
Yet not a week passes without some Muslims cleric calling for sharia penalties for things Muslim do not like. Yet the clerics are the ones most knowledgeable, we must assume, of all Muslims.
JOEYN says
What a load of crap from Maajid Nawaz. This guy is a typical Islamist who totally lacks integrity and is great at changing his tune according to the circumstance at hand. When he clearly got beaten by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray in the debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace, he had no choice but to make himself look like a transformed person who sincerely wants to reform Islam. Unfortunately he has managed to fool and still fooling a lot of people including Ayaan into thinking that he is a true Muslim reformer. Talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali who I used to admire a lot, I totally agree with RS that she is completely mistaken in thinking that Islam can be reformed.
PRCS says
Islamism: often referred to as “political Islam”.
Theocracy: a system of governance in which “church” and state are inseparable.
He knows full well that political Islam is part and parcel of his beloved Islam.
Wellington says
Typical Muslim junk and mendacity.
Ade Fegan says
Majid can be quite scathing of islam
Maybe he was wearing a different hat that day
Fitna says
Maajid has always been a lying snake and apologist for Islamic fascism. I was pretty ticked off at Sam Harris for teaming up with Maajid and pushing for reforming Islam. Sam knows better but I think the constant attacks he’s had probably wore him down as it could do to anyone. Also know there’s millions of Muslims who want him dead probably had a factor as well.
Also was anyone trying to ‘reform Nazism’ when they took over Germany? It’s an idiotic and laughable notion. It is also just another dodge and wild goose chase, giving non-Muslims a false sense of comfort that “something is being done” about the extremism that Islam propagates.
Ofc in reality, it’s just a ruse for Muslims to buy more time, gain numbers and power until they don’t have to pretend to be moderate anymore and then they’ll start demanding that we also bow to Islam and implement Sharia law or face real deadly consequences.
Given how weak, ignorant and stupid our leaders are, they’ll easily cave and one day we’ll find ourselves under Islamic rule wondering how it could’ve happened so fast. Then like the Iranians we’ll be fighting a desperate and losing battle trying to regain our freedom. The time to get aggressive with Islam is now, while their numbers are small.
Hiram Sotomayor says
I am inclined to agree with your assessment of Nawaz, but there’s still another angle to his position. He may be essentially a religious man who clings to his faith out of loyalty to his culture, who has persuaded himself that the peacefulness of a religion is a matter of interpretation and evolution of the creed over time. He may very well be a firm believer of this, but also it’s possible that he’s well aware of what Islam really is (theologically, historically, politically and militarily) yet maintains the above position as a matter of long term strategy to reform Islam. The facts that he deserted from the ranks of Islamic terrorism, and that he has has collaborated with others in the reform movement, support his claim that he is a well intentioned reformist… That being said, however, there’s always Taqiyya. I guess we’ll never know.
gravenimage says
Maajid Nawaz claims ‘Islamism’ arose only with Afghan war, changes subject when asked about Quran’s violent passages
………………..
Uh huh–does this fool assume that he is speaking to no one who is capable of thinking back more than twenty years? By this “logic”, the Taliban could not have been “Islamist”, since taking the Qur’an seriously only dates back to 2001, and was–somehow–inspired by the United States.
Note that Nawaz *himself* was an “Islamist” and involved with Hizb ut-Tahrir in his younger days–before 2001–before his going for this “reform”.
He is involved with the Quilliam Foundation–a group he founded, based on early English convert to Islam Abdullah Quilliam. He has lambasted Israel for daring to defend against attacks from Hamas, and has claimed that Muslims are no more involved in grooming gangs than anyone else. This claptrap *hardly* sounds like “reform” of Islam to me–more like the usual whiteash of that ugly creed.
mortimer says
Maajid ‘Magic’ Nawaz is off by a quarter of a century. The Iranian Islamic Revolution that overturned the shaw was the start of the Third Great Jihad.
gravenimage says
He’s also off by 1300+ years.
tim gallagher says
These Muslims are lying pieces of crap. Their lying is neverending. I presume that Muslims, such as this creature, do know their Koran. The Koran is full of calls for murderous violence against the hated non-believers. Islam is fundamentally violent. If the violence was taken out of Islam, there would be nothing left. It would be an empty shell without all the hatred and murderous violence and endless bullying and threats of violence. That’s all that this vile ideology has. Islam has no calls for love and peace. And the death toll that 1400 years of islam has inflicted on the human race is around 270 million so far. Yeah, that’s a peaceful ideology alright. This maggot is the usual Muslim lying propagandist. It is a mistake to buy any of their bullshit.
john smith says
Maajid Nawaz knows the truth about islam, but like many moderates or ex-muslims he is to frightened to tell it. Can you blame him? because telling the truth will put his own life in danger.
James Lincoln says
john, if Maajid Nawaz knows the truth about Islam, then he should just keep his mouth shut rather than being an apologist for it…
john smith says
James and Gravenimage you are both correct, he should just keep his mouth shut.
gravenimage says
Agreed, James. If he is simply frightened–which would be understandable–there is no reason for him to spout whitewash and apologia for Islam.
IanB says
Nawaz is a mendacious taqiyya artist of the first order.
He knows full well the violent content of the Quran and of the 1400 year violent history of Islam. He thinks we do not. That makes him a fool of the first order.
If he were genuine he would renounce Islam.
Bob Stevens says
There is no concept of moderate islam in the quran ..At its core , islam is a violent , discriminating , dangerous and highly oppressive ideology , unrepenting , unreforming and unmoved by countless worldwide genocides it has left in its wake..Violent from its bloody beginnings some 1300+ years ago and still viciously murderous in our present time
libertyORdeath says
Are we supposed to just ignore the islamist jihad against Israel, which had gone on for a full 50+ years BEFORE 9/11? Or how about the rampant hijackings of the 70s? Or the islamist assistance that Hitler and the Nazis received? Or the kidnapping of hundreds of Americans by the newly established Islamist Republic of Iran? Or the Munich jihad massacre?
I could go on, but u get the point. I’m convinced that leftists actually LOVE being lied to. Then they can think they’re always right regardless of facts. All this while the cult continues to grow.
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
Refutation of ‘Magic’ Nawaz here: https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Jihad/History_of_Jihad
There are too many examples of jihad throughout history for his claim of ‘benign Islam’ to be the least bit credible.
The history of jihad shows Islam is extremely vicious and aggressive.