This 15-month-old video, with Maajid Nawaz as the relentless interlocutor, shows how odious and duplicitous some prominent British Muslims can be when it comes to saying what they really think.
Nawaz, now a liberal and moderate Muslim, has an interesting history: he was born to Pakistani parents in the UK, educated in England, and then became radicalized and spent a year in Egypt, joining a revolutionary group dedicated to establishing the Caliphate. He was arrested in Egypt for belonging to the group, and spent four years in prison.
During his imprisonment, Nawaz became de-radicalized, and now speaks vociferously against extremist Islam, though I believe he still considers himself a Muslim (I don’t know how religious he is). He founded the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation, and speaks extensively on the dangers of Islamism. He is a brave man: were I he, I’d fear for my life. (By the way, Nawaz and Sam Harris have collaborated on a book exchanging views about Islam; it will be published fairly soon by Harvard University Press.)
This 7-minute video shows Nawaz asking a number of British Muslims, some quite prominent, to lay out how closely they adhere to sharia law. Do they decry the chopping off of thieves’ hands? Would they oppose the stoning of adulterers, or the killing of apostates? None of them will give a flat and unqualified “no” to these questions, and you just know that they really approve of these things but can’t say so publicly. Here we see some Plantiga-grade theological waffling.
You may think that Nawaz is hectoring some of them, but really, how much time do you need to think about whether you think stoning people is a good idea? The point is obviously that many of the “non-extremist” Muslims of Britain hold very retrograde and brutal views, a point that was made in a recent BBC survey of Muslim opinion.
Of course, their answers are all ultimately based on the resentment of the colonialist West . . .
h/t: Yakaru
“None of them will give a flat and unqualified “no” to these questions, and you just know that they really approve of these things but can’t say so publicly.”
I don’t know that you can jump to that conclusion, though it could be true. It could also be that they don’t really agree, but they know that the Koran does not allow for disagreement on fundamental issues and that they could be attacked both figuratively and literally by their fellow Muslims for blasphemy against Islam for disagreeing with the Koran.
Some of them actually say they approve of these things, and would favor them if Britain was under sharia law. I suppose you can always say, “Well, they’re lying because they’re afraid,” but then how do you account for the BBC poll results, which show an alarmingly high proportion of people favoring bad stuff (the poll was of course anonymous)? And of course the “fear” caveat doesn’t say much about the rest of British Muslims from whom they’d fear reprisal, does it? Why would they fear reprisal from their Islamic countrymen if those people didn’t adhere to the dictates of the Qur’an?
“And of course the “fear” caveat doesn’t say much about the rest of British Muslims from whom they’d fear reprisal, does it? Why would they fear reprisal from their Islamic countrymen if those people didn’t adhere to the dictates of the Qur’an?”
I concur that regardless of why they are unwilling to simply state if they disagree with the outrageous dictates of Islam that it is evidence of serious conflicts between Islam and democratic, civil society. This makes Scot Walker’s coyness on whether or not he believes in evolution (where he needs to hide his position, whatever it is, from at least some of his constituents) seem almost trivial by comparison.
There is a group called CAGE which was all over the British media this week feeding the debate on Mohammed Emwazi, aka Jihadi John, blaming his brutality on alleged harassment by the British Security Services. Thereby feeding into the left-wing criticism of stop-and-search police practice which is used disproportionately to intimidate ethnic minorities.
Early on in the story, thinking that it was possible that CAGE were merely a sort of alternative Amnesty International, I looked at their website and after 3 minutes concluded that they were just a front organization for Jihadis. I could be wrong, but I am 99% sure that I am not.
CAGE interpreted the recent BBC Muslim attitudes poll results, to which Jerry refers, in an interesting way. They accentuated the average Muslim’s strong identification with being British. And, being not stupid, CAGE pointed out that there was no comparison with what non-Muslims thought on the same issue. And they’re right. The BBC should have done that: the psephology wasn’t thought through.
CAGE seem to have shot themselves in the foot – which in their world-view counts as gay justice –because a spokesperson has been roundly mocked for calling Jihadi John a nice guy before he went to Iraq. But for a while they cleverly span the story to appeal to a general British sense of fair-play, suspicion of the Intelligence Community and understood satire of its incompetence.
When the first CAGE guy came on British TV, I knew that he was lying. So should the journalists who gave him the platform. We have to waste so much time with these people.
Allele akhbar. x
I hope I don’t sound callous, but I get a sick feeling in my stomach when I read “CAGE” as an acronym for a group that is even slightly aligned with a group that actually used a cage to burn someone alive — and filmed it— and published the video — some parts in slow- motion.
I’m shocked they would use this acronym. Or maybe they like the impled threat?
implied
The “fear” doesn’t sit well with me. Going on live TV, in hopes of influencing the thinking of all the viewers (else why go on TV?), and then cower once asked a pressing question? That alone would be questionable behaviour for a public “intellectual”, let alone when issues of severed limbs, public executions, and spousal torture hang in the balance.
I know it seems more logical that it would be fellow Muslims who would attack them for dissenting on their golden rules and of course that holds, but these people also live amoungst Muslim haters and they are still a minority.. and scary people who drink alcohol on a saturday night just looking for a worthy victim. i.e. your local hoons who may know where you live.
Admiting you would kill someone’s granny (on national TV, utube) for being an apostate might set you up for a bad fall, if not a severe beating.
What I find interesting is that the ISIS lot never show their faces, are they ashamed of being demented killers? (that sets them up for an interesting conversation in the afterlife) Muhammad: why do you not show the world who you are whilst doing my bidding?
they are like those above they have something to hide, and I suspect it is their status as a rational human being.
Is it picky to correct ” their answers”. I hope not.
On that topic see this video from the BBC’s “This Week” yesterday.
Q: “Should women be stoned to death for adultery?”
A: “I’m not a theologian”
Now, where have Americans heard that sort of “answer” before?
I don’t know – I’m not a historian.
“I don’t know- I’m not a Republican”…..
You beat me to it!! I was about to post a link to that interview. The interviewer and the other guests should be commended for calling him out on it.
At around 10:56.
Wow, lot’s of weaseling.
Would it be inappropriate to follow up with “Fine. We agree you’re not a theologian. Are you an Englishman?”
On the surface it’s a provocative question to ask, as if a person can’t disagree with his country’s standards and remain a legitimate citizen. But there is a big difference between keeping halal or kosher in a pig-eating country, for example, and advocating (or even being neutral about) the death penalty for private indiscretions.
It’s interesting how many people can be quite comfortable taking positions on all kinds of questions on which they don’t have expertise, but conveniently don’t have the credentials to answer when an honest answer would ruffle the wrong feathers.
I hope Mr. Qureshi gets asked these hard questions every time he takes to the airwaves, and don’t stop until he gives a satisfactory answer. If a simple yes or no answer is somehow anathema or risky or it’s too embarrassing to acknowledge the existence of some tenet of one’s worldview, it undermines the credibility of one’s being an “expert” on that worldview: expertise is about taking honest positions, not just easy ones. A person should have to explain why they can’t or won’t answer, and “I’m not a Theologion” does not meet the requirement.
Who knew there was something worse than being a ST!
Sharia law is pure barbarism. It is an ancient throwback to the Hammurabic Code a millennium after said Code was considered far too vicious and cruel and inhumane to serve as a foundation for civil society.
Anybody who would advocate for it, even in some hypothetical circumstance that nobody ever expects to see realized, is uncivilized and unfit to participate in modern social discourse.
We must all start with a baseline: Sharia is evil and absolutely unacceptable. You may practice it in your own mind, but you may not otherwise practice it — not even in your own home.
No amount of religious fervor can excuse, for example, a revival of Aztec human sacrifices, even if by willing participants. Sharia with its mutilation and torture and death by torture is every bit as horrific, and cannot be countenanced in any way, shape, or form.
Cheers,
b&
And yet some states excuse Christian human sacrifices (of believers’ sick children)…
/@
Nobody ever accused America of being civilized.
Well, okay. That’s an exaggeration, but….
b&
I don’t think these things are comparable. Intervention of state in parenting decision is very dangerous and delicate matter. Proponents of applied behavior analysis (ABA) say that it is very important for the integration of autistic children. My autistic friends think otherwise. Do you think that the state should nevertheless trace autistic children and subject them to mandatory ABA regardless of the opinions of their parents?
It is also well known that vegan diet is dangerous for fetuses, infants and young children, esp. in the absence of vitamin B12 supplementation. Do you think that vegan new mothers should be subpoenated and forced to renounce their vies/diet or otherwise have their children taken away?
I may not be good in presenting my point, but I guess you get it.
And, frankly, I am troubled by the fact that every time when someone suggests that Islamic extremism is a problem, someone answers that Christians do the same things (or have made Crusades a millennium ago, or whatever).
Which things aren’t comparable?
That this is a “dangerous and delicate” matter, as we in Britain are well aware. (I fear social services and so on now err the wrong way after the Orkney child sex abuse scandal twenty odd years ago. Recent cases might prompt a more robust approach in the near future.)
But I think it is right in principle for the state to intervene when a child is at risk; e.g., to make vaccination compulsory, to make a child denied proper medical care a ward of court.
Cases depend on the degree to which the child is at risk and the weight of evidence. I don’t know enough about ABA and autism to comment. From your description, I’d tend to see intervention justified in those cases. What’s the incidence? (My cousin is a vegan, but brought up her children on a non-vegan diet. But beyond that I have no experience…) Intervention could be just firm guidance, of course; something that health visitors could address during a child’s infancy.
And I’d be troubled by that, too. But I was comparing (some) Christians to Aztecs, not Muslims! 😁
/@
I am also for compulsory vaccinations. However, “compulsory” generally means making non-vaccination inconvenient, such as not allowing unvaccinated children in day care/school. I don’t know of any country where compulsory vaccination is done by police bringing the child to the doctor while other police are restraining the parents.
There are parents of disabled children who are convinced that the disability was caused by vaccination. You can argue with them till the Sun explodes, but in their heads, this will remain the reality. Place yourself in their shoes if the state forces them to vaccinate a second child and he develops the same disability (which is not that unlikely, given the shared genes and environment).
Cancer therapy is a much clearer case. However, if it is done against the will of the parents and if the child nonetheless dies, and particularly if he dies as a result of therapy, the authorities are in a very delicate situation.
Here is an article about ABA, by an autistic psychologist:
http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_aba.html
You may have made a comparison of some CHristians with the Aztecs, but the discussion was about Islamists, and the result of bringing in Christian faith healers is that we are now discussing other things, giving Islamism the comfort of non-opposition in enjoys so often in the West.
Yes, we are; but you don’t have to be so pompous about it. You didn’t really need to reply at length to my facetious rejoinder to Ben in the first place.
/@
^Everything Ben said^
The opposite may be true as well. It’s not so easy for a Muslims to come right out and say Muhammad, or the Qu’ran are wrong.
I wanted to add I’m not defending them or Islam in any way. I think the possibility they might be more moderate than they dare say is hardly an improvement over their being more extreme than they are willing to say.
And yet the first guy was very clear cut about thieves losing their hands.
/@
* i.e., that it was wrong, contra Sharia.
** oh, but then he weasels about “Sharia conditions being met”… 😕
Ant, I think that the ‘Sharia conditions being met…’ idea is theologically important. Nawaz always asks the question using that phrase. He obviously knows that it doesn’t give the theocrats any wriggle room. I’m gonna use that phrase from now on.
Pretty shocking hearing a barbaric Islamist speaking in a Geordie accent (3:05), isn’t it? x
Yes, that’s a critical phrase, because that’s how the apologists weasel: “The sharia conditions aren’t met.”
That’s what I find problematic about many Muslims condemnation of incidents like the CH killings.
They’ll often condemn it not because it’s inherently wrong to kill people for drawing cartoons, but because the victims weren’t granted due process under sharia law, and their executions officially sanctioned.
The next obvious follow-up that I would hope people press them on is whether or not they think it would be a good thing for Sharia conditions to be be met. Or, alternately, whether they themselves feel they have a duty to work to bring about Sharia conditions.
b&
Exactly, the 2 follow-ups I was thinking of, Ben.
And the next question would be, “Can you give an example of a country with full Sharia?” To which the answer is Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan (what was that war for?), Brunei, Iran, Iraq (again, what was that war for?), the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Aceh in Indonesia, the 12 Sharia States of Nigeria, UAE.
There are 34 other states or regions in countries where Sharia applies in personal status.
None of which are top of my emigration wish-list. It might be worth memorizing these states. “I’ll give you Denmark if you give me Saudi Arabia.” Chuffin’ Ada, Hitchens was talking about this 10 years ago.
Allele akhbar. x
Ah, but the Western Islamic apologists weasel out by some sort of mumbling about those not having “full” Sharia conditions met.
That, of course, instantly makes one think that Saudi Arabia must therefore be Sharia Lite, and wonder how many more people would be brutally tortured and murdered for how much more trivial offenses under Sharia Pro.
I’m sure the apologists have some sort of weasel for that, as well, but nobody seems to be able to nail down their jello even that far.
b&
Maajid Nawaz is one of my new heroes.
Please read his book, Radical. He is just the sort of Muslim we need out in the world doing the good work of de-fanging Islam.
I am sending a copy of Radical to each of my (US Federal level) representatives and President Obama. I have the books; I just need to send them off. (I’m still working on the accompanying letter.)
BTW, all my reps. (including Obama) accept evolution. A few years back, when we had a benighted GOP governor, I sent him a copy of WEIT. Not that it probably did much good …
I doubt that a GOP politician who openly accepts evolution (duh!) can be nominated for president in the current GOP. Forget about state-level offices.
I’m currently reading a(n excellent) history of the American Civil War, The Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson (the book won the Pulitzer Prize). In the run-up to the CW, it’s amazing how parallel the talk was in many ways. Especially how the wealthy big slave-holders of the South got the non-slave-holding poor whites to vote for slavery and against their own economic interests.
Much like the GOP now is doing (e.g. the teabagger movement).
On the civil war, McPherson is one of the best there is. First Class Historian.
This Maajid Nawaz is a very brave man. I hope he has lots of protection.
argh, html close fail!
This video, and the results of numerous opinion polls of Muslim views, are why I am not impressed at all when a few Muslim spokespeople condemn the Charlie Hebdo massacre or a few Muslim liberals surround a synagogue to protect it.
Muslim violence, extremism, terrorism, and Islamism are only going to go away when they are not just occasionally criticized by the majority of Muslims, but are actively debrided from the population by moderates.
It is moderate Muslims who must expose, persecute, re-educate, incarcerate the extremists. It is they who must rehabilitate their religion. Unfortunately, it appears that most moderate Muslims do not necessarily disagree with much of the extremist agenda, or are too afraid to even say anything.
That is the 50 dollar question or whatever the amount may be. Is there enough in the moderate class of Muslims to eliminate this extreme part of their religion. There better be or the sailing will get very rough at some point.
I follow the work of Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation closely – I have enormous respect for him. I recommend subscribing to Quilliam’s YouTube channel and following Nawaz on Twi**er.
“Of course, they’re answers are all ultimately based on the resentment of the colonialist West . . .”
Given how plain the Koran (and the Bible also) are in their support for such shocking violence, perhaps the Koran/Bible writers themselves were responding to future Western colonialism? 🙂
This apologist for murder has been popping up on UK TV justifying the appalling actions of the so-called “Jihadi John”. Just listen to his ducking and weaving when asked some very pertinent questions about his own beliefs by the presenter ( Andrew Neill). A good example is that he refused to answer a question about whether he thought adulterers should be stoned to death. He managed to annoy both members of the panel – left ( Alan Johnson) and right (Michael Portillo) who tore him a new one.
Relevant piece starts 10 mins in …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afdeFuJbK3E&t=600
( I have PCC’s permission to embed …)
Enlightenment luminaries would describe this noble soul as a “prevaricator.”
His book is really worth reading.
There’s a couple of minutes of him with Richard Dawkins on Maher’s show here.
About 3 mins in he talks about the historical origins of modern Islamic fascism.
It is interesting to compare. I can ask my eight year old if he would cut off the hand of a their and he would answer no, in about two seconds. He is eight years old.
Interestingly, my dyslexic brain read ‘…British Museums’ and was very perplexed, at first, to see a video of Muslims against Muslims.
In a similar line, I’ve read in Web forums several variations of the dialog below (though can’t find a link now):
A (of any religious affiliation): Don’t you agree that the flogging of Raif Badawi is barbaric?
B (Muslim): I cannot have an opinion about this, because I haven’t read his blog.
A: What exactly must have been written in a blog to justify such a punishment in your eyes?
B: (silence, or change of subject, or weaseling).
I’ve also mentioned that there are very, very few Muslim organizations that have condemned the punishment of Raif. The reaction of most is deafening silence. I wonder what the explanation is – unwillingness to alienate orthodox followers, unwillingness to talk about a case so shameful for Islam, unwillingness to criticize Saudi Arabia because of it being their sponsor or potential sponsor, or actual approval of such “justice” and hope to spread it to all corners of the world.
At about the same time, those same organizations condemned the Charlie Hebdo massacre, invariably with the disclaimer that religion should not be insulted. Maybe they think that killing of offenders of Islam is a bit too much while imprisonment and flogging is OK. Or maybe they think that justice should be brought by the judicial system as in Saudi Arabia, rather than by individuals as in France. Anyway, whatever it is, I don’t like it.
At about 2 minutes into this video, the debate chair/show host Jeremy Paxman says
“this question is getting to Michael Howard levels”.
On the off chance that anyone heard that and cares to know what he meant, have a look at this clip from BBC Newsnight, a show hosted by Paxman, one of the BBC’s top TV journalists. Starting from approx 4:10 through 6:10, try counting how many times Paxman asks the same question to senior Conservative politician and (at the time) Home Secretary Michael Howard, and how many times Howard avoids answering.
Paxman – Howard interview 1997
Hilariously, Paxman interviewed Howard again seven years later … and asked the same question. Finally he got an answer.
The odious apologists for the beautiful, gentle “Jihadi John”, an organisation known as CAGE, are generously supported by left of center charitable foundations. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust has donated £305,000 to these fascist apologists. The Roddick Foundation has donated £120,000 to them.
Didn’t spot that, Al: references, links?
x
‘Charities sever ties with pressure group Cage over Mohammed Emwazi links’ Guardian
http://tinyurl.com/pudbtvb
I stumbled across this Islamic Apology piece while surfing the Web. I’m curious to see what others think of this attempt to portray Islam as the defender of human freedom, liberty and justice.
Is There Room For Islam In Democracy, Freedom Of Speech, And Secularism? “Amid growing concern that radicalism is gaining ground against Western democracies, media, politicians and scholars have increasingly moved to focus their narratives on the notion that Islam is inherently opposed to the Western core values of democracy, freedom of expression, and secularism…” See the rest of the article at http://english.pnn.ps/index.php/opinion/9293-is-there-room-for-islam-in-democracy-freedom-of-speech-and-secularism
Very few people appreciate how focused and well oiled the islamic PR machine is. None of our politicians do, they bend over backwards to appear tolerant and inclusive by giving these people special treatment.
They are skilled manipulators of opinion, they distort reality with more power than a black hole and think nothing of telling outright lies to further the aims of their religion. Their religion specifically demands that they should.
I fail to see how we can hope for a good outcome from negotiations with a group who’s history demonstrates a philosophy of lying and evasion until it’s strong enough to take what it wants by force.
Islam demands rule by religious law for the world and will not cease its violent struggle until that’s achieved. I’d love someone o explain how we can tolerate a movement with that unwavering objective.
Depends on what intolerance entails.
I’ll note that the Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazi movements both espouse similar violent opposition to society, and we manage to tolerate them, right up to the point that they actually engage in violence.
The difference, of course, is that there’s great social opposition to the Klan and the Nazis, such that they’re pariahs. That is not the case with Islam.
And, to be fair, there’s another difference: most Muslims in America see the struggle against the secular world as much less violent and much more idealistic and spiritual than do many of their counterparts elsewhere in the world. Whatever theory might suggest, in practice they’re no more a threat than Christians. (And, yes, Christians do engage in religiously-motivated violence and therefore are a non-zero threat.)
b&