Yeah, this sucks. Another example of this is Southern Poverty Law Center's "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists". They include Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which is disgusting of the SPLC to do. https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-...
Why are these people necessarily wrong to include?
I did a search and I found many articles on the issue, suggesting it's a semi-famous controversy, but no reliable sources (all partisan and either untrustworthy or unknown, from the far left and far right).
Imagine that instead of criticizing a religion, Nawaz and Ali were criticizing the Republican Party. Maybe they're a bit over the top, but would it be fair to label them "anti-Republican Extremists?" Would it be a good idea to shut down such viewpoints?
Ouch, that article really hurt my respect for SPL. Nawaz especially, through his discussions with Sam Harris, really opened my eyes to the struggles of moderate and progressive Muslims when it comes to reforming Islam.
Nawaz was himself radicalized as a young man, and much of his work today is around preventing other young Muslims from taking that path. It disgusts me that a man with such a important perspective is carelessly labeled anti-Muslim.
Check out the audiobook discussion with Sam Harris if you haven't, "Islam and the future of Tolerance". It was a good, respectful discussion between two very different viewpoints, and Nawaz made very insightful and logical arguments for mainstream Islam being capable of undertaking certain anti-radicalization reforms and why those matter.
> Ouch, that article really hurt my respect for SPL. Nawaz especially, through his discussions with Sam Harris, really opened my eyes to the struggles of moderate and progressive Muslims when it comes to reforming Islam.
This sort of thing from the Western left is incredibly alarming to me. Imagine hardline Christian conservatives took over America and now we live in Handmaid's Tale. You're one of the tiny minority trying to fight back. How would you feel about people in Europe apologizing for the hardliners and condemning anyone who speaks out against their culture?
Obviously it's not Handmaid's Tale bad, but it's worse than you assume. My family is from Bangladesh. A third of the people from my country think I should be executed for leaving Islam: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... Bangladesh is a moderate country in the grand scheme of things--that number is 2/3 in Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
Bangladesh was founded as a secular republic, but that was jettisoned and Islam was made the official religion the year before my family left the country. That was all part of a long societal shift away from the west towards the Islamic world. For years--long before any of this hit the radar of anyone at SPLC--my family used the number of women in Dhaka wearing head coverings as a barometer for the country's descent into theocracy (very rare in the 1980s, quite common today).
I get its a fine line. You can't help people integrate if you can't let them adopt western values on their own terms. At the same time, some of this stuff from well-meaning liberals is really a kick to the gut of people fighting for modernity in these countries.
[1] My family was never religious, but that's not a distinction they recognize over there. I can't count how many times I've gotten in a cab with a driver from south asia/the middle east, and someone has asked me "where are you from?" And if I reply "Bangladesh," the answer is invariably "oh so you're Muslim?"
>"Shhh! The humanities departments still think relativism is sexy. They haven't yet figured out that to assume a position of relativism--like the claim to be neutral on issues of distribution--is really a statement that you are on the side of the powerful."
The Nawaz drama is more complicated than this, isn't it? It's not Nawaz's overt positions SPLC is objecting to so much as his actions, which appear to profit from anti-Muslim sentiment.
The SPLC piece is kind of an unsubstantiated hit piece:
> But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute.
The only concrete fact is that we received a bunch of British government funding. I don't know a lot about the guy, and obviously I don't stuff about surveillance. But wherever the line is for extremist, he's nowhere close.
Yes, really. All you have to do is actually read the SPLC piece on Nawaz, which makes no mention of whatever this incident you're referring to is.
I'm not defending SPLC, which again I think overstepped by targeting Nawaz. But the argument that they did so to prevent Islam from being criticized appears to oversimplify. Their problem with Nawaz is that they believe he's a profiteering fraud.
If I am anti-x, and I profit from it, am I an extremist anti-x-er? Do I deserves to be put on a list with nutjobs and whackos? Does putting me on a list of extremist when my positions are not extreme reduce the credibility of the organisation which does so? Is the article an obvious hitjob?
The answers are: Not necessarily, not necessarily, yes, and yes.
Yeah, "profiting" is a typical stupid liberal accusation to invalidate people, because liberals have this shitty idea that "making money == bad". They use the same argument against the Kochs, even though it's been clearly debunked: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
I have no problem with Maajid fundraising and paying himself a salary. You need to be careful with the "X profits from fundraising, therefore they're just trying to profit from Y sentiment." That argument could be applied to Planned Parenthood, Churches, and just really anything. Just because an organization is well-funded doesn't mean they're morally bankrupt.
Religious flamewar is not allowed here, we ban accounts that do it, and you've crossed into it here. It's profoundly off topic on HN, so please don't post like this again.
Neither Maajid Nawaz nor Ayaan Hirsi Ali are particularly reliable or impartial commentators, to the extent that i'm surprised you'd find it 'disgusting' to describe either of them as 'Anti-Muslim Extremists' - the both almost by definition are.
