The UK's most noteworthy anti-muslim? Are you shitting me?

I like Majid Nawaz and support him and am very glad he's going to be there 

well serpent  then you must have realized , Even in England "ALL MUSLIMS DO NOT FOLLOW SAME ISLAMIC RULES"   So there is nothing wrong if Maajid Nawaz trash talks about some trash Muslims..  And I am sure Those Muslims also trash talk about Maajid Nawaz....

And that word "Proper Muslim" changes from time to time, place to place and person to person..

A brown Robert Spencer? Oh come on Serpent! Now that's going too far.

If you want to act mature and not name names about this guy like I'm pretty sure I recall you saying you wouldn't, at least stop with the heavy hints to his identity. Either commit to a dick move or don't; don't act noble yet make it pretty clear to most of us who you're referencing.

As for the rest of it, I don't follow Maajid too closely, could you provide us with some examples of what you personally find makes him unsuitable to support ex-Muslims publicly, or worthy of what you've charged him with?

oh! ok...  good  so  we all know All Muslim folks do not follow same Islamic rules..I think we all should remember that  all the time


Hi  Serpent give me the proof...  I am sure you should be able to find some tube that is relevant to what you are saying . There are plenty from Maajid...

Thank you

@serpent

I do agree that how we present ourselves and how we represent ex-muslims is absolutely critical, and that we always have to be double checking our language and making sure we do this fairly and correctly.

As for his facebook post, there is absolutely no denying that in many of these countries there's some serious work to be done and that conditions for women can be deplorable and protections non-existent. How we choose to bring up the subject does require some tact, of course, but from what you describe, he went about it the wrong way. But I see that all the time even from those among us with the best of intentions, this tactless, ugly behavior. In fact, if you'll recall, not too long ago happymurtad and I expressed that we thought that a lot of things you were posting in the interesting pictures thread were tactless, which you were not too pleased about IIRC. I do get that we have to be careful--absolutely, yes.

I also reckon I'd have to see what he wrote in the dailymail rather than just taking the fact that he was published there as proof that he's "a hate preacher...the brown Robert Spencer..." and so on. In the meantime, the language you're using is spectacular, and no more help to the perception of us and a healthy conversation about our boundaries. Throwing around labels and using absolutes like this is not helpful. No person in the public eye is going to be perfect. Let's address specifically what they do or say that is wrong and what they need to do better in the future if we want this to be productive.

I wasn't trying to say that you were clueless about these issues. The point I was trying to make is that they are legitimate complaints, and not everyone goes about it in an ideal manner. If you have further examples of how absolutely terrible he is, I might look at this incident in a different light. But that alone isn't proof of anything. I've seen the best among us make generalizations or go a little too far when trying to address something that needs to be addressed.


 

Well, I didn't think I was giving off the impression that I thought otherwise, but since you asked, I'll tell you what I tell Islamic apologists who try to say how, in the end, Saudi Arabia is a better place for women than the United States because of face value rape statistics: the gigantic difference between many of these locations and a place like the UK is whether or not there are legal protections in place that are actually reasonably available for the women to utilize when they do become victims or are in danger of becoming victims. The availability and completeness of these legal protections to women in any country is the critical issue to this conversation.




No it doesn't. Especially if it's “along the lines of.” I'm not saying that this couldn't be the case with Nawaz, but I'm saying that the proof and evidence you're giving me is not compelling at all. If I say that I'm interested and concerned and my primary line of work is working with women in the inner city and I don't want to get into talking about domestic violence rates in the suburbs, that doesn't mean that I don't give a fuck about those other women. It means that I'm here to do a job and focus on one thing right now, and I especially am likely to say something like that if people keep bringing up women in other locations to try to distract from my point or bring up their own agenda.

So, again, not saying it's impossible, nor saying that he's my goldenboy? Like I said, don't really follow the guy at all. But what you're showing me isn't sufficient to make those claims.



Well, guess you missed the point. It's okay, we'll work it out. For one thing, there's an awful lot of dark humor in that board, that's not at all the issue. You were just posting cartoons that he and I both found spectacularly tasteless and, yes, the precise kind of thing that I'd expect to see on anti-Muslim sites. I know that's not your angle, but that's what happened. And the mod team even had to remove one of your pictures because it was way over the top.

But my point is that not everyone is going to be perfect in the public eye all the time. I certainly wouldn't want to send you out as our best foot forward to represent ex-Muslims,  I do think you ride the line at times, and I'm sure you feel the same for me. When we think someone's doing something, saying something, supporting something that we think might ultimately be detrimental to how we are perceived, we ought to have that discussion and say what we think we could be doing better. HM and I had no problem saying that to you, or to anyone, and if you think Nawaz isn't a good fit for this, it's good that you speak up, too. My problem with you is you giving me these weak examples and then just nailing him with these extreme accusations. If you could show me that he deserves it, we'd be cool and I would think you did a good thing here.

If you were put in the public eye and you were under scrutiny, you can bet your sweet ass that many ex-Muslims wouldn't think you're cut out for it, either, and would make similar accusations, and the same goes for me. So what we have to do is try to chill the fuck out and talk about this like adults: productively, with examples, and constructive criticism. 




Oh man. Strawmanned is a little much, don't you think? But my bad, it was the daily mail examples in combination with the facebook one. To quote you directly: “This one examples shows CLEARLY that he wants to denigrate and villify muslims and tell everyone how awful they all are...This is just one example. Maajid Nawaz has also written for the anti-muslim rag the Daily Mail. There you go, 2 examples”

So let me just say that I don't think those “2 examples” are enough to call him a hate preacher. We good now?




Yes, and that's good and well, but again, we need to see what he says in the Daily Mail, not just that he writes for it. You could be published by a Fox outlet or appear as a regular on one of their network programs, but that doesn't make you a representative or agent of everything you could charge the company with as a whole. Specifics, my man. We need specific articles where he actually preached hate or whatever it is that he did wrong.



How did you go about that, though? No offense--really, no offense intended--but I know from experience that it's rough to try to have a conversation in a civil tone with you sometimes. I might give you a pass myself, depending on how you went about trying to engage with me. And anyway, I was talking about the conversation you and I are having right now. You came here to prove a point and voice a concern, and you have an audience now, so let's do it right.