A Muslim Brit nails it again on the New Zealand attack

[LoneLaugher]

I am going to attend a NZ memorial service at a local mosque on Saturday. It will be, as is often the case, attended by local religious leaders from many faiths.

Now, I don’t believe in any of it. Zero. But I can tell you that nobody in attendance at this event will be a jihadi. Nor will they be apologetic toward Islamic extremists or the the militant freaks who commit acts of terror.

Oops! I may have just triggered Mac!

 

[LoneLaugher]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

.
If you weigh the harm to innocents over the last 20 years, Islamic terrorism remains the far greater concern than right wing supremacists. The numbers of attacks are alarming. That is not to exonerate the ways of right wing zealots.

I notice your author lists eloquent and famous atheist Sam Harris as his “friend and collaborator.” No wonder he sees the only solutions in terms of human efforts in hopes to change the minds of their enemies. I don’t. Not when there are dark spiritual elements involved. For many Christians, what’s at stake is of even greater concern

Oh no! A white supremacist terrorist apologist!!!! Get him, Mac!! Tell him what’s up!

 

[Olde Europe]

I don't think so. I don't have a problem with him trying to reform Islam.

But you should have a problem with exactly that, given the circumstances.

That starts out with him not being a religious scholar, which is why he doesn't command much respect on any questions related to religion.

Moreover, religions develop predominantly within societies upon the development of stable, outspoken, and informed civil societies, an independent, vigilant press, public debates and all that. That's why you have relatively moderate versions of Islam practiced in several states, and stone age versions thereof in others (which Nawaz won't tell you). Looking at the most stone age version of Islam, in Saudi Arabia, you also begin to realize why, in this U.S.-sponsored tyranny, you don't see any development. Gobs of oil dollars buy lots of U.S. guns, and they come in handy while suppressing everything independent from their Islamic, autocratic rule.

Now comes in one Mr. Nawaz, Islamist jihadist turned Zionist jihadist, while posturing as a liberal Muslim, talking down to those backwards Muslims. What would you think these Muslims' most likely reaction would be, provided they ever hear from that Westerner in his comfy seat thousands of miles away? Naw, Nawaz's primary audience are the rightarded sugar daddies who pay his bills, and on their behalf he invented a "regressive left", which is his primary target. The impostor is as laughable as is his "reformist agenda".

 

[jehanne1431]

Moreover, religions develop predominantly within societies upon the development of stable, outspoken, and informed civil societies, an independent, vigilant press, public debates and all that. That's why you have relatively moderate versions of Islam practiced in several states, and stone age versions thereof in others (which Nawaz won't tell you). Looking at the most stone age version of Islam, in Saudi Arabia, you also begin to realize why, in this U.S.-sponsored tyranny, you don't see any development. Gobs of oil dollars buy lots of U.S. guns, and they come in handy while suppressing everything independent from their Islamic, autocratic rule.

Now comes in one Mr. Nawaz, Islamist jihadist turned Zionist jihadist, while posturing as a liberal Muslim, talking down to those backwards Muslims. What would you think these Muslims' most likely reaction would be, provided they ever hear from that Westerner in his comfy seat thousands of miles away? Naw, Nawaz's primary audience are the rightarded sugar daddies who pay his bills, and on their behalf he invented a "regressive left", which is his primary target. The impostor is as laughable as is his "reformist agenda".

.
There’s some truth in what you say, but it is hard to extract, especially the last paragraph. I think that is an overstatement of some movement (within Islam) that will never amount to much.

But as for Saudi Arabia being one of the extremist nations, yes, the madrases and cells like Wahhabism within are that way. But the governing House of Saud I do not see in that regard at all. They would like nothing better than have no terrorism, but I believe they must allow these radical elements within to remain or they would be violently deposed. The most recent de facto ruler, Prince Bin Salman, is clearly not of that kind. He has given women many rights in his nation and done many other things or changes that are noteworthy, including publicly telling the Palestinians “either negotiate or shut up.” The U.S. I think can trust the House of Saud over any other Islamic leadership in that region.

 

[Tehon]

I don't think so. I don't have a problem with him trying to reform Islam.

But you should have a problem with exactly that, given the circumstances.

That starts out with him not being a religious scholar, which is why he doesn't command much respect on any questions related to religion.

Moreover, religions develop predominantly within societies upon the development of stable, outspoken, and informed civil societies, an independent, vigilant press, public debates and all that. That's why you have relatively moderate versions of Islam practiced in several states, and stone age versions thereof in others (which Nawaz won't tell you). Looking at the most stone age version of Islam, in Saudi Arabia, you also begin to realize why, in this U.S.-sponsored tyranny, you don't see any development. Gobs of oil dollars buy lots of U.S. guns, and they come in handy while suppressing everything independent from their Islamic, autocratic rule.

Now comes in one Mr. Nawaz, Islamist jihadist turned Zionist jihadist, while posturing as a liberal Muslim, talking down to those backwards Muslims. What would you think these Muslims' most likely reaction would be, provided they ever hear from that Westerner in his comfy seat thousands of miles away? Naw, Nawaz's primary audience are the rightarded sugar daddies who pay his bills, and on their behalf he invented a "regressive left", which is his primary target. The impostor is as laughable as is his "reformist agenda".

Very well said. And I agree with your assessment.

I just don't know enough about what he is doing on a day to day basis within his community to take that away from him.

 

[Olde Europe]

.
There’s some truth in what you say, but it is hard to extract, especially the last paragraph. I think that is an overstatement of some movement (within Islam) that will never amount to much.

But as for Saudi Arabia being one of the extremist nations, yes, the madrases and cells like Wahhabism within are that way. But the governing House of Saud I do not see in that regard at all. They would like nothing better than have no terrorism, but I believe they must allow these radical elements within to remain or they would be violently deposed. The most recent de facto ruler, Prince Bin Salman, is clearly not of that kind. He has given women many rights in his nation and done many other things or changes that are noteworthy, including publicly telling the Palestinians “either negotiate or shut up.” The U.S. I think can trust the House of Saud over any other Islamic leadership in that region.

Yeah, MbS butchered Khashoggi, and incarcerated and tortured a leading women's rights advocate, coming out in favor of driving rights. MbS, the reformer, is as much an impostor as Nawaz, if not more so, and his reformist agenda is a PR myth. It goes without saying, the House of Saud is joined at the hip with the mouth-breathing clergy, and both collude to maintain their position of power, and to pursue their anti-Shia agenda. And yes, they are all very, very frightened while living high on the hog - that is where the near-completely unquestioning U.S. support comes in handy - and, of course, there is more than one reason in the above why the 9/11 terrorists were predominantly Saudi.

 

[Olde Europe]

I just don't know enough about what he is doing on a day to day basis within his community to take that away from him.

Granted. It's also completely irrelevant, since the only thing that matters, at the political level, is his public advocacy. And that, I find, is thoroughly suspect.

 

[Tehon]

I just don't know enough about what he is doing on a day to day basis within his community to take that away from him.

Granted. It's also completely irrelevant, since the only thing that matters, at the political level, is his public advocacy. And that, I find, is thoroughly suspect.

I can't argue. I think you are exactly right about Nawaz.

 

[sealybobo]

So the new zealand shooter cited trump.

The white supremacist coast guard member cited trump.

The mail bomber cited trump.

The synagogue shooter cited trump.

Hmm...is there a pattern?

So you finally can't deny it so this is what you come back with. We know you are an intellectually dishonest person.

Lol
Trump had nothing to do with those... Are you trying to guilt by association again?

How deeply has President Trump taken our politics into the gutter? Consider this from President Bill Clinton's first term. Sen. Jesse Helms, the ultraconservative and Republican from North Carolina was asked about whether Clinton should visit the troops at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

Helms responded the President shouldn't come down to his state because the military hated him because he had avoided service in Vietnam and reduced military spending. The senator told a radio station, "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."

The remark provoked an inquiry from the Secret Service and front-page coverage in all of America's newspapers.

Fast forward to 2019 and now we have President Trump telling Breitbart News, "I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of Bikers for Trump -- I have tough people, but they don't play it tough until they go to a certain point and then it would be very, very bad." Twenty-five years after the Helms incident, though, there certainly won't be an apology from Trump for threatening violence against his political opponents, there won't be an investigation and I bet we don't find it on the front page of any newspaper.

Lol
There’s a reason why military folk can’t stand progressives...

And a lot of progressives are in the military.

They, the military, likes a president that spends a lot of money on the military.

To me this is sort of like socialism. The great military industrial complex.

Who are these weapons manufacturers selling to? Guberment. That’s not free market capitalism.

And how much is fraud waste and abuse? Obama and Clinton didn’t blow money on the military

 

[justoffal]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

Being able to see both sides doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
I don't like seeing anyone attacking innocent Muslims....but I also cannot handle the whining Muslims who feel they were personally attacked when they live 8000 miles away from the attack, and try to use this typically Islamic martyrdom complex to claim the right to attack others.

Agreed, and those of us who can see both sides form our opinions from that perspective.

In this case, as with so many others, those who are choosing to go through life with just one eye open are making things worse.
.

They're out there on both sides. The opportunists that want to see only the
Bad in the other side because they want
Blood.... They believe there can be no compromise and they literally yearn for
The chance to rain hell and death on those they see as evil.

Jo

 

[mudwhistle]

The only nut on our side so far has been the guy who shot up the republican softball game. You know how you can tell he was a liberal? No one died. Terrible shot. Clearly not a gun nut. LOL

That's flippant and it plays into their moronic rhetoric. I condemn that act as strongly as I do the Christchurch horror. And that act no more is indicative of liberals or even "bernie bros" than the Christchurch massacre is indicative of anyone BUT white nationalists and those that condone them and what they do

Or people who defend the white nationalists as good people.

Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: 'Some Very Fine People on Both Sides'
The president backtracked from his remarks on Charlottesville just a day earlier.

White Nationalist = Patriotic Caucasian
It does not = White Supremacist

dude this is what they are trying to do. they want you and I to become obsolete, the new muslims.

91% of CEOs are white men. It should be 50% women and 15% blacks, Latinos, muslims or indians.

You won’t be obsolete you will just control your fair share.

This is a diverse country. White men shouldn’t control it.

I’m not talking about money. We have the power and the money now. Nothing we can do about that. But white boys in the future won’t have an unfair advantage

Why don't we just let people run companies because they're black...or run them because they're women, or Gay, or Latino. Not because they know what they're doing. Just let them run their companies into the ground to make sure that we are correctly diverse. Blow the whole thing up....just so everyone, regardless of their gifts or skill levels, get a chance to run a company. Put that on your door. "We we may have screwed everything up, but we did it for the sake of diversity."

 

[jehanne1431]

.
There’s some truth in what you say, but it is hard to extract, especially the last paragraph. I think that is an overstatement of some movement (within Islam) that will never amount to much.

But as for Saudi Arabia being one of the extremist nations, yes, the madrases and cells like Wahhabism within are that way. But the governing House of Saud I do not see in that regard at all. They would like nothing better than have no terrorism, but I believe they must allow these radical elements within to remain or they would be violently deposed. The most recent de facto ruler, Prince Bin Salman, is clearly not of that kind. He has given women many rights in his nation and done many other things or changes that are noteworthy, including publicly telling the Palestinians “either negotiate or shut up.” The U.S. I think can trust the House of Saud over any other Islamic leadership in that region.

Yeah, MbS butchered Khashoggi, and incarcerated and tortured a leading women's rights advocate, coming out in favor of driving rights. MbS, the reformer, is as much an impostor as Nawaz, if not more so, and his reformist agenda is a PR myth. It goes without saying, the House of Saud is joined at the hip with the mouth-breathing clergy, and both collude to maintain their position of power, and to pursue their anti-Shia agenda. And yes, they are all very, very frightened while living high on the hog - that is where the near-completely unquestioning U.S. support comes in handy - and, of course, there is more than one reason in the above why the 9/11 terrorists were predominantly Saudi.

Ok. you might be right. maybe I have not read enough. I wish i had the time. But it always appeared to me the House of Saud were reluctant participants in the heavy stuff. Bin Salmin did imprison a bunch of wealthy Saudi princes and royalty for consuming so much wealth. Maybe that was part of the show, too.

 

[candycorn]

Mr. Nawaaz is risking his life trying to reform his beloved but troubled religion.

He is calling for civility and accountability and decency and communication, and an end to hatred and violence, as part of the process.

And a few here are more than willing to attack and insult him for it.

What does that tell you?
.

Are you saying that he is above scrutiny ?

Nope!

I'm just curious as to why you Regressives are so against the guy.

My guess is in post 305. All I can do is guess, really, because I certainly don't expect you folks to be honest.
.

Says the guy who can't answer an honest question.

Oh, you got me again!

Dang!
.

Yes….yes he did.

 

[JoeB131]

I take it you'd rather muslim immigrants to the UK self-segregate and make no effort to assimilate to the culture and instead stew in resentment.

They are assimilating just fine. This pathetic sellout that Mac keep trotting out to justify his Islamophobia is something different.

Our problem with the Islamic World has nothing to do with their religion and EVERYTHING to do with our policies.

Nawaz wants to bring modern liberal reform to his beloved religion, making him an enemy to the illiberal, authoritarian Regressive Left, who see his efforts as a threat to their pet constituent oppressed religion.

Nawaz is a pathetic sellout looking for the approval of white people who still see him as a dirty stinking darkie.

As a liberal Muslim challenging Islamists and engaging atheists, Maajid Nawaz has been vilified by leftists who sound an awful lot like bigots.

What I require, dear Muslims, is your patience. For it is due to precisely this concern of mine for universal human rights, that I vehemently oppose Islamist extremism and call for liberal reform within our communities, for our communities. I merely express my opinion about the future of our religion. I am not your enemy. I am not your representative. I am not your religious role model… but I am still from you, and I am of you. I have suffered all that you suffer. And I refuse to abandon you.

Again, is he a clergyman or theologian? Or is he just someone who hates his own religion.

True story. When I was 19, I realized Catholicism was completely full of shit. What I don't do is go around telling Catholics their business or try to reform their faith. Nor do I pretend all Catholics are evil because a couple of nuts bomb a gay bar or abortion clinic.

 

[JoeB131]

You're welcome.

Now that you have that out of your system, perhaps you can answer a question.

Why are the Regressive Lefties here so against a guy who is trying to improve a terrible situation for his religion?

Okay, I'm just kidding, I don't expect a straight answer.

Plus, I've already covered that here.

People have given you a straight answer, just not one you want to hear.

Our problem with the Islamic World is NOT because their belief in a sky fairy is any different than YOUR belief in a sky fairy.

Our problem is that we keep invading their countries, and wonder why they fight back.

The sudden "Concern" for women or gays by the One Percenters wouldn't exist if they weren't standing on oil that they wanted.

"Get those guys. They oppress gays and women!" they say after they send poor kids off to die in wars!

Our policy is to stick our hands in a hornet's nest and then whine about getting stung. Enablers like Mr. Sellout looking for the Approval of White People don't change that any.

 

[JoeB131]

Why don't we just let people run companies because they're black...or run them because they're women, or Gay, or Latino. Not because they know what they're doing. Just let them run their companies into the ground to make sure that we are correctly diverse. Blow the whole thing up....just so everyone, regardless of their gifts or skill levels, get a chance to run a company. Put that on your door. "We we may have screwed everything up, but we did it for the sake of diversity."

Because the Old White Boy Network has done so well running companies...

Oh. Wait. Um, no, they didn't.

 

[Mac1958]

Is this what you will do to every public figure who tries to reform Islam?

That's a safe bet. They don't want it to happen.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Mr. Nawaaz is risking his life trying to reform his beloved but troubled religion.

He is calling for civility and accountability and decency and communication, and an end to hatred and violence, as part of the process.

And a few here are more than willing to attack and insult him for it.

What does that tell you?
.

Are you saying that he is above scrutiny ?

Nope!

I'm just curious as to why you Regressives are so against the guy.

My guess is in post 305. All I can do is guess, really, because I certainly don't expect you folks to be honest.
.

Fascists hate liberalism and anything that threatens to liberalize Islam, they oppose.

Look at the Regressives who have jumped in here to illustrate his point for him.

You would think "liberals" (wink wink) would clearly and passionately advocate for his efforts.

But he's messin' with their pet constituent oppressed religion, so they're willing to throw in with the Islamist Fundamentalists.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

.
If you weigh the harm to innocents over the last 20 years, Islamic terrorism remains the far greater concern than right wing supremacists. The numbers of attacks are alarming. That is not to exonerate the ways of right wing zealots.

I notice your author lists eloquent and famous atheist Sam Harris as his “friend and collaborator.” No wonder he sees the only solutions in terms of human efforts in hopes to change the minds of their enemies. I don’t. Not when there are dark spiritual elements involved. For many Christians, what’s at stake is of even greater concern

Maajid and Sam (one of my favorite thinkers) wrote a book together and have done many, many speaking engagements together. An atheist and a Muslim, trying to stop the madness, getting resistance they never expected.

I'm not holding my breath that Nawaz will be successful, given he has the Regressive Left and the Islamist Fundamentalists working against him. That's quite a team.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Look at the Regressives who have jumped in here to illustrate his point for him.

You would think "liberals" (wink wink) would clearly and passionately advocate for his efforts.

But he's messin' with their pet constituent oppressed religion, so they're willing to throw in with the Islamist Fundamentalists.

Why? I mean, I'm happy he's looking for approval from White people if that's what he wants, but what he says doesn't deal with the underlying problem.

"Islamic" (not really) terrorism isn't the result of their treatment of women or gays, it's the result of our policies of invading their countries, propping up the Zionists, and trying to exploit their oil resources.

They are doing the EXACT same thing we would do if a bunch of flying saucers landed tomorrow, overthrew our government and defeated our military. We'd fight back. We'd blow people up (both aliens and human collaborators). And we wouldn't think much of Earthlings who said, "The Grays aren't such bad Guys, I actually enjoy Anal Probes!"