2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Maajid Nawaz

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon islam.svg

This Islam related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


Why[edit]

Why the scare quotes around "won" (in the section about the debate with Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Douglas Murray?

Also, why no article about Douglas Murray on RW?

95.146.48.172 (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


Feeling a little disappointed with this article[edit]

I should give a heads up that I do actually like Nawaz so keep that in mind.

I feel rather disappointed with this article because it seems to give a lot of attention to criticisms of him lying and white washing his stories just to make money. For example, the Alternet article you used reads like a hit piece. First of all, it claims that the validity of his arguments rests on the truth of his stories of himself. This is just an ad hominem. Even if he made everything up, that doesn’t mean his reformist criticisms are wrong. Secondly, it doesn’t really provide anything solid other than cherry picking friends and family members who see things differently.

I am an Iranian atheist as well as an ex-Muslim, and I can tell you it is dangerous to promote the stereotype that ex-Muslims are all just right wing shills paid by Zionists. Much of my Muslims family accused me of this as well and It is possible the same happened with a Nawaz. Not to say those don’t exist, but Nawaz, I believe, is not an example of this as I do not think his criticisms of Islam was ever directed towards Muslims. The article from Alternet, I believe, has this in mind. Especially considering most Alternet authors seem to disregard criticisms of Islam as Islamophobia.

As for Karen Armstrong’s criticisms. I again, have to strongly disagree. It seems to imply that Nawaz does not acknowledge the role of Western imperialism. This is just not true.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/01/drone-killing-anwar-al-awlaki

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/maajid-obama-middle-east-failure-islamic-terrorism/

Also the criticisms of association with the right wing I find to be really weak. Association might mean something, but the argument can really only be inductive. And in his case, I think it’s fair to say that his association is tied to the fact that many left wing people become uncomfortable with the idea of Islamic reform and criticizing a minority religion. Looking at his actual statements tells me that he shouldn’t be bunched with neocons like Hirsi Ali and Pam Geller SupremeBeing (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to zero in on a minor supporting point of yours but "just right wing shills paid by Zionists" is not a charge we make here. Where did that concern come from? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, think about it from my perspective. Ex-Muslims don’t have many people or speakers to look up to that are not discarded as “neocons” or shills. Some of them are, like Pamela Geller, but most ex-Muslims are not. I look up to people like Nawaz because he doesn’t make any neocon points yet you still bring up defamatory articles like the one Levi brought in from Alternet, which I think is unfair. How many articles on here about ex-Muslims/Muslim reformers are here that do NOT have an entire section about “questionable funding” or “associating with right wingers”. I haven’t found any.Did you ever think that many ex-Muslims can only get funding from right wingers as it makes liberals very uncomfortable? I thought that despite Nawaz being a good example, I was proven wrong. Without any good reason, it seems to be playing off of those stereotypes.
Can’t us ex-Muslims just have one guy without everyone throwing their pitchforks up claiming we shouldn’t trust them? Ex-Christians have Bertrand, Nietzsche, Mark Twain. Jewish atheists have Chomsky (although he isn’t really that critical of religion), Karl Marx, or Ayn Rand if your into that. What do we have? Can you give me an example of an Muslim atheist on this site that isn’t smeared as just being paid off to say anything? Because I cannot! SupremeBeing (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Another thing, I don’t know how many ex-Muslims you have as moderators, but I assume it’s mostly ex-Christians. I can bring this subject up on r/exmuslims to get some more influence from the community. SupremeBeing (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, we don't make that smear, is the thing. I can easily see that there's a harshness and a presumption of bad faith where maybe it's not due, but the specific charge of him being paid or a shill aren't things we say or do in this article. Rhetorical omissions, unfairness to still-adherent Muslims are aren't bad people, those are the things that are laid out as problems. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yet there is an entire section called “questionable funding”. That seems to be very suspect. If I were editor, I would remove this section or at the very least.l, separate Nawaz as a person and speaker from what his funders do. As for rhetorical omissions, I addressed that. Criticisms saying that he doesn’t address western imperialism by Karen Armstrong are not true as I have provided links to his articles. Maybe you can say he doesn’t do it enough, but that is a less strong argument. As for him being too harsh on adherent Muslims, I’m not sure where this criticism comes from. He is harsh of Islamic apologists, but not Muslims in general. He is a Muslim that believes in God. Even in the article itself, it mentions how he says Islam is a religion of peace that became corrupted. SupremeBeing (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. That sounds like a reasonable concern given how poorly sourced that section is. I'm definitely willing to entertain a rewrite of it. But also I'd like to look in a little more detail why the SPLC put him on hatewatch, and the fallout of that. Just for my own edification. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, further down the rabbit hole tells me, yeah, they were right the first time, and the lawsuit was a bad ruling. I've been looking over the kinds of shit he's been saying online for the past few weeks. He's awful. This guy is a radical anti-islam asshole. He makes the very disgusting case that people saying Israel shouldn't mass slaughter unarmed protestors are anti-semites. He jumps on the "Regressive left" bullshit. He blames all shootings in London on the mayor being a Muslim.
Fuck, we're way too fair too him already. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It gets worse, he suggests an Imam discussing the horrors in Syria for promoting terrorism against the UK. I think I've had enough of this fuck's twitter feed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Jesus, you really took a 180 turn there. No, he is not an anti-Muslim extremist. Pretty much non of what you said is true. He never blamed all London attacks on the mayor being Muslim. He never justified Israel attacks. In fact, he heavily criticized Israel for Operation Protective Edge. You seem to be on a hard hate boner right now SupremeBeing (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Also I don’t think you understand the reasons SPLC called him an anti-Muslim extremist. They basically used the fact that he criticized Islam as a proof of hate. They used no actual hateful statements as proof. It was a pretty regressive smear piece on him. And considering the fact that they video recorded an apology saying that they were wrong, kinda no longer gives them a case. He is not an anti-Muslim extremist and I find your claims that he is a bit ridiculous. SupremeBeing (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The SPLC has been somewhat discredited in American courts on this subject of extremism. Harsh language cost them over 3 million.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Not just harsh wording, active defamation. Even if you disagree with him, putting him with the likes of Richard Spencer is ridiculousSupremeBeing (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Questionable Funding section doesn't work[edit]

@ScepticWombat The Funding section is indefensible as is: "The Quilliam Foundation (and hence by association, Nawaz) has received funding from a man[Who?] associated with Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, neo-cons.[20][please explain] Moreover, Quilliam takes money from the UK government[21] as a quid pro quo and, as noted, has sent a list of alleged Islamist sympathizers to British intelligence."

If we don't know who the man is who funds Quilliam, how do we know who the man is associated with? Needs to be cited or removed. Also, "takes money from the UK government" is not in itself questionable because almost every npo applies for government money. The ones that receive funding almost certainly provide useful information or services that Government wants. Also, current reporting states Quilliam has not received government funds since 2011, which might be considered relevant.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 And you’re pinging me about this because...? If the information is out of date, update it and change the wording to past tense for the bits that no longer reflect present circumstances. If the sources are lacking, add them.
As for not knowing ”the man is who funds Quilliam” his identity (if you refer to ref. no. 20) seems to me to be quite clearly evident in the link (he’s called Douglas Murray; the connection being via the Henry Jackson Society by way of the Student Rights group). Assuming good faith in the original edit (I haven’t checked who made it), I’d guess that the guy is merely unnamed due to lack of name recognition (and RW article) factor. In addition, the link mentioned another connection (at least back in 2013 when it was made), namely that a Ghaffar Hussain featured in both Quilliam, the Henry Jackson Society and the Student Rights group.
Now, what does seem problematic is the claim that there is/was a clear funding trail between these three organisations, something that is not immediately obvious to me based on the link provided, suggesting that these connections to the Henry Jackson Society/Student Rights more properly belongs in the “Far right links” section. As the link also highlighted the link to Tommy Robinson and both Robinson and Murray’s involvement with Robert Spencer, this argues in favour of such a move to the “Far right links” section and removal of the funding claim based on ref. no. 20.
The link does state, however, that Quilliam’s funding was obscure (again, this was back in 2013), as a press officer for the organisation claimed that “There is only one print copy and it has gone missing” when queried by journalists about Quilliam’s annual report detailing its finances and their sources.
Happy editing. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"mental downfall"? Was ever actually reasonable?[edit]

I seem to recall a video from the 2000s or 2010s where he referred to criticism of US foreign policy as "masochism" and a conversation with Ayan Hirsi Ali where he accused Glenn Greenwald (who was more reasonable at the time than he is now) of "defend[ing] Islamism to the core" (when as far as I could find, all Greenwald had said about Islamism at the time was that NOT all Muslims were Islamists and that the US should sever its partnership with Saudi Arabia because of SA's abuse of human rights in the name of Islamism). Even if he's crazier now, are we sure Nawaz was ever really THAT reasonable? Am I confusing him with someone else? I also don't remember seeing any of this alleged regressive defense of Islamism that he claimed was happening on the left. Series Of Numbers (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible parody/problematic/troll content added by Emil Kirkegaard and Human Diversity Foundation[edit]

Today Jonatan Pallesen made the following tweet, that Kirkegaard retweeted or uprated.

https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1874406180044591229

Here is Rat Wiki peddling the lie that the child-rape ("grooming") gangs are mostly White people.

I decided to search who added this and it looks by a suspicious account:

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Maajid_Nawaz&diff=prev&oldid=2264013

Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white.

The account that added this is named "DawahManIsAnIdiot", very few edits made aside from on this page, one other, and Lauren Southern.

It's probable here Pallessen is just linking to Kirkegaard'sHDF's own edits to try to discredit this wiki. 185.77.217.176 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

References to back that up include a Home Office paper here that was linked page 31:
A number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE. Most of the same studies show that the majority of offenders are White.
As well as the Guardian article that was linked which references the paper. "The majority of child sexual abuse gangs are made up of white men under the age of 30, an official paper has said."
So, no, I don't think this is "troll content" / parody at all, as this is pretty much straight from the UK government. That doesn't mean that other data could challenge the conclusions of this paper, but "Rat Wiki peddling data I don't want to believe in the lie" tweets are not a sufficient argument. BobJohnson (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Not sure I'm following, we know the argument of the anti-immigration and anti multiculturalism is about the numbers and rate of crimes, rape etc. per capita, apparently, are they really still going with the line of comparing absolute numbers? Why not about the rate of reporting higher for discriminated groups, comparing rates with poverty? If I understood this well, no wonder reactionaries are in advantage.--5.77.102.61 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse (also related to the UK Home Office) put out a report. On page 38, you will find a table with CSA offences by ethnic groups compared to the population percentages in England and Wales. The percentage is roughly the same; whites are actually slightly over-represented, if one must nitpick.
Note that there are some "details" not captured in the raw numbers:
A) The paper notes that there may be "under-identification of child sexual abuse in minority ethnic communities".
B) It is also noted that white defendants were more likely to be prosecuted for "image offences". No other details of ethnicity CSA presented itself, unfortunately.
Now, refer to the previous paper I linked to. You may have not read the previous remark: a number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE. Yes: it's absolutely possible that on a per capita basis, there is a bigger proportion of group-based CSA among certain ethnicities. But, that's not what Jonatan Pallesen was asserting; he was sneering that "child-rape ("grooming") gangs are mostly White people." Seems like they are, actually. If you want to talk about per capita statistics, use the word "per capita". It's not hard. Second, even with the per capita data, one issue here is that the Home Office paper seems to indicate that the data regarding this is poor (and indeed the summaries of data they used varied all over the place), so the Home Office was cautious on making any conclusions. I do not expect eugenicists, of course, to take the subtle cautious road. (But if they don't, they need to answer for white people's apparent "kiddie porn" problem, if one wants to go the stupidly simplistic moral panic route).
The thing with this subject though is that a few high profile cases like the Rochdale sex trafficking gang played a distorting role in the UK political narrative, especially among anti-immigrant / reactionary blowhards in the UK and elsewhere. For the "reactionaries", all one can hope for is that, in the future, online "Asian" supremacists out there someday will find and clash with the online "white" supremacists, resulting in popcorn drama and perhaps some epic lulz, as befitting for a group of trolls. BobJohnson (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)