Talk:Maajid Nawaz

Why is everyone shouting?
Please explain in 2 sentences or less. 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Being sysop (read: immune to page protection), Levi has been allowed to repeatedly override the express will of 4 other editors (start reading here from the 20th of December 2016 onwards — and yes, he's been keeping this up for quite a while now). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @RBP, are you trying to get my sysop revoked? Wow, that's pretty low. @FCP, RBP has a crush on Maajid Nawaz and doesn't want his crush cast in a negative light. Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, RBP, since it appears you want my sysop revoked, I should point out that it was you who gave me sysop rights. Lol. Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can honestly say you had earned it when I gave it to you. And right now, I can honestly say that helping you restrain yourself by making you not-immune to page protection while we sort all this out on the talk page in a calm and democratic manner seems a wise idea. We are all your peers and we get to have a say too, not just you. You need to submit your conduct to the simple fact that 4 votes is a bigger number than 1 vote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep touting the fact that there are more of you, as if that ends the argument. What you fail to notice is that 2 out of 4 of you have differing opinions re my edits. While you want to undo them entirely, both Bshaw and Sceptic think some parts can stay. I agree with them. That puts the vote tally at 3 (Myself, Bshaw and Sceptic) to 2 (your good self and Clothcoat)! Do you know how you might have avoided this entire fiasco, by not doing a blanket wipe of my edits. By not asking me to go back to a blank drawing board. That implied to me that you didn't want anything negative about Mr Nawaz in his article. Now, if you had removed parts you disagreed with, citing your reasons, we might have been able to proceed cordially and constructively. You could have suggested changes, and I might have made them. At the very least, we would have debated them. But nooooo, you just blanket wiped my edits, even pure statements of fact! Also, it would appear I only deserve sysop rights so far as I share your outlook? Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good grief You read this situation like Satan reads the Bible. There's plenty of bad things to be said about Majid Nawaz (about which I don't even disagree with you!), but that simple fact doesn't imply turning over complete control of the site to you.


 * Once again — determining the content of the page is not the thing we need a moderator to resolve here. We need a moderator to resolve your perpetual edit warring, and your failure to recognize the votes cast against you.


 * Page content is decided by the mob, and that discussion will be able to begin in a serious sense once you're made to discuss things rationally. As long as just forcing your version back on is an option, there is indeed no reason for you to sit down and talk to your peers.


 * And for the record, you're quite delusional if you think that the reason your sysop might be at risk here is because of the content of your edits. Sysop is taken on the basis of misusing the tools — in this case, refusing to stop edit warring against the mobocratic consensus while standing above page protection.


 * The reasons for moderator intervention here are two-fold.


 * Firstly: Do 4 sysops outweigh 1 sysop, on the simple question of: which reversion should currently stand in mainspace?


 * Secondly: Is it kosher to let one lone user revert four other editors 19 times in a row, all the while dodging the talkpage for the longest time? And should such a user continue to enjoy immunity from page protection? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's take this to a philosophical level. In that philosophical level, in your rather simplistic worldview, the will of the majority within a system always trumps the set rules of that. I don't think so. What I am trying to say is you can't keep yelling "mob rule", when the fact is nothing I have done is in contravention of the rules of this place re contents of a page and I think you realise that, which is why you keep harking on about "mob rule". Sorry, I don't play that, and neither should any right thinking person. Adherence to the rules should always trump mob rule. So, take your 4 sysops and stick it. Unless you can tell me how my edits breach the rules, then I will keep "edit warring". Also, the Jordan facepalm is so 2015. Seriously, update your memes. It's embarrassing. Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's Jean-Luc Picard, not Jordan (highly resolved enough for ya?). As for the rest; well, it doesn't get any clearer than that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Levi Ok, let's not take it to a philosophical level, please. See "Mobocracy". As demonstrated by the other 3 editors' reversions and my own statement at the top of the page, the vote that your additions in their current state should not appear in the article is 4 to 1. Stop. B) talk 17:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, if I make edits to the page per your notes, will you still vote against them?Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @RBP, regardless of whom it is, the point stands; it's an old meme. Upgrade your memes. Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will do what I can do make that the top priority of the board. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Modhat: @Levi Ackerman, please place your edits here for others to suggest improvements to. Page locked 24 hours.
Enough. 18:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Other's suggestions go here

I've already stated my suggestions several times but they may get lost in the sprawling cut and thrust of my dialogue with (mainly) Levi Ackerman, so here is the ultra-condensed version in no particular order: Do this succinctly and with proper SPOV and we're definitely cooking with gas (or possibly charcoal) as far as I can see. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Save the Daily Beast article from Levi's contribs and use it as a cornerstone for a criticism of Nawaz for his whataboutism and not as bad as Israel apologetics.
 * If the Alternet story in Levi's contribs is solid, use it to criticise his apparently mile wide vindictive streak and to point out that he has apparently whitewashed parts of his autobiography (not to the level of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but still...). Note, that this is a new point
 * Being quite explicit about when the criticism is of Quilliam and when it is of Nawaz, criticise his/its tendency to go full "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", cozying up to anti-Muslim fanatics such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Tommy Robinson as long as they share Nawaz's views on Muslim fundamentalists — and by extension to gun heavily for left wingers for not being "tough on Muslim fundies" (or at least not as tough as Nawaz would like).
 * [[image:nods.gif]] My thoughts exactly. 20:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I like how the Wombat thinks — but let me also quote Bshaw from above:


 * Add this Bshaw quote to the Wombat's list, and I'm in full support of the entire endeavour. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with B)'s caveat to the snark Rev., which is why I used the qualifier "proper", but I can see that this may not have been crystal clear.
 * Btw, the Alternet story would also serve as a useful source for how Nawaz has drifted further and further to the right, whether in search of wingnut welfare (as the article claims) or due to his own change of mind (which has certainly made him attractive to US wingnut welfare providers which in turn may lead its recipients into an ideological echo chamber that helps leading them further to the right, see also Ayaan Hirsi Ali). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wombat's suggestions sound good to me. Per the rules Fuzzy kindly gave us (heh), I'll copy this here:


 * If anyone has better ideas re organization, fire away. B) talk 22:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be a good idea to put the criticism under relevant topic headlines as suggested by B), rather than in a separate criticism section. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why
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
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
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)


 * 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)