Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cracking bit of commentary from Maajid Nawaz on the need for reform in Islam Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    I am Egyptian, in Egypt, you can only have Muslim or Christian on your ID card, as an Ex-Muslim, I have to go around with a "Muslim" ID card when I am in Egypt, not to mention the fact that I would probably face trouble if people knew I am an Ex-Muslim. People in the Egyptian parliament are protesting having religion on ID cards so maybe they'll scrap that off.
    I think until Trump proposes an actual way of doing it without being banning the whole race, I think we shouldn't take him seriously.
    Agreed. The proposal is ludicrous on its face and I'm certain will be abandoned even if Trump becomes president.

    A more intelligent way to proceed would be to probe more deeply a potential migrants values before they are allowed to settle permanently. Questions should be asked about their values to confirm they accord with Western values, and migrants with good English language skills and high education should be preferred.

    Those who hold out little prospect for integration should be rejected, and it should apply to all not simply to Muslims
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    I am Egyptian, in Egypt, you can only have Muslim or Christian on your ID card, as an Ex-Muslim, I have to go around with a "Muslim" ID card when I am in Egypt, not to mention the fact that I would probably face trouble if people knew I am an Ex-Muslim. People in the Egyptian parliament are protesting having religion on ID cards so maybe they'll scrap that off.
    I think until Trump proposes an actual way of doing it without being banning the whole race, I think we shouldn't take him seriously.
    Just on the subject of Egypt, while I am not particularly fond of military rule or of the extensive corruption and self-enrichment of the Egyptian military and political classes, it does seem like Sisi genuinely understands the issues of fundamentalist Islam

    I was pleasantly surprised when he went to the clerics and academics of Al Azhar University and told them they had to come up with more modern interpretations of Islam, and not hold to outdated, superstitious or violent beliefs.

    It also seems like the new Egyptian government has given a lot of scope for much more secular voices to emerge on Egyptian TV channels. Admittedly they are pro-government, but seem to have quite eclectic and diverse views on religion, on Egypt's unique history and character that sets it apart from Arabia, on being allowed to criticise Mohammed's actions from a historical perspective etc.

    What's your take on all that?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Majid says "Enough with the special pleading. Enough with the denial. Enough with the obfuscation." But I think he fails to ask why many resort to obfuscation in matters such as these. I imagine one reason some might resort to such tactics is because they have sympathy with homophobic views, and may even advocate the death penalty for homosexuality under certain circumstances. Therefore the only option for them is to resort to special pleading and obfuscation so as to avoid revealing their true and rather abhorrent views regarding homosexuality.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    Just on the subject of Egypt, while I am not particularly fond of military rule or of the extensive corruption and self-enrichment of the Egyptian military and political classes, it does seem like Sisi genuinely understands the issues of fundamentalist Islam

    I was pleasantly surprised when he went to the clerics and academics of Al Azhar University and told them they had to come up with more modern interpretations of Islam, and not hold to outdated, superstitious or violent beliefs.

    It also seems like the new Egyptian government has given a lot of scope for much more secular voices to emerge on Egyptian TV channels. Admittedly they are pro-government, but seem to have quite eclectic and diverse views on religion, on Egypt's unique history and character that sets it apart from Arabia, on being allowed to criticise Mohammed's actions from a historical perspective etc.

    What's your take on all that?
    I agree with you absolutely. I think having a secular, liberal and modern dictator is a much better way towards democracy than a "democratic" theocracy, which is what we were heading towards with Morsy.

    I am totally against what Sisi's been doing by capturing protesters and jailing journalists, but he seems to be the only possible way out of the dark age politics of Islam that we have succumbed to for the past 100 years. In fact, I had lost all hope when Baradei was disqualified from the presidential race and Morsy was elected, but Sisi gives me a bit of hope towards a better future, specially since he replaced the hellish constitution the Muslim Brotherhood came up with.

    I dream of the day where Egypt regains its place outside the Arab world and maintains a secular identity, and with Sisi we are much closer to this than with Morsi or other similarly idiotic groups.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drogon)
    If you don't welcome this then it's obvious you have no interest in finding a solution
    Even on a platform like TSR, which, being student-centric, you't think would be pretty liberal, the majority of regulars on the ISOC are vehemently opposed to anything Nawaz has to say. It's like a default position. He also gets called stuff like kuffar and coconut, so you can see the level of debate we are dealing with.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    That would be ludicrously inaccurate; you're essentially proposing lie detectors via EEG the interpretation of which is held to be a highly subjective art.

    What if an ex-Muslim's heart rate increases because they have bad memories of being beaten by the Saudi religious police when they said similar things?
    It would be inaccurate in that some people who should be admitted may not be, however it is mostly accurate in that people who should not be admitted will not be. Unless they train themselves to bypass it, which a system to reduce the effectiveness of that should be comprised.

    (Original post by oShahpo)
    Also, if you're fine with trampling on some people's freedom to reduce crime, I assume you're up for banning guns right?
    I'm up for heavily controlling immigration, and also heavily controlling guns.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Did you set out to make that sound as dystopian as possible? Maybe throw in a 1984 comparison next time?

    I don't understand why people use "Middle Eastern countries do it" as a justification for stuff like this. You want to combat barbarism by being barbarians? Terrorism thrives because of hate. I'd be hateful too if people were interrogating me with lie detectors and throwing me out of the country based on my religion. You're just giving ISIS free propaganda. They wouldn't be wrong to start telling people that the West is becoming like Nazi Germany, and persecuting Muslims. (If your suggestions were put in place, I mean)
    It would be nice if there was an honourable way of defeating those who fight dirty, unfortunately that appears to be somewhat of a fantasy, but I do share your sentiment to some degree. Just remember who tossed the first stone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    The fact that moderates like Maajid Nawaz are ostracised by the Muslim community (while extremists like Mo Ansar are labelled "community leaders" is a disgrace. Perhaps almost as disgraceful as the fact that more British Muslims are members of ISIS than members of the Armed Forces.
    Change takes time, especially when we ask a community to denounce a book they've been following for 1000s of years. There was a time where liberal and islam were never associated and now they are.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    I agree with you absolutely. I think having a secular, liberal and modern dictator is a much better way towards democracy than a "democratic" theocracy, which is what we were heading towards with Morsy.
    Egypt simply wasn't heading towards a theocracy under Morsi. Whether you like it or not, the majority of people in Egypt supported the constitution and the majority of people had a favourable rating of Morsi before the coup, so the idea that the coup was a popular uprising is nonsensical.

    The fact of the matter is that Egypt's only elected President was overthrown in a coup, following which Sisi massacred more than a thousand people. The idea that a dictator can be liberal and a dictator at the same time is balderdash - Sisi is a mass murderer and is suppressing freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

    This article gives a good overview of the subject. Morsi made a lot of mistakes, but there was no reason whatsoever to overthrow him.

    Decades of Western-backed dictators in the Middle East have led to a rise in terrorism. Dictators don't stop terrorism, they cause it. The same mindset that leads to Trump being voted in will lead to dictators gaining power, and that will damage prospects for defeating terrorism, not enhance them.

    (Original post by Jebedee)
    It would be nice if there was an honourable way of defeating those who fight dirty, unfortunately that appears to be somewhat of a fantasy, but I do share your sentiment to some degree. Just remember who tossed the first stone.
    Actually, the honourable way of defeating those who fight dirty works. We just haven't tried it to any significant degree, yet. For the past few decades, and certainly since 9/11, we've repeatedly tried the sledgehammer, and all it's done is expand terror and created ISIS, as every intelligence expert has stated. Yet, novices and ignoramuses like Trump come along and proclaim that they have all the answers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)

    Actually, the honourable way of defeating those who fight dirty works. We just haven't tried it to any significant degree, yet. For the past few decades, and certainly since 9/11, we've repeatedly tried the sledgehammer, and all it's done is expand terror and created ISIS, as every intelligence expert has stated. Yet, novices and ignoramuses like Trump come along and proclaim that they have all the answers.
    And what is that way? IMO liberals should come up with this plan because they are the ones who take issue with Trump's muslim ban policy. That would be guaranteed to work so if liberals have a problem then they should take the burden of coming up with the alternative plan that ensures zero terrorism and doesn't upset any muslims. If they can't then we should proceed with the ban.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drogon)
    If you don't welcome this then it's obvious you have no interest in finding a solution
    It is racist and islamophobic to not fully support the most traditional and conservative aspects of Islam.

    I shall expect my local Labour Party MP to write an angry twitter comment about this man.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    It is racist and islamophobic to not fully support the most traditional and conservative aspects of Islam.

    I shall expect my local Labour Party MP to write an angry twitter comment about this man.
    stfu
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Middle eastern countries put religion on ID cards. So you can ban based on that and disregard any amendments to documents dated after the ban. To take it further they could implement a blade runner type interview system which monitors reactions to different sentences. For example, if someone claims to be non-muslim but hearing a sentence criticising Mohammed or looking at an image of Mohammed causes a spike in heart rate or brain activity in areas linked with anger. They can be rejected on that basis.

    I'm only giving you this idea because you pushed for it. It isn't relevant to the topic and my point still stands that there are ways of combating domestic terrorism but they do involve trampling on some people's freedoms. That is unfortunate but necessary.
    This is such a fantastic idea, I think you're really onto something.
    But why stop at Muslims?

    School shooting carried out by a kid with Aspergers? Ban them all!
    A woman shoots lots of people in San Bernadino? Ban them all!
    White people commit organised KKK murders against black people? Ban them all!

    Sure, you'll end up punishing lots of people who have done nothing wrong, which is unfortunate. But at least you'll be on the safe side, restraining the people you need to.

    Better yet, you might as well kick everybody out of the country until you personally are the last remaining person around! No problem if it's someone innocent - after all I'm sure someone of their race/religion/gender/species has committed a few massacres, right?

    Although fair enough, kicking everyone out until you're the only one left would be a quite inconvenient, it's much easier just to relocate yourself to a remote uninhabited island and, for your "safety", ban anyone else from coming in. What a great idea, you absolute genius Now please go and put it into practice.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drogon)
    stfu
    This Islamophobia from Mr Nawaz, needs to be stopped, hopefully UAF can march against him.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    This is such a fantastic idea, I think you're really onto something.
    But why stop at Muslims?

    School shooting carried out by a kid with Aspergers? Ban them all!
    A woman shoots lots of people in San Bernadino? Ban them all!
    White people commit organised KKK murders against black people? Ban them all!

    Sure, you'll end up punishing lots of people who have done nothing wrong, which is unfortunate. But at least you'll be on the safe side, restraining the people you need to.

    Better yet, you might as well kick everybody out of the country until you personally are the last remaining person around! No problem if it's someone innocent - after all I'm sure someone of their race/religion/gender/species has committed a few massacres, right?

    Although fair enough, kicking everyone out until you're the only one left would be a quite inconvenient, it's much easier just to relocate yourself to a remote uninhabited island and, for your "safety", ban anyone else from coming in. What a great idea, you absolute genius Now please go and put it into practice.
    Except those aren't driven by an ideology except the KKK, which I have no objections to them being forcibly removed from the country.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    And what is that way? IMO liberals should come up with this plan because they are the ones who take issue with Trump's muslim ban policy. That would be guaranteed to work so if liberals have a problem then they should take the burden of coming up with the alternative plan that ensures zero terrorism and doesn't upset any muslims.
    Well, firstly, we've got to dramatically alter our foreign policy with respect to the Middle East. No more military interventions in places like Iraq and Libya which have become breeding grounds for ISIS as a result of our interventions. No more torture. No more cosying up to Saudi Arabia above and beyond what is necessary. Force Israel to accept two-state solution.

    Secondly, we work with Muslim communities, as we are now, to discount and discredit the views of extremists. We work with liberal and reformist Muslims, such as the numerous Muslim LGBT gruops, to change social attitudes in Muslim communities (this is a bonus, because social attitudes haven't changed much in Christian communities in the United States) We address the cause of social exclusion, alienation and disenfranchisement, which, as terrorism experts have found, are largely driving people from Britain and other Western countries to join ISIS.

    It's going to take a long time, but we've seen off graver threats in the past, and some of them, such as 20th Century totalitarianism, have taken a very long time to defeat. It requires patience, and this patience can be achieved with the understanding that a lot of what we've done in the past few decades has been precisely the wrong way to go about things.

    (Original post by Jebedee)
    If they can't then we should proceed with the ban.
    Oh dear, you need to go to Logic 101. That doesn't follow at all: proceeding with something that will make things worse is not the way to go if people can't come up with a plan better than the status quo. So, sorry, as numerous others in this thread have pointed out, Trump's plan is guaranteed not to work.

    The fact of the matter is that domestic terrorism from right-wing, anti-government extremists is a bigger threat than jihadi terrorism. So is driving a car. So is slipping in a bathtub. The reason you want to implement utterly silly and immoral policy proposals is because you're impatient, because you're overreacting, and because you're letting the media shape your perceptions of risk and threat, just as people get in a panic every time there's a plane crash.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Except those aren't driven by an ideology except the KKK, which I have no objections to them being forcibly removed from the country.
    Nah that's not enough! We don't know which white people are going to join the KKK and start attacking people and which ones aren't, just like we don't know which Muslims will commit terrorism offences and which ones won't.

    We should ban them all to make sure we're definitely getting all the bad ones, and to all the innocent ones just say "unfortunate but necessary... sorry! " You had such a great idea before, don't let this PC nonsense make you abandon it!

    A true stroke of genius, I really don't know where you get it


    Although most of the people who do these things in the US were actually born in America and are citizens. When we forcibly remove them we've got to think of somewhere to put them, because I doubt any other country will want to take people who could be criminals. It's a tough one... but since none of us as smart as you, I'll let you come up with another brilliant plan on that
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    This Islamophobia from Mr Nawaz, needs to be stopped, hopefully UAF can march against him.
    wait so you want change and you are so critical of islam but when someone wants to reform Islam you put him down?

    It's clear islamophobes like you aren't seeking peace and just want to hate. Disgusting.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Egypt simply wasn't heading towards a theocracy under Morsi. Whether you like it or not, the majority of people in Egypt supported the constitution and the majority of people had a favourable rating of Morsi before the coup, so the idea that the coup was a popular uprising is nonsensical.

    The fact of the matter is that Egypt's only elected President was overthrown in a coup, following which Sisi massacred more than a thousand people. The idea that a dictator can be liberal and a dictator at the same time is balderdash - Sisi is a mass murderer and is suppressing freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
    .
    I am not saying he isn't a dictator, nor am I saying that he was elected fair and square. All I am saying is that I am glad Morsy is not in power any more and at least we have a secular government.
    "Egypt simply wasn't heading towards a theocracy under Morsi" Really? Have a look at the constitution they came up with.
    The fact that the best Egypt could come up with was Morsi made me give up on politics and on Egypt in general totally, but now at least we don't a group of religious fanatics running the country and that's a tiny bit better.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    I am not saying he isn't a dictator, nor am I saying that he was elected fair and square. All I am saying is that I am glad Morsy is not in power any more and at least we have a secular government.
    "Egypt simply wasn't heading towards a theocracy under Morsi" Really? Have a look at the constitution they came up with.
    The fact that the best Egypt could come up with was Morsi made me give up on politics and on Egypt in general totally, but now at least we don't a group of religious fanatics running the country and that's a tiny bit better.
    The constitution which exempted Christians and non-Muslims from Islamic law, and which did nothing to stop the democratic process from continuing?

    The article I cited specifically deals with the constitution rationalization for trodding over democracy in Egypt. A terrible shame.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Nah that's not enough! We don't know which white people are going to join the KKK and start attacking people and which ones aren't, just like we don't know which Muslims will commit terrorism offences and which ones won't.

    We should ban them all to make sure we're definitely getting all the bad ones, and to all the innocent ones just say "unfortunate but necessary... sorry! " You had such a great idea before, don't let this PC nonsense make you abandon it!

    A true stroke of genius, I really don't know where you get it


    Although most of the people who do these things in the US were actually born in America and are citizens. When we forcibly remove them we've got to think of somewhere to put them, because I doubt any other country will want to take people who could be criminals. It's a tough one... but since none of us as smart as you, I'll let you come up with another brilliant plan on that
    They do have the choice of quitting their ideology. If it is more important than living in the west then it is their choice to leave.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Well, firstly, we've got to dramatically alter our foreign policy with respect to the Middle East. No more military interventions in places like Iraq and Libya which have become breeding grounds for ISIS as a result of our interventions. No more torture. No more cosying up to Saudi Arabia above and beyond what is necessary. Force Israel to accept two-state solution.

    Secondly, we work with Muslim communities, as we are now, to discount and discredit the views of extremists. We work with liberal and reformist Muslims, such as the numerous Muslim LGBT gruops, to change social attitudes in Muslim communities (this is a bonus, because social attitudes haven't changed much in Christian communities in the United States) We address the cause of social exclusion, alienation and disenfranchisement, which, as terrorism experts have found, are largely driving people from Britain and other Western countries to join ISIS.

    It's going to take a long time, but we've seen off graver threats in the past, and some of them, such as 20th Century totalitarianism, have taken a very long time to defeat. It requires patience, and this patience can be achieved with the understanding that a lot of what we've done in the past few decades has been precisely the wrong way to go about things.



    Oh dear, you need to go to Logic 101. That doesn't follow at all: proceeding with something that will make things worse is not the way to go if people can't come up with a plan better than the status quo. So, sorry, as numerous others in this thread have pointed out, Trump's plan is guaranteed not to work.

    The fact of the matter is that domestic terrorism from right-wing, anti-government extremists is a bigger threat than jihadi terrorism. So is driving a car. So is slipping in a bathtub. The reason you want to implement utterly silly and immoral policy proposals is because you're impatient, because you're overreacting, and because you're letting the media shape your perceptions of risk and threat, just as people get in a panic every time there's a plane crash.
    They haven't worked fast enough so they have failed, and it is ultimately their own community which will end up paying the price for that.

    The Jews owned that land first until they were driven out, they should not be forced to accommodate invaders.

    What has the media got to do with this? Unless you are trying to imply the Orlando shooting was a lie.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 17, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.