Just say no

Jan 31st, 2014 6:31 pm | By

I guess the Alabama legislature took a look at what happened to Savita Halappanavar at University Hospital Galway, and liked what they saw. They want that to happen to Alabama women too. From the ACLU blog:

All miscarriages can be devastating. But, for women in Alabama, this nightmare could soon get a lot worse. This week, the Alabama Senate is set to consider a cruel bill (HB 31) that would permit the hospital staff, including any doctor, nurse, counselor, or lab technician, to refuse to participate in any phase of patient medical care related to ending a pregnancy, even if that is what a patient like this woman needs to protect her own health and future fertility.

Yes, you heard that right. Under this law, if you or a loved one is pregnant and go to an emergency room in Alabama because of serious complications, every medical professional in that emergency room could refuse to help you if the care you needed to protect you from serious harm to your health required ending the pregnancy.

“That can’t be true,” you say. “How could a doctor at my local hospital turn me away and refuse to treat me? Isn’t that malpractice?”

The Alabama legislature is one step ahead of you. The bill would also protect health care professionals from liability for refusing to provide necessary medical care. What’s more, the bill would exempt the hospital from liability under Alabama law. This means that even if the hospitals know that the on-duty doctor won’t provide appropriate medical care, Alabama law says that in most cases they have no obligation to find someone who will.

Unfuckingbelievable. The Savita case shocked people in Ireland; some of them went straight to the Dáil to demonstrate their shock; some months later the law was changed to prevent its happening again. The Alabama legislature wants to pass a law so that it will happen there. Talk about dropping all motherfucking pretense of giving a shit about women. Talk about dropping the mask. Like their god, they hate women.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Lord and Saviour action figure

Jan 31st, 2014 5:43 pm | By

Turn the other cheek eh?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The BBC cast him as the faux-Muslim

Jan 31st, 2014 4:44 pm | By

Another good (meaning: reasonable) piece on The Veiling of Jesus and Mo, by Janice Turner in the Times. It’s paywalled, but it’s good to know it’s there anyway.

It’s about Newsnight’s terrible and ridiculous decision to hide the Mo of Jesus and Mo behind a black egg. Turner notes the absurdity of hiding the very subject of the segment. She acknowledges the risks involved in possibly pissing off “people who might kill us.” But.

Mr Nawaz’s frustration is understandable. In banning the image, the BBC cast him as the faux-Muslim, his opponents as the rational, majority voice that must be heeded.

And what, I would love to be able to ask a senior BBC executive, does that do to British Muslims in general? It casts them as unreasonable and authoritarian – not the angry few, but all of them. That’s the real “Islamophobia,” if you ask me.

How can moderate Muslims be expected to speak out, if they are cast as apostates by national TV? Those who have not yet made up their minds will see angry offence as the default position.

Right? Right? Wouldn’t it be nice if the BBC would grok that? Never mind us, never mind the pesky atheists and satirists and arguers; consider what you are doing to what you always call “the Muslim community,” BBC boffins. Think long-term. Think big picture. It may seem easiest or safest now to hide Mo behind a black egg, but think of the consequences over time. Use your loaf.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Challenging power is “offensive”

Jan 31st, 2014 1:41 pm | By

A terrific article by Kenan Malik on Channel 4′s contemptible decision to throw Maajid Nawaz under the bus by siding with the “offended” brigade.

‘Thank you @Channel4News you just pushed us liberal Muslims further into a ditch’. So tweeted Maajid Nawaz, prospective Liberal Democratic parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, last night. He had every right to be incandescent. Channel 4 News had just held a debate about theJesus and Mo cartoons and about the campaign to deselect Nawaz for tweeting one of the cartoons, not finding them offensive. Channel 4 decided that they were offensive and could not be shown. It would have been bad enough had the channel decided simply not to show the cartoon. What it did was worse. It showed the cartoon – but blanked out Muhammad’s face (and only Muhammad’s face). In the context of a debate about whether Nawaz had been right to tweet the cartoon in the first place, or whether his critics were right to hound him for ‘offending’ Muslims, it was an extraordinary decision. The broadcaster had effectively taken sides in the debate – and taken the side of the reactionaries against the liberal.

Preeeeeeecisely. Nawaz invites his fellow Muslims to act like adults and Channel 4 says No, no, no, act like bad-tempered babies!

There is something truly bizarre (and yet in keeping with the zeitgeist of our age) that someone should become the focus of death threats and an international campaign of vilification for suggesting that an inoffensive cartoon was, well, inoffensive.

It’s a bizarre zeitgeist. Somebody should name a band that.

I want to annotate every word, but I’m out of time, so I’ll point out one more important observation:

the giving of offence is not just inevitable, it is also important. Any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply held sensibilities. Or to put it another way: ‘You can’t say that!’ is all too often the response of those in power to having their power challenged. To accept that certain things cannot be said is to accept that certain forms of power cannot be challenged.

‘Swhat I keep saying. Lots of people are “offended” by demands that women be treated as equals. Lots of people are “offended” by the claim that LGBT people should not be persecuted. Lots of people are “offended” by suggestions that the goal of a decent society should not be the largest possible gap between the poor and the rich.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Cohesion

Jan 31st, 2014 1:21 pm | By

More from the “danger to community cohesion” crowd at Plymouth University. They had their demonstration against Usama Hasan Wednesday evening, and the Facebook page for that demo is full of poisonous commentary. It does a good job of illustrating why people like Maajid Nawaz and Usama Hasan (and Tehmina Kazi and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah and Taj Hargey etc etc) are so desperately needed.

Top item on the page at the moment:

hayleyk

         Hayley Kemp
This is the kind of thing I would expect to see on an EDL twitter account – disgusting & offensive. Dr Usama Hasan (QF speaker on 29th) retweets trivialisation of domestic violence:
https://twitter.com/drusamahasan/status/421834533580075008

Tehmina is commenting on that thread, trying to persuade Hayley Kemp to grasp that the cartoon is not in the least trivializing domestic violence, it’s protesting it via a bitter joke. It’s a pretty basic distinction. Also on that thread is…Yusuf Chambers of IERA. Some of his wisdom:

Yusuf Chambers Hayley and I have discussed QF and their team and come to the conclusion that they counter peaceful coexistance and community cohesion. Our dear Bro usama has moved his position from a moderate Muslim to a person that works against the middle ground and everyone in the Muslim community knows this very well. He has clearly left off following Normative Islam and we pray he will return to the correct path soon and join us in condemning violence against women and hate against Muslims that hold a different view to his. Thank you for your contribution Tehmina.

“He has clearly left off following Normative Islam” – says it all, dunnit.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Alex Aan is out of prison

Jan 31st, 2014 12:49 pm | By

The Jakarta Post reports:

Alexander Aan, who was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison on June 15, 2012 under the Blasphemy Law for publicly declaring himself an atheist on Facebook, was released from prison on Jan. 27.

Aan, a 30-year-old former civil servant, posted statements and pictures on the social networking site stating that he was a member of the Minang atheist Facebook group, which some considered insulting to Islam and Prophet Muhammad. 

On Jan. 20, 2012, Aan was charged under Article 28(2) of the Electronic Information and Transaction Law for disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hostility and Criminal Code articles 156a(a) and 156a(b) for blasphemy and for encouraging others to embrace atheism.

Besides being sentenced to prison, Aan was also fined Rp 100 million rupiah (US$8,190).

What’s there to say? It’s ridiculous. There shouldn’t be laws against “disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hostility” – at least not when mere atheism is interpreted as incitement to religious hostility – not when not being something is interpreted as incitement to hostility toward people who are the something that you are not.* Theism shouldn’t be helped to protect its monopoly by laws that criminalize the refusal to be religious.* Theism’s groundless beliefs shouldn’t be propped up by laws that forbid people to say those beliefs are groundless.*

There should be no articles in any criminal code that forbid encouraging others to embrace atheism.*

*Cf the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Fine, explain the context

Jan 31st, 2014 11:48 am | By

Mo and Mo – a spinoff of and tribute to the great and wise Jesus and Mo.

Embedded image permalink

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



As we are sure you can appreciate

Jan 30th, 2014 5:25 pm | By

The National Secular Society shares the form letter it got in response to its open letter to Channel 4 about its wretched decision to paste a black egg over Mo when it reported on the childish fuss over Maajid Nawaz and Jesus & Mo.

The letter, from Steve Reynolds of Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries, reads:

As we are sure you can appreciate, this is a very sensitive subject for many viewers. Channel 4 News editorial staff gave great consideration to the issues involved and believe that they reached a fair and balanced judgement, weighing up the potential for offence to some viewers by showing the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed and the necessity of showing the cartoon in full.

But I don’t appreciate. I don’t think the “sensitivity” is legitimate, just as I don’t think the potential “hurt sentiments” of people in Bangladesh who might possibly maybe perhaps not like Taslima Nasrin’s tv serial were legitimate. By creasing their brows over the “potential for offence to some viewers” they gave in to emotional blackmail and encouraged more of it in the future, while also cutting the ground out from under Maajid Nawaz. I think that’s pathetic.

Whilst we acknowledge your views, we believe that on balance this was the correct decision and as a rule, where we consider the likelihood of significant offence to our audience, we will attempt to mitigate against that. As to not pixelating the image of Jesus, it was not felt that the same level of offence was likely to be provoked as the image is commonly depicted in cartoon form.

Aaaaaaaaaand there’s your problem right there.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, commented: “The claim that showing the entire illustration was ‘not integral to the story’ is ludicrous. It was the story. The truth is that Channel 4, like so many others, is intimidated and afraid of the reaction from violent extremists. Such extremists have got this country in a fearful stranglehold that is gradually destroying our commitment to freedom of speech. We may have abolished the blasphemy law, but who needs it when the same effect can be achieved by terrorising people?”

Mr Sanderson said that Channel 4 should be ashamed of itself for capitulating in this way to supposed ‘sensitivities’ that it does not respect in any other context. “Channel 4 does not hesitate to create controversy and offence in its other output, indeed it prides itself on doing so.”

Meanwhile, the Muslim Association of Britain is now attempting to work this controversy up into a similar level as the Danish cartoon controversy by issuing a condemnation of the cartoon.

Well of course they are. Look at all the encouragement they’re getting from the great and the good in UK media. Why wouldn’t they try to work the controversy up? It’s all good from their point of view.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The sacred tradition of cutting off bits

Jan 30th, 2014 4:59 pm | By

Doctors in Sweden and Denmark have recommended a ban on non-medical circumcision. Unfortunately they’re putting the age of consent at 12, which seems obviously too young, since minors are just that – they’re subject to their parents.

The recommendation is contained in a resolution approved by majority members of the Sweden Medical Association which covers about 85 per cent of doctors in Sweden.

Similarly, the Danish College of General Practitioners, which has 3,000 members, issued a statement that ritual circumcision of male children is equal to abuse and mutilation. About 87 per cent of Danish GPs favored the ban on non-medical circumcision.

Even prior to the recommendation of the two medical groups, the Child Rights International Network in a joint statement with the Nordic Ombudsmen for children and pediatric experts in September 2013 opined that circumcision without medical indication is in conflict with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The article gives the child the right to express his or her views in all matters concerning him or her.

The statement also cited Article 24, point 3, which mandates protection of children against traditional practices that could be bad for their health.

It seems to be only a recommendation though, even though the headline says it’s a ban.

But there are those who view the recommendations as a mirror of anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant outlook in Nordic nations.

Quoting Erik Ullenhag, the Swedish minister for integration, who said that current regulations would not be altered despite the recommendation, pointed out, “I have never met any adult man who experienced circumcision as an assault … The procedure is not very intensive and parents have the right to raise their children according to their faith and tradition.”

I wish people wouldn’t say things like that. I don’t think parents do have the the right to cut bits of their children off because that’s “according to their faith and tradition.” I think such rights should be limited to “within reason” and that genital mutilation isn’t within reason.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The real problem? He dresses too well

Jan 30th, 2014 1:18 pm | By

That 5pillarz place has another post about the Sinz of Maajid Nawaz, this one outdoing all the others I’ve seen in wit and polish and elegant subtlety of thought.

Maajid Nawaz believes in the right to offend. Well so do I, writes Roshan Muhammed Salih. And that’s why today I’m calling him a donkey (apologies in advance to all donkeys).

Good start. Joke and meta-joke; always a winner.

Following his tweeting of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Prophet Isa (as) and the massive reaction to it, Nawaz wrote a ludicrous article in the Guardian claiming that he was trying to save Islam from being hijacked by extremists. In the risible piece which should be recycled as toilet paper, he was obviously trying to portray himself as some kind of “free speech martyr.”

But it is simply grotesque to compare Maajid Nawaz to any martyr who has ever lived, and far more accurate to liken him to an annoying horse-like creature which makes irritating noises.

Toilet paper; geddit? Pee po belly bum drawers. Poopies. Dirties. Toilet paper. Snigger snigger giggle.

Notice also the creepy deference to “martyrs” and remember some of the famous “martyrs” we’ve heard about over the past few years. It is grotesque to compare Nawaz to people who squander their own lives for the sake of killing a bunch of other random people, but not for the reasons Roshan Muhammad Salih meant to suggest.

Let’s get a few things straight.

Firstly, there is a broad cross-section of opinion within the Muslim community against Maajid Donkey Nawaz. In fact the only thing which brings us Muslims together like Mr Donkey is Israel.

He gets up the noses of Sufis, Shias, Salafis, “Islamists” and “non-Islamists” alike. This is because we can all see him for what he is – a vain attention-seeker whose voice has been artificially amplified by government finances, the BBC and the right-wing media.

Not true. This stupid mindless attack on Nawaz has been bringing liberal and secular Muslims together too. There are such Muslims, and no they do not see him the way Salih and his friends do.

And in his crusade to combat “Islamic extremism” all he’s really achieved is to make non-Muslims hate Muslims even more and to solidify the government narrative that British foreign policy is not the main motivating factor behind domestic radicalization.

Not true. Quite the contrary – it’s crude ragers like Salih who make non-Muslims wary of Islam. and reasonable people like Nawaz who make them rejoice that Islam can be compatible with secular democracy.

The truth is that for Muslims the petition campaign against Maajid Nawaz (which has garnered around 22,000 signatures) is not just about the cartoons he tweeted. Although most Muslims will definitely find the cartoons offensive the anger directed against him cannot be explained with reference to them alone.

Rather, we see it as an opportunity to demonstrate to the world how much all sections of the community revile this guy – and not just crazy, demented “Islamists” who want to behead all kufaar.

For us this is visceral and this is personal. It’s payback for six years of seeing him given a platform he doesn’t deserve to attack a community which is itself under attack.

Frankly, I don’t care if this campaign fails to achieve its stated goal – none of us should expect the Lib Dems to de-select him as a parliamentary candidate because they are part of the same establishment that has spewed him forth.

Rather, this campaign is an opportunity for all sections of the Muslim community to come together and tell the British media and establishment that this guy is persona non grata as far as we are concerned.

We are sick and tired of seeing him presented as a “Muslim commentator”, as the “voice of moderate Islam” or the voice of reason against hordes of fanatics. We are sick of seeing his sharp suits, perfect grooming and smarmy grin. We are fed up of seeing his know-it-all stare invading our personal space.

Wow. That’s letting the mask slip, and no mistake.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



“I would not have tweeted that thing, clearly.”

Jan 30th, 2014 10:40 am | By

Nick Clegg has said again that Maajid Nawaz will not be dropped as a candidate, which is good. But in saying that he also said a lot of “I would never do that” bullshit, in other words basically agreeing that Maajid was a naughty boy. Not so good.

…the Lib Dem leader said: “He is not going to be dropped as a Liberal Democrat candidate. He has the right – as any Muslim, non-Muslim or anyone of any faith or none in this country has – to say things even if that causes offence to other people.

“It so happens that what he did does cause real offence to many, many Muslims in this country. All I would say is that we have to make sure that that debate, sensitive though it is, is conducted in a respectful way in moderate terms.

“I would not have tweeted that thing, clearly. I will defend anyone’s right to deploy the freedom of expression in this country. I’m not going to start censoring people in a free society.”

But you are going to start reproaching and tut tutting them, over something there should be zero qualms about from anyone. Don’t.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Secularist of the Year shortlist

Jan 30th, 2014 10:08 am | By

And guess who’s on it, proudly modeling their Jesus and Mo T shirts?

Also Gita, and Nick. An excellent shortlist!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Guest post by Gordon Willis: Why shouldn’t they learn to be reasonable?

Jan 30th, 2014 9:47 am | By

Originally a comment by Gordon Willis on A right for all children, as mentioned in Islam.

It’s the problem with ideologists, whether they’re religious or secular, and it’s the same problem with rigid moralists, because they too are ideologists. They really believe that everyone has to be identical, that there is only one correct pattern for a human being, and everyone is required conform to it, by god, social realism or proper principles. Diversity is sin: that is, the existence of sin is proved by the fact that not everyone is the same, and some are so different as to be frighteningly incomprehensible to the simplistic mind.

Of course, they talk blissfully about individuality as a marvellous gift of god or a wonderful fact of nature, but when outside their fuzzy imaginations they really don’t like the actuality, oh, not at all! It is then that they talk disapprovingly about mere facts of nature, like the moralists they ultimately are. They point to wicked things done by others, and are unable to see that their own acts are also wicked, because what is condemned as badness in them by others is true adherence to sacred or politically correct or moral precepts in their own minds. And when I say “wicked”, I really do mean it, for all wickedness is at root the belief that I am absolutely justified or that what I want takes precedence over any consideration of others, or simply that others (women)* do not really matter. I am convinced that wickedness is about such things: it is simply me rather than you, my (conception of) god rather than you or yours, my ownership or security rather than yours. It is ultimately selfishness, even when it appears as political or religious expediency.

Morally stupid, narrow, bigoted, arrogant, self-preferential and cowardly, all in one miserable bunch of powerful and power-seeking fools. And they are all men! It’s all a man’s imposition of his will upon the rest of the world, and especially upon women, who most of all have to be kept in their places (otherwise hell would break loose, wouldn’t it?) After all, we know what happened in the Garden of Eden, don’t we? Man is shamefully tempted by vile Woman who listens to dirt-eating talking snakes instead of doing what she is told by the gardener whose enjoyment of the cool of the day is totally ruined for ever and ever and becomes eternally most cross.

Perhaps imposing the fear of hell has been too successful: even the moralists secretly believe it — they just don’t know they do (there are countless very fiery demonic Wedges which have fine but exceedingly sharp ends). Perhaps it is time to consider the conservative mind as a real cause of compassionate concern. These people need to be helped. They must certainly be stopped from trying to run everything, seeing as their incompetence is killing everyone else. But they can’t help themselves — it’s how they are, or how they were brought up (or it’s how we all are, beyond a certain point which is closer to some than to others). I don’t want them to lose their rights and be sectioned, but why are they allowed to go on destroying our lives? Why shouldn’t they learn to be reasonable? How many hangings from cranes, stonings, suicide bombers, kamikaze pilots, concentration camps and lampshades do we need?

* or women, Jews, muslims, christians, women, slaves, women, children, the working class; or competitors, women, heretics, other men, philosophers, scientists, women…

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



A right for all children, as mentioned in Islam

Jan 29th, 2014 5:17 pm | By

The Federal National Council in Abu Dhabi passed a law last week that mothers have to breastfeed their babies up to the age of two. Yes a law, that they have to.

Salem Al Ameri (Abu Dhabi) insisted that breastfeeding was a right for all children, as mentioned in Islam.

Dr Amal Al Qubaisi (Abu Dhabi) said that because labour laws already allow working women to take time to breastfeed, adding the requirement to the legislation showed consistency.

The clause was added to the law once it was passed to the council’s health, labour and social affairs committee for review.

Sultan Al Sammahi (Fujairah), a member of the committee, said it was the right of all children to be breast fed up to the age of 2.

But what about the rights of the woman to decide for herself?

The what? The who?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Doesn’t that suggest that you deliberately set out to court outrage?

Jan 29th, 2014 4:56 pm | By

Thanks to Chigau, here is Author talking to Jeremy Paxman, Author in a shadow with his voice distorted to sound like Some Grey Bloke.

Paxman asks how Jesus and Mo started, and Author says he’d had the idea of a religious satire cartoon for a long time but it was the Danish cartoons fiasco that prompted him to start. ”Doesn’t that suggest that you deliberately set out to court outrage?” Paxman asked.

Whether it did or whether it didn’t, that’s not a reprehensible thing to do. Satire; comedy; outrage; they’re all permitted. There can be bad stupid satire and outrage done in a bad cause, but that doesn’t mean that all outrage is haram.

More talk, and back he came. ”But you do understand that depicting the prophet is a great offense to Muslims.” About as much as I understand that refusing to eat fish on Friday is a great offense to Catholics. Other people’s religious taboos are their problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JETbhvU2BYw

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Disguised as Marie of Romania

Jan 29th, 2014 3:55 pm | By

Jesus and Mo Author was on Newsnight talking to Jeremy Paxman an hour ago – which I didn’t know until it was over, so I missed it, because the BBC doesn’t let people watch outside the UK. He was incognito of course, with the shadow thing and the spooky voice thing.

What we can see, though, is a segment from Channel 4 (yes them again) in which Mo Shafiq and his bully friends meet with the LibDems but are disappointed in their attempt to get Maajid Nawaz deselected.

On a happier note, they also talk to Mohammed Amin of the Conservative Muslim Forum, who says the threateners and shouters are the ones who are giving Muslims a bad name and damaging the image of Islam. ”Jesus and Mo cartoons do nothing to damage the image of Islam among normal human beings,” he said. That is correct! Well said!

Then there’s Paddy Ashdown, who seems oddly intent on insisting that Maajid’s refusal to be “offended” by the Jesus and Mo image is a “minority Muslim view” but who also says Maajid is not going to be deselected and that Mo Shafiq is a pain in the ass. Not quite in those words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW7tPlZc–Y

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Guest post by Chris Muir: Must We Burn Maajid Nawaz?

Jan 29th, 2014 11:50 am | By

Chris Muir reviews Maajid Nawaz’s memoir Radical.

There’s no getting around it. The Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, Maajid Nawaz, is a controversial guy. Described by Muslim crackpot Anjem Choudary as a ‘traitor to the faith’ and suggested to be a secret Islamist by Christian crackpot Glenn Beck, it’s clear he has ruffled more than a few feathers. In fact, it would take the entirety of this blog post to list the enemies he’s accrued – many of whom are a lot more dangerous than the aforementioned talking heads.

In spite of this, Nawaz has fiercely loyal supporters. Recently, after another Liberal Democrat activist, Mohammed Shafiq, spearheaded a campaign to have Nawaz deselected as the Lib Dem Hampstead and Kilburn PPC, Nawaz’ supporters launched a petition in his favour which has accumulated more than 6000 signatures at the time of writing. What bonds Nawaz’s supporters, whether they’re atheists or theists, right wing or left wing, is their belief in and defence of liberalism.

So just who is this man, capable of infuriating religious extremists and hooligans alike? Where did he come from? And why should you listen to him? Well, put simply, because he knows what he’s talking about.

In Radical, Nawaz’s recently released autobiography, he recounts the extraordinary journey which took him from being just another teenaged, rap-loving, ‘b-boy’ in sleepy Southend to a highly dedicated recruiter for the notorious Islamic extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, to then subsequently found the world’s first counter-extremist think-tank, Quilliam.

Radical is a fascinating autobiography, telling a truly exceptional life story. But it’s more than that. It’s a mission statement and a case study. Nawaz’s story gives us a unique insight into how a Brit, raised with Western values, can grow to deplore the country he calls home. How one can assume a supranational identity, bound not to country but to an alien ideology. Radical is Nawaz’s vow to once again separate that ideology from his religion. He wants to communicate that Islamism and Islam are not the same.

Islam is a religion of peace, he argues, but is being used to bind Muslims to a deceptive yet highly convincing meta-narrative calling for a caliphate. By conflating legitimate grievances regarding the effect Western foreign policy has had on Muslims in other countries with half-truths and propaganda, these recruiters have successfully established a siren call to the alienated and the angry. It is an ideology that has resonated with the disaffected and been enflamed by further Western military interventions, allowing a hegemony to be established.

Nawaz has a gift for communicating in prose. What really brings the book to life is his ability to paint a picture. Even knowing the dark path he’ll later take, it’s impossible not to sympathise with his young self when we read of the barbaric violence he witnesses at the hands of racist thugs, or the discriminatory way he is treated by the police just because he isn’t white. The young Nawaz is relatable, vulnerable, normal – which is why his decline into extremism is particularly striking. It’s striking because it’s clear that religion has little to do with why the young Maajid becomes entangled in jihad.

Whilst reading Radical I couldn’t help but recall Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion. Dawkins identified in The God Delusion that it is faith itself which allows extremism to breed. He argues that the very concept of faith – the willingness to accept instruction or explanation, no matter how irrational, as long as told in the name of God – creates a pliable mind, easily manipulated by extremists to further their own ends. After all, one is surely more likely to kamikaze into a building if they think they’ll be rewarded in the afterlife. I think this is a reasonable conclusion to reach, but It wasn’t until I read Radical that I realised it’s a reductive and simple explanation. Radical has been for me, an ‘antitheist’, what Dawkins would call a ‘consciousness raiser’.

I no longer think of the issue of extremism in black and white, in absolutes. The many shades of grey, and the many disparate components of the process of radicalisation are now visible to me. Radical feels like the breakthrough moment of a culture shift, and I wish Maajid and his movement all the success in the world.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The jargon of authenticity

Jan 29th, 2014 11:13 am | By

Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society writes an excellent open letter to Channel 4 about the Black Egg censorship of the image of Mo, sending it via the Huffington Post UK.

We were surprised and extremely disappointed to see that Channel 4 News took the decision to cover up the image of Mohammed when showing the Jesus & Mo cartoon, and we are thus keen to elicit the rationale behind that particular editorial decision.

During the report, it was noted that this decision was taken so as not to cause offence to some viewers; however we would like to point out that by your making this decision you have effectively taken a side in a debate where a Muslim man has suffered violent death threats after he explicitly said he did not find the cartoons offensive. You have taken the side of the reactionaries – the side of people who bully and violently threaten Muslims, such as Mr Nawaz, online.

That’s exactly what they have done, and it’s disgusting. Why would anyone do that? I don’t buy the claim that it’s personal fear. I have to suspect it’s something more like a deeply entrenched assumption that the reactionaries are the more “authentic” Muslims and that therefore it’s more compassionate or progressive or postcolonialist or whatever to side with them instead of with not so “authentic” Muslims like Nawaz. It doesn’t take much thought to perceive how massively insulting that is to Muslims as a group – indeed, how “Islamophobic” it is.

Oh look, Evans says the same thing. I annotated as I went, so I hadn’t read that paragraph yet.

Given that your editorial decision seems to be have been weighted by a concern with offence, we might also note that you ended up with a report that was, in fact, very offensive to many; offensive to those who take seriously and cherish our basic freedom to speak and question, and offensive to many Muslims, whose voices you do not hear because you insist on placating the reactionary voices of people claiming to represent what it is to be an ‘authentic Muslim’.

Exactly. Well of course it’s not an original thought with either of us; we’ve been seeing it for years and years. People have been accusing Salman Rushdie of being “inauthentic” for decades because he’s a cosmopolitan.

Whilst we understand that you covered both sides of the issue through your report and subsequent interview, we were keen to highlight the dangerous precedent you have set by taking the editorial decision to censor the Jesus & Mo cartoon, and the deeply symbolic implications that decision has.

Really. Stop doing that. Stop making terrible decisions like that.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Kicking back

Jan 29th, 2014 10:23 am | By

From the Onion – Woman Takes Short Half-Hour Break From Being Feminist To Enjoy TV Show.

Oh yes, I know how that goes.

Jenkins, 29, told reporters that after a long and tiring day at her office, all she wanted to do was return home, sit down on her couch, turn on an episode of the TLC reality show Say Yes To The Dress, and treat herself to a brief half hour in which she could look past all the various and near constant ways popular culture undermines the progress of women.

“Every once in a while, it’s nice to watch a little television without worrying about how frequently the mainstream media perpetuates traditional gender roles,” Jenkins said before putting her feet up on her coffee table and tuning in to the popular program that follows women as they shop for wedding gowns. “No mentally cataloging all the times women are subtly mocked or shamed for not living up to an unrealistic body image, no examining how women are depicted as superficial and irrationally emotional, and no thinking about how these shows reinforce the belief that women should simply aspire to find a man and get married—none of that. Not tonight. I’m just watching an episode of Say Yes To The Dress and enjoying it for what it is.”

Huh. What I watch for when I turn off the feminist part of my brain is kind of the opposite – stuff like Deadliest Catch where it’s all guys muscling everything and calling each other “girls” when they drop something.

Jenkins acknowledged that she witnessed dozens of moments in which the brides-to-be abandoned the notion that they should be valued for their personalities and intellects and instead seemed to derive their sole sense of worth from embellishing their appearance. However, she said she was able to consistently remind herself that this was “Natalie time” and that the feminist movement “could do without [her] for 30 minutes.”

“Normally, I’d be pretty irritated at the thought of millions of people across the country mindlessly watching such a backward representation of what it means to be a woman in the 21st century, but tonight I’m just unwinding and not letting it get to me,” Jenkins said. “It’s actually been kind of nice to push all the insinuations that marriage is the one true path for women to achieve happiness and fulfillment to the back of my mind and just lie back and have a good time.”

For sure. It’s very soothing watching giant waves crash over the deck and drench all the dudes.

While affirming that she had fully recommitted herself to the cause of gender equality as soon as the show’s credits ended, Jenkins admitted she was already looking forward to the next time she could let herself disregard the many ways women are reduced to stale caricatures on national television.

“Honestly, it’s pretty exhausting to call out every sexist stereotype or instance of misogyny in popular culture, so sometimes I have to just throw my hands up and grant myself a little time off,” Jenkins said. “And given the state of modern media, momentarily suspending my feminist ideals is the only way to get through a night of TV without becoming totally livid or discouraged.”

As of press time, Jenkins’ sense of relaxation and contentment had been entirely undone by the first 30 seconds of 2 Broke Girls.

Switch to the Discovery channel! There’s bound to be something about lumberjacks or moonshiners or guns or cars.

H/t Pieter

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Jesus and Mo and the Black Egg

Jan 29th, 2014 9:22 am | By

Author has his response.

black

Damn right. By doing that stupid, stupid, stupid thing yesterday Channel 4 simply re-enforced the stereotype that all Muslims are enraged bullies who demand the power to silence anything they dislike.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)