Why are these people necessarily wrong to include?
I did a search and I found many articles on the issue, suggesting it's a semi-famous controversy, but no reliable sources (all partisan and either untrustworthy or unknown, from the far left and far right).
EDIT: It's worth watching the guy speak for himself: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449004/anti-radical-mus.... As an apostate I think this guy is a hero.
Nawaz was himself radicalized as a young man, and much of his work today is around preventing other young Muslims from taking that path. It disgusts me that a man with such a important perspective is carelessly labeled anti-Muslim.
Check out the audiobook discussion with Sam Harris if you haven't, "Islam and the future of Tolerance". It was a good, respectful discussion between two very different viewpoints, and Nawaz made very insightful and logical arguments for mainstream Islam being capable of undertaking certain anti-radicalization reforms and why those matter.
This sort of thing from the Western left is incredibly alarming to me. Imagine hardline Christian conservatives took over America and now we live in Handmaid's Tale. You're one of the tiny minority trying to fight back. How would you feel about people in Europe apologizing for the hardliners and condemning anyone who speaks out against their culture?
Obviously it's not Handmaid's Tale bad, but it's worse than you assume. My family is from Bangladesh. A third of the people from my country think I should be executed for leaving Islam: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... Bangladesh is a moderate country in the grand scheme of things--that number is 2/3 in Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
Bangladesh was founded as a secular republic, but that was jettisoned and Islam was made the official religion the year before my family left the country. That was all part of a long societal shift away from the west towards the Islamic world. For years--long before any of this hit the radar of anyone at SPLC--my family used the number of women in Dhaka wearing head coverings as a barometer for the country's descent into theocracy (very rare in the 1980s, quite common today).
I get its a fine line. You can't help people integrate if you can't let them adopt western values on their own terms. At the same time, some of this stuff from well-meaning liberals is really a kick to the gut of people fighting for modernity in these countries.
[1] My family was never religious, but that's not a distinction they recognize over there. I can't count how many times I've gotten in a cab with a driver from south asia/the middle east, and someone has asked me "where are you from?" And if I reply "Bangladesh," the answer is invariably "oh so you're Muslim?"
>Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad — despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad.
Looks like they're just upset anyone would upset Muslims.
I'm not defending SPLC, which again I think overstepped by targeting Nawaz. But the argument that they did so to prevent Islam from being criticized appears to oversimplify. Their problem with Nawaz is that they believe he's a profiteering fraud.
There's the problem. Many other Muslims also have a representation of Muhammad on their walls on home so clearly have no problem with it.
Why should we take any position at all?
I have no problem with Maajid fundraising and paying himself a salary. You need to be careful with the "X profits from fundraising, therefore they're just trying to profit from Y sentiment." That argument could be applied to Planned Parenthood, Churches, and just really anything. Just because an organization is well-funded doesn't mean they're morally bankrupt.
Ugh. Ideological rants are not allowed on HN, so please don't post like this again.
If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.
> But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute.
The only concrete fact is that we received a bunch of British government funding. I don't know a lot about the guy, and obviously I don't stuff about surveillance. But wherever the line is for extremist, he's nowhere close.
The answers are: Not necessarily, not necessarily, yes, and yes.
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/...
And extremeist? I'm not sure what they say is even remotely extreme.