Sinister and Dangerous: The Stealth Supremacism of Maajid Nawaz

As a follow-up to his previous post, Vikram Chatterjee provides further insights into the stealth jihad being waged by the prominent “moderate Muslim” Maajid Nawaz.

Update: This article has been cross-posted at Vikram Chatterjee’s blog.

Sinister and Dangerous: The Stealth Supremacism of Maajid Nawaz

by Vikram K. Chatterjee

In December of last year, Gates of Vienna published my article “Maajid Nawaz: Stealth Jihadist Exposed”, which showed how Nawaz dissimulated about key Islamic doctrines in his book with Sam Harris, Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue, and how he had deployed threatening, jihad-tinged language against Tommy Robinson. In the book, Nawaz buried the truth about: the reasons for Sayyid Qutb’s execution, the practice of taqiyya[1], the meaning of ijtihad and its status in Islam, the existence of a Sunni clergy (the ulama), and the permissibility of eating bacon in Islam, which Muslims can do, if darura, or necessity, dictates.

Alas, my article appears to have had nothing of its intended effect. Nawaz is still parading around on television and in the news media, posing as a liberal. Those who read Counterjihad sites like Gates of Vienna, Counter Jihad Report, Vlad Tepes Blog and the like saw the article, but journalism of this kind appears to be automatically confined to some taboo fringe of Western politics. It is deemed racist to bring an understanding of Islam to journalism and political commentary, and thus, Gates of Vienna articles go unnoticed, the truths they tell unknown. The rest of the Western political sphere chatters on in ignorance. They prate, and they prattle, and all the while Islam marches on.

Because of this disappointing result, and in the interests of keeping this story afloat, I would like to offer some additional analysis of Nawaz, in order to sharpen up our picture of how he is deceiving people.

How Maajid Nawaz Deploys Stealth Supremacism

In the mode of stealth jihad, the Muslim does not go around openly telling Infidels that he and his religion, and those who practice it, are superior. That is what the stealth jihadist believes, but he is not going to say it outright. If Nawaz came to people saying “I’m the Grand Mufti of such-and-such”, people would be immediately suspicious:

So instead, Nawaz must try for more subtle and devious tactics. How would he go about doing this? To see how, let us turn to the Holy Qur’an:

It is He who expelled the ones who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think they would leave, and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from Allah; but [the decree of] Allah came upon them from where they had not expected, and He cast terror into their hearts [so] they destroyed their houses by their [own] hands and the hands of the believers. So take warning, O people of vision.

— Qur’an 59:2, Sahih International Version

In the above verse, the “People of the Scripture” is the Qur’an’s term primarily for Jews and Christians. They are “those who disbelieved” among the People of the Scripture. In Islam, the view of Judaism and Christianity is that these faiths are corruptions of Islam. Abraham, Moses, Noah, and Jesus were Muslims, and the religion they preached was Islam, and the scripture of Judaism and Christianity was originally the Qur’an. Later, their followers corrupted this scripture, and the result was the Bible.

Nawaz is operating in lands where Christianity and Judaism are the predominant faiths, for now. The above verse says Nawaz’s god, Allah “came upon them from where they had not expected”, and that “they destroyed their houses by their [own] hands”. The message of this verse is that the Infidel enemies of Islam will be attacked from a place they had not expected, and that in this way they will bring about their own defeat.

This passage is the key to understanding Nawaz’s stealth supremacism. What Nawaz and his accomplices (both witting and unwitting) do is to subtly suggest that he is to be thought of as being in position of authority. How does he do that?

At the Quilliam Foundation website, one can see how the organization bills itself by clicking on the “About” section at the top, where we can read that:

Quilliam is the world’s first counter-extremism think tank..

This sentence at first seems harmless, but if we take some time to analyze it, we can detect some sinister architecture. When Maajid Nawaz goes on his TV appearances, his book tours and conference events, he gets introduced by the host in a way that generally sounds like this:

“Joining us is Maajid Nawaz, founder of Quilliam Foundation, the world’s first counter-extremism think tank.”

The first thing to be noticed about this sentence is the bizarre piece of jargon, “counter-extremism think tank”. If you’ve read a lot of the crap that mainstream commentators on Islamic terrorism say, you no doubt have come across terminology such as “extremism”, and “sectarianism”, and “radicalization”, and the like. Notice that any of these words could be substituted in to the above sentence, and the meaning of the sentence would be scarcely altered. Quilliam Foundation, the world’s first counter-extremism think tank, could also be called:

  • the world’s first counter-radicalization think tank
  • the world’s first counter-sectarianism think tank
  • the world’s first counter-supremacism think tank
  • the world’s first counter-Islamism think tank

Any of these descriptors would work for Quilliam’s purposes, and we wouldn’t notice the difference. This jargon-laden, muddled and vague descriptor “counter-extremism think tank” is designed to be forgettable and uninformative, while at the same time it subtly reminds the reader of Islam, which is associated in the minds of the Infidel audience with “extremism” (i.e. Jihad terror). What is memorable about the sentence, however, is that Maajid is being described as a founder of something — what ever that vague and unmentioned something is — which is to be thought of as the world’s first.

This is the language of stealth supremacism. What the “world’s first” in Quilliam’s self-description is referring to, subliminally, is Islam. Islam goes unmentioned, because Quilliam practices stealth jihad. In the place of “Islam”, the vague and forgettable “counter-extremism think tank” is inserted. Notice also that the “world’s first” also conforms with the Islamic notion that Islam was the original religion of all mankind, before others corrupted Allah’s will and produced the Bible.

When Maajid is described by an Infidel TV host as being the “founder” of the “world’s first” something-or-other, the host is unwittingly suggesting to his Infidel audience that Maajid is a Founder of Things. A Beginner of Things. An Important Man. That he is to be respected. That his opinions are correct. That he is to be thought of as being in a position of authority. A position which he holds as being a part of something — whatever that vague and unmentioned something is — that is the “world’s first”. But it’s not a counter-something-or-other think tank. It is Islam.

Thus, when the Infidel host unwittingly springs this subliminally supremacist language upon his Infidel audience, “Allah came upon them from where they had not expected” in accordance with the prophecy of Qur’an 59:2, quoted above. The Infidels at home might be expecting Maajid to trumpet his supremacy himself, but, they will not be expecting their fellow Infidel to be unwittingly trumpeting his supremacy for him. This action happens in a subtle and indirect way, fooling the audience in a way that also conforms to this scripture, in which the disbelievers “destroyed their houses by their [own] hands and the hands of the believers.” That is Qur’an 59:2 in action.

Another example of Maajid’s stealth supremacism can be seen on his Facebook page. Take a good look at this picture, and ask yourself: what are you looking at?

At first glance, it appears that Maajid is attending some kind of pro-Malala protest (and perhaps indeed it is real). The young men are lined up, holding a picture of Malala Yousefzai. From the apparel of the protesters, the photo appears to have been taken in Pakistan — the young man on the right is dressed in a way that screams “sub-continental middle class”. The protesters are lined up, and Maajid walks by, with a look of sad determination on his face.

So, it look like a protest for Malala. But there is another way of interpreting the photo. Although the people are standing in a haphazard way, not in any particular posture, they are all standing in a line. And Maajid is walking by them, his head up high. If one looks at it, keeping in mind his sinister record that I documented in my previous article, the photo appears to suggest that Maajid is to be thought of as a military leader. The young men are lined up, standing to attention, and Maajid walks by confidently, a general inspecting his troops. A man to be feared.

One would not normally expect a photo of Muslims at what appears to be pro-Malala protest to have a subliminal suggestion of Islamic militancy, but then, Allah works in mysterious ways, and occasionally he “came upon them from where they had not expected, and He cast terror into their hearts.” One could easily disagree with my interpretation, but in my view, the photo above is an example of Q 59:2 in action.

Another example of this kind of subliminal supremacism may be found in the video of the event at Harvard that launched the book Nawaz wrote with Sam Harris. Although I will not adduce the evidence for this here, I believe that for at least two years Harris been the target of a highly sophisticated campaign of deception, organized by the international pan-Sunni supremacist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and its front organization, the Quilliam Foundation. Long before Harris met Nawaz, Nawaz and his accomplices had studied Harris. They read his books, and read the books mentioned in his bibliographies, and from there they were able to infer what Harris did, and did not know, about Islam. Then they went about carefully deceiving him with a series of articles written by “Muslim atheists”, who he then followed on twitter, and they were able to share links by or about Nawaz with him there, insinuating him into Harris’ circle of contacts.

From there, they were able to induce Harris into having a “conversation” with Maajid Nawaz, producing their book, and then using the book and book tour events and media appearances to shop Nawaz around the globe to Infidel audiences, eager to find a friendly face among Muslims. Nawaz is using Harris and his imprimatur as a respected liberal intellectual as a springboard for a campaign of mass deception about Islam, delivered in the book and other media. A host of articles have been produced by Maajid’s accomplices, both witting and unwitting, which serve to bolster his reputation as an alleged liberal. The swirl of puff pieces and feigned attacks on him in various online media form part of a Good Cop/Bad Cop routine put on by Muslims (and their unwitting accomplices) in order to deceive Infidels.

Maajid and his accomplices have worked a wonder on Sam Harris, subtly implanting in his mind the notion that Maajid is to be thought of as being in a position of authority, and getting him to think so highly of Nawaz that he is even unwittingly suggesting this same sinister notion to his tens of thousands of fans. The screenshot below is of the Harvard event. To watch the segment, queued from 16:21, click the link below and finish at 18:10. While you’re watching, listen for Harris saying the following:

  • “I’ll let Maajid decide”
  • “We have different instincts, Maajid and I, here, and my instincts for many conversations are now to defer to Maajid’s instincts”
  • “If anything my views and my way of speaking about this problem have been more modified then Maajid’s by our collaboration”

Click here to watch from 16:21 through 18:10

In all three of these statements, Harris is unwittingly suggesting to the Infidels in the audience that Nawaz is a man whose opinions are to be consulted, that his ideas are better than those of the Infidel Harris, who, himself respected by the Infidels in the audience, in turn confers respectability upon Nawaz. Harris defers to Nawaz, and so, some Infidels will think, should they as well. These statements, made by Infidel Harris to his Infidel audience, subtly suggest that Maajid is to be thought of as being in a position of authority, that he is to be obeyed. In this devious and indirect way, one of the most prominent critics of Islam on the planet, Sam Harris, has been unwittingly dragooned into the Army of Islam.

Vikram K. Chatterjee is a Bengali-American writer and researcher who lives in Texas. Previously: Maajid Nawaz: Stealth Jihadist Exposed

Note:

1.   If anyone still doubts that Sunnis practice taqiyya, he need only consult the revered Sunni theologian Ibn Kathir to have his view of the matter clarified. In his Tafsir Ibn Kathir, he comments on Qur’an 3:28, saying:

In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’’ Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.’’

The Academic scholar of Islam Devin Stewart has published an incredibly useful 43-page paper entitled “Dissimulation in Sunni Islam and Morisco Taqiyya”. This paper adduces an unanswerable mountain of evidence for Sunni taqiyya.
 

51 thoughts on “Sinister and Dangerous: The Stealth Supremacism of Maajid Nawaz

  1. If anyone has any criticism or challenges to my analysis above, feel free to snipe at me here.

    Also: my last article found itself banned in several places on reddit: /r/atheism, /r/UnitedKingdom, /r/SamHarris, and /r/UKPolitics. My account was banned from two of these subreddits.

    Can anyone report similar experiences here?

    • I think you are spot on. When dealing with Muslims, we must always remember that according to Muhammad “war is deceit”, and war against the unbelievers is permanent, relentless, and to be waged with all methods, and the ends justify the means.

      So yes, Maajid is a deceiver. And Sam Harris was a target.

    • Thank you for the insightful article. I appreciate your point of view and honesty!

  2. “The Quilliam Foundation”, as Quilliam initially titled itself, was set up with massive amounts of UK taxpayer funds. The use of the word “Foundation” is highly questionable. It carries an aura of charity funds being devoted to a worthy cause, in the manner of, say, the Paul Mellon Foundation for the study of art, and the like. When Maajid Nawaz is billed as “Founder” it suggests that it was he who magnanimously donated the initial funds that founded the “Foundation”. The title “The Quilliam Foundation” sounded convincingly like some independent source of wisdom. The public was supposed to think that it was some laudable charitable body devoted to seeking truth and promoting co-operation. It acted as a captive source of soundbites for the UK government, obligingly producing quotable utterances to help the “narrative”, that is, the propaganda to enable Islam to gain more ground.

    Now its name is simplified to Quilliam, and it is billed as a “think tank”. What is a think tank? Why must we worship a think tank? It is an enormously elastic concept, that can be everlastingly stretched to mean whatever Humpty Dumpty or anyone else wants it to mean.

    The “think tank” is named after nineteenth century convert to Islam William, later Abdullah, Quilliam, 1856-1932, a solicitor who founded the first mosque in Britain, for Lascar sailors in Liverpool. He argued for a global Caliphate and swore allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. A less glamorous detail of his life is that he was struck off as a solicitor. The “think tank” has a precedent for malpractice.

    • Yes.

      A point I should have made in the above article is that Nawaz has named Quilliam Foundation after Abdullah Quilliam as a subtle dog-whistle to Muslims in the UK that he remains loyal to Islam and the Sharia.

      Because Quilliam called for the establishment of a global Caliphate and Sharia in Britain, UK Muslims know that Nawaz and his Quilliam Foundation on the side of Islam.

  3. As long as I know taqiyah is not instant improvising of a smile or a sermon, it’s a set of know-how that clerics learn step by step. According to high clerics, qoran contains two separate sets of verses: mercy and vengeance. They learn when the time is right to use the verse of mercy and when to use the verse of vengeance and no surprise that vengeance verses will only turn up when the prey is totally trapped. Every word they say is part of a predetermined satanic plan.

  4. I found the optics of the video clip you supplied interesting. The body language – Nawaz is nattily dressed, well-coiffed – obviously a cultured sort with wealth and impeccable taste and a tailor on speed dial. A civilized man. Certainly not a barbarian throwback. He crosses his legs like a woman, perhaps a cultural thing, but if one follows the taqyiah thought to it’s conclusion, perhaps it is designed to disarm us and make us think ” Oh this fellow can’t possibly think he can out-aggress us, look how feminine he appears”. Then Sam Harris, in his breezy tie-less way, with his five-o’clock shadow, relaxed, man-spreading like one without a care in the world, “Nothing to worry about here, folks, just two friends dialoguing. They don’t actually want to conquer us, that’s just silly talk from paranoid fools – just ask my friend Maajid here. I’ll defer to his superior wisdom on the subject”.
    People trained by years of consumption of TV images absorb a tableau like that without even pausing to ask “Wait, what am I being shown here?”. It completely colors their perception and greases the skids for the further shoveling of propaganda down their throats.
    Thank you for your elegant dissection of the strategy behind the cultivation of Sam Harris. It’s really chilling to think of organized groups plotting and planning and grooming anti- islam voices like that, but I believe you are on to something.

    • Yes it is indeed quite chilling.

      As I said above, I think that Harris has been very carefully targeted. Long before Harris ever heard of Nawaz, Hizb ut-Tahrir had set its sights on Harris.

      What they saw in him was this: a liberal man, deeply concerned about Islam and jihad-terror, who was willing to try to make peace with Muslims. They saw what he was, and they saw what he was not: he was not Robert Spencer or Andrew Bostom.

      They knew that he was concerned about Islam, and they knew that he did not know all of the doctrinal details of Islam. They checked his books and carefully went about deceiving him, beginning with articles published at the Huffington Post (google “a conversation between two atheists from Muslim backgrounds”).

      hese were designed to attract Harris’ attention and get him to follow the authors on twitter. Then they peppered his twitter feed with links to Nawaz, and the trap was set.

      • “They saw what he was, and they saw what he was not: he was not Robert Spencer or Andrew Bostom.”

        Sam Harris is also, perhaps more importantly, much more Mainstream-friendly than Spencer or Bostom (both of whom remain barely hanging on to the Mainstream edges by their greasy Islamophobic fingernails)… And yet Sam Harris also has a broad foothold in the Counter-Jihad, where innumerable secularist, atheist, agnostic enlightened types who are oh-so serious & concerned about the problem of Islam can find a way to be concerned and yet still avoid being “bigoted” — just as Sam has through his new Brown Bromance with Nawaz.

  5. The mission of Maajid Nawaz is to promote the bogus “narrative” – propaganda – that there are Nice Peaceful Islam and Nasty Bad “Islamism”, and the red herring that there can be a “Western Islam”, affording endless waffle to distract attention.
    “We wish to raise awareness around Islamism”;
    “I want to demonstrate how the Islamist ideology is incompatible with Islam. Secondly … develop a Western Islam that is at home in Britain and in Europe … reverse radicalisation by taking on their arguments and countering them.” (wikipedia).

    Of course, there can be no “Western Islam”, as Erdogan made clear: “Islam is Islam, and that is it.” Maajid Nawaz is steering the focus to a decoy duck deception. The duck is dead in the water.
    http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/bbcs-useless-waffle-about-british-islam

  6. Another hatchet job. God this hilarious & funny. “Although I will not adduce the evidence for this here” (para 23), shows what a terrible article this is. Just ad hominem, rhetoric attacks & no substance. Better luck next time.

    • Looks to me like it if really YOUR comment that is all rhetoric and no substance.

      Have you got any substantive points to make? Any specifically wrong in the article above? Any errors of fact?

      You have no argument, and you know it.

        • Atanu

          Whoever Manya Sharma is, the article is very poor (I don’t know what it’s doing here) and just opens the door to those who would like to discredit GoV.

        • I am from Chandigarh, gotra shandilya. Studied from chandigarh college of engineering & technology in sector 26. roll no c06522. ask any professor there. they will know me.

        • I am from Chandigarh, India. gotra Shandilya. you know what gotra is right? Studied from chandigarh college of engineering & technology in sector 26. roll no c06522. ask any professor there. they will know me.

          Trying to discredit my comment based on my religion really tells everyone how desperate you are to take the conversation away from facts since this article is devoid of facts & full of ad hominem meaningless attacks & interpretations.

          • what [material I deprecate]. islam is an evil cult, and pious muslims have every reason to try to fool infidels.

            as vikram said, if U find a mistake, point it out. saying “this is a bad article” just takes up bandwidth.

            [epithet].

        • Atanu you I hope you can argue much better than questioning my background.

          That is very desperate of you to stir the conversation away from facts & the real topic.

  7. Another hatchet job. God this is hilarious & funny. “Although I will not adduce the evidence for this here” (para 23), shows what a terrible article this is. Just ad hominem, rhetoric attacks & no substance.

    The writer seems to think that by playing the ‘power of words & images on psychology’ card he will convince his readers that his piece is valid at some point. Images & simple sentences like ‘founder of counter-extremism think-tank’ (which is very tacit in itself) are being interpreted with a bias & to suit the writer’s agenda. Sentences like “When Maajid is described by an Infidel TV host as being the….” expose that this writer has a bias and an agenda which negates the purpose of this article.

    No work of Maajid Nawaz or Quilliam has been criticized, just rhetoric attacks on Maajid with all just interpretations (with no factual backings, note: quoting from a scripture isn’t factual backing) from the writer’s side.

    It seems the writer thinks that his readers & great intellectuals like Sam Harris cannot think, process information put in front of them, investigate & decide or conclude for themselves.

    Better luck next time. There have been better hatchet jobs in the market.

    • Looks to me like it if really YOUR comment that is all rhetoric and no substance.

      Have you got any substantive points to make? Any specifically wrong in the article above? Any errors of fact?

      Your second paragraph us incoherent. What’s “tacit” about that phrase? Do you know what that word means?

      You have no argument, and you know it.

      • You make claims & don’t want to what was the phrase? yeah ‘Although I will not adduce the evidence for this here’. that makes your claims nothing but false. You try playing the ‘power of words & images on psychology’ card which is nothing but sentences full of rhetoric jammed together. You have no facts so I do not need facts to criticize you but I have. reader will know accept you obviously. As i said better luck next time.

      • Let me repeat since you refuse to process what I have already typed:

        You make claims & don’t want to what was the phrase? yeah ‘Although I will not adduce (cite as evidence) the evidence for this here’. That makes all of your claims nothing but false.

        You try playing the ‘power of words & images on psychology’ card but there is nothing but sentences full of rhetoric jammed together in this article.

        You have no facts nor done any criticism of Maajid’s or Quilliam’s actual work but have just commented on his appearance & how other people perceive him as. So I do not need facts to criticize you. But I still have here. Readers will know accept you, obviously because your definition of facts is something else than normal human definition.

        You undermine the self-deductive abilities of intellectuals like Sam Harris & your readers.

        This whole deduction isn’t rhetoric just because you label it as such. again non-biased readers will know.

        As I said better luck next time.

        • non-biased readers who know islam will already know about taqiyya and the lying, thieving, raping murderer who started islam (muhammed). the fact that maajid tries to present a tame islam speaks for itself; he, too, is practicing taqiyya, and wants western infidels to either submit or die.

          get a better argument.

  8. You call Sam Harris an intellectual, and he thinks he is a liberal himself. May I ask what sort of liberal is this? In the old days a liberal was someone obsessed with the idea of releasing individuals from superstition, mental barriers, etc, so the true angelic human nature can show and shine.

    How on earth Sam Harris can be a liberal if he supports a supremacist ideology that has no respect for human freedom, only begs obedience to centre of power? (please notice islam asks for total obedience which is contradictory to the meaning of liberation)

    How on earth he can be a liberal if he supports an inhumane semi-religion that assumes women are animals? (yes, there are books that such thing has been discussed shamelessly. and qoran supports such views also)

    To me Sam Harris is neither an intellectual nor a liberal. Just another communist sprayed in the colours of liberals. And you know why communists use the liberal label today? There has been lots of propaganda against communism during cold war and many folks are suspect of anything that smells communism, so they need a new label.
    Just read something written by true liberals of our time, Karl Popper or Charles Dawkins and compare to people like Sam Harris and tell me if you still think they are in the same school of thought. And if Sam Harris can be called an intellectual at all.

    • It is not only about follow our liberal standard or die.
      I think i habe seen the interview of harris and a very reasonable ex muslima that ask him of consequent harsh critizism of islam itself os really the way to go or of he should maybe now start supporting rather liberal islamoc forces. I kind of agree with her. I have studied some of the qiran and hadith, muhammeds life bit more the view of muslims on it. I dont habe to tell you that it is shoking. And harris knows it for himself. But we will never be able to eradicate this faith, it is deeply rooted in society and scientists suggest a genetic trait for the likelihood to believe. Maybe ot is rather time to support liberal muslims and make them become an authority they are not yet.

      I personally think this article is full of bias. Of course i dont know if maajid is practising taqhia, his past is pretty suspisiois. But honestly, abobe no evidence whatsoever is presented that he his doing so. It seems that two people are trying to make the best of having a different believesystem to ensure peace.

      Give it a go.

  9. I have to say I did not find the article either convincing or even completely comprehensible. That does not prove it to be wrong; in fact, I tend to believe its premises. But, I have to point out that belief and evidence are different.

    I did not read the previous article or listen to the clip, as I believe the article should stand or fall on its own.

    “Because of this disappointing result [“Alas, my article appears to have had nothing of its intended effect. Nawaz is still parading around on television and in the news media, posing as a liberal.”] , and in the interests of keeping this story afloat, I would like to offer some additional analysis of Nawaz, in order to sharpen up our picture of how he is deceiving people.”

    This is your own objective: to give more information on the deceptions of Nawaz. We can take it as a requirement that the evidence, or the logic should be clear, and that the article should not be confined to opinions.

    “How Maajid Nawaz Deploys Stealth Supremacism”

    From this topic heading, we expect to have information on how, specifically, Nawaz spreads supremacism. We get a Koranic quote about infidels being surprised and destroyed.

    Here is the crux: the Koranic quote is consistent with the picture of Nawaz as a stealth supremacist, but it does not show that he is operating under the rubric of the quote. In other words, he may be using stealth, but the information cited is also consistent with the assertion that he is sincere. There is nothing in the article to show that he is using the Koranic verse: only that he might be using it. Thus, this is not evidence.

    *******
    “What Nawaz and his accomplices (both witting and unwitting) do is to subtly suggest that he is to be thought of as being in position of authority. How does he do that?”

    The crux of the evidence provided that Nawaz is misrepresenting his authority comes from the Quilliam billing: “Quilliam is the world’s first counter-extremism think tank..”

    “This jargon-laden, muddled and vague descriptor “counter-extremism think tank” is designed to be forgettable and uninformative, while at the same time it subtly reminds the reader of Islam”

    The case against the Quilliam foundation seems to be that it uses a descriptor which has multiple synonyms (counter-radicalization, counter-supremacism, counter-Islamism) and that it “subtly reminds the reader of Islam”. “Subtly” is the key word here, as it is extremely subtle and not at all explicit. Again, I would not raise this assertion to the level of evidence. It’s simply too indirect and too speculative.

    “What is memorable about the sentence, however, is that Maajid is being described as a founder of something…” “This is the language of stealth supremacism”

    Huh? The fact that he describes himself as the founder of something is the language of stealth supremacism? This is too far a stretch for even the most devoted counter-jihadist to comtemplate, assuming you wish to keep a foot grounded in reality.

    “Islam goes unmentioned, because Quilliam practices stealth jihad.” In other words, the fact that Nawaz does not mention Islam is evidence that he is talking about it in stealth mode. Again, not exactly hitting you over the head with the logic or clarity of your case.

    “Notice also that the “world’s first” also conforms with the Islamic notion that Islam was the original religion of all mankind…” In other words, Nawaz claims to be the first to found an institute of this type. The fact that he claims to be the first in anything brings our minds subliminally to the assertion Islam makes that it is the original religion, preceding all others. This sounds like psychoanalysis, rather than analysis of evidence.

    “the host is unwittingly suggesting to his Infidel audience that Maajid is a Founder of Things.” I don’t think the host is unwittingly suggesting anything. He is suggesting that Nawaz was a founder of the Quillian Institute, which is a concrete, non-mystical, non-subliminal claim which can be factually verified or refuted. Chatterjee, the author of this article, does not refute the claim. Therefore, I fail to see any implications of stealth jihad in the statement he was a founder of Quillian.

    “The Infidels at home might be expecting Maajid to trumpet his supremacy himself, but, they will not be expecting their fellow Infidel to be unwittingly trumpeting his supremacy for him.” I believe the term for this is “affirming the consequence”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

    Specifically, if Nawaz is attempting to fool his audience he will say what he said. He said it, and therefore, he is attempting to fool his audience.

    *****
    “Another example of Maajid’s stealth supremacism can be seen on his Facebook page.”

    “So, it look like a protest for Malala. But there is another way of interpreting the photo…”
    “The young men are lined up, standing to attention, and Maajid walks by confidently, a general inspecting his troops.”

    This is another instance of affirming the consequence. If Nawaz wanted to be a general inspecting his troops, this is how he would appear. Therefore, he wants to be a general inspecting his troops.

    ***
    ” I believe that for at least two years Harris been the target of a highly sophisticated campaign of deception, organized by the international pan-Sunni supremacist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir”

    Your belief may or may not be true, but the fact that you believe it is not evidence for it that should be accepted by anyone other than yourself. This illustrates my point: you present opinions, but no acceptable evidence or logic to buttress them.

    ******

    “A host of articles have been produced by Maajid’s accomplices, both witting and unwitting, which serve to bolster his reputation as an alleged liberal. ”

    Another example of affirming the consequence. If Nawaz had a band of shadowy Islamist supporters who wanted to bolster his credentials, they would produce a host of articles showing him as a liberal. There is a bunch of articles showing him as a liberal. Therefore, he has a band of shadowy Islamist supporters.

    I hope I have made my case that whether Chatterjee is right or wrong, he has not proven, or even given substantial factual or logical support for his position. I write this critique not to discourage expositions of people like Nawaz, but to try to encourage factual and logical thinking in doing so.

    • wait for him (vikram) to come with a personal jibe at you instead of any counter arguments or facts.

    • The most convincing evidence of Mr. Nawaz’ taqiyya is the list of false assertions made by him about Islam and Muslims.

      If he were simply a secular Muslim who had hardly ever visited a mosque and had never studied his religion’s scriptures, these lapses would be credible. However, Mr. Nawaz is a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization of devout Salafists whose mission is to establish Khalifa, the worldwide Caliphate. HuT adherents are well-versed in the minutiae of Islamic doctrine.

      It would strain credulity to assert that Mr. Nawaz was ignorant about those facts he misrepresented. Occam’s Razor tells me that almost certainly does know the truth about those matters. If he really has seen the light, and abandoned “extremism”, why would he lie about them?

      Those are the crux of the case. Admittedly, the falsehoods are few. But they are telling.

      The rest are just the author’s subjective impressions. Those don’t prove anything, but provide additional supportive materials.

        • Read Mr. Chatterjee’s original analysis. The two I can remember off the top of my head concerned the prohibition against eating bacon, and the fact that the practice of taqiyya and kitman (sacred lying and misdirection) are just as Sunni as they are Shi’ite.

          The latter is particularly telling, because it is the core of this issue. I’m not a Muslim, yet I’m very familiar with Sunni doctrine on sacred lying. It’s not only permitted by all four schools of the fiqh, but is mandatory when the cause it supports is mandatory. This is fully established under Sunni Islamic law.

          No one can convince me that Maajid Nawaz, as a (supposedly former) member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, is not aware of this doctrine. He knows Islamic law far, far better than I do. So why would he tell this particular untruth?

          This is the crux of the matter.

          • Nawaz is positioning himself as that rare thing, a ‘moderate’, ‘reformist’ muslim, knowing that the British establishment desperately wants such a thing to exist. There is money and a career to be gained from this – hence the Quilliam think tank, set up to attract funding. If Nawaz told the truth about Islam then this niche that he has set up for himself would implode. Nawaz tells the establishment what they want to hear and gets paid for it.

            Yes, it’s dishonest but not I suspect in the service of Islam but in the service of Maajid Nawaz. This makes it less like taqiyya and more like old-fashioned self-serving careerism. We have to be careful, I think, not to overuse the taqiyya accusation.

          • I make no accusations about taqiyya. I simply point out the near certainty that he is not telling the truth.

            When an allegedly former “extremist” Muslim fails to tell the truth about sacred lying in Islam, it should at the very least raise a red flag.

            And, whether he is doing it for the sake of Islam, or for mere pecuniary gain, there’s no particular reason why we should believe anything else he says.

            Furthermore, we should err on the side of caution. We should assume that Maajid Nawaz is engaging in the traditional Islamic practice of sacred lying, until we have solid evidence that he is not.

            As a consequence, no one should cite him as an authority on Islam, “radical” or otherwise. No one should take his pronouncements on Islam as definitive. And no one should accept financial assistance from Quilliam.

          • maybe his interpretation of that topic is different from yours. point is, he has worked closely with scholars than you may have.

          • The settled portions of Islamic law are not subject to further interpretation, which is expressly forbidden by all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence. The gate of ijtihad closed more than a thousand years ago.

            If Maajid Nawaz says that there is no taqiyya (sacred lying) in Sunni Islam, then he is saying something that is not true, because there demonstrably is such a doctrine in Sunni law. It’s easy to find the sources in Reliance of the Traveller and elsewhere.

            It strains my credulity to think that Mr. Nawaz is not aware of this fact. If indeed he is, then he is knowingly telling an untruth.

            One may draw whatever conclusions one wants from that deduction, but Occam’s Razor points inexorably to it.

          • Diotima:

            “Yes, it’s dishonest but not I suspect in the service of Islam but in the service of Maajid Nawaz.”

            It’s highly unlikely that a lifelong fanatic who sought to find ways for Islamic jihad to dominate in the world would now only be concerned with himself, and not Islam — particularly when he remains a Muslim.

        • We all know that Ignoring the malignancies in Islam is a disease. It encourage aggression, give it latitude to bad ideas and slackens our defenses.
          But Maajid consistently speaks to this issue. I’d rather have a secret jihadist openly discussing the problems with Islam than a loud liberal who carefully buries their awareness that something is going terribly wrong.

          “The settled portions of Islamic law are not subject to further interpretation, which is expressly forbidden by all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence. ” Mohammed himself may forbid the second law of thermodynamics but…. mohammed goes to the mountain.

    • Yes, the part about Nawaz’s self-promotion as “Founder” of “the first” think-tank is a bit thin. That part could easily just be slick self-promotion that any slimy, careering pundit out there indulges in. More in-depth analysis of Nawaz’s sophistry needs to be done, but in my estimation, it would take a lot of work, because Nawaz makes sure to apply lots of oil to massage many different curves and orifices, and the analyst would begin slip-sliding if he doesn’t commit to the long haul to get his bearings and amass and unravel, in order to re-ravel, the many different threads and slippery eels that will incriminate Nawaz.

    • what do U know of islam? have U read the quran, the ahadith, and the sira? what do U know of the history of islamic “interaction” with other cultures?

      this is a discussion about survival, and U want to argue logic. if maajid nawaz is sincere, then he doesn’t know anything about his own religion, and is not to be trusted. we’re not talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; the islamic “holy” literature is very clear about all its evil, and there is no way to get around it.

    • RonaldB,

      Forgive the lateness of my reply.

      I would first ask you to actually read my previous piece. The above article is written for Gates of Vienna readers, who understand a bit more about Islam than the general audience. Those who read Gates are likely to have read my previous piece, in which I show Maajid Nawaz lying repeatedly about Islam. His pattern of deception clearly indicates that he has a supremacist agenda (particularly “taqiyya is a Shia concept” – a dead giveaway of a Sunni supremacist). He also is shown to have deployed threatening language against Tommy Robinson and the EDL.

      ” . There is nothing in the article to show that he is using the Koranic verse: only that he might be using it. Thus, this is not evidence.”

      Again, the above article should be read in light of my previous article. No one – not Nawaz or any of his accomplices – has attempted to debunk my piece. And he knows about it. He retweeted both pieces, and after he tweeted the first piece, along with a disingenuous self-pitying comment about how he’s “trapped between two extremes”, he tellingly blocked me on Twitter. Not a good sign.

      “..This is too far a stretch for even the most devoted counter-jihadist to comtemplate, assuming you wish to keep a foot grounded in reality.”

      What kind of counter-jihadist are you? Islamic stealth supremacism should be on the radar of every defender of the West or Infidel culture generally. The fact that you manage to say this doesn’t speak well to your credibility.

      Examples of Islamic stealth supremacist language abound. Ever heard of the “Palestinian” rights activist Rashid Khalidi? For a while he was the “Director” of the “Middle East Institute”.

      The “Director” in his title suggests that he’s in a position of authority, that he’s a Director of Things, he’s a Decider of Things. The “Middle East Institute” serves to subliminally frighten the audience with the notion of… what is it…? Can you think of a very frightening Middle Eastern institution?

      Much of what else you write is argument from false pretenses. You set up a straw man, and then knock it down, claiming a victory. Here for example:

      ” He is suggesting that Nawaz was a founder of the Quillian Institute, which is a concrete, non-mystical, non-subliminal claim which can be factually verified or refuted. Chatterjee, the author of this article, does not refute the claim. ”

      1. It’s Quilliam Foundation. – sorry to nit-pick, but names matter here.

      2. I haven’t claimed or attempted to claim that Nawaz is not a founder of Quilliam, so when you say that I have not refuted this claim, you are attacking a straw man.

      Another example: “Specifically, if Nawaz is attempting to fool his audience he will say what he said. He said it, and therefore, he is attempting to fool his audience.”

      But in the passage you allude to, I am speaking of verbal annunciations by non-Muslims, not by Nawaz. Your reading comprehension has some glaring shortcomings here.

      You misharacterize my argument here:
      “This is another instance of affirming the consequence. If Nawaz wanted to be a general inspecting his troops, this is how he would appear. Therefore, he wants to be a general inspecting his troops.”

      No, he wants to APPEAR to be so, at least for now. Have a look at the image in the below link:

      http://i.imgur.com/ag1Vyj1.jpg

      In order to draw any blood agaisnt me, you’re going to have to reply to my actual arguments, in light of the hard evidence of my previous article, not made up mischaracterizations and straw men.

      Back to the kiddie pool for you.

  10. Vikram writes:

    “Alas, my article appears to have had nothing of its intended effect. Nawaz is still parading around on television and in the news media, posing as a liberal. Those who read Counterjihad sites like Gates of Vienna, Counter Jihad Report, Vlad Tepes Blog and the like saw the article, but journalism of this kind appears to be automatically confined to some taboo fringe of Western politics. ”

    Of course the Mainstream swallows the sophistry of Nawaz. But the real problem is that many more or less in the Counter-Jihad are naively gullible about Nawaz (e.g., Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray; and many others who sort of seem to assume vaguely that he’s not a stealth jihadist). That’s the function & role of a Nawaz, to target the dupes of the Counter-Jihad who, like the counterparts out in the Mainstream, also have an anxious need to avoid “tarring all Muslims with a broad brush”. Indeed, their anxiety is deeper and more powerful, because their increased knowledge of the metastasizing horror of Islam and of Muslims prods them on to the verboten territory of “bigotry” and “prejudice”.

    In this function & role, I call Nawaz a “Better Cop”, because he goes above and beyond what the standard-issue garden-variety Good Cop Muslims do when they fool the comparatively easier-to-fool Mainstream PC MCs. Other Better Cops are Zuhdi Jasser, Tarek Fatah, Asra Nomani, et al (qaeda). Indeed, Jasser in a way is a better Better Cop than Nawaz, for he has fooled Vikram and Baron Bodissey into thinking he’s (“probably”) not a stealth jihadist.

    • I don’t know if I’ve been “fooled” or not, but Zuhdi doesn’t have a lot of money behind him like Nawaz does. Obviously, that doesn’t prove anything. The rest of my opinion comes from what people who know him personally have said.

      • With Muslims, the rule of thumb should be to suspect first, until sufficient evidence comes along to dispel the suspicion. Then the learned counter-jihadist asks himself, what kind of evidence would that be? (I know what answer I’d give: The Islam Jasser supports makes any such evidence impossible.) To give Jasser or any Muslim the benefit of the doubt — or even the benefit of the suspension of condemnation — just because he seems okay and/or because others one trusts feel he seems okay is a curious reflex of gullibility or ignorance. If you spent 20 minutes reading my above-linked analysis, you might see what I’m talking about.

        • What makes you think I didn’t suspect first, and then evaluate evidence and use my best judgment?

          Do you assume me to be incapable of doing that?

  11. Your headline claim is that he is a particularly sinister individual. The fact remains, whatever his motives, Maajid’s is a voice addressing urgent and serious issues that most media figures resolutely avoid.

    Some of what find objectionable is really inherent in the challenge of being both a pious muslim and a good secular citizen. I don’t think you give due credit for his efforts to navigate these issues. But your two unconvincing essays do not support your sensationalistic thesis.

    You marshal convincing evidence to prove Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim. As a public figure who is adept with Islamic tactics, and has contact with muslim political networks as well as liberal ones. I can’t say I’m too shocked to hear this of a man who sat in a dingy cell for years with only a little pocket Koran to read.

    I had the impression that that you were treating him unfairly even before I read statements like this:

    “…he appears to be denouncing Islamic State atrocities, while in his own heart he actually isn’t.” – From: https://gatesofvienna.net/2015/12/maajid-nawaz-stealth-jihadist-exposed/

    Even if your appalling accusation is possible, or even plausible, you aren’t reading his heart. You’re saying “Islam can easily justify vicious dissimulation, therefore Maajid Nawaz is secretly doing exactly that.”

    You fret over his spelling. (A gnostic trope, sure! An indictment? Hardly.) In the link above, you quote him to support an intricate theological contention, but his observations is more to the point than yours: “…if your starting point is… Islamism, then even conservative Islam appears “moderate” to you… how low… expectations of Muslims have become.”

    I have only heard part of the “Future of Tolerance”, but I’ve been following him with interest. Personally, I really believe he abhors, as a moral actor, as a man of religion and as a human being the actions of these reptiles in the middle east – who are now springing up like mushrooms in the rotting timbers of the west.

    Maajid Nawaz raises difficult questions and has considerably insight into the process and the scale of the the danger of the trend of radicalized youth. He is willing to address the very loaded issue of the inter-generational components of coercive Islamic dominance. Radicalization is a cultural process, and it must be arrested on a cultural level as well as a military one. (The ability to culturally grapple with Islam is clearly the key weakness of the west.)

    He raises more substantive issues than dare the liberals who admire him: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4816709763001/former-extremist-on-why-terrorism-can-run-in-families/?playlist_id=2694949842001#sp=show-clips/primetime

    I don’t question that tenants vital to the survival of Islam are themselves dangerous. But “taqqiya double-Q single-Y”. Maajid’s sophistry and gnostic conceits, perhaps. but the mark of damnation?

    If there is a basis for your conviction that his effect on public discourse is more dangerous than salutatory, I didn’t manage to find it in your arguments.

  12. I saw Maajid Nawaz on Andrew Neil’s This Week on Thursday evening, and was pleasantly surprised.
    He certainly made no effort to play down the threat posed by Muslim extremists in Britain and Europe generally, and was insistent on referring to the current wave of terror attacks a “Europe-wide insurgency”. I only wish our politicians would be so frank.
    He also went on to state that politicians and the security services in Britain are underestimating the level of support the Islamists enjoy among Muslim communities up and down the country.
    Such comments are rarely heard, if at all, from Muslims of any persuasion – moderate or liberal.
    My general impression was that he was making a pitch for his organisation to be incorporated into the government’s anti-extremist “prevent” strategy, and, of course, the funding that goes with it.
    But sinister and dangerous?
    I’ll need more persuading, to be honest.

    • nawaz is probably looking for access to the levers of power – to be the “power behind the throne.” this is already happening in the u.s.

      any muslim who says he thinks islam is compatible with western republics doesn’t know islam, is lying (taqiyya), or deluded.

      • Whether or not you see it, there are already many millions and millions of authentically pluralistic Muslims. Many of them are pluralistic mainly by habit or by sentiment, and thus relatively ineffective buttress against Islamists. But Maajid Nawaz has thought deeply through the issues, and is a fluent in the language of both Muslims and of Liberals.

        Let’s ASSUME Maajid Nawaz has motives which are entirely malevolent. Think of how helpful his conspiracy is! Let’s see more of liberals adopt his open hostility towards the idea of the coercive caliphate. If liberals spoke so openly about the anti-social objectives of political Islam, it would no longer be easy for politicians to pander to it. The hypothetically evil Maajid is not merely the enemy of our enemies, he draws our misguided friends towards our positions.

        Maajid Nawaz’s argues each act terrorism draws upon a broad base of political, material support within a belief system identical to broad swathes of Muslim populations. Our politicians could not pretend to deal with terrorism as isolated phenomenon.

        I welcome Maajid’s conspiracy!

Comments are closed.