Atheists Outraged by SPLC Branding Atheist Critics of Radical Islam 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'

[rug]

By Stoyan Zaimov
October 28, 2016|9:54 am

Sam Harris and several other prominent members of the atheist community have condemned the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent decision to brand atheist authors critical of radical Islam as "anti-Muslim Extremists."

Harris, who himself has written books, articles, and made numerous commentaries on the dangers of Islamic extremism, described the SPLC's move as "unbelievable," and retweeted several messages by other atheists and supporters who also could not understand why Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz have found themselves of the "extremist" list.

As the SPLC notes in its report, Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist who says that she suffered female genital mutilation and fled civil war in Africa, but questions key parts of her persecution story, and argues that "she now positions herself as an ex-Muslim champion of women's rights, her anti-Muslim rhetoric is remarkably toxic."

SPLC also brands Nawaz as a former radical who uses his experience to "savage Islam," and also accuses him of fabricating parts of his experience in order to present a negative image of Islam.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-outraged-splc-branding-atheist-critics-radical-islam-anti-muslim-extremists-171163/#H6dJUF0CQEO7HjlG.99

[stone space]

1. "Atheists" who hate Muslims are outraged, I'm sure, not to have their hatred validated by the SPLC.

For the rest of us, the SPLC is just kind of stating the obvious.

[Brettongarcia]

10. "Extremists" are physically violent

As rightly defined here by atheists on DU, and by common sense. By that definition, the Poverty center, SPLC, is probably mistaken.

Common sense tells us that there is a fairly clear and extremely important line, between merely talking about someone, or verbally condemning them. As opposed to shooting and bombing and killing them.

By ignoring and obscuring this extremely important line, in fact, the SPLC ends up encouraging people to cross it. Ironically, encouraging violence.

The whole concept of Freedom of Speech is based on the recognition that words finally are different from actions. And therefore should be allowed greater freedom than actions.

There is a difference therefore, between verbal extremism, even verbal assaults, and literal physical assaults, physical extremism.

[stone space]

13. Um...I am an atheist on DU.

As rightly defined here by atheists on DU

Do you always talk down to atheists and try to tell us what we think?

Why not just let us speak for ourselves, instead of trying to put words in our mouths?

Listen to what we say. Don't tell us what we think.

[Brettongarcia]

21. Most atheists here disagree with you

Last edited Sat Oct 29, 2016, 09:02 AM - Edit history (2)

[stone space]

26. This is a lie. You haven't taken a survey of atheists on DU.

You are constantly in conflict with most atheists here

If you have evidence of this slur, then present it.

Otherwise, knock off the slur.

[stone space]

15. Does shooting and bombing and killing them count as violence?

Common sense tells us that there is a fairly clear and extremely important line, between merely talking about someone, or verbally condemning them. As opposed to shooting and bombing and killing them.

•In her 2007 Reason interview, she said, “There comes a moment when you crush your enemy” militarily, and added, “There is no moderate Islam. … [T]here’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There’s nothing moderate about it.” She also told the journal that she had sought to “get rid of” all Islamic schools in the Netherlands while living there.

https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists#ali

[Brettongarcia]

18. Not Ayan Ali, but the US Government, is attacking.

Not Ali, but the US armed forces are currently actually, physically attacking and killing members of ISIS, the Islamic State, in Iraq and Syria.

[stone space]

19. You didn't answer my question.

Does shooting and bombing and killing them count as violence?

[Brettongarcia]

22. Ali is verbally aggressive. But actually fighting?

There's a difference between words, and physical deeds.

Did this lady physically pick up a weapon? Did you see her do it? Was she a good shot? Did she manage to shoot someone?

[stone space]

24. Does shooting and bombing and killing them count as violence? You didn't answer.

[Brettongarcia]

28. Yes, that is violence

Did Ali do that?

[stone space]

29. See here:

•In her 2007 Reason interview, she said, “There comes a moment when you crush your enemy” militarily, and added, “There is no moderate Islam. … here’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There’s nothing moderate about it.” She also told the journal that she had sought to “get rid of” all Islamic schools in the Netherlands while living there.

https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists#ali

[Brettongarcia]

33. We call those "words." Not deeds.

Yes, aggressive language is bad. But not quite as bad as being actually, physically violent.

[stone space]

48. Who else's SPLC page would you like removed?

Richard Lynn?

John Tanton?

David Duke?

[rug]

20. Enabled by the ideology she promotes.

Gee, that sounds familiar.

[Panich52]

42. Obvious? I saw nothing obvious about equating expression

of utter disdain for radicalism that encourages to violence with radicalism itself.

I've always respected SCPL's tracking of hate groups. I'm disappointed w/ singling out those railing against extremist Muslims. Have they also chosen those declaiming radical Christians — those who call f/ death of lgbts and others who don't subscribe to their perverted version of their religion?

Atheists are still the most hated minority (those who would never, ever, vote f/ Black or woman would still choose either over an atheist). Don't we have a right to point out, even vehemently, the extremism that divides us all by way of what supernatural entity deserves unbridled supplication?

There's a big difference between calling them out and advocating violence. And between "hate groups" and advocates f/ a particular point of view.

[guillaumeb]

2. Using a broad brush to fight intolerance with intolerance?

I fail to see how anti-religious intolerance differs from religious intolerance.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Nawaz is a Muslim. That's how fucking stupid that SPLC web page is.

They (most, if not all, non-Muslims) are sitting there, telling a Muslim that he's anti-Muslim. They're telling a candidate for the Liberal Democrats in the UK, a centre-left party, who also works with the British government, that he's an extremist. They say that going to a strip club for his stag night is a sign he is an 'anti-Muslim extremist'. They are saying that tweeting a cartoon of Mohammed saying 'hi', and commenting that it doesn't offend him, is anti-Muslim.

They have flushed their reputation down the toilet.

[rug]

4. I've heard the SPLC called many things, but never stupid.

You've validated the headline.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. No, because Nawaz is a Muslim

The mistake is in the headline. He is not an 'atheist critic'. The SPLC doesn't call him atheist - that's just the Christian Post, but they're dolts too. But the SPLC's criticisms of Nawaz do not paint him as 'extremist', or 'anti-Muslim'. They are a stunning failure of argument.

Yes, this is the first time I've called the SPLC stupid. A remarkable amount of people are now doing so. They are sending out a standard reply to all the people who are contacting them to point out their idiocy (in which they just repeat it). I got it, and I've seen others post it on blogs.

[rug]

6. Let's see exactly what these "dolts" in their "idiocy" say about Nawaz:

Maajid Nawaz

Maajid Nawaz is a British activist and part of the “ex-radical” circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam. His story, which has been told repeatedly in the British and American press and in testimony to legislators as well, sounds compelling enough — Nawaz says he grew up being attacked by neo-Nazi skinheads in the United Kingdom, spent almost four years in an Egyptian prison after joining a supposedly nonviolent Islamist group, but had a change of heart while imprisoned and then returned to England to work against the radicalization of Muslims. 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. He told several different versions of his story, emphasizing that he was deradicalized while in Egypt — even though he in fact continued his Islamist agitation for months after returning. After starting the Quilliam Foundation, which he describes as an anti-extremism think tank, Nawaz sent a secret list to a top British security official that accused “peaceful Muslim groups, politicians, a television channel and a Scotland Yard unit of sharing the ideology of terrorists,” according to The Guardian. His Quilliam Foundation received more than 1.25 million pounds from the British government, but the government eventually decided to stop funding it. One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. Shortly afterward, Robinson returned to anti-Muslim agitation with other groups.

IN HIS OWN WORDS

In the list sent to a top British security official in 2010, headlined “Preventing Terrorism: Where Next for Britain?” Quilliam wrote, “The ideology of non-violent Islamists is broadly the same as that of violent Islamists; they disagree only on tactics.” An official with Scotland Yard’s Muslim Contact Unit told The Guardian that “[t]he list demonises a whole range of groups that in my experience have made valuable contributions to counter-terrorism.”

In a Nov. 16, 2013, op-ed in the Daily Mail, Nawaz called for criminalizing the wearing of the veil, or niqab, in many public places, saying: “It is not only reasonable, but our duty to insist individuals remove the veil when they enter identity-sensitive environments such as banks, airports, courts and schools.”

According to a Jan. 24, 2014, report in The Guardian, Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad — despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted “to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge.”

Nawaz, who had described himself as a “feminist,” was “filmed repeatedly trying to touch a naked lap dancer,” according to an April 10, 2015, report in the Daily Mail. The paper apparently got the security film from the owner of a strip club who was incensed by Nawaz’s claims to be a religious Muslim.

The SPLC has again done a fine job of identifying hate groups and their allies.

"Fueling this hatred has been the propaganda, the vast majority of it completely baseless, produced and popularized by a network of anti-Muslim extremists and their enablers."

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Precisely. It's fucking stupid. It misrepresents him. It attacks him over unconnected things.

The SPLC have trashed their own reputation. He calls for Islamists to be seen as Islamists, whether or not they're violent. He calls for Muslims to have to show their faces in places where non-Muslims have to show their faces. He doesn't object to a drawing of Mohammed (which just shows him saying 'hi'). He went to a strip club (owned by a Muslim), which has nothing at all to do with being an 'anti-Muslim extremist' or not - that is the kind of dumbass crap the SPLC is throwing at the wall in a desperate ad hominem attack.

They are being complete tools. They are being intolerant of a reformist Muslim in the political mainstream - brown-nosing those who insist they get to define what is acceptable for people to tweet. The SPLC has been got at by an Islamist, somehow.

[shira]

47. You're right. The SPLC has lost all credibility. n/t

[Brettongarcia]

11. He went to a strip club? Golly. That's extreme....

Of course he's an extremist to the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference.

And Muslims who wear veils.

Wow. A truly shocking extremist.

When I was living in a Muslim country, I once threw away a Sears catalogue. A trash picker picked it up. And for a week, he ran around my neighborhood showing everyone pages torn out from the women's undergarments section. With mixed horror and fascination. I think he eventually started selling them.

Yep. Sears is pretty extreme.

[rug]

14. He established the Quillian Foundation. That's extreme . . . .

Far from simply popping out of nowhere, Trump’s ideology of hate has been incubated by a trans-Atlantic network of rightwing lobby groups and think-tanks, members of which have advised David Cameron himself.

Two influential organisations in London that stand out are the Quilliam Foundation and Henry Jackson Society (HJS): Quilliam is part of the Prime Minister’s new anti-extremist Community Engagement Forum; its founding director, Maajid Nawaz, claims to have fed into Cameron’s speeches on extremism; and a HJS report, ‘Preventing Prevent’, authored by HJS fellow Rupert Sutton, was plagiarised by Downing Street in its October statement on extremism on UK university campuses.

“This isn’t a presidential candidate,” declared Nawaz on CNN about Donald Trump, “this is a presidential troll.” He warned, rightly, that Trump’s exclusionary politics could pave the way for “fascist or far-right groups… taking matters into their own hands against the eight million Muslims in the United States.”
But Nawaz didn’t admit his own role in mainstreaming people who promote exactly that form of fascism.

Frank Gaffney

The link between these two organisations and Donald Trump is Frank Gaffney, who was the chief inspiration for Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the US. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors hate speech, Trump’s proposal “turns out to be based entirely on the thoroughly un-American proposals of Frank Gaffney.”

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/donald-trump-s-trojan-horse-in-britain-bdb40f7d1867#.3z0zwv93l

Sorry about your Sears underwear catalogue. But this isn't about that at all, much as you wish it were.

[Brettongarcia]

16. So Nawaz condemns right wing anti Muslim rhetoric?

The only actual quote you have?

[rug]

17. Lol, you're really trying to avoid unpleasant facts, aren't you?

Read the whole thing at your leisure. Take your time. I assure you it will be more enlightening than your Sears catalogue.

[Brettongarcia]

23. More than my 5 years living in Muslim countries?

[rug]

27. Yes, more than 5 years of subjective anecdotes.

[Brettongarcia]

32. & several years formal study of comparative religions?

And living within the NATO interface between US and local Middle East governments?

[rug]

35. Five years of subjective anecdotes plus internet academic claims.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. No, the Quilliam Foundation is not extreme

It advised both Labour and Conservative governments. You are saying that the whole of mainstream British politics is 'extreme'.

[rug]

34. I am saying, and said, the Qilliam Foundation is extreme.

Why you translate that as "You are saying that the whole of mainstream British politics is 'extreme'." is between you and your conscience.

And this is but one reason I saty that.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/26/uksecurity

This is his response, blaming the "regressive left" for the criticism.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/07/age-extremes-muslim-mehdi-hasan-maajid-mawaz

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. So one letter to a paper opposing Quilliam, and 2 in favour of it,

has convinced you it's an 'extreme' organisation? You're easily led, rug. Bamboozled, in fact.

[rug]

38. If you were paying attention, it statarts with the SPLC, which yoiu dismissed as "idiocy".

Yeah, I'll stick with my sources. You stick with your outrage. Sam Harris agrees with you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. I'll stick with his actual politics, as shown by his party membership and candidacy

that show he's not an extremist. I'll stick with him saying that Islam is a religion of peace. I'll stick with him understanding the difference between Islam, which he follows, and Islamism, which wants to impose Islamic law and values on whole societies - a difference the SPLC has forgotten. He's against theocracy; they appear to want to give it a pass. He's in favour of a secular society, with freedom of religion, speech and thought; he's in favour of LGBT rights. The SPLC thinks he's a self-hating extremist. They're are, now, a bunch of wankers.

Hemant Mehta agrees with me. I'm not going to abandon a principled and reasoned opinion just because Harris happens to hold it too. I could just as easily say "rug disagrees with me" as a point in favour of keeping my opinion.

[rug]

44. Hemant Mehta agrees with you? So does Pam Geller.

Except she doesn't call the SPLC report "idiocy"; she calls it "libelous".

I guess we'll have to wait for the next tweet to see if Dawkins or trump also agree.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. And that's the kind of opinion from you that shows disagreeing with you is so often right

That would be Dawkins, who opposed the Iraq war, and favours human rights for all. A liberal, who has supported Labour and the Liberal Democrats. But you think that agreeing with him is automatically a problem.

[rug]

46. Dawkins is an ass. On the question of Islam, he is more that that - he's a bigot.

You're welcome to him.

[Brettongarcia]

39. Optimally, the left is internationalist, and opposes nationalisms

And it is fairly atheist. Rejecting religions for their divisiveness and emotionalism. It seeks to unify all the people of the world in productive harmony, many say.

Wars of colonial expansion were often opposed. But at Times, internationalist liberalism can look like just big nations taking over small ones. Internationalist groups, headed by the larger western and communist powers, like Russia and the US, inevitably conflicted with the combined nationhood and religious nationalist identities of many organized countries.

So certain forms of internationalism at times look good. But other times, ike mere extensions of the nationalistic interests of major powers. Rather than beneficent extensions of modern civilized, internationalist mores, to disadvantaged, provincial/national countries.

So the US, "making the world safe for democracy" and peace. Helping the rest of the world develop technology. And communism; in part an attempt to extend concern for the poor, workers, to all countries. But also seen as an extension of simple Russian imperialism.

Which are they? It's sometimes hard to say. Though some would say that overall, the extension of modernist agnostic liberalism over the world, both American and (at its best) Sino-Soviet, has helped develop economies worldwide.

[Brettongarcia]

36. This opinion post is from Christianpost.com

A well known news source. A reliable for-profit Christian site.

Quoting SBLC; Southern Baptist Leadership Conference. An organization that has seen better days.

I suspect thus article was selected for reasons other than its strict newsworthiness.

[rug]

40. Do you prefer Breitbart?

http://www.breitbart.com/jihad/2016/10/27/pamela-geller-splc-publishes-libelous-new-hit-list-anti-jihad-voices/

Pam Geller supports your position.

[Brettongarcia]

43. See my rough notes on internationalism

Still working on this difficult problem

Basically, both the US and the old Soviet/ China dalliance, claim to be simply bringing the benefits of modernism, technology, to the rest of the world. But this means at times, breaking down, or being opposed by, traditional, regional ideas.

And both the US and China/Russia at times are accused of partly pursuing their own interests. I presently favor the idea that they are helping their own interests, but just as much, helping others. Though current Chinese overdevelopment, especially carried into the Pacific, would be ecologically disastrous.

[MisterP]

50. a vigorous anti-hate group vs. the people who still think Iraq was a good idea? tough pick

[rug]

51. Heh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. Nawaz was in an Egyptian jail then. He never thought Iraq was a good idea

when he was a Muslim extremist then, or now, when he's a moderate Muslim.

Who are "the people who still think Iraq was a good idea" to you? You appear to be indulging in an ad hominem argument with even bothering to name the people you're smearing.

What do you know about Nawaz?

[Jason1961]

52. I've heard that the SPLC branded a group of nuns as extremists

I understand their purpose but it does seem that they have a habbit of grasping at straws

[rug]

53. You sound offended.

[Jason1961]

54. Humored

I like the work the SPLC has done in the past but I could see them still finding offense when we've stomped out every kind of bigotry in the world