10 thoughts on “Maajid Nawaz Called “Anti-Muslim Extremist” and He’s Suing! – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. You are very supportive calling him anti-this or anti-that but when people call you anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist you rage with “I’ve never said I was, so don’t call me one” or “I’m progressive-Zionist”.

    People give other people titles in accordance with what they write or speak. It is true about Nawaz and about yourself.

    My bet is, this comment will be censored like the other thousands of comments you have have censored before.

    1. @ Ariel Eyn Shalom: I’m not Maajid Nawaz. So comparing him to me is a red herring. Further, I’ve listed specific anti-Muslim behavior in which he engaged. That means calling him “anti-Muslim” is legitimate.

      No one can specify any anti-Israel or anti-Semitic statement I’ve ever made. And comments I’ve made attacking “Zionism” are meant to attack the ideology as practiced by those I’m criticizing. Zionism has many streams and I’ve endorsed one particular one and criticized others. So labelling me as anti-Zionist is a lie, plain & simple. I’m glad the phrase “progressive ZIonist” irks you. Deal with it!

      Your comment wasn’t censored & you lost the bet. So pay up.

      1. If your sort of progressive Zionism is ‘a stream’ of Zionism, so is anti-Zionism.

        And my bet was a small trick to get you to publish my comment. Thank you for that.

        Now this one is defiantly not going to be published.

        1. @ Ariel Eyn Shalom: No this one will be published. But because you’re proud of your own deviousness & because you violated the comment rules in calling me anti-Zionist. You are now banned. Buckle up as you land at Ben Gurion & tell yr replacement to have a nice trip.

  2. “I queried his foundation about this and asked if he’d filed his suit and whether he had legal representation. ”

    There is a statute of limitations that applies to libel law and Nawaz would be wise to file suit, it costs around $150 in federal court, right before the limitations expire. That’s probably what he will do. He will have no problem finding a lawyer either.

    “As a public figure, the courts give the media a wide berth in what they can say, ”

    When did the SPLC become part of the media? I thought it was a nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation.

    I think Nawaz new wife, is beautiful, don’t you?

    1. @ Ilene: He’d be an idiot to file suit as my post makes clear & you’re an idiot for encouraging him. But if you’re so fired up on his behalf why don’t you take the case? And if you’re not a lawyer, find him one. There are scores of hasbara-type lawyers. You can start with the Olympia food coop lawyer whose wife is on the SWU board. He’ll do it for nothing.

      First of all, yes SPLC published this information so it would be considered a media source & hence protected as journalism. But Nawaz’s public figure status relates to him & not to who is purportedly libelling him. Whether he’s libelled by an NGO or media outlet, as a public figure he immediately is less protected than if he were a private person.

      As for beauty, no. Not my type. I don’t like the model types with the fake sexy come-on poses. But Nawaz has a habit of abandoning his wives. If he abandons this one, I’ll see if I can get her phone number for you.

  3. Neither the New Republic article nor the SPLC show the Nawaz is anti-Muslim.
    Nawaz posting caricatures of Muhammad and Jesus doesn’t make him anymore anti-Muslim than Charley Hebdo. Urging veiled women to take off their hijabs certainly is not anti-Muslim, because many, if not most Muslim women, don’t wear hijabs to begin with.

    1. @ Ilene: On the contrary, both TNR & SPLC profiles offer ample evidence that he’s anti-Muslim.

      NO MUSLIM would publish an image of the Prophet. NONE. It’s the equivalent of eating pork in a synagogue. No Jew would do that unless he deliberately wished to provoke, insult and embarrass Jews. Similarly, Nawaz clearly does wish to do that to Muslims, hence he hates them & their religion. BTW, Charlie Hebdo IS anti-Muslim.

      Would a Jew who demanded that Jews not wear kippot be anti-Jewish? There were Reform Jews at one time who rejected this custom. If they did so now they’d be labelled anti-Jewish. Therefore, any purported Muslim who inveighs against women wearing hijabs is anti-Muslim. Nor is Nawaz enough of a Muslim scholar or theologian to be able to say whether women should wear them or not according to Muslim tradition.

      You are done in this thread.

      1. Nawaz wants Muslim woman emancipated, like his wife is. Emancipation isn’t anti-Muslim.
        Nawaz isn’t anti Muslim, he against archaic blasphemy laws that brought death on Charlie Hebdo and fatwas on Salman Rushdie.

        1. @Ilene: why is it that western colonialists & their native stooges want to “improve” the lives of “primitive” peoples, when they”are largely doing just fine for themselves. There are millions of Muslim women living free enough lives that if they thought they needed your blasted emancipation struggle they would rose up & seize it. Yet despite a very small number like Hirsi Ali Manji & a few others, they feel OK with the lives they lead. No one invited you or Nawaz to emancipate anyone. So butt out. Muslim women can take care of themselves just fine.

          Nawaz’ wife is NOT Muslim. Hence she never needed emancipation. Though in marrying him one has to wonder what her taste & priorities are. His first wife didn’t need emancipation. She needed a husband. But her husband preferred strip clubs rather than a home life.

          We too have laws against making images of God. So are you in favor of creating graven images, a violation of one of the Ten Commandments??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link