Discussion in 'The Pavilion' started by pat, Mar 6, 2019.
Why is it people find it difficult condemning stoning to death and cutting of limbs?
Damn. no one wants to touch this? huh.
So why does America have an anti terror stance but supports people like like possada who blew up a civilllian plane killing 73 people. .
If you're so concerned with islamism, tell all western governments to stop buying middle Eastern oil... After all put your money where your mouth is. You can't lip service tired right wing talking points then prop up the very theology u so obviously hate.
What does it have to do with Sharia and stoning people to death? you need to up your game a bit.
Besides, american hypocrisy is all too well known.
Unless you are implying that american foreign policy is Sharia approved.
This is even more confusing. you are going off in a tangent. I'm happy to discuss the hypocrisy of govts (bith east and west) in a separate thread.
So you are in favor of stoning people to death and cutting of limbs?
If not, why is it difficult to come out and say it?
Poor sara saleh. she was way out of her league.
Everything.... Lol it has everything to do with it... Either you believe in secular democracy or you dont.... Ppl like you are icecream theologians... Harp on about the basic shit but forget about the nuances. Whats good for the goose....
That said Majid Nawaz is little more than a tool to those with antimuslim agendas. You have to look beyond his shiny PR savvy persona. Majid nawaz and his little quilliam foundation are now beholden to his rightwing funders in the US. Is it any wonder he courts odious people like Tommy Robinson, because nawaz thought that he could utilise robinsons hatred of muslims to futher his own agenda.
Fellow cricstanis, just like majid nawaz you have to ask yourself what pat wants. A new member making a devisive and incendiary thread. Id take a guess and suggest that he has an inherent hatred of Muslims and so courts pseudo academics like Majid Nawaz, a perpetuation of his confirmation biase.
When you look into peeps like nawaz you fall deep into this rabbit hole.
1) Why did the British govt stop funding tbe Quilliam foundation?
2) why does Nawaz take fundingfrom right wing nuts and conspiracy theorists like frank gafney. Trump advisors who think muslims are out to destroy the world.
3) why does Nawaz enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the rightwing? Nawaz and tommy robinson enjoyed this synergistic relationship till nawaz deemed otherwise.
I like honest academics like jordan peterson but people like nawaz are odious predators that court the likes of little tommy and pat.
Hardly honest actors and intellectually bankrupt.
Can you elaborate a bit?
The US govt hypocrisy is widely acknowledged, even by ~50% of US population. How is that related to condemning stoning people to death or amputating limbs as punishment?
US to match Saudi Arabia as biggest oil exporter on back of Texas shale boom
11 March 2019 • 4:38pm
The US will rival Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest exporter of oil products within five years as shale output achieves explosive growth, catapulting America into strategic dominance of the global energy system.
The International Energy Agency said US shale oil will make up 70pc of the extra global crude supply by 2024, eating into the market share of Opec and Russia.
Lol the us surpassed saudi arabia a while ago.... FYI
Thats not some nugget of info you are passing on its common knowledge.
1) That still doesnt protect us national security.
2) Its amazing how idiots buy into the is v them narrative. The US saved Saudi Arabia, you think its a coincidence they kicked up a stink on iran... Whose intrest did that serve. The Iranians get hampered by american sanctions and oil prices rise. Nuance....its your friend. Any idiot can pick up soundbites and talking points.
Once again, how is that related to coming stoning people to death?
This seems to be a holy-booker (yup, i made that one up)syndrome
Ask a bajrang dal/gau rakshak why cows are more sacred than say a buffalo: you get verbal diarrhea
Ask a moses follower about genocide, rape and murder in his holy book: you get verbal diarrhea
Ask a catholic, why their priest don't follow an oath of poverty: you get verbal diarrhea
Ask a Evangelical christian why doesn't follow the gospel (jesus) instead of the ten commandments(moses): you get verbal diarrhea
You seem to like pick and chose your facts.... When its suits you you like to answer eg thinking you are passing pearls of wisdom telling ppl a common fact that the usa is no1 in oil production.... Then when it suits your narrative you like to harp on about beheadings like theyre go to things.
How is it all related? The ones doing the beheading are the same ones being propped up by the so called enlightened west.
Its the morons that think theyre imparting knowledge, that are every bit as devisive as what they're bitching about.
You are a little bit different.... With you id take a guess that this is more a case of being hurt... Id take a guess that recent events have really hurt your ego...
This isnt some case of intellectual curiosity... Its about being butthurt.
Recent events? you are talking about the indo-pak issues? Yup, thats why I have been posting about brexit more than any other topic.
I happened to find Maajid on LBC and created a thread.
you went of on a tangent about oil imports and I proved you wrong.
Looks like it you make stuff and don't like it when you get called out.
Made up what stuff... Please do quote me...
Wrong about oil imports lol all you did was post an article stating an well known fact that America is tne biggest supplier... Yet you ignore the fact that they still have a dependancy on foreign oil. If the foreign oil stopped what do you think would happen...
... But the reality is that the notion of energy dominance, as repeatedly trumpeted by the administration, is at heart a hollow idea. Even America’s position as the top producer in the world isn’t enough to shield it from rising prices, free it from Middle East entanglements, strangle foes with sanctions, or even give it many additional foreign-policy tools.
ah, the convenient gish gallop. Ok.
where you implied oil imports from middle east are influencing US foreign policy?
If you're so concerned with islamism, tell all western governments to stop buying middle Eastern oil...
Which leads to the questions
What is "isliamism"? (your words, not mine)
Does it support stoning people to death?
Trump talks about plundering foreign nations oil...
The CIA overthrow mossadeq at the behest of the British after he nationalised iranian oil....
Nahh no influence at all
Leaked us cables worrying about saudi oil....
No influence at all..
Im sure you've heard of the influential think tank, the CFR? In the first line
The United States' dependence on oil has long influenced its foreign policy. This timeline traces the story of U.S. oil development, and the resulting geopolitical competition and environmental concerns, in
Yes, it used to. not as much since the oil came online. They have screwing up south america for ever. not much oil there. The foreign policy decisions of America for the most part are driven by greed and power mania. Let start a separate thread.
Keep this thread focussed on Maajid and tell me which part of his arguments are wrong.
So i was right.
great. now answer what does american policy machinations have to do with condemning stoning people to death?
What is islamism? (your words)
Becaus the very people that are condemning islamism are the very people providing it political, military and economic cover. Both are hand in hand. Most islamist hot-spots have saudi influence.
Then you have intellectually disingenuous people. Like majid nawaz who claim to be progressive but are in the pockets of their far right financiers and conspiracy theorists.
Aaaand that. Is why people. Like Majid Nawaz are dangerous. He can have his cake and eat it. Preaching 'tolerance while being on the far right payroll. If you want clean hands dont take money from those that create the ideal conditions for the nz shooter to thrive.
what a load of codswallop. did Maajid nawaz condone the crap in NZ or fail to condemn violence?
Show me a quote where he fails to condemn violence.
I can show posts by cricistanis which celebrates death of innocents in mumbai and charlie hebdo massacre
You condone through actions not empty words... Did his foundation take and continue to take money from right wing islamaphobic racist conspiracy theorists? Bigots like Frank Gaffney.
Yes he did and continues to do so. So no its not "codswallop"
As for the " charlie hebdo' whataboutism, stop please
You know youve run out of ideas when you resort to whataboutisms and false equuvalence.
maajid has take
blah, you appeal to your fellow cricistanis who defend hebdo and mumbai massacre, bit have problem with Maajid over his funding sources?
You are the one who ran of Ideas when you wouldn't come out a condemn stoning people to death.
Typical holy booker syndrome.
BTW, what is islamism? Still waiting for an answer to that one. My guess is its going to be long wait.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the venerable civil-rights organization, has issued a formal apology to British political activist Maajid Nawaz and will make a $3.4 million payment over his inclusion in a 2016 list of “anti-Muslim extremists.”
The settlement is the culmination of a bitter battle between the two sides that has stretched nearly two years. As I wrote when SPLC’s original report, A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, was published, Nawaz’s inclusion was baffling and difficult to defend. SPLC did not grant Nawaz’s demand for a retraction, but it did make some edits to his entry while defending his inclusion. Then, in April, the group removed the guide altogether.
On Monday, however, SPLC President Richard Cohen posted an apology to Nawaz and to the Quilliam Foundation, his think-tank.
“Given our understanding of the views of Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam, it was our opinion at the time that the Field Guide was published that their inclusion was warranted,” Cohen said in a statement. “But after getting a deeper understanding of their views and after hearing from others for whom we have great respect, we realize that we were simply wrong to have included Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam in the Field Guide in the first place.”
On the merits, SPLC seems to have made the right choice. Nawaz’s inclusion made the report look more like an attempt to police the discourse on Islam than a true inventory of anti-Muslim extremists, of whom there is no shortage, and opened SPLC up to charges that it had strayed from its civil-rights mission at a time when it's more important than ever. But the terms of the settlement are troubling at a time when free speech and the free press are under fire, sometimes from the very same people who threaten civil rights.
SPLC also posted a video apology. It said that the payout will go toward Quilliam’s work and will be paid for by insurance. “It was the right thing to do in light of our mistake and the right thing to do in light of the growing prejudice against the Muslim community on both sides of the Atlantic,” Cohen said. The statement does not specify which elements of the field guide were incorrect. SPLC did not respond to a request for further comment.
There was no lack of irony to SPLC labeling Nawaz an “anti-Muslim extremist,” because Nawaz has described himself as a former extremist—but an Islamist one. A British-born Muslim of Pakistani descent, he joined the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir as a teenager, and eventually ended up in an Egyptian prison. Nawaz came to see Islamism, the ideology that combines the religion of Islam with politics, as a dangerous problem, and one that is separable from the religion. Back in the United Kingdom, he opened Quilliam, named for an early British convert to Islam, to fight Islamist extremism.
Nawaz is undoubtedly controversial. To what is broadly his left, critics find him to be far too strident in his criticism of Islamism and too apt to align himself with right-wing politicians. To the right, critics view him as too much of an apologist for Islam still. Nawaz has also said he receives death threats.
Yet even some of Nawaz’s critics were perplexed by SPLC’s choice to include him. Unlike other figures on the list, including Frank Gaffney or Pam Geller (or some figures who aren’t, like Donald Trump), Nawaz does not argue that Islam itself is the problem. There’s also the small problem that he is a Muslim himself, which separates him from figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another controversial figure, included in SPLC’s report, who was raised Muslim but now identifies as an atheist.
SPLC cited four particular reasons for Nawaz’s inclusion on the list. As I noted at the time, the first two—his tweeting of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad and visiting a strip club—were both tacky at worst. SPLC said Nawaz wanted to criminalize the niqab, or face veil; Nawaz countered that he favored a “policy” against the veil, not a law against it. SPLC and Nawaz also quarreled over a list of Islamist groups compiled by Quilliam, which SPLC said enabled government targeting and which Quilliam said was intended to defend the listed groups.
Politico Magazine asked.
Nonetheless, the settlement, and especially its size, are somewhat surprising because SPLC might well have prevailed in court, albeit at great cost. Defamation lawsuits are famously difficult to win in the United States. A plaintiff who is a public figure must show not only that what is written about him is factually untrue, but also that it was published with “actual malice,” which is to say that whoever published knew or suspected it was untrue.
“The words ‘anti-Muslim extremist’ certainly sounds and indeed must be a matter of opinion,” the noted First Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams told me. “The language that someone is an extremist may not in and of itself be a defamatory statement of fact. The argument would be it’s not defamatory—it’s not even a statement of fact!”
Even if Nawaz could prove a factual statement, he would then have to prove actual malice. “If it was a mere overstatement or thoughtless or any of those characterizations, then the defendant would start out in pretty good position,” Abrams said.
Ken White, a First Amendment lawyer and blogger, wrote Monday that the result was troubling. The firm representing Nawaz, Clare Locke, has sued a long list of media organizations. Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for changing libel laws to make it easier to sue the press. While White criticized SPLC for having transformed itself from a bulwark against bigotry into a policeman for political correctness, he said the surrender could set a bad precedent:
The threatened lawsuit appears to be part of a trend of suing the SPLC for its opinions and characterizations. The settlement will embolden that trend. The trend will not stay confined to the SPLC — that's not the way the law works. Especially in such bitterly divided times, suing over opinions is deeply censorious and corrosive of free speech. Nawaz — who has himself been the target of attempted censorship — should know that.
If White’s prediction is correct, that makes the episode all the more disappointing. SPLC’s work is especially important in this moment, as President Trump rolls back civil-rights laws, targets marginalized communities, and offers encouragement to white supremacists. By overreaching in its description of Nawaz, SPLC undercut its own reputation and the noble goal of fighting against anti-Muslim sentiment, and by settling, it risks undercutting free-speech protections at a time when they are already under threat.
Errrm.. I didnt mention the SPLC once. In fact u failed completely to address my point... Lets say Nawaz is an honestvactor with good intentions... Why is he taking money from the far right? Why did he take money from Racist conspiracy theorists like frank gaffney which even your article isnt too fond of. Do you think people like gaffney hand out money for altruistic reasons... Of course not. He wants to promote his anti Muslim agenda. Lets say nawaz is all sunshine and lollipops. Once he took that right wing money he destroyed his credibility ... Thats assuming he was honest.
Infact nawaz and his foundation have been Rubbished on many occasions.. Ie their muslim grooming report...
specifically, a largely debunked report framing Asian Muslims as almost entirely responsible for “Grooming Gang” child abuse. Dr. Ella Cockbain, a highly respected academic who has dedicated her professional life to understanding and researching child exploitation, recently critiqued the report as “a case study in bad science” which makes broad, sweeping statements based on a tiny sub-sample of case studies. Institute”. In contrast to Quilliam, organisations more rooted in British Muslim communities – such as MEND – prefer to rely solely on community-funding to avoid exactly this problem, eschewing Government or large-funder grants so that we don’t become beholden to other interests.
what is islamism?
Is it in compliance with Shariah law?
Does it recommend stoning people to death?
so i guess majid nawaz does lack credibility.
Hardly, Maajid stands by his words. On the other hand you need to buy a pair or wear a burka.
Whats is islamism? does it recommend stoning people to death? is it shariah compliant?
What does the thread title say.... Or are you as misleading as nawaz?
Majid nawazs words are only as good as his agenda... And that lines up with the compiracy nuts and racists that fund him.
And given by your divisive language you have an agenda too.
Majid Nawaz and his foundations attempts to malign the innocent.
The tiny South-east Asian country of Brunei is introducing strict new Islamic laws that makes gay sex an offence punishable by stoning to death.
The new measures, set to begin Wednesday, also cover a range of other crimes including punishment for theft by amputation.
The move has sparked international condemnation and outcry.
The Bruneian gay community has expressed shock and fear at the "medieval punishments".
"You wake up and realise that your neighbours, your family or even that nice old lady that sells prawn fritters by the side of the road doesn't think you're human, or is okay with stoning," one Bruneian gay man, who did not want to be identified, told the BBC.
Under the new law, individuals will only be convicted of gay sex if they confess or are seen committing the act by four witnesses.
Homosexuality was already illegal in Brunei and punishable by up to 10 years in jail.
Brunei: What you need to know
What is Sharia?
Brunei, on the island of Borneo, is ruled by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah and has grown rich on oil and gas exports.
The 72-year-old sultan heads the Brunei Investment Agency, which has some of the world's top hotels including the Dorchester in London and the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles in its portfolio.
This week Hollywood actor George Clooney and other celebrities called for a boycott of the luxury hotels.
Brunei's ruling royals possess a huge private fortune and its largely ethnic-Malay population enjoy generous state handouts and pay no taxes.
Muslims make up about two-thirds of the country's population of 420,000.
Brunei has retained the death penalty but has not carried out an execution since 1957.
Is this the first time Islamic law is being introduced in Brunei?
The country first introduced Sharia law in 2014 despite widespread condemnation, giving it a dual legal system with both Sharia and Common Law. The sultan had said then that the new penal code would come into full force over several years.
The first phase, which covered crimes punishable by prison sentences and fines, was implemented in 2014. Brunei had then delayed introducing the final two phases, which cover crimes punishable by amputation and stoning.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, who is also the prime minister of Brunei, is among the wealthiest people in the world
But on Saturday, the government released a statement on its website saying the Sharia penal code would be fully implemented on Wednesday.
In the days since, there has been international outrage and calls for the country to reverse course.
"These abusive provisions received widespread condemnation when plans were first discussed five years ago," said Rachel Chhoa-Howard, a Brunei researcher at Amnesty International.
"Brunei's penal code is a deeply flawed piece of legislation containing a range of provisions that violate human rights."
The United Nations echoed the statement, calling the legislation "cruel, inhuman and degrading", saying it marked a "serious setback" for human rights protection.
What is punishable under the changes to the penal code?
The death penalty would apply to offences such as rape, adultery, sodomy, robbery, and insult or defamation of the Prophet Muhammad.
Public flogging as a punishment for abortion would also apply, as well as amputation for theft.
Other changes including making it a criminal offence to "persuade, tell or encourage" Muslim children under the age of 18 "to accept the teachings of religions other than Islam".
The law mostly applies to Muslims, though some aspects will apply to non-Muslims.
How are people in Brunei reacting?
One 40-year-old gay Bruneian currently seeking asylum in Canada, said the impact of the new penal code was already being felt in Brunei.
The ex-government employee, who left Brunei last year after being charged with sedition for a Facebook post that was critical of the government, said people were "afraid".
"The gay community in Brunei has never been open but when Grindr (a gay dating app) came that helped people meet in secret. But now, what I've heard is that hardly anyone is using Grindr anymore," Shahiran S Shahrani Md told the BBC.
"They're afraid that they might talk to a police officer pretending to be gay. It hasn't happened yet but because of the new laws, people are afraid," he said.
Another male Bruneian, who is not gay but has renounced Islam, said he felt "fearful and numb" in the face of the laws being implemented.
"We ordinary citizens are powerless to stop Sharia law from being implemented," said the 23-year-old who did not want to be identified.
"Under Sharia, I would face the death penalty for apostasy."
One gay man was hopeful that the laws may not actually be enforced widely.
"Honestly, I'm not too scared as the government here often bluffs with the harsh punishments. But it can and will still happen even with it being rare."
Reporting by the BBC's Yvette Tan.