Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz enraged about being on SPLC hit list of “anti-Muslim extremists” with “real bigots”

45

[the_ad id=”83350″]

Maajid Nawaz is furious to have been included on the SPLC’s hit list along with the likes of…me. He rages: “I’m listed there with people such as Pam Geller? It’s unbelievable.”

And setting aside my disdain for naming any individuals on lists, to include me alongside Pam Geller is patently absurd. Pam Geller furiously opposed the Park51 Manhattan mosque project. I supported it. Pam Geller supported the anti-Islam British protest group EDL. By facilitating the resignation of its founder Tommy Robinson, I helped to render it leaderless till it practically fizzled out. Pam Geller has “expressed skepticism” about the existence of Serbian concentration camps. I have repeatedly referred to the genocide in Bosnia as having been a primary factor in my own anger and radicalisation as a youth. Pam Geller has called for Islam itself to be designated a “political system”, and to lose its constitutional rights as merely a religion. I am a Muslim who set up an organisation that campaigns to maintain a separation between Islam, and the theocratic Islamists who seek to hijack my religion. Need I go on?

Story continues below advertisement

Believe it, Nawaz: no one is exempt. You can insist it’s a religion of peace all you want, but the Left/Islamic propaganda machine will still call you an “anti-Muslim extremist” if you say the slightest critical word about Islam.

See also Spencer’s other articles here and here about the SPLC hit list.

muslim-reformer-maajid-nawaz

“Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz enraged about being on SPLC hit list of ‘anti-Muslim extremists’ with ‘real bigots,'” by Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, October 29, 2016:

Maajid Nawaz has no problem with the Southern Poverty Law Center aiming to destroy the reputations and endanger the lives of those whom he believes to be “real bigots.” But when it’s his ox that is gored, it’s a different story. As I noted here, the problem with being angry about Nawaz being on the SPLC list, but silent (or even approving, as Nawaz is in the Atlantic article below) about everyone else who is on it, is that if criticizing religious beliefs makes him an “anti-Muslim extremist,” then it won’t be long before everyone who dares to utter a critical word about Islam will be on the list — and that is indeed the objective of the list: to stigmatize and marginalize any and all such critics. Much more below.

muslim-reformer-maajid-nawaz

“How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of ‘Anti-Muslim Extremists’?,” by David A. Graham, The Atlantic, October 29, 2016 (thanks to Lookmann):

When earlier this week, the Southern Poverty Law Center and three other groups released a list of 15 “anti-Muslim extremists,” many of the names came as no surprise. They included Pam Geller, who led the fight against the misleadingly nicknamed Ground Zero mosque, and her ally Frank Gaffney, who has called Barack Obama a crypto-Muslim and assailed Grover Norquist as a Islamist agent. Others were more controversial, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is beloved by some as a truthteller and reviled by others as a bigot.

Millions of Americans opposed the Ground Zero Mosque (which was not misleadingly nicknamed at all); a CNN poll showed 68% of Americans opposing it. Many millions of Americans are skeptical about Barack Obama’s affinity for Islam. Are they all “anti-Muslim extremists”? Maybe the SPLC thinks so, or would like the public to think so, in order to buttress false claims about a rise in “Islamophobia.”

But in reality, this is setting the bar impossibly low. Opposing what many Muslims around the world would have seen as a triumphal mosque on the site of a jihad victory (a la the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount) makes one an “anti-Muslim extremist”? And presumably favoring that mosque and having no problem with Barack Obama’s manifest solicitude for the Muslim Brotherhood brings one within the pale of acceptable critics of Islam? But the SPLC list is of supposed “anti-Muslim extremists.” Surely one’s opinion of the Ground Zero Mosque, Barack Obama and Grover Norquist should be tangential — at best — to whether someone is an “anti-Muslim extremist,” a label that conjures up images of fanatics exhorting, approving of, inciting and even plotting violence against innocent Muslims. But apparently The Atlantic, and possibly also Nawaz himself, thinks otherwise.

But one name in particular stuck out: Maajid Nawaz, a British activist who runs the Quilliam Foundation, which calls itself “the world’s first counter-extremism think tank.” (It’s named for Abdullah (né William) Quilliam, a British convert who opened the U.K.’s first mosque in 1889.)

Nawaz is a star in certain anti-terror circles, thanks to a compelling personal narrative: A self-described former extremist who spent four years in an Egyptian prison, he has changed approaches and now argues for a pluralistic and peaceful vision of Islam. He stood for Parliament as a Liberal Democrat in 2015, and advised Prime Ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron.

Nawaz’s work has earned him detractors—critics claim he has embellished or neatened his narrative, some attack him for opportunism, and others question his liberal bona fides—but calling him an “anti-Muslim extremist” is a surprise. Unlike the likes of Gaffney and Geller, he doesn’t espouse the view that Islam itself is a problem; unlike Ali, who now describes herself as an atheist, Nawaz identifies as a Muslim.

Ah, here’s the rub. Apparently for The Atlantic, if not for the SPLC, if you believe that “Islam itself is a problem,” you’re an “anti-Muslim extremist,” while if you agree with Nawaz that Islam is a Religion of Peace (see below), then you’re fine. But the question of whether or not Islam is a religion of peace is a question of fact, that can be established or disproved by recourse to the evidence. If one examines the Qur’an, Muhammad’s teaching, and the rulings of Islamic legal authorities and concludes that core Islamic sources contain texts and teachings that can be and are used by Islamic jihadists to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, does that in itself make one an “anti-Muslim extremist”? Apparently The Atlantic and Nawaz think so. But why? Facts are facts. They are what they are. They are neither pro- anything or anti- anything, and they are neither “extreme” nor “moderate.”

This is the result of that kind of thinking: if I were to challenge Nawaz to debate me on the question of whether or not Islam is a religion of peace, he would either ignore my invitation or refuse it. And why? Because he regards me as an “anti-Muslim extremist.” And why? Because I don’t believe Islam is a religion of peace. So the question is decided by the stigma that is attached to one side of the issue before it is even debated. He need not debate whether Islam is a religion of peace with me because I’m an “anti-Muslim extremist,” and he knows I’m an “anti-Muslim extremist” because I don’t believe Islam is a religion of peace.

That, indeed, is why Nawaz initially denounced me. At the Quilliam Foundation’s triumphant press conference with Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll announcing their departure from the English Defence League, Nawaz conferred with his colleague Usama Hasan and then gestured to the assembled media to give him the floor; Hasan declared that I “promote a hatred of Islam and…blame all the problems of Islamic extremism on the religion of Islam itself,” as Nawaz looked on approvingly. This is false, as I don’t promote a hatred of Islam, but merely tell the truth about its teachings and how Muslims apply them, but in any case, apparently as far as Nawaz is concerned, if one does not affirm that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing to do with the violence committed in its name by people who avow that they’re acting in accord with its teachings, one is an “anti-Muslim extremist.” What he is angry about is that he has said all the right things in this regard, so as to be acceptable to the Left, but because he has dared to suggest that Muslims should accept the parameters of a pluralistic society (again, see below), he has been lumped in with the rest of us as an “anti-Muslim extremist” anyway.

This just illustrates the truth of what I have said for years: the SPLC and Hamas-linked CAIR and their allies don’t care if you say the right things 99% of the time. As far as they’re concerned, anything that can, however remotely, be construed as critical of Islam makes one an “anti-Muslim extremist.” Anyone and everyone who is even weakly and tepidly critical of Islam will be destroyed. Nawaz apparently remains unaware of this, and thinks the rest of their list is offered in good faith; they just made a mistake by putting him on it. He doesn’t understand the real game that the SPLC and its allies are playing.

When I spoke to Nawaz on Thursday, he was both baffled and furious.“They put a target on my head. The kind of work that I do, if you tell the wrong kind of Muslims that I’m an extremist, then that means I’m an [sic] target,” he said. “They don’t have to deal with any of this. I don’t have any protection. I don’t have any state protection. These people are putting me on what I believe is a hit list.”…

“I’m the one who’s a Muslim in this!” he said. I’m listed there with people such as Pam Geller? It’s unbelievable.”

So apparently it’s perfectly all right that Pamela Geller lives under a death fatwa from the Islamic State. I gather that he would be just fine with the fact that I was contacted by the FBI a few weeks ago and informed that they picked up intel that a Muslim is looking around for me, hoping to find and kill me. Nawaz seems to think he is the only one with a target on his head, or that it’s all right if the jihadis target people he regards as actual “anti-Muslim extremists.”

He pointed out that he does things like appear in an Intelligence Squared debate arguing for the proposition—against Ali, in fact—that Islam is a religion of peace. (“I lost the vote,” he said, with a tinge of bitterness.) He has also won praise for battling Islamophobes in the press.The report cited several counts against Nawaz. One is that he tweeted a cartoon of Muhammad—an intentionally provocative act, given that many Sunnis find it blasphemous to depict the prophet, but one that doesn’t fit neatly into the “anti-Islam” category. (Most Shiites don’t object at all, but in any case, is simply committing a blasphemous act anti-Islam?) A second is that Nawaz visited a strip club in London during a bachelor party, which is true, tasteless, and seemingly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Third is a Daily Mail op-ed about the niqab, or face veil. The report states that he “called for criminalizing the wearing of the veil, or niqab, in many public places.” Nawaz counters that he only called it inappropriate. But he did write that their should be a “policy” barring the niqab in certain spaces: “Let me make this clear: it is our duty to adopt a policy barring the wearing of niqabs in these public buildings. Here’s my test: where a balaclava, motorcycle helmet or face mask would be deemed inappropriate, so should a niqab.”…

What’s most insidious about the SPLC’s targeting of Nawaz is that the two most salient items in their dossier on him is that he doesn’t disapprove of cartoons of Muhammad or of the niqab. So they think he is an “anti-Muslim extremist” for wanting Muslims to adopt, or at least tolerate, the values of the secular West — which Western leaders and Muslim leaders in the West constantly assure us that they do, anyway. The SPLC’s inclusion of Nawaz is not outrageous because all the rest of us on the list are bigots and he isn’t; their charges are as ridiculous against us as they are against him. The SPLC’s inclusion of Nawaz is outrageous because it implies approval for the idea that Muslims in Western countries should not abide by the mores of those countries, but should establish Sharia enclaves.

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at SPLC who wrote the report (and has a long resume of similar work on extremists), told me that Quilliam’s list of groups was the linchpin of the case for Nawaz as an anti-Muslim extremist. (Potok also noted that the list was compiled in collaboration with Media Matters for America, the Center for New Community, and ReThink Media.)

Noteworthy that these are Soros-funded groups.

Nawaz, meanwhile, accused SPLC of “McCarthyism” for compiling the guide. “Who compiles lists of individuals these days?” he said. “Even if someone was an anti-Muslim bigot, there shouldn’t be lists of names of individuals.”

That’s the most sensible thing Nawaz has said about this whole controversy, but it cuts against his statements such as I’m listed there with people such as Pam Geller? It’s unbelievable.”

Potok rejected the argument out of hand. “If criticizing any number of people is McCarthyism, then I guess the only answer to never criticize anyone. One can disagree or agree with a particular listing that we’ve made. … In some sense, to make a statement like that is to say that we shouldn’t criticize.” He noted that SPLC was careful never to list addresses or contact information for those it labeled extremists.

Potok is, of course, lying. On the SPLC’s main page about me, it prominently lists my “location” — a town they think I live in. They’re wrong about where I live, but the incitement and menace is plain: they’re telling violent Leftists and jihadists where they think they can find me.

“Our point is not to make these people targets for violence, Potok said. “The point is to tamp down the really baseless targeting.” While Nawaz demanded a correction, retraction, and apology, Potok said none was coming.

One thing that seemed to particularly irk Nawaz was the fact that the report came from SPLC. While the group is controversial—and particularly loathed on the American right—Nawaz’s objection was that he has known and respected their work for years. “It lends the wingnuts a level of credibility,” he said.

He should have had an epiphany over the last few days, and realized that the SPLC is not a group worthy of anyone’s respect. That he clearly hasn’t is evidence of a very slow learning curve.

Yet Potok surely has a point about lists, even if one rejects Nawaz’s inclusion on this particular one. If naming and shaming the likes of Geller and Gaffney is beyond the pale, how should one combat Islamophobia, which is a real and growing problem?

“Islamophobia” is not actually a “real and growing problem,” but a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror.

Nawaz endorsed the work of Tell MAMA UK, an organization that tracks attacks on Muslims and other incidents of Islamophobia.

Really? Here’s the truth about Tell MAMA UK: Muslim group fabricated evidence of “wave of attacks on Muslims” in wake of London jihad murder

There are legitimate disagreements about the most effective way of fighting Islamophobia. There are also grounds to argue about whether what Quilliam is doing is truly making much difference. But what makes Nawaz’s appearance on the list so peculiar is that he and SPLC share the goal of fighting back against unfair targeting of Muslims. If even natural-seeming allies are preoccupied fighting each other about tactics, what hope is there prevailing in the fight against real bigots?

What The Atlantic and Nawaz don’t realize is this: everyone who discusses how jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify their actions will be smeared as a bigot. The distinction Nawaz has tried to maintain between his work and that of mine and others on the list didn’t spare him from inclusion on the list. Nor will it spare anyone else who dares to speak the truth about these issues. Their fundamental confidence in a hate group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center demonstrates either inexcusable naivete, or fanatical attachment to the Left, or both.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
45 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pam Neufeld
Pam Neufeld
7 years ago

He’s nauseating.

sandbox
sandbox
7 years ago

Then shouldn’t Bill Maher and Sam Harris also be on this dopey list.

AlgorithmicAnalystD
AlgorithmicAnalyst
7 years ago

Strange that such a thinly disguised hit list is legal? Can’t they be sued?

Suresh
Suresh
7 years ago

Libel law has been removed by crooked politicians to protect their Lying lobbyists and Media tools

wilypagan
wilypagan
7 years ago

This makes one wonder if Saudi money is funding SPLC. I am going to search for their Form 990 and see what I can find.

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
7 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

I’m sure the money is suitably laundered thru NGO’s, because muslum collaborators are corrupt but not stupid.

wilypagan
wilypagan
7 years ago

Interesting. Per Schedule B of their Form 990 most of their reportable donors prefer to remain anonymous. Per Schedule F it appears they raise funds overseas, including Middle East and Africa. They also have holdings in foreign corporations. Looks like the globalist tentacles are wrapped tightly around this one: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/990-10-31-15.pdf

Suresh
Suresh
7 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

Yes Hillary , obama and Bush family get paid by Saudi , OIC to push for Islam in to eventually takeover America http://tinyurl.com/j5yebuj

Here’s more on hillary Islamic funders links http://tinyurl.com/gqqwznm

Dennis
Dennis
7 years ago

This country was founded on the belief that speaking discourse and debate, and being able to speak out, MUST BE PROTECTED. Before our country was formed, history is replete with circumstances where tyrants, rulers (civil or religious) and leaders of groups or nations, committed despicable acts of mayhem and murder against those who spoke out, expressed spoken consternation, acted out against what those so-called leaders stood for. Knowing the consequences that faced those who would dare to oppose the ruling class, the creators of this great nation concluded that the only way to promote and protect debate and differences of opinion, was to provide protection to those who would speak out. Therefore, they put it in a writing, that we now refer to as the First Amendment Freedom of Speech. This article should reinforce in all of us the fact that we cannot EVER abandon that particular right, lest we be shackled by those believers and leaders who would subjugate all those who express their differences. Whether the comments involve Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other issue, especially where the speaker is relying on that persons conception of the reality that promotes the statements, should never be denied and/or accused of phobia or the fostering of hatred. This article and all that it says, at least to me, stands for that proposition, and I applaud those who speak out, and deplore those who would promote conduct that supports violence against those who speak out, which is what the groups referred to in this article are, in fact, doing. To hell with these groups.

Mahou Shoujo
Mahou Shoujo
7 years ago

islam is the demonic inspired criminally insane violent life style of subhumans. By their action they indicate this daily.

wilypagan
wilypagan
7 years ago

Hey, anyone want to mosey on over to SPLC website and leave some comments with me? Their heads are exploding over the jury nullification in the Bundy matter. Very fun to

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/10/27/antigovernment-leaders-behind-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-occupation-acquitted

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
7 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

If you want to leave comments for the scum at the SPLC make damn sure you use a proxy server to conceal your IP address from those scumbags. There are free proxy servers you can utilize to do just that.

wilypagan
wilypagan
7 years ago
Reply to  IzlamIsTyranny

I am not afraid of those unwashed hippies. Let them track me down. Molon labe.

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
7 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

They’re not hippies anymore and they have evil allies in the muslum world.

wilypagan
wilypagan
7 years ago
Reply to  IzlamIsTyranny

Thanks for the concern. I am well armed, and if attacked, quite vicious.

If they do try to do me harm, the little Muslim creeps will find themselves singing like the little castrati butt boys that they are. I have had a wonderful life and plan to continue to do so, but I will never hide like a rat. That’s for leftists and Muslims to do.

Go Trump! Death to traitors! No more Muslim immigration!

Solipsis
Solipsis
7 years ago

The cuck just doesn’t know what Isalm really is. How can he possibly be a “reformer”? It doesn’t add up.

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
7 years ago
Reply to  Solipsis

He’s spewing taqiyya to keep the kafir al najjis stupid and ignorant until his fellow muslums gain absolute power.

Solipsis
Solipsis
7 years ago

Geller = Kuffar Therefore a “real” bigot.
Nawaz = “Muslim” therefore cannot possibly be a bigot.
Say waz?!!

Solipsis
Solipsis
7 years ago

For the first time in his life, Maajid Nawaz has seen the true face of Islam.

He has met the enemy and it is him.

ruthy k
ruthy k
7 years ago
Reply to  Solipsis

He faced it a long time ago but to him the the religion, Islam and the ideological political structure, “Islamism” as he dubs it, are 2 separate things. He loves his people and his religion and speaks lovingly to his own and many others. He wants to reform via teaching and shifting the culture.
He thinks Islam can have a peaceful coexistence and hopes more will adopt it b/c they are impressed with it as apposed to being brutalized into it.
He’s a very smart guy but because he is devout he desperately wants and needs to believe the line of reasoning he espouses.
He had been beaten as a teen for being a Paki…. His experiences are very real and he fears his own being harmed due to hatred of Muslims.
I can understand his fear but he has his head up his wazoo if he thinks Pamela and people like herself are vile. Aside of the fact that I think Islam is a load of bunk, if that’s his religion and he’s truly devout then yes this will be his view on the matter b/c it colors his lenses. There’s no changing that.

InfidelCrusader
InfidelCrusader
7 years ago

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Charles Martel
Charles Martel
7 years ago

To me this guy has always been a douche, and never trusted him. Sorry.

Judi
Judi
7 years ago
Reply to  Charles Martel

He touts himself as a “reformed” terrorist who finally “saw the light”. He’s quite a celebrity in the UK and even has a permanent slot on a talk show radio programme. However, his Quillam Society allegedly paid Tommy Robinson £10,000 to renounce “Islamaphobia” (a decision that Tommy later regretted) and the fact that he supported the Ground Zero mosque speaks volumes. Never trust a muslim.

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
7 years ago
Reply to  Judi

Yeah Robinson probably got an offer he couldn’t refuse — either take our muslum blood money and propagandize pi$$lam or muslum terrorists kill you and your family.

Tatonka
Tatonka
7 years ago

If Maajid is so against Islam then why is he still a Muslim and follows that cult of death.

I don’t trust the guy

Bill Kay
Bill Kay
7 years ago
Reply to  Tatonka

Only a fool would trust a snake , ya knew I was a snake when you helped me .

Janet
Janet
7 years ago

Nawab isn’t fit to shine Pamela Geller’s shoes! He thinks he can modernize Islam. What a joke. They all follow the Quran with its 7th century BS and he has no way to fix that!

Austurias
Austurias
7 years ago

I wonder why Anjem Choudrey isn’t on the list. He is extremely anti Islam because of his erroneous beliefs that don’t represent Islam. His version of Islam is well Islamophobic and not representative of real peaceful Islam.

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
7 years ago
Reply to  Austurias

“Real, peaceful islam.” Thanks for the laugh.

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
7 years ago

Muslim reformer is a meaningless term. No one is going to be reforming islam across the totalitarian muslum states of the world. Muslum reformers only spew their nonsense about “reforming” islam to the kafir al najjis, because you can’t reform evil.

Drew the Infidel
Drew the Infidel
7 years ago

This demonstrates the schizophrenia of SPLC when its list of “deplorables” consists of those who direct diametrically opposed philosophical opposites. As Pamela asks, who is exempt?

ColonelNeville
ColonelNeville
7 years ago

There is no “schizophrenia” at the Soros funded SPLC, founded by Marxists and run by leftists today. The SPLC ALWAYS sides with evil over good, lies over truth, wrong over right and the behavior that leads to failure – just as Evan Sayet describes in his brilliant empirical available on YouTube lecture of his book ‘The Kindergaden of Eden: how the modern left liberal thinks’.

ColonelNeville
ColonelNeville
7 years ago

One cannot “reform” Islam because it was founded by Mohammad, the serial child rapist, mass murdering bandit warlord psychopath – and the Koran is the not to be questioned final words and commands for all time of Allah.

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
7 years ago
Reply to  ColonelNeville

Exactly, the whole concept of reforming islam is nothing but a red herring. Who hasn’t noticed that the only people muslum “reformers” address is the unbeliever in islam in non-islamic states?

Roy Jennings
Roy Jennings
7 years ago

The basis of what islam calls islamophobia is simple.
Agree with everything islam believes in and they will be the religion of peace
Disagree with any part of Islam, literally any part, and they are the religion of hate

100% Islam is both a political and religious idealogy. Sharia is actually Sharia law, the clue is in the word law.
If the European, USA and any other islamic caliphate ever succeeds, the world will degenerate into a tribal zone. islamic groups fighting each other whilst destroying any resistance from democratic or religious groups that oppse them
Soros is banking in this happening as it will be his islamic `army` that will be the backbone of the new world order

Pray Hard
Pray Hard
7 years ago
Reply to  Roy Jennings

“Islamophobia” is a contrived compound word. It does not exist.

JWM
JWM
7 years ago

If Nawaz thinks islam is a religion of peace then he has no credibility and is an idiot.

Lee Berry
Lee Berry
7 years ago

he is such a whiny little boy – no doubt he once was spoiled rotten by always getting his way? Hey – this is not burger king – so you don’t get it your own way in the new form of (not-so) free society. Man up! Pamela doesn’t lay down and whine – she keeps right on working to expose the horrific goings-on!!

Annie Pickett
Annie Pickett
7 years ago

As an apostate, according to the koran, he is supposed to be killed. It’s all there in black and white.

The SPLC list is a Fatwa instructing fundamentalist muslims to kill them. How can that be legal.

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
7 years ago
Reply to  Annie Pickett

That last sentence is a cynical take. I wonder if the SPLC could be held legally responsible if something were to happen to anyone on their list? It certainly seems like it would constitute depraved indifference to the possible outcomes of their actions.

Annie Pickett
Annie Pickett
7 years ago

Nawaz is part of the plan for islamic invasion and conquest.

There is another organisation in the UK called the Quilliam Foundation that is made up muslims that is suppose to be the country’s main anti-jihad institution. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Pray Hard
Pray Hard
7 years ago

I don’t like him either. Sam Harris needs to get OFF his magic carpet ride.

Pray Hard
Pray Hard
7 years ago

Nawaz is just another slick taqiyya spewer, attempting to deflect us from reality.

Baba
Baba
7 years ago

This is the same mulsim who stated that islam is a peaceful religion..and fell flat on his face when he could NOT proof it!!! Lol! it’s NOT a religion but it’s (Among others) a theocracy and terrorist cult that hides behind the mask of religion in order to achieve it’s mission of world domination. muslim reformer??!! Lol. islam is islam no matter how you cut this critter up. You can’t change nothin’ fool and that goes for others as well neighbor.

pandainc
pandainc
7 years ago

“I’m listed there with people such as Pam Geller? It’s unbelievable.” He should feel rather flattered.

What’s the difference between a moderate muslim and a radical? Nothing.

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!