polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 1
st, 2018 at 10:12am:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 31
st, 2018 at 11:23pm:
And while I’m positive you’re lying about nawas’s funding
Quilliam is today is entirely funded by 3 US conservative lobbies that push republican agendas, and directly fund republican candidates: Quilliam US, the Stuart Family Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation.
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 31
st, 2018 at 11:23pm:
what would it matter where his funding comes from?
Nawiz and his foundation's political trajectory from vocal critic of Israel and her crimes, to staunch supporter directly correlates with the injection of this funding after government funding dried up.
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 31
st, 2018 at 11:23pm:
I’d rather you explain what it is that majid says that is wrong, as opposed to worrying about who donates to his think tank.
I have on many occassions. I've even told them to you. Basically he's adopted Ayan Hirsis line of "muslims must promote a progressive interpretation of Islamic text - but when you do I'll mock you for ignoring the reality of Islamic text"
Nazaz is basically a more articulate version of you and FD, and its seems ceaser - imploring muslims to come up with a better version of Islamic text, but pouncing on them as apologists and defiers of reality when they do.
John Templeton Foundation gave Quilliam 1 million dollars, and that makes you think they are entirely funded? Qulliam US is a right wing think tank? I'd suggest you stop playing this pointless identity politics, and concentrate on what Quilliam actually advocates.
Maajid Nawaz was also once upon a time in jail for terrorism, so if there is anyone who can demonstrate that opinions and people can change based on critical thinking and reflection, rather than something sinister, then surely it is him. Not to mention that what he said about Israel is hardly controversial for ANYONE who believes in a 2 state solution.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/israel-hamas-legitimate-defen... Quote:"It's time all of us stopped this disproportionate singling out of Israel in its legitimacy. Israel has a right to exist. It has the right to exist as any other nation in the world.
"If you're going to question Israel's right to exist, let's question Australia's right to exist. Let's question America's right to exist. Both were colonial projects.
"Let's question Pakistan's right to exist."
Maajid continued: "Enough with this double standard...constantly singling out Israel as somehow being a delegitimate state. I'm tired of it.
I mean, I can definitely understand how someone who believes in an islamist view of the world may disagree with this, but surely this is rationale that any normal person can agree with? What is it you disagree with here, gandalf?
And no, Maajid has never criticised anyone who has a fair and progressive interpretation of Islamic text. But let's look at it this way: you claim to be a progressive person who says he believes in equality between people. And yet, your 'progressive' interpretation of islamic text is probably more far right wing than Senator Cruz at a gun rally.
Quote:Translation by Muhsin Khan
Men are guardians of women, because Allah has made one superior to the other, and (also) because men spend their wealth (on them). So the pious wives are obedient. They guard (their chastity) in the absence of their husbands with the protection of Allah. But those women whom you fear will disobey and defy, admonish them; and (if they do not amend) separate them (from yourselves) in beds; and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting. Then if they become cooperative with you, do not seek any way against them. Surely, Allah is Most High, Most Great.[21]
Maajid argues against states based on Islam. He argues that the Middle East must be secular and democratic. And Islam has to exist within this, as do all other religions. I'm going to take a stab and guess that this is what you're most upset about. Because deep down, you don't believe in secular and democratic states. Rather, you just want Islamic states that are based on YOUR interpretation of the text. Forgetting of course that no one has authority over these interpretations.
in 2009 during operation cast iron in Gaza, Nawaz made a public call for Israeli leaders to be prosecuted for war crimes. That was the last time he criticised Israel. It was also the year in which government funding dried up, and the previously mentioned US conservative (pro-Israel, naturally) lobbies stepped in to save the foundation. Since then Nawaz has never made any more calls against Israeli war crimes, nor any criticisms of Israeli policy. Is that a coincidence? I suppose its possible, but my common sense barometer is heavilly indicating it isn't. But of course you are free to insist it is.
Forum
Pages: 
