- Iam a brown, liberal, reform Muslim. I have survived violent neo-Nazi racism and served as a former War on Terror political prisoner in Egypt, witnessing torture. Yet, in a trip that takes us through the looking glass, the largely white American non-Muslim “progressive” leadership at the pro-civil liberties group Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC) has just published a “journalist’s field list” naming me as an “anti-Muslim” extremist.
"SPLC loses the plot" indeed. I went over to the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremist's" entry for Maajid Nawaz. Tabling all else that Nawaz brings up in his article, the Law Center's reasons for labeling him an anti-Muslim extremist seem to set the bar very low for being labeled an anti-Muslim extremist. Sharing an image of Mohammed should count towards his own stated goals of reforming the religion and its adherents to align more with Western ideals of free expression. That may in some world count as anti-Muslim, but should not count as "anti-Muslim extremism." And Nawaz's point that Islamists and jihadists share the same goal--a worldwide caliphate ruling by sharia law, for example--but they disagree on tactics, seems a reasonable characterization. People disinclined to agree should look at what the stated goals of Islamists and jihadists are then. Look. I appreciate that anyone the SPLC label as an extremist will steadfastly deny it and defend their position as principled and nuanced, not hateful. But I believe their brush is overbroad here. Under what circumstances can someone criticise Islam? I said at the top that SPLC is losing the plot because neutralizing reformers who would seek to mollify extremism in their own camp... furthers extremists.
Not arguing for or against, but the SPLC does outline their reasons for his inclusion here.
Fine and dandy. I don't think those reasons are reasonable, based on what I have learned of the man, his stated goals and stated means of achieving those goals. Edit, for Q's sake. The SPLC cites his tweeting of a drawing of Muhammad as a reason to list him as an anti-muslim extremist. They also accuse Ayaan Hirsi Ali of lying about experiencing religiously decreed female genital mutilation. So, in this instance, fuck the SPLC.
I don't know enough about any of these people except for some of the more virulent members of the list to say much. While it seems like there's plenty of things to disagree with (namely the data collection opinion), calling him an extremist is definitely a stretch. For clarification, in the thing I linked, the SPLC says Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist who says she endured female genital mutilation
(emphasis mine), is there anything the SPLC has said beyond that like a direct accusation? cause that would be horrendously fucked up, and they have no business policing bodies that way.