Time Magazine: Islam is dandy and egalitarian: the problems of terrorism are exacerbated by atheists and “Muslim reformers”

The title of a new article by Qasim Rashid in Time magazine tells the tale: “A strong Muslim identity is the best defense against extremism.” Rashid, who has a history of denying the influence of Islam on terrorism, describes himself as follows;

I’m the Director of Civil Rights and Policy for KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights. Since the early 1990s KARAMAH has utilized authentic Islamic scholarship to advocate for worldwide gender equity from an Islamic lens. As a women-led organization, KARAMAH exemplifies a proven model of Islam by educating, training and inspiring a new generation of Muslim women leaders who have gone on to become prolific authors, journalists, academics and activists.

This is a bit confusing to me, because the only Qasim Rashid I can find on the internet is a man, but I’ve confirmed that it’s the same person. But no matter; the arguments are what matters. And his arguments are that neither New Atheism nor Muslim of ex-Muslim “moderates” like Maajid Nawaz or Ayaan Hirsi Ali can do anything to help end Islamic terrorism. Why?

The atheists, says Rashid, are useless because they are a) ignorant of “real” Islam, b) have promoted anti-Muslim acts like the Iraq War (he refers to Hitchens) and c) promote the destruction of Islam itself (Rashid quotes Hirsi Ali here, apparently not realizing that she’s backed off the “destruction” idea in her latest book Heretic).  And, of course, there are plenty of atheists who opposed the Iraq war, and plenty of moderate Muslims or ex-Muslims, like Asra Nomani, Maajid Nawaz, Eiynah, and now Hirsi Ali, who are not calling for the destruction of Islam but for its “reformation.”

So Rashid gets that all wrong. Further, he sees parallels between atheists and moderate Muslims that make them doubly ineffective as a way to curb terrorism:

New Atheists, the Islamophobia industry, and so-called “Muslim reformers” (who meritlessly seek to change the Qur’an altogether) all share three significant characteristics. First, each is wholly ignorant of Islam as exemplified by their myopic insistence to ignore events like the Iraq War and instead claim that ISIS’s existence and approximately 30,000 members are a more valid example of Islam than Islam’s 1.6 billion Muslims and 1,400 years of non-ISIS existence. Second, each offers only an empty theory of Islamic “reformation.” Third, and perhaps most significant, each refuses to acknowledge the practical and proven models from Muslim organizations that have long existed well before 9/11 that analyze Islam from a position of honesty and scholarship, and demonstrate that it is not Islam that needs reformation—but Muslims themselves.

I seriously doubt that people like Hirsi Ali and Nawaz are “wholly ignorant of Islam”. What a thing to say! Further, that their own models of reformation, relying on leverage from moderate Muslims, are “empty” remains to be seen. In fact, to me that (Hirsi Ali, for example, calls for the Qur’an to be read less literally) seems a more rational way to defang fundamentalist Islam than, say, by going along with the “strong Muslim” position that the Qur’an must be read literally, word for word. When you do that, watch out, because the Qur’an, like the Old Testament (but worse) is a document filled with bloodshed and hatred of nonbelievers.

And what is Rashid’s “practical and proven model” for Islamic reformation? Just this:

Indeed, a stronger Muslim identity derived from a proven model is the best defense against extremism. This shouldn’t be surprising. A 2016 analysis on American Muslims from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding reports that “Muslims who regularly attend mosques are more likely to work with their neighbors to solve community problems, be registered to vote, and are more likely to plan to vote.” This echoes a 2008 British intelligence MI5 analysis that concluded: “[a] well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.”

Moreover, for more than a century and across 209 nations, tens of millions of Muslims belonging to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community have stood united under an Islamic Caliphate. This Community of Muslims cites authentic Islamic scholarship—the Qur’an, Sunnah and Hadith—to exemplify a proven model of True Islam that teaches secular governance, gender equity, universal human rights and a categorical condemnation of terrorism.

I seriously doubt whether the “community problems” solved by American Muslims have anything to do with organizations like ISIS or other terrorist groups. And seriously: going to mosques helps you register to vote? Maybe, but is that going to stop terrorism?

As for the notion of the Caliphate and that of “authentic Islamic scholarship,” well, ISIS wants a Caliphate, too, and avows that it’s adhering to authentic Islamic scholarship, a claim that has more credibility than that of other Muslims who promulgate less violent forms of Islam as “authentic”. (Read the Qur’an!). Remember, too, that even many moderate Muslims, as in the recent Pew report, see sharia law as what they’d favor for everyone in their country. Rashid, in his insistence that he and his group are the only promulgators “true” Islam, is bucking considerable data showing otherwise.

h/t: Grania


  1. Shaokang Yuan
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Closet Islamist.

    • Posted October 7, 2016 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      To me, flaming Islamist.

      • Kirbmarc
        Posted October 7, 2016 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

        There’s nothing “closet” about Rashad’s islamism. The only difference between him and the Islamic State is one of methods, not of goals.

  2. Cindy
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    So Islam is egalitarian eh? This has been a common theme the last few weeks…

    I started watching some of the MRAs on youtube because I wanted some insight into the Mens Right’s Movement. I don’t like just hearing one side and men by no means ‘have all the privilege’ in Western society…

    However, some MRAs have left me scratching my head in bewilderment because they are now arguing that under Islam, specifically, in KSA and Afghanistan, that ‘female supremacy’ is the norm – that such societies are ‘gynocentric’. That women are ‘privileged’ and entitled’

    How are women ‘privileged and entitled’ living in KSA and Afghanistan you might ask?

    1) They can ‘compel’ their male guardians to ‘chauffeur’ them around, as women are not permitted to leave the house without permission from a male relative. Such privilege! As a Western woman I seethe with envy, being able to leave the house whenever I damn well please.

    2) Men have to feed, clothe and house their property, which puts women on a pedestal and enslaves men.

    3) Women get to make interior design decisions (providing the man permits them to, as the man controls all finances)

    4) Women should not be taking jobs outside the house or education, as this would deprive a man of the ability to feed *his* family

    5) Women are privileged and entitled because they do not take jobs or receive an education

    6) 9yo child brides are not necessarily oppressed, because 9yos can be sexually curious, and why deny them the experience?

    7) A Muslim family would not sell it’s daughter, without her consent, to a man she doesn’t want to marry, as girls are like, totes manipulative, and they play their parents off one another etc etc. Parents really do love their kids, so such things, if they do happen, don’t count!

    Like what happened to 7 yo Sabere, it doesn’t count:


    Sorry for the rant, but this really has me pissed off. I am sick to death of identity politics. So many supposed ‘advocacy’ groups seem only to care about pushing their narrative – reality and facts be damned.

    Regressive, POMO style thought is not just the province of SJWs. MRAs (and only some, they are not a monolith, many are sensible and I respect them) seem to be applying their own ‘critical theory’ – where the narrative trumps facts. Where the oppressor, in this case women, are always guilty, and the oppressed, in this case men, are always virtuous. The oppressed never has any agency, whilst the oppressor has all of the agency.

    As a sidenote, I recall, some years ago, reading that (some) Quiverfull men consider themselves to be oppressed by the wimmenz because, gasp, they have to make all of the decisions and it’s like totes stressful:(

    • Cindy
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      And I forgot to sub…

    • Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

      As a sidenote, I recall, some years ago, reading that (some) Quiverfull men consider themselves to be oppressed by the wimmenz because, gasp, they have to make all of the decisions and it’s like totes stressful:(


      Also, you’re right about the displacement of rational discourse by postmodern ‘narrativism’ (yes I made that word up). We see how such talk dominates political discourse too. It’s depressing and frightening.

    • Will G
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      That’s a great example of political horshoe theory. You’d think MRAs and the worst of social justice feminism would have nothing in common, yet they’ve both managed to convince themselves that Islamic theocracy is great for women.

      • Will G
        Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

        *horseshoe theory*

    • somer
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

      Then **gasp** the men can divorce the wife just by saying in Arabic “I divorce you” three times but even in the most moderate Hanifi school its explicit that divorce initiatiated by the woman must be almost never. Also the Shaafi (thats NOT salafist) school (you should see what autocorrect is trying to do to me) and the hanifi school demand the woman be available for sex at all times at the husbands demand (hanifi says force is fine, shaafi says angels will curse her if she doesnt and quotes that lovely hadith that says more women go to hell and women are less intelligent)
      Also women get Half as much inheritance as any male – or less. Divorced women don’t have to be supported – only some accommodation for a very limited time. The man can have multiple wives etc.

      Some of these men’s rights movements are a bit creepy – particularly fathers rights groups that try to enforce constant access to the child after divorce whether the woman or the child wants it or not. Members of such groups very frequently justify violence and abuse and as Rosie Battie and others show family courts sadly do listen to the pathetic excuses of abusive men as a reason to enforce regular stays by the child and visits by the ex husband so that the family never gets away from the abuser. There is no penalty when the husband pays no maintenance etc. or even lives of the wife and is abusive but has the gift of the gab to the court. A group in NSW associated with the Rev Fred Nile was arguing to bring back the old “Provocation” as a defence for murder laws as they felt this would promote marriage and fidelity within marriage. The previous conservative Howard government was sympathetic to this mens rights sort of thing in terms of increasing divorced fathers access to children and i know a number of people adversely affected by it, which is not to say women can’t be abusive too but normally in a different way – manipulation – and less commonly but certainly it happens. Rosie Battie and others since exposed the biases in the court system. Ive heard some male psychiatriasts who are supposed to work with abusive cases basically going out of their way to excuse abuse on the media.

      What these men really want is total control – often without responsibility. They give the example of UAE and Afghanistan as woman friendly societies because they secretly envy the strong patriarchy of those societies.

      • Cindy
        Posted October 6, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

        Sadly, the people who are making the argument that Islam is gynocentric are two very prominent female MRAs…

        They have gone from defending men where it is applicable, to outright hatred of women. The argument that I just heard today is that since Saudi men are tasked with defending, to the death, the women and girls within their families, that this then justifies the enslavement of Saudi women.

        Does KSA not have office workers or something? Is KSA a war zone? Oh, and last I checked, all of the dangerous jobs go to workers from India, Pakistan and Indonesia.

        At any rate, the hyperbole only hurts their cause. Just as those feminists who claim that everything is rape actually dilutes the meaning of rape, MRAs who claim that men can only be victims of women only hurt their own cause because in the end very few will take them seriously. Men who are genuine victims of abuse will be dismissed because sane people will have already decided that men’s rights = crazytown.

    • somer
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

      I agree all identity politics is ultimately just …. totally toxic

  3. Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    “It is not Islam that needs reformation—but Muslims themselves”. I’m confused. Are not people Muslim because they follow Islam?

    • eric
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      He’s saying nothing about the doctrine or teachings needs to change, people just need to pray more and go to mosque more, and that will cause them to magically become non-violent and see things his way. Because you know, that’s the real problem with those ISIS followers – they just aren’t praying enough.

      • keith cook +/-
        Posted October 5, 2016 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        “that’s the real problem with those ISIS followers – they just aren’t praying enough.”

        yeah, like 24/7
        that would keep them of the streets playing with guns.
        my comment may trivialize all those deaths but mocking Rashid is my intention.

  4. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    He doesn’t even seem to get the simple ideas correctly. He says they want to change the Quran? No one is asking for a rewrite. Just a different interpretation and a bit more metaphor.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted October 6, 2016 at 12:22 am | Permalink

      Different interpretations (and far more civilised ones) have abounded for centuries and still do. Unfortunately the extremists always claim to be morally superior to the moderates. (Personally I would shoot on sight anyone, of whatever belief, claiming to be morally superior, but I’m an extremist that way 😉


      • Posted October 6, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

        However, I have had it insisted to me that the *collection of interpretations itself* is now set in stone, and adding another one is heresy. This came up when a supposed atheist originally from Bangladesh insisted that my anecdote from an Iranian that pre-revolution the teetotling passages from the Koran were interpreted to mean “don’t get drunk” could only have been made up, and couldn’t possibly have been a clerical opinion.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted October 6, 2016 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

          I don’t think he’d get far with my first tenants, some years back, who were Bosnian Muslims. (But it was only about my sixth visit, when I noticed a Koran on top of the TV set, that I was even sure they were Muslims. If anyone was wearing a hijab it wasn’t obvious, certainly no burqas). They were very proud of their traditional home-made wine.


  5. GBJames
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Oh, FFS.

  6. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    There may be a grain of truth in the claim that “[a] well-established religious identity actually [partially-JLH] protects against violent radicalisation”, but I don’t overall buy into this fellow’s analysis.

    It’s true that religious violence breaks out more frequently when folks religious identity seems to be under threat, but it certainly isn’t the sole factor.

    • GBJames
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

      Show me the religion that isn’t prone to schism and I’ll show you the one where adherents aren’t “under threat”. That’s the nature of the beast.

      • somer
        Posted October 5, 2016 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

        Mohammed said there would be 99 sects of Islam and only one was the true one. Many news sources – and the intelligence agencies – find that Assad of Syria have been supporting terrorists – including IS and its predecessors – for years. Some argue he supports IS even now, and so does Iran. Eg

        Why? IS is not only virulently anti West, but a totally takfir organisation – i.e. obsessed with enforcing a very narrow view of sunni islam and viewing all other Sunnis, let alone shias as apostates, and exterminating (mostly sunnis) who don’t match up. Assad used to train and arm many of them to send into Iraq – because the enemy was the US and a stable sunni block. Iran has also armed Iraqs shias – but from the chaos has greatly weakened Sunni groups and countries overall and got lots of concessions out of the US over this strategy.
        Assad’s strategy in Syria itself was first that the majority moderate Sunni population protesting him in the Arab spring would be so terrified of IS and takfir that they would accept Assad’s Alouite (shia) dominated state. He released and armed lots of terrorists and extremists as soon as the protests started in Syria. He allows IS to control the oilfields and buys oil from them, and wont bomb them, only FSA, and neither will his Russian friends. Secondly Assad realised that the resulting wholesale attacks on civilians and sectarian strife would deter the West from getting involved (which it has) and undermine them in the eyes of Arab allies. Before the Arab Spring, IS tried to take over Al Nusra, but they split over differences – namely Al Nusra is not Takfiri, not nearly so prepared to kill Sunni civilians and more focussed on getting rid of Assad – they are not IS. He can rely on the Russians to ensure IS don’t get too big.

        • somer
          Posted October 5, 2016 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

          Al Nusra Front are also allied with Al Queda and do not aim to set up a Caliphate, but wishes to overthrow Assad and set up an Islamic emirate under Islamic law in Syria.
          Kyle Orton is a Middle East Affairs analyst at the Henry Jackson Foundation

        • Posted October 7, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

          Islam has indeed traveled a long path to moderation (sarcasm), if an Al-Qaeda associated gang such as Al-Nusra is now looking moderate, at least in comparison to the fashionable ISIS!

    • Kirbmarc
      Posted October 7, 2016 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      Yes, there is a kernel of truth in there, but it’s only because of a matter of different methods, not of different aims.

      People like Rashad have the exact same aim of the Islamic State: a muslim theocracy. They only use lobbying and emotional blackmail instead of violence.

      Violence isn’t the only problem with islam. The gradual re-islamization of middle eastern communities in the west also leads to many social tensions, bullying and ostracism of those who aren’t pious enough and to the establishment of a country within the country where muslims live.

      People like Rashad see the Islamic State not as an enemy, but as competition, as heretics who can lead to backlash against their religion.

      If Rashad were in a position of power he’d likely behave pretty much like the authorities in Saudi Arabia or Iran. He’s arguably more dangerous than a terrorist in the long run: people see terrorism for what it is, but traditionalist theocrats like Rashad are much harder to criticize and stop if they get in power.

  7. Taz
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Just another fundamentalist trying to claim that his sacred texts have all the answers.

  8. Cate Plys
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Well, this guy’s argument is of course so full of holes, and based on a misrepresentation of positions by people like Hirsi and Nawaz, the it’s hard to know where to start–but Jerry has made a good start. What struck me was his reference to the Ahmadiyya community as a great example holding up his argument. Because the Ahmadiyya have been in the news lately precisely because their interpretation is seen as blasphemous by so many other Muslims that they can and have been targeted for killing. An Ahmadiyya shopkeeper was murdered in Glasgow this year by a Sunni who was convicted in August; it was well covered, as well as the fears of the Ahmadiyya community of being targeted by other Muslims.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

      That’s what struck me as well. The Ahmadiyya Muslims do provide a good model, but they have always been oppressed and sidelined within Islam as heretics. Also, with the current domination of conservative Islam constantly trying to make out that moderate and secular Muslims aren’t Muslim enough, they’ve suffered even more recently than usual (such as in the murder example above).

      It is true that Muslims who attend mosque regularly are more likely to vote – that’s a part of being involved in a particular community. You can say the same for Christians, but also anyone involved in their community in a non-religious way too.

      This guy strikes me as someone who is trying to make the facts fit his opinion rather than letting the facts inform his opinion.

      • eric
        Posted October 5, 2016 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

        I think the vast majority of western muslims who aren’t violent also provide a good model…and I doubt very much that their non-violence has any correction with (a) sect, or (b) how often they go to prayer.

        This guy is just Jimmy Swaggart, Islam Flavor. What will make the country peaceful? More church and prayer. Eliminate gang violence? More church and prayer. End poverty? More church and prayer. Secure women’s rights? End oppression? Usher in a golden age of prosperity for all Americans? More church and prayer, more church and prayer, more church and prayer. Its the only answer they ever give.

        Perhaps we should consider ourselves lucky. At least he isn’t suggesting social policies that actually harm the population (cough abstinence sex ed anti-vax trickle down economics cough). I will take “you should go to church more” over “veterans who ended up with PTSD just aren’t tough enough” any day of the week.

        • somer
          Posted October 6, 2016 at 6:14 am | Permalink

          but Christianity is not a religion currently involved in constant demands for accommodation whose key texts (e.g. Hadith Bukhari – the most trusted collection) call for the death penalty for disbelief, or whose more “moderate” sufi schools like Shaafi give the example of someone joking about the islamic requirement to cut toenails such as “I wouldn’t cut them even though it is a sunna requirement” as reason for death penalty. Or telling its followers (as in Shaafi Sharia law guide)that 80% of teachings of the sunni schools are the same in its introduction and in the body of text that Shaafi followers in their personal lives must uphold the good and forbid the wrong to make other muslims uphold the tenets of the faith – including followers of other Sunni schools follow theirs – if necessary with a modicum of physical force – but without contradicting the order of the Islamic ruler. Moreover the Islamic ruler is said to lose their right to rule if they are not devout.- all in the Justice chapters of Guidance of the Traveller.

          Islam is also not a religion whose books (and Im talking quite apart from the Quran) go on for explicit chapters demanding continuous war against non muslims. Or are as source of a constant trickle of horrific reports of honour killings of women and girls for not being sufficiently submissive to all encompassing control – Im not even talking about any sexual indiscretions here

      • somer
        Posted October 5, 2016 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

        I think Islam has always been very conservative. The apparent liberalism of the mid 20th Century was a protective response of new state leaders to western power and influence, and in the case of Attaturk, who was educated and received military training in the UK, an attempt to make the new nation a viable state with a modern military and some modern technology in the western state order.

        • Kirbmarc
          Posted October 7, 2016 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

          The apparent liberalism of the mid 20th century was secularization, a gradual loss of influence of islam. It ended when Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries, which the US considered as “allies”, started to fund and train muslim supremacist clerics everywhere, to topple secular or semi-secular government and please the US by stopping the “godless communists”, who in many cases were neither godless nor comunists, but instead arab nationalists/arab socialists (like Nasser, Mossadegh, Sadat and many others).

          • Posted October 7, 2016 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

            I think that the turning point was the breakdown of Western colonial empires.

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted October 6, 2016 at 8:40 am | Permalink

        Among the many wrong-headed things in this article is the assumption that it’s only the terrorists – the extremists – that give, or should give, western liberals any cause for concern: that’s just not true – Islamic terrorism could disappear overnight and my concerns about Islam as a religion would only be moderately allayed.

        My central problem with Islam is that it is an extraordinarily conservative religion, a religion which treats minorities like dirt, punishes dissent with medieval brutality, suborns the individual to society and imposes absolute, totalitarian constraints on its adherents – it’s inescapably opposed to most of the political advances that have been made in the last four hundred years.

        I honestly cannot think of a more oppressive and socially conservative ideology on earth today than Islam, and to focus on jihadists, who represent a tiny minority of the extreme conservative Muslims in the world, is misdirection on Rashid’s part.
        Strengthening Muslim identity by encouraging mosque attendance, etc., may well serve to discourage jihadists but it also invariably inculcates a conservative strand of Islam, and it’s this conservative strand that is the main engine of misery in the Islamic world. Terrorism gets the headlines, and it impinges on the lives of westerners like us in an unavoidable way, but it’s not terrorists hanging gays from cranes in Iran, maiming thieves in Saudi Arabia or stoning women to death in Afghanistan – it’s normal, conservative Islamic societies. Wipe out every terrorist on earth and that mentality would still remain.

        It may be(and I’ve read varying reports, so I’m not prepared to unquestioningly accept Rashid and his sources) that adopting a stronger Islamic identity carries with it the happy side-effect of diminishing the likelihood of the Muslim in question carrying out terrorist attacks, but if that stronger identity also means doubling down on the existing conservatism inherent in Islam then it’s like saving someone’s infected finger by cutting off their arm.

        There is nothing in anything Rashid has written that demonstrates the slightest interest in genuinely reforming Islam. His entire argument is misdirection on a grand scale.

        • Kirbmarc
          Posted October 7, 2016 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

          A very well written post. People like Rashad actually see the Islamic State not as an enemy, but as competition.

    • Kiwi Dave
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      That was my reaction too. 1.6 billion true Muslims shrink to a heretical sect founded in the nineteenth century numbering tens of millions and persecuted by other Muslims.

    • somer
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

      Pakistani passports actually say that the holder accepts that Ahmadias are not Muslims

  9. eric
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    This is a bit confusing to me, because the only Qasim Rashid I can find on the internet is a man, but I’ve confirmed that it’s the same person

    This is just a guess, but the likely explanation is that “Director of Civil Rights and Policy for KARAMAH” /= “Leader of KARAMAH.” It’s a woman-led woman-focused group that employs at least one man for this particular post.

    At least, I *hope* that’s the case. My cynical side suspects there may be some Orwellian doublespeak going on here.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      Well, there’s the annual conference on women’s rights in Saudi Arabia as an example. The one that no women has ever attended. That’s right – it’s a bunch of mostly clerics deciding what women should and shouldn’t be allowed to do.

      As an example, it’s not actually illegal for a woman to drive there, it’s just that the Wahhabi legal authorities won’t grant them a licence.

      • eric
        Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

        Yes, that’s the doublespeak I suspect. A ‘woman-lead’ organization for women, that just happens to have all men calling the shots. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if that turned out to be the case. But in the spirit of being charitable, I’ll assume for now that it’s a legitimately women-lead organization and that the post of Civil Rights director just coincidentally happens to be filled by a man.

        • Cindy
          Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

          The women in this case are clearly oppressing the men, as the men have to speak for them and over them!

      • Posted October 7, 2016 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        Like an animal rights conference.

    • phoffman56
      Posted October 5, 2016 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      All his other Time articles refer to him as a man. So does the Amazon blurb for his book.

  10. Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    “The Religion of Peace”

  11. Cindy
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:42 pm | Permalink


  12. Posted October 5, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  13. Cindy
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Saja Farhat was trying to take her biology exam wearing her usual hijab, which covers her ears. According to a college spokesperson, at the beginning of the year, the teacher had said he would be making sure students weren’t wearing headphones during exams.

    CTV reports that the College de Maisonneuve biology department has a rule that teachers must look under hats, long hair and headscarves to confirm students aren’t wearing headphones.

    Line Légaré, spokesperson for the school, told CTV the rule was in place to prevent cheating.


    Sorry, no, but your religion does not give you a free pass under all circumstances.

  14. Ken Phelps
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    I bet this person used the phrase “…the Islamophobia industry…” with no sense of irony or self-awareness whatsoever.

  15. Herb Hunter
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    While I’ve seen things through Japanese and German lenses, I’ve never come across an Islamic lens.

    • Posted October 6, 2016 at 11:35 am | Permalink

      Long ago there sort of were some. During the “golden age” that many folks talk about, optics was one of the disciplines studied in Arabia, Persia, etc.

  16. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    Worst crap to appear in Time since the bad old days of Henry Luce.

    Go ahead and take your shots at us nonbelievers. But those poor Muslim reformers, they get it from all sides.

  17. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted October 5, 2016 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    I gave up reading Time in the doctor’s waiting room years ago. It annoyed me too much.


  18. somer
    Posted October 6, 2016 at 12:29 am | Permalink

    Come on media, this is so tired. The British media are all over CAGE and organisations like it again applauding their critique of the (very reasonable) anti extremist program “Prevent” as totally unnecessary and saying that the government should be laising with and supporting full on Islamists like them! The Guardian and Independent constantly trumpets this line as do Corbyn’s Labour and sometimes even the BBC. In Australia the ABC has only recently shifted from this line but it still blames Muslim woes and Islamic terrorism more or less exclusively on western foreign policy and islamophobia, whilst twice a week on Radio National, preacher Scott Stephens frequently inveighs against liberalism and the Enlightenment.

  19. jay
    Posted October 6, 2016 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    There are no ‘moderate’ Muslims. There are Muslims and there are apostates.

    I’m not trying to be snarky, but if you actually follow the religion, there is no room for variation . Most religions don’t actively advocate the killing of apostates.. generally the effort is to try to win them back.

    • somer
      Posted October 6, 2016 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

      Clinton is just sooo very uninspiring but Trump is a complete lunatic. Great choice.

  20. Steven Carr
    Posted October 6, 2016 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    ‘Moreover, for more than a century and across 209 nations, tens of millions of Muslims belonging to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community have stood united under an Islamic Caliphate.’

    Well, they are not Muslims are they?

    One of the Ahmadiyya was murdered in Glasgow by a Muslim because he had ‘insulted Islam.’

  21. Posted October 7, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    To me, the million-dollar question is why Western media give free space to sworn enemies of the West such as Mr. (Ms.?) Rashid.

%d bloggers like this: