Smackdown: He Who Shall Not Be Named equates ex-Muslims with Nazis

I try to not post too many Tweeticles, but couldn’t resist this one, particularly because C. J. W*rl*m*n’s ludicrous tweet of this morning was so effectively countered by Maryam Namazie, head of the Council of ex-Muslims of Britain.  (Note: my posting a tweet by W*rl*m*n does not constitute my writing his name in full, which I’ve vowed never to do, as anyone who catches me doing it gets a free autographed book).

The article to which W*rl*m*n refers,”Gay Pride row between London mosque and ex-Muslims escalates“, is by Amandia Thomas-Johnson, and  appears in the Middle East Eye, the magazine that employed W*rl*m*n after he was outed for multiple cases of plagiarism. The issue here is not violence, for there hasn’t been any any, but what is written on anti-Islamic placards held by participants in London’s Gay Pride March. The East London Mosque (ELM) objects to what’s on the placards, and are monitoring them to try to get the members of Namazie’s organization expelled for violating the Pride oversight committee’s code of conduct. As the Eye reports:

The Whitechapel-based mosque – one of Britain’s largest – has sent a formal complaint to Pride in London after pictures emerged of members of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) parading with placards that said “East London Mosque incites murder of LGBT”, “F*** Islam(ophobic) Muslims” and “Islamophobia is an oxymoron”.

“Let there be no mistake: Islamophobia is real, hateful and often violent, as we tragically saw in the recent Finsbury Park terrorist attack,” ELM’s executive director Dilowar Khan said in a letter yesterday to Pride co-chairs Alison Camps and Michael Salter-Church.

“It is CEMB who deliberately conflates Islamophobia with criticism of Islam, as a way to excuse hatred directed at Muslims.”

It said that the placards were designed to “alienate all Muslims from Pride in London, including LGBT Muslims”.

“There can be no doubt that such a barrage of abusive placards has an adverse impact on Muslims, feeding anti-Muslim hysteria especially in the current climate of increasing attacks against Muslims,” the letter added.

The report adds that the ELM hosted a speaker 10 years ago whose presentation contained slides titled “Spot the Fag”, and, two years ago, hosted an American Muslim scholar—Yasir Qadhi—who said (not in his talk at the mosque) that Islam mandates death as a punishment for homosexuality.

To be sure, the view that homosexuality is immoral is widespread in Islam; here are the data from the 2013 Pew Report (excluding some Middle Eastern countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia) about the views of those in Muslim-majority countries on the morality of homosexuality:

Namazie’s group struck back:

CEMB’s response was scathing.

“We don’t need your permission to march for LGBT rights or the rights of apostates,” CEMB spokesperson Maryam Namazie wrote in a letter to the London Pride organisers, in which she referred to ELM as a “centre of homophobia”.

Pride was only taking the complaints “seriously because of a cultural relativism and tone policing that is only applicable to critics of Islam and never [to] critics of Christianity”.

Now this turns on words and meanings, and I’d be a bit wary of holding a placard accusing the mosque of inciting murder if it’s not their policy, as it appears not to be. That said, freedom of speech in the U.S. would have permitted those placards, though the March’s organizers apparently can ban them if they want.

But read above what the Mosque said about those words: that they fuel hatred and lead to anti-Muslim violence. This is exactly the same thing that the “punch-Nazi” crowd say when they want to ban the marches, speeches, and flags of bigots, neo-Nazis, and anti-Semites. And what this means is that if Muslims were in charge in England, such placards—and criticism of Islam for homophobia—would be banned as “hate speech”. After all, that’s the basis of W*rl*m*n’s equating of ex-Muslims and Nazis.  Do we want that kind of ban?  Remember, too, that such placards are not only illegal in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, but could get you killed if you carried one.

One person’s free speech is another person’s “hate speech that should be banned.”

h/t: Grania

29 Comments

  1. Ken Kukec
    Posted August 15, 2017 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    On the evidence of his tw**t, CJ Asterisks appears wholly unacquainted with the concept of the genetic fallacy.

  2. Posted August 15, 2017 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Dilowar Khan: “Let there be no mistake: Islamophobia is real”

    …Indeed. Islams should not be physically attacked.

  3. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted August 15, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Google searches establish that the last time JAC wrote out CJs full name was April 1, 2015

  4. Posted August 15, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    There’s no such thing as ‘Islamophobia’. A phobia is an IRRATIONAL fear of Islam. Are homosexuals being irrational in fearing execution? Is a woman who commits adultery being irrational in fearing being stoned to death? Time for some clear thinking!

    • Posted August 15, 2017 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

      Well, I get your point, but clear speaking or writing is as important as clear thinking and you are going to far by saying “There’s no such thing as Islamophobia.” Surely there are people who have an irrational fear of Islam.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted August 15, 2017 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

      Are you also denying that there’s such a thing as an irrational fear of Muslims?

    • Diane G.
      Posted August 16, 2017 at 12:36 am | Permalink

      I think we need to drop the semantic/etymological argument that “-phobia” used this way still means “irrational fear.” Look at any online definition of Islamophobia and you’ll find this: “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims.”

      The similar term “homophobia” is much older, and I doubt anyone’s ever interpreted it as “an irrational fear of homosexuals.”

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted August 16, 2017 at 1:13 am | Permalink

        ‘The similar term “homophobia” is much older, and I doubt anyone’s ever interpreted it as “an irrational fear of homosexuals.” ‘

        I think I’d have to disagree. I can think of many instances where there has been fear of homosexuals, frequently in connection with corrupting yoof, and I’m pretty sure in many cases that has been exaggerated or irrational.

        cr

        • Tom
          Posted August 16, 2017 at 2:24 am | Permalink

          Yes and in “polite society” homosexuality was ignored or swept under the rug but such behaviour in the lower classes was subject to prison, torture and death in various centuries.
          What “reforms” we now have were actually the norm for a minority of people.
          Even today in the intolerant societies there is the same division.

          • Diane G.
            Posted August 17, 2017 at 2:22 am | Permalink

            Some battles are never clearly won. As with the White Supremacists, the haters are merely lying low waiting for their next chance. Given the importance to the Republicans of the evangelical & Catholic vote, minorities, gays, women, and all other uppity factions must be on high alert…

  5. Heather Hastie
    Posted August 15, 2017 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    If W*r*l*m*n really believes what he wrote in that Tweet, it’s evidence he’s completely lost the plot. His logic circuits seem to have been re-wired backwards or something.

  6. Posted August 15, 2017 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Good recent TV debate on this issue. For me, Peter Tatchell and Jimmy Bangash make the better case!

  7. nicky
    Posted August 15, 2017 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Namazie has the view I share here.

    However, on a sidenote, I’m puzzled by the placard “Allah is gay”. Not only do we expect an ex-Muslim not to believe he exists in the first place, but why in Allah’s name would you want to claim a petty, vindictive, misogynist, homophobic, belligerent, genocidal, totalitarian, supremacist, paranoid psycho character (well, some kind of evil Nazi) as one of your own?

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted August 15, 2017 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

      To piss off the opposition?

      cr

      • nicky
        Posted August 16, 2017 at 7:23 am | Permalink

        Apparently it is in line with the “God is gay” placards displayed in Pride. Still a bit weird, though.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted August 16, 2017 at 8:36 am | Permalink

          I was, as usual, being facetious.

          I really can’t see the point of a ‘God is gay’ placard though. I know God has traditionally been portrayed as an old white man, I think most modern Christians would deny that God has any gender or human form whatever.

          I suppose ‘God is gay’ is a concise way of saying ‘God is all-inclusive and tolerant and gender just does not apply to him/her’ – that would be applicable to the modern Xtian conception of God, I think, not that I’m any sort of expert. But possibly not to Allah…

          cr

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted August 16, 2017 at 8:38 am | Permalink

            (Old joke – )

            Q: What’s the worst thing you can tell a Klansman about God?
            A: She’s black.

            cr

            • Posted September 23, 2017 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

              I wonder how the Klan reacted to “Bruce Almighty”.

          • Posted August 16, 2017 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

            The “god is gay” (which is all that “allah is gay” means, with the bit of Arabic) actually works better (as a joke with a point) in the Christian context. Hence the “Jesus had two daddies” bit.

            All that aside, however, I think the bit is just a trolling.

  8. Posted August 15, 2017 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    As I get older and see more things I become more resolute in my opinion that humans are supremely tribalistic animals. They will abandon one or more of their principles without question if they perceive that the “wrong” tribe shares that view.

  9. Kevin
    Posted August 16, 2017 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    I would like to point out that a phobia is not necessarily ‘irrational’. Definitions often specify ‘extreme or irrational’.
    Definitions don’t always specify ‘fear’ either, including also ‘hate, intolerance, disgust’ and other reactions.
    The use of ‘phobia’ as suffix eg Xenophobia is defined (Cambridge) as ‘hatred of foreigners’: note ‘hatred’ and not fear, and indifferent as to whether it is ‘irrational or extreme’
    I would say that ‘fear of Muslims’ across the board IS irrational. Fear of SOME Muslims MAY be rational, just as some Christians are rationally to be feared.
    Then there is the psychological sense of phobia: which is an anxiety disorder. Islamophobia and homophobia do not fit into this definition (except in a minority of ‘extreme and irrational’ cases.

    • nicky
      Posted August 16, 2017 at 7:25 am | Permalink

      Fear of ‘Muslims across the board’ is irrational indeed, but fear of Islam is definitely not.

      • Kevin
        Posted August 16, 2017 at 8:29 am | Permalink

        Fear of ‘Muslims across the board’ is irrational indeed, but fear of ‘certain interpretations of’ Islam is definitely not.

        You cannot separate the believers from the belief.

        Same goes for the Christians that supported Hitler. They were dangerous in that political context. Doesn’t mean ALL Christians are dangerous whatever the texts say. They may be potentially dangerous, but so are most people.

        • Posted August 16, 2017 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

          Fear of “Muslims across the board is irrational indeed”
          Respectfully.
          This may depend on where you live and your own beliefs and personal experiences.
          Faced with conflict in a part of the world predominately Muslim my own fear did not seem irrational.

          • Kevin
            Posted August 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

            Faced with conflict in a part of the world predominately Christian……

            Conflicts are never only due to religion.
            If Islam exists in a region with a totalitarian mindset, it will reflect that. Christianity can and has done exactly the same.

            It is not the religion itself that is the issue, it is the mindset.

  10. Torbjörn Larsson
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    And what this means is that if Muslims were in charge in England, such placards—and criticism of Islam for homophobia—would be banned as “hate speech”. After all, that’s the basis of W*rl*m*n’s equating of ex-Muslims and Nazis. Do we want that kind of ban?

    Well, yes, if they were in charge as being the majority – that would be democracy. Though hate speech laws rationale seems more geared to protecting minorities, so it could clash with the Declaration of Human Rights.

  11. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    “Well, yes, if they were in charge as being the majority – that would be democracy.”

    If they were in charge they could pass any laws they liked, including blasphemy, and ‘hate speech’ would be the least of anyone’s worries. (I hasten to add, fundie Xtians would be as bad).

    And it would be ‘democracy’ in one sense. Myself, I don’t think ‘dictatorship of the majority’ is true democracy or even close to it. ‘Equal rights for minorities’ would be closer to my definition.

    cr

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted August 19, 2017 at 12:50 am | Permalink

      That was of course a reply to Torbjorn…

      cr


%d bloggers like this: