Bad move SPLC
Another one of those mornings that starts with a horror in my news stream – the Southern Poverty Law Center branding Maajid Nawaz an “anti-Muslim extremist” in a new report/field guide. They also include Ayaan Hirsi Ali under that hateful umbrella, but it’s the inclusion of Maajid that dumbfounds me the most, seeing as how he is in fact a Muslim and is most explicitly and centrally anti-extremist.
In short, this pisses me off, big time. It pisses me off because it’s grossly inaccurate, and unfair to Maajid. It pisses me off because as he points out it puts a target on him. It pisses me off because the SPLC has done heroic, brave work in the past. It pisses me off because I have many liberal Muslim friends who also campaign against Islamist extremism. It pisses me off because the left really needs to get it straight: Islamism is not a left-wing ally, it’s a deeply right-wing, reactionary, anti-human rights, theocratic movement, and people who campaign against Islamism are not anti-Muslim and not extremist. Islamism is not our friend, and its enemies are not (all) our enemies. There are of course plenty of right-wing (and some theocratic) enemies of Islamism, but I do think if the SPLC tries it can manage to tell the difference between liberal anti-Islamists and reactionary anti-Islamists. Maajid is one of the former, not the latter.
In response to the high levels of anti-Muslim extremists regularly provided a platform in the media and in the public eye, the Southern Poverty Law Center has partnered with Media Matters for America, ReThink Media and the Center for New Community to provide a resource on anti-Muslim public figures for reporters and media professionals.
Maajid is not anti-Muslim. It’s outrageous that the SPLC included him under that description.
The newly released Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists contains profiles of 15 prominent anti-Muslim extremists, many of whom are associated with organizations identified by the SPLC as hate groups.
And many of whom are not, and are not anti-Muslim either, so how about not lumping them all in together?
“We wrote this manual because Muslims in America continue to be vilified by a network of anti-Muslim extremists spreading baseless and damaging lies and we think the media can play a role in helping to stop it,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
But that doesn’t describe Maajid. It’s disgusting that you include him under that description.
A shocking number of anti-Muslim, self-described “experts” are seen regularly in the media, where they spread falsehoods that too often go uncontested. Their rhetoric has toxic consequences, from promoting xenophobia, to poisoning democratic debate, to inspiring hate violence.
Doesn’t apply to Maajid.
“We hope journalists will use this guide to learn more about these extremists and the damage they cause to society and either deny them a public platform altogether or be better prepared to publicly challenge their hateful rhetoric and misinformation,” Beirich said. “The public really should know who these extremists are and the damaging impact they have with a platform to spread hate and bigotry.”
Doesn’t apply to Maajid.
Now the report itself:
Executive Summary
Ever since the Al Qaeda massacre of Sept. 11, 2001, American Muslims have been under attack. They have been vilified as murderers, accused of conspiring to take over the United States and impose Shariah religious law, described as enemies of women, and subjected to hundreds of violent hate crime attacks. A major party presidential nominee has even suggested that America ban Muslim immigrants.
Fueling this hatred has been the propaganda, the vast majority of it completely baseless, produced and popularized by a network of anti-Muslim extremists and their enablers. These men and women have shamelessly exploited terrorist attacks and the Syrian refugee crisis, among other things, to demonize the entire Islamic faith.
But not Maajid. Maajid is definitely not in the business of demonizing “the entire Islamic faith.” I don’t like it that they include Ayaan Hirsi Ali in this list either, but at least it is the case that she’s no longer a Muslim. But Maajid is a Muslim, and he’s one of a number of campaigning liberal Muslim activists, and he does not belong in this report.
Sadly, a shocking number of these extremists are seen regularly on television news programs and quoted in the pages of our leading newspapers. There, they routinely espouse a wide range of utter falsehoods, all designed to make Muslims appear as bloodthirsty terrorists or people intent on undermining American constitutional freedoms. More often than not, these claims go uncontested.
So the SPLC tries to rectify that by publishing an utter falsehood about Maajid? Maajid does not espouse a wide range of utter falsehoods, all designed to make Muslims appear as bloodthirsty terrorists or people intent on undermining American constitutional freedoms. (Notice, in particular, the provincialism – Maajid is a British Muslim, not an American one, so he wouldn’t be blathering about undermining American constitutional freedoms even if he were as the SPLC describes him, which he isn’t.) That’s a strikingly venomous falsehood to tell about someone apparently included on a list out of sheer ignorance or misinformation.
A coalition of four research and civil rights groups — the Southern Poverty Law Center, Media Matters for America, the Center for New Community and ReThink Media — banded together to prepare this manual. Our hope is that journalists and others will use it as a guide to effectively counter these extremists and their damaging misinformation. These propagandists are far outside of the political mainstream, and their rhetoric has toxic consequences — from poisoning democratic debate to inspiring hate-based violence.
Not true of Maajid. A reckless, dangerous, terrible lie to tell about him.
The Columbia Journalism Review has said as much, pointing out that misinformation and falsehoods in media “may pollute democratic discourse, make it more difficult for citizens to cast informed votes, and limit their ability to participate meaningfully in public debate.”
Ah no. No you don’t. The CJR said that about misinformation and falsehoods in media, not about this list of people. It’s very sneaky and dishonest to try to slip that one past us.
What follows are profiles of 15 anti-Muslim extremists who are frequently cited in public discourse. These spokespeople were selected on the basis of their presence in national and local media and for the pernicious brand of extremism and hate they espouse against Muslim communities and the Islamic faith.
Therefore it was a mistake to include Maajid (and, I would say, Ayaan). It was an appalling, reckless, dangerous mistake. Shame on the SPLC.
What they say about Maajid:
Maajid Nawaz is a British activist and part of the “ex-radical” circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam. His story, which has been told repeatedly in the British and American press and in testimony to legislators as well, sounds compelling enough — Nawaz says he grew up being attacked by neo-Nazi skinheads in the United Kingdom, spent almost four years in an Egyptian prison after joining a supposedly nonviolent Islamist group, but had a change of heart while imprisoned and then returned to England to work against the radicalization of Muslims. But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute.
Even if that’s true, what does it have to do with this report? Even if it’s true, it doesn’t even demonstrate that he doesn’t care about the ideological dispute at all. It’s entirely possible – and we see it all the time – for people to be both: interested in their particular view of an ideological dispute, and even more interested in their own reputation and fortune. It’s possible for activists to be more interested in their dinner when they’re hungry, but that doesn’t make them indifferent to or dishonest about their political commitments.
He told several different versions of his story, emphasizing that he was deradicalized while in Egypt — even though he in fact continued his Islamist agitation for months after returning. After starting the Quilliam Foundation, which he describes as an anti-extremism think tank, Nawaz sent a secret list to a top British security official that accused “peaceful Muslim groups, politicians, a television channel and a Scotland Yard unit of sharing the ideology of terrorists,” according to The Guardian.
Here they betray either lack of understanding or cynical dishonesty about how this stuff works. “Peaceful” Muslim groups can still be radically reactionary, theocratic, anti-women’s rights, homophobic, anti-democratic, anti-secular, and thus generally ideologically supportive of the belief system of the violent groups and individuals. They can be and some are. The Muslim Council of Britain includes a lot of groups of that type under its umbrella, and it’s pretty theocratic itself. It’s not simply obvious that Maajid’s list was mistaken on the facts.
His Quilliam Foundation received more than 1.25 million pounds from the British government, but the government eventually decided to stop funding it.
So what?
One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. Shortly afterward, Robinson returned to anti-Muslim agitation with other groups.
Again, so what? Not a particularly glorious incident, certainly, but very far from showing that Maajid is what this stinking report calls him.
Then they quote him a few times:
In the list sent to a top British security official in 2010, headlined “Preventing Terrorism: Where Next for Britain?” Quilliam wrote, “The ideology of non-violent Islamists is broadly the same as that of violent Islamists; they disagree only on tactics.” An official with Scotland Yard’s Muslim Contact Unit told The Guardian that “[t]he list demonises a whole range of groups that in my experience have made valuable contributions to counter-terrorism.”
And?
Maajid is not wrong to say that the ideology of non-violent Islamists is broadly the same as that of violent Islamists. That’s rather the point. Islam is not Islamism, and Islamism is not a benign idea – it’s a malevolently theocratic idea: the dictatorship of god, which in practice means the dictatorship of clerics – see Iran and Saudi Arabia.
In a Nov. 16, 2013, op-ed in the Daily Mail, Nawaz called for criminalizing the wearing of the veil, or niqab, in many public places, saying: “It is not only reasonable, but our duty to insist individuals remove the veil when they enter identity-sensitive environments such as banks, airports, courts and schools.”
And?
It’s debatable, but it’s hardly outrageous. The niqab covers the whole face apart from the eyes. It’s not obviously wrong to say it shouldn’t be allowed in certain sensitive situations.
According to a Jan. 24, 2014, report in The Guardian, Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad — despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted “to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge.”
Now they’re close to the bone. The cartoonist is a friend of mine. It makes me hulk out with rage when ostensible liberals claim that cartoons are “blasphemous” and must be stopped. What business is it of the SPLC’s that Maajid tweeted a Jesus and Mo??? Why do they report that as if it were some sort of crime? Do they want Jesus and Mo shut down? Do they approve of blasphemy laws? What is wrong with them?
Final item, which they include under “IN HIS OWN WORDS” even though it’s not:
Nawaz, who had described himself as a “feminist,” was “filmed repeatedly trying to touch a naked lap dancer,” according to an April 10, 2015, report in the Daily Mail. The paper apparently got the security film from the owner of a strip club who was incensed by Nawaz’s claims to be a religious Muslim.
Again: what on earth does that have to do with the SPLC? How does it demonstrate that he’s an anti-Muslim extremist, which is their claim?
There. I’ve used up my allowance of rage for the week, and I need to breathe.
It appears you get called an anti-Muslim extremist simply for quoting Muslim fundamentalists back at them (or, rather, at well-meaning non-Muslims who don’t think Muslim fundamentalists actually exist in any real sense). I’m reminded of Trump whining about being treated outrageously simply by having his own words quoted back at him. (The comparison is a stretch, surely, but it isn’t unfounded.)
This is outrageous. Have these people ever listened to or read Maajid Nawaz or Aayan Hirsi Ali? Are they familiar with what is written in the Quran and Hadith? Are they paying attention to what is happening in Muslim majority countries? Just wow.
And Ayan is actually anti-Islam. That shouldn’t be listed as hate speech. I am virulently anti-Catholic, but I number many incredibly nice and good Catholics among my friends, and have no hate against the people, only the institution. I don’t think being anti-Islam should be seen as hate speech per se; being against Muslims, yes.
And there are nuances of being anti-Islam. If you’re a knee-jerk Trump supporter who is against Islam just because it’s something foreign that you don’t understand, that’s not good. If you are a fundamentalist Christian who is knee-jerk against Islam because Jesus, that’s not good. But to give thoughtful, reasoned critiques of Islam, and to be against the spread of the Islamic religion, is not inherently hate speech.
In fact, Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are both trying to help Muslims who are being treated badly by Islamism.
I wrote about this on Facebook after seeing the Friendly Atheist report, which I think was less kind toward SPLC than you were here (“makes me wonder why anyone should take the SPLC seriously at this point”, with which I disagreed). I agree wholeheartedly with your take on it; much better put than my rant was. I have several friends who work at SPLC (it’s local for me), and I got some brushback, as I expected might happen.
We have to be able to criticize religion, including Islam. I understand the serious issue about anti-Muslim bigotry in the US, but we have to be able to make distinctions. We seem to have no trouble criticizing smoking without saying all smokers are stupid. We can criticize a country without implying that everyone who lives in that country is evil. We seem to have no trouble criticizing various Christian sects and seeking reform within them without such criticism being labelled extremism. We should be able to do so for Islam.
It is astounding that Nawaz’s tweet of the Jesus & Mo cartoon, which was a *defense* of Muslims, a statement that not all Muslims are offended by such a cartoon let alone inspired to engage in violence, is somehow considered evidence of “anti-Muslim rhetoric”.
I know the SPLC is trying mightily to encourage people to be tolerant of each other, to view customs and practices as quaint and interesting rather than to be angry at each other over these customs and practices. I can understand that perhaps they’d prefer there be limited or no criticism of religion. They don’t seem to be bothered by the easily available criticisms of Judaism or Christianity, though, perhaps because the level of harassment and assault against practitioners of those religions is significantly below that of Muslims. I don’t quite know how to walk the path they are trying to walk, but I am certain that declaring Hirsi Ali and Nawaz “anti-Muslim extremists” should not be part of it.
Are we friends on Facebook?
Not yet, but I wouldn’t mind.
Well feel free to FR me but give me a shout here too or something, unless you’re Sackbut on Facebook (which I doubt, because I looked). :)
Is there a reasoned way in which we can push back at SPLC on this? I think they do a very valuable job, but they have got this terribly wrong and the reasoning behind it is, as you say, sloppy as all hell.
OK, just sent a friend request.
It’s “I’m Not Charlie” again. And no surprise. Along with Amnesty (see the Gita Sahgal affair) and Human Rights Watch, the SPLC have succumbed to the notion somehow that opposing Islam is “punching down”. I recently met a woman who worked with (not at) the SPLC on a number of children’s issues but found them reticent at properly opposing FGM. She finally gave up and took her efforts elsewhere.
And, btw, Sackbut @4, though the level of anti-Muslim sentiment is high (when directed at innocent individuals, one case is too many), the followers of Allah are not the most common targets of hate in the US. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/uri-wilensky/the-most-hated-people-in-_b_9327362.html
I know a lot of people who think criticizing Christianity is “punching down”. This is obviously ridiculous, but they look at their little old grandmothers or poor people to whom Christianity is important, and equate any criticism of the religion with beating up on those people. I had a friend argue with me that the FFRF is a hate group; I laughed, he didn’t. Since he never told me exactly what he found on their site to convince him of this, I was unable to answer him properly. This friends, by the way, is a member of the Mormon Church…and probably would be totally aghast at the suggestion that the Mormon Church once refused the priesthood to people of color, and that they were very instrumental in killing the ERA. Like many Catholics, a lot of Mormons I know think their church believes whatever they do, and will continue to believe this in the face of all evidence.
But this fondness of the poor and the oppressed (including women and people of color) for their local religious tradition makes it easy for the leaders of these powerful groups to scream that any criticism of their group is “hate speech”. And in the case of Muslims, there certainly are some obnoxious hate groups screaming at them. So the left, rather than think it through, just brands all criticism of a religion with the hateful people who dislike people who don’t look the same as they do.
Never read your blog nor do I care to but this was well executed. Thank u for posting and have a pleasant week amigo. Vaya con dios. Or sin dios
So, once again: Muslims are people, and can hence be the targets of bigotry and racism. Islam is a set of abstract, philosophical ideas about theology and metaphysics that can not. It’s perfectly possible (Yes, it really is!) to be critical – even actively hostile [1] – of the ideas and practices of Islam (not to mention the political ideology of Islamism) for reasons that have nothing to do with what people look like, where they’re from, or who their ancestors were. It’s even possible (Yes, it really is!) to oppose Islamists and white racists at the same time. Not exactly rocket science, is it…
Whatever’s legitimate about the term “Islamophobia” can be expressed better – because more precisely – by terms such as “anti-Muslim bigotry” or even better “racism against people of Middle-Eastern/North-African/South-Asian descent” (It’s not in fact “bigotry” to say that all Muslims are proponents of Islam, nor is it necessarily bigotry to see that as a problem in itself. Specifics matter.). Failing to make such basic distinctions only devalues the concepts of bigotry and racism, and nobody should be more pissed off by this than anti-racists.
As I have said many times, the battle against Islamism is not a battle between whites and non-whites. What we have are some non-whites against other non-whites, with white, Western apologists on both sides. So the question that Western liberals and progressives need to ask themselves is “Which non-whites do I support? Those who share my values (feminists, gay rights activists, secularists etc.), or a far-right movement that I would be the first to condemn if it were dominated by white people?”
1. Actually, I am quite phobic of ideas such as these.
What if “punching down” is factually correct? Or have we reversed Hegel (might makes wrong)?
It’s a shame the SPLC thought they had to stigmatise Nawaz and Hirsi Ali. It’s one thing to say that their speech might participate in rising Islamophobia (a concern they themselves are OBVIOUSLY aware of and have discussed), but it’s quite another to accuse them personally of being hateful bigots. We can worry about the meaning of speech within certain contexts without having to impugn the beliefs and motivations of speakers (that’s not to say that beliefs and motivations of speakers never matter). And it’s amazing how intersectional concerns are swiftly overlooked when it comes to marginalising the speech of POC like Hirsi Ali and Nawaz: was it Nathan Lean or Glenn Greenwald who called Nawaz a “house negro”? That is just flat out racism.