What links them
Kenan Malik in the New York Times compares and contrasts Donald Trump and Maryam Namazie.
What links them is that there are many people in Britain who do not wish to let one or the other speak.
Mr. Trump’s recent call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” caused outrage across the world. More than half a million Britons signed a petition to Parliament demanding that he be barred from Britain, a demand that has been backed by senior political figures.
The furor over Ms. Namazie’s views has caused fewer ripples, but is no less significant. Ms. Namazie is a founding member of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, an organization that campaigns on behalf of those facing hostility for renouncing their Islamic faith, or “apostasy.”
But, Kenan points out, there are people fatuous enough to think and say that Maryam is “Islamophobic” and thus in the same category as Donald Trump.
All this reveals the odd relationship that many on the left have with Islam. They view all Muslims as helpless victims, and regard any criticism of Islam as a form of bigotry. A columnist for The Guardian, David Shariatmadari, called the attempt at Warwick to muzzle Ms. Namazie “reasonable” because “we don’t want to have any part in the further stigmatisation of Islam.” Some academics disdainfully dismiss liberal Muslim critics of Islam as “native informants” — defined by one academic as “insiders” who “air the dirty laundry of Muslim communities.”
So what’s left? If Exes are “Islamophobic” and liberals are “native informants” – what’s left?
Uncritical endorsement of reactionary Islamists, that’s what.
Just as Mr. Trump seems unable to distinguish between Muslims and terrorists, do many on the left seem unable to distinguish between criticism of Islam and bigotry against Muslims. And just as Mr. Trump views Muslims as an undifferentiated lump, all potential terrorists, those on the left also often view Muslims as a homogeneous community speaking with a single voice. Both ignore progressive Muslim voices as not being truly of that community, while celebrating the most conservative voices as authentic.
I once interviewed Naser Khader, a secular Muslim and a Danish member of Parliament. He recalled a conversation with Toger Seidenfaden, then editor of the left-wing newspaper Politiken, about the “Muhammad cartoons” that had caused global controversy in 2005 when published in another Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten.
Mr. Seidenfaden claimed that “the cartoons insulted all Muslims.” “I am not insulted,” Mr. Khader responded. “But you’re not a real Muslim” came the reply. To be a real Muslim is, from such a perspective, to find the cartoons offensive. Anyone who isn’t offended is, by definition, not a real Muslim.
And yet people who think that way call Maryam Islamophobic.
Since when have either Mr Shariatmadari or Mr Seidenfaden been elected the guardians of Good Taste?
My, my, how precious both of them are.
And, it appears, both are also scholars of Islam!
The lie is repeated, and goes unquestioned, AGAIN:
“Muhammad cartoons” that had caused global controversy in 2005 when published in another Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten. ”
The ‘controversy’ only occurred months after the original publication, due to the deliberate provocations of a cabal of Danish imams. The original cartoons had been published in an Egyptian tabloid (not approvingly of course) with none of the contrived outrage that was generated later.