The International Business Times reports on the bullying of Maajid Nawaz.

A would-be Liberal Democrat MP who published an image of the Prophet Mohammed on Twitter has been targeted by online abuse.

Maajid Nawaz received threats of violence – including beheading – and an online petition was started against his bid to become MP in 2015.

It happened after the former Muslim radical and co-founder of Quilliam, an anti-extremism thinktank, drew the ire of critics by publishing a cartoon of the prophet of Islam on his Twitter timeline.

The image depicted Mohammed and Jesus which led mainstream Muslim commentators to accuse 35-year-old Nawaz of causing offence.

Mainstream? How mainstream? I’ve seen some “mainstream” Muslim commentators defending Nawaz.

But I suppose councillors can be considered in some sense mainstream.

Councillor Yaqub Hanif of Luton signed the petition calling for Hawaz to be deselected as a candidate.

He said that depictions of Mohammed were “totally unacceptable” to Muslims.

Hanif told IBTimes UK: ”It’s appalling that this guy is a parliamentary candidate because this behaviour is not conducive to being an MP. If you want to be an MP then you must respect all faiths. He’s not doing that.

“Nawaz is saying things to get a reaction of people and just to make a point to his mates. They are smearing everyone who stands up to them as an extremist.”

That’s bullshit. I’ve been seeing it over and over on Nawaz’s Twitter feed and on BMSD on Facebook, and it’s bullshit. Candidates for public office don’t have to “respect” all faiths to the point that they obey their every petty rule and taboo – and in fact in many cases they shouldn’t.

This is one where they shouldn’t. A satirical cartoon strip about religion is entirely permissible in an open society, and candidates for MP should not be obeying taboos on publishing such a cartoon. They should instead be educating their potential constituents about the core commitments of an open society. That’s what I take Maajid Nawaz to be doing.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

While religious zealots babble about how superior “divine” law is to mere human law, other religious zealots, inspired by that very “divine” law, kill people who are trying to prevent the spread of a horrible disease. God is great.

Polio teams on Monday came under attack in Karachi, Mansehra and Panjgur for carrying out the vaccination campaign, Express News reported. The attacks left four people dead.

In Karachi, three people – including two female polio workers – were killed and two others sustained injuries in a gun attack.

The team – working without any security – was attacked in Karachi’s Qayummabad area. The injured were shifted to Jinnah hospital for medical assistance.

…

Unidentified armed men opened fire at a polio team in Mansehra and killed one worker. In Panjgur, Balochistan, miscreants snatched away a car from the polio team.

In a separate attack, a worker has also been killed in Oghi, a town in the Mansehra district. The polio campaign in Karachi has been halted as the female health workers have boycotted the campaign in the whole country.

Yes, “divine” law is simply fabulous. It inspires people to murder schoolteachers, students, girls on their way to school, women in possession of cell phones, doctors, aid workers – neighbors, friends, daughters, mothers – there’s just no limit to the divinity.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Robin Ince wrote a response to Odone’s sinister bullshit. I saw his response first, and probably wouldn’t have known about her sinister bullshit if I hadn’t seen his response, so THANKS A LOT ROBIN. But seriously – he is much more concise and much more reasonable. Makes ya think, don’t it.

So, what is this dystopian vision of the future? A world where if you run a bed and breakfast, you cannot discriminate against gay couples, and you have to abide by the rules of the job you are contracted to do. That’s it, really.

Quite. Oh the horror – if you decide to open a bed and breakfast, you can’t play “I don’t like you so you can’t come in.” GOD IS SOBBING IN HEAVEN AT THIS MOMENT.

We can all play the victim game if we fancy it. Just as some men bleat that they are the oppressed because of feminism, Odone confuses a loss of advantage with an act of oppression. This is the shock of those who are losing their divine right to dominate.

Except pets. I refuse to give up my right to dominate the dog. If I did he would eat all the food and then explode. It wouldn’t do at all.

Later in her piece, Odone writes: “I believe that religious liberty is meaningless if religious subcultures do not have the right to practise and preach according to their beliefs.” But she has not lost the right to preach her beliefs or practise them. She regularly gets to preach her beliefs in the Daily Telegraph and – like many rabbis, imams and pastors – on television and radio, too. Religious leaders frequently appear on the BBC, that broadcasting network of the state oppressor.

As for practising her beliefs, Odone can do that, too. Same-sex marriage is not compulsory; it is very much an opt-in scenario. Cristina Odone will not be forced into a lesbian coupling, nor will she be forced to have an abortion – nor, should it become law, will she be made to embrace assisted dying, even if her death is agonising and the pain impossible to relieve.

But she will be forced to put up with a world in which other people can choose same-sex marriage and abortion and (eventually, I hope) assisted dying, and by god she does not want to.

As an atheist, I do not have any extra rights. I cannot run a bed and breakfast that refuses Catholic couples, nor can Richard Dawkins run a carvery that bans Mormons.

Oh, now I wish he could.

Cristina Odone still has the right to live her personal life openly by her own rules, and more people than ever have the legal right to live their personal lives openly, too. That is progress, not oppression.

To reasonable people, yes, but to the kind who want to force everyone to bend the knee to their god, no.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

From Gnu Atheism, earlier PBUHs.

[Craig Ferguson voice] I look forward to your fatwas.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Cristina Odone wrote a horrible reactionary piece for the New Statesman the other day about the way the totalitarian liberals are crushing the rights of religious believers. It reads as if she’s been watching too much Fox News.

My findings were shocking: not only Christians, but also Muslims and Jews, increasingly feel they are no longer free to express any belief, no matter how deeply felt, that runs counter to the prevailing fashions for superficial “tolerance” and “equality” (terms which no longer bear their dictionary meaning but are part of a political jargon in which only certain views, and certain groups, count as legitimate).

See what I mean? Hateful. Scorn for what she calls ‘superficial “tolerance” and “equality”’ which turns out to mean basic equal rights. Scorn for that and lashings of sympathy for “deeply felt beliefs” that conflict with basic equal rights. She goes on to spell out what she means.

Intolerance is no longer the prerogative of overt racists and other bigots – it is state-sanctioned. It is no longer the case that the authorities are impartial on matters of belief, and will intervene to protect the interests and heritage of the weak. When it comes to crushing the rights of those who dissent from the new orthodoxy, politicians and bureaucrats alike are in the forefront of the attacks, not the defence.

I believe that religious liberty is mean­ingless if religious subcultures do not have the right to practise and preach according to their beliefs. These views – for example, on abortion, adoption, divorce, marriage, promiscuity and euthanasia – may be unfashionable. They certainly will strike many liberal-minded outsiders as harsh, impractical, outmoded, and irrelevant.

But that is not the point. Adherents of these beliefs should not face life-ruining disadvantages. They should not have to close their businesses, as happened to the Christian couple who said only married heterosexual couples could stay at their bed and breakfast. They should not lose their jobs, which was the case of the registrar who refused to marry gays.

It’s the familiar game – turn everything upside down, so that the real human right is not the right to be treated equally but the right to refuse to treat other people equally.

Yes, as a matter of fact, people should have to close their businesses if they refuse to treat all customers equally. Would Odone like it if someone at a hotel desk turned her away because only non-Catholics could stay at that hotel? I doubt it. If your business involves serving the public, you don’t get to exclude sections of the public you dislike.

Yes, as a matter of fact, people should lose their jobs if they refuse to do them. It’s not a registrar’s job to decide who can be married. Religious liberty does not include obstructing other people’s liberties and rights.

She goes on to say that religious believers should fight back.

Can the decline in the social and intellectual standing of faith be checked, or even reversed? Yes. Ironically, believers can learn from those who have come to see themselves as their biggest enemy: gays.

…

Practising Christians, Jews and Muslims should also step forward into the limelight, dismantling prejudices that they must be suspect, lonely, losers. Believers should present themselves as ordinary people, men and women who worry about the price of the weekly shop and the size of the monthly mortgage. They should not appear to be religious zealots or gay-bashers or rabid pro-lifers. They should reassure critics that religious people are not a race apart – but just happen to cherish a set of ideals that sometimes places them at odds with the rest.

Let outsiders see the faithful as a vulnerable group persecuted by right-on and politically correct fanatics who don’t believe in free speech. Let them see believers pushed to the margins of society, in need of protection to survive. Banned, misrepresented, excluded – and all because of their religion? Even the most hardbitten secularist and the most intolerant liberal should be offended by the kind of censorship people of faith are facing today.

Except that it’s not censorship. Here’s Odone herself, going on at great length in of all places The New Statesman, which seems to share her bizarre conviction that religion is A Victim.

She sounds almost fascist in places.

Equality is already becoming the one civic virtue universally endorsed; equality legislation, the overriding principle of law. In this new scenario, yesterday’s victims are today’s victors. Gays and women, among other scapegoats from the past, now triumph over their former persecutors. But they have learned no lesson from their plight.

Does anyone else find that intensely creepy? We “now triumph over [our] former persecutors”? Wtf?

It’s the voice of angry privilege at its most threatening. I do not like it.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I might have to get someone to do an intervention to drag me away from the Muslims for Secular Democracy Facebook page…It’s so full of obstinately unreasonable (and not at all secular) people that I keep…watching…the trainwreck.

So I have to share this one thing. It’s one of many threads about Maajid Nawaz. There’s a guy called Abu Sufian who has a lot to say about all the things. Somebody else posted this frame of a Jesus and Mo:

…and there ensued a discussion of was she really nine yadda yadda. Abu Sufian spoke up:

Now I’m not denying the narrative of his numerical age at time of his marriage was 53 to a woman whos numerical age was 9, but I’m able to rationalise it because I can accept other narratives.

(1) the numerical age of the prophet (pbuh) had no bearing to any other factor.

(a) the prophet (pbuh) was the most handsome man to walk upon this earth -this was said after his marriage, so his age was over 53- plus this is in the same source that you people already agree he married a young girl who was 9 years old….would you now accept this in conjunction with what they already agree on ?

(b) he was the strongest man, to the extent that he was stronger then 10 of the strongest men in Arabia. This too is in the same source that you people agree he married a young girl who was 9 years old….would you now accept this in conjunction with what you already agree on ?

(c) there wasn’t a single sign of old age in the prophet (pbuh) be it physical, mental, biological…he was faultless in each and every way…this too in the same source that you people agree he married a young girl who was 9 years old….would they now accept this in conjunction with what you already agree on ?

(d) the young girl was fully mature and able to be a wife……this too in the same source that you people agree he married a young girl who was 9 years old….would you now accept this in conjunction with what they already agree on ?

(e) there are multiple sources for all the above points, if you agree on the narrative on his age logically you should agree on the above too because they are based on the very same source.

There you go, that’s that subject rationalised.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

From one of the comments on the anti-Maajid Nawaz petition, by Hamid Pasha in Stoke on Trent.

Many of us have had enough of the Quilliam Foundation and the kufr that they propagate in the name of Islam. They have not only attacked Muslim scholars and organisations that we respect but they have also been implicated in the wrongful arrest of many innocent Muslims who have been locked up under the false belief that they are Muslim extremists.

One of the founders of the Quilliam Foundation is Maajid Nawaz, who has frequently showed his disdain for the Islamic principles that are important to us and went one step further a few days ago when he publicised a cartoon of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that depicted him in a very derogatory way.

This is the same munafiq that was chosen by the Liberal Democrats to represent them as an MP in Hampstead and Kilburn.

Ugly, ugly language – “the kufr”; “the same munafiq”. What’s “munafiq”? Let’s ask Wikipedia.

In Islam, a munāfiq (n., in Arabic: منافق, plural munāfiqūn) is a hypocrite who outwardly practices Islam while inwardly concealing his disbelief (kufr), perhaps even unknowingly. The Quran has hundreds of ayat (verses) discussing munāfiqūn,^[1] referring to them as more dangerous to Muslims than the worst non-Muslim enemies of Islam.

Uh huh, and why might someone do that? I bet I know. Because “kufr” can get you killed. Because “apostasy” i.e. leaving the religion can get you killed. And these pious shits are out sniffing around now, trying to intimidate everyone in sight.

It’s horrible.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Sadly the petition asking Nick Clegg to have Maajid Nawaz removed from the post of the Liberal Democrats’ Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Hamstead and Kilburn has a lot more signatures than the counter-petition – but then again it started sooner.

At any rate, the petition itself is interesting. Check it out:

I wish to raise a complaint against the Liberal Democrat PPC, Maajid Nawaz; candidate for the constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn.

The basis of the complaint is that Maajid Nawaz’s recent activity on social media outlets FaceBook and Twitter have been both disrespectful and offensive to the Muslim community in the UK and abroad and the Islamic faith at large. It is my assertion that through his posting and association with derogatory and disrespectful cartoons of the Prophet Jesus and Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon them) Maajid Nawaz is in breach of Article 3.1(b) of the Federal Constitution that states:

“As a Member of the Liberal Democrats, you must treat others with respect and must not bully, harass or intimidate any Party member, member of Party staff, member of Parliamentary staff, Party volunteer or member of the public. Such behaviour will be considered to be bringing the Party into disrepute.”

See what they did there? They draw up a bullying petition designed to bully, harass and intimidate Maajid Nawaz, and in so doing they accuse Maajid Nawaz of violating a rule against bullying, harassment and intimidation.

Ironic, isn’t it. Or something.

Maajid didn’t bully, harass or intimidate anyone. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Posting a cartoon image of two lightly-sketched guys saying hi to each other does not bully, harass or intimidate anyone. Those sketches would not be precise enough to use for a criminal identification, so how can they even be seriously considered “images” of the two long-dead men whose names or nicknames they share?

They can’t, and even if they could, Maajid’s posting them on Twitter still could not be considered bullying, harassment and intimidation. It’s blatantly, showily childish to treat them as such. It’s childish to take everything personally in that absurd way. It’s a recipe for making onlookers dislike Islam, while Maajid’s reasonableness – if only it could be allowed to flourish – is just the thing to persuade onlookers that Islam needn’t be petty and bad-tempered and involuted.

Bullying harassing intimidators want Nick Clegg to boot Maajid Nawaz. It would be laughable if it weren’t so revolting.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Chris Moos set up a petition, a counter-petition to the one asking Nick Clegg to ditch Maajid Nawaz. Chris’s petition asks Nick Clegg to do no such thing and to support Maajid Nawaz instead.

On January 12th, Maajid Nawaz, Liberal Democrat PPC for Hampstead and Killburn, posted an innocuous ‘Jesus and Mo’ cartoon on his Twitter timeline and stated that he, as a Muslim, was not offended by the content. This followed a BBC Big Questions programme in which the cartoons were discussed and Maajid Nawaz was included as a studio guest. The cartoon depicts Jesus and Mo saying ‘Hey’ and ‘How ya doin” to each other.

Islamists and political opponents have now mounted a campaign against Maajid Nawaz, resulting in numerous threats to his life. We note that this campaign, rather than being based on legitimate concerns of Muslims, is a political campaign which is being spear-headed by a group of Muslim reactionaries with a track record of promoting extremism. They are seeeking to use Muslim communities in order to whip up hatred against a liberal and secular Muslim. We are concerned that this campaign will also be used by anti-Muslim extremists as evidence of Muslim intolerance and incompatibility with liberal values which could, in turn, fuel anti-Muslim bigotry.

We note with concern that this attempt to silence Maajid Nawaz is fuelled by Liberal Democrats party member Mohammed Shafiq. Freedom of expression are essential to the functioning of a liberal democracy, and core values of the Liberal Democratic party. The agitation of a party member against a designated PPC is antithetical to these core values.

We, the undersigned, extend our full support to Maajid Nawaz, and condemn the campaign against him. We call on Liberal Democratic party leader, Nick Clegg, to support Maajid Nawaz and commence disciplinary proceedings against party member Mohammed Shafiq for acting against the core values of the Liberal Democrats.

Sign that sucker.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Mohammad Shabbir, Councillor for Heaton Ward Bradford, tweeted Nick Clegg 5 hours ago to suggest (in a slightly passive-aggressive way) that he should ditch Maajid Nawaz.

Mohammad Shabbir @

@nick_clegg guess you are between a rock and a hard place. Ditching Majid isn’t the liberal way but his behaviour is deliberate provocation

so you could demonstrate that liberalism isn’t about deliberate insults but ‘consideration is civilisation’ as muslims say

 Later a conversation ensued. Nawaz asked Shabbir if he could agree “to allow me my right to my own opinion on my own timeline?” Shabbir replied:

I don’t deny the right to any human being. But the question is why would anyone go out of their way to create potential upset

That is so entirely wrong. It’s a heckler’s veto, a rioter’s veto, a potential upset veto. Anything anyone says can “create potential upset.” That is a terrible standard for what we can say.

The whole thing is depressing to watch – people competing to live up to the worst stereotypes about them.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

More on the fury at Maajid Nawaz.

There’s an exceedingly vivid and nasty threat, for one thing.

IMRAN @Abdul_al_Jame

@MaajidNawas

I would be glad to cut your neck off, so your kufr friends won’t be amused by your humour.In sha Allah may my dua get accepted

That account is now gone, so that’s something, but still – what a revolting sentiment.

Via Homo economicus’s blog, Nawaz’s response to all the shouting:

Shiraz Socialist has a post In defense of Maajid Nawaz.

5Pillarz, a blog written largely by and for British Muslims, has decided that Nawaz should be their top candidate for ‘Islamophobe of the Year’. The EDL is mentioned at the bottom of their list of suggestions, as a kind of afterthought.

As Maajid Nawaz says:

“Why are many on the “Left” largely silent on Muslim reformers. Want to defend minorities? Well, we’re a minority within a minority, defend us”

As someone from the ‘Left’ I’m happy to defend and support Maajid Nawaz – though I’d draw the line at voting for him.

All this, because a cartoon.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

And another thing.

What is it with using the honorific “scholar” for people who parse the fine points of a religion? How is that scholarship? As in the Independent article for instance:

Some scholars point out that it is against the teachings of Islam to force anyone to stay within the faith. “The position of many a scholar I have discussed the issue with is if people want to leave, they can leave,” said Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Does thorough knowledge of dogma really qualify as scholarship?

I don’t think newspapers and other media tend to refer to astrologers as scholars, however vast their knowledge of astrology is. They refer to them as astrologers, which has a different connotation – a less respectable one.

I suspect a public relations move here.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Independent has a story on being an ex-Muslim.

Amal Farah for instance, a banking executive.

Born in Somalia to Muslim parents, she grew up in Yemen and came to the UK in her late teens. After questioning her faith, she became an atheist and married a Jewish lawyer. But this has come at a cost. When she turned her back on her religion, she was disowned by her family and received death threats. She has not seen her mother or her siblings for eight years. None of them have met her husband or daughter.

“It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done – telling my observant family that I was having doubts. My mum was shocked; she began to cry. It was very painful for her. When she realised I actually meant it, she cut communication with me,” said Ms Farah. “She was suspicious of me being in contact with my brothers and sisters. She didn’t want me to poison their heads in any way. I felt like a leper and I lived in fear. As long as they knew where I was, I wasn’t safe.”

Which illustrates what is so problematic about passionate religiosity – it motivates people to cut ties with their own children for the sake of loyalty to a package of illusions. What could be more horrible?

It can be difficult to leave any religion, and those that do can face stigma and even threats of violence. But there is a growing movement, led by former Muslims, to recognise their existence. Last week, an Afghan man is believed to have become the first atheist to have received asylum in Britain on religious grounds. He was brought up as a Muslim but became an atheist, according to his lawyers, who said he would face persecution and possibly death if he returned to Afghanistan.

In more than a dozen countries people who espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam can be executed under the law, according to a recent report by the International Humanist and Ethical Union.

The Independent looks for dissenters, but it looks in the wrong place.

Some scholars point out that it is against the teachings of Islam to force anyone to stay within the faith. “The position of many a scholar I have discussed the issue with is if people want to leave, they can leave,” said Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain. “I don’t believe they should be discriminated against or harmed in any way whatsoever. There is no compulsion in religion.”

Why ask the MCB? Why not ask liberal Muslims instead?

Baroness Warsi, the Minister of State for Faith and Communities, agreed. “One of the things I’ve done is put freedom of religion and belief as top priority at the Foreign Office,” she said. “I’ve been vocal that it’s about the freedom to manifest your faith, practise your faith and change your faith. We couldn’t be any clearer. Mutual respect and tolerance are what is required for people to live alongside each other.”

Bullshit. Her top priority has been to demonize secularists.

Yet, even in Britain, where the freedom to change faiths is recognised, there is a growing number of people who choose to define themselves by the religion they left behind. The Ex-Muslim Forum, a group of former Muslims, was set up seven years ago. Then, about 15 people were involved; now they have more than 3,000 members around the world. Membership has reportedly doubled in the past two years. Another branch, the Ex-Muslims of North America, was launched last year.

Their increasing visibility is controversial. There are those who question why anyone needs to define themselves as an “ex-Muslim”; others accuse the group of having an  anti-Muslim agenda (a claim that the group denies).

Well, the reason is pretty obvious from everything that has gone before, including the Independent’s mindless resort to the Islamist MCB as an authority.

Maryam Namazie, a spokeswoman for the forum – which is affiliated with the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) – said: “The idea behind coming out in public is to show we exist and that we’re not going anywhere. A lot of people feel crazy [when they leave their faith]; they think they’re not normal. The forum is a place to meet like-minded people; to feel safe and secure.”

But then fair play to the Indy, it does let four exes along with Maryam have their say. Good.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

George Galloway is getting in on the act.

George Galloway @georgegalloway

No Muslim will ever vote for the Liberal Democrats anywhere ever unless they ditch the provocateur Majid Nawaz, cuckold of the EDL

Cuckold!! Prurient, sexist, misogynist and illiberal all in one word. What a vile, disgusting man he is.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The threats directed at Maajid Nawaz on Twitter continue. It’s very dispiriting, seeing people devote so much energy and outrage at something so thoroughly

• not a problem
• not a source of real harm or suffering
• not a big deal
• not their business
• not “forbidden” except in the minds of people who insist on sorting the world into Forbidden and Permitted
• not even what they think it is, to wit, “a drawing of the prophet”

when the world is so packed to the rafters with real problems, real harm, real suffering.

In general I don’t like that argument – that “don’t talk about what you’re talking about, talk about something more important” – because it’s so often deployed to tell feminists to shut the fuck up and because we have to tackle ALL THE THINGS not just the very most important and because we’re allowed to do what we’re good at, what speaks to us, what we know something about, and the like.

But still. There are limits. There are spoiled entitled self-obsessed people who think their every annoyance is earth-shattering while some pesky famine across the world doesn’t get their attention. And there are fanatics determined to rage at trivia while ignoring tragedies.

The people raging at Nawaz are in the second category, and they’re a depressing example of humanity.

As for me, I’m kind of wishing I could make myself eligible to vote in Hampstead (I did live there once! is that any use?) so that I could vote for Nawaz.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The British Muslims for Secular Democracy Facebook page is, sadly, infested with Muslims who are very much against secular democracy, who are constantly trolling the page.

One of them posted the link to a nasty article about “prominent members of the Muslim community” writing to Nick Clegg to tell him to dump Maajid Nawaz as a candidate because he tweeted that innocuous Jesus and Mo cartoon.

It’s a disgusting piece of work.

The campaign comes after Nawaz posted a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Prophet Isa (as) on his Twitter feed. Any depiction of the prophets is considered offensive to most Muslims and has traditionally been prohibited by the majority of scholars.

Nawaz, who’s the chairman of the anti-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, defended his decision to post the cartoon by saying that it was not offensive and that scholars were split over the depiction of the Prophet. He also accused others of inciting his murder by calling him “a defamer of the Prophet.”

But Irfan Ahmed, who is an executive member of the Pendle Liberal Democrats, called on Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem leadership to sack Maajid Nawaz as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC).

Ahmed has written to the leadership of the Lib Dems and says he has also had a leading Lib Dem agree with him that Maajid’s comments are “childish” and “impolite”.

Commenting, Irfan Ahmed said: “I call on Maajid to do the right thing and quit whilst he is ahead. He has already done enough damage to the Lib Dems, him sticking around is very damaging for the party. My call to Nick Clegg is clear, sack Maajid or lose voters and core campaigners up and down the country.

“I have been discussing this matter since Friday night with a high profile Lib Dem who agrees people who attack religions with cartoons and other jokes are impolite and childish. Lets hope Nawaz can get this into his skull. Clegg must choose, lose hundreds of supporters by keeping Nawaz or sack Nawaz and rescue the Lib Dems which would fizzle out because of people like Nawaz.”

Or to put it another way: bully bully bully bully bully bully bully bully bully bully bully bully bully bully bully.

Meanwhile, Imam Shams Adduha of Ebrahim College said Muslims were very insulted by Nawaz’s actions.

He said: “Will it finally get through people’s (especially) the government’s head that Maajid and Quillium Foundation have nothing to do with Muslims and have zero credibility? Taking advice from a think tank whose founder and director insults us isn’t good for the government. Pretty stupid actually.

“It might also be a good idea for Nick Clegg and his Lib Dems to think twice about letting him stand for elections as a Lib Dem candidate. The thing about insults is, it’s not about whether you think something should insult, it about whether something does in fact insult. Cartoon caricatures of our Prophet do indeed insult us.”

Absolute bollocks. People like Nawaz and Tehmina Kazi (who set up the British Muslims for Secular Democracy page) are glowing testimonials to the possibility for people’s ability to be both Muslim and secular-and-reasonable.

Trolls on the Facebook page are calling Nawaz all sorts of names. They are not glowing testimonials to Islam.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Sometimes they just twitch the curtain aside so that no one can fail to see that the whole point is to put men totally in charge of women so that no woman is allowed to say no to sex with her owner.

Like the president of the Maldives for instance.

Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen has refused to ratify a bill that seeks to partially criminalize marital rape, calling it “un-Islamic.”

The parliament voted 67-2 last month to limit a husband’s right to have non-consensual sex with his wife. The bill says a husband cannot force his wife to have sex if the couple have filed for divorce, dissolution or mutual separation, and if the intent is to transmit a sexual disease.

That’s a very narrow law. I would have thought it was narrow enough to satisfy even the most conservative of theocrats. That’s a law that says it’s fine for a husband to rape his wife except only if the couple have filed for divorce, dissolution or mutual separation, and/or if the intent is to transmit a sexual disease. Any time it’s just a matter of he wants to fuck and she doesn’t, he’s totally allowed to force her to fuck.

And yet even that is “un-Islamic.”

Yameen vetoed the bill about a week after the vice president of the Maldives Fiqh Academy, Mohamed Iyaz Abdul Latheef, criticized its passage saying the Quran and the Sunnah, or the teachings of Islam, do not give a wife the authority to deny sex to her husband.

“With the exception of forbidden forms of sexual intercourse, such as during menstrual periods and anal intercourse, it is not permissible under any circumstance for a woman to refrain from it when the husband is in need,” Latheef said.

Makes it brutally clear, doesn’t it. The husband is a person and the wife is a thing that the person owns. Islam doesn’t give her “the authority” to act like a person herself, so the husband is totally permitted to treat her like a thing.

At a victory rally following the presidential run-off vote last November, Yameen said his coalition had received a mandate “to save the Maldivian nation, to protect the sacred religion of Islam.”

The Maldives, an Indian Ocean archipelago of about 330,000 people, claims to have a 100 percent Muslim population. Its constitution states that “no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted.”

The sacred religion of Men In Charge, is what it is.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Today’s bit of crap news, or first bit of crap news.

A good guy has been killed in a suicide bomb attack at a restaurant in Kabul. The BBC reports:

Labour’s MEP candidate for the South East has been confirmed as among 21 people killed in a suicide bomb and gun attack in the Afghan capital Kabul.

Dhamender Singh Phangurha, 39, known as Del Singh, was killed in the attack at a restaurant in the city.

Born and raised in Southampton, he was a volunteer at two charities for the homeless and mentored job seekers.

…

Southampton Itchen Labour MP John Denham said: “Del was an inspirational man and simply one of the nicest people you could meet.

“Everything he did – delivering development aid in some of the world’s most dangerous places, running a charity marathon in the heat of Gaza, or representing the Labour Party – was driven by a passion to make a real difference to people’s lives.”

Fellow Labour MEP candidate Anneliese Dodds said: “Del was a very generous, warm-hearted man who was passionate about ending injustice and unfairness.

“He always spoke about how he was proud to have started his working life alongside his mother on the shop floor of Mr Kipling’s cakes in Eastleigh.

“Del then worked extremely hard to obtain university qualifications and go on to a career in international development.”

Aldershot Labour councillor Keith Dibble tweeted: “Devastated to hear the terrible news of the tragic death of Del Singh. A good friend and colleague. Our thoughts are with his family.”

He added: “Del Singh [went] out campaigning with us in Aldershot last year in the county elections. Del we will miss you.”

What a god damn waste.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Maajid Nawaz, LibDem parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn and chairman of the Quilliam Foundation, whom you may have seen rocking the discussion on the Big Questions, is trying to persuade his fellow Muslims to learn to calm down about inoffensive cartoons like for example the one in which Jesus and Mo (of Jesus and Mo) say hi how ya doin.

He posted that one on his Facebook the other day, and got some indignant responses. He tweeted it earlier today, and got a flood of death threats.

happymurtad tweeted a drawing too.

happymurtad@happymurtad

Desis rightfully hurt by me drawing Gandhi in my notepad are now swearing vengeance and complaining to the UN. pic.twitter.com/w6A18JqNwM

Then he followed it up with another.

happymurtad@happymurtad

The NAACP, who speak for all blacks, have just announced my apostasy from the Negro race for tweeting MLK sketch. pic.twitter.com/vwJLkIvww0

I know which team I think is more fun.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another way this Safecare Asthmacare product is likely to fool people who don’t realize it’s “homeopathic” or what “homeopathic” means. It’s the Details, which are helpfully provided on the Google page that appears if you Google the two words. (It’s sponsored. I’m helping Safecare market its “Asthmacare”…)

You’d never know it was just a little bottle of water, would you.

But this is the really sneaky part.

Directions: Initially, depress pump until primed. Hold close to mouth and spray one dose directly into mouth. Adult Dose: 3 pump sprays 3 times per day (use additionally as needed, up to 6 times per day); Children 6-12 Years: 2 pump sprays 3 times per day (use additionally as needed, up to 6 times per day).

That. That ridiculous “up to 6 times per day,” as if there were such a thing as an overdose. That doctory-sounding bullshit about dose and times per day and as needed and up to, as if there were anything in it BESIDES WATER.

It’s sheer cargo cult. Wear the white coat, make passes in the air, push your spectacles up your nose with a medical forefinger, look solemn, list all the Lobelia and Quebracho, and pocket your $23 for a bottle of nothing.

A bottle of nothing for a respiratory condition that can kill.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)