No idea is above scrutiny and the people are
beneath dignity.
And what I mean by that is that no idea in
Islam like any other religion and any other
philosophy and political thought and creed
is an idea.
An idea is by definition adopted voluntary
and therefore should be subject to scrutiny.
And so I don’t subscribe to any form of
blasphemy or censorship when it comes to an
intellectual and rigorous debate around any
idea.
I on the other hand no people are beneath
dignity.
So no idea is above scrutiny, no people are
beneath dignity.
And what I mean by that is it’s very easy
when understanding it in this way to recognize
and you can recognize it in your gut.
The difference between somebody who is saying
I don’t like the religion of Islam.
Let me scrutinize it, you know.
I think this whole thing about the literal
word of God doesn’t sit comfortable with
me.
That’s very different to someone saying
all Muslims are terrorists and they are a
disease in America we must expel them.
Your gut can recognize the difference between
those two.
I think Muslims as a people deserve every
dignity like any other human being.
But every single idea – Charlie Hebdo is
a case in point.
People have the right, the absolute right
to scrutinize and satirize.
And so I think my ideas around this were crystalized
in my conversation with Sam.
And, you know, I think there’s an analogy
I use in the dialogue which I took from another
ex-Muslim that we refer to by name in the
book, Ali Rizvi is a Canadian ex-Muslim who
says that it’s like saying smoking is bad
and that doesn’t imply smokers are bad people,
you know.
To say smoking is bad doesn’t mean I’m
saying all smokers are bad people.
So if Sam Harris is saying he doesn’t agree
with Islam it doesn’t mean he’s saying
all Muslims are bad people.
And I think that’s an example that comes
from this maxim, no idea is above scrutiny,
you know, people are beneath dignity.
And that’s one of the things I took away
from this dialogue.
And even though the phrasing of that is something
which I put in the book the concept, the idea
is something I took from people like Sam and
I’m very happy that my own thoughts have
developed in all these lines when it comes
to that.
A lot of the motivation the people have for
not wanting to have this conversation is political
correctness.
They don’t want to be seen as racist.
And unfortunately the regressive left today
have become incredibly trigger happy at throwing
this label at people.
I’ve been called a racist and an Islamaphobe
and many other things.
A native informant and a porch monkey.
Sam Harris’s porch monkey for example is
a racist slur.
Simply for having this conversation, you know,
you’d have thought the people would recognize
that a Muslim speaking to perhaps one of the
leading atheist Islam critics today – those
two having a dialogue with each other would
be a good thing.
But instead, you know, both Sam and I have
been – have faced a barrage of criticisms
that are ad hominem and that are not substantive.
And a lot of that is motivated by those who
have a concern again for political correctness.
Who have good intentions but this is a classic
example of where literally the road to hell
is paved with those good intentions because
you cannot justify calling somebody like me
who, you know, I’ve fought Neo-Nazis throughout
my teenage years.
I’ve been jailed because of my previous
convictions, religious convictions.
And you’re going to call me a racist and
an Islamophobe.
And even worse a porch monkey.
And that’s meant to be someone on the liberal
side of this debate.
So people that on the one hand want to preserve
political correctness I find that they become
incredibly aggressive and use and hurl pejoratives
at those engaging in this debate and yet from
the other side of their mouths they’re insisting
that it’s not politically correct to scrutinize
Islam.
No, you know, I’ve got a view and I think
Islamism must be intellectually terminated
and Islam should be reformed.
Islam today, you know, our view of Islam today
needs reform.
And because I distinguish between Islamism
and Islam I can say that.
I mean Islamism is a theocracy.
It’s a desire to impose a version of Islam
over society.
Theocracy has absolutely no place in the modern
world.
It needs to be intellectually terminated as
an idea and that means through rigorous debate
and scrutiny.
But on top of that Islam itself – it’s
not politically incorrect to recognize that
Islam’s heyday and the jurisprudence that
developed around Islam peaked in the medieval
era and a lot of it isn’t suitable or compatible
to the standards that we’ve come to adopt
today and the scientific advances but also
the moral standards and values in society.
That also requires some scrutiny by theologians
and by thinkers.
And, you know, if political correctness is
going to obstruct that process then it’s
going to tolerate a great deal of bigotry
and prejudice in the process.
And so it’s not really politically correct
to take that stand at all.
We know that the neo-conservative years led
to the war on terror decade, war and terror
laws and Guantanamo and invasion of countries.
And people, the regressive left especially,
have a knee jerk reaction.
It’s almost a zero sum game for them.
If you criticize Islamism you must be a Neo
Conzionist, Indian agent, stooge, MI6, you
know, all these other conspiracies that get
tacked on to the end and a porch monkey.
So it’s a zero sum game for them.
And how to defend oneself against this to
say look, I’m a liberal.
I opposed the Iraq war from my jail cell in
Egypt.
I’ve been a liberal democrat parliamentary
candidate in the United Kingdom.
I’ve ran for Parliament, for office as a
liberal democrat, you know.
I’m a bona fide liberal.
Every single war on terror law that violated
human rights principles as I’ve understood
them I have opposed them publicly.
Whether it’s the schedule 7 in the UK that
denies the right to silence and denies it
forcibly takes your DNA at ports of entry
and exit, airports, what have you.
Arbitrary detention, Guantanamo.
I’ve always been opposed to Guantanamo and
its existence.
I’ve been opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
No matter how much I clarify that there are
people for whom as I said this is a zero sum
game debate.
If you’re critical of Islamistic extremism
you must automatically be a Neocon and a racist.
And as I said, you know, I’ve experienced
Neo-Nazi racism and it’s absurd to me for
anyone to hurl that accusation.
Actually it’s incredibly privilege for them.
To hurl those accusations at me because there
are invariably people who have never had to
dodger a machete attack from a Neo-Nazi skinhead
or a hammer attack.
They’ve never had to witness torture in
an Egyptian jail yet they’re the ones that
are accusing me of being the racist.
So how do I deal with that?
It’s an open jury to be honest.
Do I respond every single time on social media
to clarify, to send out links to say no I
didn’t say that?
Or do I rise above it and say you guys are
just petty.
I’m not going to lower myself to your level
because if you wrestle in the mud with the
pigs you end up getting dirty.
So what do you do?
I don’t think there’s an answer to that
question.
And I don’t know how to go about it.
I think one of the things I do do is I always
leave the door open.
If somebody comes back to me and says look,
I misunderstood you, I’m sorry.
I’m happy to forget and let bygones be bygones.
I’m not going to hold a grudge.
I understand how misunderstandings could happen
because of course for 13 years I was on the
leadership of an Islamist organization and
I changed my mind.
I’m always happy to allow people to change
their minds but how to get them to that stage
and see you as a human being that has a holistic
story behind them and isn’t just one thing
or another, you know, I don’t know.
I’ll keep trying I suppose.
