How the PC Regressive Left Can Manifest Bigotry and Prejudice | Maajid Nawaz | Big Think

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 voluntarily, 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, know 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 from 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 crystallized 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. 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, an Islamophobe, 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 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? 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. 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, 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 Neocon, Zionist, 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 Islamic 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 privileged for them to hurl those accusations at me, because there are invariably people who have never had to dodge 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.