Maajid Nawaz claims ‘Islamism’ arose only with Afghan war, changes subject when asked about Quran’s violent passages

Watch Maajid  Nawaz  lying through his arsehole in a debate, if their teachings permit them to lie, then what are we talking about.

Jihad Watch : The LBC sycophant who wrote the article below, Seán Hickey, says that the renowned moderate Muslim Maajid Nawaz “expertly debunks” the claim that Islam is “naturally fundamentalist and violent.”

All right. Let’s examine Nawaz’s “expert” argument. He says that the claim is “dodgy.” He says that the claim “somehow doesn’t stand up.” He claims, without offering any supporting evidence, that “Islamism” arose “due to war and in fact it was used by us to stop the Soviet Union.”

He dismisses the violent passages of the Qur’an not by explaining how, properly understood, they’re not really violent at all, as others have claimed, but by changing the subject and saying: “you can find justification in the old testament and the new testament for all manner of things.” He also echoes groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in suggesting that those who highlight the violent passages of the Qur’an are just trying to make money: “How ye choose and select and contextualise passages comes down, usually to the own biases we carry, and sometimes we’re funded by those biases.”

If that’s an expert debunking, I’m Chuck Schumer. Nawaz’s claim that “Islamism,” by which he apparently means a form of Islam that takes the Qur’an literally (i.e., is “fundamentalist”) and acts upon its exhortations to violence, only arose with the U.S. aiding jihad groups against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan is completely ahistorical. Nawaz is either unfamiliar with Islam’s 1,400-year history of jihad violence, or banking on his listeners being ignorant of it. Even throughout the first part of the 20th century, before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Muslims in Palestine waged jihad against the Jews. It would be interesting to learn what Nawaz thinks of that, and of the Islamic jihad rhetoric that flowed freely from Arab leaders in those days, but of course no one among his sycophants at LBC is going to ask him.

Then we come to the sleight of hand. The Old and New Testaments may be the worst documents in the history of mankind, justifying, as Nawaz says, “all manner of things,” and that wouldn’t tell us one single solitary thing about the violent passages of the Qur’an. Nawaz’s caller asserted that Islam was “naturally fundamentalist and violent.” What the Old Testament and New Testament may be tells us absolutely nothing about that question. Nawaz is just deflecting attention away from inquiry into the actual contents of the Qur’an, and into the extent to which Muslims who commit acts of violence are incited to do so by those contents. Now, why would he want to do that?

“Maajid Nawaz expertly debunks theory that Islam is ‘inherently fundamentalist,'” by Seán Hickey, LBC, July 10, 2021:

Read it all here or at the link........