The Nawaz drama is more complicated than this, isn't it? It's not Nawaz's overt positions SPLC is objecting to so much as his actions, which appear to profit from anti-Muslim sentiment.
> But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute.
The only concrete fact is that we received a bunch of British government funding. I don't know a lot about the guy, and obviously I don't stuff about surveillance. But wherever the line is for extremist, he's nowhere close.
>Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad — despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad.
Looks like they're just upset anyone would upset Muslims.
I'm not defending SPLC, which again I think overstepped by targeting Nawaz. But the argument that they did so to prevent Islam from being criticized appears to oversimplify. Their problem with Nawaz is that they believe he's a profiteering fraud.
There's the problem. Many other Muslims also have a representation of Muhammad on their walls on home so clearly have no problem with it.
Why should we take any position at all?
The answers are: Not necessarily, not necessarily, yes, and yes.
I have no problem with Maajid fundraising and paying himself a salary. You need to be careful with the "X profits from fundraising, therefore they're just trying to profit from Y sentiment." That argument could be applied to Planned Parenthood, Churches, and just really anything. Just because an organization is well-funded doesn't mean they're morally bankrupt.
Ugh. Ideological rants are not allowed on HN, so please don't post like this again.
If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.