The problem for me is that Maajid’s comments are ambiguous. Often I’ve heard him say in interviews that he’s ‘non devout’ and even ‘non religious’. And in other interviews he talks of ‘my faith, Islam’ (check out his various video interviews on Youtube). Most cringewrothy is his utterance, ‘peace be upon him’, immediately after naming Muhammad. This suggests he’s still a believer in the murderous prophet. Or maybe he thinks if he says it often enough, it will encourage extremist Muslims to ease up a bit, albeit they are not that easily fooled.

As I said before, with Maajid’s in depth knowledge of Islam, I find it hard to understand where he’s really coming from. He performs like a typical LibDem (the UK political Party) by trying to be all things to all people, depending on his audicence. This is why he endgenders feelings of mistrust in certain individuals from all poltical and religious persuasions.

So perhaps he’s a nominal or cultural Muslim? To the fanatically religious Islamist, this means that Maajid is an apostate and should therefore be killed. Of course, it’s the Islamic fanatics who need to be enlightened.

Another issue, this time relating to freedom of speech, he tends to demonise and label as ‘bigots’ so-called ‘Far Right’ counter jihad campaigners like Robert Spencer, who has also been banned from speaking in the UK. A case of ‘no platform’ issued from the highest level of governement – a fact which Islamic lunatics like Mo Ansar use to justify their own dubious positions.

In my view, no one has the monopoly on truth. Anyone who is working to counter violent and covert Islamic extremism (Islamism) is worth listening to, no matter what their personal beliefs. Indeed, countering the threat of Islamic extremism should be a unifying force right across the political and religious spectrum. After all, Islamism in its many guises is a threat to everyone, including Muslims – especially Muslim women.

Your point about what kind of Muslim Maajid Nawaz actually is bothers me (not that you are the only person who is asking such a question – I even found myself wondering the same thing). We are immersed in a society that, due to the concerted efforts of a few groups of people (Islamists, leftists AND far right conservative xenophobes), sees Islam as a fairly strict and consistent set of propositional beliefs to which basically all “true” Muslims subscribe. And yet, when it comes to a religion we are vastly more familiar with, Christianity, we are able to recognize that the best way to identify whether someone is a Christian is whether they call themselves a Christian. There are Christians who believe that Jesus lived on Earth, died and was resurrected, and those who believe he is entirely mythical and who treat the Bible as a sort of guidebook from which they cherry-pick the good moral advice (*which is identified as “good” because it aligns with their 21st century sensibilities). Some Christians believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that life (including humans) was created in 6 days, others accept the modern scientific consensus of 4.5 billion years, with life created through purely natural means (natural selection and the other aspects of modern evolutionary theory). Catholic doctrine (straight from the Pope) dictates that a few magic words of Latin can change ordinary crackers and wine into REAL human flesh and blood each and every Mass, and there are millions of people who truly believe that they are committing an act of cannibalism every time they undergo this ritual of transubstantiation. Of course, the majority of their less conservative peers see just how ridiculous such a proposition is, viewing the ritual as a symbolic gesture of solidarity with their savior. The only necessary belief one must have to be a Christian, in my estimation, is a belief in some sort of god (deistic or theistic). Now many others in the most conservative sects will say that Unitarian Universalists aren’t real Christians or whatever, but from a societal perspective, they generally count (pollsters call them “liberal Christians”). We need to start seeing Muslims in exactly this same way.

Who are we to judge whether someone who says he’s a Muslim actually is? Do you have to subscribe to all 5 Pillars of Islam to be a Muslim? Is prayer mandatory? Is drawing a picture of Muhammad okay? Even fundamentalists don’t have this right, because you can be sure that they are also cherry-picking from the Koran, and discarding certain interpretations that are no less valid than their own. It is not surprising that we have such a narrow view of what a Muslim must be – we are forced to rely on other peoples’ claims (since we have little direct experience with this religion), and other people have agendas that motivate them to make sweeping generalizations. Islamists want to fabricate a united front so that they appear more numerous than they are, so they monopolize the conversation and claim to represent the true Islam. Far-right xenophobes need an enemy to hate so they have someone to blame for the negative things in their countries, and so they are blind to the fact that a large percentage of Muslims are perfectly content to live modern, secular lives, because that would disrupt their narrative that foreigners are deliberately “Islamifying” their countries, causing every social ill imaginable. And leftists tend to see US foreign policy as the cause of all strife in the world today, while believing that all Muslims are peaceful, non-violent people with no religious reason to resort to terrorism and campaigns of conquest; instead, they see people rising up against American hegemony for purely political, totally legitimate reasons. All of these views ignore the possibility that there is the same degree of nuance in the Islamic religion as there is in the Christian one. While there are only a fraction of the official sects that Christianity has, within sects there is vigorous debate and disagreement, and certainly there are a large minority of Muslims today who are the equivalent of Christmas-Easter Christians, for whom the religion is really irrelevant in their daily lives, and who only observe and practice their faith on major holidays. There are LGBTQ Muslims, feminist Muslims, Muslims who drink alcohol, Muslims who never pray or embark on the pilgrimage to Mecca, etc. We want to make it safe for people like Maajid, the liberal, secular Muslims, to speak out en masse, to show both the anti-Muslim bigots AND the more conservative members of their religion that their interpretation of Islamic scripture is possible, valid and consistent with modern secular values. It then becomes possible for others to preserve their religious identity without living the barbaric elements of their holy texts.

I applaud Maajid and Sam for embarking on this journey together and sincerely hope that their efforts start a cascade of change within the Islamic faith. It’s a daunting task, but since the only alternative is accepting a future of war and theocracy in the Middle East, I see it as a worthwhile project.

Surely, in trying to be all things to all people, he’s not being entirely honest. This is why he meets with a great deal of opposition from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Many practising Muslims regard Maajid as an apostate or atheist; whereas others (mostly on the political right) are wary of his attempt to define and separate ‘Political Islam’ (Islamism) from the religion of Islam. I understand the reason why this is necessary – that is to say, to help prevent ‘non-Islamists’ from feeling persecuted.

Nevertheless, we can’t ignore the fact that most Muslims regard their religion as a totalitarian ideology. They respect Sharia Law (supposedly Divine law) and express disdain for the ‘man-made laws’ of non-Islamic nations.

Whilst I applaud Maajid for his tireless efforts to educate Muslims into the ideology of secularism (separation of religion from the state), it’s a monumental task. It could take a century or more of such consciousness raising effort before substantial progress can be made.

In the meantime, we are witnessing a truly alarming mass exodus of people moving from Islamic countries into Europe. Most will have no intention of modifying their 7th Century mindset to accommodate the ideology of secularism. Rather, they will hope to change the mindset of host nations. Although the majority of Muslims have no intention of becoming killers, nor even stealth jihadists; nevertheless we can’t pretend that none will slip through net. Undoubtedly, Europe is at risk of Islamisation due to non-integration of newcomers. Already Saudi Arabia has offered to build 200 mosques in Germany to accommodate the influx of Islamic migrants and refugees.

None of this bodes well for the future of Western democracy, freedom of thought and universal human rights. Additionally, Western democracies are being undermined by certain Leftists and their suicidal belief in cultural relativism. Jeremy Corbyn comes to mind. I shudder at the thought of him becoming Prime Minister of the UK. David Cameron is bad enough, but things can only get worse!