Part of the point of #AnApostatesExperience was to provide a counter to the pablum put out by Reza Aslan. Heina talks about how unhelpful Reza Aslan is to ex-Muslims.
I read his No god But God when I was experiencing doubts but trying to stay Muslim. Even then, I found his trumping up of some highly uncommon “liberal”/”progressive” interpretations of Islam to be a bit disingenuous.
His views hardly represent any significant percentage of Muslims, let alone many. I [am] very much in favor of promoting reformist voices but not when they pretend the situation is anything other than it is or obscure the truth in any way.
Quite. The reformist Muslims I know are very realistic about the situation as it is and how difficult it is for them to be heard.
The lack of consideration of ex-Muslims from left-wing types is why many ex-Muslims find ourselves in a very uncomfortable position. It’s not as if we don’t see the xenophobia and racism behind much of the professed right-wing sympathy for us. At the same time, at least there is overt sympathy of any kind there. It doesn’t hurt that there is also money to hire bodyguards for when things get out of hand and power that can amplify our voices.
I made a conscious choice to avoid going neo-con, but I honestly don’t feel too angry that there are ex-Muslims in genuine danger who go that way. I feel more angry about those atheists who are the first to step up with criticisms of Christian apologia but give Reza Aslan a free pass. Where else can ex-Muslims go when we are forgotten by white liberal/progressive types?
Be where ex-Muslims can go.
Thanks for the signal boost and for catching that typo, too.
Thanks for writing it.
The fact that many ex-Muslims express opinions that right wing propagandists may find useful should not in any way act as a deterrent to the expression of those opinions. Too many people on the left have been programmed to react negatively to any candid criticism of Islamic ideology. Part of this is a fear that frank discussions mail fuel racism and bigotry. But another part of the equation is fear that a directly confrontational approach (Hitchens style) will automatically be used to justify neo con military adventures. Both of these fears are overblown. We can discuss bad ideas without being bigots and a conclusion that Islam is indeed a “mother lode of bad ideas” does not automatically mean we have to bomb somebody. We can have a separate debate about foreign policy.
Too many people on the left have been programmed to react negatively to any candid criticism of Islamic ideology. Part of this is a fear that frank discussions mail fuel racism and bigotry. But another part of the equation is fear that a directly confrontational approach (Hitchens style) will automatically be used to justify neo con military adventures.
Strange how criticism of The Pope by leftists never never raises fears that it may fuel racism and bigotry against Hispanics or Hatiens.
Ex-Muslims pose a problem for leftists for a number of reasons. Many leftists see Muslims as the ‘New Proletariat’ of which there can be NO criticism. Others on the left are annoyed and irritated when when the frank views and opinions expressed by many ex-Muslims, dovetail with those held by conservatives.
When you look at universities in both N. America and Europe, so many in the anti-western crowd are allied with islamists. You have alliances forged between adherents to a Bronze Age religion/ideology that is often quite misogynistic, homophobic and anti-semitic and ‘progressive feminists, gays and lesbians, many of whom are viewed by islamists as little more than useful idiots.
It is not possible to take a position on a real-world issue without being a Venn-diagram circle away from someone you wouldn’t want to touch with a bargepole.
Where actual, pernicious Political Correctness (as coined in the ’40s to describe blanket Stalin loyalists) is at work, ONE Venn circle is privileged above all others and absolutely ANY moral or criminal conduct is rationalized to avoid criticism.
Thus, the more embarrassing Catholic apologists confronted with rape and Magdalen laundries. And, especially, ‘progressives’ confronted with Islamism, red of tooth and claw.
Not at all when you consider that people are fairly well aware that anti-Catholicism leading to persecution of Catholic minorities has more or less ebbed, at least in the broad West, since the second world war. Where Catholics were persecuted in Latin America by American-supported forces in the last few decades of the 19th century, it was where Catholic clergy tended to support socialism and socialist causes.
I mean, it’s fun and all to play Hypocrisy Gotcha!, but this is kind of like calling out ‘reverse racism’. The reason anti-Muslim bigotry is criticized is because it presently exists. (And I actually don’t doubt Mexicans in the US experience anti-Catholic sentiment in much the same way Italians and Irish did in decades past, though how much of that is due to anti-immigrant sentiment and basic racism is hard to suss out. Japanese and Chinese immigrants sure weren’t discriminated against in the US and Canada because they were thought to owe their allegiance to the Pope. And where I live, there are two school systems: the public school system and the Catholic school system. Catholics here aren’t in much danger from the wider society of Albertans.)
But maybe I’m wrong. I’m certainly no historian. If you think my criticizing the Pope will lead to redheads being singled out for special attention at airport security, or George Bush III invading the Republic of Ireland to be greeted as liberators, by all means let me know. Shit’s, y’know, complex. But I think you know that.