Haven’t been on in a while but anyway...
So if anyone is following stuff that goes on outside of the US, there was a bit of a verbal scuffle across the UK student community. The Goldsmith University Atheist Humanist and Secular Society (AHS for short) hosted a talk from activist Maryam Namazie, specifically relating to issues such as blasphemy law and apostasy in countries such as Iran, where Namazie was born, and eventually had to flee. The AHS society were condemned by the Islamic society (or ISoc) for hosting the talk, and a few male members of the society attempted to gatecrash the talk. Before the talk took place, ISoc were backed up by the university’s Feminist and LGBTQ+ societies. This has caused much upset across the country including accusations from centrist liberals and right wing conservatives of a double standard in the left wing. Namazie is a controversial figure on the stage of political activism. She is a Marxist, Atheist, and a strong advocate for women’s rights. She is also a former Muslim, and for this was forced to leave her home country. Accusations were made of double standards in the Feminist and LGBTQ+ societies, what with Namazie’s support of Feminism and the reputation of certain members of Goldsmith ISoc to make homophobic or misogynistic statements. Namazie was not making a speech about Feminism or LGBTQ+ advocacy so they had no reason to directly support her; just because she is a feminist doesn’t mean feminists should support her unconditionally. The reason she is controversial doesn’t directly relate to her opinions per se, but more the rhetoric she uses and the environment she has moved to. The background to her activism is just. She opposes the brutal regime in which she was born and from which she had to flee, and similar regimes that promote a violent and backward political ideology. A political ideology, I repeat. This is where the problems arise, since throughout many of her talks she has used “Islam” and “Islamism” interchangeably. This, before we get started on the implications, is just factually incorrect. Islam: An Abrahamic religion centered around the Qur’an and teachings of the prophet Mohammed among others. Islamism: A set of theocratic political ideologies that seek to impose any form of Islam over a population by law. First let’s look at numbers: There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and they are a majority in 47 countries. Islamism is the political mainstream in just 6. The fact that she makes such ridiculous generalisations should really be enough for an AHS group, who frequently assert their superior logic, to turn her away outright. She equates two different things that, although one is derived from the other, aren’t interchangeable. It would be a bit like making a case for banning all nuclear power stations because of Hiroshima. But this is just the tip of the iceberg, there is context to look at too. Western Europe has seen a fast decline in tolerance of the Muslim community over the last 20 years, with a rise in active extremism both home and abroad paired with appalling media portrayal (not that we were ever truly tolerant of Muslims as a society). Many people believe it to be reminiscent of the antisemitic sentiment that was widespread in Europe after the Industrial Revolution. Nonetheless, we have a problem of general anti-Muslim sentiment in modern Europe, often called ‘Islamophobia’, a term which came into common usage in 1997. Since the rise of ISIS during the Syrian Civil War and the massive refugee crisis in Europe, physical violence against Muslims has only risen, and political discussion has been dominated by constant scrutiny of Islam as a religion, often with little or no participation from Muslims or even a non-Muslim expert in Islamic or Middle Eastern Studies. Here’s where we run into the issues with Namazie: whether she likes it or not, at this time in Europe, her words will be hijacked by the wrong people and will be twisted and manipulated to harm people. Yes, women are treated terribly at the hands of the Saudi government. Yes, apostates are brutally punished in Iran. These are huge issues, and should not be ignored, but she must treat them as they are, not as our bigots want to hear. Criticism is necessary, and healthy in the right setting. But what use is condemning ‘Islam’ as if it were the same as Islamism of any kind in a country where it isn’t going to become a domestic issue, particularly when you don’t even invite anyone with the knowledge to discuss it? It doesn’t encourage healthy debate, it fuels nutcases. If it were in Jordan, Iraq, or even an Islamist country like Mauritania, healthy debate on issues relating to Islamism would be had. Here it descends into a circle jerk of bigotry, all intentions aside.
