My friend Muhammad Syed, co-founder and ED of EXMNA, has an open letter to Yale Humanists and Muslim Students Association at Hemant’s blog.
As an activist and an ex-Muslim, I have witnessed many attempts to prevent direly-needed conversations by those threatened by the voices of others. I am saddened to see this trend continue — namely, the letter signed by several student organizations at Yale in order to prevent Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking at their university.
I believe the Yale Muslim Students Association should be ashamed of their attempt to silence Hirsi Ali, and the Yale Humanists should be ashamed for being complicit in the effort.
There is no doubt that Hirsi Ali has made comments that are often deemed inflammatory to Muslims. Although I find myself often disagreeing with her stances, I admire her courage and stamina. No one has shed light on the barbaric practices continued in the name of Islam as forcefully as she has. The fact that she is one of the only ex-Muslims speaking out about these kinds of practices is not evidence that the abuse is rare or confined to small fundamentalist communities. Rather, it is evidence of the censure and targeting of those who are willing to speak frankly about Islam and demand change in the Muslim world.
In the letter, it is claimed that Hirsi Ali should not speak on Islam due to the fact that “she does not hold the credentials” to do so, and when she was given the opportunity to speak in the past, she “overlooked the complexity of sociopolitical issues in Muslim-majority countries and has purported that Islam promotes a number of violent and inhumane practices.”
To any liberal-minded person, this reasoning will sound weak at best and intolerant at worst. According to these Yale student organizations, only one who has the right “credentials” (a term that is not defined) and purports a positive view of Islam should be allowed to speak at their university.
It does seem like a very high bar, even if you agree that she’s said some very unpleasant things.
Although this behavior is regrettably expected from the Muslim Students Association (MSA), I’m shocked that the Yale Humanists have joined such an effort. In addition to co-signing the MSA’s letter, the Yale Humanists added that they don’t believe she represents the “totality of the ex-Muslim experience” in their own statement.
Which begs the question: Who, exactly, does represent a “totality” of an experience? Which ex-Muslim voice is “valid” enough or has the right credentials to critique Islam? Do Muslims need special “credentials” when speaking positively of Islam? Or is that requirement reserved only for those who do not believe that all religious traditions are the same and wonderful end-to-end? Do I have to believe (as Muslims do) that Islam is ultimately a peaceful religion or that Muhammad was a role-model for mankind before I’m deemed credible enough to speak about the faith?
Short answer? Yes.
…as a courageous Somali woman, Hirsi Ali’s existence alone is an inspiration to many, including one of our young Somali members who stated:
“I hate her views on current events and the statements she puts forth, she can be biased and too personal in her views, but there’s a place in my heart for her only because before, I literally thought it was impossible to be a female, Somali ex-Muslim so to deny her and being ‘offended’ by her visit, denies my existence socially from being known and accepted”.
As a former Muslim with friends and loved ones who are Muslim, I am disappointed with the behavior of the Muslim Students Association. There’s a pattern of silencing dissent that runs through the Muslim world both today and throughout much of its history, which we all need to work together to end. That effort should include all the signatories of the letter, including the Yale MSA, a group that I believe should lead the fight against fundamentalism and work towards fostering an open and honest dialogue.
But some members of the MSA perhaps think that stifling dissent is a core value of their religion…
You have the ability to help improve the lives of apostates, LGBTQ members of your community, and subjugated women. You can lobby to pass legislation on eliminating forced marriages and raise funds to help those who need to escape abusive situations instead of pretending as if it doesn’t happen in Muslim households. You can act as watchdogs and condemn those religious leaders who encourage women to stay with abusive families. You can encourage Muslim women to seek civil divorce instead of going through a patriarchal religious authority who, too often, denies them agency. You can both celebrate World Hijab Day and defend the right of women to reject modesty codes without facing social or legal repercussions. You can do so much more to better the state of Muslims and Muslim society, but instead you spend your time silencing criticism.
There are a million ways in which you can transform the world, but if you want a better tomorrow, a tomorrow that is clearly within your grasp, it requires moral and intellectual courage as well as honesty. That change will not come if Muslims refuse to accept criticism and their allies defend them, even at the cost of sacrificing the liberal values they hold dear.
Its a bad idea to defend allies at the cost of sacrificing the liberal values. A bad, bad, bad idea.
Did I misread this? Defending Ayaan Hirsia Ali (an ally) is a bad idea if it comes at the cost of sacrificing liberal values? From what I’ve seen and read of Ali, her values aren’t generally liberal (in the US sense), more libertarian. But yes, those excuses (credentials? positivity toward Islam?) are not very good.
No that’s not what I meant. I was continuing the thought in the last sentence I quoted. It can be a bad idea to defend people who are saying wrong harmful things, even if they’re friends or allies.
If a feminist group spoke out to protest a proposed talk by Sam Harris – what then?
Then that feminist group would be strategically foolish as well as on the wrong side of free speech: The best for stupid, hateful speech is never silencing it, but rather answering it with criticism, with better speech. A smart feminist group would simply protest Harris’ talk, preferably with flyers and placards that simply quote various stupid sexist shit he’s said, word for word.
*the best RESPONSE to
Typing faster than thinking today.
FTFY, @4. As all people know, free speech does not include entitlement to a forum, does not preclude people objecting to you having access to an inappropriate forum, does not include entitlement to an audience, and does not include entitlement to not being the subject of harsh criticism.
People are absolutely correct if they say that Sam Harris is a virulently bigoted piece of filth who supports violence and murder and who should not be promoted by being given special access to a high profile forum, and they’re just as right to say the same thing about Hirsi Ali. It is grossly immoral to imply that virulent misogyny and the genocide of muslims are matters suitable for polite debate by giving either of those utter miscreants a platform.
R Johnston #6:
In what sense are they unsuitable for polite debate?
(If she were impolite, it would be no issue to you?)
No, R Johnson, not all people know that. Are people who don’t know that or want reasons why they should know it among the people not entitled to a forum?
By the same token, surely virulent misogyny and genocide by muslims are not matters suitable for polite debate either?
So…if people don’t know that, that means they should automatically be entitled to a forum??? Do you like beating up on straw men?
Umm…these aren’t the same token. One’s a token about the treatment of people. The other is about how certain people treat others. This was somewhat obvious by the prepositions used. In the first, it was “of”; in the second, it was “by.”
R. Johnston says “that Sam Harris is a virulently bigoted piece of filth who supports violence and murder”. Translation: I don’t like his position on controversial issues therefor he is a virulently bigoted piece of filth.
What is the difference between the treatment of people and how certain people treat others, Leo Buzalsky?
Where did I say anyone should automatically be entitled to a forum? I’d merely like to know who R Johnson thinks is not entitled to a forum and why they aren’t. Does their lack of entitlement to a forum go so far that they should not be allowed to create their own forum? Who decides who is or is not entitled to a forum?
The only person entitled to use a forum is the private party who owns it, at least in the US. Anyone else using that forum is doing so at the whim of the owner.
Since when is Hirsi Ali “one of the only ex-Muslims speaking out about these kinds of practices”? There are, for example, several on this very blog network, and in my Global Feminisms unit on Islamic feminisms, I read the writings of dozens more Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists decrying institutional misogyny in Islamic cultural spaces. So the question becomes: why so focused on providing someone who advocates mass murder of an ethno-religious group (via wars of aggression against Muslim-majority states) with a platform instead of any of the other less-violently-oriented people doing similar work?
The MSA and/or the Yale Humanists may have been strategically foolish. But Ayaan Hirsi Ali, like Sam Harris, is a demagogue. It frustrates me that atheists don’t seem to take the dangers of their statements about the need for a war against Islam seriously.
@John Horstman – September 17, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Exactly.