I am still Charlie

Remarks at Oxford Union debate with Tariq Ramadan on 29 February 2016

I was Charlie 6 years ago; today Je Suis Charlie and I will always be Charlie.

Saying one is Charlie has never meant approving of everything it has said and done, though I must admit that I do approve of much of its Leftwing, anti-racist and anti-clerical satire.

I think poking fun at religion and blasphemy – in the age of ISIS – when one can be killed for it is an historical task and necessity.

That is one of the main reasons why I helped found the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain – to break the taboo that comes with questioning and leaving Islam and to challenge the Islamists who strive to deny us the right to think and speak freely, including in secular societies.

You don’t have to like Charlie or any other acts of blasphemy to defend the right to blaspheme and free expression. That is what Je Suis Charlie means.

Think about this for a moment. The Charlie cartoonists were killed in broad daylight, in cold blood, merely for their cartoons.

Those who refuse to stand with them, imply that they got what they deserved. They should not have been killed BUT what did they expect?

The “culture of offence” and accusations of Islamophobia are smokescreens. They serve to legitimise Islamist terror and violence and blame the victims.

They miss the point.

Islamism is an international far-right movement that has murdered innumerable Charlie Hebdos over several decades across the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, including many “Muslims,” who have dared to speak or mock or just live 21 century lives prohibited by the brothers.

Being a woman, a freethinker, being gay, being unveiled, improperly veiled, an atheist, going to school, driving a car, having sex, falling in love, laughing out loud, dancing…  “offends” them. And violence to all this is the usual Islamist response.

Calling for civility, censorship, silence or “respect” for the “offended” is merely heeding the Islamist demand for blasphemy laws at the expense of dissenters.

So, yes, I am Charlie as I am also the many Muslims, ex-Muslims and none who criticise and question Islam and Islamism across the globe day in an day out at great risks to their lives.

Mr Ramadan says he is not Charlie or Paris. Instead he says he is perquisitionnable or “under investigation.”



That I show solidarity with the cartoonists murdered for blasphemy and he shows solidarity with those “under investigation” is telling enough.

As Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas says: in all of this ‘terror’ itself is being ‘disappeared’ from the discourse, it loses reality, it becomes just an illusion… It is conjured away and all we are left with is blaming the victims.

“…The refusal to be intimidated is the greatest challenge faced by today’s generation, a generation which is globalized, hyperconnected, confronted by instantaneous and worldwide exchanges of ideas between internet users of different religions and temporalities,” says writer Caroline Fourest. She goes on to say: “The rules we are at present putting in place will determine whether we want to live in a world of violence and terror or a world of emancipation. It must be clear to all: the “yes, but…” will lead to a society where religion will once more be taboo, where believers will be more privileged than non-believers, where majority religions will take precedence over minority religions, where intimidation and violence will have won.”

Those, however, who state “I don’t agree with you but shall fight for your right to say it,” will according to Fourest “create a world where people are able to engage in dialogue despite their disagreements, where believers and non-believers are equal, where all religions are considered equal, where we can laugh at our fears and stand united against those who promote violence. There is no other alternative. We either stand firm or back down. Those who think that by backing down they will avoid war are making a serious mistake. The war has already begun. Only courage will restore peace.”

For those who want more information on Tariq Ramadan’s “double-speak,” read Caroline Fourest’s book Brother Tariq.

Charlie Hebdo’s Mohammed cartoon was not Islamophobic

charlie_hebdo_cover1My opening remarks at Oxford Union debate with Tariq Ramadan on 29 February 2016

Criticism of religion – however offensive – is not racism against believers.

Islamophobia is in fact used to conflate blasphemy with bigotry in order to impose Islamist norms on the wider society.

Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of Mohammad are no more “bigotry” against Muslims than its covers poking fun at the Christian or Jewish god, clerics/ rabbis, and prophets are “bigotry” against Christians and Jews.

In Iran, Saudi Arabia or IS, critics of religion are faced with accusations of blasphemy and apostasy; here they are accused of “Islamophobia.”

Accusations of Islamophobia are used to scaremonger people into silence rather than out of any patronising “concern for minorities” – as if “minorities” do not need or have the right to criticise religion and the religious-Rightwing.

In fact no one needs the right to criticise religion more than those who have fled or are living under the boot of the religious-Right.

Essentialising and homogenising Muslims and equating them with Islamists reduces masses of people to fanatics more concerned with cartoons than murder.

It’s like equating Christians with the KKK or Pegida.

Calling Charlie Islamophobic sees dissent and blasphemy through Islamists eyes – an offence that must be either censored or punished by death – whether by Sharia law or the Kalashnikov.

Charlie Hebdo belongs to a satirical anti-clerical tradition that is not the sole domain of the West.

For example, Azerbaijani weekly magazine Molla Nasreddin founded in 1906 similarly poked fun at religion. Mohammad was also depicted in the weekly. Mullahs in what was called Persia at the time issued a fatwa calling for the death of its editor Mirza Jalil.

The anti-religion Iranian writer Sadegh Hedayat who died in 1951 is another example. He said: “Heaven is the best excuse to make the world into hell.”

This conflation of entire “communities” and societies with Islamism refuses to acknowledge that there are many within those who are considered “Muslims” (which by the way include ex-Muslims, atheists, free thinkers, reformers and secularists) who also criticise Islam and Islamism at great risks to their lives.

People like:

Raif Badawi, sentenced to ten years in prison and 1000 lashes in Saudi Arabia

Bangladeshi bloggers, like Avijit Roy, hacked to death for criticising Islam

Hesameddin Farzizadeh, 23 year old writer and student who has been sentenced to 7 years in prison, 74 lashes and the death penalty in Iran for a book examining the history and questioning facets of Shi’a Islam

Abdulaziz Dauda, also known as Abdul  Inyass, an Islamic scholar sentenced to death in Nigeria for a lecture which was deemed to be blasphemous against Islam’s prophet.

Ashraf Fayadh, a Palestinian poet and artist who lives in Saudi Arabia, who has been sentenced to death for ‘apostasy’ for his poetry.

Or Egyptian poet Fatima Naoot given a 3-year sentence for insulting Islam because she criticised Islamic animal slaughter”…

Saying Charlie is “Islamophobic” is as absurd as saying Raif Badawi or Fatima Naoot are bigots.

Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas says this “distorting Eurocentric vision” sees “Muslims” only as victims and oppressed minorities when “just crossing a few borders” could allow one to “appreciate” the nature of the Islamist  political programme, whether with regards women’s right or free thought.

As a Women Living Under Muslim Laws statement says, this movement’s ‘main target is the internal democratic opposition to their theocratic project and to their project of controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people, they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do…’

What is really being said when Charlie is accused of Islamophobia is that criticism of Islam and Islamism are forbidden, blasphemy laws are required to protect “Muslim” or rather Islamist “sensibilities” and that, therefore, threats and actual murder of critics is perfectly legitimate – whether in Paris or beyond.


Read Caroline Fourest’s book “In Praise of Blasphemy: Why Charlie Hebdo is not Islamophobic” in French and in English.

MARYAM NAMAZIE: Why I had to face down the bullies trying to silence my supposedly ‘offensive’ stance on Islam

2FEAE44E00000578-3391194-image-a-30_1452297932020Original published in Daily Mail on 9 January 2016

This week marked the first anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.

The atrocity was a brutal attack not just on human life but also on the principle of free speech, one of the pillars of human civilisation. In the aftermath of the killings, people across the world united to express their support for that essential liberty.

Yet today, freedom of speech in British universities is under heavier assault than ever before.

In this case, the weapon of destruction is not the barrel of a gun but the proclaimed desire to maintain student safety by turning university campuses into ‘safe spaces’ where students will be shielded from anything they might find offensive.

Within our society, there should of course be safe spaces – such as women’s refuges – for victims of violence, discrimination and abuse. But it is wrong to hijack this concept as a means of stifling open debate within the higher education system.

By their very nature, universities should be ‘unsafe spaces’ where orthodoxies are challenged and opinions questioned. Why go to university at all if you feel you have to be ‘protected’ from views you dislike? That is a recipe for intellectual paralysis. Indeed, most human progress stems from a willingness to embrace ‘unsafe’ or ‘offensive’ ideas.

Moreover, what is considered ‘offensive’ or ‘hate speech’ is highly subjective. All too often the limits of speech are set by those with the loudest voices or the most political influence, like religious bodies or student unions or the state authorities. Once the limits are set, it’s a slippery slope. Limiting free speech silences and censors dissenting voices which most need to be heard.

That has certainly been my recent experience of British university life. I am an Iranian-born ex-Muslim woman who campaigns against Islamism and is critical of all religions, including Islam.

The central theme of my work is the promotion of equality, secularism and universal rights for all, including ex-Muslims, Muslims and migrants.

Despite my progressive outlook, my opposition to Islamism has led to regular attempts to silence me through so-called ‘safe space’ policies. To the ‘safe space’ brigade, I must be ostracised because of my supposedly ‘offensive’ stance on Islam, even though I am the target of frequent abuse and even death threats.

In one recent example of this trend, the Islamic society at Goldsmiths University in south London tried to get my talk to the students’ Atheist Society cancelled on the grounds that I would violate their ‘safe space’ policy by inciting ‘hatred and bigotry’. When this attempt to gag me failed, the Islamic Society president and its ‘brothers’ sought to create a mood of fear and intimidation at my talk.

It was the same story at Warwick University in October, when the student union tried to bar my talk to the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists Society (WASH) because I am, apparently ‘highly inflammatory and could incite hatred on campus’. Fortunately, the student union’s decision provoked a wave of protests, and my visit was able to go ahead.

By their very nature, universities should be ‘unsafe spaces’ where orthodoxies are challenged and opinions questioned. Why go to university at all if you feel you have to be ‘protected’ from views you dislike?

But these two cases show very clearly how ‘safe space’ policies are being used to silence critics by promoting the Islamist narrative, which conflates criticism of Islam and Islamism with bigotry against Muslims.

The Goldsmiths Islamic Society’s approach is all the more absurd given that it has invited speakers who defend jihad and the death penalty for apostates.

In the fashionable tale of victimhood cultivated by Islamic Society leaders and their Student Union allies, there is a deeply patronising view of Muslim students as a single, homogeneous body with one regressive mindset. But this is completely false.

During my talk at Goldsmiths, Muslim women and migrants of Muslim background spoke up against the aggressive behaviour of the Islamic Society members.

I have also received letters from other Muslims at the talk who agreed with me, but felt too intimidated to act. So when student unions side with Islamic societies against people like myself, they are not ‘protecting’ Muslims against bigotry, but siding with Islamists.

In their campaign to stifle free speech, the ‘safe space’ ideologues seek to equate ‘offensive’ speech with real harm. But their argument could hardly be more hollow. The expression of ideas, even if offensive and hurtful, is not the same as causing mental or physical injury.

That’s not to say that hate speech doesn’t exist. Groups like Britain First express hatred against migrants, Muslims and apostates every day. But you can’t stop hate speech by stifling free expression. Free expression is vital for any society. And it is not free unless it is free for everyone, including those whose views are deemed distasteful and even hateful, as long as they are not inciting violence.

What we need is not more restrictions on free speech, but the opposite.

For that, we need an end to the bullying ‘safe space’ policies adopted by the National Union of Students.

Islam and the “culture of offence”: missing the point

First published in Open Democracy on 12 February 2015

In the age of ISIS, dissent and criticism of religion is a life and death necessity. It has been – and remains – key for human progress.

Dissent and criticism of religion has always been a crucial aspect of free expression. Historically, it has been intrinsically linked with anti-clericalism and the dismantling of that which is deemed taboo, sacred and untouchable by the gatekeepers of power.

Such criticism has been key for human progress and is still needed. In the age of ISIS, this criticism is a life and death necessity for those living under Islamism’s boot.

So yes, I am Charlie – no ifs and buts.

Those who condemn the massacre in Paris but blame Charlie for “offending Muslim sensibilities” (implying that they somehow got what they deserved) have bought into the Islamist narrative that “Muslims” are more offended by cartoons than mass murder.

This is validated by multiculturalism as a social policy and cultural relativism, which sees Muslim “communities” and “societies” as homogeneous and one and the same with the religious-Right.

So even though there is a rich historical and artistic tradition of depicting Mohammad, Islam’s prophet, over many centuries, it’s deemed offensive today.

And despite many Muslims or those labelled as such have sided with Charlie, it is the terrorists/fascists who are deemed to be the “authentic” Muslims.  

The homogenised “culture of offence” discounts the many believing secularists, feminists, freethinkers, and atheists and socialists amongst those deemed “Muslim”.

It ignores the widespread dissent and resistance, which can also be seen in response to Charlie.

An Algerian copy editor Mustapha Ourad was gunned down in Charlie’s hallway.

Many “Muslims” joined rallies and held up “Je Suis Charlie” signs or pens.

A French Muslim cafe owner was threatened for putting up a “Je Suis Charlie” sign in his East London cafe.

Lassana Bathily, the Malian-born Muslim employee hid customers at the Paris kosher supermarket saving lives.

Even in Iran – a theocracy where blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, enmity against god, and another 130 offences are punishable by death – Nasrin Sotoudeh, a human rights lawyer showed her solidarity whilst journalists trying to rally in support of Charlie were attacked and prevented from protesting by security agents wielding clubs and chains.

An Iranian newspaper was shut down for publishing a photo showing solidarity with Charlie. In Turkey, two columnists from a daily are facing an investigation for ‘religious defamation’ after featuring the Charlie cover.

Cartoonists across the Arab world – from Egypt to Lebanon to Qatar and Jordan took a stand with Charlie and against the terrorists.

And still we are told that Charlie offended “Muslims” and must be held to account!

Clearly not all Muslims were offended, and even those who were did not go on to kill for it.

What is packaged as the “culture of offence” is really Islamism’s imposition of blasphemy laws and theocracy under the pretext of respect for “Muslim sensibilities”.

Only in Europe of course does this far-Right fascist movement use “offence” to silence and censor.

In countries where they have state power, there is no need for such niceties.

In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria, the “offenders” are called what they are – apostates and blasphemers – and legally murdered in broad daylight in the same way Charlie Hebdo’s journalists were “executed”.

Terrorism and indiscriminate violence, including via Sharia laws, have been pillars of Islamist rule for decades, aiding in creating a climate of fear and as a warning to those who refuse to submit.

The “culture of offence” absurdly implies that civility and manners are all that are needed to stop abductions and the slaughter of generations from Nigeria, Iran to Algeria.

But the “culture of offence” is a smokescreen. It serves to legitimise Islamist terror and blame the victims.

It misses the point.

Islamism is an international far-right movement that has murdered innumerable Charlie Hebdos over several decades across the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, including many “Muslims”, who have dared to speak or mock or just live 21 century lives prohibited by the Islamists.

Being a woman, a freethinker, being gay, being unveiled, improperly veiled, an atheist, going to school, driving a car, having sex, falling in love, laughing out loud, dancing…  “offends” them.

Calling for civility, censorship, silence or “respect” for the “offended” is merely heeding the Islamist demand for submission at the expense of dissenters.

But as Rosa Luxemburg said: “Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters”.

So yes, I am Charlie but I am also the many Muslims, ex-Muslims and none who dissent day in and day out often at great risk to themselves.

I am freethinker Raif Badawi, sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for a website promoting public discussion of religion and politics which has been deemed “insulting of to Islam” by the Saudi regime.

I am 30 year old blogger Soheil Arabi, sentenced to execution in Iran for “insulting the prophet” on Facebook.

I am poet Fatma Naoot, on trial for “insulting Islam” in Egypt due to her criticism of Islamic animal slaughter.

I am 28 year old Mauritanian journalist and anti-slavery activist Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir who has been sentenced to death in December 2014 for “insulting the prophet”.

I am 32 year old Egyptian journalist Bishoy Boulous Armia who has been given a five-year prison sentence for causing “sectarian strife” and “insulting Islam” because he reported on the persecution of Christians in Egypt.

I am the artists and writers in the Gaza Strip who face a campaign calling for their murder for “insulting Islam”.

I am Jakarta Post editor-in-chief, Meidyatama Suryodiningrat , accused of blasphemy for a caricature on ISIS, which according to an Islamist group filing a complaint, has “insulted Islam”.

I am Algerian novelist Kamel Daoud who has had calls for his execution because of “insults [to] Allah”.

I am bloggers Tan Jye Yee, 26, and Vivian Lee, 25, charged in Malaysia under the Sedition Act for insulting Islam and Ramadan in Facebook.

I am women’s rights campaigner Souad al-Shammary who has been imprisoned since 28 October 2014 on accusations she has “insulted Islam” and the prophet in Saudi Arabia for demanding an end to male guardianship rules for women.

I am 47 year old British-Iranian Roya Nobakht was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Iran for “insulting Islam” when she said on Facebook that the Iranian regime was “too Islamic”.

I am 49 year old mother of five Asia Bibi has been in prison for five year awaiting execution for blasphemy in Pakistan.

I am 27 year old Mohsen Amir-Aslani hanged in September 2014 in Iran for insulting prophet Jonah and making ‘innovations in religion’ through interpretations of Qur’an.

And I am Muhammad Shakil Auj, Dean of the faculty of Islamic Studies at the University of Karachi, was shot dead by gunmen in September 2014 two years after being accused of blasphemy.

And the list goes on.

So yes, I am Charlie, Raif and Roya – no ifs and buts.

I am, we are, all of them.

This is a slightly adapted version of a speech by Maryam Namazie in tribute to Charlie Hebdo and others, given at the Conference on Sharia Law, Apostasy and Secularism held in London, 7 February 2015.

Charlie Hebdo: There is no “culture of offence”

mohammed-cartoons-charlie-hebdo-muhammed-cartoons-2012-2Below are my opening remarks at a 29 January panel discussion organised by UCL Atheist Society entitled “Living in outrageous times: Charlie Hebdo and the culture of offence”.

The two other panellists debating the issue reminded me of Caroline Fourest’s saying: “Racism must not excuse fundamentalism and fundamentalism must not excuse racism”. Peter Bradley, director of Speakers’ Corner Trust and Charlie Klendjian of the Lawyers’ Secular Society did just that. Bradley was of the opinion that if one was going to offend, they should be held accountable(!?) whilst Klendjian trivialised racism and prejudice and conflated Islam, Islamism and Muslims. (As an aside, I wish the debate had been filmed as it would have been the end of the Lawyers’ Secular Society or at least Charlie Klendjian. Having worked with the LSS in the past (but no longer doing so), I do hope someone will save the organisation from Klendjian who – along with his cohorts at Sharia Watch and UKIP – are taking the LSS down the path of xenophobia and bigotry.)

Anyway, here are my initial remarks:

If I was to make only one point on the Charlie Hebdo massacre it would be that the main issue is not “the culture of offence” because in reality we are all offended all the time whatever our beliefs – Muslim or atheist, Christian, Jewish… I’m offended right now – the fact that I must have this debate in the 21 century offends me.

Offence is subjective and what offends one is funny or completely insignificant to another – even when it comes to that which is deemed sacred and taboo by the gatekeepers of power.

Take the image of Mohammad, Islam’s prophet. There is a rich historical and artistic tradition of depicting Mohammad over many centuries but it’s not allowed today. Why?

“The culture of offence” is just the packaging which blames the victims and provides legitimacy to the Islamists and their unbridled violence and terrorism. You will often hear – especially in the British press – that the Charlie massacre is to be condemned BUT the cartoonists did offend “Muslims” thereby implying that they deserved what they got.

What the “culture of offence” packaging conveniently ignores is that not all “Muslims” are offended by the cartoons. Muslims are no more a homogeneous group than Christians, Jews or the French or British. Also, many are not practising Muslims; there are atheists and agnostics amongst them. And many are believers who are also secularists and feminists and anti-Islamists and gay and unveiled who eat bacon and don’t feel offended by the cartoon Peppa pig.

This is obvious. Even in the Charlie Hebdo massacre, a Muslim policeman, Ahmed Merabet was killed whilst an Algerian copy editor Mustapha Ourad was gunned down in Charlie’s hallway. Many Muslims (or those of “Muslim heritage”) joined rallies and held up “Je Suis Charlie” banners. You have heard of the East London French Muslim cafe owner who was threatened for putting up a “Je Suis Charlie” sign in his cafe. There’s Lassana Bathily, the Malian-born Muslim employee who hid customers at the Paris kosher supermarket and saved lives. And it’s not just people in Europe who supported Charlie. In Iran – a theocracy where blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, enmity against god… and another 130 offences are punishable by death – a rally of journalists in support of Charlie Hebdo was attacked and broken up by security agents wielding clubs and chains. A newspaper was shut down for publishing a photo showing solidarity with the publication. Over 180 journalists who condemned the attack are facing threats from the regime. In Turkey, two columnists from a daily are under investigation for ‘religious defamation’ for featuring the Charlie cover…

So there is no homogeneous “culture of offence”. Some are offended, some are not and most of those who are offended will not go on to kill for it.

The “culture of offence” is a smokescreen. It doesn’t exist. What is packaged as the “culture of offence” is really Islamism’s imposition of blasphemy rules and theocracy under the guise of “Muslim” culture. This is validated by multiculturalism as a social policy and cultural relativism, which sees “communities” and societies as homogeneous and one and the same with the Islamic states and far-Right political movements imposing their rules via force and intimidation.

In Europe, Islamists hide behind a “culture of offence” and also terms like Islamophobia to impose their rules and silence and terrorise dissenters. In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Syria, they have no time for such niceties. There, the “offenders” are called apostates and blasphemers and legally murdered in broad daylight in the same way Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists were “executed”. If you don’t see this, you miss the bigger picture. You need to see Islamism for the international fascist movement that it is and you also need to see the many Charlie Hebdos in Iran, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia – across the globe (including many “Muslims”), who speak and mock that which is deemed sacred by the religious-Right at great risks to their lives.

Whilst many hold the cartoonists responsible for provoking the violence, in reality the cartoons are an excuse. What did Saudi freethinker Raif Badawi do to provoke a sentence of 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes? Or Soheil Arabi sentenced to death in Iran? Or the schoolchildren in Peshawar? Or the girls abducted by Boko Haram in Nigeria? What about the gay men thrown off a building by ISIS? What did they do to “provoke” the threats and abductions and massacres?

Like the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, I am often told not to challenge Sharia or apostasy and blasphemy laws by publicly saying I am an ex-Muslim or not to challenge the Islamists’ hatred of women’s bodies via nude protest. I am told day in and day out to “stop provoking them”. But Islamists need no provocation. All those living 21 century lives are “provocations”. Being a woman, a freethinker, being gay, being unveiled, going to school, driving a car, having sex, falling in love… “provokes” them.

More importantly, though, it is Islamism and the religious-Right, which are the real offence. They are the real provocation and it is they who should be held to account not the many who refuse and resist.

Target the Islamists via mass and political mobilisation and unequivocally without any justification or excuses.

Not Muslims. Not immigrants. [Read more…]

Living in outrageous times: Charlie Hebdo and the culture of offence

ucl-ashI’ll be speaking at the below event tonight:

Living in outrageous times: Charlie Hebdo and the culture of offence
UCLU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society hosts this highly topical panel discussion with three excellent speakers.
29 January 2015
Chadwick G08, UCL
18:00 hours

In light of the recent events in Paris, we ask: do you have the right not to be offended? And if so, at what cost?

For more information, go to Facebook Page.

من چارلى هستم

من چارلى هستم

۱۵ ژانويه ۲۰۱۵

مصاحبه با فعال سياسى بهرام سروش

در مورد كشتار ١٢ نَفَر از كاركنان نشربه طنز چارلي هبدو وسبعا در دنيا محكوم شد. اما بعضي اين ترور را نتيجه كاريكاتور هاي تحريك آميز انها نسبت به اسلام ميدانند. واقعيت اين است كه چارلي هبدو همه مذاهب و قدرت ها را نقد مي كرده است. سوْال اين است كه چرا اسلام بايد حق ويژه اى داشته باشد؟ و آيا سكولاريستها و آتئيست ها هم مستحق  إبراز بيان و وجود هستند؟ به نام به احترام به مذهب صحنه را به اسلامى ها  واگذار کردند- امروز بيش از هر زمانى انتقاد به مذهب لازم است-

اخبار تکان دهنده هفته: شلاق رئيف بدوى

فتوای احمقانه هفته – فتوا عليه خال کوبى از ترکيه

Je Suis Charlie Hebdo

Je Suis Charlie Hebdo
Bread and Roses TV with Maryam Namazie and Fariborz Pooya
14 January 2015
The massacre of 12 at French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo by Islamists has been strongly condemned by people everywhere. Some, however, see it as a consequence of Charlie’s provocative cartoons on Islam and Mohammed. In fact, Charlie criticised all religions and all those in positions of power. Why should Islam have special privileges? And do secularists and unbelievers not deserve the same freedom of expression as believers. In the name of “respect” of religions, Islamists and the religious-Right have been given centre stage at the expense of free expression, which without the right to criticise religion is meaningless. In the era of ISIS, this criticism is needed more than ever. #IAmCharlie #JeSuisCharlie
Shocking News of the Week: Raif Badawi flogged 50 of 1000 lashes after Friday prayers in Saudi Arabia
Insane Fatwa of the week: Turkey’s top religious body has issued a fatwa urging Muslims who have tattoos to repent or have them surgically removed.

A defence of Charlie Hebdo must also turn into defence of other blasphemers and apostates

FRENCH: Toute défense de Charlie Hebdo doit également devenir celle d’autres blasphémateurs et apostats


Those of us who have openly criticised Islam and Islamism have faced many a threat and intimidation from the far-Right Islamist movement.

I have had phone calls saying I will be decapitated to recorded messages from the Islamic regime of Iran saying my time is near (yes, they have so many threats to make, they need to use recordings!). I’ve been called every derogatory and threatening term you can imagine from kafir, murtad, munafiq to fitnah and janazie (corpse)…

I don’t think there are many atheist, ex-Muslim or secular activists (including Muslims) like myself who have spoken up publicly and not faced some form of threat or intimidation.

So for us, Charlie Hebdo’s refusal to back down when so many have has meant a great deal over these years. Also, though, in addition to the rage one feels at any such tragedy, the massacre is personal for us.

It could really have been any of us. We are truly all Charlie Hebdo.

With the focus now on Charlie Hebdo and the crucial need and right to criticise Islam and religion, though, let us not forget the many across the globe who face execution or imprisonment for “insulting the prophet” and criticising Islam. Below you will find some examples which include Muslims, believers and atheists; the charges aim not to protect “Muslim sensibilities” as we so often hear in the west but to protect the status quo and the political power of Islamists.

A defence of Charlie Hebdo must also be turned into a defence of the many who refuse and resist.

Most urgent is the case of Raif Badawi who tomorrow on 9 January 2015 faces his flogging sentence. Raif Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam” in Saudi Arabia. he is to receive the first 50 torturous lashes tomorrow after Friday prayers.

Columnist Fatma Naoot, accused of insulting Islam, will stand trial on Jan. 28 in Egypt on allegations she criticised Islamic animal sacrifices. [Read more…]

After the Charlie Hebdo Massacre, Support those Fighting the Religious-Right

FRENCH: Après le massacre de Charlie Hebdo, Soutenons ceux qui se battent contre la droite religieuse


1908487_10205228738736122_6331463129153098_nAfter the massacre in Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015, expressing indignation, as so many are doing, is not enough.

A quick look at the English-speaking media shows that whilst many condemn the violence itself, they also assert that Charlie Hebdo courted (and maybe deserved?) a strong response from “Muslims”. Charlie’s regular cartoonists did not spare Islam, any other religion, nor fanatics and bigots.

This trend in the media requires our attention. Apparently secularists, agnostics and atheists must keep silent and do not deserve the kind of respect that believers are entitled to; nor can they enjoy free speech to the same degree.

In the name of “respect” of religions and of the religious sentiments of believers, it is indeed the fanatical religious-Right that is being supported and given centre stage. Meanwhile, those who are on the forefront of countering armed fundamentalists are left to their own devices. It is high time to give these secularists prominence, to recognise their courage and their political clarity and to stop labelling them “Islamophobic”.

In October 2014, secularists – including atheists, agnostics and believers from many countries, in particular many Muslim-majority countries, met in London to denounce the religious-Right and to demand being seen as its alternative. It is high time to learn from their analysis and lived experiences.

The tragic massacre in Paris will undoubtedly give fuel to the traditional xenophobic far-Right and the immediate danger is an increase in racism, marginalization and exclusion of people of Muslim descent in Europe and further.  We do not want to witness “anti-Muslim witch hunts” nor do we welcome the promotion of “moderate” Islamists by governments as official political partners. What is needed is a straightforward analysis of the political nature of armed Islamists: they are an extreme-Right political force, working under the guise of religion and they aim at political power. They should be combated by political means and mass mobilisation, not by giving extra privileges to any religion.

Their persistent demand for the extension of blasphemy laws around the world is a real danger for all. France has a long – and now growingly endangered – tradition of secularism; which allows dissent from religions and the right to express this dissent. It has had a rich tradition to mock and caricature powers that be – religious or otherwise. Let us keep this hard won right which cost so many lives in history, and, alas, still does – as Charlie Hebdo’s twelve dead and numerous wounded demonstrate.

Marieme Helie Lucas, Algerian Sociologist and Secularism is a Women’s Issue Founder
Maryam Namazie, Iranian-born Spokesperson of Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, One Law for All and Fitnah and Co-host of Bread and Roses TV
Karima Bennoune, Professor and Martin Luther King Jr. Hall Research Scholar, University of California, Davis School of Law [Read more…]

For Charlie Hebdo: Rage and Solidarity

la-nouvelle-une-de-charlie-hebdo-sorti-ceI6HTgMy message to Charlie Hebdo’s editor in chief, Gerard Biard:

Dear Gerard

I spoke on a panel with you in November last year at the International Feminist and Secular Network in Paris.

I am writing to express my outrage at the cold-blooded murder of freethinkers at Charlie Hebdo today and to give my unequivocal support.

Freedom of expression and the criticism of religion and Islam are basic rights. Clearly, free expression without the right to criticise religion is meaningless. Throughout history, criticism of religion (that which is deemed sacred or taboo) has been intrinsic to human progress.

In the era of ISIS and the religious-Right, this criticism is a historical necessity and needed more than ever.

The Islamists who killed today said they were “avenging” Islam’s prophet but Mohammed cartoons are merely an excuse. The aim of such acts of terrorism – whether in Paris or Afghanistan – are to defend their theocratic and inhuman values. They must know that we too will defend our human values – secularism, equality, citizenship, the right to religion and to be free from religion, the right to criticise and mock religion… which are not “western” values but universal ones.

Today’s killers are part of the same movement that massacres schoolchildren in Peshawar, throws acid in the faces of “improperly veiled” women in Iran and crucifies secularists in Kobane. They need no excuses to commit murder and mayhem.

The battle to commemorate the lives lost today is an ongoing one. It’s a battle between secularists versus theocrats everywhere. And it is a fight that we have to win. No ifs or buts.

In solidarity

Maryam Namazie

We condemn the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo by Islamic terrorists

The murderous attack today by Islamic terrorists on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo has aroused people’s anger and disgust around the world. Charlie Hebdo is a left, progressive satirical weekly which criticises and ridicules religion and religious beliefs, prejudices and taboos. In 2011 the magazine’s office was firebombed by Islamists for publishing a caricature of Muhammed, and its editor and writers have repeatedly received death threats. In today’s attack 12 people, including the magazine’s editor and three well-known French cartoonists, were killed. This is a direct attack on freedom of expression, on freedom to criticise religion and on civilisation and humanity. [Read more…]

Bravo Charlie Hebdo

In a climate where Islamist murder, violence and intimidation is cowering many into silence and submission,  Charlie Hebdo’s insistence on poking fun at Islam on par with all religions and its refusal to back down despite calls for censorship is one that will be remembered when Islamism is in the dustbins of history.

French professor Marlière writes in the Guardian that the magazine’s aim to reassert its leftwing secular tradition in this climate is more anti-Islamic than anti-clerical.  But anti-Islamism is this era’s anti-clericalism.

He adds that the cartoons are ‘unhelpful’ in a ‘climate of religious and racial prejudice’ but like the Guardian and many a liberal and post-modernist leftist, he misses the point. What is ‘unhelpful’ is Islamism’s murder and mayhem.

Criticising Islam and Islamism is not about prejudice – that is Islamism’s narrative – which has been bought hook, line and sinker by those calling for censorship. In fact, in this day and age, criticism is a historical necessity and legitimate challenge to our era’s inquisition.

Also, what the professor and the Guardian seem to forget is that those most at threat of the Islamist herds are not satirical French publications or even US and French embassies worldwide but the many countless human beings living under Islamism and Sharia law  – a lot of them Muslims – who daily face threats, imprisonment and death for their dissent from and criticism – like Saudi Hamza Kashgari, Indonesian Alex Aan, Egyptian Alber Saber and Pakistani Asia Bibi.

When will the professor and the Guardian side with them?

As the most wonderful Salman Rushdie says: we “need to be braver”.

Yes, clearly we do if we are going to stop this barbarism once and for all…

As an aside, of course Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon is different from the despicable and racist Christian Right film, the Innocence of Muslims. But free expression is not just for those we agree with. And let’s not forget a bad film is just a bad film. The real problem that needs to be addressed head on is Islamism and censorship is the wrong response.

Love not Hate, Charlie Hebdo’s Brilliant Response

Thanks to Olav for sending me the cover of this week’s edition of Charlie Hebdo, the French publication firebombed last week for mocking Mohammad, Islam’s prophet. In this week’s issue, the publication is printing messages of solidarity including mine. The cover says Love is Stronger than Hate.

Sorry but Islam and Mohammad are not off-limits

Charles Hebdo, the French publication that was firebombed a few days ago for mocking Islam and Islam’s prophet Mohammad is gathering messages of solidarity to publish in its next issue, which will be out this Wednesday in France. Here’s mine:

No one has yet claimed responsibility for the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo’s office but the attack does bear the hallmarks of the political Islamic movement as – for them – this is business as usual and all in a day’s work. They bomb offices, threaten anyone who criticises Islam and Islamism, and where they have political power they slaughter those who speak their minds in cold blood and in broad daylight.

Those who condemn the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo’s office whilst also criticising the publication for mocking Islam’s prophet Mohammad are (at best) missing the point (and more likely apologists for the Islamists). [Read more…]