Enough is damn enough, already! The threat of Islamic terrorism is cowing nearly everyone, including the editors of the Berkeley student newspaper The Daily Californian.
About two weeks ago, the paper published a really nice op-ed by an ex-Muslim from Pakistan, recounting how she (the author was obviously a woman) left Islam. At the time, the author’s name was appended to the piece. I’ve put that original letter at the bottom of this post, but have left out the author’s name. I’ve done that because the paper or author, apparently under threat, retracted the letter.
Here’s the paper’s retraction:
As the Daily Caller reports,
The precise nature of these safety concerns, and whether they arose in reaction to direct threats levied against the author, is not clear. The Daily Caller News Foundations reached out to both the author and Veklerov for further details, but only Veklerov replied and she declined to comment.
If the paper was threatened, it would seem incumbent on Veklerov to report it, but we know how scared editors are. I would think it seriously incumbent on the paper to write an editorial decrying these threats to free speech, especially since the original letter, which you’ll see below, was neither “strident” nor “shrill.” It was simply a personal tale of leaving faith behind. But of course we know that to many Muslims, apostasy = death.
But regardless of whether the retraction was requested by the author, or mandated by the paper, it shows how the thuggery of radical Islam is silencing free speech: in this case, a perfectly reasonable personal story about abandoning an oppressive faith. Clearly there were threats.
Finally, here’s the original letter, which was published (sans authorial name) on reddit:
If someone had told me six years ago that I would leave Islam and end up an atheist, I would never have believed him.
I was born and raised as a Muslim. I grew up in a Muslim country — Pakistan — surrounded by other Muslims who were convinced that their religion was the one true religion. My family, in particular, followed moderate Sunni Islam, which is a more liberal approach based on the “Sunnah,” or Prophet’s teachings. That was the path I set out on. But now, as a Muslim apostate and atheist, my journey couldn’t have led me any further from what I once knew to be true.
Until I was 14, I simply accepted everything I’d been told about Islam. I was taught that being born into a Muslim family is a blessing and is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon someone. I initially thought the Sunni path I followed was the one true path, just like my Shia, Bori and Ismaili friends adhered to the teachings of the sects their families followed. I noticed how everyone around me claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, which made me question who was actually right. I started to view Islam — and religion in general — as something dogmatic, irrational, unscientific and, most of all, completely sexist.
A feminist since age 10, it’s always been hard for me to reconcile my feminism with my faith. Even though the Pakistani society in which I grew up was sexist, my family has always been very progressive. As a result, I never accepted the male superiority and traditional gender roles that were part of my society. For most of my teen years, I felt torn apart by my contradictory beliefs. On one hand, I was a radical feminist who supported gay rights. But on the other hand, I was a practicing Muslim whose religion was clearly homophobic and placed men above women.
At that point, I still believed in an all-knowing God, and I felt that if I learned more about Islam, I would be able to understand why it stated the things it did. I read the Quran with translation and countless books on Islamic jurisprudence. I started taking classes at Zaynab Academy and Al-Huda, two traditional Islamic organizations. The Islam they preached was not the liberal, fluid Islam of my parents: Instead, it followed the Quran very rigidly. While the moderate Muslims I knew never encouraged hijab or gender segregation, these institutions differed in their views. I started to follow a more ritualistic Islam, going as far as giving up listening to music and wearing the hijab.
Stifled by orthodox Islam, I decided to turn to a more liberal approach. I embraced Sufism, which is the mystical side of Islam, and began to see God as an entity of love. Feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud and Leila Ahmed, gave me a glimmer of hope that Islam and feminism could be compatible, although I later found their arguments very selective. On the other extreme, I read writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another ex-Muslim atheist, whose harsh criticism of Islam was not always justified.
After trying to understand Islam through a plurality of perspectives — orthodox, feminist, Sufi and liberal approaches — I decided to leave Islam, but by that point, I had realized that I didn’t need to look at things as black and white. I could leave Islam without dismissing it or labeling it as wrong.
Going through all of these versions of Islam has enabled me to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the religion. Islam is no monolith, and with more than 1.5 billion followers, it’s impossible to refer to Islam as a single entity. There are Muslim women who cover every inch of their bodies except for their eyes, and there are also Muslim women who wear short skirts. With so much variation amongst Muslims, it’s hard to determine who really gets to speak for Islam.
Despite being one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, Islam is still extremely misrepresented and shrouded with stereotypes. I want to address these stereotypes and portray Islam in all its diversity. I’ve experienced the religion firsthand and have also viewed it as an objective bystander. I probably spend more time thinking about God than most religious people; despite my skepticism, I’ve always yearned for a spiritual connection. I want to share what I’ve learned about Islam over the years. I plan to defend it and give credit where it’s due — Islam, after all, gave women the right to work and own property back in the seventh century — and I also plan to ruthlessly point out areas that need reform (yes, Islam does allow men to have four wives and sex slaves).
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Islam, it’s that my former religion, just like any other ideology, has its flaws. Religion should not be immune to criticism. It’s important to have an honest dialogue about religion and identify what can be improved — and that’s exactly what I plan to do.
Seriously, what about that letter should doom its author? It’s time to put a stop to the kind of bullying barbarism that can censor a letter this mild—a letter that even says some good things about Islam, and suggests simply that it be improved. It even suggests that Islam and feminism can be harmonized, though I find that a real stretch.
If someone wrote the same letter about Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, or any patriarchal faith, there would have been no problem. The problem is Islam. And this is why Ayaan Hirsi Ali has bodyguards.
Anjem Choudray was on 60 Minutes this Sunday and he spoke of how he wants to use democracy to force a theocracy on the rest of the world because there is only one law, and it is Allah’s law. And that there can only be a dictatorship with Sharia Law because it is God’s word.
That’d be the same Anjem Choudary who led chants of, “F**k democracy,” during the recent election campaign, and urged Muslims not to vote.
The problem of living in a Liberal Democracy is Rabble Rousing Bigots like this can spout there ignorant insane views on the Population, its a pity that people living in the kind of Society he espouses aren’t granted the same privilege.
The media loves Choudary for his outrageousness, and thus consistently grants a forum to this hate-monger. In the UK, he’s frequently a participant on TV shows such as “The Big Question” and can always be counted upon to raise hackles, if not ratings.
“Seriously, what about that letter should doom its author?”
Wow, that is scary. As someone who was raised in the Catholic tradition, I would express many of the same sentiments (although, obviously not the same experiences) as the author of the letter does about her previous faith. By that I mean, she really goes out of her way to discuss the pro’s of her previous faith in very positive way while at the same time debunking the faith as a whole (hardly “strident” atheist prose). I guess I’m just lucky not to have been born during the time of the inquisitions.
Because it’s about Islam, the very word means “submission” and if you dare to have a mind of your own, that is very dangerous for submission otherwise how can you submit.?
A good while back, someone here memorably commented that a preacher type asked him, “When did you lose your religion, son?” He replied, “I didn’t lose it, I just set it down on the curb and walked away.
Sounds like a fitting description of the author’s action, if perhaps adding that she set it down in pieces, at different times, on various curbs.
That is a great line. I’m going to try and remember that.
Islam is barbarism.
In civilized lands, we tolerate the barbarians so long as they act civilized. They can speak in favor of barbarism, up until the point that they cross the line into criminal acts, including harassment.
But we also should not pretend to respect the barbarians nor the barbaric practices they would engage in were they permitted to do so.
Anybody who would say a kind word about a child-raping primitive warlord who rode a flying horse into the sunset is an idiot…and a dangerous one, a declared enemy of civilization. Our own civilization demands we grant them the same civil liberties as all others…but also that we keep the dogs on a very short leash.
I see the withdrawal of the letter as evidence of criminal intimidation and civil denial of the author’s federal civil right to freedom of expression. I sincerely hope that local and federal officials throw the book at whoever is responsible for the unconscionable treatment of the now-nameless author.
b&
I agree with you. I have always been against any kind accommodation and the excusing of religion moderate or otherwise.
Other than being, as you point out, stupid, every kind of support makes a base of a pyramid, with a pointy end of the most absurd and extreme..
But that pointy bit couldn’t exist without the base.
After that bit of waffle, my query to you and myself is, how do we regard people like this author, who does if fact seem to have something kind to say about the prophet, even though she has left it?
The same way we’d regard any other victim of brainwashing. We can have sympathy for all she’s been through, but she really needs to work through her Stockholm Syndrome.
b&
Yep, I imagine that was the process she was in.
One must at least admire the honesty of the paper for !*directly*! admitting that the REAL reason really really is “personal safety concerns”.
Not any of this claptrap about potentially offensive to religious or racial minorities, or violation of speech codes, etc.
Nope, comin’ right out and sayin’ we’re scared for our skin, plain and simple.
It would seem The Daily Californian never subscribed to: ‘We Are Charlie Hebdo’. Or did they?
I have also e-mailed the editor to show my disgust.
A very deep hole of tolerance for this intimidation and violence has been dug y people who should know better.
Punching up punching down, punching the face (says the pope) and all that garbage excuse making has made what should be a self evident position of condemnation one of tolerance.
It is sickening. It is peanuts like Trudeau and all those other idiot authors that enable this kind of crap to go on.
All their BUTs are going to come home to roost and they will have more blood on their hands.
It is disgusting, and people had better wake up.
It’s difficult to punch at all when you’re wearing the straitjacket of religious intimidation.
Exactly.
Commendable for sure but I’m sorry if I seem a little impatient but when is defending a fairy tale ever a good thing, one that rules lives with a grand illusion and false meaning. I guess reform is the best we can hope for here by what she has written. I’d like it reduced to a curiosity and an embarrasment.
The word for all of this that does not get used enough is intimidation. Some of the definitions would be: to frighten or threaten someone. To make someone afraid. To deter from some action by inducing fear. We should all abhor this word and anyone who does this and that includes a religion. It is particularly bad when a religion uses this practice quite openly to keep the masses in line. It is no better than Russia’s Stalin or Germany’s Hitler. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you should fight this practice equally.
How awful and sadly how typical and expected. I wish instead of removing the letter, UC Berkeley agreed to provide protection to this woman….but of course, who wants to end up like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and live in fear with the added expense of body guards around you at all times? This poor woman.
Suggesting that everything is not for the best in this best of all possible worlds has always been an unpopular rhetorical approach, no matter how well justified by evidence.
When I tell people that they’ve just sunk $20 million in drilling a dusty hole in the ground, it doesn’t make me # 1 in the hit parade either. Though normally the client is sufficiently attached to the real world to stop pouring money into said hole. But there remains a lot of irrationality in responses to such bad news.
I wonder … if someone wrote a book of unadulterated bullshit, but called it “Good News”, would people fall for the claim?
Um, they did and they do. They’re called the Bible, Quran, book of Mormon, Scientology………
Some versions say so on the cover. The Good News Bible is in many churches.
Aidan may at times be as blunt as a sock full of the stuff he inspects, but I think, in this case, he might just possibly perhaps be vaguely aware of that fact….
b&
To quote my .. [thinks back, a long, long way] … geography and geology teacher, “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit … and the best!”
I’m sure he said that…but was he being sarcastic at the time?
b&
Very.
He was, after all, breathing.
A synthesis for dihydrogen trioxide. HOOOH ! That sounds like fun!
Wait…you mean you can shove more than just two oxygens between a pair of hydrogens? The two-oxygen version is bad enough…what’s the three-oxygen version do? Explode on contact with something-or-other? Kill you instantly in even more interesting ways?
What is it with chemists?
b&
Yes, the structure giiven is “H-O-O-O-H”, and yes, it is pretty much as full of character as you’d deduce, given the faintest of acquaintance with chemistry and energetics.
That it’s structural formula is both pronouncable, and descrptive puts it into rarified territory, along with another perennial favourite, “F-O-O-F”
What is iit with chemists? Bangs, flashes and bad smells. Simples, innit?
I shudder to think…but I’m sure I’m not the first person whose mind it’s crossed, especially if somebody’s already playing around with HOOOH.
Is there a FOOOF?
…’cause making one would be rather F-O-O-Li-S-H…sorry….
b&
FOOF (dioxygen difluoride) is an “interesting” compound. First prepared in the 1930s, it is a “vigorous” oxidising agent. So vigorous that it is essentially useless. But for the pursuit of pure knowledge, that is no hinderance. If you’re interested, I cannot praise the dry (phosphorous pentoxide grade) descriptions in the “In the Pipeline” blog, particularly the section entitled “things I won’t work with”, and “Sand Won’t Save You Now” (the latter dedicated to chemicals that will decompose things like firebrick, asbestos sheet and the wet sand in your fire bucket. The more interesting compounds will take such “protective” materials and sometimes detonate on contact. Liiberation of highly poisonoous, hot, extremely corrosive fumes is a common, if minor side effect.
Really, don’t try this at home.
I’m reminded of a Youtube video where two sisters are either emptying or filling an aquarium of an invisible heavier-than-air gas, and seeing the resulting effect on a floating paper boat.
Most likely CO2 – on the grounds that it’s cheap and only slightly dangerous. You could carry out the same experiment with ,say, hydrogen sulphide, but you’d want a little more protective equipment.(Well, *I’d* want ; you’re free to take your own risks, but I’ve seen the consequences of a H2S knock down. That’s why I shave when I’m at work.)
I recall that it was something more exotic than CO2; composed of three elements, one of which a halogen(?).
Hmmm. Three.
Hydrogen cyanide probably wouldn’t pass safety muster.
Chloromethane would be a gas (b.p.-30degC or so). But I wouldn’t trust it – chloroform is nasty enough that I wouldn’t trust any of the relatives.
Fluoromethane … hmmm, OK toxicity wise, but flammable.
Difluoromethane … getting there, what’s the vapour density? Around twice that of air. That’ll do the job, most likely.
But don’t add a C; you’ll get formaldehyde. (Is that right? Is there an OH group in the molecule?)
No, not formaldehyde. Just soda water.
b&
Add C in almost any form and you’ll get a lot of smaller molecules out, plus considerable energy. You might end up with the dicarboxylic acid derived from formic acid, but I suspect that the linearity of the structure would make that a difficult reactin to achieve.
“Boom” is the most likely outcome.
What was that other compound I saw in the “things I won’t work with” blog last night … something alarmingly close to C2N14H2. That’s another interesting compound.
I beg to differ. Islam is merely a collection of myths and bad advice from times far more backward than our own.
Islam does not threaten people. Islam does not blow stuff up. Islam doesn’t throw gays off of buildings. Islam doesn’t beat its wife. Islam doesn’t circumcise its daughter.
Although horrible acts are encouraged by Islam, they are committed by Muslims themselves.
Criticising Islam is a good thing. Criticising people who do nasty things is a good thing too.
And there’s no reason to always add the “not all Muslims are bad” disclaimer to every criticism. We already know that. And we don’t ever need to add that same disclaimer when we moan about Christian/Jewish/Hindu/etc. stupidity either.
Equal treatment for Islam and equal treatment for Muslims.
Are “Islamist” and “Muslim” quite satisfactorily synonymous?
Assuming the threats here were made anonymously, I’m not sure how we go about accomplishing that — short of somehow launching an Eastern Enlightenment, which (even if we had some idea how to do it) would be an awfully long-term solution to a very immediate problem.
sub