Jeff Tayler seems to have moved his “blog” articles on religion and politics from Salon to Quillette. I approve. In late April, Jeff wrote a widely-read piece on Quillette whose title tells it all: “In defense of Sam Harris.” Now he’s written a new piece that might well be called “In defense of Maajid Nawaz,” except that it’s a defense of all progressive Muslims and ex-Muslims, so its real title is “Free speech and Islam—the Left betrays the most vulnerable.”
It might also have been called “The perfidy of Nathan Lean,” that unctuous defender of all things Islam and ample employer of the term “Islamophobia.” For it was Lean who wrote a New Republic piece on Maajid Nawaz that was one of the most odious and unscrupulous pieces of “journalism” I’ve ever seen. (It may not be irrelevant that Lean is employed at the Saudi Arabian-funded Prince Alaweed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. ) Lean’s was a hit piece, concentrating not on Nawaz’s ideas but on his dress, and on innuendo about his motives—popularity and money. (That’s an odd stand to take for someone who takes money from a Saudi-funded institution.) Anyway, if you haven’t read the Lean piece, do so, but then read Tayler’s piece on Quillette. Two excepts:
The misguided progressives who denounce “Islamophobia” and turn a blind eye to the mistreatment of, say, women, gays, and adherents of other religions in Muslim communities or in Islamic countries constitute what Maajid Nawaz has dubbed the “regressive left.” Regressive leftists are not genuine progressives at all, of course, but deeply confused de facto apologists for the most illiberal notion conceivable: namely, that one group of humans has, on account of its religion, an inalienable right to dominate and abuse other humans — and to do so unmolested by criticism.
No better evidence of this strain of illogical, muddled intolerance of free expression exists than the suspicion and ire regressive leftists reserve for former Muslims and Muslim reformers working to modernize their religion. In her moving, 2015 must-watch address, Sarah Haider, who is of Pakistani origin, recounts being called everything from Jim Crow to House Arab to native informant by American liberals for having abandoned Islam — by, that is, the very folk who should support women, regardless of their skin color, in their struggle for equality and freedom from sexist violence and chauvinism.
The brave, Somali-born ex-Muslim (and advocate of reforming Islam) Ayaan Hirsi Ali has received even harsher treatment, and to this day, for her outspokenness about her former faith and for making a film in 2004 portraying misogyny in Islamic societies, has to live under armed protection. (The director, Theo van Gogh, was assassinated that year by an Islamist on the streets of Amsterdam.) There are many other examples, but the point is this: those who criticize or abandon Islam may well be taking their life into their hands. Quisling regressive leftists add insult to the injury (or worse) suffered by these people, who, by any progressive standards, should be celebrated.
Why are moderate Muslims (or ex-Muslims) so vilified by the Left? I still don’t understand it completely, for they are the people whom liberals say they want to empower—the people know the faith and, in the case of liberal believers, are our one hope to “reform” it. Perhaps its true that, as someone said, the only credible Muslim for these folks has a Qur’an in one hand and a Kalashnikov in the other. But that’s precisely what all enlightened people oppose! I am still mystified.
One more quote (but read the whole piece, which is longish):
The larger issue is not only that reform-minded Muslims and ex-Muslims face danger from repressive Islamic regimes (in, for instance, Saudi Arabia, where atheism is legally equated with terrorism, or in Bangladesh, where secular bloggers are routinely hacked to death by Islamists), they suffer slings and arrows of disdain from those witless progressives who decry “Islamophobes,” “porch monkeys,” “House Arabs,” and so on. Their much-suppressed voices of reason are, though, beginning to find an audience. Check out this fine essay by Zubin Madon, which contains the following quote from the Pakistani-Canadian blogger Eiynah about the plight of former Muslims:
“We are cast out of conversations about our own communities and lives, we are refused platforms in mainstream media to avoid offending Muslim sentiments, and more recently we are viciously targeted on social media.”
This is disgraceful treatment from progressives, who should be standing shoulder to shoulder with these courageous souls endeavoring, often at great risk, to live free and dignified lives without religion. They, and all Muslims working to end Islamist violence (including, of course, Maajid Nawaz), deserve our full-throated support.
And, as Jeff argues, we should deep-six the term “Islamophobia,” and correct those who misuse it. What they mean is “MUSLIMophobia” fear of Muslims as a group and bigotry against them. Our argument is about the pernicious ideology behind Muslim malfeasance, and THAT is the real “Islamophobia.” Since so many people confuse these two issues, it’s best to avoid the “Islamophobia” canard.
Great stuff. I really enjoy Tayler’s pieces, thanks for bringing them to our attention.
🐾
Seems Jerry is just hitting it out of the park this week. I really enjoyed reading Jeff Tayler’s piece (& he handles the nonsensical term Islamophobia well – its use is a pet peeve of mine.)
Reblogged this on The Logical Place.
As near as I can tell, specific reasons for non-support of Ayaan Hirsi Ali are based in large part on the belief that she comes from the political right, and so any opinions from her are automatically suspect. The reasons why she is considered to be from the political right include her temporary employment from a right wing think tank, and that she came out in support of Netanyahu in his hard-line defense of Israel.
It is baffling to me, too, that these items (and there are some others) somehow make null and void what she is saying regarding Islams’ treatment of women and gays.
She sought work with several left-leaning organizations when she first moved to the US – they would not employ her. It was the right-leaning organization that gave her a job. She has commented since that they never asked her to change anything she said either as they were committed to free speech. I find it embarrassing that these days it’s sometimes right-wing organizations that are better at upholding freedom of speech than left-wing ones.
It baffles me too that so many on the left attack someone they should see as a hero.
The right-wing organizations are not more committed to free speech than left-wing groups. They’re just committed to the free speech they like. They’re probably less likely to de-platform speakers they disagree with, but they’re also less likely to actively defend the right to free speech of these speakers.
“they’re also less likely to actively defend the right to free speech of these speakers.”
Well, certainly we all have biases. Bu, other than the politically driven free speech groups (ACLU for example) I can’t even cite a recent example of left defending any speech that wasn’t SJW approved.
I have seen a number of Youtube videos of Dale Martin the Yale new testament scholar who is both atheist and openly gay, talk/debate the bible at Christian schools where he is treated with respect. Bernie Sanders went to Liberty University where he discussed his pro-choice views and was also treated amicably. It seems that at most univerities almost every Republican (not just Trump) would be harassed with an attempt to ban them.
Right on. Even if she is a committed follower of Rush Limbaugh and Jeff Beck or whoever, I find little to care about there. What i like about ’round here is that it is ok to support a person for the things we agree on, even if we don’t agree w/ them on everything.
Agreed. Too often people decide to look at political ‘affiliation’ before they even consider when to agree with someone.
This is intellectually limiting.
Also her husband is conservative, and all good SJWs know that a woman’s ideas and opinions cannot be separated from her husband’s.
She now works with the liberal Harvard Kennedy School of Govt.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/2635/ayaan_hirsi_ali.html
sub
//
“Muslimophobia” is too suggestive of “Islamophobia” in my view, and still suffers from the ambiguous “phobia” suffix.
I prefer the more specific and unambiguous term “anti-Muslim bigotry”. It’s a few more words (though not many more letters), but it’s clear and entirely sidesteps the minefield that’s been carefully constructed around these concepts by people like Lean.
It’s not the terminology, but the honesty and intent with which it is delpoyed. The first person I saw drop the smear ‘Islamophobia’ in favor of ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ was Glenn Greenwald. Need I say more?
The term “Islamofascistphobia,” though awkward, seems otherwise accurate and appropriate and useful.
I’m with you on the wording, John C. It is bigotry, not fear, that is problematic.
On a related note, the following piece, “Three Warning Signs That Village Atheism Is Your New Religion,” just appeared in The Humanist: http://thehumanist.com/commentary/three-warning-signs-village-atheism-new-religion
The author, Sincere Kirabo, presents a veritable cornucopia of regressive tropes, including the obligatory shots at Dawkins, Harris, Maher, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
He also castigates “Village Atheists,” who apparently consist of secularists who don’t share his particular view of social justice, of placing too much emphasis on scientism.
It’s an infuriatingly smug, simplistic exercise in simplistic categorization and identity politics that might give us some insight as to why the authoritarian left is so critical of new atheists.
I read it earlier, and found it as you do. A main thesis in the article is to claim that the village atheists (I think its basically the new atheists) believe that reduction of religion is the main way to solve important goals of social justice. Do you want to protect LGBTQ rights? Help stomp out religion. Do you want to improve the lives of women? Help stomp out religion, so say the village atheists (he says).
He seems to claim that religion has little to do with these SJ problems, but of course he is wrong on that. Yes, the loss of religion would help in these matters & that is a big reason why the new atheists bash religion. No, new atheists do not think that the absence of religion would entirely solve these SJ problems.
The type of leftists who hate other atheists whom they label “New Atheists”, “village atheists,” or whatever other label they apply to ‘otherize’ those with differing views, are fundamentally proponents of the Smug Style.
I wonder what his reaction would be to this guy:
http://theatheistconservative.com/
Is this really what you’ve been reduced to, Jerry?
Are you so afraid of criticism of Maajid Nawaz that you’ll delete any comment even questioning his honesty?
Is that the level you’re on? Are you going to sink so low as to decline to allow this one to go through as well?
Are you so afraid to find out the truth that you’ll censor anyone you disagree with?
What happened to the Jerry Coyne that was an enthusiastic debunker of religious frauds?
Would the Hitch have shied away from an intellectual duel? Or would he have welcomed dissent and disagreement?
You have literally said nothing in this comment. Jerry has linked to Lean’s article on Nawaz, and many of us have already read it anyway. How is he stopping people from reading it and deciding for themselves?
If you have arguments to make in opposition to Tayler’s piece, make them. I thought both Jerry and Tayler made a good case, and they mention many of the things I thought when I first read the article by Lean. It was referred to on my own website in the comments at one point, and the majority there also thought that Lean’s arguments were pretty thin.
Wow. What’s the backstory on this comment?
The article by Lean, and one or two others I have seen (see here, but damn the ads will bog your computer down) claim that Nawaz’s story of conversion from jihadist –> reformist does not wash in all details, according to associates of Nawaz. From what I can tell, the claims seem more innuendo than anything else. For example, while a jihadist Nawaz may not have been as committed to the cause as was expected. For another, Nawaz claimed to have converted to reformist while in prison, but sources say he did not convert until… afterwards (insertion of ominous music).
Even if all the issues were true, and Nawaz has spun his story a little, I do not understand why that should detract much from the importance of what he is trying to do.
Inquiring minds want to know. 😉
Jerry, I submit it’s a combination of a few factors why a large part of the Left is regressive.
1) Feelz. Muslims feel like a minority whose identity is “feared” by society and who are subject of hatred. They don’t see Muslims as huge religious group they actually are, but more like lesbians, gays, trans and so on.
2) Anti-Racism. Racism is bad, and not being a racist is not enough. Social Justice Warriors believe everyone is racist, unless they actively do something about it. Hence, it became fashionable to make strong gestures that one belongs to the other, Good People Camp.
3) Anti-colonislism. The belief is that everyone in the West is born with original guilt from imperialism, colonialism and exploitation of the Third World. Like with anti-racism, you must make gestures to show that you are not like this. Hence, you must hate Israel and be against reform of Islam since this is viewed again as Westerners imposing them onto others. Mix with a good dose of Cultural Relativism.
4) Progressive Stack, Standpoint Theory: minorities by virtue of being a minority must get benefits to even out disadvantages elsewhere and must be listened to. Your role, as a member of the doninant group, is to shut up. Ex-muslims and such a viewed as Toms and traitors, who are no longer viewed as legitimate members of the group. Hence, hostility towards them.
5) Critical Race Theory. An ideology which I view as the foundation of the Social Justice Warrior movement, and the defacto mainstream worldview in the US secular movement now: individuals cease to exist and are viewed as members of identity groups only. These race/gender etc groups are considered to have essential features (e.g. all women are oppressed, all muslims are oppressed). The world is cut along such linies, making e.g. problems of the Dear Muslima practically invisible. The male Muslims get sorted into the male category, and the Muslims into the female category. Both are minorities, such you can only be critical from a general anti-patriarchy direction, but never from a muslim-make specific one.
6) Intersectionality. US secularists and atheists typically believe strongly in the “Intersectionality” aspect of CRT (see 5), where essences as construed in the framework can be mixed like ingredients, i.e. someone can have essences from different minority categories and as such exists as they say on “multiple axes of oppression”. This again reinforces the “being oppressed” notions.
7) Peer pressure. Being a Good Person and Right On The Internet (the main attraction for many in the US secular movement) requires that you also go along and advertise it properly. To do this means to avoid any whiff that could make you seem bigoted. Here, many sociological links reinforce each other. For example, when Right Wingers incidentially support Israel, you must do the opposite. If they like Vanilla, you must like Chocolate. In short, you must avoid looking like The Other (they are vile and evil!).
8) Solidarity as Sacred Value. Adding to the previous point. There is contagious effect too, where even the mere perception of going against the Good Tribe can mean being “called out”. This is also in my view the chief reason why large parts of US secularism is wedded to smearing and outright fabrication: nobody can correct it, or is casted out. This has to do with the safe spaces, too. The implicit sacred value, as sociologists call it, is not “truth” but solidarity. In short, some truths must be ignored or are dangerous or detrimental when spelled out. Hence, you are better not correcting falsehood that are useful to the tribe — you go against expectations of solidarity — and it was even punished. That’s how interpretations tend to spin heavily towards most uncharitable when it concerns the outgroup, and opposite for the ingroup. Pair this with the firm belief that critique of minority culture increases hate crime and “marginalization”.
9) I could probably go on. But basically US atheism/skepticism as it evolved since 2011 and by now blended into larger political trends.
Damn. Typing from the pad is not good, and no edit function. :/
“They don’t see Muslims as huge religious group they actually are, but more like lesbians, gays, trans and so on.”
This is one thing that is just baffling to me. I suppose they lack perspective, being mostly from white upper/middle class communities, and yet they have he gall to whine about other people’s “privilege”
This was supposed to be a reply o your main post, but whatever.
They see Muslims as an oppressed minority that must be protected. They reflexively protect these minorities without even thinking about what they are protecting. Minority *always* equals good and blameless in their eyes. Minorities can do no wrong. And people within those minorities who dare to disagree are punished for it.
Superb summary.
” Hence, you must hate Israel and be against reform of Islam since this is viewed again as Westerners imposing them onto others.”
the SJW crowd really does not really want their pet groups to succeed. This is the Israel ‘problem’: Israel built a modern, successful democracy out there in the desert with rule of law, high standards of education and technology, producing productive farms in the desert, a fairly good record on civil rights. The nerve of those people, making the surrounding nations look primitive!
I must add that I thoroughly agree with your analysis. Virtue signalling has become the operative.
Here’s one from the “really, not the Onion”
This one is almost laughable, except that this guy is now a diversity coordinator for the US National Park service. I guess we’ll need to cut down all those microaggressing trees.
“Mickey Fearn says the reasons run deeper than money and geography. He’s worked in American parks for 46 years and is Saturday’s keynote speaker.
Here is one unexpected reason: The wilderness evokes some grisly images from American history — black slaves being hanged and lynched by their masters.
“African American people feel safe in cities and less safe in nature,” says Fearn, who is black. “Preserving wild places is a white concept, going back to Rome.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/02/27/ravines_arent_just_for_rich_white_people_porter.html
“Why are moderate Muslims (or ex-Muslims) so vilified by the Left?”
Because they are traitors.
If any other culture asks their worst elements to behave themselves the left nods in agreement.
With Islam, the left apparently thinks that the wife-beating, genital-mutilating, child-marrying, gay-murdering status quo is A-OK.
Different and lower standards for these poor, poor brown people who are incapable of civilising themselves so let’s just accept their barbarity.
This is pure bigotry. For these Muslims are no different from the rest of us and are entirely capable of raising their standards to what is expectable.
So why wait? Why not pressure the bad elements to adjust their behaviour sooner rather than later? Because doing so appears racist?
Actually, not doing so is entirely racist.
It certainly seems reasonable to me for Tayler to provide pushback to a lot of the unjustified criticism Harris and Maajid Nawaz (and others) have received. But unfortunately parts like this:
“Regressive leftists are not genuine progressives at all, of course, but deeply confused de facto apologists for the most illiberal notion conceivable: namely, that one group of humans has, on account of its religion, an inalienable right to dominate and abuse other humans — and to do so unmolested by criticism.”
Strike me as hyperbole. I’ve seen the back and forth between Maajid Nawaz, Harris and some of their critics, and I am unaware of a non-Muslim, liberal critic who fits that description. Every purported “regressive leftist” I’ve seen criticizes the excesses of fundamentalist Islam (e.g. stoning of adulterers, pour treatment of gays, etc).
I don’t see this “fear of criticizing anything about Islam or Muslims” stuff.
What I do see are differences on how to understand the motivations of bad actors in the Muslim world, and how to characterize and understand the rest of the “more moderate” Muslim world. (E.g. they think Harris and Maajid Nawaz paint with too broad a brush in terms of criticizing Islam in ways that can insight more fear of Muslims than is warranted.
I generally lean toward Harris/Maajid Nawaz’s side of the debate, and I’ve seen their views mischaracterized or exaggerated, which I don’t like.
But then, I’ve seen some of the same from the “anti-regressive-left” side – characterizing all possible nuance from the other side’s position – and Taylor’s description above seems one such example.
^^meant to write: “mischaracterizing away all possible nuance from the other side’s position”