The Stranger is an “alternative” biweekly newspaper in Seattle, and contains a blog called “The Slog”. And it is there that, last June, ex-Muslim activist Sarah Haider was interviewed about the troubles that Western liberals cause for her agenda. What is that agenda? Haider is Executive Director of Ex-Muslims of North America (ExMNA), and her organization “advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam.”
Haider, born in Pakistan but brought up since age 7 in the U.S., was raised as a Muslim but gave up the faith as a teen, since nothing about it made sense to her. Since then, she and ExMNA President Muhammad Syed have campaigned tirelessly and strategically to call out the dangers of Islamic doctrine as well as provide support and welcome to those who become apostates.
I hadn’t seen this interview, but was intrigued since its headline implied that it would be a criticism about how Western liberalism makes Haider’s job tougher. And indeed, most of the article, after Haider describes her de-conversion, is about that. We’ve talked a lot on this site about the cognitive dissonance that Islamic doctrine provides to the Left, as their liberal values and sympathy for the underdog collide with cultural relativism and the palpably oppressive doctrines that Islam holds towards women, gays, apostates, atheists, and those of other faiths. In the case of Islam, the perceived “underdog” status of Muslims has apparently won, causing the American Left to either neglect or—in the case of forced hijab-wearing—celebrate oppressive religious doctrine.
But it’s good to hear these things from someone who was once a believer, and can’t be accused of not knowing whereof she speaks. Haider is also a liberal, and though she’s been called a right-winger and a bigot simply because she criticizes Islam, her liberalism is incontestable.
I’ll put up some indented excerpts from her interview below the screenshot.
I assume you get plenty of criticism from Muslims but how is your work received among non-Muslims, especially in the West?
I think foreign policy colors the conversations around Islam in the West. This is what makes things difficult for people on the left. When I first started this back in 2013, 2014, when we were first launching as an organization, I started to get pushback in a few different ways. I got it from secularist and atheists who were concerned that we were taking too harsh an approach towards religion. They wanted us to be humanist Muslims. They didn’t want us to say, “This is not true. This is not real.” They cringed at the idea that we would even want to call ourselves ex-Muslims. They thought that was a very harsh term. I remember being surprised by that. This was the same group of people who were very actively criticizing Christianity—not just criticizing but ridiculing Christianity. And some of those same people were hesitant to do that with Islam. That was very surprising to me. These were my people. I expected them to understand where we were coming from and understand why it was important to tackle religion head on and be unafraid to piss some people off, particularly religious conservatives. I was surprised that some of the people who wouldn’t have hesitated to do that in regard to Western religions were hesitating when it came to Islam.
In the broader left outside of the secular, atheist context, things are so much worse in that it’s assumed right from the beginning that I must be a bigot, I must be right-wing, I must have some kind of war-mongering, imperialist agenda. I get very frustrated. It’s gotten to the point that I take for granted that I’m not going to be accepted by the broader progressive left.
I have a sense that something has changed in the progressive left but I am not one of these people who is going to leave the left and not be progressive anymore. I don’t believe that. What this means is that I have to get involved, I have to change hearts and minds, I have to talk to people. No one said this was going to be easy. There’s a reason we need people to be courageous in social discourse. It’s so easy to fall into political tribes and tribal thinking. Now I see my role has to be to educate people on the left on what’s going on here and how we need to get back on course.
Haider is then asked whether she resents being used by the Right as a weapon against the Left, and avers that the harms of that usage are less than the harms of remaining silent about Islam. She then has a few choice words about the hijab (a pet peeve of mine, since many Left-wing outlets seem to see hijabis as some kind of empowered heroes, and celebrate them regularly). It was thus refreshing to read stuff like this:
What you think about brands like Nike or the Women’s March using models in the hijab?
It frustrates me, of course. I don’t get as mad about it as other people do and that might be because I have a very deep-seated cynicism of corporations in general. I don’t understand the appeal of woke capitalism. I don’t understand why anyone cheers when corporations take these political stances. I don’t know what they think is happening. To me, it’s very clear that they are going to make money off it. It doesn’t mean anything else. It’s sort of like what happens when all these corporations get involved in LGBT activism for a month. I feel the same way about it. If they think they can profit off it, they will do it. I don’t see them as moral creatures so I’m not that mad about it, but I do think it reflects something in the broader culture. By the time a corporation has gotten to the point where they think they can put a hijabi model on the cover of a magazine, they have calculated that something in the broader culture has changed enough that they can profit off it, which means there is a broad sympathy for that view. From that perspective, it’s kind of upsetting to see that there is this broader acceptance of practices like hijab.
I’m sure a lot of Muslim women and non-Muslims who consider themselves allies would say it’s empowering. What’s your response to that, if someone says, “This is my choice, I’m empowered, and I want to be represented on the cover of Sports Illustrated or in Nike ads”?
[JAC: I’ve bolded a statement below that underlines the hypocrisy of liberals when it comes to Islam.]
If we were talking about Christian conservative practices, we would not be having this conversation. I feel sure of it. I feel sure that if a fundamentalist Mormon woman was saying that she is empowered in her long skirt and bonnet or whatever, you would view that with some level of suspicion, especially people who are of the left and who are feminist. And I think they would be right to do that. But when hijabis do the same, the response is totally different. It reveals a lot about our political climate and the ideological emptiness of the left and the degree to which it is very superficial. But it also reveals a latent racism. When Muslim women talk about modesty, it’s seen as this immutable characteristic, like their superstitions are a deep part of them in a way that we don’t see in the West.
Like people are trying so hard not to be racist that they are being racist?
It absolutely is racism. If the hijab is wonderful in all contexts, then you should be happy for it to be something that is forced upon your daughter. If you tomorrow your husband converts to Islam and forces your 8-year-old to put on a hijab and change the way she is dressed and refuse to talk to boys, if this wouldn’t be acceptable to a Western woman when it comes to her own daughter, it should not be acceptable for any girl across the world.
But of course it is acceptable, or at least Western feminists don’t waste a lot of breath on Muslim oppression of women. They might respond that we have problems with women’s rights here in the U.S., and that’s true, but the oppression is less severe than in, say, Afghanistan. They would then respond that “we can fight oppression both here and in the Middle East,” to which I’d respond, “Fine. Then why don’t you do anything about the oppression of women by Muslims?”
One more quote. I’m in danger of violating “fair usage” here, but there’s a lot more to the article than I’ve excerpted.
A lot of people in the West are afraid of being imperialists, that we are just imposing our values on another population.
The idea of cultural imperialism is… I’m finding it hard to speak politely about it, but I think it’s the most nonsensical thing. It’s historically illiterate. This is what happens. The world has always been shaped by other cultures. We’ve seen the flow of cultural values forever. It’s always happened. I don’t know why all of a sudden it’s this negative thing. We’re not imposing liberal values on the East. We’re saying, “Hey, look, equality of the sexes? It’s fantastic. It’s worked out well for us. Women are empowered this way, and it’s morally right.” If they had a choice to adopt it, I think many of them would. I’m baffled by the idea that it’s an “erasure” of culture. Why is my culture defined by how horribly women are treated? If the culture in Victorian England can evolve into what it is and still be an interesting, vibrant place, why can’t that happen in Pakistan or Libya or Saudi?
The piece below, from the Dec. 24 HuffPost, is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts, especially because it implies that wearing the hijab is some kind of virtue.
I’ve supported ExMNA, and, like the FFRF, they don’t waste time or money on non-essential activities. You can donate, if you wish, at this site.
Smart words from a smart lady.
Our current “progressives” refuse to join in any criticism of the medieval obscurantism, intolerance, and bigotry of Islam because—well, because these criticisms are also made by some conservatives, such as Coptic Christians. A right-thinking (meaning left-thinking) Progressive has to be keenly sensitive about whom he/she is seen to be marching with.
Old story. Long and long ago, in a faraway galaxy called New York City, there were occasional protests at the UN against the Soviet imperial occupation of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, sponsored by a “Captive Nations” committee. No Left-wing groups ever joined in these protests. When asked why, they explained that this was because the protests represented Right-wing groups—who predominated precisely because Lefties refused to participate. QED.
On the other hand, Jon, it was a labor union (a traditional bastion of western liberalism), “Solidarity,” that was the driving force in bringing down Communism in Poland.
The surge in reactionaryism in Poland, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, has much to do with the reversed political polarity of Russia, which has gone from Communism to far-right-wing, pro-Orthodox Catholic Church, pro-crony capitalism kleptocracy in little more than a generation.
Goes to show, the impulse to authoritarianism is stronger still than any commitment to politics, left or right.
D’accord. One has to wonder whether the political categories based on seating plan at the French National Assembly of 1789 are still relevant at all.
True dat. One sometimes has to question the extent to which political categories today continue to correlate with their New Deal antecedents.
Thank you, Jerry. I have shared the link.
Nice, I love both Sarah Haider and Katie Herzog (the writer of the article).
I would recommend Katie Herzog’s twitter feed. Like our esteemed host here, she is on the left and criticizes the excesses of the authoritarian left because she wants the left to be better. She also has a great sense of humor so her twitter feed is just fun to read.
I second danstarfish.
If Jerry or anyone else is unaware of Katie Herzog, she is one of the good ‘uns.
And gets an incredible amount of grief for her trouble too.
Maybe. I know at least a few self-identified feminist leftists who are so disgusted by the soul-less, capitalistic, modern world that they’d probably trade some equal rights for long skirts, bonnets, and getting Back to Nature. They absolutely adore the Amish. Sometimes it’s hard for people to see the larger picture.
Sympathy can make you fall in love with a story, with easily discernible Good Guys and Bad Guys.
Similar to the way some have misinterpreted J-J Rousseau to idealize of the “noble savage.”
I am in awe of Sarah Haider and others in the Ex-Muslim community. They are profoundly courageous people.
I get the feeling that a lot of the woke are rather insecure in their beliefs, and in their understanding of the complexity that Haider describes. They end up following the loudest voice or the popular take. Sheep seeking easy answers. HuffPo serves the need.
Sub
Love the comments at The Stranger from progressives infidelsplaining Islam to Haider.
I read her interview and it reminds me so much of what is going on here in Québec regarding bill 21 that forbids religious signs to some civil servants. Left wing groups are against it because they say it is a form of islamophobia, against women, etc and the right wing groups are taking front stage. Their’s even a feminist group, I can’t remember which one, who encouraged women going to a demonstration against bill 21, to wear a hijab. Thank you, Jerry. I have shared the link.
I disagree with her absolutist stance on the hijab (I am quite supportive of Buddhist nuns freely choosing to shave their heads as a sign of disavowing worldly beauty, but would consider it a form of child abuse if imposed on unwillingly little girls. There are almost no moral absolutes in the world, where context doesn’t matter.) but see that it must be frustrating for her to be met with disapproval and a cold shoulder from the left. It would be one thing if the left was simply all for tolerance across the board, but as she points out, they generally feel very differently when it is Christians or Mormons in question. Look at how shows like The Handmaiden’s Tale sort of encapsulate modern day fears about the dark route Christian patriarchy could take, for example – and this in a country / time where Christianity is, historically, much more about promoting female equality than it has ever (for the most part) been.
I believe the sociopolitical term for this process is recuperation, coined by the Situationist International in the 1960s. It gives off a faint echo of how the corporation that owns 7Up tried to co-opt a bit of the Sixties counterculture by labeling its product “the un-cola.”
For the right price, I could argue that one either way. 🙂
The possibility that no one mentions is that people are afraid of being stabbed,shot or blown up by fanatical islamists. A kinder interpretation maybe is that spokespersons on the left are afraid of fanatical islam, not personally, but of getting someone else killed. I lean toward the less-kind interpretation.
“We have problems with women’s rights here in the U.S., and that’s true”.
Which ‘rights’ do women have a problem with in the US?
I’m guessing she’s talking about the many states that are closing planned parenthood clinics and the like. Also a new SCOTUS with two justices who are opposed to legalized abortion. This is just an off-hand comment, and I might not be addressing your quote.
I agree 100% that the restricting of abortion and the criminalization of abortion is reprehensible and could be seen as a rights issue. But it is a complicated issue. Although I agree with abortion on demand, at any point.
But other than that what rights do women miss out on?
“. . .causing the American Left to either neglect or—in the case of forced hijab-wearing—celebrate oppressive religious doctrine.”
Yes, it’s almost enough to justify Dennis Miller’s observation, “Liberalism is like nude beach—it sounds good until you go there.”
Dennis Miller. Oy. The planet’s least funny comedians. And generator of some of the least insightful political comments on this little stone in space.
Ha!
I only found out about Dennis Miller recently when I saw him interview Hitch in the nineties. He really is the most awful, awful twat.
“Dennis Miller. Oy. The planet’s least funny comedian.”
To quote Samuel Johnson out of context: a conservative comedian “is like a dog walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”
If we’re talking about nude beaches, conservatives wouldn’t even have one, so where’s the comedy? Dennis Miller is a fool. I won’t extrapolate.
Ehhhh…not really. I’m far more suspicious of the “fundamentalist” part of that sentence than the “Mormon” the “long skirt” or the “bonnet” part of that sentence. What I’m suspicious of is groups that practice polygamy, don’t provide an education for women, don’t let the members of their community mix much with outsiders, and quote their authoritative text as saying the man rules the household or men and women have different roles (or whatever). In those cases, the dress is a symptom of an underlying, serious mysogyny problem.
But a strongly religious Mormon woman who lives on her own, works professionally, lives in a reasonably sized town where she mixes with non-Mormon friends, has a cell phone and a Bachelor’s degree…and wears a dress and bonnett? Not really suspicious. In such a case, I suspect she has inherited a cultural preference that arose from mysogyny, but she’s not letting it keep her down.
The same kinda goes for the hijab. The better the person is integrated into a western, tolerant, liberal (not in the U.S. political sense but in the broader social sense), secular society or community, the less I’m worried about a religious clothing choice being forced upon them. The flip side is, of course, that I fully recognize that in other, more repressive communities (such as the Mormon breakaway cults, but also for example the Iranian government), the dress or hijab *is* a symbol and example of oppression.
Shorter version: Beverly Hills Hijab? Not so worried she’s being forced to do it or suffers from religiously-based sexism from her own community. Tehran hijab? Far more worried.
You’re talking about both of them, right?
Yes fundamentalism is the enemy, but moderate faith is the enabling milieu. Don’t forget that.
It’s also the solution, unless we’re expecting everyone to transition straight from Islam to atheism/agnosticism. Moderate faith is exactly what we should be encouraging. Moderation in general.
Christianity wasn’t defanged overnight, and this everything-or-nothing approach to Islam is totally unrealistic.
I agree with that. It’s just that we have to keep in mind that Islam is a bit more prone to extremism than other cults since the Koran specifically insists that one must be a fundamentalist. A liberal Muslim is virtually defined as an apostate and, with a careful reading of the text, should be killed. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz both advocate liberalization, and who can argue with those two.
True.
Jerry, I want to bring your attention to this talk given by Sarah Haider in 2015 on many of the same topics the interview touches upon: “Islam and the Necessity of Liberal Critique“. It was one of her first prominent public appearances, and you can see in this video how eloquent and thoughtful she is. I’m so glad to see she’s getting more attention.
One point that Sarah Haider makes is very pertinent: the idea that the values of enlightenment are only for Westerners is deeply ‘culturally imperialist’, paternalistic and bigotted, if not racist.
Of course everywhere people have striven for freedom and self-determination, as any serious history of non-western cultures will show.
Sub
And another comment that probably is even more true in Europe than the US:
” If the left is silent now, it will be only the far right that is talking about the problems with Islam and it makes them look like the truth-tellers instead of the left.”
I am sure that the rise of the ‘extremist right’ in Europe has much to do with the willful blindness of the left for the great problems caused by Islam (particularly fundamentalist Islam), which in Europe is greater than in the US, due to both the greater numbers in the former and a kind of pre-selection of more ‘liberal muslims in the latter.
One possible approach to manifestly regressive cultural identifiers like the hijab is to transform their meaning.
We’ve done it many, many times with different things throughout history: items of clothing, household decorations, that once stood for something awful and slowly their meanings were altered over time. Look at the cross: hundreds of millions of people wear a symbol of one of the most depraved forms of medieval torture around their necks every single day.
That is what many western, moderate Muslims are trying to do with the hijab. It’s doublethink of a kind, and there are still vastly more female Muslims living in a kind of bondage because of this garment, but this kind of approach is often how things change, and meaning shifts.
I mean, what’s more likely? That we convince an eighth of the planet to get rid of headscarves altogether…or the meaning of the hijab gradually shifts, the rules relax, and they become something optional rather than forced on women?
It might be frustrating hearing Islamic women trying to turn the hijab into a choice when it clearly isn’t for so many of their sisters, but if we’re being realistic and pragmatic then we should be encouraging this doublethink so it spreads across the world.
Besides, this is how people generally deal with inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance: they don’t throw up their hands and admit they were wrong all along, they change the meaning of things so they were never really wrong in the first place. It’s annoying, but it’s how people are, and it’s how widespread cultural reformation often takes place.
It’s unrealistic to expect some kind of mass rejection of something as culturally embedded as the hijab. I think gradually changing its meaning is much more likely to succeed.
I think tribal signifiers like clothing are almost always a bad place to start conversations, even though there’s always a temptation to jump in at points that seem most foreign to us (it reminds me a bit of the ‘those kids with their pants halfway down their butts!’ indignation I heard so often growing up – clearly no minds were ever changed by that, ha ha, but people still felt a strong need to say it.)
I think the problem is that these types of things often mark group affiliation, which people are going to defend strongly. You’re telling someone that their team colors are wrong, in a sense. Also, the interpretation of what an imposed dress code means varies a huge amount depending on one’s cultural background. If you look for a simple rule in there, like “It is wrong to impose clothing choices”, you’ll be met with examples of hypocrisy on all sides. What about the MeToo movement? If a man takes out his genitalia at work, it’s considered harassment at best and more like assault in some places. What about Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulke, are men in those cultures oppressed because they also have mandated headwear? Heck, what about me, when I have to resort to trying to work a breast pump underneath awkwardly placed jackets in my car, cursing the fact that I can’t see what I’m doing while wondering if I could be arrested for indecent exposure just for having my bra off, covered or no? Our cultural stipulations tend to make a great deal of sense to us in our own circles and seem preposterous outside that context.
For those reasons, I’ve always felt the hijab isn’t a great touchpoint for talking about women’s rights in Islam. (The burqa, maybe, as it’s far more restrictive.) I think individual issues like the ability of women to drive create more common ground.
Tell that to Azam Jangravi and countless others.
I’ll be more specific then – I meant a hijab as a headscarf (not as part of a burqa) worn willingly by a woman.
Women are arrested for not wearing headscarves. No burka required.
Nothing to be concerned about, though?
Nothing to be concerned about, though?
What? Where did you get that idea?
I provided the quote from which I got that idea.
You seem unconcerned about women being arrested for what they wear (or don’t) unless a burka is involved. You seem to think that hijab wearing laws are simply cultural “signifiers”, equivalent to (I suppose) men wearing baseball caps or something.
I didn’t say anything about laws involving hijabs and explicitly said I was talking about women wearing them willingly. I also never said they were ‘simply’ signifiers (implying they are only that and nothing else). I never mentioned baseball caps at all.
By way of example, I don’t think most people in our culture would find it odd to, on the one hand: Support and cheer on a Jewish man rebelling against an ultra-Orthodox community and refusing to wear a yarmulke and payot, but on the other: Not feel the need to condemn yarmulkes in general or in all circumstances. Same for ‘nurse in’ protests – I can support women getting their breasts out in public in one context and yet not condemn bras in general.
As I said in my first post, I am not an absolutist and think context matters a lot here. Women’s preferences are going to vary from context to context. In some they want to wear a hijab but are prevented from doing this, in others they don’t want to wear it and are forced to.
Fine, although you imply an equivalence which simply isn’t true.
There are vastly more women who are in danger of their safety for NOT wearing a hijab than there are for choosing to wear one. I am not aware of any country that forbids women from wearing one at pain of fines, prison, or worse.
France and China come to mind, although that’s not particularly relevant to the point I’m trying to make here.
I realize that my comment above may have been confusing, as I talked about ‘imposed’ clothing choices, so apologize for that. I’m in no way implying that I’m ok with imposition of hijabs by law. What I am saying, however, is that the feelings one has about hijabs will vary greatly from person to person. For one person, the fact that they have been imposed involuntarily in some countries will make them a symbol of oppression in all contexts. For others, they may feel more like a Buddhist nun’s shaved head or a Jewish man’s yarmulke. Because what they symbolize varies so widely from person to person, I do not like the way they’ve become a focal point in various secular debates about women’s rights in Islam. I think this is alienating to many women and doesn’t serve much of a purpose in countries where women wear them voluntarily.
And this is true, also, for everything else in human life. Otherwise, criminals wouldn’t commit crimes.
FGM, as a case in point. I’m sure that there are girls in Egypt/Sudan/Yemen/Canada who have “voluntarily” undergone this procedure because it was expected of them in their society/families. But the fact that people “feel differently” about it should in no way prevent those of us who hold to enlightenment values to call it out for the horror that it is.
I am probably over commenting at this point so last comment… I would say that this is a very difficult topic and I would have to think a lot about it from a philosophical standpoint. On the one hand, I think it’s incorrect to make knee-jerk assumptions about morality from a place of enculturation, which essentially makes one’s own personal feelings judge, jury, and executioner in decisions about what is moral. On the other, I admit that trying to judge things equally by surface parameters leaves me with some quandaries that I would have to think about. What is the difference between forcing a man to wear a yarmulke on his head and forcing a woman to wear a scarf on her head? Not the emotional difference, but the verbally stated guiding principle? What is the difference between a young girl getting FGM, voluntarily, because of peer pressure, and a young woman getting her labia pierced because of peer pressure? Again, not the emotional, knee jerk reaction, the underlying principle? Why does condemning the former label one liberal while condemning the latter labels one a conservative? Intuitively I feel there’s a difference but I would have to think about how this could be accurately described, and if it could be accurately described.
I also think there are many other parameters here I would have to consider, and some have no clear answer (the role of symbolism, for example – one could argue that the hijab is a symbol, but that leads down a subjective rabbit hole of who gets to decide what symbolizes what. There are some very clear examples that we all agree on – swastikas, for example – but most others are murky. What the cross symbolizes to a person, for example.) Or the role of personal freedom – in general I would say that coerced dress is not right, but then, as I don’t want it to be legal for people to walk around naked, I’d have to define exactly how that preference is morally different, as this also involves coercion in what people can wear. None of these are easy questions, but I think it’s only fair to consider them.
Agreed.
I’m trying to imagine what “too harsh an approach” would mean. Religion is without redeeming characteristics, and a source of huge harm.