[Sarah Haider: Islam and
the Necessity of Liberal Critique]

(Moderator) Hi everybody and welcome
to this next presentation entitled

"Islam and the Necessity of Liberal Critique".

I'd like to welcome Sarah Haider,
who is one of the co-founders

of the Ex Muslims of North America group.

So, please join me in welcoming Sarah.

(Applause)

(Sarah Haider) Hi Everyone,

I'm Sarah, and for the last two years 
I have worked to build an organization

for non-theist ex-Muslims,

those who once 
identified themselves with Islam.

and now call themselves atheists, 
agnostics or deists;

and the organization is called 
Ex-Muslims of North America.

We are a relatively new organization, 
but we are growing quickly

and we now have communities 
of ex-Muslims

in over fifteen cities.

As you can imagine, it is notoriously 
difficult for ex-Muslims

to find others like ourselves. 
Trying to build friendships among people

who are often under siege and deep 
in the closet is incredibly difficult.

In the first place, how do you even find 
people who are often deliberately

doing their best to stay undercover?

As an organization we work to provide 
ex-Muslims with much needed support,

support to free themselves 
from the shackles of religion

and to be themselves, to learn about 
each other's suffering,

and above all else, endure.

We are in a peculiar situation, 
my colleagues and I,

we are intimately connected with more 
godless ex-Muslims

than likely anyone else in the world.

I have heard thousands of stories 
from hundreds of people,

about their experiences with Islam.

Some lucky few were able to leave 
the faith with little consequence,

the relationships with their families 
and friends and communities

remained intact.

But for most, this was not the case.

Our journeys have seen 
tremendous struggles.

For some the cost was only social, 
loss of friends and families.

For others, they risked their health and 
mental well-being

from being locked into psychiatric wards 
to enduring physical violence

from all family members.

Ex-Muslims, arguably 
more than any other group,

are deeply familiar with the problems 
entrenched within Muslim communities

and inherent within Islamic scriptures.

As most of us happen to be both 
people of color

and first- or second- generation 
immigrants,

we are doubly affected,

both by hatred and violence 
from Muslims,

but also bigotry and xenophobia
from the broader American public.

Despite all this, my experience 
over the last two years

has made me wary of speaking up, 
even to an audience such as this.

I always expected feeling unwelcome 
from Muslim audiences,

but I did not anticipate 
an equal amount of hostility

from my allies on the Left.

For example, 
when I first published a piece,

fact-checking Reza Aslan,
who is a prominent Muslim scholar,

on his dismissal of 
female genital mutilation

as only an African problem, 
not a Muslim one,

I got many responses from people 
unhappy with what I wrote,

almost all of whom 
questioned my motives

rather than addressing my claims.

To my surprise, most of my critics 
were not Muslims.

Rather they identified as liberals 
and sometimes even atheists.

Some darkly alluded to my "agenda" and 
others claimed that as a former Muslim,

there was no way I could be trusted 
with fair criticism.

Now remember, I published a fact-check.

It seems to me that it would be easy 
to verify my claims,

fact-check the fact-check, so to speak.

But instead, Muslims and some people 
on the Left preferred instead

to throw around suspicions 
about my character and my intentions.

Those who oppose 
Christian authoritarianism

will find that the broad majority 
of liberals, religious or non-religious,

side with them 
and will ofter their support

in the fight to push religious morals 
out of our politics and public life.

Even religious liberals 
sometimes look upon

the politically-charged religious right 
with distaste

and some work with secularists 
to keep them out of our politics.

The executive director for

the Americans United for {Separation of} 
Church and State, for example,

is an ordained minister.

Atheists and secularists 
can feel secure in the knowledge

that their allies on the liberal Left 
will stand with them

when their target is 
the far-right Christians.

It makes sense: liberals don't share 
much, many common values

with the religious right.

But when the same scrutiny 
is applied to Islam,

you find that inexplicably some people 
on the Left begin to align instead

with the Islamic religious right.

The consistent exception has been 
the secular and atheist communities.

When luminaries of disbelief movement 
like Harris and Dawkins speak about

the horrors of Christianity and write 
books condemning it, they are cheered,

their works lionized, their presence 
sought at events and conferences.

But when they turn 
the same critical gaze

towards the religion of my family,

they are told to cease 
such offensive talk,

to refrain from criticizing 
the same oppressive forces

that they criticized in the past.

There is an instinct to pigeon-hole 
anyone

who says something negative about 
Islam, to broadly label them

in such a way that nearly guarantees

that most on the Left will ignore 
what they have to say.

The first method, I found, of people dismissing my claims, has been that

since as a brown person I can't easily 
be painted as a bigot,

is that I must be pro-war

or broadly support the far-right agenda 
in some way.

This is not true.

Sometimes I am called an Uncle Tom 
or a house Arab.

Another term thrown around 
at ex-Muslims

and other brown critics of Islam

is "native informants".

This was my first time hearing this.

I won't go into the many reasons why 
this is an impressively disgusting thing

to call someone, 
with the vague implication

that we are brainwashed in some way, 
or are betraying our own kind.

While it is somewhat understandable, 
why someone like Myriam Francois,

who is a white convert to Islam, why she 
would refer to us as native informants,

it is beyond my comprehension how 
such a transparently racist term

was used by the journalist 
Max Blumenthal

in his article condemning Ayaan Hirsi Ali

to cast a shadow over 
her role in this debate.

I wonder if Blumenthal 
would feel comfortable

using similarly racist terms
against anti-clerical dissidents

from African-American 
or other minority communities.

Bill Maher is someone 
who has been painted

by the Left and the Right as a bigot.

Once on his show though, Maher 
mentioned the high rates of support

for the death penalty for the crime of 
atheism in Muslim communities.

In response, Dean Obeidallah,

who is a comedian and author 
and liberal Muslim,

attempted to defend the Muslim 
countries by pointing out errors

in the statistics Maher used.

Let me quote his piece on CNN.

He says - "a 2013 Pew poll 
actually found

that only 64% of Egyptians supported this"

- by this he means the death penalty - 
"still alarmingly high, but not 90%"

and only thirteen Muslim nations have 
penalties for apostasy, while 34 do not".

Can we realistically imagine something 
like that being published

if it was about any other minority, in 
an honest effort to downplay the horror?

What if it was "only 64% of Americans

support the death penalty 
for converts to Islam"

- Muslims don't have it that bad -

"only 64% of French citizens support the 
death penalty for Algerian immigrants"

or "only 64% of Americans support 
the death penalty for homosexuality"?

How bad is the situation, 
how terrible the human rights abuses

and how little the worth 
of the life of a human being,

when 64% is viewed 
as a defensive statistic?

It is a situation as if fully 
one-third of western nations

had legalized the murder of Muslims, 
how appalled would we be?

What would the Left's reaction be?

As an ex-Muslim I am horrified that 
something like this would be published

on the web-site 
of a major news organization

and not a single voice 
was raised in outrage.

Why is my life worth less?

Does my simply being raised 
in an Islamic tradition

grant the Islamic religious right 
overt ownership over me and my body,

grant them license to murder me 
and my fellow atheists?

The claim actually being made 
by citing this statistic was that Maher

was supposedly making too much of 
a fuss of atheist persecution by Muslims.

Now I do not wish to denigrate 
the author, Dean Obeidallah,

but to illustrate 
the depth of the problem,

that in trying to defend what he 
perceived to be an injustice to Muslims,

he did not even notice 
the depravity of what he wrote.

As a consequence an audience 
on the Left now frightens me

nearly as much as 
an audience of Islamists does.

I have had to think long and hard about 
whether I want to give this talk today,

to what extent I should mince my words,

and what consequence 
it would have on my work.

It's not my intention to cause offense 
but I firmly believe

that there are things that need to be 
said, elephants in the room

that no one but some bigots on the 
far right are willing to acknowledge.

We are all, I hope, familiar with what happened

on January 7th at the offices 
of Charlie Hebdo.

Masked gunmen killed twelve people, 
shouting Allahu Akbar!,

later revealed to be two brothers, 
French nationals of Algerian origin.

There was global outrage and a large 
show of solidarity for the cartoonists,

which appeared to be the obviously 
righteous things to do.

Until of course the religious 
began to speak up

with claims of "provocation" 
and hurt feelings.

But that was to be expected, Islamists 
have been saying that for years,

and indeed, no religion really accepts 
any form of ridicule

- if they have a choice in the matter, that is say.

However, what was more distressing to me,

was the response from many 
of my allies on the Left.

Over and over I heard the claim that 
Charlie Hebdo was somehow

a racist publication, and while, 
of course, of course,

murder is always wrong 
and should be condemned,

it is nonetheless "understandable"

that the gunmen would feel 
provoked by the cartoons.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't 
want to meet the man

who "understands" why someone would 
feel compelled to murder another man

because he didn't like a cartoon 
that he drew. (applause).

It's important to realize that mocking 
and critique are not that different

in the eyes of the most religious people.

There is no fair amount 
of fair and friendly criticism

that the very religious will accept if 
they have the power to shut it down,

as evidenced by the prohibition 
on heretical speech

in theocratic states throughout history.

There is a curious 
double-standard at play.

When Muslim clerics and activists 
that are known to be

anti-Semites and homophobes 
are welcomed on campuses,

touring nationally, invited to give 
lectures by Muslim student associations,

while feminists like Asra Nomani, 
who has been fighting

for the equality of the sexes, 
for the right of female entry

to the priestly class, 
is branded as a bigot

by the same Muslim student organizations

and the authorities 
at universities like Duke

succumb to this brazen attempt 
to silence her.

Similar patterns are repeated 
across the Western world.

Maryam Namazie, 
who is an ex-Muslim activist,

was dis-invited to speak at Trinity, 
Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis.

The British Students Union 
now allies itself broadly

with Islamist organizations such as CAGE.

To quote Nick Cohen from his article 
from the Guardian,

"University managers are no better than 
their teenage heresy hunters.

They say they want to oppose 
radical Islam in argument.

The Lawyers' Secular Society 
took them at their word.

It tried to present an investigation 
at the University of West London

into Islamist groups that were 
all over campuses,

despite their record of advocating 
Jew hatred, homophobia and misogyny.

The university authorities 
banned the secularists."

Let me be clear. I don't think anyone,

even bigots emerging from Muslim 
communities or anywhere else,

should be silenced.

What I ask is that we stand up 
for the right to speak of all,

including those both 
those who stand with us

and those who call for the death 
of our fellow dis-believers.

Our society functions because 
we believe that hurt feelings

mean essentially nothing 
in the eyes of our justice system.

But of course it is claimed that 
this is a special case,

because these aren't just 
personal hurt feelings,

these are religious hurt feelings, 
and not just any religion,

but the religion of the underdog, 
of the brown man.

And the Left decided long ago 
that the hurt feelings

of the Christian religion mattered little, 
and it was imperative

that we disabuse the notion 
that Christianity

would ever feel safe from criticism 
or even outright mockery.

Indeed many of our greatest thinkers 
have delighted in exercising this right.

I want to quote Thomas Paine, from his 
book, The Age of Reason:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, 
the voluptuous debaucheries,

the cruel and torturous executions, 
the unrelenting vindictiveness,

with which more than half 
the Bible is filled,

it would be more consistent that 
we called it the word of a demon,

than the word of God.

It is a history of wickedness, that has 
served to corrupt and brutalize mankind;

and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, 
as I detest everything that is cruel"

I wonder if Paine had been murdered 
for his outright contempt of Christianity,

how different would the West look today?

what message such a gruesome deed 
would have sent?

how many people would it have silenced

with its promise of 
more bloodshed to come

if they had the audacity 
to repeat his crime?

Would that fear have silenced those who 
insisted on the freedom of speech?

How would that have affected 
the face of our nation?

Now I hope that you will reflect with me, 
on the fact that

not only was he not murdered,

neither were his contemporaries 
who mocked religion,

also even then three centuries ago,
I don't believe he contemplated the idea

that writing would actually 
lead to his death.

And yet, in the twenty-first century,

this is the reality of those who speak out
against Islam in Muslim countries

and increasingly in Western ones.

It is not uncommon to hear from 
commentators in various media outlets

that the victims of Charlie Hebdo had 
somehow provoked others

with their offensive cartoons 
into taking their lives.

The sentiment seems to be that 
the cartoonists must to some degree

be held accountable for their own murders,

even as dozens of cartoonists 
from the East drew panels

in support of their counterparts 
in the West,

risking their own lives 
for freedom of speech.

Two months ago, PEN, an organization 
that has stood for free speech

for nearly a century, announced their 
decision to honor

the magazine Charlie Hebdo

with the PEN 
Freedom of Expression Courage Award.

Yet amongst those that were 
members of PEN,

there were some that refused to stand 
with Charlie Hebdo,

initially six table heads 
and as of now, 204 writers.

I would like to remind everyone 
that we've been here before.

When Salman Rushdie had a fatwa 
calling for his death,

PEN America under Susan Sontag's 
stewardship stood for him,

even while a significant percentage 
of the intelligentsia cast him aside.

Figures as diverse as 
the Archbishop of Canterbury

to multiple members 
of the British Parliament,

one of whom condemned Rushdie as, 
quote, an outstanding villain,

whose, quote, public life has been 
a record of despicable acts of betrayal

of his upbringing, religion, 
adopted home and nationality.

As there were eastern cartoonists 
standing with Charlie Hebdo,

there were Irani writers from the Muslim 
world that stood in defiance

and defended Rushdie, some of whom 
were subsequently attacked.

In light of the recent attack 
in Garland, Texas,

I'd like to share the prophetic words 
of Norman Mailer,

from over two decades ago:

"In this week of turmoil we can now 
envision a fearful time in the future

when fundamentalist groups in America,

stealing their page 
from this international episode

will know how to apply the same methods

to American writers and bookstores.

If they succeed it will be due to the fact 
that we never found

an honest resistance to the terrorization 
of Salman Rushdie."

Where in 1989 and 2005 authors 
and cartoonists considered

a vague possibility of retaliation,

it has now metastatized 
to an ever present threat;

like clockwork the violence 
intensifies and repeats.

The cowardly response 
in the intervening decade

has also been repeated time and time 
again, everytime emboldening the voices

calling for the curtailment of free speech.

The Rushdie fatwa was the first battle, 
a battle in which we surrendered,

and continue to pay the price 
for that appeasement today.

So why is it so difficult for many 
on the Left to criticize Islam?

Why do they shy away from it?

I believe that the primary reason is that 
many are simply incapable of separating

the criticism of an idea with the hate 
directed towards a people,

and immediately call the first "racism".

That idea should not 
be entertained for very long,

as if there can be no valid reasons 
to critique an ideology

rooted in seventh-century 
patriarchal norms

except for hatred toward the very people 
imprisoned by those ideologies.

There are people who use the phrase "Islamophobia"

both to mean criticism of the people 
and of the religion.

I know that many Muslims do this,

it is an easy way of stopping others 
from criticizing their religion,

but I believe that many in the West 
use this word

because they haven't quite thought 
of why it might be harmful.

Islamophobia is a meaningless term.

It serves to confuse and to muddle two 
very different forms of intolerance,

based on two very different reasons,

towards which there should be 
two very different reactions.

Sometimes it is claimed 
that the critique of religion

is critique of the identity 
of the believer,

and is therefore bigotry.

This person's identity happens 
to be based on ideology,

so if you criticize their ideology,

you are necessarily generating 
hate towards that person.

But I wonder what would happen

if we applied this type of thinking 
to everything?

What if New Agers decided that criticism 
of New Age spiritual healing

was a form of hate against people 
who chose to identify that way?

What if Hindus decided 
criticism of the caste system

was a deeply offensive form of racism 
against Hindu people?

How much of that would that retard reform?

There is another version 
of this argument

which claims that criticism 
or ridicule of Islam

feeds into the bigotry 
by the far-right

and therefore causes harm,

and I want everyone to know that 
the argument is almost never

that Islam doesn't deserve the critique 
or ridicule as a religion,

but that it is harmful to voice this 
for the damage it would do.

Now one of the writers that opposed the 
award for Charlie Hebdo claimed that,

quote, the narrative 
of the Charlie Hebdo murders

-- the narrative of the 
Charlie Hebdo murders --

white Europeans killed in their offices 
by Muslim extremists

is one that feeds neatly 
into the cultural prejudices

that have allowed our governments

to make so many disastrous 
mistakes in the Middle East

-- the narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders!

I read that statement and I realized that 
for some writers

the problem wasn't just 
that the cartoons were offensive,

it was that the reaction of Muslims 
to the cartoons fed into

a stereotypical Muslim trope,

a reaction that was very 
inconvenient for a group

trying their best to paint 
a picture of a peaceful Islam,

despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

It is quite clear that allegiances here 
aren't to the truth,

instead the aim is to selectively hide 
inconvenient truths,

truths that are deemed to be harmful, 
should they ever be acknowledged.

I assume the fear is that we do not want
to give support to actual bigoted people.

Anyone who watches Fox knows 
how they use fear-mongering tactics

to promote xenophobia.

But the liberation of a billion and a half
Muslims in the world,

Muslims who are suffering 
under the yoke

of an ever-present theological authority,

should be at the forefront of our minds.

As has been repeated hundreds of times 
by critics like myself,

the primary victims of Islamism 
are Muslims,

be it in terms of terrorism, violence, 
misogyny, freedom of expression,

religion, and economic decline.

Yet bizarrely, to some, these concerns 
are secondary still

to not presenting offense.

Still there are others who believe that 
those in the West,

that people in the West have 
no right to speak about

problems of "brown cultures"

due to the legacy of colonialism 
and other forms of violence

the West has cast upon the East.

This is a strange argument because 
it ignores the history of the world,

a history in which various nations, Muslims and non-Muslims,

have succumbed to the ebb-and-flow 
of conquest, repeatedly,

for all of recorded history.

Many Islamic countries in fact had 
horrific laws before colonialism.

Two of the epicenters of Islamic thought, 
Iran for Shia Islam,

and Saudi Arabia for Sunni Islam, 
resisted colonialism.

-- Excuse me --

In fact, Saudi Arabia 
was founded in 1744

as an extremist state,

the first iteration of which was 
destroyed by the Ottomans,

due to their religious fanaticism.

The first Saudis in fact attacked 
and desecrated

some of the most holy Muslim sites 
and were stopped

not by intervention of the West 
but by other Muslims

that viewed them as dangerous fanatics.

There was then no 
American imperialism,

no frame of wars against other Muslims,

and yet, fundamentalist Wahabbis 
existed,

and were attacking other Muslims,

very much the same way 
that ISIS attacks them today.

Reform is impossible

when you constantly shift 
the conversation away

from Islamic fundamentalism, and back 
to western violence and imperialism.

But don't get me wrong. 
It is important to discuss this,

it is important to discuss imperialism 
and the harm that it caused.

But violence in the name of Islam 
has terrorized the Middle East

ever since its inception, 
and it is important

that we don't derail this conversation.

The moral paralysis out of fear of the 
right, out of fear of furthering bigotry,

out of shame of prior crimes committed 
by other white people

should not trump all considerations.

When I read articles of why Muslims 
should not be ridiculed

I get a sense of condescension, a sense 
that there are those who believe

that the most essential trait of 
brown people is their religion,

a defining feature in fact, 
and due to this

they presume that we won't reform 
or we can't,

that religion is something 
inherent to who we are

and that it won't respond 
to pressure, to change

the way Christianity responded 
to pressure by secularists.

While they believe themselves 
to be supporting tolerance,

what they are really supporting is 
the religious right of the East,

and not just any religious right, not the 
religious right that we have here,

it's a religious right the West 
hasn't seen for centuries.

To me, someone who opposes the most 
foundational liberal principle,

the freedom of expression,

in order to protect the sensibilities 
of this Islamist religious right

is a liberal only in name.

In fact, what kind of person holds two 
different groups of people accountable

to two different standards of 
acceptable behavior but a bigot?

Islam, like all patriarchal religions,

is a tool used to justify abuse 
of women and minorities.

Does our concept of tolerance extend 
towards tolerance

of systematic subjugation 
of women and minorities?

What else can excusing abuse made 
in the name of tolerance be called

other than a benevolent, 
self-serving form of bigotry?

No matter how seemingly 
compassionate the motivations,

we must not hesitate in being honest

in calling out our allies for their 
hypocrisy and their illiberal mores.

Sometimes I feel as if people 
view secularism and free-thinking

to be concepts owned by the West, 
something inherently Western.

To push secularism and free thought 
to Muslims then

is to push a Western identity onto them.

It is no more than ignorance of history

to feel that Enlightenment ideals can 
only be shared by this civilization,

rather than a progression 
of all of humanity.

Indeed throughout history

there have been champions 
of these very same ideals,

there have been free-thinkers 
in every culture in the world

that have bled for these ideals.

There have been countless free-thinkers 
that challenged faith,

that tried but sadly failed to interpret 
scripture in a less misogynist way,

even in patriarchal Islamic societies.

For example, 
the seventeenth century had

a crown prince of the Mughal dynasty, 
Dara Shikoh,

who was committed to rights of all 
religions, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim alike,

working to bridge the gaps between 
the leading lights of all faiths.

As you may anticipate, 
this was not to last,

Dara was murdered by his own brother,

claiming that Dara's tolerance 
was a sign of his apostasy,

a brother that is now revered in Muslim 
circles as being a guardian of the faith.

Similarly, there have been women

that have led the charge 
for their own rights.

Exactly two hundred years ago, 
Fatima Baraghani was born in Iran,

an extremely intelligent woman, who as 
per custom was married young,

and wasn't allowed to further 
pursue her education.

She was attracted to a radical movement 
brewing in the country,

which espoused equality of the genders.

She joined and rose to be one 
of the leading lights of that movement.

To symbolize a break from Shariah, 
at one gathering,

she took off her traditional veil 
in front of an assemblage of men

and brandished instead a sword.

Now this sight caused such a shock 
among the crowd,

that many grown men screamed aloud.

One man cut his own throat in horror,

fleeing the scene as blood poured 
from his neck. {Laughter}

But she did not enjoy freedom or live 
long after this incident.

The tragedy of the Eastern past isn't 
that we haven't given birth to reformers

but that the violence of our oppressors 
has eliminated us, time and again.

Even in modern times, 
one Somali author,

Abdisaid Abdi Ismail, wrote a book
where he audaciously argued

that Islam doesn't actually call 
for a death penalty for apostasy.

He was rewarded for his efforts by 
having his life threatened,

and calls for his book to be burned.

A British reformist, Maajid Nawaz,

has had fatwas issued 
calling for his death

for simply saying on a tweet

that a cartoon of Muhammad 
doesn't personally offend him.

The religious right has been murdering 
reformers for centuries,

but we are still here, 
fighting for our future,

the same fight that the West has had 
much greater success in.

It is strange that the very same people, 
who wish to tamp down on the power

of the Christian right and use 
the advances that the West has had,

to insist that we must be defined 
by our religious right.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument,

that we can all concede the idea that 
Islam, as a religion, needs reform,

or at the very least, Muslim communities 
do, both in the West and abroad,

and in the way that they choose 
to practice their faith.

I happen to believe this. 
All the data we have corroborates this.

There's a large amount of evidence

which clearly demonstrates 
rampant misogyny,

bad attitudes towards homosexuals 
and apostasy within the Muslim world,

supported by the law and widely 
accepted by the people.

In an effort to draw attention away 
from the role of religion in all this,

some have chosen to instead use 
excuses by a variety of reasons,

none of which make sense,

because Muslim countries share 
almost nothing between them all,

except the predominant religion:

not socio-economic status, 
not education or literacy levels, not GDP,

not cultural background or history, 
not race or ethnicity, not language,

not political system, 
not the history of Western colonization.

What they do share is theology.

Obviously Islam isn't the root of 
all evil, but it is an important factor.

What we have here is a right wing 
in the West who believes

that Islam personifies evil

and a Left which refuses to even 
look into it as a source of harm.

The question then becomes, 
how do we achieve reform

without actually mentioning 
any problems in Islam?

How do we achieve progress 
while shying away

from one of the foundational aspects 
of how harmful practices are justified?

Most cultures are responsive 
to selective pressure,

and by insisting that no pressure 
be applied,

we are acting as a brake on any progress.

We have plenty of evidence 
that a push for secularism

or a presence within secular cultures 
can change behavior,

and even the beliefs of Muslims.

For example, if you compare 
Muslims living in the US

with Muslims in the Middle East, 
you will find across all metrics,

that their opinions are less extreme
and more in line with liberal values,

than those of the population 
of their origin countries.

Many Muslims believe that 
their religion is immutable,

that every word of which is true, 
and reformers insult them

when they demand change.

Yet profound changes in the way 
Muslims practice their religion

have occurred in the past.

Many Muslim countries practiced 
slavery up until the twentieth century,

with some countries abolishing slavery 
as recently as 1981,

citing religious sanction of the practice 
as a justification.

Saudi Arabia's slave population 
was estimated at 300,000

a scant 50 years ago,

and it was international pressure 
that forced abolition.

Under pressure from the 
British Empire to abolish slavery

a little over a century ago,

the Sultan of Morocco cited 
the inerrancy of the Quran

to make the case for the divine 
sanction of slavery.

Later the chief minister of Morocco, 
Muhammad Idris,

wrote in response to anti-slavery 
efforts, that

"we do not interfere in religious 
principles which you profess,

likewise you should not interfere 
in our religion".

In the face of Ottoman unwillingness 
to condemn the status of slaves

as enshrined in Shariah, 
a British statesman sarcastically stated,

that one might well ask the Sultan 
to become a Christian.

Yet today, most if not all Muslims 
are repulsed by the idea of slaves.

Did they abandon the Quran which 
seemed to clearly condone slavery

a mere century ago?

Or were we able to shift 
mainstream consensus

by standing up for our moral principles?

I wonder what would have happened

if the benevolent bigots of the West, 
of the Left today,

who feel that it is more important 
to respect a culture

for the sake of respecting a culture 
had existed back then.

How many millions would be 
living in chains today?

There is another common narrative, 
of the West as oppressors,

how racism here feeds 
into the oppression of a minority.

Champions of Islam have gone 
on record using it as a cudgel

to beat against the back of progress.

We need to be aware that 
the victim versus the oppressor dynamic

isn't set in stone the way some people 
would have you believe.

One can be a victim in one context 
and an oppressor in another.

A Muslim man may deal with racism 
at work, real racism,

may see career setbacks, 
and goes home and beats his hijabi wife

because he was raised 
in a misogynistic tradition,

using Quran's verse as justification.

Should we not criticize his behavior

because of his victimization 
in one aspect?

An imam may be an anti-Semite, 
a homophobe, he may be indoctrinating

a generation of impressionable minds 
into his harmful ideas.

Yet the same imam might also 
be a victim of bigotry

when he aims to launch a new mosque.

He may be the target of 
local xenophobic attitudes.

In lieu of his sufferings, 
should we pretend

his other despicable behaviors 
do not exist, or do not matter?

Are we to sacrifice one for the other?

Instead, can we not stand 
against all oppressions,

stand for the equal rights of others, 
while simultaneously working

against bigoted narratives 
within religion?

One of my ex-Muslim colleagues

beautifully summed up 
the same sentiments,

when she was talking about 
the misogynistic nature of the hijab,

quote, feminism is defending 
women, Muslim women,

who wear the hijab for whatever reason,
against shaming or attack.

Feminism is not categorically 
denying that the hijab can be coercive,

body-shaming, slut-shaming, restrictive 
or psychologically crippling.

We cannot avoid reality 
because we are afraid

of the consequences 
of acknowledging facts.

Is it ethical to avoid educating our 
children about Darwinian evolution

simply because it has fed 
into Social Darwinism in the past?

Our silence about uncomfortable truths 
simply underscores

the cost of our inaction as 
the consequences loom ever larger.

We are paralyzed by our own 
insecurities, by our fear

that the truth will empower 
the worst of us, rather than set us free.

We have those on the Islamic far right

who say that there is no room 
for reform in Islam,

because Islam is, 
and always has been perfect.

We have their counterparts 
from the far right in the West,

who coincidentally also view Islam 
as beyond reform,

but for different reasons,

as something that is irredeemably 
and permanently evil.

Between those two extremes, 
we have the average Muslim,

who is forced to choose 
between the devil he knows,

Islamic dominance and supremacy, over 
the devil he doesn't, Western bigotry.

The liberal Left needs to present 
a different path,

not acquiesce to either form 
of religious dominance.

We must remember that there is 
no inevitable march of progress,

no guarantee that tomorrow's world 
will be more just, more equal,

more rational, more tolerant 
or reasonable.

Liberal rights without liberals 
to champion them

are values without influence, 
with no defense.

Let's not let our empathy 
for oppression of one group

excuse their oppression of another.

Thank you!

{Standing applause}