New Yorkers Against Religion-Based Bigotry will oppose both Islamism (the political ideology of Sharia supremacy) and bigotry against Muslims, as stated here (as well as opposing bigotry against people of various other religions too).

As I now envision our activism, it will include, among other things, both (1) participating in political actions against torture and in favor of indicting Bush, Cheney, et al for war crimes, and (2) attempts to reason with anti-Muslim bigots, who often seem to be motivated by valid concerns about Islamism.

In trying to reason with anti-Muslim bigots, I’m inclined to argue from a pragmatic point of view, rather than an abstract moral point of view. Specifically, I think a good approach might be to empathize with their concerns about Islamism (which I share) and point out that there are many Muslim reformers and Muslim moderates who are not just different from Islamists but also our natural allies against Islamism and against the more repressive and retrograde forms of Islam.

These past several days, I’ve been giving this approach a trial run here on WordPress.com.

For my first attempt, see my post More about Islam & Islamism: Response to “Islamoscope” and the subsequent comment thread.

I then posted a comment on the About page of a website called Creeping Sharia. My comment went through, but, so far, there hasn’t been any response.

I also posted comments on a blog called The American Infidels, specifically on pages titled Nice religion you got there, Muhammad and The definitive list of Islamic strategies. No response there either, which surprises me.

If the folks at “American Infidels” ever do respond, I should try to engage them some more on the issue of “fake moderates.” My first response was to agree that there are a lot of fake moderates, but that this doesn’t prove that real moderates don’t exist too. However, the issue is really more complex than that. Although “fake moderates” do exist, I’ve also seen accusations of “fake moderation” which, in my opinion, simply reflect an inability, on the accuser’s part, to deal with subtlety and complexity.

“The Apostate,” an ex-Muslim, has been more responsive. See my post Islamism vs. Muslim reformers and moderates: Response to “The Apostate”

I also posted several comments on a blog called Stop The Madrassa, a blog by a local political group which opposes what they say is a taxpayer-funded New York City public school with an Islamist agenda. If indeed this allegation is true, then the group has a valid church-state separation issue. They may also have a valid complaint about a lack of transparency in the city bureaucracy. I have not yet independently investigated the issue to determine whether their complaints are true.

But they complain that they’ve been dimissed as bigots, and indeed their blog does come across as generally bigoted. But I figured that perhaps they might be educable, at least by someone who shares their stated concerns.

I posted four comments there, of which two have not been moderated yet, and the other two have been deleted. In my comments, I bent over backwards to give them the benefit of the doubt, predicating my comments on the admittedly very questionable assumption that their stated church/state separation concerns are sincere. Below, I will post copies of the two still-pending comments.

On the About page, I wrote:

Hi! I would like to call your attention to the existence of Muslim reformers, most of whom would probably agree with your opposition to the establishment of an Islamist-oriented school with taxpayer funds. If you were to form an alliance with at least some of these Muslim reformers, you would be less vulnerable to charges of anti-Muslim bigotry.

For a list of Muslim reformers and their websites, see the post Islam and religion-based bigotry on my blog. I would especially recommend that you contact Irshad Manji, who teaches at NYU.

In response to a post titled Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy- A response to a comment, I wrote:

You wrote:

A madrassa is a school that teaches the Arabic language and culture.

That is incorrect. A madrassa is a school that teaches Muslim law and theology. See the dictionary definitions of madrasa and madrassah.

Islam is a religion, whereas Arabs are an ethnicity. The two are quite distinct. There exist plenty of non-Muslim Arabs (e.g. Arab Christians), and there also exist plenty of non-Arab Muslims (Iranians, Pakistanis, etc.), although the Arabic language does have a special place in Islam, being the language of the Quran.

I’ve only recently become aware of the controversy surrounding the KG school. I haven’t studied the issue enough to take a definite position on it yet, but, if indeed the KG school is using taxpayer funds to promote a religion (or, even worse, to promote a religiously intolerant ideology like Islamism), then I would agree with you that this is a matter of serious concern. It is vitally important to defend separation of Church and State.

The above two comments, which I posted yesterday, are still pending. I also posted two other comments which have been deleted. I remember only one of them.

On the About page, someone posted a comment here complaining about the Muslim day parade.

I posted a reply saying that I don’t see any problem with the parade, given that New York City has long had parades for many different groups, starting with the St. Patrick’s Day parade for the Irish. On the other hand, if indeed a public school is being used to promote a religious belief, then that is a matter of real and serious concern.

That comment of mine has been deleted. The original comment, objecting to the parade, is still there.

Alas, it does not appear that these people are very open to constructive criticism.

(P.S., 4/28/2008: Looking into this matter some more, I am more and more inclined to believe that this group’s actual main aim is to simply to stir up hatrad of Arabs and Muslims, and that they are crying wolf on the alleged church-state separation issues. More about this later.)

Today, on an ex-Muslim’s blog, Basharee Murtadd, I wrote the following, in reply to a post titled Fight Islam because it’s Intolerant, Not because it’s False:

Hi! First off, it’s good to see people leaving Islam, and it’s great to see ex-Muslims taking a stand together on the Internet.

However, to oppose the barbaric political ideology of Islamism effectively, it seems to me that it will be necessary to do more than just convince Muslims to leave Islam. As we can see from the history of Christianity in the West these past few centuries, especially here in the U.S.A., people who leave their religion altogether are relatively rare, whereas reformers and moderates are much more commonplace. Most likely the same will be true of Islam. Therefore, to fight against Islamism effectively, it will be necessary to encourage both ex-Muslims and Muslim reformers.

What do you think of alliances between ex-Muslims and Muslim reformers, such as Secular Islam?

What do you think of the efforts of some Muslim reformers to defend the rights of apostates, e.g. Supporting Islam’s apostates by Ali Eteraz?

My comment there has not been moderated yet.

Anyhow, a recurring issue on many anti-Muslim blogs is an insistence that the reformers are “dishonest,” due their downplaying of the nastier stuff in the Qur’an and Hadith. To this, I would say the following:

The Qur’an, like the Bible, says many different things and can be intepreted in many different ways. For example, the Qur’an really does contain that famous verse about “no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256), and there are also other similar admonitions in the Qur’an and Hadith, despite contrary teachings that can also be found in the Qur’an and Hadith. Different Muslim scholars have developed different systems of intepretation, emphasizing different aspects of the Qur’an and Hadith.

I’ve been having a very interesting discussion with “The Apostate,” who is “a Pakistani woman, raised as a Muslim in Saudi Arabia, and an atheist since the age of 17,” now 25 and living in San Francisco.

In a post of hers titled Why I Criticize Islam and Muslims, she wrote:

Nevertheless, I don’t wish to ‘demonize’ Muslims, nor to paint a monochromatic picture of them. There are Muslims who have commented on this blog who represent a kinder gentler Islam. I know they exist – I also know they are, at this point in time, few and far between. I can also differentiate between truly enlightened Muslims and those who are primitive in their religious interpretations but who have good hearts.

In a comment here, I replied:

I’m glad to see you say this. Your blog otherwise conveys the impression that you think all Muslims are regressive and backward, or that you think the reformers are stupid for continuing to think of themselves as Muslims.

Yes, the regressive and backward forms of Islam are all too commonplace. But, to oppose them, it seems to me that it would behoove you to help the reformers by giving them publicity, at least by listing some of the reformers on your blogroll if nothing else, and better yet by also discussing what the reformers are doing.

For a list of some Muslim reformers’ websites, see the post Islam and religion-based bigotry on my blog. You’re probably already aware of others, I would imagine. For more of my thoughts on this matter, see also my post More about Islam & Islamism: Response to “Islamoscope”.

Im my comment, I didn’t really explain why I think it would behoove her to help the reformers. Nor was I entirely clear about what kinds of help I think it would behoove her to consider giving them. More about these issues later, below.

Anyhow, “The Apostate” replied to me here. Below is my further response.

“The Apostate” wrote:

I don’t wish to see reform in Islam. I wish to see liberal-minded people leave Islam.

I too would like to see more people leave Islam. However, the historical reality is that people who leave their religion altogether are relatively rare. Look at the history of Christianity in the West, especially here in the U.S.A.

I don’t mean to suggest that you shouldn’t try to convince Muslims to leave their religion. However, if you also want to counteract Islamism as a repressive institution and as a worldwide political threat, then it seems to me that, as far as Islam is concerned, you should consider broadening your focus beyond just trying to convince people to leave it.

You wrote:

There is also another reason: As long as they choose to be loyal to Islam, they are choosing to leave me — one of the few outspoken apostates, but doubtless one of many silent ones — out in the cold.

…

I don’t see them supporting me or the truth, so they don’t get support from me.

Many of the more vocal reformers do support you, at least politically if not personally or intellectually. As far as I am aware, all of the more outspoken reformers oppose the persecution of apostates. They might not be supporting what you think of as “the truth,” but they do support your survival and your freedom, do they not? Thus they are your natural allies in terms of opposing Islamism and its dangers. Are you aware of Secular Islam, which aims to build an alliance between Muslim reformers and ex-Muslims?

See also Supporting Islam’s apostates by Ali Eteraz. I would be interested in your opinion of that article – in terms of pragmatic politics, as distinct from pure philosophy.

You wrote:

I also think their efforts are futile because most of them are not accepted as Muslims by mainstream Muslims like my parents.

In other words, many of them are seen as apostates, correct? Thus they are in essentially the same boat as you, politically and socially. All the more reason to see them as natural allies, it seems to me.

In any case, you wrote that “most” of the reformers are not accepted as Muslims by mainstream Muslims like your parents. But, apparently, at least a few of them are accepted as Muslim by mainstream Muslims? If so, that’s good news, because it puts them in a better position to make arguments of the kind suggested by Ali Eteraz. To the extent that they do so, they’re your natural allies too, it seems to me.

But you wrote:

My main reason for not supporting them is that I have absolutist views on religion. I consider religion harmful. I believe that, as long as people go on legitimizing the scriptures on which religions are based, we won’t get rid of the harmful side-effects of religion.

Perhaps that’s true. But, given a choice of the following two hypothetical scenarios, which would you prefer?

1. A world in which 20% of all Muslims leave Islam, but none become more liberal within Islam, resulting in a society in which the 20% must hide or be killed.
2. A world in which only 10% of all Muslims leave Islam, but 60% become more liberal within Islam and create a society in which the 10% have full human rights.

You wrote:

I also simply have no respect, on a purely intellectual/philosophical level, for people who can look the reality of Islam in the face (such as barbaric punishments, women’s inferiority, etc.) and say, well, it’s still Eternal Truth.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that you’re seeing this issue primarily in “intellectual/philosophical” terms, whereas I’m seeing it primarily in practical political and social terms. To me, the important questions are: (1) How can we best resist the dangers that militant Islamism poses to the entire world? (2) How can Islamist societies become more secular and more tolerant?

Do you believe that your absolutist approach is the most effective way to oppose Islamism? If so, why?

You wrote:

I am like the radical feminist political lesbians of yore who gave no quarter.

These radical feminist political lesbians isolated themselves into insignificance. The more moderate N.O.W. was the organization that got things done.

I myself was active in the feminist movement for a while back around 1980. Alas, I wasn’t a very productive feminist, because I was too caught up in one particular form of radical feminist ideology.

I don’t mean to say that you shouldn’t be a radical feminist. Perhaps radical feminism might be more productive for women of your background than it ever was for American-born women. I don’t really know, one way or the other, on this matter. Have you found that a lot of ex-Muslim women from Muslim countries agree with you on this?

However, it doesn’t seem to me that a political strategy analogous to lesbian separatism would be productive for ex-Muslim “apostates” as a way of winning freedom of religion. If you think I’m wrong about this, I would be interested to hear why.

Politically, I do think it’s important for ex-Muslim “apostates” (especially atheists) to create their own organizations and networks, apart from the reformers. But, if they are to accomplish anything in terms of winning rights, they’ll need allies too, in addition to their own separate groups.

Anyhow, when I said it would behoove you to help the reformers, I didn’t mean that you should agree with them, or even that you should refrain from criticizing them. The main way you could help them is simply by acknowledging their existence more, preferably by name, thereby aiding their visibility, and thereby helping to counter the impresssion that all Muslims are regressive Islamists.

Likewise, it seems to me that it would be helpful (to the cause of fighting Islamism) if you could give more acknowledgement to the existence of the more mainstream moderate Muslims too. I would also suggest that you try, in your own way, to convince these moderate folks to support your rights and to oppose the persecution of “apostates.” It might be easier to convince them of that than to convince them to give up their religion altogether.

As I said earlier, I don’t mean to suggest that you shouldn’t try to convince Muslims to leave their religion, too. I just mean to suggest that it might be in your own best interests to (1) broaden your focus and (2) make a more consistent effort to avoid stereotyping all Muslims as regressive Islamists.

New Yorkers Against Religion-Based Bigotry will need to tread a very delicate balance as far as Islam is concerned.

On the one hand, the Muslim world seems to be dominated, to a large and very scary degree, by extremely intolerant Islamist factions. We need to take a stand against Islamist persecution of “apostates,” persecution of gays, etc. (Among other things, this means we should expose the history of U.S. government support for Islamist militants – continuing even after 9/11/2001!)

On the other hand, Muslims in general, including the more moderate and reformist Muslims, have themselves been the target of a lot of bigotry here in the U.S.A. We need to oppose that, too. We also need to oppose the egregious human rights violations, e.g. torture, that have been justified in the name of opposing Islamist terrorism.

Bigotry against Muslims in general is often justified on the alleged grounds that moderate and reformist Muslims don’t really exist, that all Muslims are really terrorism-supporting, apostate-killing extremists, some of whom just don’t admit it.

In fact, Muslim reformers do exist. And, in my opinion, it is in the best interests of everyone else to support the efforts of Muslim reformers by giving them more publicity. That, to me, would seem to be the best way to counteract the influence of the Islamists. I don’t see what any of us gain by denying the existence of Muslim reformers.

Here are some examples of what seem to me to be undeniably sincere Muslim reformers:

• Asra Q. Nomani
• Irshad Manji
• Italian Muslim Assembly
• Jihad for Love
• Liberal Islam Network
• Muslims Agains Sharia: Islamic Reform Movement
• Muslims for Progressive Values
• Queer Muslim Revolution

And here are some examples of what seem to me to be sincere Muslim moderates:

• American Islamic Congress
• American Islamic Forum for Democracy
• Center for Islamic Pluralism
• Quilliam Foundation (but see also this response by Ziauddin Sardar, to which see this reply by Maajid Nawaz)

Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that even Islamists don’t necessarily approve of terrorism, even though all too many do. Below is a collection of fatwas by scholars of many different branches of Islam:

• Fatwas against terrorism and extremism
• Reza Aslan – Battle of the Fatwas

Of course, in addition to supporting Muslim reformers, we should also support ex-Muslims, who, according to the most retrograde forms of Islam, are to be killed for leaving Islam.

Alas, so far I’ve found only a few websites which concern themselves with the plight of Muslim “apostates” but which also acknowledge the existence of Muslim reformers, and which attempt to form a secularist alliance between ex-Muslims and Muslim reformers:

• Organized Ex-Muslims Use the Web in their ‘Quiet Revolution’
• Supporting Islam’s apostates by Ali Eteraz
• Apostasy and Islam

Another site which tries to build a secularist alliance between ex-Muslims and Muslim reformers is Secular Islam.

On the other hand, I’ve run into quite a few ex-Muslim sites that either ignore or deny the existence of Muslim reformers, or that regard Muslim reformers with contempt. These sites typically claim or imply that Islam in general is always, everywhere, and inherently intolerant and violently so, and cannot be reformed. Some examples:

• The Fate of Infidels and Apostates under Islam
• Apostates of Islam
• Faith Freedom International (to which here is a Muslim response)
• Not Muslim Anymore
• The Apostate (here on WordPress.com)
• Basharee Murtadd (here on WordPress.com)

Their attitude is certainly understandable. Here in the United States, even ex-Christians from fundementalist backgrounds are often very bitter against Christianity as a whole, rather than seeing liberal Christians as a useful ally against the religious right wing.

However, liberal Christians are an essential part of the secularist alliance here in the U.S.A. All the more so would Muslim reformers be an essential part of any secularist alliance in Muslim-dominated countries.

So, it is in the best interests of all of us to reject blanket bigotry against all adherents of any given religion.

Anyhow, some good news on the rights of apostates: Egypt’s Grand Mufti comes out against the killing of apostates by Omar Sinan, Associated Press, as copied on a blog on July 26, 2007. On the other hand, here on WordPress.com, I’ve run into a fundy Shi’ite blog defending the killing of apostates: Apostasy and Blasphemy in Islam << Shia The Right Path.

P.S., 5/28/2008: Another moderate Muslim group is the Free Muslims Coalition, whose site includes a very interesting proposed solution to the Israel/Palestine problem.

The website of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, a moderate group already mentioned above, includes links to articles by Stephen Schwartz on Kosovo, Macedonia, and Tibet (another copy here) and The Myth of Muslim Silence; The Persistence of MSM Silence. CIP comes across as basically conservative, denouncing Wahhabism (Saudi Salafism) in the name of older Muslim traditions. However, the CIP’s ability to appeal to Muslims is likely to be limited by its ties to Daniel Pipes, a staunchly pro-Israel Jew who aggressively promotes the “shunning” of lots and lots of people and groups in the Muslim community whom he disapproves of for various reasons. (CIP’s ties to Daniel Pipes are mentioned numerous places on Daniel Pipes’s own website, and in the news story ‘Anti-Islamist’ Crusader Plants New Seeds by Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, February 25, 2005, as reprinted on antiwar.com.)

Another interesting group is Al-Baqee, a coalition of American Muslims opposed to Saudi Arabian sponsorship of Wahabi extremism in Iraq and elsewhere, discussed in Saying ‘No’ to the Saudis by Stephen Schwartz, New York Post, October 18, 2007