Quite hesitantly, critique that comes from within the community is one that bears more weight than from the complete opposite — however grudgingly it is pushed away by the bearer of the critique itself. Recognizing one’s own fault is proven time and time again as a difficult task to learn for all children growing up. I didn’t want to write this to a small community, but as an exmuslim woman, I enjoy hearing similar viewpoints that are beyond intricately beautiful and well-versed. What motivated me to write this is none other than the podcast from Eiynah called Polite Conversations which I have followed in the recent times, as it contains much more accurate critique of the right side of western politics.

In her 57th episode, she brings up a clip from the Secular Jihadist’s 120th episode in which she rightfully questions the atheist community’s selective stand against sexual assault, quoting David Silverman’s defense to accusations and how he is accepted and in fact supported by the greater atheist community in addition to the forefront of the Exmuslim community: the hosts of Secular Jihadist. After that, she goes on to mention how Armin Navabi chooses actions are perhaps more convenient for him than it is for the community. However, I will not talk about her words, rather to add on to that since we are on the topic of the right and left wing split of the Exmuslim community and the cruel stance that the atheist community mostly carries towards the humans that belong to Islam: the bigotry masked as enlightenment.

Of late I can remember a couple of incidents in which it can be clearly seen how Armin Navabi manipulates the object in question or the interviewee to fit an agenda that dehumanizes Muslims as a whole. There is probably more to it than what I will in this article mention but given how alarming the far right is globally growing and becoming a threat; it surprises me anyone would continue with their business as usual approach without disclaiming or discrediting this radical spurt in neo-Nazism or using dog whistle words that signal a lot darker undertones.

Let the first example be the atheist who appeared on Memri TV, the gay Egyptian atheist Mohamed Hisham, who is now seeking asylum in Germany during the time of recording the 111th episode. Ali was a lot more compassionate and listening to the story while there were questions opposing theocracy altogether from Armin. Near the end of that episode, the discussion came around whether or not democracy should be used at all if it is to host theocrats, ignoring the fundamental differences in origin, core beliefs, or administration of the Iranian Shah, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, or the Saudi Wahhabis. The interviewee Mohamed Hisham argued that they would’ve been better for the country than another power hungry dictator, especially when religion is involved, dictators tend to enforce religions in areas that impose useful power structures, such as institutional subjugation of women.

Not every theocrat is cut from the same cloth, as some do use religion, language, national identity, or common colonial history as some sort of binding glue to achieve peace and deafen the need for any opposition. Democracy is quite well challenged by the Saudi Kingdom, but it was what the Muslim Brotherhood have been aiming for. In fact, these two theocratic systems are at quarrel with one another, as Saudi Arabia labelled any member of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group as a warning for them not to enter the country. Religion is another tool the state uses to strengthen its power, but if a theocrat was the only way the country is to enter the freedom of democracy, then lack of religion functions as the exact same tool. I wonder if Armin knows or cares that the current leader of Egypt, Abd al-Fattah as-Sisi is neither secular nor democratic. Should we only focus on removing and erasing Islam when it has a completely different meaning in Muslim majority countries, especially when religious principles link so many people together that allow them to form positive social systems of support of the poor? Is the label of religion more pivotal here or the well-being of humans?

On the 121st episode, they interviewed a pair of brothers, namely Umar and Tahir Nasser, which founded Rational Religion, a UK group for Ahmadiyya Islam. The topics of that episode involved logical and philosophical thinking to discuss the existence of God. The conversation seemed to have started off as some kind of secular utopia, as to what it would be in the future when religion does not matter at all.

A bit after you could see the usual power struggle that men compete in, seeing who can dominate the conversation, Armin again starts to repeat points that aren’t intellectual or relevant to the conversation in more than one occasion, and while it is not hostile to me, it was to the conversation, in the sense that we cannot appreciate a well-flowing conversation with our own fellow family. Whether the community takes the path of reforming Islam or deconverting Muslims, they should not do so with mere aggression.

I really do enjoy listening to these podcasts, especially the insight that Ali Rizvi often sprinkles in. When he mentioned that the call to prayer is enchanting and went on to explain why it is, comparing it to the rock genres and hymns calling people into extremism in general and the neo-Nazi culture, it really made a lot of coherent sense. The podcast gives various insights into why Islam is adored at all, giving us some kind of personal explanation as to why have other people in our own personal lives chosen a path of piety, or whether they truly draw pleasure from that

even his twitter energy is just fun, and so is Secular Jihadist as a project.

One popular example that mostly nobody is meant to question is the case of Ayan Hirsi Ali. She is a prominent Exmuslim figure — way back when that identity was hardly shaped — who became increasingly popular in the English world based on the fatal attack on her friend and movie director Theo van Gogh by a Muslim extremist. What is less known about her is how she involved herself with a far-right party in the Netherlands called the VVD that ended up turning against her when she admitted the circumstances of how her asylum case was agreed at all. Members of her own party suddenly antagonized her and considered her not worthy of staying in their elitist idea of what a nation is.

Would that not be the exact case of Muslims not accepting Exmuslims in the same country or the same family, and would go to great lengths to have them removed from Britain, and even educate each other on means to do so? Surely an Exmuslim would know better.

What baffles me is time and time again Exmuslims carry their right wing conservatism from their Islamic families and would even go so far to shake hands with well-professed racists, who if they had it their way, Ayan would not be where she is now at all. She needed liberal and socialist ideas, she needed globalism to survive. But once she got there she abandoned it all and joined the VVD which would close the door for people like her. The lack of consistency within prominent Exmuslim figures between their own vulnerable younger selves and their current conservative leaning ideas baffles me, but it is hard to write such critique when it will be labelled as one of many rather than heard. People like Ayan and Armin have the same right-wing views as the Muslims who have established themselves in power structures, which they criticized a lot when it were Muslims on top of these limiting xenophobic structures.

A protest in the Netherlands saying “no one is illegal” as a response to the whole scandal that ensued.

I believe what I have previously written warranted such an explanation of myself. It is not just appropriate to criticize one side of the left that I do not like, or an ideology such as Liberalism that bears such wonderful fruit, but the recent wave of it aims to silence Exmuslim voices. Truth is, they are not the only group aiming to silence Exmuslims, they just do so for the favour of Muslims. Using that as an excuse to get Exmuslims on the bandwagon for right wing hatred for the general activist scene or the left wing as a whole. Liberalism is an umbrella term used by the right to label anything they do not like. To point something wrong with progressivism does not mean one should agree to right wing, or that one does. The left is not one single entity that I either wholly agree or disagree with. Exmuslims perhaps should re-evaluate what the core values stand. After all, how many Exmuslim women have to apply to jobs in different cities and move to places they do not know with a hijabi ID photo? Had it been a conservative area, would they have gotten the job or been able to move safely away from their parents?

Previously I have affirmed the idea of the regressive left when talking about how some liberals and SJWs themselves can silence each other or Exmuslims, giving countless excuses for Islam as an ideology and not the Muslims (the human beings) that they should be more interested in protecting, rather than letting Sharia Councils be set up. The muffling of reformation and critique of Islam depending on where the person calling for reform is on the Muslamic culture scale, which is completely made up to create more credibility to Muslims that do not want to integrate into British culture, but support for them in general gives them the ability to deport and abuse vulnerable skeptic Muslims, while any humanist approaches to help these people have to be hidden behind the names of the free women and men creating the petitions rather than the people whose lives are at risk. The Muslims creating danger for these Muslims and Exmuslims that look and think just like any other Briton are hailed as proof of western egalitarian values as the token boogeyman minority that they will accept at the cost of their own children. Once Muslims are British, having successfully integrated, are they no longer important in the social hierarchy?

Despite this, I personally do not remotely align with any right wing politician or ideology, so it pains me to see the mainstream and stronger personalities in the Exmuslim spaces picking THAT side in politics, if at all. I have very strong political opinions, however I do like to pick my battles. This is not a blog about my whole life and every aspect of it, and so why would I touch on topics that further divide an already small community that constantly fails to unify itself on pivotal and trivial opinions alike? Why would a prominent Exmuslim podcast such as Secular Jihadists stress further on right wing points way more than necessary, shouldn’t an anti-religious person be against preaching tribal ideologies in general? It’s not just that I identify more with left wing politics, but it’s also that perhaps politics should not be discussed at all, especially when they find themselves shaking hands with people who deny the need for feminism in the western world, who barely can tolerate having their entitlement taken away from them in favour of equality. Shouldn’t an Iranian Exmuslim know that more than anyone else?

This is a question to everyone who uses the name Exmuslim for more than their own personal lifestyle changes. If it is your career or a political stance you take, what is the truth behind the right-wing allies? Muslims are currently under the lens of the western world as next on the list of people to be aggressive against, and remember that each one of us as a child is affected by that. We are seen as Muslims from our family and from the society even when we do not understand it. So before you think about your next anti-muslim statement, think of how many Exmuslims who can’t leave are in there as well. When the hijab gets banned in schools, religious fundamentalists respond by not letting their daughters go to school at all.

After all, the ones who accept us are humanists, irrespective of their own religious beliefs. Many are Muslims too.

If you like my blog and would like to support my work, please visit my patreon